This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

And "fun" is definitely in air quotes. I was just about to raise the other thing about the GMORFC language when this new problem erupted, and I've now decided to wait a few more days for the ruckus to calm down. I think it would be a mistake for me to open anything new about GMOs when this is open. (There would just be all kinds of off-topic yelling.) I figured I should keep you posted.

While I'm at it, I'd like to make a suggestion about the glyphosate page. As I reconstruct what happened, someone made some probably flawed but good-faith edits (as opposed to, for example, vandalism), and you reverted it, and then others reverted you, and that's how things turned bad. For a while, could you perhaps not revert anything other than vandalism, just as a way to lower the temperature? If it's good-faith but bad (maybe fails MEDRS or ONUS), just put an inline tag on it and then open a new talk page section where you say that you think that some recent edits (showing diffs) were a bad idea and should be reverted. It's not that you are wrong to revert. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it's absolutely predictable that someone else is going to revert you, which under 1RR means your revert won't stick anyway, so it's a waste of time and just provides an opening for another conflict.

And here's the real reason that I'm raising this. I'd like to, frankly, engineer a period of time when all of the "good guy" editors (quote unquote) are together refraining from reverting stuff, and instead taking it to talk. That's because we are, I think, heading into what will in effect be GMO Conflict II. Conflict I was over the safety of eating GM foods, and Conflict II is over the possible carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The present AE won't be the last of it, unfortunately. So I want to think a couple of chess moves ahead. And I think the best chess move is to have something where only one "side" is doing all of the reverting. Again, I'm not saying that your revert was wrong. I'm talking instead about a wiki-strategy. OK? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Allow me a rare moment to suspend my relative stoicism and say holy crap. "Fun" indeed. I agree it's better to let things settle (again) for the RfC. When it does come time, I'll have limited availability on weekends in November or the week of the 18th (i.e., once a day). In due time.

On glyphosate, I've been picking up on that (to paraphrase a comment you recently made, I'm not blind to the situation). On that note, I still am a believer in WP:BELLYBUTTON when it comes to Vanamonde's comments at AE, but I did feel the comments were going way too far in tone and distracting from the main point. I wanted to leave it at that while making my clarification redundantly clear, and I hope it stays that way. Back to glyphosate, it's unfortunate because as part of 1RR, that stuff was supposed to be considered gaming, but I don't think that part of it has been enforced once yet. That may be one thing that does need an amendment to explicitly add a sort of BRD/ONUS requirement if we ever had GMO 2, which I still hope not. Maybe adding a sentence saying "Adding new content that is removed by someone else and restoring it without gaining consensus is considered WP:GAMING 1RR." if it came to it. In short, I've already been scaling back pure reverts there, and I'm not entertaining recent tendentious editing with respect to the spirit 1RR so bluntly anymore. That pretty much means what you're suggesting here.

So yes, I've been thinking ahead too in that regard. We don't always agree whether it's content or dealing with behavior issues, but I'm also glad about that because it lyses the idea that there's a GMO cabal as happened with aspersions back around the ArbCom case. We're definitely moving towards conflict II as you say in terms of real-world issues, though I still have some hope that we don't need ArbCom for a wiki-conflict II if that really fully breaks out. Before the recent AE, there was only one editor really running into problems behavior-wise, but it was intermittent enough just being one person that I wasn't going to bother bringing it to AE (I prefer to be measured and not throw the whole kitchen sink afterall). Outside of that instance, there may be content disputes, but what I had been seeing lately were things that could be handled through normal dispute resolution and not needing the DS finally. That light at the end of the tunnel was getting close, but is completely contingent on the DS still being enforced when needed and not letting in the battleground behavior. I think that really needs to be the metric at AE though. Is the person making the subject into more of a battleground, or is it someone reasonably responding to conflict arising from other editors or the real-world content difficulties?

One thing I'm still trying to figure out is the best way to handle that we're ironically now getting sources getting pushed into articles from non-scientist authors/reporters like Gillam who sells books profiting off anti-GMO and anti-glyphosate viewpoints, affiliated with fringe advocacy groups like USTRK, etc. I know I'd sure get heat if I used sources on the opposite side of things (and rightly so), so I'll just call it curious for now since I was already getting exhausted with the recent events. I have some ideas for tackling these areas content-wise, but they also would take more time, energy, and carefulness that I can't entirely plunge into one subject immediately right now. Maybe if the DS were fully enforced, but the latest happenings already sucked up too much time away from actual editing. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, and I appreciate very much what you are saying. I, too, kind of expect that we will not need a second ArbCom case, and yes, that depends on having the existing DS stick. My experience with AE is that they respond best when the issue is clear-cut, black-and-white. When it takes on the trappings of a content dispute, or when it starts to look like there are two valid sides and there might need to be a boomerang, I think most AE admins tune out, and there isn't a meaningful result. And of course that makes the situation even worse, because it makes the disruptive users feel that they can get away with it. (Which is pretty much what happened until today.) And since you have noticed (indeed how could you have not noticed it!) what Vanamonde said to me about "blindness", I am very much keeping that in mind when I talk to you here. Obviously, he feels that I'm being blind to you. (Heck, I stood up for Jytdog, compared with whom you look like an angel!) And I think that's all the more reason to be super careful with how admins looking on from the outside will perceive stuff. After all, the very same admin who resolved things today, looked last time and thought I was as bad as the other editor. (I acted at the time like I was fine with it being 2-way, but the truth is that I was privately pissed off.) One has to assume Murphy's Law when dealing with dispute resolution at this website. Anyway, all that means that we need to really go out of our way to appear, and be, absolutely innocent.

