Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cogswobble


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Cogswobble

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Italiavivi 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:

This IP continually shows up to endorse User:Cogswobble's opinions on Fox News Channel and Talk:Fox News Channel. Most recently, when Cogswobble had reached his 3RR limit on changing Fox News Channel's introduction, this IP showed up to make a fourth revert.
 * Evidence

Check away ;-) This isn't me. Cogswobble talk 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments

Lol...incidentally: That would be a pretty silly use of sockpuppetry. ;-) Cogswobble talk 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The claimed "fourth revert" was not even the same revert I was making:
 * 2) Not only that, but I only reverted this article twice today, not three times as he's implied.
 * 3) The best part is...the edit that I'm accused of sockpuppeting on was a change to my OWN edit

I support Cogswobble - the evidence Italiavivi has presented is, at best, circumstantial. And there's not even a remotely notable volume of it.

The claim that 75 "endorses" Cog's views - and thus is a sockpuppet - is absurd. It amounts to nothing more than "he agrees with him, so it must be the same person". You could apply that to virtually every single editor here.

The only other piece of "evidence" is similarly ridiculous, and could easily be put down to the fact that if several editors agree or disagree with one particular edit there's every chance a number of them will take the same action.

I can't believe this 'sockpuppet' bull has been clogging up the Fox talk page. If there is no other evidence against Cogswobble then it reflects very badly on the editors making such a claim. Edders 17:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Even if Cogswobble and the IP are the same person, this isn't a 3RR violation. Furthermore, if I were to scrutinize the edits to Fox News Channel on May 5 more closely, it looks like there's a good chance I'd find other 3RR violations. Fortunately for the editors involved, I think it would be pointless to block for 5-day old violations; but participants in the dispute are strongly advised to discuss, rather than edit war. (A revert with an edit summary saying "discuss it on the talk page" counts as edit warring.) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)