Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern[edit]

{Add summary here, provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.}

This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years, despite many requests from other editors to change their behaviour. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. This is clearly in violation of the WP:VERIFY policy, especially the requirement that cited sources "must clearly support the material as presented in the article".

The editor is obviously enthusiastic and has shown a great dedication to their work here; just for one example, they are currently at number 209 in WP:NOE. Unfortunately a large number of their contributions, I believe, approach the level of vandalism, and repairing the misleading and falsified material that they have added to Wikipedia will take an immense amount of effort.

The obvious impression from this editor's work is that they have engaged in a systematic distortion of their sources so as to promote Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, which is deeply unfortunate as there is much there to promote without any such distortion. In the history of science articles, for example, the misrepresentation is almost always with the object of granting priority in some innovation to some Islamic—or at least non-European—figure. But regardless of the intention, and regardless of whether it has been done with good intentions, however misguided, the end result is the same: a massive amount of misleading or falsified information unsupported by the cited sources.

A summary of the above is that, despite repeated requests from other editors, this editor has continued over several years to:

Misrepresent a source by quoting material utterly out of context; for example, see [1] or [2].
Report that a source supports a claim that it simply does not and sometimes explicitly does not; for example, see [3], [4] or [5].
Claim that a certain figure invented something or was the first to do something, when the cited source simply says that they made or did that thing, without any suggestion that they were the first to do so; for example, see [6], [7], [8], [9], or [10].
Take a passing comment about some connection to a modern theory and claim that the Islamic thinker being discussed invented that theory or is an important forefather of that theory; for example, see [11] or [12].
Report only one point from a source, even if a minor one, and ignore the contrary position it reports, even if that is the majority position; for example, see [13].
Rather than withdraw a claim, if it is pointed out that the cited source does not support the claim, find a source of any quality to use instead, even when that may be of much lower quality than the original source, which made the opposite claim; for example, see [14].
Invent claims and cite sources connected with the issue but which simply do not support those claims; for example, see [15]

In addition to such misuse of sources, this editor has also continued to:

Use questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources; for example, see [16] or [17].
Use exceptionally poor sources for exceptional claims; for example, see [18].

The links above are just a selection of the problematic edits collected at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence, which contains more material gathered by myself and other editors. There are yet more examples collected by another editor at User:Spacepotato/Examples of original research in Wikipedia and User:Spacepotato/Misuse of sources.

Most of the material gathered is from the history of science and technology, as that is the area in which we have tended to work but I have also collected four problematic edits from just the seven days after 11 April 2010, and mostly from current affairs and general history articles, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Recent evidence.

Let me be clear that this editor will sometimes fix problematic edits that are brought to their attention, as they have recently done with one set that I flagged ([19]); though they do not always address such issues (for example, see [20]). But just finding and challenging the distorted material that they have added, and are continuing to add, is a daunting task.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Applicable essays[edit]

List the essays that apply to the disputed conduct.

WP:CPUSH

Desired outcome[edit]

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behaviour should be the focus.

That the editor will agree to apply their enthusiasm to a greater regard for quality and accuracy (both in the choice of sources and the way in which they are used), which would be of great benefit to Wikipedia's users (and editors).
That the editor will agree to undertake a systematic programme of correcting the errors that they have inserted into Wikipedia articles.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The following are links to threads (in chronological order) just from this editor's talk page in which people have complained about these issues:

Discussions of this issue from article talk pages include:

Talk:Indian mathematics#Greek Ideas in Indian Trigonometry (the discussion continues across several sections)
Talk:One Thousand and One Nights#Themes and techniques section

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

I have collected four problematic edits from just the seven days after 11 April 2010, and mostly from current affairs and general history articles, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Recent evidence, as evidence that this editor's pattern of behaviour has not changed.

The following links are to summaries of some recent problematic edits by this editor taken from the main evidence page:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Syncategoremata (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spacepotato (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
II | (t - c) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this cause for concern[edit]

If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section.

Misrepesenting sources is a banable offense. If it happens again, there is no reason to keep this user around. I have reviewed some of the edits in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence#Major_misuses_of_sources and there are serious problems. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this summary, and have personally encountered and removed a number of unsourced or improperly sourced claims about the history of economics from articles including History of capitalism, with the problematic claims detailed on my talk page.Dialectric (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifying user SteveMcCluskey[edit]

I first encountered Jagged 85 in 2007, when the articles on Islamic science were a real mess -- collections of claims that many modern scientific theories were already in the Quran and in the commentaries of early Muslim theologians. Jagged 85 had a major role in toning that down, for which I congratulated him[21] at the time.