I think for those sources, that means putting an inline tag for "better source needed" and then taking it to talk. But not reverting. And let the others revert us without reverting them back. Always take it to talk. From an admin's perspective, that's impeccable behavior, and the other editors look like the villains. It's even OK to "lose" in talk. When that happens, start an RfC. Procedure-wise, that's it.

On the merits of the sources, my view continues to be that we need MEDRS for any statement about causing or not causing cancer. But we don't for corporate conduct, even if that corporate conduct implies things about health, although we do have to follow BLP there. Unless something changes my mind, that's how I intend to do it. It actually does look to me like the predominant view in reliable sources has been changing recently, and I want content to follow wherever that goes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Jytdog once called me a fucking saint or something to that effect too for how I calmly deal with problematic editors, though it's all relative I suppose. I'll just say a lot of interactions between you and me have to be ignored for you to be called blind.

The corporate stuff gets tricky because it's so mired in tactics of fringe groups in this subject to constantly focus on "corporate misbehavior" regardless of legitimacy as a method of distracting from the actual science (e.g., vaccines = big pharma money making conspiracy, climate change = scientists made it up to get money from the government, and other pseudoscience talking points). That makes it extremely difficult to separate out legitimate corporate issues from bunk when editing, and even harder if there are editors with their own advocacy problems. That's coming from someone whose scientific training is specifically to call out corporate/advocacy PR when it's out of line with agricultural science whether it's coming from "big" organic, Monsanto/Bayer, etc., so irony pops up often here for me. It's not so much MEDRS in those cases, but me trying to balance the real-world fringe aspects with that's going into the encylcopedia. That's just me talking in general though since I prefer to occasionally reiterate my actual views for other readers out there to point out the absurdity of those oh so fun shill aspersions that still pop up. In short, there's a lot of care behind the scenes I put into crafting things in that area, but I also realistically know this can topic attract ideologies that complicate editing the less sciencey areas.

Otherwise, the "fun" sure keeps giving it seems. This just seems to be a really odd case of poor behavior just constantly getting a pass by some folks despite previous sanctions (I've seen site bans for less tendentious attitudes/sanction histories). I hate to use the term enabler considering the Jytdog stuff and how I got labeled as that despite getting after him myself quite a few times, but a few comments lately are an entirely different level. Enough ranting though. At least in the real-world, there is a lot less controversy in GMO/pesticide topics than say 10 years ago, though again, it's all relative. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree all around, thanks. I'll just jawbone about something more that occurs to me. As a fellow academic, you might appreciate that I ended up having to sue the university where I worked, and they settled with me for six figures (they were guilty as hell!). I had an excellent attorney, who constantly told me to bend over backwards to address my adversaries with kindness, so that they would look like the bad guys. That's ended up being something that has gotten pretty much embossed onto my brain. So it's actually what led me to what I've been saying to you here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I see the value in that and try to at least do that to some degree (e.g., saying something should stay deleted because it would only end up harming the person who wrote it anyways). Otherwise, on the the overall conversation of reverts, you'll probably see the edits I made on the Roundup page. I'll be gravitating towards things like that as a partial revert at most if it's something that doesn't seem to need talk discussion. Considering what happened only minutes after you opened this initial section, I do have concerns there might be increased gaming if I stick to the letter of no reverts at all, but I'll be keeping more of a careful eye on how things look as I mentioned above. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've gotta say, this whole thing has felt like quite an ordeal for me. Assuming there is no further drama today, I'm tentatively thinking of filing the GMORFC thing tomorrow (Saturday). Would that timing be OK with you? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Same here. This is one weekend that I'm definitely away from even phone access most of the time though. I might be able to sneak in some time tomorrow evening, but I likely wouldn't be able to do much until Sunday. Do as you will though, as at least after Sunday, I should have no problem popping in to check on it a few times a day. Just fair warning though that my meetings are coming up the following weekend (the 16th) into the next week, so I may not be much help if it becomes prolonged for some reason. I can make it work, but my schedule also opens up entirely after the 20th. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait until late Sunday, or until Monday, then. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Monsanto article. Hopefully you'll see what I mean: You cannot claim neutrality and not show one side of the argument. In Argentina, this is a very important topic, as most of the country's land is used to produce soy beens. Argentina is also one of Monsanto's biggest clients. In the country there are two sides for this argument and you have to show them both. This is for the sake of neturality, and it's true either we agree with them or not. Regarding the scientific point of view, I haven't stated anything about it in the article. And frankly I don't believe you can't make the whole side disappear with that excuse, because what they claim is that Monsanto funds studies that say what they want them to say. Either or not this is true is of course imposible to state objectively, but please, do remember, that for a long period of time, tabacco companies were able to present studies that show that lung cancer wasn't related to their products. So, it is possible. But there are also studies that back up their claims https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html Also, please remember, that Monsanto has already lost a cancer trial in the US. https://earther.gizmodo.com/monsanto-loses-another-roundup-cancer-trial-with-jury-1834737903 Hopefully you'll agree that in order to make a more neutral article, you always need to show both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo Calfucura ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pablo, you're getting guidance from other editors, so I'll keep this to a minimum but this isn't really the place to discuss content. The tone you are bringing in isn't helpful about "both sides", and we specifically have WP:GEVAL for guidance on that. At this point, you chose to edit war content you knew didn't have consensus despite being alerted to the discretionary sanctions, and discretionary sanction topics really aren't an area to learn the ropes haphazardly.

