User talk:KoA/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

COI

Hi, you have a somewhat odd WP:COI disclaimer on your talk page, stating you do some things and dont do other things. Please instead disclose your COI transparently. You do seem to be stating that you have a COI but are not stating what your COI is. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jtbobwaysf: No, what they are saying is that they are aware of COI, but that they do not edit any article in a way in which it would be relevant. There is no need for a disclosure unless you are editing about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" and they have explicitly stated that this is not the case. SmartSE (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Smartse:, the editor seems to have a doctorate in pest management and is editing articles relating to pest management chemicals (and/or chemicals that affect insects), with those chemical companies sponsoring research (not necessarily the same articles or maybe not even sponsoring the editors research). To be clear I am not making any allegation here. Maybe I misread the editors talk page, but it says "content pertaining to my research topics specifically." I would assume the editor is receiving grants from pest management companies from that statement. Might be nice to see clarification on that on that and your comments while appreciated, dont really address those issues directly. Since you follow the COI noticeboard (I have posted a couple of times, but dont follow actively) do you have any other position on this relating to policy? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(Passing jaguar comment) I would assume the editor is receiving grants from pest management companies From the editor's User page (my bolding): "I functionally won't have a COI in any topic on Wikipedia (especially while not citing myself) unless someone decides a to write a BLP page about me (which I hope not). It seems to come up often in articles I edit, but I don't receive funding from private companies (i.e., pesticide companies), nor do I have any personal or financial connection to pesticides or companies marketing them in general as a university researcher." That seems transparent to me. What further "clarification" do you require, Jtbobwaysf, or do you have evidence that supports your "assumption;" i.e., evidence that supports the idea that the editor is not being truthful? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo, and it floors me that for over a decade I've bent over backwards to stress things like you bolded and this still happens, especially after another editor being blocked for this line of questioning.[1] The short of it is that I will not be WP:OUTING myself by providing even more potentially identifying information given past harassment. Functionally, this is a similar parallel to asking someone to declare a COI in chemistry articles because they have a chemistry PhD and teach chemistry courses. Doc James is a good example of this where they don't have a COI in medicine for being an ER doc, nor would I in general entomology, beneficial insects, or pesticides that my training was in.

The irony is that public sector ag. scientists are often the ones countering industry (or any other) claims that are out of line with the science, and that's why we use university, federal science agencies, etc. as reliable sources and not industry marketing here at Wikipedia. IRL, the Monsanto shill gambit originated with fringe-proponents trying to deny the scientific consensus on GMOs to insinuate without evidence any scientist supporting the consensus is was just paid off. Often times, those very scientists would also be calling out misleading marketing claims by those companies, even related to GMOs. Climate scientists also get similar attacks, basically from climate change deniers claiming not to trust the experts because they are just paid off by the government to say climate change is real.

I want to be clear Jtbobwaysf did not go that far, but I do want to ask them to be mindful that's the slippery slope you begin to step on when accusing someone of a COI for having a degree in their field and working as a university scientist despite actively stating there is no funding or relationship with those companies. It's why aspersions have been treated as especially disruptive in this topic, so I'm just asking you to be careful even if you just simply missed what JoJo later highlighted from my page. KoA (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what the Monsanto nor GMO has to do with my comment, as I dont recall editing either of those recently and I came here in relation to your edits on a Dicamba article (also not GMO or Monsanto related to my knowledge). I am not particularly versed in this topic and was not aware if asking about COI clarification is more prohibited in this topic than another, and if it is I apologize. I do read that another editor was banned (maybe from your talk page) of asking the same question, so suffice it to say I will stop here and have rather commented at the arbcom article instead. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It has to do with WP:ASPERSIONS Jo Jo Anthrax mentioned in their edit summary and the example of Gtoffoletto being blocked (not banned from my page) basically for the kind of stuff you did here and now at ArbCom even after being told about it. KoA (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Pest management" SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Leyo and KoA are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Leyo is admonished for battleground behavior, personal attacks, and use of administrator tools while INVOLVED. Leyo is INVOLVED in the topic area of genetically modified organisms, industrial agriculture, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, the effects of all three, and organizations or companies involved, broadly construed. Future instances of this kind of conduct may result in sanction, including removal of adminship, without warning, especially if it is INVOLVED tool use.
• KoA is warned for edit warring and is reminded to engage in good faith when resolving their disputes.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

Invitation

Hello KoA, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What I learned at school today

One of the primary lessons from all this is, apparently, that if an editor is a repeated target of personal attacks, aspersions, and harassment on WP, that editor should expect to be warned by the Arbitration Committee. So let that be a lesson to you: stop being a target for personal attacks. Or else. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, I'm actually happy that you were nothing more than "warned". I've seen so many profoundly unfair outcomes of ArbCom cases that I look upon this as a good outcome. The other party has to watch their back far more than you will have to. I'll turn JoJo's lesson around a bit and say that, now, there are going to be personal attackers who will try to capitalize on this, by baiting you.