Soon, however, I found myself questioning [22][23] his careless and misleading citations. At that time I cautioned him that "It would be better if you would engage in discussion to arrive at consensus before making edits that will only need to be deleted or cleaned up after."[24]

This RfC specifically addresses the present need to clean up after Jagged 85's many subsequent edits. Examination of his use of sources since he received that caution shows a continuing practice of pushing the interpretation of secondary sources a few steps beyond the reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent and always in the direction to grant preeminence to an Islamic achievement.

Since most of these edits were in articles concerning WikiProject Islam, for the last two years I had largely left it to the participants in that project to handle those edits as an internal matter. Since it has now become apparent that the negative effects of Jagged 85's edits spread outside this limited area and throughout much of Wikipedia, this problem must now be addressed by the larger Wikipedia community.

Users who endorse this summary.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syncategoremata (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
II | (t - c) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knight1993 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifying user David Wilson[edit]

I was initially reluctant to certify the basis for this dispute because, until quite recently, I had only had two brief exchanges with Jagged_85, neither of which had developed into any sort of dispute at the time. Nevertheless, my first exchange, concerning the edits described here and here, left me concerned about what appeared to me to be a very cavalier attitude towards the use of unacceptable sources—which Jagged_85 admitted to not even having consulted.

I was persuaded to certify the basis for the dispute by this exchange, initiated by my protesting on Jagged_85's talk page about his reinserting into 4 articles a slightly weaker—but still grossly misleading—version of a claim which I had earlier pointed out to him was actually contradicted by the source originally cited in support of it. At that time I was not aware that Jagged_85 himself was responsible for inserting the original erroneous claim into the articles containing it.

Although Jagged_85 eventually acknowledged that he "did make a few mistakes" and asserted that he had not been suggesting that my criticisms were not valid (which, in fact, he had very much been doing), he was unwilling to acknowledge that three of his edits constituted a blatant misrepresentation of the cited source, or that the three edits which replaced them a short time later constituted a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point-of-view, as I had asserted. The most he could bring himself to acknowledge was that he could "understand how it might appear that way."

Jagged_85 tried to explain away the unacceptable aspects of these edits as due to the first three being "provisional versions", and the latter three being "rushed". However, in view of the nature of the edits themselves, and a fairly obvious inconsistency in his attempted explanation of them, I'm afraid I don't find that explanation at all credible.

Users who endorse this summary.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syncategoremata (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
II | (t - c) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifying user Spacepotato[edit]

I first came into detailed contact with Jagged's edits when I looked at Timeline of historic inventions in the fall of 2009 and noticed that many of the entries in the list were facially absurd; for example, the p-n junction was said to be invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989, and the funnel was said to be invented between the 8th and 10th centuries CE by medieval alchemists. I then noticed that over 20% of the list had been contributed by Jagged, and that although his edits were well-supplied with footnotes, the sources he gave did not verify many of the claims made in the list. This was a problem with the rest of his work as well, which has been extensive (he has over 60,000 mainspace edits on en.wikipedia at this time, as alluded to above.)

I would like to emphasize that, although this problem is very noticeable in the medieval Islamic period (as this is an area which Jagged has concentrated on), it's present elsewhere as well and has afflicted e.g. List of Japanese inventions.

My personal communication with Jagged has been very limited, but considering also his editing behavior and communication with others, the picture is that of an editor who is enthusiastic but extremely sloppy, shows little consideration for source reliability, and often does not bother to read and understand the sources he quotes. Unsourced claims of invention often appear from thin air (this is point 3 in the cause for concern, above; see User:Spacepotato/Examples of original research in Wikipedia for some examples of this.)

