Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 14 February 2014

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Reminder to anyone considering my RFC/U

Reminder: I am blocked except for my talkpage, this page, so if you want me to respond to a question or criticism, you can't do it at the RFC/U talkpage, you have to do it here. I will not engage in the awkward and demeaning process of reading there, answering here, and then depending on someone else to copy-paste me back there. On the other hand, if an administrator sees fit, he or she can unblock me on my promise that I'll not edit anywhere except here and at the RFC/U talkpage. You would have to agree to monitor me though, or someone will complain. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd be kind of nice to point out on the RFC/U talkpage with easily checkable links that several of the assertions in some of the "outside views" are clearly incorrect. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC) PS: @The Devil's Advocate: why thank you, that was one of the worst of them, and to be clear you saw it on your own and I said nothing to you about it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC) PPS: To be 100% clear, I am not saying their *opinions* are wrong, which is not for me to quarrel with. Rather, they are making *statements of fact* that can be easily disproved by pointing to diffs that may be quickly checked. Colton Cosmic (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If you look at my very first edit, which is the first link in the "Description" section and also described in the "Response" section, it answers nearly everything you typed in your "Outside view." I do not have "alternate" accounts. I do not have a "primary" or "main" account. I am a single account user that had a single *prior* account that I abandoned for privacy reasons. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't make anyone do it, but I reiterate my request to be unblocked sufficiently to participate in my own RFC/U. I promise to comment only on its talkpage. In the latest outrageous episode, @The Devil's Advocate: eliminated the sole and sole factual rationale for @Worm That Turned:'s incorrect statement that no dispute had existed between Nomoskedasticity and I before my critical remark at WP:AN/ANI. With only one blink Worm switches to an all-new, unquantified, and purely opinion statement that the "speed it escalated" (the dispute) "implies" a return to a previous dispute. I think it was nine days in which I was excruciating polite as Nomo. made four clearly disputational interactions (and interaction sets, these are not only single remarks) with me, before I made the remark, and I'm ready to recount that with clear diffs if it's useful to any RFC participant. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colton. Could I ask you to consider the other statement I made? The one that said, why don't you just come back quietly? Worm(talk) 13:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Worm, if I answer that to your satisfaction (which is to say you understand the basis for my reasoning, not that you agree with my position) will you unblock me to comment at its talkpage only, for the duration of my RFC/U? Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I've told you the conditions that I'd consider unblocking this account, that you disclose your previous account to me, which I would keep in confidence. I could then confirm your history - ie that you were not returning to past disputes, or indeed if there were issues.

That doesn't preclude you from returning quietly which, although against policy, is something you could do without causing a fuss. Nor does it stop you from explaining your reasons for not doing so. Worm(talk) 14:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You neither offered me confidentiality on the previous account nor did you offer to unblock me if I told you and it turned out to be block and sanction-free. In email you attempted to cajole me into handing it over with no assurances at all. When I declined, it was your attitude that "turned toward abusive," not mine. I will consider discussing the reasons why a "counter-policy quiet reappearance" under a new account is unworkable here if anyone else stops by to ask me about it. Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Colton, on 24 April 2013, I wrote to you, copying in NYB -
As for my personal position, I personally believe that anyone can CLEANSTART without notifying anyone of the previous account as long as they don't get noticed. Once they have been "noticed" (and that can range from a sanction to upsetting the wrong person), they should identify the previous account to someone both they and the community trusts. That trusted person can answer questions and vouch for the cleanstart - which is why it is recommended to disclose cleanstarts to the arbitration committee. Without that person, the cleanstart account is indistinguishable from a ban evasion or an avoidance of scrutiny or a number of other violations of the sockpuppet policy.
and then by separate email
It's a shame that you feel that there is an attempt to drive you back to an account that has privacy concerns, it's certainly not my intention. If it helps, I am certainly willing to be the "intermediary", should you reveal the account to me alone I will respect that confidence and not disclose it to any other parties. I thought that I had offered that in the past, but perhaps I had not made myself sufficiently clear.
I've been consistent on this from the start. Again, I've not offered to unblock you if you told me, I've refused to consider it if you don't tell me. There's a difference. As for my attitude turning towards abusive, I don't see where, but I do apologise if I've upset you. At any rate, I'll leave you be - if you want me, just drop a "{{reply to}}" and I'll get it, however I'm headed off on a short hol for a bit, so won't be available for the next week or so. Worm(talk) 14:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: okay, you are correct that you said you would keep the account in confidence, so I was wrong about that a moment ago. Sorry on that point. The other point was whether you offered to unblock, which you did not. You did not upset me, so no need to apologize. As for intermediary as you say in that email portion, Jimbo has the alternate account and is aware that it is warn, block, ban, sanction-free and always was so. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Yes, difference between "unblock" and "consider unblocking." Given terms as to what is expected of the previous account, the first represents an offer. The second is nothing at all. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't offered to unblock, no. When it comes to a full unblock, as an "intermediary", if I found no issues with the account, I'd be willing to vouch for the account. If I found issues, I'd discuss them with you and wouldn't mention that I was an "intermediary" anywhere (thereby not disadvantaging you). As for Jimmy, yes, I do remember him confirming you'd given the account... and his response was "Ok, now I've seen it, tell Arbcom". Worm(talk) 15:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to four to participate in my RFC/U

@Wikid77, Raellerby, Grolltech, and Barkeep: Hi guys and gals. I am a long-since permanently blocked editor inviting you to participate in the Request for Comment/User (RFC/U) process to decide if I ever should have been blocked in the first place, and whether to unblock me now. The way it works is you go here to read the case and then you either offer your own "outside view" section at the bottom, or agree with any of the others.

Wikid77, you commented on me at Jimbo's page. Raellerby and Grolltech, I spotted you active at recent court case articles. And Barkeep, forgive me, but I forget where I noticed you. If any of you don't have the time or interest for this, then never mind and excuse me please, I won't ping you again.

I would encourage you to develop your own view rather than try to find one to agree with, because the expressed views so far are heavily weighted to the people in the blocking community and really to those who decided against me long ago. They got there first because they've watchlisted my page. There are also some like Blackmane who came newly to my case.

If you do decide to participate then I'd say A) read the case, then B) go back to the contents and pick and select one-at-a-time viewpoints to consider. Because the viewpoint section is becoming "wall of text" and the top ones shouldn't be more heavily-weighted. Thanks for volunteering if you do. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)