Editor Jagged 85 was recently the subject of an RfC/U in which he accepted that he had been editing in an unacceptable manner at Wikipedia for several years. Other editors had characterised this as a systematic misrepresentation of sources to exaggerate the achievements of non-western scholars in general, and Muslim scholars in particular, in a huge number of articles.
As soon as the RfC/U was opened Jagged 85 almost entirely stopped editing via his account, saying, on his talk page, that "I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now". But within five hours of the RfC/U being opened, he began to edit from the IP address 93.97.55.135 and, among other things, began restoring some of his contributions to Wikipedia that had been removed by other editors. Jagged 85 has now admitted that this is his IP address and that many of these edits were his, including at least one which violated an agreement that he had undertaken to abide by at the conclusion of his RFC/U.
On June 11th Amalthea blocked the IP address as an apparently abusive sock puppet of Jagged 85 (see discussions here and here). Then on the very next day after having his IP blocked, he apparently began to edit the Forced Conversion page (again) but this time from an open proxy, 193.164.132.6, subsequently blocked by Zzuuzz as a proxy (hidemyipaddress.org). Jagged 85 appears to have also admitted that these edits were again his.
Abusive nature of edits
The following edits from the IP addresses 93.97.55.135 and 193.164.132.6 were made after the conclusion of Jagged 85's RFC/U:
Whichever of these Jagged 85 was responsible for (he has only explicitly admitted to the first, but has not so far denied making any of the others) constitute surreptitious contributions to Wikipedia on topics relating to Islamic civilisation ( Rashidun Caliphate and Forced conversion) and to the history of science ( Reciprocating engine#Historyand History of calculus) and which are therefore contrary to his agreement at the conclusion of his RfC/U on April 27th not to edit such articles. In all four cases, the re-inserted information had been disputed as inaccurate and removed by other editors. Therefore any of those edits which Jagged 85 was responsible for clearly constitute an abuse of the anonymity provided by the IP addresses. Resorting to the proxy 193.164.132.6 to continue editing anonymously after his own IP address was blocked is a further sign of abuse.
Reason for requesting checkuser evidence
Five days after another editor asked Jagged 85 on his talk page whether he was responsible for edits from the IP address 93.97.55.135, and 4 days after I began preparing a case for a sock-puppet investigation, the latter eventually admitted that "a sizeable portion" of the edits from that IP address had been his. In the ensuing discussion he wrote the following:
which appeared to other editors reading it to imply (as it does to me) that he was claiming not to have used any other IP addresses (including proxies) to edit anonymously. After it was later discovered that he seemed to have also been editing from the proxy IP address 193.164.132.6, he seemed to admit that he had in fact been doing so, but vehemently denied that anything he had written had implied otherwise, or that he had been editing from any other accounts or IP addresses. These denials do not appear to me to be credible. I am therefore requesting for a checkuser to search for sleeper accounts that Jagged 85 might have established, and any other IP addresses that he might have been using to edit anonymously, especially as he now appears to have been editing via a proxy.
Jagged 85
has expressed a strong desire to avoid checkuser for privacy reasons. This fear seems to be misplaced, especially if he has edited only from his account and the two IP addresses which he has seemingly admitted to. Nevertheless, administrators who become involved with the case need to be made aware of it.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I have already expressed all I wanted to say on this issue at my user talk page: User talk:Jagged 85#Hello. In summary, I agree that what I've sone is unacceptable. I don't wish to make excuses to justify my behaviour, other than that I was unable to handle the pressure of each of my edits being under scrutiny, thus resorted to hiding behind an IP. However, I think it's important to point out that I have never abused the IP for any persistent disruptive editing or vandalism, as you can see from the list of edits made using that IP. In addition, contrary to the claims of several users, I am not hiding behind any other IP, but had only been using the static IP 93.97.55.135 (now blocked for six months) and had attempted to use the proxy 193.164.132.6 (immediately blocked for five years); after my attempt at using a proxy had failed, it would be pointless for me to try using another proxy (as it would also get detected and blocked immediately). As such, if a CheckUser investigation was to be carried out, I am absolutely confident you will not find any other IP or account, thus it would not be worth the effort in my view. However, if others still believe my testimony is untrustworthy and demand a CheckUser investigation, then my only request is that I do not want any personal information being revealed. Other than that, I am willing to accept any harsh punishment for hiding behind an IP. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My response to User:Athenean is that all of his claims are false and a CheckUser investigation would only confirm it. The only thing that is of concern to me is whether any personal details will be revealed. I'm clearly not "experienced enough" to know how much information the CheckUser tool can obtain, since I have obviously not been subjected to any SPI investigation in the past. If all it does is obtain IP addresses, then it's not a problem, but how am I supposed to know what other information it can obtain? If my personal identity were to come out into the open, how am I not supposed to worry about that? This might not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the editor who originally introduced the material on reciprocating engines in Roman times. This material has also been introduced by me in a number of other articles such as Hierapolis sawmill, crank (mechanism), crankshaft and connecting rod where it has been unchallenged by other editors save Jagged 85 to this day. The last edit by 93.97.55.135, continues Jagged 85's pattern of inserting claims that are not supported by the cited source and violates the agreement to avoid such edits. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a striking similarity between the editing profile of IP 93.97.55.135 and that of Jagged 85. We need to confirm whether this similarity indicates a single editor. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in this discussion, but stumbled across the 193.164.132.6 IP while following up on an unrelated issue at Forced conversion. Jagged 85 has since admitted that this is also him. It is most troubling that he's resorting to using sock IPs, including an apparent proxy, especially light of his previous comments about only using the one IP. As I've said I think it's quite understandable that he'd be reluctant to admit to doing something like this - editors have pride - so I don't think he should be subjected to additional lashing just for that. But we do need to determine what the extent of this is.-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Jagged 85 has already admitted to editing under IP 93.97.55.135, I don't think the SPI is necessary based on that alone. Jagged 85 has already admitted to editing under a proxy and I believe 193.164.132.6 was the one he admitted to using, in which case there's no reason for that one either. Unless an IP which Jagged 85 hasn't admitted to is produced, the checkuser should be rejected to protect Jagged 85's privacy. Thinking about this more, the CU could be useful if there's a search on users to see if any have IP(s) matching the IP addresses underlying Jagged 85's account.