Users who endorse this summary.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC) (who has been confronted both with the marked carelessness as well as the persistent tendentiousness since 2007)[reply]
Syncategoremata (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
II | (t - c) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifying user ImperfectlyInformed[edit]

I don't have nearly as much experience with Jagged 85 as some of the other certifying users, but I have been part of the discussion with him. When I first saw evidence of misrepresenting sources based on Dialectric's research on the ancient economics article, I dropped a note on Jagged 85's talk page notifying him and asking for an explanation (permalink). He did not respond until after I made a second request nearly two weeks later. I noted others had raised similar issues. This delay in responding, while he continued to edit, struck me as incredible because I would have jumped onto any discussion challenging my edits for misrepresentation or substantial inaccuracy, as I understand how serious that is. I posted a piece of evidence (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence#Islamic_origins_of_capitalism) discussing my interaction and analysis. The overall theme of Jagged 85 is a focus on promoting Islam in excess and often contrary to sources, particularly how great it was in its heyday and how much we owe them for technology.

On his talkpage he has been generally more defensive than I would expect, but still polite. When pushed he'll grudgingly acknowledge errors and sound apologetic, but he doesn't seem to understand the kind of intellectual honesty that Wikipedia requires. When pressed, he said to me that "I agree with your point that it can be misleading to only mention one point of view and not the other, and this is something that appears to be quite common among Wiki editors". I don't see the behavior in question as common at all in Wikipedia. If Jagged 85 has observed such gross misrepresentations, then he should bring them to the community's action. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

I hope the proposed solutions are enough, but I think ideally we would stop further contributions related to these Muslim topics while he works at correcting the errors. If he corrects the errors effectively, then he could start contributing on these topics again. It sounds harsh, but I think it's necessary.

Users who endorse this summary:

II | (t - c) 07:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syncategoremata (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifying user Athenean[edit]

Jagged first came to my attention through edits such as these [25], where he sought to play up scientific contributions of non-European cultures while at the same time downplaying European, and especially ancient Greek contributions [26]. At the time, I was new to wikipedia, and moreover assumed good faith. Then, as I started perusing more history of science articles, I noticed that articles such as Astronomy in Medieval Islam, Science in medieval Islam, Islamic Golden Age, and many others were utter POV-fests, essentially claiming that all modern scientific discoveries were anticipated by medieval Muslim philosophers. Articles about these philosophers (e.g. Abu Rayhan Biruni, Avicenna) read like extended hagiographies. I also noticed that the main contributor to these articles was Jagged 85. Following his latest burst of activity on these articles beginning in December 2009, I scrutinized his track record more carefully and came to the following conclusion: This user is on a two-fold mission on wikipedia, the first of which is to promote scientific achievements on non-European cultures while downplaying and hedging those of European cultures, and the second of which is to promote a positive image of Islam, whether through scientific achievements or social reforms. In addition to competent editing, the following problematic methods are employed:

Misusing a source by either completely falsifying it or else extending it completely beyond what it says.
Using low quality POV sources.
Not giving page numbers when citing a source .
Tendentiously re-inserting material removed by consensus long ago without discussion using misleadingly bland edit-summaries, and then edit-warring over it.
Pasting the same text all over wikipedia, including articles where it is not really relevant.
Presenting minority views as majority views.

Regarding the first, other editors on this page have provided countless examples, so I don't really see the need to provide some of my own, though I easily could [27]. Method #2 is a particular favorite: Whether it is using Subhash Kak, Dick Teresi or Madame Blavatsky to claim that the notion of a spherical Earth first appears in the Rig Veda [28], or using websites such as www.islamset.com to suggest that the inhalational anesthetic was invented by Muslim philosophers [29], I could again come up with countless examples. Not using page numbers when citing sources is another one [30] [31]. A good example of method #4 occurs at Spherical Earth: After using poor sourcing to claim that the notion of a spherical Earth appears in ancient India [32], he is reverted by another user [33] [34], who discusses his removal in the talkpage. Jagged then "restores", using an even worse source [35]. He is again reverted by Dougweller [36] on valid grounds, so what does Jagged do? He again "restores", this time adding the view of the great Subhash Kak. After Dougweller apparently gives up, this addition is later removed by another user [37]. Then, several months later, Jagged comes back and "restores" again [38]. When I revert him [39], he comes back with yet another source [40] [41]. He is then partially reverted by Gun Powder Ma [42] and proceeds to edit-war with several users [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50], breaking 3RR in the process. During this process, he does not once participate in the talkpage. Thus, his excuses here and on his talkpage that these are innocent "errors" due to "incompetence", "carelessness" and "rushed edting" are entirely disingenuous. This is classical tendentious editing: He has a very strong viewpoint on the subject, gives it undue weight, and then edit-wars with several other users to have his way. Method #5 is also particularly disruptive: He has a tendency of finding a source that confirms his bias, and then proceeds to paste the text all over wikipedia, even articles where it is completely irrelevant. A good example is the following: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. What does Nilakantha have to do with Mercury and Venus specifically? Very little. Rather, these articles are merely used as platforms for showcasing the achievements of non-European astronomers, with little regard to quality or relevance. As for #6, a perfect example can be found here [57].

