User:Andrew Lancaster/Notes

Notes and diffs.

summary

short

User:Jayjg disagrees with editor consensus concerning one source which is being used (infrequently) on WP, (The Journal of Genetic Genealogy).

It is a genetic genealogy source, which therefore touches upon population genetics, and it is in when it comes close to genetics itself that's its reliability is sometimes questioned. However in no case I know of has this been because it clashed with peer-reviewed sources. None of the cases being abjected to are anything more than basic synthesis and not technical.

His problem with the source appears to go back some years to a citation it was once used for on Khazars which he apparently felt could be used to justify anti-semitic theories.

(NOTE: The author in that case was however a Jewish genealogist and no-one claims she is anti-semitic. The citation was also scientifically correct, citing good sources. So in that case the information is now simply sourced from primary sources on that article, which is how it should be.)

There has been an RSN discussion[1] (also see my summary of participant positions), discussions on article talk pages, and slow edit wars on articles[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] which show Jayjg is in conflict with consensus.
I was in the RSN case discussion, where there was eventually a consensus against his position, and I noticed that Jayjg afterwards started a sweep of some genetics articles, which he normally does not edit on, removing this source, then reverting any editors who reverted him. I have a lot of genetics article on my watch list, so I contacted him pro-actively on his talk page and after 3 weeks of strikingly (I would have to say obviously deliberate) circular discussion[17] I gave up on that discussion, explaining my reasoning, and went to the article talk pages involved, as well as starting to participate more in trying to resolve any disputes I could. (After which he has announced that I am banned from his talk page unless I first answer a question he made up, which I had in any case already answered.)
In some cases I found a stable arrangement with him[18][19], but in others I continue to fail[20].
Unfortunately I see no sign that this problem won't simply go on forever from one article to another. Jayjg, I have learnt, has a very strong and inflexible character and simply will not back down no matter what he needs to say or do.
Jayjg is taking deliberately combative positions which are impossible to reconcile with logic, for example insisting that the RSN case was a consensus in his favor when anyone can see that it was not (See my analysis), and insisting on talk page and editing behavior which seems particularly unsuitable for someone of his experience and apparent standing in this community.([See my list of links to different discussions and edits])
As I have seen several times on genetics-related articles, it appears (as mentioned above) that Jayjg feels justified to work outside norms because he feels that he his helping hold out racists or similarly unpleasant abusers of genetics. I have sympathy, but I feel strongly, especially based upon my experience dealing with similar editors in the past on such articles, that this is not a valid justification, and in fact does the opposite of helping any good cause. (I know it is not normally a good idea to guess intentions, but I do so here because it helps make the situation more understandable. Without that guess Jayjg's behavior only looks worse, not better.) I would in fact claim that I've done as much as anyone to try to get genetics articles into a better condition where covert racism is less of a danger. But this is not possible to do by trying to censor what reliable sources say. Such behavior, outside of WP norms, only leads to paranoia and edit wars, which are the perfect cover for real trouble makers to get their way on WP.

differing rationales

Only one of the following can be true...

JOGG is a personal website of Whit Athey (not true)
JOGG is a personal website of Ellen Coffman-Levy (not true)
JOGG is a hobby journal run by amateurs

So putting aside exaggeration and distortion, Jayjg's case comes down to the fact that most of the JOGG's editorial team and authors are not geneticists in terms of qualification or salary.

Asked whether they can be source for reports about what geneticists are writing he says that this is not possible because they do not claim to be a media establishment and they do not have professional journalists.

Asked whether the citations of JOGG by geneticists count for anything he argues circularly that it "might" mean something if they were published elsewhere than the JOGG. And when confronted with such other cited publications, he suggests that these are also not good enough.

themes

Types of frequently repeated actions which seem indefensible:-

Misleadingly deleting or redacting of talk page postings of others.
Citing NPA as a defense against criticism of your arguments or edits. Specific examples also include:-

Doing this and seeming to imply a threat of blocking
Implying as a defense of this behavior that no mention of other editors at all is the standard for NPA
Using this no mention at all standard to a person trying to reply to a posting about which users in a discussion are "involved".

