Islamic bias, Jagged 85 rfc Options

[Peter Damian]

I only just noticed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...mment/Jagged_85

For years have noticed with annoyance this editor's involvement in the medieval philosophy and logic and science articles. The RFC is telling indeed. The problem has finally been noticed, and the scale of it is huge. Practically all the contributions of this guy should be deleted, in my view.

[edit] But they guy has handled it in exactly the right way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=357598892

That is, express sincere apologies (for 60MB of blatantly slanted editing), deny it was deliberate, and accept 'mentorship'. The cult will welcome him back with open arms.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

A shame this post got submerged, as it represents a systematic bias on a scale I have never seen before. Also, a 'breaching experiment' of audacity that outreaches even Gregory Kohs' noble efforts.

I have written about it at my philosophy and logic blog here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html

and have contacted other academic bloggers.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Perhaps Avicennian Logic can now be defined to be that curious branch of pseudo-logic in which any desirable thesis is "proven" by means of appealing to a non-existent authority or reference, or by citing a source which, upon closer examination, is found not to actually contain anything probative of the thesis in question. And then you can honestly credit Mr. Jagged as inventing that branch of (pseudo-)logic.

[Peter Damian]

Well I'm pleased to note at least that a search on 'Avicennian logic' now returns my blog at third place, which may help to dispel some of the blatancy of it all.

Thank you for visiting, Moulton.

[Moulton]

Thank you for visiting, Moulton.

You're welcome. Oddly enough, I visited your blog just yesterday, whilst looking for a suitable link to support a reference to the Argument Culture.

By the way, I once caught FeloniousMonk engaging in "Avicennian Logic" and called him on it. (He responded by arranging to have my whistle-blowing call deleted.)

[thekohser]

A shame this post got submerged, as it represents a systematic bias on a scale I have never seen before. Also, a 'breaching experiment' of audacity that outreaches even Gregory Kohs' noble efforts.

After reading just two minutes' worth of Jagged 85's user talk page, I conclude:

Troll is trolling!

Bravo!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[Peter Damian]

One of the more responsible of the editors there has conceded the scale of the problem.

Indeed, the damage he has done is immense, and it extends far beyond the history of science. Democracy, Human rights, Women's rights, you name it, there isn't a single article or section involving the history of an idea that he hasn't contaminated with his POV. I am very grateful to you for publicizing the situation on your blog, and you hit on all the main points. The good news is that the RfC was successful: He has gone on an indefinite wiki-break as a result, and knows full well that should he return and resume his past behavior, he will be banned in short order. So the damage is done, but it has at least been contained, and now the cleanup begins. There are a number of editors who are working on cleaning up after him, each one within his own specialty. I am delighted to hear you specialize in logic and the history of logic, as these articles definitely need some cleanup, and they are far from my specialty so I cannot do it myself. The extent of the damage is such that it is too much for one person to undo, but if a number of editors do their part within their specialty, then we can roll back a lot of it. So feel free to edit those articles, and do not worry about Jagged, his days of wreaking havoc on this encyclopedia are over, one way or another. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...52624#Jagged_85

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Well, was it you or not?.....(note that I am not taking Fram's side. Fram is a complete Belgian asshole.)

[Peter Damian]

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Well, was it you or not?.....(note that I am not taking Fram's side. Fram is a complete Belgian asshole.)

Yes of course (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Good old lovable Fram. He'll do anything to keep a banned user's content out of the encyclopedia, especially if it means preserving stupidity in the encyclopedia.

[Peter Damian]

Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Good old lovable Fram. He'll do anything to keep a banned user's content out of the encyclopedia, especially if it means preserving stupidity in the encyclopedia.

Looks like they've opened a sockpuppeting case, where some poor user (a rather good contributor in the area of analytic philosophy) is under the spotlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...ns/Peter_Damian

Well, there's not much that can be done here. Revert, if you must. Blocking the dynamic IPs is pointless. The point he makes is, I believe, acted upon. Amalthea 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's not been acted upon. There are thousands of edits by Jagged 85 still on Wikipedia. Jagged 85 is not banned. I am banned, and another entirely innocent user will be blocked also. This is Wikipedia at its best.

[edit] Also, having now had experience of the checkuser system close up, it is true how arbitrary it is. A lot of these are genuine socks, naturally, but quite a few have nothing to do with me. They must be wondering what happened.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

A lot of these are genuine socks, naturally, but quite a few have nothing to do with me. They must be wondering what happened.

Watching the Wikipediots torment innocent users on the basis of their having stumbled upon a previously-used dynamic IP address is one of my favorite things to watch. Also, contemplate the enormous amount of time spent by them trying to seal the leaky hole of "anyone can edit" -- all to ensure that a highly productive and intelligent editor is kept out of the fold, because he came too close to evidence that a cover-up took place to protect the reputation of another editor who publicly revealed his passion for human-canine intimacy.

Priorities, folks. Priorities!

[Peter Damian]

Watching the Wikipediots torment innocent users on the basis of their having stumbled upon a previously-used dynamic IP address is one of my favorite things to watch.

That is the thing. My ISP (btinternet) is incredibly dynamic. It changes at least once a day. I often check it on Wikipedia - occasionally I find some quite nasty racist edits that could easily be blamed on me if I had been editing at the same time. The system really is completely mad.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

The science historian James Hannam just got in touch with me about an article he wrote in The Spectator last year.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml

I read it, and recommend it.

[A User]

The same thing happens with articles on musical instruments. Sourced information is removed and the Romans and Indians are discredited, and instead the instruments are supposedly invented only by Arabs, even so far as editors making racist remarks about Indians being lazy and thieves etc. The editing appears more to do with pan-religious nationalism than good history. Wikipedia is a joke, and a bad one at that.

[Peter Damian]

The same thing happens with articles on musical instruments. Sourced information is removed and the Romans and Indians are discredited, and instead the instruments are supposedly invented only by Arabs, even so far as editors making racist remarks about Indians being lazy and thieves etc. The editing appears more to do with pan-religious nationalism than good history. Wikipedia is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Then it's about time the donors learned the truth about this. See my other posts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=240968 . We are past the time of chatting on an internet forum like this, which will get nowhere. Direct action is needed.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A User]

See my other posts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=240968 .

'Sorry, the link that brought you to this page seems to be out of date or broken.' (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[papaya]

One can pretty much discount any statement about the origin of ideas in Wikipedia if it doesn't endorse the establishment claim thereof, not so much because the establishment is always right, but because the competing claims are almost always put there by various nationalist partisans. The ugly truth is that even if the claim of priority were true, the idea didn't go anywhere.

[Milton Roe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chemical...isusing_of_refs

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. 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. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Shocking. Simply shocking.

[The Adversary]

Peter D started a thread on it here.

Mods; could we possibly merge?