Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jagz



User:Fat Cigar, a confirmed sockpuppet of Jagz edited the Human genetic variation page several times last year, and showed some interest in articles relating to human genetics. User:Wet dog fur shows a very similar style of editing to Jagz, and also the first edit this user made was to a section in the Human genetic variation article that User:Fat Cigar has previously been interested in. User:Wet dog fur displays the same racialist ideology as User:Jagz and made several edits to the "Human genetic variation" article so that it's emphasis appears to be racial rather than a neutral discussion about human genetic diversity. Jagz was a well known promoter of racialist ideology, as his constant editing of the Race and intelligence article attested. User:Wet dog fur also showed a very intricate knowledgs of Wikipedia, by starting an RfC on the talk page of the article very soon after editing there. He proceeded to edit the article after starting the RfC claiming the RfC had provided a consensus for his edits, but what he claimed was not a consensus of the RfC. Given Jagz's known use of sockpuppets, his interest in "race" and that one of his former sockpuppets showed an interest in this article previously, his very similar editing style, and his use of the existence of the RfC to edit how he wanted, while ignoring the outcome of RfC, I'd like to request checkuser for this account. Thanks. Alun (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wobble. Based on the contrib history of "Wet dog fur", it is very possibly Jagz trying to get around his indefinite block.  Checkuser confirmation would be nice, but I would also support simply blocking the account as-is, for block evasion. --Elonka 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Jagz again



 * Code letter: F

is indefinitely blocked. is an apparently non-new editor who rapidly jumped into articles (human genetic disparity) and wikidrama (Elonka's RfC) which suggest very similar interests to those of Jagz. I'd like to ask for a quick check to address this concern. MastCell Talk 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Fat Cigar appears to be a sock puppet, as noted by Bishonen, and myself. I think these suspicions warrant a check because the edit histories fit together, and the users have similar social connections. As we have seen socking from Jagz before, please also check for any other socks or sleeper accounts. Jehochman Talk 10:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What Jehochman said. Moreschi (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into this. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can a clerk please fix this page up, I think I bobbled the rfcu box thing ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It now seems correct. I am not a CU clerk, but sometimes I impersonate one. Jehochman Talk 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Results

 * ... There are indications of a possible relationship between Fat Cigar and Jagz, but it's not clear. I cannot suggest anything more than "block on behaviour", if Fat Cigar is doing problematic things. I looked for possible socks and did not find anything definitive. ++Lar: t/c 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jagz


Jagz was blocked for 3RR violation on the Race and intelligence article. GavinTS made his first edits later the same day. He started making accusations of sockpuppetry against the editors who had opposed Jagz. GavinTS was blocked. JaredTlr then appeared. He has reverted the same material as Jagz did in the Race and Intelligence article. He has also edited Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America. Just like Jagz also did recently. Ultramarine (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * it would appear that the code letter provided (F, "circumvention of community-based bans or blocks") is not applicable to the circumstances cited in the above case—the accounts provided are simply blocked on a disruption basis, rather than with the backing of the community through consensus expressed via discussion. However, the question of whether a case warrants a check is the remit of the Checkusers, not the Clerks, and I will make no further comment. AGK § 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, 3RR via socks is a valid "E". Thatcher 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GavinTS and JaredTlr are ✅ but they are ❌ to Jagz. Thatcher 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''