At the end of the day, no "side" is disappearing. The stuff you added just wasn't WP:DUE for the article since it's just some guy claiming Roundup caused all his problems. That kind of material isn't encyclopedic, and if someone is going to start claiming the old fallacy that Monsanto funds all/most of the positive studies, then that's WP:FRINGE or a subject-matter competence issue, both of which are unfortunately not an uncommon real world problems that find their way into content discussion here. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ ( talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The clarification request regarding the arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Clarification request: Acupuncture (March 2020).

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While I can't be arsed to do any similar digging myself, it's nice that someone did, hopefully arbs will read it. I wrote a short opinion once, and it hasn't changed much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have mixed feelings to how things should be handled when it comes to Jytdog in totality, but one thing I've seen happen time and again that I'm tired of is indiscriminate lists like that or old grudges disrupting admin boards and either slowing down other disruptive editors getting dealt with or getting something figured out with Jytdog. That in part messed up the GMO topic for some time, so that's partly why I put some energy into that section. If the only issue being focused on was how to deal with Jytdog's phone call, I likely wouldn't have been inclined to participate and instead let them sort out the actual bed they made. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mold (disambiguation). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

bugs precision

Thank you for beginning Monsanto legal cases as a split-off, for improving, for watching and updating articles about insects such as Emerald ash borer based on scientific background, for " a lot of care went into clarification on precise wording" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2464 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A little late getting to this, but thanks for noticing Gerda Arendt! I like to think the bug stuff is mostly in obscure corners of the encyclopedia, but it tends to creep out into the limelight every now and then.

Also for those wondering where I've been lately, I have been dealing with a bit nastier of a case of COVID-19 as well as among the family. If you see someone refusing to wear a mask or take the virus seriously, I wouldn't be opposed to prescribing them a mouthful of angry Solenopsis spp. if that's what's needed for encouragement. There's probably a reason why this doctor doesn't practice human medicine. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

November

From obscure corner to obscure corner (songs, small churches ...): thanks for sharing that, and yes, we do wear masks and (sadly) don't hug friends and sing to ourselves, but enjoy fresh air more than other years. Best wishes, for you and yours and RexxS and all inflicted! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

KofA, my best wishes dealing with the virus. (I'm starting to feel like my main wiki-activity these days has become wishing other editors well...) I think I had it back in March, but my case was quite mild. Recently, I wanted to see my primary care physician but couldn't, because he has COVID. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

look for bright memories -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I still have yesterday's good top story to offer, - and a little below is my vision for 2020. - Did you know the ultimate guide to arbitration? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Today's DYK: to be sung "happily" -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks all. Things weren't looking good for awhile, but I managed to get by without being intubated at least. On the road to recovery, but definitely not spending a lot of time on the computer these days still. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kingofaces43

Not a big deal but you deleted "beneficial" from pyrethroid in the belief, I think that gadflies/horseflies don't have that property. However, as I said on the Talk page of the article earlier today in reply to an IP post, they are beneficial as pollinators. The evidence for that is in the source at "Introduction section of Morita et al". in the horse-fly article. I think the word "beneficial" needs to be in the lead of the pyrethroid article otherwise it doesn't really make sense to mention the ones in the list: after all pyrethroids are intended to kill insects! Mike Turnbull ( talk) 18:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull, one thing I'm careful about in these statements in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I left a comment on that on the talk page, but in short, non-target != beneficial insect. Some are just incidental critters that should not be exposed, and others are actually pests (that often get a partial dose, increasing the chance of insecticide resistance). There are broader ecological aspects at play than just the beneficials, so that's mainly why the term was removed in addition to the sourcing issues. That and beneficial insect is usually reserved for beneficial to humans, so there's a bit of an ambiguous scope issue there too.

Also, I'm not going to formally post the template on your talk page, but if you're going to be editing in pesticide related topics, best to be aware of these sanctions so you aren't caught off guard by some the restrictions. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I need the template, thanks. If you look a the edit history of pyrethroid, you'll see that I have only ever removed stuff that didn't fit, rather than add stuff which might be against WP policy. I spent over 30 years working as a research chemist in Agrochemicals, retiring from Syngenta in 2009, so I'm pretty aware of how careful writing on these topics for a non-technical audience needs to be. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 13:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I figured as much, I just like to make sure people aren't surprised by the extra restrictions (like WP:1RR) if it ever came up. At least being over 10 years out you're mostly clear of any WP:COI issues. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 15:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Now, I have no excuse for ever typing your username wrong! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to shorten it for awhile, in part with too many iterations of being called a face rather than an ace over the years. I've been slacking off on editing lately, but I'll be lurking awhile still until my to-do list starts bugging me again. I don't think I'll be back to much recreational computer time like Wikipedia until remote work is done for me. Too much time in the chair otherwise. KoA ( talk) 23:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. -- rchard2scout ( talk) 09:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't look into that yet. KoA ( talk) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I keep noticing how you cite WP:BURDEN during talk page discussions. I'd like to make a friendly suggestion that you review what BURDEN is actually about: providing inline citations to demonstrate verifiability. That's not the same thing as demonstrating a rationale that inclusion of a topic is appropriate for a page, or even demonstrating a rationale for a particular edit. Of course, I understand what you mean: that someone who wants to make an edit in the face of the lack of consensus for that edit ought to be able to explain why they think the edit is justified. However, I hope you don't leave yourself open to criticism that you are incorrectly citing BURDEN to mean something that it doesn't, and that you are doing so to gain the upper hand in a dispute. It's easy to avoid that risk, just by using the lower-case word "burden" to say what you mean, instead of citing the WP: blue link. You can also cite WP:BRD, and say that, after a revert, there is a burden to discuss and to justify reversing the revert. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto, though citing BURDEN was actually purposeful in that case in combination with ONUS. The burden portion in this case was related to needing actual sources to work with for specific details (e.g., not verifiable to the degree of content they are discussing on the talk page). There are definitely cases where only one applies, so I'm usually choosy about which I use. KoA ( talk) 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello KoA. I just was wondering why you took away my question on the ivermectin article pertaining to the mentioning of it currently being prescribed for covid-19. Is there another place where this question should go? Boringname76 ( talk) 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KoA. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey fellow doc, I removed the lengthy section about rBST as it was not related to genetic modification and therefore fell outside the purview of the article. Or am I sorely mistaken and feeding rBST to cattle is fine so long as the origin is not from GM bacteria? Of 19 ( talk) 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Of 19. Content discussion is usually best done on the article talk page, but my understanding is that the rBST subject comes up enough historically within the GM food discussion that it found a place there. That section is more for products produced by genetic engineering rather than the organisms themselves. Basically, if a GMO is involved, but not the main focus, it would go in that section, so rBST makes sense there.

