User talk:KoA/Archive 4

Pesticide poisoning
Hi. You recently deleted edits by my group on the pesticide poisoning page. We are graduate level students that need to make edits to a Wiki page for our environmental/occupational health class. Can you help me understand why you deleted our content so that we may improve it? This is our first time editing Wikipedia so I am sure we have a lot to learn. Thanks! 2601:282:1080:BCC0:9CF3:5E95:5779:31BB (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)SL
 * First, could you please create an account so it's easier to respond to at least one person in this group? Generally, your professor is supposed to have a class page on Wikipedia where each student lists what's pages they are working on such as this, but it doesn't look like that is the case. I would suggest sending your professor to this page to get in touch with Wikipedia's education program for the future.


 * As for the article edits, I have explained a bit on the talk page already (which is where content discussion should occur rather than here). Basically, the references were formatted incorrectly, there was a lot of jargon and US centric focus such as when the EPA was mentioned for regulations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * K - I am commenting on your Talk because the students do not seen to be aware that they have their own Talk. Or, for that matter, the article's Talk. I'd love to take their instructor to task for poor instruction, but it appears they were just set loose on Wikipedia to 'improve stuff." David notMD (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A minor thing - start a new section in someone's talk (as I just did) for a new topic. A major thing - whoever taught your group how to insert citations was radically wrong and you are damaging articles. At an absolute minimum, how about you revert Kingofaces43 deletion (begging his permission here), and then minimally repair the citations. In edit mode, remove the [  ] that you have put at the beginning of each citation. Replace the front end bracket with <> with the letters ref between.  Replace the rear end bracket with . with the letters ref after the back slash. This will incorporate your citation into the numbering system and place a superscripted number in the text. The citation content will still be crap, but fixable. David notMD (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your action on Pesticide poisoning, but I believe this will cause two or three students to be very sad, as their assignment (which I agree they were botching, especially the citation format) is due Sunday. Maybe if you go back and sign your Talk comment they can tell their teacher that an entomologist ate their homework. More likely, one of the students will revert your deletion - show the teacher what a great job they did - and never return to Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Their edits are in the edit history, so the professor is more than capable of looking at their version summarized in the diff I mentioned at the article talk page. Students are not supposed to be graded on their edits sticking afterall, so there shouldn't be problems on their end. Part of what I mentioned above about not having a course page or accounts is a problem, but there's not a lot we can do to guide students unless the professor goes through the process of setting up a course page, dashboard, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I bet they wanted to be able to point to the 'greatly improved' article itself. By the way Doc James started this by redirecting the students from the Pesticide article to the Pesticide poisoning article, so they were already feeling persecuted. David notMD (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like they really do need intervention from the Education Program staff. I'm about to put a notice about it at WP:Education noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trypto. At this point, I think it's just getting the professor to get in contact with the Education Staff to formalize their assignment process (unless there are more edits coming up after this apparent due date). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Their most recent edits are not hard to point at at all. If it weren't for that, I'd try to be a bit more supportive and helpful on guiding them (even though they're doing this last minute and without a registered course), but they should be fine as is for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Student(s) repairing the mess made of citations. This does not address whether any of the content is valid, but that is a topic beyond my ken. David notMD (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your decision to pull out all of the recent spate of student actions on Pesticide poisoning. In retrospect, it is clear the students had no experience with what Wikipedia is, and no visible guidance from the instructor who assigned the task. David notMD (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I normally would rather make fixes rather than reverting, but it's a lot of material to go through. I also don't feel like giving the students a free grade for their assignment by me fixing their edits immediately. I'll go through their edits within the week though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sherwin
I trust that I am not banned from your talk page, and that you will be willing to hear it from me.

You need to stop edit warring over the issues about that page as well as its DYK nomination. If you keep it up, I will take you to ANI. I mean it. You are in the wrong over this.

The claims by other editors that you have some sort of COI as a result of your professional interests are indeed nonsense. But as long as you are asserting that other editors have some sort of COI because they took DrChrissy's "side" in some previous disputes, then you are just as much affected by that as they are, because the simple fact is that you and he were on different "sides" in some of those disputes, whether you deny it or not.

And you are also in the wrong when you assert that a consensus is needed to include the selected works and that "no consensus" means leaving the section out. This is an instance where there is no default state, and consensus goes in both directions. In no way does it entitle you to edit war, even if it is a slow edit war.

I'm not here to discuss it with you. Just cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this really flushed some problematic behavior out of editors unfortunately, hence the bans. I'll admit I was concerned about drama and tense conditions when I saw some of the editor names at that page, so I was trying to tread relatively carefully with that in mind, but that obviously didn't work out. The DYK stuff was finished on my part, and I made that clear in my last post/edit summaries there. As for the COI stuff, it isn't coming up at the BLP page and will only be at COIN if it becomes a further problem with the context that nearly all editors there need to be cautious from the COI perspective whether they were supportive or involved in disputes or just simply had close associations beyond just editing at articles. That's why I was hesitant to get involved more than I am as you described. As I said before though, there were already too many closely involved editors there, and it did need some cautioning unfortunately. A number of editors at that article have their own history of behavior issues that are interlinked, which makes it even messier and is why I didn't delve into it further in addition to really not wanting to dig up DrChrissy's behavior more. Either way, the main editors were cautioned about COI outside the BLP page, and that's as far as I'm really willing to go on that subject at this time rather than needing more discussion on it at COIN.


 * On the edit warring, part of the problem goes back to multiple editors there having a history with edit warring problems (often an add content, get reverted, revert it back slow cycle), and it was being reinjected into that BLP of all places. Generally when someone makes an addition and it gets reverted, they are expected not to reinsert it, but gain consensus for it. It's extremely unfortunate that such behavior came to a head at that page of all places, but that's why I tried to tamp down on it with page protection considering it was the BLP of a recently deceased editor (regardless of which version at this point). Either way, I still have my fingers crossed that people finally stopped reverting and are focusing on discussion given the way discussion is finally currently progressing, so I'm pretty apt to leave the topic be once that selected works section is worked out. Things should be calming down at the article at this point ideally. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point, it is you who is edit warring, not them. Please don't make any more reverts at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately dealing with other people edit warring often drags one in to it too, and I know that (which is why it's like pulling teeth to get people to just stop reverting things in and discuss). We're just going to have to disagree that it's one-sided for now (not that it's going to change anything at this point). However, I won't be reverting, especially now that discussion finally looks like it's going somewhere and people are focusing on that. I would expect that everyone at the article would know discussion should be the focus right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Maize
Hi there! You recently reverted a link of mine I placed on 'maize' regarding dog odor. I completely understand why you removed it, as there was no mention of dog odor in the article. However, I have now added a brief section on it. This still may not be enough in your opinion to substantiate linking the dog odor article, which I will understand if that's the case, but just though I should bring this up. Thanks! Let me know what you think.Laurajones11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Naegleria fowleri
Hi, thanks for trying to help my student Corbin3 on this page. I have contacted Wiki Ed as you suggested. Thanks. Fc2361 is not one of mine. I certainly would not allow one of my students to do edit warring. Most unprofessional. Thanks again for your input.Drsusan1968 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Drsusan1968, no worries. I know it's tough to navigate Wikipedia alone much less trying to lead students through it (medical topics are even trickier because of our higher WP:MEDRS sourcing standards). Sometimes the only lead we have with an unregistered student is to look for other likely student editors, so that's how it got connected to your student at first. Good luck in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