II | (
t -
c)
21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Jagged's concerns about his privacy are suspect. The only one who violated his privacy is himself, by editing from his IP. This SPI in any case will not violate his privacy, as the CU will not share any private info with anyone else. Jagged is moreover experienced enough to know that, so there must be ulterior motives to his insistence (bordering on desperation) on avoiding an SPI. I can only guess that a CU would uncover sleeper accounts, which, considering his past sockpuppetry and extreme tendentiousness are highly likely. This does not appear to be someone who quits easily. Considering the extensive damage he has done to this encyclopedia and the vast area of articles he edits, sleeper accounts would be particularly disruptive and it is very important that they be discovered. Jagged's disingenuous claims about privacy should not stand in the way of this. Athenean ( talk) 21:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have followed the issues regarding Jagged 85's editing from a distance for several weeks and fully support an SPI because it has been established (see the RfC/U, its evidence, and the user's talk page) that Jagged has injected misleading and incorrect statements into many articles, often with a reference that did not support the claim. Jagged has an astonishing enthusiasm for this kind of editing (over 63,000 article edits) and has been very slow to react to questions regarding accuracy. The SPI is needed to establish whether an attempt has been made to avoid scrutiny of edits, or to make it appear that more than one editor supported a particular statement. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined – In general, checkusers do not comment on whether IPs are related to accounts. –
MuZemike
06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, yes. In light of the severe problems pointed out in the RfC/U, the apparent disregard of the RfC/U conclusions, the apparent continuation of the same problematic edits as an IP in avoidance of scrutiny, the strong behavioral evidence that ties account and IP together, and the fact that the IP locates to the same metropolitan area the user has already declared himself in, the breach of privacy would have been both warranted and limited. [1]
But it's moot now since Jagged 85 has acknowledged that (most, assume all) edits by the two IPs mentioned above were made by him. CU would not publicly reveal anything else, so there is nothing that needs to be done here unless there is behavioral evidence for further IPs or accounts.
Blocks are not made for punishment. At this point, I do not see that a block of the Jagged 85 account would prevent any further damage to the encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees and thinks that further consequences are needed then it should go either through ANI or another RfCU.
I am disappointed by this episode. The admitting and accepting words written in the RfCU, while anonymously making the same kind of problematic edits in parallel. The switch to an open proxy once the original IP was blocked to continue the same POV pushing. I see no evidence that Jagged 85 ever meant what he conceded in the RfCU.
I also note that any further inappropriate use of multiple accounts will very likely result in an indefinite block or effective ban.
Amalthea 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This was brought to my attention by other editors at
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#May_2014_Anon_IP_edits_to_Muslim_history_of_science_articles. I started off with an open mind thinking that maybe this was someone else who had a pro-Muslim bias. But after checking a few edits I came to the conclusion it had Jagged_85 written all over it. 86.186.44.113 has no history before 20th May, and then makes 30 substantial edits in ten hours. I simply don't know any other editor who has that level of stamina (or carelessness). This edit:
[1] adds five (!) references to the opening sentence of the lead. Adding references is unusual for an IP; adding five references to the lead is very much Jagged's style. This substantial edit to History of Medicine:
[2] replaces:
practices inherited from the ancient masters were improved and then systematized in Rogerius's The Practice of Surgery. Universities began systematic training of physicians around the years 1220 in Italy
with the text:
medical and surgical practices were improved in medieval Islamic medicine and then systematized in Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine and Rogerius's The Practice of Surgery. Bimaristan medical schools began systematic training of physicians in the Middle East, followed by universities around the years 1220 in Italy.
Anyone who's familiar with Jagged_85's style will recognise that kind of edit. This edit: [3] by 86.157.99.120 is also typical Jagged_85, note large changes close to what Jagged_85's previous version of the article, elimination of the sentence "Critical contemporary reviews of Watson's hypothesis apart", etc. 86.157.103.109 starts editing Arab_Agricultural_Revolution the day after 99.120 and makes edits like this: [4], which adds a large chunk with text like: "Similar changes occurred in the Egyptian city of Fayyum, which, by the early 13th century, had a large-scale hydraulic system with local control of water supply and management. This was, according to historians Yossef Rapoport and Ido Shahar, unique to the medieval Islamic period and not present there in ancient times, much like the hydraulic system found in medieval Islamic Spain", which gives a reference with no support for most of the claims (again, typical Jagged_85). I'm less certain about 87.81.139.93 (I wasn't aware Jagged_85 had such an interest in martial arts), however compare: [5] and [6], which removed Jagged_85's version. The edits to Hospital, Water wheel and Watermill by 139.193 are all in Jagged_85's areas of interest. Merlinme ( talk) 17:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
User has been making same misuse of sources on various game-related articles ( [13], [14], [15], [16]) and they appear to be in the same geographical location (London, England; Jagged 85 says that his location is London). Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Any input, SPI? :) Jagged 85 really was a detrimental editor to the project, with all sorts of false information added, and I can see some similarities in edit styles. I think this is worth looking into. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Banned user Jagged 85 has a history of editing with IPs, including incidents in January 2015. Recently, IPs have been making a large number of problematic edits to Electric blues, [17] Blues rock, [18] Rock music, [19], Origins of rock and roll, [20] and related articles. They add original research, synthesis, copyvio or closely paraphrased material, etc. in an attempt to push barely sustainable minority or fringe views. Their edits are not supported by RS, which often include only a bare url link to a book or blog. In many cases, these IP edits are identical or similar to those by Jagged 85 to the same articles in 2012, such as Origins of rock and roll, [21] Electric blues, [22] Rock music, [23] , etc. They appear to be in the same geographical location (London, England; Jagged 85 says that his location is London). Ojorojo ( talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Even if those disposable IP addresses get banned, I'd believe that the circumstances mightn't alter. -- ♕JenniTheEmpress 16:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
— Ojorojo ( talk) 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who are not aware,
User:Jagged_85 was a user who was banned "for long-term and systematic misrepresentation of sources, despite a previous RFC/U on the same problem". Their initial area of interest was Islamic medieval history and the history of science. They wrote thousands of edits of plausible sounding text which was apparently backed up by references. However, when other editors checked the references, the sources were frequently being misrepresented. The normal problem was that Jagged_85 was determined to say that medieval Islamic thinker X was the father/ founder/ first to do Z, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. A particular favoured area was that the Islamic world had invented something when there were earlier examples in the Greek or Roman world. The sources quoted were sometimes from slightly odd sources, or extremely difficult to obtain sources.
Following a request for comment, Jagged_85 agreed to stop editing Islamic history articles. They started editing Computer games related articles instead. They were soon back to misrepresenting sources however. They tended to inflate sales figures for their favoured games, and go back to claiming game X was the first to do Z, when game X was an example of doing Z (not the first example). Frequently the apparently referenced edits displayed a misunderstanding of the technology described in the sources, using 'buzz words' inappropriately to make the subject sound more exciting and groundbreaking. It is also hard to overestimate the sheer scale of the edits. Jagged_85 made 87,237 edits between 2005 and 2012, roughly 11,000 edits a year. The vast majority of those edits were apparently referenced edits to articles, which obviously put a huge burden on anyone trying to check text and references added by Jagged_85. Following the apparent inability of Jagged_85 to restrain their misuse of sources, they were banned.
