User talk:Cotton Rogers

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Conservatism in the United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts at the edit warring noticeboard. However, there is a great deal more covered by that policy than the bright line 3RR rule. Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the policy; observing the habits of good editors in less controversial areas may also be of interest. You should also take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cotton Rogers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like a to recieve a "Temporary circumstances unblocksA user may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked in order to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block. Such temporary and conditional unblocks are made on the understanding that the user may not edit any pages (besides their user talk page) except the relevant discussion page(s) explicitly specified by the unblocking admin. The user is effectively banned from editing any other pages, and breaching this ban will be sanctioned appropriately. When the discussion concludes, the block should be reinstated unless there is a consensus to overturn the block" So I can comment on my Sock Page investigation page becauuse I did engage in one sock and one Meat puppet But some of the acussations are unfounded Like I'm Excuseme99 for instance I would like to be able to cite evidence open an SPI investigation to clear my name since the it seems the only people who are commentmenting and citing evidence are those whom I have had edit disputes with and that does not seem like a fair investigation so please all I'm asking is to be able to defend myself during my own investigation and maybe be able to talk to other administrators about it, while the investigation is open is As I firmly believe my attempts to defend myself solely on my talkpage is inadequate since no one is really reading my arguements in full or listening so as you can see below I have had to go to some extremes to get attention which did not really work thanks for your time please see Temporary circumstances unblocks

Decline reason:

I don't see any reason to unblock. Your arguments are being read in full, by multiple admins (unblock requests are attended to by many administrators); none of us are convinced, which perhaps is why you think nobody is listening. Since your block is only a week, you can deal with the factuality of the details in the investigation when you return. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cotton Rogers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like a Temporary circumstances unblocks I have a right to speak at my own sock puppet investigation also I have used this entire talkpage (look how long it is) to argue my various and many accusations which are very complicated I do not think anyone Has read the entire talkpage since a: no one is commenting specifically on my evidence or regularly going back and forth in a discussion like manner about B: no one is opening sock puppet investigations or checkuser attempts that I have specifically asked for since I'm sure would clear my name against alot of the false sockpuppet charges specifically asked for administrators help with administrators help(A few are legitimate but not all which again makes this investigation messy) C: an editor TFD clearly told me all the comments on this talkpage may not be read see: right below also this being as again I was told an inadequate forum to argue and again all of my arguements taking the entire page I like to be able to with temporary circumstance unblock 1:streamline and organize my evidence on the investigation page as it got a bit skewered on this one 2: be able to start SPI investigations related to my current block to clear my name of some socking charges, and start checkusers to again clear me, 3: to make sure all of my comments are read So if someone can assure me someone will read this entire talk page (as all of this is arguement) start all the SPI investigations (also checkuser investigations) I have asked for and assure me that that editor TFD was wrong to inform me that my comments might not be read here see his comment the third comment in the section right underneath here. Then those seem like pretty legitimate reasons to be able to speak at my own investigation which I think I'm entitiled too Though the block is only a week which there is 4 days left in I'm afraid Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cotton Rogers will close before then however if it will remain open and wait for my current block to expire then please tell me so I know that is a illegitimate concern so I will not have to worry about it nor press the urgency of this matter Since I do have a right to speak at my own investigation before it closes Cotton Rogers (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Cotton Rogers (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't seem to have brought up any new reason for an unblock, beyond those already dealt with in your previous unblock requests. If you come up with anything new to say in the sockpuppet investigation you can easily enough post it here with an {{adminhelp}} tag, asking for it to be copied to the investigation page. However, my recommendation is not to do so unless you have something new to say, and unless you can say it concisely. Posting the same kind of endless rants that you have posted here will be unlikely to help your case. One more word of advice: the more of your stuff you post (whether here, at the sockpuppet investigation page, or elsewhere) the more it becomes strikingly clear that you mastery of written English and your style of writing are astonishingly similar to those of your "friend" Shadow Bill Murray: more so than I have ever known from a pair of friends. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am not Excuseme 99