On articles about society and social reforms, no effort is spared to show that every single social reform was anticipated in medieval Islam. Whether it is democracy [58] [59], [60], human rights [61] [62], or women's rights [63] [64], Muslims have been there, done that. On articles about something that has a generally negative connotation, such as racism, every effort is made to hedge and place Islam under a positive light, [65] [66] (interestingly, this is perhaps the *one* area where Jagged makes sure to give plenty of "credit" to ancient Greece [67] [68]).

Sometimes Jagged's tendentiousness borders on the comical, as during this exchange [69] [70] [71] [72] and during additions such as these [73] (mentioning the Apollo Program in the lede of Egyptian astronomy is simply priceless).

Based on the extensive evidence provided by other editors, and my own experience with him, I would like to present the following findings of fact:

Jagged is a tendentious editor, whose behavior is best described by WP:TEND and WP:CPUSH. His "errors" are far too many, and they are always in the same direction, namely, favorable to non-European cultures and especially Islam. Claims that they are the innocent result of "incompetence", "carelessness" and "rushed editing" are disingenuous at best. There is a pattern here, and it is unmistakable.

Contrary to Jagged's assertions, this is not a new trend, but rather has been going on since Day 1 [74], more or less literally (though it appears he was more pro-India than pro-Islam initially).

The fact that the quality of Jagged's additions is such that they need to be constantly checked by other editors makes him highly disruptive: Numerous editors have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after him, instead of being able to spend that time building content.

The intensity of Jagged's tendentiousness, combined with the sheer quantity of his edits has done substantial damage to wikipedia. Whole swathes of the encyclopedia, namely any article related to Islamic science and social reforms, have been edited to a state far beyond anything remotely resembling NPOV. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining wikipedia's credibility as a source. The fact that two of the editors who are participating in this RfC/U were goaded into joining wikipedia because they noticed something was up with Islamic science articles speaks volumes by itself.

The excuses and explanations offered by Jagged in this RfC/U and on his talkpage are completely unsatisfactory, and can be interpreted as disingenuous at best, deceitful and insulting to one's intelligence at worst, as e.g. here [75].

Users who endorse this summary:

(esp. that Jagged 85 has definitely followed throughout his edits an anti-Western agenda, that his continual habit of adopting sources to his preconceived views has done substantial damage to the integrity of Wikipedia and its NPOV policy, and that the way he evades discussions and reinserts controversial material long after being removed amounts to disruptive behaviour) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(endorsed, except as before I assume WP:GOODFAITH on Jagged's part, however misguided he might have been) Syncategoremata (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(endorse as to damage to Wikipedia of WP:DISRUPT and WP:TE) SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knight1993 (talk)04:30 25 April 2010(UTC)

Questions
[edit]

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. Has Jagged 85 ever acknowledged one of his errors in representing sources? Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. As far as we can see given 60 MB of edits, he is occasionally willing to acknowledge his errors if the editor pointing him to it is persistent enough (that is willing to spend no small amount of time and effort). However, one rarely gets the impression that he corrects himself sincerely; more typically, his corrections remain still problematic, incomplete, come with considerable delay and are mostly confined to the article at hand, but not those many other where he has copied and pasted the material to, either. Personally, though, I have never seen him acknowledge any errors vis-a-vis me, although we had frequent discussions on this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. I would phrase it more as "he is occasionally willing to correct his errors if the editor pointing him to it is persistent enough". I can only find one example of what I would call an acknowledgement of his misuse of sources in the last couple of years of contributions to talk pages, for example. – Syncategoremata (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Response[edit]

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns[edit]

{Add summary here.}

I somehow guessed this was coming, considering all the recent negative comments that have been expressed on my talk page (and the talk pages of the users above). I appreciate the efforts of the above users in gathering together most of the editing errors I've made over the past three years on this talk page. To mount a defence against all of these errors and all of the allegations made against me would take far too long for me, so I'll just make it easier for everyone and simply admit that I have, at times, been an incompetent editor.

