User talk:KoA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

This editor is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from my drafted comment at Talk:Monsanto:

It would be casting aspersions to continually make allusions to the idea that I "directly contradict[ed]" something without specifically identifying the comment where I had done so [and identifying which sentence within a long comment where I had done so], but not so if you directly quoted or clarified where I had done so. I appreciate you finally replying to my request to explain how I "directly contradict[ed]" the retraction source. If I am misrepresenting a source, by all means comment on that with specific explanation - because that is a content issue. Interpreting our sources is directly content relevant. Making continual claims that someone is misinterpreting a source with no further explanation is a WP:FOC violation. Katzrockso (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I understand that you're relatively new (to active editing at least in the past few months), but you really need to slow down and turn down the heat in how you're approaching things, especially in a designated Controversial Topic. There's more leeway to talk about behavior here than an article talk page like you ran into. Someone else made a comment about WP:BLUESKY to you recently, and you're really making a battle of a lot of things that should not be and also misunderstanding or misapplying various policies and guidelines I've mentioned to you previously. Editors that have been around this topic for a long time sometimes see new editors come in hot and kind of bowl over behavioral expectations. You're going down that path and lashing out instead when you're running into issues with your edits/comments that you should be able to discuss with less heat.

Please be mindful of WP:NPA policy when it comes to misrepresenting editors, especially me in this case in your opening sentence. You did claim that something actually in the source wasn't in the source, and I quoted you on that previously too (and later that what the source highlighted as a key thing somehow wasn't DUE). That's a huge problem we've already gone over, documented, etc., and the WP:BADGERING/sealioning on the article talk was not ok from a WP:FOC perspective. You could have just said something like, "Oh I missed that it was in the source." and moved on to where current content discussion had landed. You'll take my advice above as you will, but given the tone of your comment, I don't think it's going to be productive to discuss your behavior here further, so I'm closing this discussion to focus my limited volunteer time on content. KoA (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RSN discussion

Please take this as something said in friendship. I think the uninvolved editor who has been trying to give advice in the RSN discussion really does mean well, and is simply reacting to which group of editors is in the majority. I see your point of view there, and believe me, I get it, how it can be obnoxious to say that something published by an academic in your field is not a reliable source. But I think it's not worth fighting over this one, and there is a risk of it backfiring against you if you start to be seen as arguing against everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a tough one especially with the tone like That's a facile comparison and I would expect better from an experienced editor such as yourself. I've seen plenty of WP:1AM situations where it's better to just move on, but this is a tough one when you have many editors trying to override experts with their own personal opinions instead. That's to a point I feel like our hands our tied where we can't give credence to the idea in terms of WP:PAG. I don't have that much training in neuroscience outside of insect neuroscience for example, but I'm sure you can think of an example in your field where if someone insisted neuroscientists don't have expertise in that area (when its a core area you're expected to be able to navigate under the umbrella of neuroscience), you'd be pretty astounded. Usually I'd expect people to say I don't know much about that field and ask for more info rather than confidently say it's not related at all. At a higher level, it's like rejecting a source criticizing the statistics in another paper because they are a neuroscientist/agronomist/whatever rather than a statistician when the reality is that all those groups have statistics in their umbrella of expertise.

So when it comes to RSN, I was planning to step back from it there for the most part (also limited time over the weekend). Partly it's clear this has become a larger meta-issue and that's spurred discussions more on content generation on the subject where I'd probably focus more. With that said though, how would you address this (at a later date or for a broader discussion)? I could have posted a list of extension publications that do directly cover health effects of pesticides[1] that make it very clear this is an area agronomists, etc. cover, but the sense I get from comments is many editors just don't like that being in their area of expertise and would continue to claim they're not reliable.

I was hoping the two articles were settling down and editors could just let it breath for a bit with the holidays coming up, so that was my plan at least. It looks like they're getting worse on the behavior side with Katzrockso canvassing individuals to check out the dispute though and David Tornheim pinging me that they're following my edits to areas they don't edit (their topic ban was supposed to be in lieu of a one-way interaction ban towards me and others), it seems like editors are just getting emboldened to keep pushing the envelope. I've lost track of how many times I've seen things where I've thought if I did that, I'd expect to be blocked knowing what the ArbCom expectations are. Yet, other editors ignore them like with Katzrockso poisoning the well commenting on changing my username to an abbreviation (before any of this happened) as somehow a conflict of interest or pushing in edits while talk is ongoing. That or the stuff you got deal with recently where they claim something was never said when it was. I guess I'm just tried of that battleground attitude and the gaslighting whenever trying to get them to knock it off. I don't have the time I used to do take things to AE either, but there's the catch-22 of AE in this topic almost always being messy vs. trying to not take things to AE to focus on content that's having knock-on effects creating a double-standard between editors who are really careful about CT restrictions and those that are skirting them.

I do have an idea I'm working on though to propose at the Monsanto talk page (mentioned earlier on there too) that should hopefully at let everyone move on one way or another. That's for at least after the weekend if not Christmas though when I can get some focused editing time. KoA (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. My advice is to just let things go at the Monsanto and glyphosate pages for a while. I think things are going to quiet down, and I'd rather they just stay quiet. I think any further proposals are going to be more trouble than they will be worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I should have said that comment on a proposal was more of an if-needed scenario if other editors kept pushing things on talk or through edits. Seems like it's quiet enough to mostly let things be right now, and better to let things be and cool off before tackling any issues for more grounded discussion.

In a similar vein, I'm not planning to remove the K&O paper mention you've discussed on the talk page myself at least right now. I think it's a point there's not consensus for it, but it's also a good opportunity to let the editor to self-revert on their own too. If that isn't done, that can be tackled at a later date. KoA (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that. In my own opinion, the way things are now, there's nothing that's enough of a problem that it would require fixing. I actually feel pretty strongly that I just want things to be quiet, and not have any further drama. Obviously, there have been things I've disagreed with, but in the context of the disruptions that we have had historically, I think the editors who have come newly to the page are people who are willing to be cooperative enough that there's no one I want to escalate things with.

By the way, if things really do quiet down, I'm going to start a new page on, of all things, a species of insect that I find very interesting. (A totally non-contentious topic!) When I have something worth looking at, I'd love it if you would give it a critical go-over. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm actually hoping to get to a list of less stressful wiki-projects over the holiday break too, so happy to take a look if it's during that period or after too. KoA (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello KoA, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]