When I was originally blocked as 24.58.54.211 I thought it was because of edit warring on Clint Eastwood I was never Excuseme 99 as TFD has just accused me off on my sock puppet see (Cotton Rogers)investigation my editing habits are drastically differant then Excuseme 99 I never engaged in personal attacks for example when they originally blocked 24.58.54.211 I thought both Excuseme99 and Milancholiu along with MaterialScientist were blocking me since I was unfamiliar with the rules and new I did not exactly know how to defend myself properly nor exactly what they were accusing me off so I got my talkpage blocked before I finally understood the charges since I was being dumb as 24.58.54.211 before understanding they were calling me Excuseme99 please look fully into Excuseme99 and all of my admitted accounts I am completely innocent of this charge Please tell me what I can do so I can without a doubt differentiate myself from Excuse99 or Milanchlou once and for all and I was innocent the whole time I was blocked as 24.58.54.211 someone must be sharing the IP address Cotton Rogers (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do an ISP of the matter it was never originally done when as was falsely accused of being Excuseme99 when I was originally unjustly blocked for 24.58.54.211 I being a single mindset editor who did not engage in anything overly complicated as 24.58.54.211 was completely befuddle by the original situation so I was utterlly hopless to defend myself also there was never an ISP of the original matter please I beg you to do it if you indefinatley block my only two IP adresses I won't ever be able to edit wikipedia so before I'm indefinately blocked I think I deserve that. Cotton Rogers (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you request help from an administrator, they can post your comments to SPI. See Template:Admin help. Otherwise your comments may not be read. TFD (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

< I need help since I believe a number of people are abusing my talk page specifically the rule of avoiding "Labeling another editor's remarks as poorly written", also the rule of "If you must criticize, do it politely and constructively", and finally a violation of the policy of Avoiding personal remarks. spefically referring to the responses to my requests for a Temporary circumstances unblocks so I could be allowed to only edit pages related to my block in accordance with the policies of temporary blocks however they were met with what I percieve as rude remarks by JamesBWatson calling my writing endless rants or snide remarks about my mastery of the english language which calling my writing in effect poorly written was not constructive it hurt my feelings along with comments by Nat Gertler where he made a personal rude remark and said "your only digging your hole deeper" also DoRD where he used the phrasing "The Thing is" and proceeded to demean me in a unprofessional manner violating the wiki rule of Be polite: "A soft answer turneth away wrath." also a number of administrators have been rather unhelpful such as ;BWilkins and Anthony Bradbury who both demeaned me and did not properly read my requests As I was not asking for a complete removal of my block but just a slight unblock where I would only be allowed to edit on pages related to my block where then my block would resume instead they rudely blatantly wrote me off in saying I was trying to say socking was okay and phrasing saying your a "sockmaster period" even though that was uncalled remark since it was unrelated to my request where even though I did sock the policy on temporary unblocks still says I'm still allowed to comment again on current investigations related to my block finally User:Cindamuse instead of answering my adminstrators request to open an SPI investigation to clear my name on one of the false socking charges (again some charges true alot untrue) and to post comments on my SPI page as I was told to do so by two adminstrators one of them stating that since I could do that my unblock request was unnecessary she I tried that User:Cindamuse not only ignored the request and falsley mark it answered but left no comment whatsoever as why it was so completely ignored my request further evidence of why I need that temporary unblock just because I'm new and only recently broken the rules and am blocked does not give all these people the right to treat my anyway they want to ignore my requests, questions, write me off, and leave what they think are just clever little comments because they as adminstrators they can talk to my anyway they want and ignore wiki etiquette It has sincerely hurt my feelings and upset me this is why I need a temporary unbock since with my requests being entirely ignored and others belittling me with personal remarks shows me that this is definately an inadequate forum to comment on my investigation Cotton Rogers (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC) >