However, the one allegation I remain unwilling to accept is the claim that I was somehow "deliberately attempting to deceive" everyone. I never had any intention like that, but such errors are largely due to the fact that I had often been rushing my edits (as I have already mentioned on my talk page), occasionally leading to careless errors. While some users still remain unconvinced by this justification, one only needs to look at my list of contributions to see the speed at which I had often moved from one article to the next (often in a matter of minutes or even seconds), therefore it shouldn't be surprising that some careless errors would have occurred given the rushed nature of my edits.

Nevertheless, in light of all the errors I have made (and have been gathered here), I am willing to accept any concern or criticism expressed regarding my editing practices, and will agree to both the desired outcomes ("That the editor will agree to apply their enthusiasm to a greater regard for quality and accuracy (both in the choice of sources and the way in which they are used), which would be of great benefit to Wikipedia's users (and editors)"; and "That the editor will agree to undertake a systematic programme of correcting the errors that they have inserted into Wikipedia articles") as well as any other outcomes (or even punishments) that users here wish to see.

Regards,

Jagged 85 (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response[edit]

I assume that you realize that if you misrepresent another source after this response, you'll probably be shown the door, right? Hipocrite (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.Thanks for your open and polite response, Jagged 85. I appreciate that, although we have often disagreed in the past. However, let me be clear about one thing from the start. The collected evidence does not represent "most of the editing errors I've made over the past three years", but is in fact only the tip of the iceberg and only a small representative sample meant to demonstrate the scope and long duration of your misuse of sources.

Personally, I find your explanation that you rushed most edits unsatisfactorily for several reasons. The first is this still does not explain why you were so consistently reluctant to engage in talks even when other editors showed up on your talk page (not to mention the talk pages which you ignored almost by default), people which repeatedly pointed you to the carelessness and sloppiness of your edits in question. It also fails to explain why the changes they called for were usually done by you only half-heartedly, reluctantly, with considerable delay and even after correction still deficient. Wouldn't it have been a more worthwhile contribution to WP to pay due attention to the concerns of other editors, instead of rushing on and multiplying problematic material over a vast array of articles by brute copy & pasting techniques? What is the point of this anyhow?

That brings me to my second question. I wonder why your problematic edits have always shown a certain but very consistent tendency. Your misinterpretations, to speak metaphorically, they did not fall equally to both sides of an interpretation. Rather, all certifying users are agreed that the net result of your flawed interpretation was very often to inflate Islamic, and generally non-Western achievements. When you stretched a source beyond the breaking point, it was almost always in that particular direction, never the other way around. And if you have been made aware of flaws, you often went away only to come back with a source of even lesser quality to support your refuted view. How can such an editing behaviour be adequately explained by a lack of time?

Now let me be clear we all have our biases which sometimes make us to favour one view over the other because we would like to have it rather that way. We all have to remind ourselves from time to time not to take our subjective views too far, I don't consider myself an exception. But that human, all too human feeling does not explain the sheer magnitude of your POV you have displayed over the last three years. It does not explain why two of your articles have been deleted for WP:POV, why the top six articles you have almost single-handedly contributed to have been tagged now for up to two years for numerous weaknesses and it does not explain why one and the same POV claim of yours can be found on up to thirteen articles! So, my question to you is, are you aware that the "systematic programme of correcting the errors" to which you agree will involve hundreds, but more probably thousands of correcting edits over the whole length and breadth of Wikipedia? And will you still be committed to such a programme, even when you realize it may take you weeks and months? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. To answer your first question, my unwillingness to engage in discussion or debate was also for the same reason: because I found them time-consuming. I know it might seem odd in light of the 60k article edits I've done in comparison to the 1k discussion edits (as you already pointed out), but making article edits always took me only seconds or, at most, a few minutes, whereas discussions and debates usually took me far longer than that. So yes, it was mostly because I was always in a rush or hurry. To answer your second question, this one indeed cannot simply be explained by a lack of time, but I'll have to admit that there were quite a few times when my bias got the better of me or times when I got defensive when an edit was criticized, leading me to look for alternative sources to support previous statements I made. Though my explanations may not be satisfactory to some users, I still stand by what I said before: that I never had any intention of "deliberately attempting to deceive" anyone, whether any users here believe me or not. As for your final question, I am indeed willing to commit myself to such a programme, though I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to get it done any time soon, as it will indeed take me at least months or maybe even a year or longer, but nevertheless, I'll try to go over many of my previous contributions and correct any errors I find, starting with the ones already mentioned here. In the mean time, I'll try to significantly limit the number of active contributions I make to Wikipedia, until I've sorted out many of the errors I've made in the past. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. You, of course, understand that your above explanation is totally unacceptable and if it continues you will be banned, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"totally unacceptable" ? So the guy admits to human failings and is prepared to improve, and is told this is "totally unacceptable". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. Like I said above, I am willing to accept any desired outcome expressed here. If it means changing my editing practices, then so be it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by Hammersoft[edit]