The safety information in this edit I undid should remain either way, but I do agree that the intro of that paragraph could use some additions to make it more clear. I honestly ran out of time to craft something to address that. I'm not aware of any other production methods for rBST, so it looks like it's just a matter of possibly adding a sentence to the paragraph stating that microbes have been engineered to produce the protein (the proteins themselves being identical, just different names depending on where it is sourced). Probably best to have a source to link to before adding such an intro sentence though. I'll see if I can look into it when I get time, but feel free to post on the talk page there if you find anything or have edits to propose. KoA ( talk) 21:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw that you took down my edit about BGH down, what about my source and edit was not credible enough? What can I do to research further so that I can keep that edit up? Should I come up with 2 or more sources saying the same thing? Any feedback would be so helpful in learning how to edit. SweetPo65 ( talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article talk page is generally more appropriate for content discussion on the edit in question. That said, I made it pretty clear it was a WP:MEDRS issue. First it's an old source from 2004. It's not in a journal, so we can't use impact factor, but from what I can find, it only has two citations since 2004. Overall, a pretty poor source to be making medical claims from. Generally we want up to date peer-reviewed secondary articles in journals such as reviews and meta-analyses for medical content. KoA ( talk) 02:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Memory lane today -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

cat treat -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a note to say I find your repeated immediate re-adding of disputed text, especially to the article lead, on the extremely weak grounds of "long-standing text" (i.e. it had been overlooked, or there were few editors interested...) very close to being actually disruptive, especially given that a discussion was in progress, that you had already been reverted, and that you certainly knew that what you were doing was disputed. I've actually had enough of the matter and would rather get on with more constructive activities, so I will leave the text alone for now, but I'm letting you know for the record that I find your behaviour far below what is normally considered acceptable. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 20:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I stuck to the nuts and bolts of the content on the article talk page, but the short of it on the process side here was that it was long-standing sourced text you were disputing. Normally you want to get consensus for a major change to such text or just work through it slowly when your new edits are disputed, which is why I opened up the talk page section. Yes, your edits were not getting traction, but that's not a reason to jump to calling it disruptive. That was the time to get consensus for a change. Also, let me be clear that you do a lot of good work, so there was no intent to escalate anything with you. I was just sticking to pretty standard editing and expectations for when disputes arise for long-standing content.

I've only restored the rough status quo and added some additional sourcing (as well as yours) in the meantime. This is a topic I had been watching for years, especially lady beetle common names, so it wasn't overlooked by me. The focus of my comments was not solely on long-standing text, but the wider sourcing on the lady beetle common name and that it was sourced for the "entomologists prefer" bit. Those are the two main issues at play for content there, and the main thing in both was focusing on what sources had to say on them rather than personal opinion (even if WP:EXPERT on both our parts).

The first for simply listing the common names was a bit of policy issue on top of just a practicality issue for when readers end up at the page through redirects, etc. The way it is now though, all major common names are listed in the lead instead of omitting them, so we're good there. I know we've discussed a bit on ESA "decrees" like gypsy moth -> spongy moth, but lady beetle is something much older (1950s as far back as I could find) that was more a reflection of use when the official common name was adopted rather than the other way around with ESA's recent renaming mission. I really don't know where the source you mentioned was going saying ESA decided to use ladybird beetle, (no other sources corroborate that, including ESA itself). ESA shouldn't really matter though for 1. since we're dealing with multiple sources using the common names regardless of ESA.

For the second saying entomologists prefer ladybird beetle or lady beetle, I did say I was going to add more sourcing on that in an earlier talk comment, so it shouldn't have been a surprise. Those sources make no qualification about nationality especially, likely because ladybird beetle is included in the statement for Europeans. I may also actually be able to check out that exact version of White too in the next month or so to get the page number on it. This is another case where I wasn't really focused on what ESA has to say, but rather what field guides say about actual use that are geared towards more lay-audiences. Maybe ESA does have an old summary that could be useful, but until then, there didn't really seem to be sources directly mentioning ESA spurring the beetle common name as opposed to the more recent name changes.