• Note that the "help me" template was marked as answered, since you were already working with administrators regarding your block, with your questions already asked and answered. However, the "help me" template had not been changed to reflect this, so I removed the alert from the queue. There is really no reason to place both an unblock request and "help me" template, since this duplicates the admin alert. As a suggestion, you should place you most recent attempt at conversing at the bottom of your talkpage to make sure that it is not overlooked. Hope this helps. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 05:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note also that your requests aren't being ignored; your requests are being denied. Quite different. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be taking some personal affront at me saying that you had the intent to deceive, but that was merely an attempt to reflect your own statement: "I named the the account Lincoln 2.0 so in case anyone asked about why an account was being retired by another account i would simply say It was my account (Hence why it was called 2.0 so I could falsley claim it as my own)". Falsely claiming something is an act of deception; setting the ability to deceive as a goal is intent. My statement was warning you that the comments you were making with the apparent aim defending your actions were apt to have the opposite effect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will not attempt to answer all of your points, many of which have in any case already been dealt with. However, I will mention a few points. You repeatedly take offence where none was provided. For example, Nat Gertler's statement that "you're only digging your hole deeper" was not "a personal rude remark". It was a perfectly civil attempt to point out that your attempts to defend yourself were counterproductive. Only by knowing what the faults are in your defence can you know how to improve that defence and make it more effective, so explaining to you what the problem was reads to me like an attempt to help you. Likewise, it is beyond me why you regard DoRD's use of the expression "the thing is" as offensive. It seems to me simply a way of introducing what he is going to say, and perhaps emphasising it a little. I cannot see anywhere where he/she "demeans" you. Frankly, if you are going to be offended or upset every time you come across people saying things like these then you are probably better off not trying to edit Wikipedia, as you will have a very unpleasant time here. I did not say that your comments were poorly written: I merely said that your English was "astonishingly similar" to that of another account that you claimed belonged to a different person. You may, if you choose, take that as meaning that both accounts wrote badly, but if so that is your choice. Nor do I see my remark as "snide". The one thing I said that I will concede was somewhat uncivil is referring to your posts here as "endless rants". Perhaps it would have been better had I said something along the lines of "You have repeatedly posted messages of considerable length, substantially repeating the same points rather than introducing new points. Furthermore, those points, to a considerable extent, have been aggressive expressions of your anger and indignation with other users, of whom you have been critical in no uncertain terms." JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How were my comments "aggressive expressions of your anger and indignation with other users, of whom you have been critical in no uncertain terms" I thought those comments were violations of wiki ettiqutuete so I reported them as such and your reply to that quest for adminstrative help I found unfounded since I have not been aggressive and demeaning since you do slightly belittle me personally reffering to this quote exactly "Frankly, if you are going to be offended or upset every time you come across people saying things like these then you are probably better off not trying to edit Wikipedia" name once where I have been indignate with other users or critical again I just thought these comments were violations so I reported them as suchCotton Rogers (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also have not all been overly aggressive or overly critical only with two comments do I express concerns about how editors were treating me then I attempted to report it since I thought and still do that it was a violation. The Thing is you have not been falsley accused is rude because I was being falsley accussed on some counts such as am excuseme99 and milanchoiu also he left that message to scold me yet continued not to answer a single one of my legit questions which why I left such a drastic message in the first place clearly ignoring my questions one does not say the thing is unless your scolding it seemed condescending to me maybe I was wrong. also Gertler said "if your claim was" before saying I was digging my hole deeper being condescending to my claim since it was the truth if someone would just do a checkuser or open an SPI investigation into the matter then it would be made clear I was not lincolnworshipper