Excessively citing AGF as a defense against criticism which point to particularly bad looking behavior
There definitely seem to be times when he deliberately writes posts that seek to exaggerate differences and potential misunderstandings and to create either the impression or the reality of bitter conflict.
Hypocritical arguments or variable or simply illogical arguments. Examples:-

For three weeks he argued with me that JOGG is not an RS because run by hobbyists, but when he proposed ISOGG as an alternative source, also made by hobbyists he switched his argument to say it was an self-published website of Whit Athey, while on yet a third article he called JOGG the personal website of Ellen Coffman-Levy.
Arguing first that two sources is a bad thing, as justification for removing a JOGG citation, and then when it is claimed that JOGG is the stronger source of the two, saying that because JOGG is a weak source, two sources need to be cited in order to convince him, but he thinks this can not be done.
Arguing that if someone is claiming that a sentence is non-controversial and/or non-technical enough to allow sourcing from JOGG, then it should then be no problem to use an even weaker source.

Refusal to answer straight questions, even about his own words, calling them "straw man" arguments or distortions. For example, he told me once that put succinctly his case against JOGG was that it "purports" to be an academic genetics journal when it is not. When I asked him what the basis of this was he would not answer.
Focusing on side issues and demanding that they need to be addressed in preference to all other discussion.

breakdown

1. First contact. RS/N concerning the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. [21]

Highly hyperbolic opening response which did not try to define any level of proper use or content relativity: "It is a hobby journal, for non-geneticists who like to play geneticist on the internet."
Attempted to tell people who wanted to contribute to discussion that discussion was closed.
He effectively picked an unnecessary fight with User:DinDraithou, who became aggressive, which confused all subsequent discussion, especially concerning User:Dougweller and User:Hans Adler who had been in previous arguments with DD and were clearly (by their own accounts as I read them) giving comments mainly on the basis of that experience.
Forced me to re-factor my statement several times, arguing oddly that I should not mention the editors involved, even in a case were I was responding to a proposed listing of involved/uninvolved editors. At the same time there was enormous aggression being shown by others to me, (as was pointed out by others to him). After these re-factorings he never responded nor recognized the total change of mind amongst the consensus after my information was presented.

NOTES:

After the discussion closed, he went around deleting references to the source, triggering my attempt to contact him on his talk page.
As I explained during the case, historically deletions of JOGG references were generally being done selectively by editors with ethnic interests. As it turns out, this also describes the editors taking the strong anti case in this RSN discussion. I did not realize Jayjg was one such editor. The case which spilled on to RS/N involved an editor with an interest in Haplogroup R1a and India, who mainly edits India-related subjects. See next point.
Another interesting point with that in mind is the frequent emphasis Jayjg appeared to place on only hearing from "non involved editors". For example: "Let's be clear here; all the editors who are uninvolved in this dispute, namely User:Dougweller, User:Crum375,User:Abecedare, User:MarmadukePercy, and I". When I questioned the involvement/non-involvement listing he had made he wrote: "Andrew Lancaster, your remarks were mostly about other editors. Please re-factor them, removing all references to other editors, and try again." (!!)

(He continued this focus upon "non involved editors" in discussion on his talk page much later: "the uninvolved editors at the WP:RS/N board, including me, User:Abecedare, User:MarmadukePercy, User:Dougweller, User:Crum375 and User:Hans Adler,")

1.b. Side thread started by Doug Weller [22]

Note: Jayjg tried to say my contribution was just a personal attack.

1.c. Background. Jayjg's genetics related interests. NOTE: I did not realize this or study this until I came put together these notes.

Main interest is articles to do with Jewish or Israel related subjects.
Only interest in genetics related articles before RS/N case was concerning various arguments about whether genetics has shown an Eastern European contribution to Ashkenazi Jewish populations, where he has consistently been involved in controversial debates to censor mention of the theory that the scientifically accepted answer is yes. His behavior during these actions have sometimes been the subject of extensive admin discussion.
One of the sources which claimed there might be such evidence, but definitely not the only one and definitely not one which published anything controversial on the subject, was a review article in JOGG. Here are just some examples, selected because they show a connection to JOGG and similar edit summaries to the ones that have now continued over some years, and expanded to some genetics articles...

[23] (Reverted to revision 252990547 by Avraham; not a reliable source, as explained at length in earlier talk page comments. Levy-Coffman is an attorney specializing in family law..
[24], (The "Journal of Genetic Genealogy" is jogg.info, her website. It's self-published, and she is a *family lawyer* by profession, regardless of her hobbies.)
[25] (per talk. the "C.E. Smith Museum of Anthropology" website didn't republish this, any more than it "republished" the material from Stormfront (website))

2. Attempt at discussion on talk page initiated by me [26]

Summary

First replies all ad hominem, and many thereafter.
Amazing refusals to answer. Often discussion rewound suddenly to an earlier point, ignoring answers and questions and accusing me of not having answered some much earlier point.
Very surprising and stubborn insistence, without any back-up argument, that the RS/N case had been a simple consensus against JOGG, although the person who brought it angrily admitted otherwise at the time.
Numerous frivolous accusations combined with bullying style.
Misleadingly deleted or redacted talk page postings: [27], [28], [29], [30], http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=next&oldid=388482250], [31]
Also see below for more: any attempts to communicate about the accusations he was making elsewhere about supposed personal attacks were always completely deleted.
Early archiving of a whole side discussion: [32]
This attempted discussion went for something like 3 weeks before I started to edit and discuss on the genetics articles themselves, on the points Jayjg was objecting to. I could not see any progress in our discussions on his talk page at that time.