I first became aware of Maestro2016 because user DMKR2005 emailed me. This user had become aware of the Jagged_85 saga, and had some suspicions about Maestro2016, largely because of edits Maestro2016 made at the
MOSFET page. They asked me if I had any advice. I had a look at Maestro2016's edit history, and what I saw concerned me.
To conclude then, I think Maestro2016 is a sockpuppet of banned user User:Jagged_85, and needs to be blocked before they do any more damage to the encyclopedia with abuse of sources. Merlinme ( talk) 10:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1. Okay. I might as well use this space to copy-paste my talk page message: "This is not the first time I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, however, but there have in fact been three previous similar sockpuppet investigations against me, which all concluded that I was innocent and not a sock at all. You can see the three previous sockpuppet investigations here: first case (accusing me of being a User:MariaJaydHicky sock), second case ( User:ThreeTwentyTwo sock), and third case ( User:Bazaan sock). In the first case, a CheckUser was carried out, concluding that I was not a sock at all. If I was indeed a sock, then the CU would've picked up on it, yet the conclusion was that I was not a sock. In fact, it turned out that my accuser User:Mario Maraschi was the actual sockpuppet all along, not me. The second case was similarly filed by a user who themselves turned out to be a sock, User:NineTimes. And the third case was filed by someone who was convinced I was a sock, before the investigation eventually concluded that I was not a sock, after a month-long investigation. As you can see, I have a clean record. Three independent sockpuppet investigations (including a CheckUser) all concluded that I'm not a sock at all. If that's not enough to convince you that I'm not a sock, then I'm not sure what else will. For whatever reasons, whenever some editors have a dispute or disagreement with me, or find that there's some other editor out there with some similar edits to me, they suspect me of being a sock. And then I'm forced to prove my innocence. Rinse and repeat. And it's very stressful each and every time. Just because there may be some users out there who may have some similar edits to me, that doesn't mean I must be a sock of those users. I don't know Jagged 85, or MariaJaydHicky, or ThreeTwentyTwo, or Bazaan. I have no connection to these people. Like I've said to my previous accusers, if you have any issues with my edits, then feel free to confront me about it and we can try resolve it together (as long as you're not a sock yourself, as two of my previous accusers turned out to be). The sock-puppet allegations are unnecessary. But if you still don't believe me, then you can go ahead and feel free to file yet another sockpuppet investigation (for the fourth time)."
2. The "earned more" was a reference to the figures in the grain earnings table, where the weaving/spinning earnings for Bengal and South India have a slightly higher average than Britain. Mysore is actually referenced in the source, several pages further down (the Kingdom of Mystore ruled much of South India at the time). Nevertheless, I've acknowledged your criticisms and have since applied your suggested corrections. However, what exactly does this have to do with Jagged_85? Did s/he actually make any similar edits about Mughal/Indian economic history previously?
3. The thing about Box Office Mojo is that it doesn't always give complete figures for Japan box office numbers, because of the way the Japan BO works. In most movie markets, new releases have a big opening and then get phased out from cinemas after a certain number of weeks. Japan is a "legs" market where new releases have a small opening and then successful movies have a long run at the box office, occasionally lasting a whole year. When tracking Japanese movies, BOM occasionally stops tracking after a certain number of weeks, rather than tracking the whole year. So for some Japanese movies, I've used a seperate source for Japan numbers (such as Japan Motion Picture Producers Association) and BOM for overseas numbers. After you brought up Hero, I looked up the Film Business Asia source again and realized it's not entirely clear whether its dollar figure is for Japan or worldwide (I initially assumed it was for Japan because the yen figure matched the number given by the Japan Motion Picture Producers Association), so I have since made a correction there. However, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Did Jagged_85 actually make any similar edits about box office figures in movie articles?
4. I'm struggling to see the similarities. The Jagged_85 message looks like some kind of personal monologue rant. My messages in the talk section you linked to are a debate with another user over different reliable sources that give differing manga sales numbers, with the debate ending in a compromise (a ranged figure).
5. You're misrepresenting my talk page. Nowhere does the word "abuse" pop up anywhere, except for a sockpuppet allegation (which later concluded that I was not guilty). Phmoreno is a banned user, so can't really be taken seriously. 619XXXX is the same person as Wiki KuthiVaiyans, who stopped using his/her 619XXXX account, and our debate was over manga sales (same debate mentioned in #4 above). Almostangelic123 was criticizing me for citing too many reliable sources which describe Katie Hopkins as "far-right", not doubting the reliability of those sources. As for the others, they did question me over the reliability of sources I was initially using in movie articles. But in my defense, I was new to editing movie articles back then, took their advice on board, and since then haven't received any such criticisms over movie sources. But again, what does any of this have to do with Jagged_85? Was he involved in any similar debates over movie box office or manga sales?
6. You're misrepresenting my edits. Before I began editing the article, the History section of MOSFET consisted of just a single sentence on Lilenfield followed by a paragraph on Atalla and Kahng, and that's it. There was no mention of Heil, Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Sah, Wanlass, Deal, Grove, Sarace, Klein or Faggin anywhere. Who added their contributions to the article? That's right, me! Your claim that I ignored their contributions is nonsensical when I was the one who added their contributions to the article in the first place. You're making it sound as if I dedicated the History section almost entirely to just Atalla, when he actually only got two paragraphs (one shared with Kahng) out of the eight paragraphs I wrote in the History section. You're focusing on those two paragraphs and ignoring the six other paragraphs where I described the contributions of others. And for the record, I had previously already added the contributions of Sarace, Klein, Faggin and others to the MOS IC section.
7. There are a ton of editors out there with far more edits. Are you suggesting anyone with a large volume of edits must necessarily be a Jagged_85 sock? That sounds similar to a previous sockpuppet allegation against me, where one of the reasons I was accused of being a sock of User:Bazaan (which turned out to be a false allegation) was because s/he apparently made a large volume of edits. Also, you've agreed yourself that the source states "the Atalla passivation technique" which is exactly how I phrased it, so how exactly is this a misrepresentation of the source? I added the term "Atalla passivation" simply to avoid confusion and distinguish his specific silicon surface passivation technique used in microelectronics from other forms of chemical surface passivation discussed in the same article.