since again I took lincoln out never Argued for him to be included in the list why would I make a sockpuppet to put Lincoln back in it does not make any sense How was that a sincere attempt to help me better my defense telling me to lie no!! but at least Gertler was nice enough to answer my questions and his answers were helpful also I take Gertler at his word and consider it just not the best choice of words at a time I was already upset to how I was being treated. also jp gordon no one has opened any of the SPI investigations I asked or left any answer to why no SPI investigations where being started that to me seems they were being clearly ignored not just denied so I'm afraid I must say your wrong on that also JamesBWatson your apology for calling my writing endless rants was backhanded since you lied and said I have aggressive and overty critical which I have been neither also you infering I'm overly sensitive was unproffesional and uncalled for and your sir should familiarize yourself with the rules on wiki ettiquette as an adminstrator it is more important for you to be even overly civil than most Cotton Rogers (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I need help to clear my name in a recent sockpuppet investigation though I did engage in some socking which I admitted to they are accusing me of being Excuseme 99 who has many many socks with some evening suggesting that I be blocked permanantly when I was originally falsley accused of being Excuseme99 as in my admitted other account as 24.58.54.211 and blocked for a month as where an SPI was never originally done of this matter I not knowing exactly what they were accusing me off thinking it was just my edit warring with Clint Eastwood did not fully comprehend the situation and thought both materialscientist and Excuseme99 were blocking me I being a niche editor as 24.58.54.211 doing almost nothing or uncomplicated as again my niche of posting political endorsements I was befuddle and did not fully comprehend how to defend myself from this original false charge before I was blocked from my talkpage please do an SPI of the matter before I'm permantly blocked and to once and for all conclude I'm not nor ever was Excuseme99 nor any of his socks also notice how are all of my admitted accounts the editing styles, behavior and syntax are completely differant then Excuseme99 please do an SpI of the matter I know i'm not the best editor but i at least derserve that also since I'm blocked can you please put The following italicized defense on my sockpuppet investigation page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cotton Rogers as I cannot. thank you for your time and sorry for all the trouble Cotton Rogers (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When I was originally falsley accused of being Excuseme99 as in my admitted other account as 24.58.54.211 and blocked for a month as where an SPI was never originally done of this matter I not knowing exactly what they were accusing me off thinking it was just my edit warring with Clint Eastwood did not fully comprehend the situation and thought both materialscientist, Milchaniou and Excuseme99 were both blocking (not that materialscientist blocking me for being Excuseme99) me I being a niche editor as 24.58.54.211 doing almost nothing uncomplicated as again my niche of constantly posting political endorsements on election pages I was befuddle and did not fully comprehend how to defend myself from this original false charge thinking if I just promised not to do what they were accusing me of then I would be able to get back to editing quickly before I was blocked from my talkpage for my engaging in pointless pleas just to getback to editing where that I did foolheartedly before understanding the situation but to give the proper defense I never knew how to give that is that Milchanoiu was obsessed with Eastwoods relatioships while I was only obessed with Eastwooods politics specifically his relatioship with McCain the timing was entirely coincidental and the block a clear mistake the entire time. please do an SPI of the matter before I'm permantly blocked and to once and for all conclude I was not nor ever was Excuseme99 nor any of his socks also notice how are all of my admitted accounts the editing styles, behavior and syntax are completely differant then Excuseme99 also important to note I never engaged in any personal attacks unlike Excuseme99 I was never obssesed with celebrities just the politics of conservative ones especially those endorsing McCain important to note origionally month block of me as 24.58.54.211 was unjustified so when I got frustrated with the matter on moved on to 74.79.39.105 it was not for reasons of ill intent but because I did not know at the time any better way to resolve the unfair block of 24.58.54.211 though now since I have had expierence editing wiki as Cotton Rogers I know that there was a better way to deal with the situation in following with all wikipedi procedure that I was blissfuly ignorant of as a green user please do an SPI of the matter please (as it was not orgionally done) before you indefinately block me, I'm not the best editor but I at least deserve that