sulfoxaflor
Bonjour, j'ai déjà modifiée plusieurs mon texte en anglais mais je ne vois pas mon erreur, pourriez-vous m'aider? Merci Emeline9859 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Emeline9859, I do not know French, and please remember that this is the English Wikipedia (it's usually better to edit your native language Wikipedia until you have a sufficient level of fluency to edit in another language). That being said, I will say your edits have been removed in part because they are nonsensical such as vague comments about causing damage when it doesn't appear we've had any sources actually documenting damage. The source you did end up providing is also a news source and not a scientific one (see WP:SCIRS). If you have more questions, it's generally best to discuss on the article talk page rather than here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably not needed for me to say this, but the OP comment translates basically as asking for your help in fixing translation errors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trypto. I actually Google translated it and answered to some degree, but I guess my text didn't make it clear that I got the gist of it after reading it over. Seeing as my last post was not formatted correctly to ping, I'm using this to re-ping Emeline9859 for my previous message. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I expected that was the case, but I figured I would show off my French. { --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Outline of sustainable agriculture
(In case you haven't yet, look below its table of contents).

This outline follows the standards for outlines, which together, form one of Wikipedia's contents navigation subsystems. For comparison with other outlines, please see the overall set of outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines. Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  01:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks The Transhumanist. I must admit that's news to me, otherwise I wouldn't have prodded it. I did some beforehand searching as to whether outlines were really a legitimate thing (assuming categories were supposed to take care of that need), so that information seems to be buried in the search process a bit unfortunately. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look
I know that you are already following the page more carefully than I am, but could you please take a look at the bottom of Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides. There is an editor there who looks to me to be heading rapidly to AE, but I have banned myself from their talk page, so I cannot give them the needed DS alert. If you think it is appropriate, I hope that you might consider giving the alert. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have given the relevant DS alert to the editor being discussed.Dialectric (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually had intended on checking this out when I got in before I even saw your message. Looks like folks are way ahead of me. I personally try to ignore them at this point when they're starting things up again since most of the problematic editors have been banned, but I agree they're on a pretty tight rope in terms of getting themselves at AE. Most stuff in the topic now can/should be handled without needing AE at this point I think, but that's one case where I can't be so sure of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "administrative ruling in effect"
Hello, you will see that only one person had reverted edits more than once on the same page.

Thanks! 86.170.22.40 (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto Cancer Case RfC - text has changed, please review
Hi there, please see amended proposed text here and sorry if this causes any inconvenience, thank you!  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived
A request for clarification in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  23:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Alert
--Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I know that this is not news to you. But I want you to know that I am serious about what I have been saying at various talk pages. Please do not engage in slow edit wars, and please do not misrepresent policies and guidelines. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I'm going to address more of the procedural stuff here and more of the content stuff at the article talk page. The alert wasn't really needed since I've posted at AE plenty of times recently as you know, but as you will. I definitely respect you a lot for being one of the few other people that have stuck with this topic even through ArbCom when science editors were needed most. That being said, I am also very serious about the recent problem of people ignoring 1RR at the article all of a sudden. It's always been the expectation that people more or less follow BRD since ArbCom imposed 1RR. If there is no consensus for the edit and the edit can't be improved, we go back to the WP:STATUSQUO while engaging in talk discussion based on policies and guidelines like we've been trying to do at least. Also, I've been very thorough in using policies and guidelines at the talk page, but if something has been misrepresented, I would ask that you show the disparity content-wise at the talk page.


 * I know you remember how bad the edit warring used to be, but at ArbCom, I did bring up issues that 1RR itself wouldn't address directly given the type of edit warring we had seen before. That included things like two editors by themselves and the original new content creator "winning out" in an edit war, or like we have at the current article, other editors coming in when talk page discussion isn't yielding consensus and edit warring the content back in. We had problems especially with that before ArbCom where consensus would never be reached on the content, but people would just keep inserting it back in until editors gave up in order not to seem like they were edit warring too. That results in clear gaming of 1RR, and there's no way around that being disruptive. Contrary to your talk page comment, I have been responding to edit warring at the article even though I've been reverting as undoing disruptive edits (e.g. gaming 1RR) is an appropriate time to revert. Obviously I still want to keep those reverts to a minimum, but that's the situation ArbCom left us with to handle on our own or else deal with at AE, especially when we have a large influx of editors trying to edit war content back in. My reverts would obviously be inappropriate if I were doing something like status-quo stonewalling or some other form of gaming.


 * That really only leaves two options when people try to do the what's happening at the article. We can remind them about 1RR and it's intent to gain consensus for disputed new changes while undoing the gaming if they won't self-revert without needing to go to AE while talk page discussion continues. Otherwise, one can go to AE and start sanctioning all the editors who have chosen to thumb their noses at 1RR after being told about it (which includes trying to say they only made one revert). I for one don't like to run to AE acting like the pesticide police the moment someone messes up, so the only really viable option is to undo any gaming of 1RR (your edits have not been doing so just so it's clear) and try to get those editors back on track to gain consensus for the edit like they are supposed to. The whole situation behavior-wise at the article is just messy and silly, but it would be more workable if people just followed the intent of 1RR.


 * My hands are more or less tied on this from 1RR because I apply that consistently both to others edits as well as my own when I offer up new changes. When that process starts being abused again like it was before ArbCom, we're just asking for another case, which no one wants to see. Your comments on the talk page about being careful with science echo with me (though I have content issues I disagree with here), but I'm also trying to be careful about the behavior state of the article so it doesn't devolve further. There's obviously a tipping point where trying to get people to follow the intent of 1RR ends up making oneself look bad unfortunately, so if that continues I might start looking back at some of the old proposals from ArbCom that were shelved in the hopes that 1RR and clarifications about gaming would be enough. Maybe the 1RR remedy itself just needs to be modified slightly to include such mention of gaming rather than it being buried in the proceedings of the case, but I was hoping it wasn't going to be that much of a problem that we'd need to do that. WP:ONUS policy might be enough though, so that's just my musing for the moment rather than something I'm planning on going ahead with right now.