8. Again, you're misprepresenting my edits. I didn't say "the most important invention", but said "possibly the most important invention". I noted that it was the MOSFET itself that wasn't recognized with a Nobel Prize, not that Atalla was snubbed. As for the "MOS LSI calculator" thing, that was a typo. What I meant to say is that the Victor 3900 was the first "MOS calculator" and this was the source I meant to refer to (as you've noted yourself). In fact, I mentioned above in the MOS LSI section that MOS LSI tech appeared in the late '60s, which is several years after the Victor 3900 was made in 1965, which clearly shows it was a typo. And the reference says 2010 because I got the ref from the Sharp QT-8D article (where I presume it was added in 2010). Besides, I'm not sure how this is even "characteristic" of Jagged_85? Didn't s/he have some kind of strong anti-Western agenda? How would me giving precedence to American inventions (Victor 3900 and Texas Instruments Cal-Tech) over a Japanese product (Sharp QT-8D) be "characteristic" of Jagged_85? That sounds like the very opposite of Jagged_85.
9. That was over a year ago, not a month ago. The Mughal Empire mainly falls under Indian history, though I guess it is also related to Islamic history (due to Muslim rulers). As for the tonnage thing, the source shows a table where it states the annual mercantile tonnage is 207,500 tons, which Ray elaborates on and states the mercantile+defense shipping tonnage is 2,232,500 tons. This was a reference to the total shipping tonnage. He then states 10% were replaced, which comes to 223,250 tons. So they're referring to two types of tonnage, one for shipping (which I initially thought was for shipbuilding) and the other for replacements.
10. It's not hard to search up your own name. I sometimes search myself up to check for any article talk page discussions I might be involved in. That's when I came across your comments about me on the DMKR2005 and Jagged_85 pages.
11. You have not presented any evidence of me actually repeating any claims previously made by Jagged_85. That would usually be one of the strongest indicators of sockpuppet behaviour, when a sock repeats or restores material from a puppetmaster. When have I ever done this with Jagged_85? One reason why my previous sockpuppet case involving Bazaan dragged on for a whole month was because we somehow ended up making some similar claims and repeating some similar material (to my surprise), before the investigation eventually concluded that we're two entirely different people. I'm certainly not aware of repeating any claims that Jagged_85 had previously made.
12. What Jagged_85 apparently seems to be known for is pushing bizarro fringe theories that claim "medieval Islamic inventor/thinker X first invented/fathered/mothered something Y". When have I even written anything about medieval Islamic inventors/thinkers? And his video game edits apparently seem to more-or-less do the same thing with Japanese video games, claiming that "Japanese game X first invented something Y". Again, I don't recall ever making any such edits to video game articles either. We're clearly two entirely different people.
Maestro2016 ( talk) 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Since my name has been invoked, I'll chime in.
Misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources is a widespread problem in South Asian topics (maybe in all topics, but I specialize in South Asia). Sometimes it's malicious, often pushing a nationalist or religious point of view, sometimes it's because of a lack of fluency in English, and sometimes it's just a mistake.
Points #2 and #9 presented as evidence of sockpuppetry are unconvincing. Merlinme writes,
The normal problem was that Jagged_85 was determined to say that medieval Islamic thinker X was the father/ founder/ first to do Z ... The sources quoted were sometimes from slightly odd sources, or extremely difficult to obtain sources.
In my experience, sockpuppets have a hard time changing their stripes. Maestro2016's edits to
Economy of India under the British Raj and
Mughal Empire are not of the X was the father of Z form. The sources Maestro2016 cited were on-topic, from major academic publishers, and were linked to Google Books previews, so not odd or obscure. Nor has Jagged 85 been shown to have inserted the same content into those two articles.
As stated in point #5, I warned Maestro2016 in 2017 against citing a self-published blog. I've warned hundreds of editors about not citing sources, not citing reliable sources, or citing sources that fail verification. They aren't all sockpuppets of Jagged 85. The whole business of "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" and "editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia" is poorly grasped by novice editors.
In point #4, it is unclear what "quite significant" writing style similarities we are supposed to see between the two talk page links.
I haven't considered the points raised about computer games or MOSFET because they are outside my area of expertise.
There is considerable overlap (682 articles) in the editing of Jagged 85 and Maestro2016. But that might be explained by both being male, of South Asian descent, living in the UK, and growing up in the same decade. If Maestro2016 has made bad edits, take them to task for that, but I would need stronger evidence to be persuaded of sockpuppetry. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey I believe I noticed Maestro2016 in November last year with his edits on computer related technology, in particular on MOSFET. These edits where strangely familiar with Jagged_85: Taking important figure and exaggerating everything so much about them, that it completely messed up the whole history.If you read his edits it would lead you to believe that Information Age, Digital Revolution and everything related to it, are all largely the product of Atalla work on Mosfet. I've read Arjun Saxena's Invention of Integrated Circuits:Untold Important Facts, for example, and comparing it with articles about Integrated Circuit and Invention of the integrated circuit, I believe Maestro2016's edits seriously exaggerate Atalla's role and MOSFET technology in particular. The book just mention Atalla briefly as one of important figures,together with Fuller and Ditzenberger, Frosh and Derrick, Tanenbaum and Scheibner, that led Jean Hoerni to the development of the planar technology. Also take a look Maestro2016's edits in List of IEEE milestones that added Atalla using this source [64]. I can't find anything about Atalla there, which leads me to conclude that Maestro2016 simply invented these claims. This sound like classical Jagged_85 since he had a tendency to give references which do not support his edits. Or look at the claim that "In 2018, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences which awards the science Nobel Prizes acknowledged that the invention of the MOSFET by Atalla and Kahng was one of the most important inventions in microelectronics and in information and communications technology (ICT) in Mohamed_M._Atalla article. The reference in fact simply say that "Other important inventions include the prevailing MOS-FET (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor) by D. Kahng and M.M. Atalla and the microprocessor by T. Hoff." Again this sounds very similar to Jagged_85 who had tendency to misinterpret the sources. Irregardless I believe that his edits would require major cleanup. Thanks, that's my take on the whole situation DMKR2005 ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This concern was previously brought up in 2020 with no action taken, but after discussing it with fellow WP:VG members, I feel it needs to be looked into again. I believe there's a compelling amount of evidence to suggest that Maestro2016 is in fact Jagged 85.
Here are my specific concerns:
It appears as if the 2020 SPI was treated as a "misplaced content dispute" rather than a genuine sockpuppetry case, so I think that this absolutely warrants to be properly looked into since it wasn't when first brought up. I'm hoping to be persuaded otherwise, but I think it's very plausible we have a sock on our hands. JOE BRO 64 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
After Maestro2016 was blocked, this IP address began edit-warring at First-person shooter. I understand CheckUser results will not be disclosed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Editor Jagged 85 was recently the subject of an RfC/U in which he accepted that he had been editing in an unacceptable manner at Wikipedia for several years. Other editors had characterised this as a systematic misrepresentation of sources to exaggerate the achievements of non-western scholars in general, and Muslim scholars in particular, in a huge number of articles.