Also really be sure to compare the dates on the two IP addresses falsley accused of being socks after moving on to a new account I never really used them after that date I stopped using them though I did visit articles I had edited on the with my new account but never to for puppeting purposes always for differant reasons since they were articles I was interested in and I never revisited them under the old IP address's after I was finished with either of the IP address accounts though the Jon Cryer talkpage might look like it That was the right after I established Cotton Rogers to have the benefits of an account never to use 74.79.39.105 again to hide my IP I just briefly forgot to identify myself that one time but was not clearly pretentding to be another separate user so it is not a violation. Cotton Rogers (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC) >

UNBLOCK REQUEST

Please explain your relationship with User:Slinkman24 and User:Lincolnworshipper 2.0, both created on what appears to be an IP used only by you. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not an IP only exclusive to me I share it with my neighborhood. Also in case I was wrongly found to be Excuseme99 which I was falsley accused off being (also please do above request of opening an SPI investigation into the matter) someone suggested blocking me indefinately see: accusation in case I was found guilty I created both accounts to have a clean start as I became addicted to editing wikipedia however I decided that I should wait out to see if I'm blocked indefinately first since there is no evidence for it so I retired LincolnWorshipper important to note that I never abused it as a multiple account see:Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts and followed wiki guidelines for a cleanstart by not returning to any pages or habits I had edited and displayed under the old accounts the brief time I used it but decided that as long as they open an SPI investigation into the matter then I would be found innocent so I can edit from my own accout and not be blocked indefinately and not wanting to add anymore complications to that investigation I retired LincolnWorshipper2.0 so no one could possibly accuse it of being an abused multiple account as for Slinkman24 I probably would have retired that account as well but forgot about it completely but did nothing with it so I did not break any rules there either. Also how did you know that maybe I'm wrong here but I'm really beginning to think my privacy is being invaded but in case you did it to see if I'm a serial socker never used those accounts for socking but yes there both mine but I only created them after I seriously panicked I thought I might be blocked indefinately. Cotton Rogers (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Was User:Lincoln Worshipper included in the investigation? Because that account, which was making contentious edits on the same page that Cotton had been edit warring on and doing so during the time of his block, was marked as retired by LincolnWorshipper 2.0. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser would return  Likely. Common sense would report "duh". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the edits there were not contentious also See: talk history I never argued Lincoln should be included in the list of conservatives in fact I took him out to avoid the controversy See:edit The account Lincolnworshipper was by someone I knew (who is at a completley differant IP address do a Checkuser)who considers himself a conservative history buff when before I was blocked I told him about the contentious debate he checked it out to involve himself and used books on google to source it (which I never used since I did not know you could find books on google like that) when he told me about it I told him to stay out of it since Shadow Bill Murray had already gotten me in trouble I asked him to retire the account immediately he did not remember the password so I created LincolnWorshipper 2.0 (also for a clean start) to retire it so it could not be accused of being another meatpuppet (but again I never held the view Lincoln should be included on the list so it is not a Meatpuppet) I named the the account Lincoln 2.0 so in case anyone asked about why an account was being retired by another account i would simply say It was my account (Hence why it was called 2.0 so I could falsley claim it as my own) and then say I forgot the password which would be true incidentally and retired since the password was forgotten again another user whom I've had a differance of opinion with is fishing against me please do another SPI investigation into that one an it would find me innocent. Cotton Rogers (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I just Saw user Lincolnworshipper was indefinately block as my sock (Please see the immediate above statement before continuing reading) that was not my sock do a checkuser to verify he is not even a Meatpuppet since again I took lincoln out of the page and never argued to put him in there so that is not meatpuppetry does not wiki say new editors will often include themselves in contentious debates. Also Slinkman24 and Lincolnworshipper 2.0 were tagged and indefinately blocked as socks they are not socks they are legitimate multiple accounts which I never abused again wiki policy clearly states one can have multiple accounts as long as they do not abuse them how did I abuse them If I'm wrong with this thinking please tell me but they should not have been tagged and I want them untagged as my socks since there not abused multiple accounts and unblocked. Finally If people Are reading my talkpage how come no one is responding to my request for help or my unblocking request can someone please tell me How to e-mail an administrator since I want action on the above requests and do not know how to e-mail an administrator Cotton Rogers (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER ME IT SEEMS NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER MY LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS UNLESS IT IS TO FALSLEY ACCUSE ME OF SOCKING (THEN NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION OR REQUESTS) PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER ME AND TELL ME HOW TO E-MAIL AN ADMINSTRATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thing is, you haven't been falsely accused of socking. I just blocked three more of your socks in addition to the one I blocked a couple of days ago. You, the person behind the keyboard, are blocked from editing and are not allowed to edit anywhere, from any account or IP address, except for this page right here, with this account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you wish to pull in an administrator, check WP:ANI.