 * With this being said, I can see you are getting frustrated too. However, I'd prefer you stay away from claims like POV-pushing on the article talk page. The standards I've been discussing at the article talk page for using academic sources are more or less the same I and others in the topic have been using for years regardless of study outcome. If it were a study saying glyphosate did nothing (or made the bees healthier somehow?), I'd be saying the exact same things about sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's the way that I see it. First of all, it's important to remember that we do not have a situation in which the "pro-science" editors are always the "good guys" and the "let's present criticisms" editors are always the "bad guys". An editor who sees the content issues as both you and I generally do can, nonetheless, get into trouble on the basis of conduct. I know that you will do what you will, but I'm calling it as I see it.


 * Let's look closely at the BRD aspect of this situation. WP:BRD is an "explanatory supplement" but "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". On the other hand, WP:EW is firmly a policy, and ArbCom issued 1RR primarily to cut down on edit warring, particularly between two editors, one of whom is topic-banned, and the other sadly is no longer alive. So – I think we agree that my edit that created the sentence that is in dispute was the B in BRD. And your initial revert of it was the R (although in fact you had already twice reverted a previous formulation of it before I created what I think is a better form, whereas I had merely tagged that version for better sourcing). And both of us, along with others, have been engaged in D. So far, fine. So when an editor reverted your revert, that was in effect BRRD, under conditions where discussion up to that point had indicated significant differences in opinion. So when you reverted it back, that was essentially BRRRD. Another revert of you made BRRRRD, with you having made four reverts over the entire course of the dispute. No matter how you slice it, that is not BRD. BRD would have been to say something like, "oh damn, that was one revert too many, but I'm just going to leave the page as it is for now and continue discussion." When you keep reverting back, you are engaging in a slow edit war, and you do look like "the pesticide police" as well as "status-quo stonewalling". At least now (at last check) the sentence is on the page and it looks like you are leaving it there, which is good. There really is nothing wrong with leaving The Wrong Version on the page, and from a conduct perspective, that's better than repeatedly reverting to what you consider The Right Version.


 * When you DS alerted the first editor who had reverted it back, you made a big deal of it being a 1RR violation, which it simply was not. At most, it was contrary to the intent of 1RR as you saw it. (The next editor who reverted it back called you a "man on a mission", which obviously was the wrong thing to do.) But the first DS alert comes across as being a bit bullying, and it's not a good look.


 * And you cannot avoid the POV aspects of this. You were the only editor to make multiple reverts during the dispute so far, and they all had the effect of removing something that might be considered negative about glyphosate. Myself, I've changed my mind during discussion, and I've tried to offer a compromise version (the one now on the page), and at various times in the recent past I've written for the opponent. You do a lot less of those things than I do. It also doesn't help that, multiple times recently, when I've disliked various edits and I refrained from reverting and instead opened talk page discussions, you've responded to the discussions by reverting before anyone else had commented.


 * And I'd hate to lose you from this topic area, because you know a lot more about the source material than I do. But believe me, it could happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For pro-science, etc. I'm not seeing any of that in this particular dispute. This is just a matter of what we do with scientific sources. There isn't any pseudoscience, etc. type stuff coming up with this one where one would bring up pro-science or otherwise. To be clear, I'm totally on board with mentioning the study if review articles the undergo peer-review actually do end up talking about it as significant.


 * For edit warring, I'll be blunt, but you're getting way off base here. BRD is indeed an explanatory supplement, but that's because it's functionally what happens when you follow WP:ONUS policy. You are right that BRD didn't happen because multiple editors chose to disrupt that process by edit warring the content back in. However, that does violate the intent of 1RR regardless of what you or I think per the discussion at ArbCom (and 1RR was meant to handle wider problems than just the two editors you mention). The end result is that people need to gain consensus in order for that content to remain whether you talk about 1RR and DS over gaming it or onus. Also, informing people of 1RR expectations is not bullying. If anything seems stiff in my messages, it's from the DS and policies themselves being rather firm (and often ignored). You can't really shoot the messenger on that. The expectation of BRD or onus as part of 1RR has been mentioned many times since after ArbCom during disputes, so this shouldn't be a surprise. When I do revert, it's never in a trigger happy manner and always with good underlying reason as to why it's better to set it aside and discuss on the talk page rather than just leaving it. There's a lot of room where I'm willing to leave disputed edits be for awhile if I'm in a gray zone on that though.


 * On POV, etc., instead of writing for the "opponent", I try to go a step beyond that and write for the science. If high-quality secondary sources such as reviews say there's a problem with a chemical, trait, etc., then it gets mentioned. If they do not, then nothing. If someone hyperfocuses if something is negative, positive, etc. about a pesticide rather than stick to source assessment, that's itself a POV problem. Otherwise, they're going to get caught up by selection bias in the topic (i.e., I might be removing something in this article, but working to keep "negative" content by happenstance in another pesticide article just due to how the sources work out).


 * In the end, that talk discussion has been pushing towards a month now without consensus to include, so editors following ONUS policy can't really be faulted at this point for removing the content after all this time. To do otherwise is more or less saying it's ok to let people circumvent gaining consensus on the talk page by trying to edit war disputed content back in. It would be one thing if this were a very new discussion where it's better get things hashed out on the talk page rather than try to do everything by edit summary, but this is well past that. There's a point where we need to say there's no consensus for including the study this way and follow policy related to that. You've even said there isn't consensus for anything at this point at least, and I intend this in an entirely non-loaded question way, but why shouldn't we follow WP:ONUS policy? If there's anything I'd really want an answer on, it's that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We disagree. (Since you specifically ask about ONUS, my opinion is that I have met that requirement in the explanations that I have already given. I believe that I have met the onus, but you say I didn't and continue to say that ONUS has not been met. Again, we disagree.) You will do as you will. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please note that also engage in slow edit wars (see above) may result in being blocked from editing. --Leyo 20:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Bugs
My dear King, it had been my intention to never again edit an article about bugs. This was per the difficulty we had in collaborating in a collegial way, and as I'd previously considered bug decline to be only about no 12 on the list of major threats to human life on this planet. Sadly, the first ever formal review paper on the matter suggests my assessment was wildly optimistic. Per your advice I've tried not to act too quickly on this, but now that hundreds of entomologist, ecologists and policy consultants have reacted, I've not yet found a single credible person who is critical about the review. I wish there was some reason to doubt the findings– there is enough nonsense going on without the threat that unless we can significantly slow the bug decline in the next couple of decades, our planet will be condemned to an irreversible ecological collapse, which will inevitably lead to the near total extinction of human life.