As soon as the RfC/U was opened Jagged 85 almost entirely stopped editing via his account, saying, on his talk page, that "I'm in the middle of an RFC now, so I don't think it's a good idea for me to be editing articles right now". But within five hours of the RfC/U being opened, he began to edit from the IP address 93.97.55.135 and, among other things, began restoring some of his contributions to Wikipedia that had been removed by other editors. Jagged 85 has now admitted that this is his IP address and that many of these edits were his, including at least one which violated an agreement that he had undertaken to abide by at the conclusion of his RFC/U.
On June 11th Amalthea blocked the IP address as an apparently abusive sock puppet of Jagged 85 (see discussions here and here). Then on the very next day after having his IP blocked, he apparently began to edit the Forced Conversion page (again) but this time from an open proxy, 193.164.132.6, subsequently blocked by Zzuuzz as a proxy (hidemyipaddress.org). Jagged 85 appears to have also admitted that these edits were again his.
Abusive nature of edits
The following edits from the IP addresses 93.97.55.135 and 193.164.132.6 were made after the conclusion of Jagged 85's RFC/U:
Whichever of these Jagged 85 was responsible for (he has only explicitly admitted to the first, but has not so far denied making any of the others) constitute surreptitious contributions to Wikipedia on topics relating to Islamic civilisation ( Rashidun Caliphate and Forced conversion) and to the history of science ( Reciprocating engine#Historyand History of calculus) and which are therefore contrary to his agreement at the conclusion of his RfC/U on April 27th not to edit such articles. In all four cases, the re-inserted information had been disputed as inaccurate and removed by other editors. Therefore any of those edits which Jagged 85 was responsible for clearly constitute an abuse of the anonymity provided by the IP addresses. Resorting to the proxy 193.164.132.6 to continue editing anonymously after his own IP address was blocked is a further sign of abuse.
Reason for requesting checkuser evidence
Five days after another editor asked Jagged 85 on his talk page whether he was responsible for edits from the IP address 93.97.55.135, and 4 days after I began preparing a case for a sock-puppet investigation, the latter eventually admitted that "a sizeable portion" of the edits from that IP address had been his. In the ensuing discussion he wrote the following:
which appeared to other editors reading it to imply (as it does to me) that he was claiming not to have used any other IP addresses (including proxies) to edit anonymously. After it was later discovered that he seemed to have also been editing from the proxy IP address 193.164.132.6, he seemed to admit that he had in fact been doing so, but vehemently denied that anything he had written had implied otherwise, or that he had been editing from any other accounts or IP addresses. These denials do not appear to me to be credible. I am therefore requesting for a checkuser to search for sleeper accounts that Jagged 85 might have established, and any other IP addresses that he might have been using to edit anonymously, especially as he now appears to have been editing via a proxy.
Jagged 85
has expressed a strong desire to avoid checkuser for privacy reasons. This fear seems to be misplaced, especially if he has edited only from his account and the two IP addresses which he has seemingly admitted to. Nevertheless, administrators who become involved with the case need to be made aware of it.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I have already expressed all I wanted to say on this issue at my user talk page: User talk:Jagged 85#Hello. In summary, I agree that what I've sone is unacceptable. I don't wish to make excuses to justify my behaviour, other than that I was unable to handle the pressure of each of my edits being under scrutiny, thus resorted to hiding behind an IP. However, I think it's important to point out that I have never abused the IP for any persistent disruptive editing or vandalism, as you can see from the list of edits made using that IP. In addition, contrary to the claims of several users, I am not hiding behind any other IP, but had only been using the static IP 93.97.55.135 (now blocked for six months) and had attempted to use the proxy 193.164.132.6 (immediately blocked for five years); after my attempt at using a proxy had failed, it would be pointless for me to try using another proxy (as it would also get detected and blocked immediately). As such, if a CheckUser investigation was to be carried out, I am absolutely confident you will not find any other IP or account, thus it would not be worth the effort in my view. However, if others still believe my testimony is untrustworthy and demand a CheckUser investigation, then my only request is that I do not want any personal information being revealed. Other than that, I am willing to accept any harsh punishment for hiding behind an IP. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 14:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My response to User:Athenean is that all of his claims are false and a CheckUser investigation would only confirm it. The only thing that is of concern to me is whether any personal details will be revealed. I'm clearly not "experienced enough" to know how much information the CheckUser tool can obtain, since I have obviously not been subjected to any SPI investigation in the past. If all it does is obtain IP addresses, then it's not a problem, but how am I supposed to know what other information it can obtain? If my personal identity were to come out into the open, how am I not supposed to worry about that? This might not be a big deal to you, but it is a big deal to me. Regards, Jagged 85 ( talk) 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the editor who originally introduced the material on reciprocating engines in Roman times. This material has also been introduced by me in a number of other articles such as Hierapolis sawmill, crank (mechanism), crankshaft and connecting rod where it has been unchallenged by other editors save Jagged 85 to this day. The last edit by 93.97.55.135, continues Jagged 85's pattern of inserting claims that are not supported by the cited source and violates the agreement to avoid such edits. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 23:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a striking similarity between the editing profile of IP 93.97.55.135 and that of Jagged 85. We need to confirm whether this similarity indicates a single editor. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been involved in this discussion, but stumbled across the 193.164.132.6 IP while following up on an unrelated issue at Forced conversion. Jagged 85 has since admitted that this is also him. It is most troubling that he's resorting to using sock IPs, including an apparent proxy, especially light of his previous comments about only using the one IP. As I've said I think it's quite understandable that he'd be reluctant to admit to doing something like this - editors have pride - so I don't think he should be subjected to additional lashing just for that. But we do need to determine what the extent of this is.-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Jagged 85 has already admitted to editing under IP 93.97.55.135, I don't think the SPI is necessary based on that alone. Jagged 85 has already admitted to editing under a proxy and I believe 193.164.132.6 was the one he admitted to using, in which case there's no reason for that one either. Unless an IP which Jagged 85 hasn't admitted to is produced, the checkuser should be rejected to protect Jagged 85's privacy. Thinking about this more, the CU could be useful if there's a search on users to see if any have IP(s) matching the IP addresses underlying Jagged 85's account.
