Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cotton Rogers/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Cotton Rogers

Cotton Rogers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


I warned Cotton Rogers about edit warring then he was reported by another editor. Before he was blocked, Shadow Bill Murray created an account and joined the discussion to support Cotton Rogers' view. His one edit appears suspicious because it shows familiarity with the article and the discussion and he uses piped links, which are not typical of new editors. Also, the user pages are very similar.

I notice also that another editor questioned whether Cotton Rogers was a sockpuppet, while discussing contributions to another article.[1] He replied that he had edited as 74.79.39.105.[2]

TFD (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm am not sock puppet that was not my only edit I made other edits as well also I was familiar with the article since I read the discussion however I might fit under the defination of a meat puppet since Cotton Rogers or at least the guy who calls himself Cotton Rogers is my neighbor and friend he complained to me about how Cleveland was not being considered a conservative thinking that was not right I decided to create the account after previously editing under my IP address I did make a few warm up edits before adding my own opinion, then this happened I learned about sockpuppeting and meat puppting after this accussation Rogers however did not put me up to it so it is not exactly meatpuppeting he just complained to me about the situation and I acted on my own accord giving my own opinion notice how it was not as long-winded as his writing was but I suppose I am bias towards his opinion and to clear the air of any sockpuppet accusations I will stay out of any wiki fights he is in though I will say this guy who made the accusation certaintly has an axe to grind against Rogers again he lied that this was my only edit. If you end up having to punish anyone just let it be me again Rogers did not put me up to it I'd feel bad if he was punished as for me I don't care editing wikipedia is not that fun and judging by all of these shenangings not worth the trouble Shadow Bill Murray (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Behavioral evidence leads me to conclude that these accounts are operated by the same individual. In the unlikely case that I reached the wrong conclusion, a block is warranted for the admitted meatpuppetry. I've extended the master's block to a week and indeffed and tagged the sock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


20 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


-User:Cotton Rogers confirmed editing from IP 74.79.39.105, which became active the same day IP 24.58.54.211 was blocked for socking

-IP 24.58.54.211 and 74.79.39.105 resolve to the same ISP and city.

-Immediately after Cotton Rogers was blocked for socking, IP 24.58.54.211 made his first edit in a month, blanking his talk page.

-Nearly identical edits to Clint Eastwood: [3], [4], [5]

-Using the same phrase ("famed war veteran") to describe John McCain: [6], [7]

-Otherwise similar editing habits (re: the relative conservatism of celebrities, esp Clint Eastwood and Jon Cryer Arbor8 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Hi accused party here but currently I'm the blocked Cotton Rogers but all I'm going to use this IP address for is to set the record straight on the above accusation (please see IP address history to see that is all I'm Doing so I don't think that is blockevading please correct me if I'm wrong) I admitted to using 74.79.39.105 when asked also as I explained when admitting to it see: that I only used that IP addressconfirmed editing before I realized the benefits of an account and have not used 74.79.39.105 since establishing Cotton Rogers with only two exceptions this arguement and once to blank 74.79.39.105's talkpage which is not sockpuppetry since I'm not abusing multiple accounts also now that I have learned the guidelines to retiring an account after Cotton Rogers is unblocked after the one week (for the only case where I engaged in Meatpuppetry which is admitted to above and after being petty to a heated dicussion on a talkpage it is not serial and the week block is totally fair and if you want to block both IP address to for a week to accompy the week block I recieved as Cotton Rogers then that would be completely fair as well) I will gladly retire both any all past accounts I used for a fresh start and to put all of this behind to become an unproblematic wiki editor). Also I believe Arbor 8 might be fishing because of an edit disagreement we had on Kirsten Gillibrand's page See: Lead dicussion before I was blocked as Rogers.

As for IP 24.58.54.211 I did use that account I regularly have two IP adresses but again have not used that account in any abusive way that defines sockpuppeting so it is not a sock puppet also I blanked my talkpage as IP 24.58.54.211 a little before I was blocked as Rogers I'm pretty sure if not then only editing your talkpage when blocked (since as Cotton Rogers I'm still able to edit my Talkpage) is not blockevading or sockpuppettry and have only used that account since abandoing it for it's talkpage purposes which is not sockpuppetry. I Truly do not believe I engaged in any inappropiate behavoir with these accounts so I should not recieve any additional punishment for them but if you would like to block both accounts which I did use for a week to correspond with my week block as Cotton Rogers then that is perfectly reasonable and after that week I will retire both accounts so I can begin editing with a clean slate as not to have any reason for anyone whom I have a differance of opinion with to be petty and attempt block my account also not to bother wikipedia with investigations that must be time consuming and I'm embarrased about and I apologize for Meatpuppeting see above investigation the only crime I did in the heat of the moment but please do not add to my week block as Cotton Rogers since again I did in my past used these accounts but never abused them so it is not sockpuppetry. (Sorry for the length of my arguement but all needed to be said) 74.79.39.105 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To belabor a point one last time I'm did not violate a single rule that counts as misusing multiple accounts with 24.58.54.211 or 74.79.39.105 see Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts 74.79.39.105 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are correct about before your accounts were blocked - I'll have to go back and look - but you are evading your blocks now by editing here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All these accounts are socks of indef'd editor Excuseme99. IP 24.58.54.211 was under a one month block expiring 20th June for block evasion for Excuseme99 and Milancholiu.[8] I suggest that all accounts be indefinitely blocked and this page be archived to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99/Archive. TFD (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm convinced that all of these accounts are socks of one another, and probably other accounts as well, I'm not sure I believe they are related to Excuseme99 and that litany of socks. It doesn't seem there was ever an SPI on the matter, and the editing styles, behavior and syntax seem rather different to me. Arbor8 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cotton Rogers, Shadow Bill Murray, 24.58.54.211, and 74.79.39.105 have strikingly similar and idiosyncratic use of English. Excuseme99 does not have the same style of English. I am confident that Cotton Rogers/Shadow Bill Murray are a case of straightforward sockpuppetry not meatpuppetry, but that Excuseme99 is not the same person. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was relying on the reasons provided for the earlier block, and reading through the Excuseme99 archive conclude they are unrelated. Note that since this SPI began, a number of other accounts (Slinkman24, Lincoln Worshipper and Lincolnworshipper 2.0) have been blocked as socks of Cotton Rogers. --TFD (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

No doubt at all that these two IP addresses were used by Cotton Rogers, but since neither has edited for three days, there is no point in blocking. We may as well close the case. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If TFD is right here, shouldn't the master account's block be incremented for block evasion and continued sockpuppetry?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've increased the block to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cotton_Rogers/Archive&oldid=1141880855"