Longer than I intended, but especially considering it's you asking, I wanted to make sure I was being redundantly clear on what was going on. Good luck with the GA nom. KoA ( talk) 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, really sorry to have to come back on this, but the article is currently being reviewed on criteria including citation quality, i.e. is everything that is mentioned actually cited, so we can't be adding material that isn't; and there is no requirement for any sort of list as it is sufficient to give an example, we are required only to state "the main points", which the section does. MOS:COMMONALITY that you cited does not give any sort of permission not to cite, it just says we should use common language. Another point is that contested editing during a review is to say the least inconvenient; indeed, stability is a GA criterion. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, please slow down as it's really not appropriate to engage in reverts like that during GA as I've seen that scuttle GA noms before. I've been trying to be very mindful of that in how I make edits, and I ask that you do the same instead of claiming that sourced content isn't sourced. I'll address the content at the talk page, but keep in mind I'm working to help the GA along when I'm finding gaps in content or sourcing. KoA ( talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

All right, I'll trust you for now. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Colony collapse disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@ KoA: I'm not sure why this is even up for debate (wasn't expecting a revert!), but the word "corn" in the present day in the UK refers to sweetcorn/maize. Go into any shop and you will see sweetcorn/corn on the cob for sale; while the term "maize" is used too (e.g. in "maize maze" puns), it's not as frequently. The main error that needs fixing is the reference to wheat, which I have never in my life in the UK heard being called "corn". Are you British? Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 20:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion (at the point of being a wall of text unfortunately) on the talk page about the overall subject, but the issue in the UK and other countries that use British English is that corn by itself is confused with other types of grains due to ambiguity issues that the article goes into some depth on at Maize#Names. Sources cover that topic pretty well both historically and more modern-day usage, so that's why we need to stick to sources.

In the case of sources like you added, they didn't directly address the topic of naming at all. Even in those cases, those sources are using terms like sweet corn, corn on the cob, etc. that distinguish what type of grain is being talked about. If they simply said corn, that would cause confusion, but sweet corn specifies that we are talking about a certain type of maize and not wheat, oats, etc. That use you pointed out is pretty consistent in the UK. You'll still see this confusion discussed in the UK fairly often too or other UK editors. [6]

The short of it is that it's a bit more complicated of a naming topic than most people realize both in real-life and on-wiki. KoA ( talk) 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, granted I can see that use existing in the farming context instead of the culinary one. But the article as it is still claims "in the UK the word corn refers to wheat" rather than maize, which is clearly wrong (the Spectator article you just quoted admits as much). So would it not make sense to say "the word corn can refer to any grain in the farming context, though usually refers to maize in cooking" or something like that? The article as currently written implies the word corn never refers to maize in the UK, so needs changing. Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 10:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not how sources that directly address the name subject depict it, nor does the article say corn never means maize in the UK. Wheat is just a single example of the generic use of the term in the UK, especially in context of the sentence. Two quotes from just that one source are pretty clear: As a general term the word corn includes all the cereals, wheat, rye, barley, oats, maize, rice, etc. and Locally, the word, when not otherwise qualified, is often understood to denote that kind of cereal which is the leading crop of the district; hence in the greater part of England corn equals wheat, in North Britain and Ireland equals oats; in the United States the word, as short for Indian corn, is restricted to maize. Other sources have various iterations on that, so that's just what's reflected in the article because common misconceptions about the subject quickly lead into WP:OR territory. We basically try to stick to what sources directly have to say about names for that reason. KoA ( talk) 14:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"nor does the article say corn never means maize in the UK"- I'd disagree with that assertion. The article sentence "For example, in North America and Australia corn is therefore used for maize, but in England and Wales it therefore refers to wheat or barley, and in Scotland and Ireland to oats." pretty clearly says that the term "refers to" wheat, not that it "can refer to" wheat.
I would suggest changing the paragraph in the lede to "The term maize is preferred in formal, scientific, and international usage as the common name because this refers specifically to this one grain. The term "corn" can also be used generally to refer to other principal cereal crops cultivated in a country, such as wheat or barley in England and Wales, and oats in Scotland and Ireland." That rewording would say much the same thing without implying that it does not refer to maize elsewhere. Would this wording be agreeable to you? Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 18:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah you were talking about a recent change made to the lead when I was focusing on the body. I tweaked it with a bit shorter language that should hopefully take care of it. FYI, it's usually best to deal with article content on the article talk page instead of user pages. KoA ( talk) 15:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That wording is somewhat better than before, yes. I would usually bring this sort of thing up on the talk page but honestly I was so astounded by the revert that I assumed that it was a case of a rogue/misinformed editor, which is why I messaged you on here directly. Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 17:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Instead of assumptions of bad-faith, it's best to check the talk page. It's been a contentious topic within that article for years, and anyone who has edited there would expect something like this to be reverted due to how it changed the meaning of already used sources as a pretty blatant WP:OR violation. There's even a template at the top of the talk page because of how often things like this happen repeatedly, so the regulars there try to due their due diligence alerting others already. KoA ( talk) 18:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi- per closed discussion at List of plant scientists, both the pathologist & scientist lists are to be merged into List of botanists. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I just posted on the article talk page before seeing this, but that wasn't what the close was. It was that content from the plant scientist list be merged into either botanist or plant pathology lists. KoA ( talk) 16:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any comments on it? LittleJerry ( talk) 22:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