3. Second thread on his talk page, pointing to apparent conflict seeking in several threads [33]

Misleadingly deleted or redacted talk page postings: [34], [35]

4. Genetics articles edit warring and tendentious behavior

I think it should be noted that by the time I got involved in actual editing in these cases, as opposed to trying to get discussion on his talk page, Jayjg was in slow on-going edit wars with various OTHER editors than me on several articles, and had been involved in more such cases than I or presumably anyone else realized.

4.a. Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA).

talk (not archived yet): [36].

Summary of this case is that the comment being sourced was about what how particular word usage can lead to confusion, not a technical remark. So Jayjg accepted the same type of comment to remain in the article WITHOUT sourcing in preference to using JOGG.

deletions of sourced material:

[37] (remove WP:REDFLAG material by family lawyer on hobby website);
[38] (Reverted to revision 363896843 by Andrew Lancaster; remove WP:REDFLAG material by family lawyer written on hobby website.;
[39] (Reverted 1 edit by 91.214.168.197; Coffman-levy practices family law. her degrees are in law, not genetics. (TW))

4.b. Genetic studies on Jews

talk threads (not archived): [40], [41]

Summary of these discussions, in my opinion: looking for something to argue about. Redactions of my talk page posts quite exceptional, including such "ad argumentum" remarks as "Please at least read the edit summaries and if you do not understand them try talking before reverting".

deletions of sourced material:

[42] (→Y-DNA of Jews from North Africa: remove unsourced, unreliably sourced, OR);
[43] (Reverted to revision 353502045 by Jayjg; removing OR, false statements, unsourced material. (TW))

Misleadingly deleted or redacted talk page postings: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48],

4.c. Haplogroup F (Y-DNA).

talk (not archived): [49].

Summary of this discussion: me and another editor insisted the remark was sourced well enough. The author involved is widely cited. Jayjg became more extreme in his remarks and behavior.

deletions of sourced material:

[50](remove hobby journal);
[51] (→Paragroup F*: remove unreliable source, since we already have a reliable one, and so don't need a second);
[52] (per talk);
[53] (please revew talk page comments);
[54] (→Paragroup F*: per talk)
[55] (Undid revision 387359951 by Andrew Lancaster (talk) - don't remove this tag, or things will get much more serious)
[56] please stop removing this tag - the source doesn't suddenly become reliable by adding a different source beside it. See talk

NOTE: one of the edit summary's contains a threat. This is discussed further below, but also...

The next revert after the threat came 27 minutes later, with an aggresive edit summary, from a brand new visitor to the article, User:Brewcrewer, who clearly edits similar Jewish oriented articles to Jayjg: [57], and works with him (at the time for example on Talk:Miriam Shapira-Luria. Brewcrewer's own explanation: [58].
Jayjg then immediately noted that this person was now an "editor" and that demanding him to have a reasoned argument would be "subjective" and so there was no consensus against him only a 2 versus 2 vote [59].
Instead of answering a reply to his first post, Brewcrewer's second post again took a strikingly aggressive and partisan tone for a newcomer to the article [60]

4.d. Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) Country by Country.

talk (not archived): [61];

Summary of discussion: This case of source removal by Jayjg was acceptable to me because of OR implications, but was not actually JOGG based. No debate.

deletions of sourced material:

[62] (remove link to hobby journal run by amateurs);
[63] (not a WP:RS);
[64] (that's one persistent bot. remove unreliable source)

5. Also on Jayjg's talk page, asking him to explain implied threat, and various unjustified accusations he was posting around: [65]

He deleted it [66]
From his post about it on my talk page it is apparently intended to be a threat to block me for the "personal attack" of describing his edits as POV edit warring which show no WP:CLUE [67]
[Second deletion of an attempt by me to ask for explanation: [68] "already responded to, still waiting for your response to my simple question on this page. That will have to come before any other communication."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[69]
[70]