Jump to content

User talk:Fat Cigar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Fat Cigar! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous


hi

[edit]

Just want to say it's been a pleasure interacting with you on Race and genetics and Human genetic variation, we've improved and expanded upon each other's edits and where we have disagreed we have both attempted to use a form of words acceptable to both of us. It's nice to have such a pleasurable experience with someone who I haven't even interacted with directly. I guess you've contributed here before even if this account is new, given your knowledge of some policies and procedures. Cheers. Alun (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion on Tag Team MfD

[edit]

Hi, there seems to be some confusion over on the Tag Team MfD over your comment about ad. hom. Maybe you could clarify things? All the best. Verbal chat 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meat puppet accusation

[edit]

You have been accused of being a meat puppet of Elonka. After not receiving any clarification from DreamGuy after a number of days, I have taken it to "Arbitration enforcement". This is mostly about DreamGuy's accusation than about the accusation itself, but you should at least know about it all the same. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely by Moreschi as a sockpuppet of the banned user Jagz. Avruch T 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The template on my userpage states, "This account is a sock puppet of Jagz, and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to contributions for evidence." However, a review of the edits of Fat Cigar and Jagz shows that we are different editors. I request that the block be removed. --Fat Cigar 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly Jagz. I don't think the situation for Jagz is impossible, but it's not reasonable for him to be dodging his indefinite block, civility parole, topic ban, et cetera. Please request unblocking under your main account. Mangojuicetalk 04:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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'll contact the blocking admin. Mangojuicetalk 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the blocking admin's talkpage, they state, "Jagz was a SPA focussed purely on Race and intelligence and Human genetic variation." I have not found any evidence that Jagz edited Human genetic variation. --Fat Cigar 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of edits by Jagz to Race and intelligence and to its Talk page in April through June 2008. For example, see this edit in which he removes a POV tag. He also tried to get Wikipedia policies modified. One assumes that he felt that some of these policies restricted his activities. Some people might argue that his views were covered by WP:FRINGE. You've done a lot of editing on Human genetic variation, a related topic, and have also been active in trying to get policies changed, such as Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Tag team. So there is plenty of superficial similarity between your activities and those of Jagz. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have diffs of Fat Cigar being disruptive? If not, how exactly is Wikipedia served by having him blocked? --Elonka 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are clear on this: a sockpuppet account used for block evasion is forbidden and should be blocked too. As far as you are concerned, since Fat Cigar is almost certainly Jagz, and that you were the one insisting on having Jagz unblocked (just for him to continue his disruption shortly thereafter), I would suggest you stay out of the resent request for unblock, as it definitely gives the appearance of impropriety. I think you'd want to avoid that.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ramdrake, you're not exactly uninvolved here either. In any case, Jagz was very clear that he did not want to resume editing. If he did want to resume editing, all he'd have to do is post a message at his talkpage, saying, "Hi, I'm back, I'm sorry for what I said, I'll try to do better." There wouldn't be a need for him to create a sock. And I have strong concerns about Moreschi (an involved editor) making the unilateral decision to impose an indefinite block, without a CheckUser backup. If Moreschi (or anyone) feels the evidence is that strong, then go ahead and start an ANI thread. But again, it seems to be a bit of a witchhunt here, since Fat Cigar was not being disruptive. So why is there so much interest in seeing him blocked? --Elonka 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Elonka, You posted here knowing full well that you are far from a disinterested party, Ramdrake responded to your post, then you go and accuse him of being "involved", let's remember that he posted in response to you. I assume that he felt he had every right to post here because you already had. Furthermore what you say about Jagz is totally incorrect. You make it sound as if Jagz was blocked because he didn't want to edit anymore and all he'd have to do is request unblock and all would be rosy. If Jagz decided he still wanted to edit, and left a message on his talk page asking to be unblocked you and he know full well that that request would certainly be denied, so of course there's a need for him to create a sock. This user is so clearly Jagz that it must be obvious to you, and considering that you have given undue support and attention to this editor by showing him far more good faith than you have shown to other editors with much better editing records (which incidentally he repaid by metaphorically smacking you in the face), I think you should have had the integrity to leave this alone and let others decide it. You don't seem to have learned a single thing after your recall and RfC, and I'm saddened in that. When an editor is indef blocked, spotting a sockpuppet and blocking that is not a "witchhunt", you should know that. Alun (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, please see WP:AGF. None of my edits to the Human Genetic Variation article involved race or intelligence. I recently read Craig Venter's autobiography A Life Decoded and was inspired by it. I deny trying to change Wikipedia:Fringe theories and it is not a Wikipedia policy. --Fat Cigar 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. How is it that you came to comment on Elonka's RFC back at the beginning of August? Where did you hear about it? Mangojuicetalk 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall now but please see this.[1] --Fat Cigar 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply to editors who have been indeff blocked. By the way this is tantamount to admitting that you are Jagz. Alun (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Civil. --Fat Cigar 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there incivility in my comment? Alun (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, can we please cut to the chase? Fat Cigar, are you Jagz? If so, this is not the way to go about participating at the project. If you wish to resume editing activity, then please just stick to the Jagz account. Stop using the Cigar account, login as Jagz, post at the Jagz talkpage and ask to have the block lifted. You'll need to give some assurances and/or apologies, but if you're sincere, it should be possible to resume activity, provided that you respect the topic ban. But please, if you are Jagz, and you try to pretend that you're not Jagz, then all that's going to happen right now is that several editors and administrators are going to spend time combing through contrib histories. The truth will come out eventually anyway, and it's going to waste the time of a lot of editors who could be spending time doing more productive things (such as working on the encyclopedia). So please, just be honest here? --Elonka 04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The clean start under a new name is not available to banned users, however, I am not a banned user. If I was to tell you my former name then it would not be a clean start under a new name. Was the Jagz account banned? --Fat Cigar 04:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's already not a "clean start" - you jumped back into the same issues where you got in trouble last time, and as a result it's obvious that you are Jagz. If you want a clean start, then it has to be to improve the encyclopedia, not to pursue your old agenda. If you made an account and simply improved some unrelated area of the encyclopedia - even the Boy Scouts articles - I doubt anyone would notice, much less have a problem with it. Elonka asked you to be honest with us - not too much to ask of someone who supposedly wants to be granted a "clean start" - and you respond with more evasion. MastCell Talk 05:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Jagz account was banned. At least, it was topic banned, and that's enough for me to say that you don't get to change accounts to avoid your negative history. Not to mention that Jagz is blocked, and this was block evasion. Mangojuicetalk 05:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. It would be so nice, for once, to have a sockpuppet just admit it. I'm sure we make mistakes sometimes, but people who do this think they have been so careful, they always want to pretend they really are a different person. Not only does it waste everyone's time, it makes it that much harder for the one in a thousand sockpuppet blocks that might actually be wrong. Mangojuicetalk 04:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got your wish. MastCell Talk 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

MastCell filed an RFCU on Fat Cigar and Jagz on 29 August that came back inconclusive, with the suggestion to 'block on behavior.':

Inconclusive... 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)

Though my research has not yet got far enough to document Fat Cigar in any detail, I offer these links about Jagz, to help the reviewers of Fat Cigar's block. I hope that others may be willing to collect the corresponding information on Fat Cigar's editing history and list any disputes he may have been involved in.

  • Jagz complains to Elonka about gang editing here: [2]
  • Elonka unblocked Jagz on June 16 under these conditions: [3]
  • B's final block of Jagz on June 30 was based on this colorful remark by Jagz: [4]

EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fat_Cigar&oldid=1142999354"