User talk:KoA/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

COI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture closed

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

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

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

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

Invitation

Hello KoA, we need experienced volunteers.

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

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