You might (maybe) remember that I had to sue (successfully) the university where I worked. One of the things my lawyer told me, and this is the lesson that I learned, is that I shouldn't worry about convincing the university administrators on the other side, but instead, look at how everything I might say would come across to a bystander (aka, judge), and the best way to accomplish that would be to be unfailingly polite to my adversaries, and leave them to do as they will (and they did, to my benefit!). That became something I've taken with me through life, and I've found it useful here on Wikipedia. Some editors, you won't change their minds, but that's OK. If you can start off on a footing of being gracious to editors, even when they are clearly in the wrong, you will be safe. Please trust me that this is a good approach, and one that you can benefit by working on. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a great perspective on what on the surface seems to be a horrendous miss by ArbCom. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, I hope you're recovering well. I totally get the attitude you have here. I have misgivings about how some things were done (or ignored), but you are right that it could be much worse. Still, my main concern now is that systemic issues were not addressed, and that's going to result in more heat in the topic rather than less that all editors in the topic, not just me and what you describe, are going to have to navigate. It feels like ArbCom just stirred things up in the topic more than gave us a better framework to manage recurring issues like battleground attitudes.

I remember your example well, though I have to admit I don't believe it would have mattered here for my recent edits. What seemed to matter here more was that I was involved in controversy at all in recent FOF listings on me rather than my actual edits navigating that. With your example in mind though, I still do want to ask you for advice on some specific examples I'll write out later when I have a bit more time, so just tabling this paragraph for a little bit.

One thing that's pertinent to what you've been mentioning elsewhere though is the issue of ArbCom nearly directly overriding the XRV consensus. The FoF on that did not pass, yet I still got a warning on edit warring despite the only recent example listed being the Dominion article where the community was pretty clear it was not the case. That seems very out of process, but outlines one of the major concerns I was seeing a few times when it came to bucking community consensus. Still, I've dedicated too much WP:VOLUNTEER time to the case and plan on getting back to editing rather than dwelling on it all much more. KoA (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts. I'll be very happy to try to answer those questions when you have them. Take your time.

I was thinking about that issue of the FoF versus the warning, even before you mentioned it. The way that I see it, is that the unsuccessful FoF was factually untrue, whereas you do have a history of reverting in other circumstances. Whether or not they warned you, there's no getting around the fact that, at times in the past, I have. For the foreseeable future, if you just don't revert (outside of unambiguous vandalism), nobody is going to have a way to "get" at you.

The original ArbCom GMO case didn't do much immediate good, but AE worked, subsequently. I expect that to happen that way again. That goes for the aspersions issue you discuss with JoJo, as well. ArbCom has this bad quality of always feeling like, once a dispute reaches them, they have to do something to both "sides", and as you know, I've compared that to "blaming the victim". That being the case, it ended up a lot better than it could have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo. To be clear, I won't (and can't) comment on the core locus of the case obviously with the interaction ban in place. I asked for the I-ban originally, so there's no issue from me on that. That's all I'm going to say there going forward. The below is reflecting on my individual editing outside of that scope.

I did email ArbCom about what was going on in the periphery of the case related to the COI section above and what Gtoffoletto was blocked for earlier. That also included a bit more personal information about myself (which I absolutely should not have had to do) asking for help with how bad the aspersions/harassment issue is getting. It's escalating, and the aspersions principle we crafted at the 2015 GMO case is not being taken seriously anymore. I even asked if they thought something like this could be addressed at this case (at least the behavior that happened in it and went against the Arb talk page guidance) or if it would need a more focused WP:ARCA. No response. Instead, I see editors engaging in that behavior being emboldened to the point that when their behavior is addressed, they are lashing out calling it abuse of the aspersions principle for doing what they're not supposed to be doing. The community in this topic worked hard to get a handle on that kind of behavior, but it seems to be descending to pre-2015 levels with that environment we're having to work with here essentially being dismissed.

I'm very mindful of WP:POT, but I do want to say you have a valid concern that being the target of personal attacks in these situations is being used to portray the target as engaging in battleground behavior. That's especially the case for someone like me who's been actively working for years on reducing the battleground behavior issues in ag. topics. In every situation from that very small list in findings just focused on me, I was trying to deal with existing battleground behavior pointed at me without escalating it or at least keeping it held at bay with calm but firm good-faith responses while working on content (also while working on talk pages with editors who ignored the comments and collaborated in good-faith). Ideally looking at anyone's behavior in that situation should involve splitting out what were measured responses dealing with inflammatory responses vs. true escalation by that editor instead. I'm always shooting for the former and avoiding the latter.