Hopefully you might see the review as just as must a game changer as I do. So our views may become more aligned, and we can collaborate in a friendly way. On the other hand, if we find ourselves continuing to dispute, at least good news from your PoV may be that, per the findings of the review, I can now agree that DS may become applicable. Or as we say in my world, big boys games, big boys rules. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From the start, my only two issues were sticking to secondary sources to generate content (like you just provided as well as what I mentioned awhile ago now at the talk page) and watching the talk page behavior, especially in DS topics. I never brought any particular POV into that particular discussion, though my personal thoughts are that declines are a problem tempered by standard scientific caution towards how news media and individual authors can hyperbolize the subject, which is also reflected in the literature. The primary study in question had very little discussion in secondary sources mentioning it, which is where the main content problems arose.
 * You'll do what you do though. I'll still be editing there, but I also usually try if I can to avoid interacting for a time when someone has trouble with the aspersions DS like the AE case was closed as. That's usually because people that go down that route have a lot of trouble behaving appropriately on talk pages despite warnings and get topic bans instead. For some history on the topic, quite a few editors in the past had a great fondness for coming into the topic with not so great sourced content related to pesticides who would also lash out at editors bringing up the sourcing issues. Usually, that resulted in comments that roughly parallel "You removed content critical of pesticides, you must be pro-pesticide, a Monsanto shill, etc." and using it as a bludgeon in content discussion. As well as violating WP:FOC policy, ArbCom made it doubly clear that such behavior was a problem as I outlined at AE.
 * If you can keep that behavior aspect out of content discussion as well as focusing on generating content specific to secondary sources, then there wouldn't have been, nor will there be in the future, issues with interactions. The only time I ask for DS enforcement is when people won't knock off outlined behavior issues in the DS, so if nothing comes up in the future that causes such an issue, then there won't be any problems when if bump into each other. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good to hear there is a chance we won't have further problems. You are the very last person I would want as wiki enemy. (In case its not obvious, that is a compliment.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

request
Perhaps you already did this when you described me as "the oddball editor", but have glanced through my contributions before rushing to judgemnt? Or has this been established somewhere, I'm just a 'troublemaker'? cygnis insignis 06:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I discussed there was merely pointing out that the specific type of text you were introducing was quite a bit out of the norm or in an extreme minority. That doesn't imply troublemaker. While I'm not really up to speed with your history with Elmidae, the gist I got from discussion was that you didn't realize how out of the norm that text was, which was why I pointed out that it wasn't the norm. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The standard even in scientific writing is common name (species name) if a common name exists" Is there a way I can verify this? cygnis insignis 01:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's been some advice given on this already at the discussion, but reading scientific texts usually makes it pretty apparent. From personal experience in almost any journal I've read or reviewed for, it's going to be common name followed by species name without the redundant word species. I can't say I've seen your style used in a single journal, textbook, etc. In the end, the WP:BURDEN ultimately ends up falling on you to verify that your way is the preferred way, but you'd have a pretty uphill battle doing that. If I saw that in a student's paper, I'll admit I'd cross it out. Species name is just assumed with a latin species name.


 * This is something that ultimately falls down to overall editor preference, and in this subject you're going to have people trained in science that know the conventions for scientific writing rather than being able to point to some authority that directly says encyclopedias should use X style. If you want more material besides journals, a lot of introductory biology courses give examples of common name (species name) style. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The burden, sorry WP:BURDEN, is on you to provide the ability to V your absolute statement, the one that prefaced your characterisation of me and set the tone for the whole discussion cum pile-on. It is the last point that I would emphasise, because I have been as open and proactive in advancing this discussion as I can be without making a WP:POINT, despite that item being included in the vomit that opened the section. cygnis insignis 06:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Elmidae already stated your edits and style was outside the norm, and I only reiterated that. I get that you're frustrated, which is a problem Elmidae also brought up in terms of hoping other editors would get through, but I would suggest reading WP:1AM and pay attention to what other editors have to say there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, Elmidae says …… And likewise, 'I appreciate that you are anxious and defensive in this situation', there! I win. /s cygnis insignis 07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC) [note sarcasm] cygnis insignis 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

GMO salmon
U.S. FDA recently announced that it will allow import of AquaAdvantage salmon eggs to Indiana, where AquaBounty will grow and then sell fish in the US. I own stock in the company so wont write about it. David notMD (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * David notMD, this is just from my quick perusal, but it looks like this hasn't cleared all regulatory hurdles yet since the CEO said they are waiting on some certifications on the Indiana facility? I plunked in a little bit about the approval here, but if it gets to be more finalized, I'd be fine fleshing it out elsewhere too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unanswered in the news is whether sale of fish in the U.S. has to wait for the eggs to be shipped to Indiana to grow to adult size, or could AquaAdvantage salmon grown elsewhere (the Peru facility?) be imported into the U.S.? David notMD (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has declined the request for arbitration "Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing" as premature. You and the other involved parties are encouraged to pursue other dispute resolution methods if required. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁  17:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ARCA notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, EllenCT (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The request has been withdrawn, and is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  13:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Decline in insect populations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Lourdes 08:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * KofA, I know from personal experience that this can leave one feeling rather upset, but I hope that you will take a little time before responding, so as not to respond in anger. And I hope that you will file a request for unblock in which you will make a serious promise not to continue reverting, and that you will keep that promise. That said, I've been watching this from afar, and I think that it is not quite right to describe it as edit warring against consensus. Edit warring, yeah, but this is a complex content dispute and I'm not convinced that there really was a consensus. I hope that any admin reviewing this will take that as some honest input from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of any reviewing administrator, these sections may be helpful exemplifiers of the issue: Talk:Decline in insect populations & Talk:Decline in insect populations Thanks, Lourdes  11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to add on for the content background outside of my main appeal focusing on my behavior, that last section is a continuation of Talk:Insect and Talk:Insect (where my POVFORK comments came from) and also followed up at Talk:Insect with other discussions scattered around. That still doesn't get at all the content issues, but that's an example where editors have been engaging on the talk page to a degree, but no specific consensus has come up in part due to continued sniping rather than focusing on content and other editors besides myself chiming in on the problems. The first section Lourdes mentions is where I tried to tackle the problem of editors blanket reverting content and refusing to discuss those specific edits.
 * It's indeed silly that editors were trying to undo those edits through blanket reverts and refused to discuss them on the talk page at all or even edit summaries, but after already asking for help at admin boards, the only thing left I could reasonably do was follow the talk page and WP:ONUS policy since blanket edit warring prevents any concise RfCs, etc. Those are the edits reported I was blocked for. I'm always a big proponent of making sure people read WP:POT when their own behavior comes up, but this is a case where my block was a symptom of trying to deal with multiple disruptive editors, finally getting one to use the talk page a little asking me to make the edits, and another in the group taking advantage of that to run AN3 to block me without mentioning any of that, so I do have to point out the serious WP:GAMING problem that occurred at AN3.
 * That redux section is also tense later on because I was also trying to deal with an editor constantly sniping at me on the talk page and making a battleground of the place, but admins didn't want to act on that or edit warring yet at AE or ArbCom (along with confusion by admins mistakenly saying topics prominently involving pesticides aren't covered by the broadly construed pesticide DS). That also fed into the ignoring the talk page problems and the WP:STONEWALL problems I was trying to work through. Anyone can be made to look bad for trying to work through all those problem behaviors at the articles (which really could use more patrolling admins) even while following policy in the current atmosphere there. At least in terms of edit warring, I can point out with every edit if need be how I was following WP:ONUS in removals and the actual talk page while trying to encourage the others to gain consensus on something or trying to get them to even begin discussion on content that was reverted back in. That really should be done at AN3 before it's archived (less than 3 hours between filing and the block in the morning for me, so no chance to respond at all) rather than here though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * , just a ping in case the template doesn't notify you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. thanks Kingoffaces. Given comments above, I think it would be good for any other administrator to review this neutrally. Thanks,  Lourdes  03:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Investigating
Okay so the AN3 report is here