II | (
t -
c)
21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Jagged's concerns about his privacy are suspect. The only one who violated his privacy is himself, by editing from his IP. This SPI in any case will not violate his privacy, as the CU will not share any private info with anyone else. Jagged is moreover experienced enough to know that, so there must be ulterior motives to his insistence (bordering on desperation) on avoiding an SPI. I can only guess that a CU would uncover sleeper accounts, which, considering his past sockpuppetry and extreme tendentiousness are highly likely. This does not appear to be someone who quits easily. Considering the extensive damage he has done to this encyclopedia and the vast area of articles he edits, sleeper accounts would be particularly disruptive and it is very important that they be discovered. Jagged's disingenuous claims about privacy should not stand in the way of this. Athenean ( talk) 21:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have followed the issues regarding Jagged 85's editing from a distance for several weeks and fully support an SPI because it has been established (see the RfC/U, its evidence, and the user's talk page) that Jagged has injected misleading and incorrect statements into many articles, often with a reference that did not support the claim. Jagged has an astonishing enthusiasm for this kind of editing (over 63,000 article edits) and has been very slow to react to questions regarding accuracy. The SPI is needed to establish whether an attempt has been made to avoid scrutiny of edits, or to make it appear that more than one editor supported a particular statement. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk declined – In general, checkusers do not comment on whether IPs are related to accounts. –
MuZemike
06:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, yes. In light of the severe problems pointed out in the RfC/U, the apparent disregard of the RfC/U conclusions, the apparent continuation of the same problematic edits as an IP in avoidance of scrutiny, the strong behavioral evidence that ties account and IP together, and the fact that the IP locates to the same metropolitan area the user has already declared himself in, the breach of privacy would have been both warranted and limited. [1]
But it's moot now since Jagged 85 has acknowledged that (most, assume all) edits by the two IPs mentioned above were made by him. CU would not publicly reveal anything else, so there is nothing that needs to be done here unless there is behavioral evidence for further IPs or accounts.
Blocks are not made for punishment. At this point, I do not see that a block of the Jagged 85 account would prevent any further damage to the encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees and thinks that further consequences are needed then it should go either through ANI or another RfCU.
I am disappointed by this episode. The admitting and accepting words written in the RfCU, while anonymously making the same kind of problematic edits in parallel. The switch to an open proxy once the original IP was blocked to continue the same POV pushing. I see no evidence that Jagged 85 ever meant what he conceded in the RfCU.
I also note that any further inappropriate use of multiple accounts will very likely result in an indefinite block or effective ban.
Amalthea 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This was brought to my attention by other editors at
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#May_2014_Anon_IP_edits_to_Muslim_history_of_science_articles. I started off with an open mind thinking that maybe this was someone else who had a pro-Muslim bias. But after checking a few edits I came to the conclusion it had Jagged_85 written all over it. 86.186.44.113 has no history before 20th May, and then makes 30 substantial edits in ten hours. I simply don't know any other editor who has that level of stamina (or carelessness). This edit:
[1] adds five (!) references to the opening sentence of the lead. Adding references is unusual for an IP; adding five references to the lead is very much Jagged's style. This substantial edit to History of Medicine:
[2] replaces:
practices inherited from the ancient masters were improved and then systematized in Rogerius's The Practice of Surgery. Universities began systematic training of physicians around the years 1220 in Italy
with the text:
medical and surgical practices were improved in medieval Islamic medicine and then systematized in Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine and Rogerius's The Practice of Surgery. Bimaristan medical schools began systematic training of physicians in the Middle East, followed by universities around the years 1220 in Italy.
Anyone who's familiar with Jagged_85's style will recognise that kind of edit. This edit: [3] by 86.157.99.120 is also typical Jagged_85, note large changes close to what Jagged_85's previous version of the article, elimination of the sentence "Critical contemporary reviews of Watson's hypothesis apart", etc. 86.157.103.109 starts editing Arab_Agricultural_Revolution the day after 99.120 and makes edits like this: [4], which adds a large chunk with text like: "Similar changes occurred in the Egyptian city of Fayyum, which, by the early 13th century, had a large-scale hydraulic system with local control of water supply and management. This was, according to historians Yossef Rapoport and Ido Shahar, unique to the medieval Islamic period and not present there in ancient times, much like the hydraulic system found in medieval Islamic Spain", which gives a reference with no support for most of the claims (again, typical Jagged_85). I'm less certain about 87.81.139.93 (I wasn't aware Jagged_85 had such an interest in martial arts), however compare: [5] and [6], which removed Jagged_85's version. The edits to Hospital, Water wheel and Watermill by 139.193 are all in Jagged_85's areas of interest. Merlinme ( talk) 17:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
User has been making same misuse of sources on various game-related articles ( [13], [14], [15], [16]) and they appear to be in the same geographical location (London, England; Jagged 85 says that his location is London). Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Any input, SPI? :) Jagged 85 really was a detrimental editor to the project, with all sorts of false information added, and I can see some similarities in edit styles. I think this is worth looking into. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Banned user Jagged 85 has a history of editing with IPs, including incidents in January 2015. Recently, IPs have been making a large number of problematic edits to Electric blues, [17] Blues rock, [18] Rock music, [19], Origins of rock and roll, [20] and related articles. They add original research, synthesis, copyvio or closely paraphrased material, etc. in an attempt to push barely sustainable minority or fringe views. Their edits are not supported by RS, which often include only a bare url link to a book or blog. In many cases, these IP edits are identical or similar to those by Jagged 85 to the same articles in 2012, such as Origins of rock and roll, [21] Electric blues, [22] Rock music, [23] , etc. They appear to be in the same geographical location (London, England; Jagged 85 says that his location is London). Ojorojo ( talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Even if those disposable IP addresses get banned, I'd believe that the circumstances mightn't alter. -- ♕JenniTheEmpress 16:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
— Ojorojo ( talk) 19:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who are not aware,
User:Jagged_85 was a user who was banned "for long-term and systematic misrepresentation of sources, despite a previous RFC/U on the same problem". Their initial area of interest was Islamic medieval history and the history of science. They wrote thousands of edits of plausible sounding text which was apparently backed up by references. However, when other editors checked the references, the sources were frequently being misrepresented. The normal problem was that Jagged_85 was determined to say that medieval Islamic thinker X was the father/ founder/ first to do Z, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. A particular favoured area was that the Islamic world had invented something when there were earlier examples in the Greek or Roman world. The sources quoted were sometimes from slightly odd sources, or extremely difficult to obtain sources.
Following a request for comment, Jagged_85 agreed to stop editing Islamic history articles. They started editing Computer games related articles instead. They were soon back to misrepresenting sources however. They tended to inflate sales figures for their favoured games, and go back to claiming game X was the first to do Z, when game X was an example of doing Z (not the first example). Frequently the apparently referenced edits displayed a misunderstanding of the technology described in the sources, using 'buzz words' inappropriately to make the subject sound more exciting and groundbreaking. It is also hard to overestimate the sheer scale of the edits. Jagged_85 made 87,237 edits between 2005 and 2012, roughly 11,000 edits a year. The vast majority of those edits were apparently referenced edits to articles, which obviously put a huge burden on anyone trying to check text and references added by Jagged_85. Following the apparent inability of Jagged_85 to restrain their misuse of sources, they were banned.