LittleJerry thanks, I didn't realize it was at FAC (I always forgot those don't always show on the watchlist). I'll take a look tomorrow for any last minute things, but since my last look through the article, I thought it was good for FA already. Maybe just a minor thing or two to catch and fix at most I expect. KoA ( talk) 22:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion on the names section dispute, see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Megalogastor ( talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete this comment if you believe it inappropriately detracts from the issues you raised. Alternatively, I will delete it myself if you want. I just didn't want the immediately previous comment to hang there without a response from someone uninvolved with editing that page. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, no worries it's all good. I don't plan to respond to that string of comments and just let it be (especially since you summed it up well already). It can be a complicated subject because many consumers believe it is a legitimate advisory group without knowing all the fringe stuff it pushes (or even if they are "right", it's often a broken clock problem). The Dirty Dozen list is maybe the most prominent in my field to the point there's peer-reviewed literature on it [7] along with denialism about GMOs, vaccine denialism, etc. KoA ( talk) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the EWG stuff, and it admittedly looks worse than what I'm seeing at glyphosate. It bothers me how the user keeps throwing around accusations based on incorrect readings of WP: shortcuts. On the other hand, this is someone who speaks English as a second language, and I think some of it is honest misunderstanding. At glyphosate, input from other editors seems to be keeping the dispute under control pretty well; perhaps that could work at EWG. Maybe post a request for more eyes at one of the content-related noticeboards (I'm not sure which one)? That might be less drama-prone than seeking admin intervention. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been weighing what to do with that EWG group one a lot too, but if you look at some of the history at other articles [8] and the block log, the underlying behavior has just transferred over to these articles now rather than just being something isolated. I'm on my weekend anyways, so I'm mostly just trying not to engage with them for now while others maybe try to get a handle on it. I do feel like the problem is just going to get punted down the road though if there isn't some sort of admin intervention, but we'll see what happens. If previous interactions with the user are going to follow the same path as their past ones, they're likely just to continue badgering until admins in step in. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I already changed my mind for the worse once already when I saw the behavior history a few days ago. Hope all is well. KoA ( talk) 21:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I earlier posted this message at FTN. Perhaps it will help. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was planning to stop by there later tonight when I got back in. I think it's at the point where things are at a coherent enough stage (I hope) that it's easier for others to step in. KoA ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey KoA, other editors have pointed out that you are an expert on the subject of Glyphosate and you seem to have confirmed it. Could I ask you to clarify your expertise and affiliations? Thanks {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, to be frank, I'm tired of you hounding me and WP:IDHT behavior, so I have no interest in discussing my personal life with you. You've made it very clear you're transferring over and doubling down on the behavior that led to your topic ban in UFOs [9] and other blocks. Given the amount of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior you've been exhibiting on and off talk pages, especially towards me, it's very clear you still haven't gotten the message about WP:BLUDGEONING these last few years. All I can say is that you need to step back from controversial topics (or ones you escalate behavior in like this) and learn the ropes of how editing and consensus building actually works. You've already had more guidance than most editors on that front. KoA ( talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, it's also nothing mysterious. Just look at KoA's user page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I note that it is extremely bad form, if not actually disruptive, to exclude an editor from one's Talk page, as Gtoffoletto did last month to KoA here (At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page), and then come to that same editor's Talk page to deliver a message that could easily be interpreted as bad faith interrogation. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Asking for personal information such as affiliations is just not acceptable and could lead to WP:OUTING an editor who chooses to edit anonymously. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@ JoJo Anthrax KoA hasn't asked me not to publish on his page. If he does so I will respect that choice of course.

With regards to asking for personal information, I absolutely do not wish to lead this to WP:OUTING. I'm trying to follow WP:COICOIN that explicitly suggests one should raise the issue on the user's talk page (never had to deal with such issues so if I did something wrong please let me know). I believe that if an expert is editing in his area of expertise this could be a neutrality issue. I'm not saying this is the case. This is not an accusation of any wrongdoing. I just think that more transparency is appropriate here. I've explained my reasoning and I see more experienced users have stepped in so I think I can leave this section be at this point. {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 12:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I just think that more transparency is appropriate here. More transparency than what KoA presents on their user page?! That detailed information is somehow insufficient for you? At this point KoA would be doing you a great service by hatting or deleting this entire section. One administrator has already commented here, and the longer it remains open the more likely your behavior here (and here, and here) will attract additional administrator attention. Such attention might not end well for you. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Gtoffoletto as is linked above in this thread, you were asked [10]on the 5th of June:" At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page alone and stick to the content discussions on the talk pages." Doug Weller talk 15:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That link is Gtoffoletto asking KoA to stay off Gtoffoletto's Talk page. I do not know if KoA has made a similar request. But as I wrote above, it is extremely bad form, if not actually disruptive, for Gtoffoletto to exclude an editor from their Talk page and then comment on that same editor's page. And that, of course, is independent of both the questionable reason for Gtoffoletto starting this section, and Gtoffoletto's bludgeon/IDHT behavior on other pages, as described by KoA above. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I never have asked Gtoffoletto to stay off my talk page, but that was also never an invitation for them to continue badgering like they are doing now after months now. What's interesting though is that they said they didn't want me on their talk page often only one comment, so that did seem pretty indicative of battleground mentality right off the bat. I do agree that coming here now after that plus the now months of hounding and the now COI bludgeoning really does not come across well.