But I gotta tell you, if your claim for not being User:Lincoln Worshipper is that you just chose a user name with the intent of deceiving other editors into believing that you were that user, you're only digging your hole deeper. (And to answer a question: if you have a second account which you are using despite being blocked with your main account, yes, using a second account to evade a block is abuse.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I named that account Lincoln 2.0 not to decieve others but so I could with some credibility and quietly close my friends account since he forgot the password and I did not want anyone thinking it was my meatpuppet of mine do a checkuser I never used that account plus when did I ever argue for Lincoln to be put on the list I took him out of the list see See:edit how is that my sock please do a check user check that is definately a case were I'm being falsley accused of being a sock with Lincolnworshipper I would also like an SPI case done of that immediately before you label it as my sock. I concede from what you say LincolnWorshipper 2.0 was a sock I apologize did not realize that was abuse, but Slinkman 24 was not a Sock I never used that account for anything even for editing that is definately not a sock and Slinkman24 should be untagged as my sock and unblocked I never used him for anything that constitutes socking so I am being falsley accused there and with Lincolnworshipper but I again concede I was wrong about Lincolnworshipper 2.0 that is a sock I would like to thank DoRD for telling me how to e-mail an adminstrator but how can I leave a message on that page if I'm blocked? Cotton Rogers (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a Temporary circumstances unblocksA user may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked in order to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block. Such temporary and conditional unblocks are made on the understanding that the user may not edit any pages (besides their user talk page) except the relevant discussion page(s) explicitly specified by the unblocking admin. The user is effectively banned from editing any other pages, and breaching this ban will be sanctioned appropriately. When the discussion concludes, the block should be reinstated unless there is a consensus to overturn the block.

So I can edit my sockpuppet investigation page that would alleviate my above adminstrator's request and my unblocking request Cotton Rogers (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that this admin is not convinced. You attempted to deceive more than once. You are a sockmaster, period. By your admission, you're a meat-master. All were done to deceive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I only meat puppeted once with Shadow Bill Murray that is the only time I decieved the second accusation is unfounded I was never LincolnWorshipper that is not a meatpuppet I never argued for Lincoln to be included I took Lincoln out in fact see See:edit how I'm I a sock master I have always admitted when someone has asked me if I had abused or used an alternate account how is that being a Sockmaster please do an checkuser and open a SPI case to prove I'm not Lincolnworshipper or as others see above have falsley accused me of being Excusem99 I should be at least able to edit my wikipedia sockpuppet investigation page also there should be an SPI done of the matters it is only fair Cotton Rogers (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that if you only meatpuppet once, and admit to socking when challenged, that makes it all right?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It was not socking most of it anyway because most of them were legitimate multiple accounts then when asked about it I admittted to them prior this investigation but I'm not suggesting that makes everything all-right all I'm asking is I recieve a Temporary circumstances unblock to speak at my own sockpuppet investigation and start SPI investigations to prove that some socking charges like I'm noted vandal Excusem99 are false charges and that after the investigation is closed the block can continue I have a right to speak at my own investigation and please don't be short with me Anthony Bradbury I'm kind of sensetive to that right now since no one is opening any SPI investigations I have suggested to clear my name of the many false socking charges where only two are legitimate the others false there is a thing in wikipedia called a Temporary circumstances unblocks which I fit under exactly please check out the hyperlink. no one is letting me comment at my own ivestigation they are just letting editors whom I have had disagreements with cite evidence against me that is not neutral and that to me is not fair also it feels like you people are ganging up on me all being unhelpful, unprofessional, and short with some of you talking to me in condescending tones, saying "your just digging your hole deeper, all the accusations against you are true period, or the thing is your wrong" where the professional thing to do that is in keeping with wiki etiquette is to say things like I'm afraid I disagree or something commensurate to that you all just can't treat however you like just because you disagree with my arguements and that I'm blocked ;that does not give the right to any of you to break wiki etiquette and unfairly belittle and demean me you all seem like a clique not objecive third parties and are seriously hurting my feelings I'm a person to and it is exactly that let's gang up on a guy who is already having I hard time of things not treat him with respect since we don't have to that leads to people thinking they have no other alternative besides commiting suicide

