Appeal
On the September 2016, Tryptofish asked for AE against me because 1) I deleted an article that he had claimed supported his claim that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science", despite being a medical doctor. The article, in fact did not support that Jill Stein had made statements "contrary to science", but noted that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor) author of "an opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is hardly a recommendation of the article, insofar as it notes that it is first an opinion piece, and second is dismissive. Moreover, it gives the false impression that the author Stephen Corneliussen himself argued that Stein made statements contrary to science, which is a claim he does not make. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations."[1] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article.
Next, I was called out for changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. People objected to this waiting so I rapidly changed all sixteen references to avoid links being unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the overcited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process. (There was interestingly no rush to insert information from a similar interview by the LA Times [1], the 4th largest paper in the country.) In any case, the error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, which was clearly an attempt to discredit her peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser's (Tryptofish's) addition of this citation:
Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."[2]
Finally, Tryptofish accused me of slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans on a subject that AndrewOne had provided comment on here and here (which contradicted Snooganssnoogans' non-neutral POV edit). Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug (diff)).
The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add (here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans's 30+ reverts in the last two months.
In this vein, it is important to note that Snooganssnoogans has been engaged in significant personal attacks, some of which I have stricken (here and here), and others which I have not stricken (here, here, here, and here Other editors have stated that the editor's comments are "haughty and counterproductive" here. It is likewise important to note that Snooganssnoogans consistently makes deceptive edits and/or edits against consensus. First
With this context, the editor's personal attacks in his/her statement at the AE should be reappraised and appropriate sanctions should be applied (a ban from the topic Jill Stein for six months).One editor noted that "You put an old quote about wifi under the education section. I have no problem with that, but it doesn't need its own section later in the article." here After I was topic banned, Snooganssnoogans took the opportunity to remove this fuller context from education here, leaving the section about "wi-fi", despite the clear suggestion that the opposite procedure (removing the redundant wifi section) would have been more warranted.