I don't want to belabor that battleground stuff right now, but the going-forward issue I'm seeing is how editors can keep repeated insinuations one is paid off by pesticide companies or other bad-faith stuff from disrupting the topic, especially when you state your own personal pre-disposition would be to avoid pesticides on your own user page due to repeated aspersions over the years. It just poisons the well where you get other editors joining in on it eventually or outright misrepresenting the targets, like comments at RfCs you pointed out. We have been discussing updated language over at WP:ASPERSIONS that reflects the problem of repeating false allegations better, but I think it's clear the community needs to speak up on this more when it does happen after seeing clerk comments like this. If I had made attacks like I was asking for help about, I would not expect to be walking away without a sanction. It just goes to show how messy things get with editors enter a topic with that mindset and why the 2015 case at least tried to give us a guardrail against it.

The advice I've gotten from others in general is that if you go to AE for help because someone is attacking you like this, it often falls flat just due to perception two editors are going at each other even if you've been acting entirely in good-faith. That should not happen, but it's an unfortunate reality I've seen. When someone who isn't the target asks for help, it's much clearer that there's a problem. That's why I say the main thing is the community needs to speak up more on these issues (as you did at ArbCom). If it had been another venue like AE, ANI, etc. it likely would have been considered. It could be this kind of stuff just needs to be brought up more at WP:FTN or [WP:COIN]] more often when this comes up so people outside the topic and recognize the problem are aware of it. KoA (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, KoA. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Robert McClenon can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Who do you think you are to monitor and stalk me? This is not the first time. Mind your business, otherwise there will be actions you don't want. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

EpicAdventurer, I've been trying to help you so that you don't get blocked for the battleground behavior and sniping at editors. That's because I do think you're in a position where you can course correct and focus on editing articles instead. I noticed that when I first posted on your talk page when you were new.[2] When I looked at the AfD (which I did not participate in), it's very clear you're having continuing issues with comments like This is manipulation on your part., Are you speaking honestly?, How do you rate? Do you understand what you are doing?, or I'm fed up with this "encyclopedia". It has turned into a authoritarian community not a cooperative one. often in response to those trying to work with you.

Meanwhile, many editors there are giving you good advice on what would be needed for an article while being very tolerant of your sniping. Remember that when I was talking to Robert McClenon, I was saying they were being very even-handed. No one is voting to delete that article you made, they're mostly just saying it's not ready yet, but could be someday, hence draftify. That's not a bad outcome at all and definitely doesn't warrant the responses you've been giving.

The whole point I've been getting at with you in past discussions is that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Simply just knock off the personal attacks and you'll be fine as you learn the ropes and discuss things civilly on talk pages. Lashing out at editors like you've been doing, especially when experienced ones give you basic advice about policy that you dismiss as nonsense,[3] does not help anyone. I'm taking time here hoping you recognize the problem now so you can steer away from it. KoA (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert griefing or honest mistake?

When you undid my work on the glyphosate article for the 2nd time (25 hours after the first—nice.) the main basis you claimed for doing so was that my revert went "against the expectations of 1RR" on the page.

It did not.

My original addition was 23 hours and 51 minutes before I undid your revert, but it is not the "1 modification rule", it is the 1 revert rule. (also: even if there were such a rule, invoking it to delete four hours of research, writing, and citation work over a 9 minute discrepancy does not scream "good faith".)

You've clearly been at this long enough that you should know how all this works, although I understand that you're probably used to edit warring with people on pages like this, so I will gladly forgive the mistake. Please undo your 2nd revert, as I will not be baited into actually violating the 1RR by undoing yours before 24h have elapsed. (Don't think I don't see you.)

As an aside: I hope you understand my skepticism about your intentions when you try to demand talk page "consensus" before any future edits, given that my addition was specifically about a case where a consensus by supposedly independent contributors turned out to be the result of an elaborate, unconventional, and undisclosed corporate campaign to control the narrative around this compound.

For the record, I don't believe glyphosate is a carcinogen—at least not directly. I do have a hunch it might inhibit some isoforms of 1-deoxyxylulose-5-phosphate synthase in addition to EPSP synthase, but that's neither here nor there. WhichDoctor (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The content itself is already discussed on the talk page including what Silver seren recently mentioned.

On behavior, the expectations of 1RR include avoiding WP:GAMING by adding content then reinserting it after it's been disputed. 1RR had to be put in place in part because editors often would not follow WP:ONUS policy, much like you did when reinserting your content the second time. Arbs were clear on that when 1RR was imposed. What is supposed to happen is if you are bold and an edit is reverted, you go to the talk page to get consensus if you want to restore it, not edit war and force others to have to deal with the problems that causes. Please also keep in mind that WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior like you're exhibiting in these comments has no place on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics like this or saying you're skeptical of someone's intentions. KoA (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)