 * Per the edit summary says removing a quote as already summarized in the text. This is good practice from a copyright concerns perspective. We should generally be paraphrasing not quoting.


 * per yes we do not generally state the title of the journal article nor the journal it was published in. We have reference metadata that provides those details. Also we are writing for a general audience.


 * per edit summary says does not mention insects. So appears off topic for this article.

I am not seeing a significant concern with these edits. Without a clear breach of 3RR this is a bit of a stretch for a one week long block IMO.

The first "revert" is described as this one. As the article was newly created there is no real stable version to revert to and fully protecting a stable version was not possible.

Basically what we need is a RfC of "version 1" versus "version 2" versus a "redirect" or whatever those working on the article want to propose. I am happy to unblock King if you agree to start that RfC and not revert further. User:Lourdes any further thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James. In short, as I already said above, I'm not reverting at the insect decline article further and wasn't planning to even before the AN3 case. As mentioned before, I had been asked to make the most recent edits with the things you outlined above, and that was supposed to be it for my edits. Despite the invitation to try and having the AN3 filed for following through on it, that was a pretty clear indication to me that I wouldn't be able to accomplish anything more with normal talk discussion and editing.


 * The trouble I'm having with the RfC is all the varying blanket reverts making it difficult to actually form a concise RfC on specific versions (and I've made attempts at starting to craft something too). Some things have changed over time too, which is what the AN3 filing was really showing in some areas rather than constant reverts. I also would have felt it was a little bit silly to need to have an RfC on a bunch of things like this, but I agree we're a point it seems to be needed. I'll go ahead with an RfC, but this is just a heads up it will take a little time to craft with those things in mind is all, but I won't be editing the article directly in the meantime for those edits.


 * Just a clarification on what you mentioned was described as the first revert. That was actually restoring content already agreed upon at Insect that excluded specific sources, and the Decline in insect populations was used to circumvent that discussion as a WP:POVFORK as of that edit. One can debate what a true status quo is in such a case (though I'd say POVFORK is pretty clear on what not to do), but that's just me making it clear on what I was doing there as opposed to trying to litigate it here. After an unblock, I can also clarify these things more at the AN3 case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are unblocked. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest not discussing it further at AN3, which really isn't the right place, and there's really no upside to prolonging that part of the dispute. Better to just resume discussion at the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have to directly address a few things there, but I'm definitely not looking to prolong it either. It's more a few things I do need to clear up since I never got a chance to respond though, and a single response there should hopefully clear up mischaracterizations that could stem from not addressing it there. Nothing is ideal here, but I do need to keep a preventative eye out. I do agree though that AN3 is not suited for dealing with all the stuff I'd like to see resolved on the behavior side of things, so I'm just going to be focusing just on the stuff brought up there, and that's it for now on that front until content is dealt with hopefully. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My strong advice is to not pursue anything further regarding SV, now that it's been closed. Just let it go, and move on to content work. I know what I'm talking about here. It doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong. It's an argument that you can never win, and would just become a giant clusterfuck with you acquiring more wiki-enemies. And while I'm pontificating here, please also stop using WP:ONUS in your arguments. Again, it doesn't matter if you are right or not. It may not feel like it, but you more or less "won" the argument over your block. Your best strategy going forward is to be super-polite and super-patient in article talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I made it pretty clear I was going to say my part and more or less be done and move on to the content, which I'm doing after that last comment if thing stay roughly the same. That being said, when an editor directly misrepresents someone that blatantly, it does need to be addressed. I don't like the mess it's become, but I've been dealing with hounding from them for some time that I needed to specifically address this incident since the interactions towards me are getting more tendentious despite me trying to avoid them.
 * As for ONUS, my comments at AN3 mostly weren't about right or not, but to state what I was actually doing to be clear when it's archived. When dealing with editors that blanket revert in their content and don't engage in those edits on talk discussion, that's the exact policy people need to be reminded of. That's always been cited to remind editors to engage, not to "require approval" as it was put. At least for awhile, all you can do in such a situation is keep asking the editors to come to the talk page and discuss the edits per that policy. We're obviously past the point where that was going to work, but I had to do that for awhile to at least try to keep the talk discussion grounded even though things went south. I'm in a position where if I don't follow the DS and policy, that's easily getting into gaming territory or an appearance of it in these subjects, so I try to stick to those as much as possible. It's as much trying to ground discussion in policy as much as it is to cover myself from diffs being misrepresented even though that isn't foolproof obviously. Either way, that discussion shouldn't really be relevant anymore going forward on this content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , all good on this side with your decision. Thanks, Lourdes  00:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Aspersions
At 18:54, 3 April 2019 your comments on WP:AN3 included three claims about SarahSV (SlimVirgin): Your other comments at WP:AN3 also included claims about SV with links and  to very long ANI discussions where there was no consensus to support a claim of improper behavior by SV. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, please either retract those statements or provide precise evidence substantiating them. I noticed this at WP:AN3 where SV asked this question. There is a discussion above, but this issue calls for a specific response so I am posting here for clarity. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "especially in this topic where you've had to be cautioned about misrepresenting editors"
 * "frequently hounding myself and other editors"
 * "I specifically proposed the aspersions principle in response to your behavior"
 * Johnuniq, I don't think I can respond to this at all until I get a response from Lourdes above since I've been told to avoid this. I would prefer to clarify myself just to put this past rather than continue the issue, but I'm also trying to tread carefully given the above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kingoffaces43, you can please go ahead and respond to 's queries. These are critically important to respond; please do retract the statements where you feel you've made an error. While I respect significantly, I presume you'll realise that you should not be misled by their broad misplaced perspective on this issue. I absolutely hope you see the light of the day and don't get blocked again. Warmly,  Lourdes  03:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just finishing a draft of the RfC to discuss on the talk page, so I will address this in the morning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You could also withdraw all 3 claims even if you don't feel they were made in error. Not sure why a legend like SV is taking them seriously, but she is saying she is upset on her talk page. A quick retraction and apology for causing hurt might clear the air and stop said extremely valuable editor feeling demotivated. Not to mention some would feel it's the right thing to do regardless of utility.