I first became aware of Maestro2016 because user DMKR2005 emailed me. This user had become aware of the Jagged_85 saga, and had some suspicions about Maestro2016, largely because of edits Maestro2016 made at the
MOSFET page. They asked me if I had any advice. I had a look at Maestro2016's edit history, and what I saw concerned me.
To conclude then, I think Maestro2016 is a sockpuppet of banned user User:Jagged_85, and needs to be blocked before they do any more damage to the encyclopedia with abuse of sources. Merlinme ( talk) 10:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
1. Okay. I might as well use this space to copy-paste my talk page message: "This is not the first time I've been accused of being a sockpuppet, however, but there have in fact been three previous similar sockpuppet investigations against me, which all concluded that I was innocent and not a sock at all. You can see the three previous sockpuppet investigations here: first case (accusing me of being a User:MariaJaydHicky sock), second case ( User:ThreeTwentyTwo sock), and third case ( User:Bazaan sock). In the first case, a CheckUser was carried out, concluding that I was not a sock at all. If I was indeed a sock, then the CU would've picked up on it, yet the conclusion was that I was not a sock. In fact, it turned out that my accuser User:Mario Maraschi was the actual sockpuppet all along, not me. The second case was similarly filed by a user who themselves turned out to be a sock, User:NineTimes. And the third case was filed by someone who was convinced I was a sock, before the investigation eventually concluded that I was not a sock, after a month-long investigation. As you can see, I have a clean record. Three independent sockpuppet investigations (including a CheckUser) all concluded that I'm not a sock at all. If that's not enough to convince you that I'm not a sock, then I'm not sure what else will. For whatever reasons, whenever some editors have a dispute or disagreement with me, or find that there's some other editor out there with some similar edits to me, they suspect me of being a sock. And then I'm forced to prove my innocence. Rinse and repeat. And it's very stressful each and every time. Just because there may be some users out there who may have some similar edits to me, that doesn't mean I must be a sock of those users. I don't know Jagged 85, or MariaJaydHicky, or ThreeTwentyTwo, or Bazaan. I have no connection to these people. Like I've said to my previous accusers, if you have any issues with my edits, then feel free to confront me about it and we can try resolve it together (as long as you're not a sock yourself, as two of my previous accusers turned out to be). The sock-puppet allegations are unnecessary. But if you still don't believe me, then you can go ahead and feel free to file yet another sockpuppet investigation (for the fourth time)."
2. The "earned more" was a reference to the figures in the grain earnings table, where the weaving/spinning earnings for Bengal and South India have a slightly higher average than Britain. Mysore is actually referenced in the source, several pages further down (the Kingdom of Mystore ruled much of South India at the time). Nevertheless, I've acknowledged your criticisms and have since applied your suggested corrections. However, what exactly does this have to do with Jagged_85? Did s/he actually make any similar edits about Mughal/Indian economic history previously?
3. The thing about Box Office Mojo is that it doesn't always give complete figures for Japan box office numbers, because of the way the Japan BO works. In most movie markets, new releases have a big opening and then get phased out from cinemas after a certain number of weeks. Japan is a "legs" market where new releases have a small opening and then successful movies have a long run at the box office, occasionally lasting a whole year. When tracking Japanese movies, BOM occasionally stops tracking after a certain number of weeks, rather than tracking the whole year. So for some Japanese movies, I've used a seperate source for Japan numbers (such as Japan Motion Picture Producers Association) and BOM for overseas numbers. After you brought up Hero, I looked up the Film Business Asia source again and realized it's not entirely clear whether its dollar figure is for Japan or worldwide (I initially assumed it was for Japan because the yen figure matched the number given by the Japan Motion Picture Producers Association), so I have since made a correction there. However, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Did Jagged_85 actually make any similar edits about box office figures in movie articles?
4. I'm struggling to see the similarities. The Jagged_85 message looks like some kind of personal monologue rant. My messages in the talk section you linked to are a debate with another user over different reliable sources that give differing manga sales numbers, with the debate ending in a compromise (a ranged figure).
5. You're misrepresenting my talk page. Nowhere does the word "abuse" pop up anywhere, except for a sockpuppet allegation (which later concluded that I was not guilty). Phmoreno is a banned user, so can't really be taken seriously. 619XXXX is the same person as Wiki KuthiVaiyans, who stopped using his/her 619XXXX account, and our debate was over manga sales (same debate mentioned in #4 above). Almostangelic123 was criticizing me for citing too many reliable sources which describe Katie Hopkins as "far-right", not doubting the reliability of those sources. As for the others, they did question me over the reliability of sources I was initially using in movie articles. But in my defense, I was new to editing movie articles back then, took their advice on board, and since then haven't received any such criticisms over movie sources. But again, what does any of this have to do with Jagged_85? Was he involved in any similar debates over movie box office or manga sales?
6. You're misrepresenting my edits. Before I began editing the article, the History section of MOSFET consisted of just a single sentence on Lilenfield followed by a paragraph on Atalla and Kahng, and that's it. There was no mention of Heil, Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Sah, Wanlass, Deal, Grove, Sarace, Klein or Faggin anywhere. Who added their contributions to the article? That's right, me! Your claim that I ignored their contributions is nonsensical when I was the one who added their contributions to the article in the first place. You're making it sound as if I dedicated the History section almost entirely to just Atalla, when he actually only got two paragraphs (one shared with Kahng) out of the eight paragraphs I wrote in the History section. You're focusing on those two paragraphs and ignoring the six other paragraphs where I described the contributions of others. And for the record, I had previously already added the contributions of Sarace, Klein, Faggin and others to the MOS IC section.
7. There are a ton of editors out there with far more edits. Are you suggesting anyone with a large volume of edits must necessarily be a Jagged_85 sock? That sounds similar to a previous sockpuppet allegation against me, where one of the reasons I was accused of being a sock of User:Bazaan (which turned out to be a false allegation) was because s/he apparently made a large volume of edits. Also, you've agreed yourself that the source states "the Atalla passivation technique" which is exactly how I phrased it, so how exactly is this a misrepresentation of the source? I added the term "Atalla passivation" simply to avoid confusion and distinguish his specific silicon surface passivation technique used in microelectronics from other forms of chemical surface passivation discussed in the same article.