I haven't seen this degree of toxicity for quite awhile though. Way back when we crafted items at the GMO ArbCom, we had to have this principle on aspersions for exactly the kind of stuff Gtoffoletto is doing here in order to quickly remove those editors from the topic or interaction. That was because the tactic was frequently used to badger editors with no real evidence of being paid off by Monsanto, etc. rather directly. It was to the point that I had to bend over backwards with my user page description as you saw. When that behavior was initially cracked down on, now blocked or banned editors switched to making vague statements to try to game the principle with statements very much like just saying they're asking questions, not accusing or attacking anyone specific, etc. as a way of gaming the principle to use COI as a bludgeon. That was cracked down on too as clear bad-faith attempts. What Gtoffoletto still is pushing in the name of "transparency" despite what I've already provided is more of the same, and I think they've had ample warning. KoA ( talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Gtoffoletto How does WP:COICOIN have anything to do with being an expert? Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what you are an expert in. If you work in pesticide/pest research (this is what KoA is saying) the chances you have worked with one of the few large industrial pesticide producers can be pretty high. Should you edit pages on Wikipedia related to controversial topics on the subject? I don't find it so absurd to be asking this question. I've never dealt with WP:COI before so I would appreciate some guidance from more experienced users, especially if this is not appropriate. Once again, I would like to clarify that I'm not accusing KoA of any wrongdoing here. They are an anonymous user as far as I'm concerned and I value their privacy. But they admitted themselves that they are an expert in this sector so some transparency is needed as there appears to be a potential COI. {{u| Gtoffoletto}}   ^talk 18:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate some guidance You have already received such guidance from "experienced users," Gtoffoletto. You seem either unable or unwilling to take that guidance on board, and you are now tripling down on implied bias against another editor, under the false claim that transparency is needed, in an apparent attempt to gain advantage in content disputes. When combined with your other, disruptive behaviors in article space as described above by KoA ( WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BLUDGEONING here and here), to say nothing of your past challenges with those same behaviors, it creates the impression that an additional topic/pages ban for you is needed. I believe you are fortunate that no such sanction has, as yet, been requested or imposed. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As the filing party in the GMO ArbCom case, what is going on here is, unfortunately, all too familiar to me. Gtoffoletto, you need to drop, right now, your efforts to imply that KoA has a COI with respect to glyphosate. What he voluntarily reveals on his user page is sufficient to put that accusation to rest. At the time of the ArbCom case, it became commonplace for editors who wanted to have our content criticize glyphosate accuse other editors who simply wanted NPOV of being "shills for Monsanto" (now Bayer). See: [11]. Such accusations are disruptive conduct, and are subject to the GMO Contentious Topics restrictions. As it stands now, there are at least three editors at Talk:Glyphosate who disagree with your arguments, and no one is agreeing with you. Personally, I have been trying to be extra fair to you in those arguments, but my patience is wearing thin. One more comment from you, accusing KoA of having a COI, and I will personally take you to WP:AE. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm growing Cordyline fruticosa in a container, and we have lots of spiders in my area. I've noticed that the plant does better when the spiders take up residence. This led me to find this recent article (" Using spiders as environmentally-friendly pest control") from February. Since you have a stated interest in biological pest control, I'm curious if you think this research will pan out and farmers might start using spiders to fight pests. Viriditas ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

At least for widespread farm fields, probably not, but it also depends on the type of insect you're trying to prevent. When we look at how much predation occurs on crop pests, spiders are usually generalists that make up a small, but often present percentage of the total feeding activity out there. Spiders often won't bother with really small things like aphids (depending on the size of the spider). Ambush style spiders might be going after small grasshoppers, flies, etc. while your stereotypical web spiders might be more prone to get moths and other flying insects. Spiders are also a bit more developed mentally than insects, so there's a lot more that happens on the behavior side of things. They tend to be a bit territorial and some get into really interesting social behaviors, but that also makes it hard to have large colonies of spiders in a garden or crop field at times. That's where the paper you mentioned comes in for non-cannibalistic spiders. I don't see spiders like that though being mass-reared for releases elsewhere though.

That's not to say they don't help a lot, but when it comes to directed biological control, releases of a predator from a native range, etc. it just gets really tricky with spiders. If I'm going to pick a generalist like spiders often are, then I'm more apt to go with something like a lady beetle you really can release en masse. For something like the tomato leafminer they mention, parasitoid wasps are often an even better choice since they often will oviposit through the plant tissue into the developing larvae that is protecting from generalist predators like spiders or beetles. That and parasitoids are often very genera or species specific, so we don't get non-target effects as much with them.

Spiders are cool though, so I'd love to see more of them, but most of the time they're just going to do their thing rather than us really being able to direct them as well as other critters. High effort and low reward situation usually unfortunately. The best case for spiders though is instead of classical biological control (permanent introduction) or augmentative (mass temporary releases like a pesticide), they get looked at more through the conservation biological control angle where if you maintain or alter habitat to benefit existing spiders, you can possibly see more ecosystem services from the spiders. I'm not familiar with your specific case though to say much about that system, but if you're having spiders hanging around more now, you're probably doing things well. KoA ( talk) 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KoA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Block seems to be mistaken as talk page discussion had been ongoing already with multiple intervening edits as discussion went on as editors were discussing how to stubify the article or modify content, which is where the multiple diffs come in to a degree. The block was also premature since I hadn't planned to edit the article directly for a bit if anything new came up on talk after the recent edit (which it did), but because of the full block, I can't even use the talk page. This was not WP:PREVENTATIVE. The only recent edit on my part was yesterday's edit the clearly mentioned the talk page where it was explained the change was directly was sourced [12] (there had been confusion about this earlier). This most recent edit was responding to a now-blocked SPA who was trying to remove sourced content as "ridiculous" and would not respond on the talk page. [13]. If you look at the talk page at the time of my edit, no one had taken issue with my update/clarification for some time, so it looked like we had things clarified at the time.

That's part the problem I've been slowly trying to work out on the talk page for awhile now too with the SPAs and IPs often coming in pretty charged POV language and not really contributing to content discussion. Blocking someone trying to hold back that kind of edit warring isn't helpful. When it comes to those really participating on the talk page, no issues had been brought up with the most recent directly sourced edit I made above, so that's why the edit had been recently restored only in response to non-constructive accounts/IPs not really engaging. Had there have been any comment (or even a revert) from those on the talk directly addressing that why that single line should not be included focusing on sources, I definitely would not have been restoring the edit again, and I was planning to work on the talk page to craft something new if needed as I repeatedly stated in edit summaries and talk.