 * Speaking of utility, it might also be useful from a WP:FOC perspective if you could draw a line under the conduct thing, to free up attention to focus as much as possible on your bug decline RFC. While it's likely impossible to draft an RfC that will please everyone on this issues, I thought your draft was an outstanding piece of work, vastly superior to my own (except obviously on brevity.) Sadly not all agree, so there might be considerable graft before we can finally settle this bug decline thing.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about adding insult to injury. And then to that add a suggestion that there's nothing wrong with dishonesty if it is used to help one feel "motivated".  Just place the blame on Sarah for feeling upset and then suggest KoF make a fake apology.  Solves everything and now let's move on... Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feyd, please do not to post on my talk page, and please respect WP:NOBAN. I would prefer not to interact with you on anything non-content related. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My comment at AN3, namely my history with Slimvirgin, wasn't the appropriate venue for discussing those three points mentioned in-depth, so I have struck those comments. I should have focused entirely on the AN3 case itself. Energy is also better left to focus on content at this point since the AN3 was closed. In the future, if related problems need to be addressed, they will be brought up in an appropriate forum with multiple uninvolved admins to review them while directly following WP:ASPERSIONS, as well as including specific details on the history to prevent further misunderstandings.


 * What I cannot deny though is that the overall atmosphere I was met with at the EllenCT case in trying to get help with behavior that later resulted in sanctions for EllenCT is what prompted me to begin seeking how to protect editors against aspersions or being directly misrepresented. That's just straight from the horse's mouth as the proposer, and if there needs to be an ARCA one day on why the aspersions principle was added to the topic, that can be done there. That shouldn't be needed at this point though as I've been repeatedly asked and repeatedly stated I wanted to get back to content. I'll be away for the weekend, so I will not be able to respond further. This should be a point where this can settle down and I can get back to working on content next week. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a withdrawal ("wasn't the appropriate venue") and it is not evidence but per usual standards it can be regarded as a reasonable retraction. Please be careful in the future because anything that looks like an aspersion might attract the attention of an admin. I would be inclined to report breaches at WP:AE based on the 17 October 2018 ARBGMO discretionary sanctions alert posted here. The report would seek a sanction under the WP:ARBGMO, aspersions principle. Wikipedia is not perfect and editors have to adapt to its problems. If a bunch of "wrong" editors are opposing your edits, and you can't get support on noticeboards, you are just going to have to find another topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Final warning before an indefinite block
Hi Kingofaces43, I understand you've had long standing editorial discussions with various editors involved. I also understand your need to provide your point of view to your previous block, that led to your giving a very long submission at WP:ANEW. I'll keep my suggestions short; you already know it, comment on content and contributions, rather than on persons. One more edit like this and I will block you indefinitely. You know the parts within the linked edit that are clearly off limits. You're experienced enough to know that you can contribute well without continuing on this path. Please do consider this message on a positive note. I'm pinging the relevant administrators and other editors who may have interacted during the ANEW discussions. Thanks, Lourdes  06:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, the AN3 post indeed got too long, mostly a consequence of trying to respond to what happened with the content discussion due to its complexity and length of the initial filing. I was planning to get back to the content at this time, but given the serious of what you're saying, I do need to ask you to be specific since there is a bit going on in that edit. Depending on what it is, my current intents may not be clear since I haven't/won't be responding further at that AN3, so that's why I ask. If you mean commenting at AN3, my last comment was as much as I wanted to say there even before the close. The thread is closed, and I don't plan to try to put comments in over the close. If it's rehashing the content discussion process that went downhill, we're past needing to discuss that (or should be) after my initial response because we're working on the RfC now.
 * If it's the things on SlimVirgin though, it would be helpful if you specify what you consider blockable there given you're saying an indef for someone who had a clean block log before this. The complicating factor in this area if that was your concern is I'm also bound by the DS in this subject to follow them. I already mentioned the WP:ASPERSIONS principle for GMOs/pesticide related topics, which discusses either throwing shade in some fashion related to pesticides or directly misrepresenting editors in the topic. I am supposed to bring those issues up in admin forums as part of the ArbCom findings, though as I said at AN3, I only breached the topic there because it was time to move on once I had the problems in the filing summarized rather than continuing it fully at AE/ArbCom. I made my history with why I proposed that principle at ArbCom clear, and I could have provided more diffs and background if that's what you thought was lacking. The AN3 was getting long as it was though, so I tried to keep it more concise. If you are seeing a problem with something in that, I would like clarification there since I can only guess right now at potential issues you were foreseeing, and there have been enough kerfuffles related to ambiguity already. To be clear, this is also an area I don't want to keep pushing into since there's no indication right now the problems are going to continue after the AN3.
 * Either way, I don't have any plans to pursue things at admin boards for the foreseeable future (and hoping it stays that way) as I am trying to focus on overcoming the behavior issues I've been involved with by having the RfC instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * reply on notification. Thanks Lourdes. Hi again, Kingofaces43. I would like to give you an opportunity to revise paragraph two of your reply before I give my own complete response, again, the suggestion is to restrict your comments to discussion of content. I've been toeing a line myself in earlier comments on this article, and your contributions to that, it gave me no pleasure to do so, I regard the development of the article as otherwise emerging well under close scrutiny by accomplished users. cygnis insignis 16:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cygnis insignis, my question for clarification is to Lourdes here, and I do not intend to use this user talk page as a general forum for the issue aside from Lourdes' clarification as it's time to move on and focus on the content. It's one thing if I was trying to rehash the whole thing here on behavior stuff, but I am specifically asking for guidance from Lourdes to prevent future misunderstandings or complications on this going forward. At this point, I am not commenting on editor behavior (aside from questions about my own), but on the administrative/DS process I was following. If there is something that specifically needs correction, I would like that clear so there isn't any ambiguity in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the most important responsibilities of any administrator is to look for ways to deescalate rather than escalate disputes. If you look a bit higher up on this talk page, you will see that I have already given KofA advice that he should step away from that argument, and basically leave SV alone. And he has already indicated that he intends to do so. A content RfC is going to happen, which is a good way to resolve the dispute. Your posting here is unhelpful, and makes things worse rather than better, possibly even poisoning the well for the RfC.