8. Again, you're misprepresenting my edits. I didn't say "the most important invention", but said "possibly the most important invention". I noted that it was the MOSFET itself that wasn't recognized with a Nobel Prize, not that Atalla was snubbed. As for the "MOS LSI calculator" thing, that was a typo. What I meant to say is that the Victor 3900 was the first "MOS calculator" and this was the source I meant to refer to (as you've noted yourself). In fact, I mentioned above in the MOS LSI section that MOS LSI tech appeared in the late '60s, which is several years after the Victor 3900 was made in 1965, which clearly shows it was a typo. And the reference says 2010 because I got the ref from the Sharp QT-8D article (where I presume it was added in 2010). Besides, I'm not sure how this is even "characteristic" of Jagged_85? Didn't s/he have some kind of strong anti-Western agenda? How would me giving precedence to American inventions (Victor 3900 and Texas Instruments Cal-Tech) over a Japanese product (Sharp QT-8D) be "characteristic" of Jagged_85? That sounds like the very opposite of Jagged_85.
9. That was over a year ago, not a month ago. The Mughal Empire mainly falls under Indian history, though I guess it is also related to Islamic history (due to Muslim rulers). As for the tonnage thing, the source shows a table where it states the annual mercantile tonnage is 207,500 tons, which Ray elaborates on and states the mercantile+defense shipping tonnage is 2,232,500 tons. This was a reference to the total shipping tonnage. He then states 10% were replaced, which comes to 223,250 tons. So they're referring to two types of tonnage, one for shipping (which I initially thought was for shipbuilding) and the other for replacements.
10. It's not hard to search up your own name. I sometimes search myself up to check for any article talk page discussions I might be involved in. That's when I came across your comments about me on the DMKR2005 and Jagged_85 pages.
11. You have not presented any evidence of me actually repeating any claims previously made by Jagged_85. That would usually be one of the strongest indicators of sockpuppet behaviour, when a sock repeats or restores material from a puppetmaster. When have I ever done this with Jagged_85? One reason why my previous sockpuppet case involving Bazaan dragged on for a whole month was because we somehow ended up making some similar claims and repeating some similar material (to my surprise), before the investigation eventually concluded that we're two entirely different people. I'm certainly not aware of repeating any claims that Jagged_85 had previously made.
12. What Jagged_85 apparently seems to be known for is pushing bizarro fringe theories that claim "medieval Islamic inventor/thinker X first invented/fathered/mothered something Y". When have I even written anything about medieval Islamic inventors/thinkers? And his video game edits apparently seem to more-or-less do the same thing with Japanese video games, claiming that "Japanese game X first invented something Y". Again, I don't recall ever making any such edits to video game articles either. We're clearly two entirely different people.
Maestro2016 ( talk) 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Since my name has been invoked, I'll chime in.
Misinterpreting or misrepresenting sources is a widespread problem in South Asian topics (maybe in all topics, but I specialize in South Asia). Sometimes it's malicious, often pushing a nationalist or religious point of view, sometimes it's because of a lack of fluency in English, and sometimes it's just a mistake.
Points #2 and #9 presented as evidence of sockpuppetry are unconvincing. Merlinme writes,
The normal problem was that Jagged_85 was determined to say that medieval Islamic thinker X was the father/ founder/ first to do Z ... The sources quoted were sometimes from slightly odd sources, or extremely difficult to obtain sources.
In my experience, sockpuppets have a hard time changing their stripes. Maestro2016's edits to
Economy of India under the British Raj and
Mughal Empire are not of the X was the father of Z form. The sources Maestro2016 cited were on-topic, from major academic publishers, and were linked to Google Books previews, so not odd or obscure. Nor has Jagged 85 been shown to have inserted the same content into those two articles.
As stated in point #5, I warned Maestro2016 in 2017 against citing a self-published blog. I've warned hundreds of editors about not citing sources, not citing reliable sources, or citing sources that fail verification. They aren't all sockpuppets of Jagged 85. The whole business of "strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" and "editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia" is poorly grasped by novice editors.
In point #4, it is unclear what "quite significant" writing style similarities we are supposed to see between the two talk page links.
I haven't considered the points raised about computer games or MOSFET because they are outside my area of expertise.
There is considerable overlap (682 articles) in the editing of Jagged 85 and Maestro2016. But that might be explained by both being male, of South Asian descent, living in the UK, and growing up in the same decade. If Maestro2016 has made bad edits, take them to task for that, but I would need stronger evidence to be persuaded of sockpuppetry. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 15:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey I believe I noticed Maestro2016 in November last year with his edits on computer related technology, in particular on MOSFET. These edits where strangely familiar with Jagged_85: Taking important figure and exaggerating everything so much about them, that it completely messed up the whole history.If you read his edits it would lead you to believe that Information Age, Digital Revolution and everything related to it, are all largely the product of Atalla work on Mosfet. I've read Arjun Saxena's Invention of Integrated Circuits:Untold Important Facts, for example, and comparing it with articles about Integrated Circuit and Invention of the integrated circuit, I believe Maestro2016's edits seriously exaggerate Atalla's role and MOSFET technology in particular. The book just mention Atalla briefly as one of important figures,together with Fuller and Ditzenberger, Frosh and Derrick, Tanenbaum and Scheibner, that led Jean Hoerni to the development of the planar technology. Also take a look Maestro2016's edits in List of IEEE milestones that added Atalla using this source [64]. I can't find anything about Atalla there, which leads me to conclude that Maestro2016 simply invented these claims. This sound like classical Jagged_85 since he had a tendency to give references which do not support his edits. Or look at the claim that "In 2018, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences which awards the science Nobel Prizes acknowledged that the invention of the MOSFET by Atalla and Kahng was one of the most important inventions in microelectronics and in information and communications technology (ICT) in Mohamed_M._Atalla article. The reference in fact simply say that "Other important inventions include the prevailing MOS-FET (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor) by D. Kahng and M.M. Atalla and the microprocessor by T. Hoff." Again this sounds very similar to Jagged_85 who had tendency to misinterpret the sources. Irregardless I believe that his edits would require major cleanup. Thanks, that's my take on the whole situation DMKR2005 ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This concern was previously brought up in 2020 with no action taken, but after discussing it with fellow WP:VG members, I feel it needs to be looked into again. I believe there's a compelling amount of evidence to suggest that Maestro2016 is in fact Jagged 85.
Here are my specific concerns:
It appears as if the 2020 SPI was treated as a "misplaced content dispute" rather than a genuine sockpuppetry case, so I think that this absolutely warrants to be properly looked into since it wasn't when first brought up. I'm hoping to be persuaded otherwise, but I think it's very plausible we have a sock on our hands. JOE BRO 64 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
After Maestro2016 was blocked, this IP address began edit-warring at First-person shooter. I understand CheckUser results will not be disclosed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.