Given Jagged 85's acceptance of the desired outcome of this RfC (see acceptance), it would seem it might be possible to close this RfC rather rapidly. However, Jagged 85 should understand that acceptance is just the beginning of solving this; the editor will need to follow through with that commitment. If there is no follow through, and the problematic behavior continues, this will only get worse. All of us make errors. It is what we do subsequent to acknowledgment of those errors that is crucial.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Syncategoremata (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jagged 85 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Knight1993[edit]

I think it has been proven beyond any doubt that this user has a clear tendency (maybe this term is too soft), to hype any Muslim achievement (particularly in the so-called "Islamic Golden Ages"), and as a result to diminish the importance Western scientist and philosophers have had throughout history (not only modern, but also ancient and medieval). But the problem it's not only with Muslims scholars, it's also with Hindu and (on rare occasion) Chinese ones. To sum up, every non-Western achievement is hyped, specially Islamic. To accomplish this goal, the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources.

I really would like to assume good faith here. But, the evidence is too strong. Wikipedia is read by millions of people all over the world, and we have to assure that the information provided is trustable.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

(esp cherry picking, reliable sources, and misinterpretation) SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(esp concern for reader has absolute priority, misinterpretation and POV go hand in hand with) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(endorsed, tho' I am still prepared to WP:AGF on Jagged's part) Syncategoremata (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed, except for the implication that Jagged_85's edits were a result of bad faith on his part. I don't believe that's the most plausible explanation of the problems with his edits, or of the systematic bias in them.—David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sulmues (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary:

As per David Wilson I can't accept the conclusion of bad faith, but I treat this point as important enough to say I do not endorse the summary. Jagged 85's explanations seem perfectly reasonable - he's admitted bias and being rushed and says he's ready to improve. Please don't start assuming bad faith to justify any punitive sanctions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary[edit]

Jagged 85 agrees that the edits collected as evidence for this RfC/U are indeed unacceptable and that he will avoid repeating anything like that again.
Jagged 85 agrees to undertake a systematic programme of correcting any errors that they have inserted into Wikipedia articles. As part of this, he has agreed:
- to accept oversight or mentorship during what amounts to a probationary period while these errors are corrected;
- as part of the specific program of resolution, to remove any remaining citations of sources from FTSC / muslimheritage.com, as this site has been deemed unreliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 18#History of Science);
- that while he works at correcting these issues, he will temporarily stop further contributions on topics relating to Islamic civilization or to the history of medicine, science and technology.
Jagged 85 agrees to apply his enthusiasm to a greater regard for quality and accuracy (both in the choice of sources and the way in which they are used), which would be of great benefit to Wikipedia's users (and editors). This will involve:
- taking care to cite precisely the source that has been consulted and where in that source the supporting material is to found;
- discussing any controversial edits on article talk pages before making them;
- watching the pages that they have recently edited, and their talk pages, and responding to comments there in accordance with WP:BRD;
- avoiding any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources.
Jagged 85 agrees to follow through his commitment to this process and he understands that, if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban.
The other editors involved in this dispute agree to co-operate with Jagged 85 in this programme, and to provide what reasonable support they can to aid him in that process.

Syncategoremata (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knight1993 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J8079s (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spacepotato (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jagged 85 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dialectric (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
II | (t - c) 16:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.