 * The now-closed AN3 thread was closed for good reasons. Did KofA react strongly at AN3? Yes he did. That's what happens when an experienced editor with a previously clean block log gets a 7-day block without even being able to respond to the complaint. This was a noticeboard discussion and discussions get heated. How often are 7-day blocks handed out at AN3 to experienced editors with no previous blocks, particularly no previous edit warring blocks, and when there have been no reverts in the past 24 hours or so? Did it never occur to you to give a 24-hour block and full-protect the page for a while? And the complaint against him falsely claimed that he was reverting against consensus when in fact other editors had agreed in talk with some of the things KofA said, as well as omitting the fact that he had already reached out to SV at her talk page.
 * I have had a long history with SV myself, and she and I generally steer clear of each other. That's a good thing, and I don't want to change that, and it would take an awful lot for me to do anything to jeopardize that. But if this escalates any further, I'll have to demonstrate that things are not so one-sided (and does anyone want to take a trip down memory lane to this)?
 * So, Lourdes, do I agree with you that KofA needs to drop this? Yes, I agree. But do I agree with the threat of an indefinite block? If you actually follow through on that, I'm going to make it my mission to have you desyssoped. That's not a threat. It's a promise. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "deescalate" … "KofA needs to drop this? Yes, I agree." is that a fair summary of the key points, am I missing anythinf of value? Deëscalation is the desirable outcome, what the topic of this discussion is seems to be wayward and unhelpful. cygnis insignis 17:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And just so it's triply (quadruply at this point?) clear, I intended to drop the admin board stuff as there haven't been new issues since the AN3 close, and as mentioned, I made that clear before Lourdes started this section. I'm just working on the RfC right now that I already mentioned would take a lot of heavy lifting to craft neutrally and accurately on what was supposed to be a day off for me. I would still welcome Lourdes clarifying themselves here and not having this be a bunch of people chiming in (though I do appreciate all of your sentiments Tryptofish), so I'm just focusing on the RfC at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * What won't be found here, I think, is a friendly reminder that, per WP:PA, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence—meaning serious accusations require serious evidence—are themselves considered personal attacks. Remember—content not contributor, etc., applies everywhere! Here, anyway; probably less so in Burger King :)  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * About evidence, in this first posting:, KofA did present this permalink: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Kingofaces43 does valuable work and should be supported. However, supporting people when they in danger of running off the road is not helpful. Do you really think that link is evidence? It's absurd. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, some helpful context. Should I assume Tryptofish is trying to help this user and not pursuing some other agenda? A strange way to go about things for someone familiar with how things play out in the long run. I'll assume they believe their motivation is good and faithful, but only that, the comments are dripping with spite and desire for vindication. I was going to suggest to Kingofaces43 that they are being propelled to martyrdom for … something unrelated to collaborative editing. The next martyr that is, with what I'm guessing is a reference the last one appearing in the AN/I permalink, are you happy to bear that cross King? cygnis insignis 23:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment SerialNumber. That kind of thing applies directly to what started the aspersions related problems here; omitting evidence and saying No relevant details were omitted; he wasn't asked to make those edits when I was specifically told on March 28 before my last edit making specific edit summaries clear "If you feel my revert restored any other "outright failed verification", then pls either specify, or maybe just re-do that part of your edit & see if others accept it.". I'm done pursuing that, and I usually try to make sure my evidence is directly linked as much as is feasible, but I do need to be clear on why I essentially brought up the WP:PA problem due to the confusion since you bring the subject up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I want you to know that I have read carefully everything that you, and everyone else, have said here. I think it would be a disservice to KofA for me to comment at any length here, but I want to let each of you know that I will try to respond to you thoughtfully at my own talk page. I will ping you from there when I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was alarmed by the trajectory of related discussions, but remain optimistic. Talk to you later. cygnis insignis 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, there have been those discussions at my talk page, and anyone can see them if they want to, or not. Based on what appears, from the comments to me there, to be something that might not be clear enough, please let me make this absolutely clear. KofA: when you get back here, please understand that I am not encouraging you to continue this dispute in any way. (I thought that was already clear, but it appears not to have been.) You need to make peace with the editors who have expressed concerns here, and then resume content editing in a collegial way. I am insisting that misstatements of facts be corrected, but that should in no way be construed as goading you on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, please do not do anything that has the slightest whiff of repeating what you said before. You don't need to relitigate the past (or even "set the record straight", so to speak); just accept the constructive feedback from other editors in good faith, and move on. Saying anything at all that could be taken as repeating previous accusations would be a catastrophic mistake; just drop it. Based on conversations I've had with Lourdes at my talk page, that's the critical issue for you at this point. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was clear as day you weren't egging me on me as others roughly put it, so that wasn't lost on me at least. As I already made clear too, I was wanting to move forward before the recent round of posts happened, and the RfC is the next step for now. That's all I'm going to say on the matter except that after asking for help at AE/ArbCom for over two months now to prevent these kinds of things, my energy is about gone for this particular subject after all this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for evidence
Clearly, editors here have been pointing out the importance of providing evidence to substantiate any accusations of wrongdoing, as opposed to making the accusations without evidence. I agree, of course.

This unpleasant situation arises from the now-archived complaint at AN3. I am asking for some evidence in support of that. Specifically, there has been the accusation that KofA was edit warring against consensus. That assertion has been made numerous times, and I want to see evidence that such a consensus in fact existed. For example, in Lourdes' blocking statement at AN3 she said: If the editor realizes they've gone against talk page consensus and agree to not continue the edit-warring, the block can be lifted immediately. Otherwise, this is going to soon get elongated into an indefinite block. . That specifically references talk page consensus.