The other problem here is that the blocking admin Leyo is WP:INVOLVED in interactions with me. I've had to caution Leyo about their behavior issues building over some years when they have been attacking me and edit warring in DS/CT topics. I specifically had to warn them about casting WP:ASPERSIONS in the GMO topic here and here as well as for the 1RR restrictions. I had to caution them specifically about the GMO restrictions again just a couple months ago yet again because Leyo was promoting a WP:FRINGE organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in this discussion where they were lashing out at me. A lot of that has focused on GMO-related content disputes like this too, so I'm worried that this pursuit is escalating into other agriculture related topics. They also made similar article talk comments You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus. [14] where another admin Smartse (though involved in the topic) had to caution Leyo about their pursuit of me. [15] That all started back in 2016 when they were taking to article talk to accuse me of having an agenda. [16] I've felt they haven't taken cautions I've given them seriously, but I never expected them to go this far and use admin tools as part of that interaction.

Given the sniping and issues from Leyo I've been trying to deal with, they should not be following me around while acting in an admin capacity in those interactions, especially since they've been engaging in personal attacks in that interaction mentioned above. KoA ( talk) 15:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I agree with SmartSE. I've been looking at your edits and note the gap between the last post discusssisng this on the talk page (yours) and your revert over 2 days later. I don't see edit warring in the diffs provided - and I hadn't seen the interactions with Leyo. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend your edits, because in this instance I disagree with them, but it's debatable whether that constitutes edit-warring which can be remedied by a 31 hour block. I will say that given your past and recent interactions with Leyo, they should not be blocking you as they are clearly INVOLVED and I don't think anyone could disagree with that. SmartSE ( talk) 16:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, I'm perfectly fine with folks disagreeing with the edits and was hoping to be working on crafting new text on the talk page if there were issues that came up. The IPs/SPAs blanket reverting with little engagement really muddied the waters on that from the outside looking in, and that's not to deflect everything on to them. The key take home for the content and my actions was that it looked like we were at a point that there were no issues with the tweaked content that clarified where the sourced text was coming from. That's why the block caught me off guard when I already believed I was being cautious and giving it time if anyone had issues with it. If someone would have asked, I would have already said I was planning to craft something on the talk page rather than going for any new edits today. The situation there was getting messy, but manageable by those of us using talk and focusing on direct content.

The interactions with Leyo escalating though really has me concerned. I'm on limited time today though, so I likely won't be able to respond to other questions that may come up. KoA ( talk) 16:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Based upon that utterly indefensible block and now this, which seems to me a poorly-disguised WP:PA against you (and others), I am beginning to wonder if we shouldn't all take some courses in integrated pest management. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 21:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, especially after their block too. While I don't deal with them in my realm of work, badgers can fall under IPM in how we mitigate damage from them (mostly keeping them out of areas they can do damage).

On a more lighthearted note though, I definitely do wish more people knew what IPM entails (and I've seriously got to work on doing major improvements to that article). Besides just making my actual job teaching a little easier, there might be fewer people on here trying to accuse the person working with beneficial insects of being a Monsanto shill out to promote pesticides. KoA ( talk) 14:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello KoA,

I have filed an arbitration request which lists you as a party. You may review the case request, and make a statement if you wish to do so, at the case request. You may find the guide to arbitration to be helpful if you are unfamiliar with the process. Regards, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

KoA: They have posted the case scope and parties. Reading between the lines, I would strongly suggest that you prepare evidence supporting the idea that you have been a good editor in the topic area ArbCom has chosen. It's going to be open season for editors who have grudges against you to try to paint you as a bad guy. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm out for a bit longer, which ArbCom knows about. I have a couple thoughts I'll ask about there, but I'm pretty mindful of what you mention too. That's not particularly new for this topic, but I am disappointed after all these years of work in it by how quickly it can still become destabilized and how much those of us who do try to follow the directions we got from from the GMO/pesticide case become targets for this kind of stuff. KoA ( talk) 14:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello KoA,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 01:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Varroa destructor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Chiswick Chap, I'll get working on this later today. KoA ( talk) 15:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The article Varroa destructor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Varroa destructor for comments about the article, and Talk:Varroa destructor/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

They've posted the PD. I hope you won't be overly alarmed by it, because the task now is to get a majority of Arbs to vote no where they should vote no. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish, I saw it and I'm working on some comments, especially for a few things directly contradicted by my evidence. On one hand, I can see how the drafters are trying to be even-handed in a proposed decision in process itself, but on the other hand, it shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place where I have to spend even more volunteer time on this because I was the one being harassed despite the XRV close at the time.

I'm still left looking at my wiki ag. editing to-do list from August when I had some time off and felt like I was back to being really excited for quite a few ag. science related GA projects, only to have that time taken away handling things at the XRV and then the later AE's, etc. I have to admit I just don't plan to contribute as much as I originally planned this winter directly because of all this, and it's a shame because there's so much work that needs expertise in agriculture subjects. KoA ( talk) 05:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

On 10 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Varroa destructor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Varroa destructor (example pictured), the Varroa mite, is an external parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees and is one of the most harmful honey-bee pests in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Varroa destructor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Varroa destructor), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 ( talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's something to see the views spike on an article I've been wanting to get to GA status for awhile now. KoA ( talk) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of views! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)