Block

Since you have used further sockpuppet accounts to evade your block, the block length has been increased to indefinite. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrative help needed from a couple adminstrators conflict of interest

My last attempt to request help from administrators whom I viewed as abusing my talkpage by violating wiki ettiquette was grossly mishandle in a way that clearly violates wiki rules and demonstrates (Hopefully) unintentional abuse of adminstative power first only the adminstrators I accused of violating etiquette commented before it was falsley marked as answered by one of those adminstrators whom I attempted to report not only before any neutral adminstrators not mentioned in the request were able to involve themselves but by an administrator who was mentioned in the report a clear conflict of interest. Also shortly after that another administrator whom I mentioned in my report as violating wiki rules indefinately blocked me after rashly closing my sockpuppet investigation which to me seems like a clear conflict of interest. Also in that same adminstrator (JamesBWatson) reply to his uncivilty he instead of simply telling me in a proffesional manner that none of those comments I reported violated wiki rules and my claims were unfounded, he unfortunatly proceeded to demean me by making personal comments saying if I was that sensitive to be offended by those comments (one where he called my writing endless rants how am I not to be offened by that) than I would be better off not editing wikipedia that to me seemed demeaning by infering I'm sensitive even though whether I'm being overly sensitive is not the issue it was whether these editors were violating my wikipage with those comments where a simple they did not and here's why would have sufficed. JamesBWatson then insulted me by falsley accusing me off being aggressive and indignant to other editors which I never was I thought they were doing that to me so I reported them to see if I was correct in that understanding of the rules. Also JamesBWatson closed my sockpuppet investigation (conflict of interest that was clearly marks some unfairity in the investigaton) by false reasons he reasoned that since I had definately used the two in question IP adresses the investigation should be closed however that was not the issue I admitted on the investigation page that I used both accounts but never violated (with those two accounts) anything that counts as abuse with multiple accounts I was never free to edit and present all the evidence I wanted (esecially to all the later charges explaining my side of the story) with one adminstrator clearly telling me I could present the evidence after my week block See:

I don't see any reason to unblock. Your arguments are being read in full, by multiple admins (unblock requests are attended to by many administrators); none of us are convinced, which perhaps is why you think nobody is listening. Since your block is only a week, you can deal with the factuality of the details in the investigation when you return. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Something I was denied since JamesBWatson closed my investigation carelessly just to mark it off the list in violation Of what I was promised by jp gordon, and with out fully understanding that my defense was they were legit multiple accounts not that I never used them which I never denied. I think JamesBWatson has been very unfair to me and my SPI investigation be reopened immediately so I can present evidence to it and for someone undoubtly neutral to determine and fully understanding my defense not just clearly ignoring my defense (not to make the distincition clear just disagreeing with it) to properly determine the just punishment. also when I tried to add evidence to my investigation page by simply asking for adminstrative help (as I was told to do) it was ignored and none of that evidence was added to my account a clear cut case of my requests being ignored (not just simply denied) Cotton Rogers (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not spend my time answering all of what you say, but I will just reply to your claim that you "never denied" using the other accounts. In this edit you unambiguously claimed that Shadow Bill Murray was a different person from Cotton Rogers. In your latest unblock request you make it clear that the two accounts are in fact both you. You also said above on this talk page "I was not lincolnworshipper", but again your current unblock request admits that you were. Yes you certainly did deny using the other accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cotton Rogers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for socking indefinately which I think is an overreaction first of all for my two IP addresses that were suposedly socks User:24.58.54.211 which I used for until it was blocked for a month as Excuseme99 whom I was not and later found not to be by many administrators only recently. Being new to wikipedia I did not know how to adequately deal with the situation so I just moved on to editing as 74.79.39.105 then I got after reading having your own you can conceal your IP adress I thought that hey I'll get my own account so My IP adress will not be falsley blocked again. Neither socks both legitimate multiple accounts since I never pretended to be other people with them. Also Slinkman24 another supposed sock I created while I was blocked but never used it for anything but it's talkpage and I have not read anywhere on the wikipedia block evasion page that one is only allowed to use the talkpage of ones master account. Also all the socks I did have where only used for period time spanning 2 days all for the same page Conservatism in the united states also I was confused and thought that blocking meant only my account was blocked not me the person as long as I did not try to abuse them by influencing arguements however after an adminstrator made it clear that to me the correct defination that being blocked is the person not the account See: :The thing is, you haven't been falsely accused of socking. I just blocked three more of your socks in addition to the one I blocked a couple of days ago. You, the person behind the keyboard, are blocked from editing and are not allowed to edit anywhere, from any account or IP address, except for this page right here, with this account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC) After this was made clear to me there was no further trouble by me afterwards since I correctly understood the blocks. The only two times I was accused of decieving with multiple accounts was Shadow Bill Murray and Lincolnworshpper were done very closely to one another in time and on the same page I lost my head in a heated discussion and became wrongly obssessed with winning. Also account lincolnworshipper 2.0 was never used to decieve but used during my block since I became addicted to editing wikipedia and was confused and wrong on what being blocked meant. I simply ask that instead of being indefinately blocked (for actions on a single page) (for only recent trouble after months of editing with no problems) that the block be set for a week to show That I only lost my head for 2 days and was confused on blocking so I can honor that new block week block to show that I finally understand that "I the person" not the account is being blocked and also show that I can follow the rules of wikipedia by not evading that block whatsoever and continue once more as a productive member of the community. Also the adminstrator who set the block I am currently under I tried to report (see Hyperlink) to another administrator as violating wiki etiquette for calling my writing "endless rants" so him setting the block seems like a possible conflict of interest so if a neutral administrator whom I never tried to report for violating rules reviews this block and deems it fair them I will abide by that ruling and wait a couple of weeks before appealing. Cotton Rogers (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Cotton Rogers (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a community. You have lied, violated core policies, then lied about doing that. Those are behaviours that are not in line with the community aspect of this project. Here the the terms of your possible return to editing this community project. First, you will not edit Wikipedia for a minimum of 3 months. This means you cannot even make a single edit anonymously - no edits whatsoever. During those 3 months, you will read WP:5P and all associated links. When you return (no earlier than September 29, 2012), your next unblock will be GAB-COMPLIANT, especially in regards to how you will live up to the 5P. These terms are reasonable, as per WP:OFFER. When you return in September, you will also be forever limited to ONE ACCOUNT, period. Note: if you edit Wikipedia during this time, you will be explicitly revoking these terms, and indefinite will stand. If your unblock is not accepted in 3 months, that will be your own doing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.