User talk:KoA: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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.

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Precious

—Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]