It looks to me like there were four editors very actively involved at Talk:Decline in insect populations just prior to the AN3 complaint, and a fifth also present but slightly less active than the others. KofA and that fifth editor seemed to see things one way, and the other three editors saw it a different way, and everyone seemed to be talking past one another. I do not see that as a consensus, and it appears that, in his unblocking rationale, did not see it that way either. If that's the case, it doesn't change the fact that KofA was reverting too much and now needs to dial it down. But it also means that there were editors edit warring on the other side of the dispute. I'm just saying that accuracy matters, and accusations need to be backed up with facts. So I have two questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a slight relevant bit to add. The dispute originally started over at Insect. Kevmin chimed in during edits at the start and Dyanega has been engaged at that talk page there a bit, but not at the decline article for other editors with some decent activity in the topic. Essentially, consensus wasn't gained for including material outside of what roughly formed at the third paragraph at Insect as a summary of Insect biodiversity. At about that time, the decline article was created including the disputed content that wasn't getting traction at Insect, so the problems described at WP:POVFORK make assessing consensus even muddier, but that also means the discussions at the insect page come into play too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, in short for the below after letting this sit for awhile, it doesn't surprise me there has been no response here trying to document any consensus in these last 10 days because that's the kind of thing I'd been dealing with since January. I can at least give evidence of no consensus considering that though. I specifically went to the talk page asking the other editors to gain consensus for what they were restoring in. Before that, the left side of this diff is what others needed to gain consensus on. I went through with careful edit summaries a few times detailing the problems and asking editors to gain consensus on March 12 for instance, March 13 it was reverted back in, and I opened that talk on March 16. It wasn't until about two weeks later when I pinged Slimvirgin after they reverted the content back in telling me to gain consensus instead that anyone even posted in that section. If there's evidence of anyone gaining consensus in that talk section for any of the edits being restored I listed, that's what they'd need to address below.
 * The thing that started this whole business after that was when I was asked to make individual edits again on the talk page to try them out (March 31 edits; documented in previous sections), and I was blocked for following the talk page and trying to encourage discussion on something where AN3 should have never reasonably been a consideration for anyone at that point actually following the talk page. I'd prefer to stay focused on the below, but while blocking saying I was editing against consensus was one thing, blocking when I was doing suggested edits from the talk page adds up even more when you roll it into the things you ask below. I do appreciate the request for actual evidence for the claims you mentioned that went unanswered at the AN3, but at this point, I'm also planning to further limit my time on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked these questions knowing that there would indeed be no good answers. And I'm sorry that you are going to limit your editing, but then again, so am I. At this point, I think it would be counter-productive to continue litigating this case, and your best choice would be to close this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just let it auto-archive at this point most likely. I'm still concerned that someone can outright lie at AN3 like that (diff so no one can spuriously claim aspersions again) without so much as a warning, but that also made it clear that it's too easy for valuable time to be wasted trying to deal with that. That's especially in an insect topic that was supposed to be less prone to trouble compared to the main GMO stuff. There's a point where if admins won't enforce behavioral standards (especially dealing with long-term harassment issues at AE since January now), then there's a point they can't complain when editors pull back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Question 1
Can anyone please show me diffs of editors arriving at a talk page consensus prior to the AN3 filing? Please understand, I am not asking for diffs of editors disagreeing with KofA; clearly there were plenty of those. I'm asking for diffs that would be understood by uninvolved editors as having clearly established a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Question 2
Can anyone explain the logic of having a content RfC if the consensus had already been arrived at? In the unblock statement, Doc James said that there needed to be an RfC and editors here seem to agree that such an RfC is a good idea. But if there had already been a settled consensus, against which it would have been disruptive to edit war, why is an RfC still needed? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Refspam template
We do have uw-refspam which would have saved you some typing here. It is pretty new so if you can make any improvements to it, please do. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I sometimes try to have a more personal message, but it's good to know about that template for other cases too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI
I just filed my AE appeal, and I figured I should let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm hoping fewer words need to be said for this one. Normally I'd prefer to stay out of things when it isn't directly involving me in some fashion, but since I filed the case resulting in the sanction, that is something I definitely feel I wanted to make sure the record was straight on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As Alanis Morissette said....
...you oughta know: User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 33. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like Reaper has the situation pretty squarely described for the time being at least. If anything, Reaper probably saved them a boomerang. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You're quick
Decline in insect populations - Not that I want to get too much into this article (talk about litigation), it's just I'm regularly asked about this subject, and do have opinions on the alarmism of it all -in the last discussion I was told to read Wikipedia, haha. But do you mean the claims I made in the article or in the edit summary? The edit summary was unsourced, the edits to the text were from what was in the references already provided, although it is possible I used standard (Dutch) boiler plate terminology too unscrupulously. I also edited the sentence some to make it closer to what the abstract actually said. My criticism is that the study used here has problematic methodologies, besides what I wrote in the edit summary. The study only shows is that researchers searching a few tiny blocks of unrepresentative land for a few weeks were not able to recover all the species documented over the last century across the entire country. How they came up with the 84% pop. reduction is a bit of statistical abracadabra -the calibration population sizes for the 19th century are estimates. To use a flawed butterfly study from a small highly unrepresentative country to claim the insect population of the entire world is decreasing is tendentious. Furthermore, the study claimed causes for the historical decline (land use changes) which the WP article ignores, or reinterprets as "habitat destruction". Sure, the introduction of better winnowing techniques, use of fertiliser, etc. caused massive changes to pasture and field species composition, but we are talking about converting farmland to more efficient farmland, not exactly habitat destruction. Heathland in the Netherlands is a man-made environment caused by past overgrazing, it is maintained today by intensive management, and the main problem today is eutrophication, with associated changes in plant cover and hence insect diversity (the problem is too little habitat alteration, not too much). Also, the study showed butterfly populations in 2 out of 3 habitats had stabilized for the past decades, and in the instance of three very rare species had improved (apparently in response to different (and costly) mowing methods (not in study)), so one can really only use this study to claim that a minority of populations of some insects in some small parts of the world may be declining, not to insinuate new pesticides might be the cause (this study would disprove that). It is impossible to be definitive here, but specifically regarding the Netherlands, I would say that what we are seeing regarding biodiversity is it returning to a more normal state after being artificially boosted by historical human land use. I won't go on, wrote too much already, will leave this to you. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ehh... Sorry! I assumed you'd edited out my addition, only just actually checked... Foolish of me! I get carried away... 86.83.56.115 (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I inadvertently caused you to write all that, but as I'm dealing with a lot of off-wiki stuff right now, I totally get how that kind of thing can happen at a glance. That said, I actually did intend to review the source to make sure things match up in your edits, but I have a bunch of other stuff to get to on my to-do list first.
 * In short, check out the talk page of the article for my position. I advocated for following more of the nuance in those studies (and the sourced issues with them), but was met with a lot of battleground behavior and eventually blocked for trying to follow Wikipedia policy and work through the disruptive behavior at that article. Hopefully it's settled down now, but care is definitely needed in crafting edits there, so there's a chance I might need to take a more critical eye of your edits from a WP:OR perspective even if I agree with some of your comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Blocked, shjeez! I went through a bit, but to be honest I zoned out on/skimmed through most of the talk page, too much pseudo-legalese for me. I thought you handled the ad hominem stuff quite well. I found the accusation of "denialism" particularly galling -what, scepticism is taboo now?


 * Well, I thought I'd be constructive and go through the article. I finished reading most of the studies. I will now edit the article as I see a bunch of problems. So I'm afraid I may dump more WPORimifying work load on you. Good luck with all your stuff! Regards, Leo  86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Roundup
It seems you deleted my references to the 1985 EPA report that I cited. Is it OK to leave in the sentence I wrote without citing Right to Know? After all, I had a link to the EPA memo itself. Please advise. 198.74.177.100 (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)