Difference between revisions of "Appeal"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | On the September 2016, [[user:Tryptofish|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. | + | On the September 2016, [[user:Tryptofish|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, [[User:Tryptofish|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."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/08/19/i_would_like_to_take_back_one_mean_thing_i_said_about_jill_stein_it_involves.html|title=I Would Like to Take Back One Mean Thing I Said About Jill Stein. (It Involves Bees.)|first=Jordan|last=Weissmann|publisher=Slate|date=August 19, 2016|accessdate=August 28, 2016}}</ref> 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 the ''Washington Post'' interview got lost in the process. ( | + | 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736379288&oldid=736379126 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=738230871&oldid=738123964 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736818865&oldid=736818858 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736609191&oldid=736606684 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736586141&oldid=736586039 here]) got lost in the process. (There was interestingly no rush to insert information from a similar interview by the ''LA Times'' [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-jill-stein-transcript-20160906-snap-story.html], 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=737123428&oldid=737123098 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 ([[user:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]]'s) addition of this citation: |
<blockquote>Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://wtvr.com/2016/08/18/jill-stein-i-will-have-trouble-sleeping-at-night-if-either-trump-or-clinton-is-elected/|title=Jill Stein: I will have trouble sleeping at night if either Trump or Clinton is elected|author=CNN Wire|publisher=CBS/WTVR|date=August 18, 2016|accessdate=August 31, 2016}}</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://wtvr.com/2016/08/18/jill-stein-i-will-have-trouble-sleeping-at-night-if-either-trump-or-clinton-is-elected/|title=Jill Stein: I will have trouble sleeping at night if either Trump or Clinton is elected|author=CNN Wire|publisher=CBS/WTVR|date=August 18, 2016|accessdate=August 31, 2016}}</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Finally, [[user:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] accused me of slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by [[user:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] on a subject that [[User:AndrewOne|AndrewOne]] had provided comment on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736616280&oldid=736615766 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJill_Stein&type=revision&diff=736852665&oldid=736818865 here] (which contradicted [[user:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]]' non-neutral POV edit). Since [[user:Snooganssnoogans|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 [[user:Snooganssnoogans|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 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Stein&type=revision&diff=737087073&oldid=737070232 diff])) | ||
Revision as of 01:27, 9 September 2016
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))
