User talk:KoA

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.

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia: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#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (March 2019). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:11, 1 April 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  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#Redux & Talk:Decline in insect populations#Hallmann et al 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#Biomass_decline and Talk:Insect#The_planet_is_on_track_for_total_Insect_extinction_,_according_to_1st_ever_global_review (where my POVFORK comments came from) and also followed up at Talk:Insect#Graph_removal 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.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

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[7][8] or ArbCom[9] (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

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

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

---

Request reason:

I had been specifically asked to make those edits listed at AN3 are part of normal consensus building 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.[10], so a block for following the talk page discussion really wasn't appropriate here. The AN3 filer was around during those comments too. As dealt with in this talk section, I had been dealing with editors blanket reverting their new text back in[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] without gaining consensus and refusing to address most of those specific edits on the talk page despite multiple requests by me [19] to justify them per WP:ONUS for weeks. The few pieces that were actually being addressed on the talk page elsewhere I did not undo in the recent requested edits. Those presented at the AN3 though are the edits I was specifically asked to make, so a block should not have been a consideration if the actual talk page discussion is followed, which is something that really needs to be reflected going forward with anything on this subject.

There have been many ongoing edits at the article to sort through, so I can address the specific histories of those edits listed at AN3 here if absolutely need be, but that would be more appropriate at the AN3 report to get the pervasive edit warring problem in the subject ironed out. Doing that really does require specific details on edits and what has actually been discussed at the talk page though. If I had been given a chance to respond there, it would have been clear this block wasn't WP:PREVENTATIVE as I would have stated I was already waiting on making article edits for awhile while things get sorted out, in part due to WP:1RR, but also in the hopes that the recent edits would have finally encouraged editors to discuss the specific edits they want to get the ball rolling. The rest should be handled at AN3 though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have accepted this unblock request per the reasoning below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Lourdes:, just a ping in case the template doesn't notify you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. thanks Kingoffaces. Given Trypto's 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[20]

• Per[21] 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[22] 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 [23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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)

• Doc James, all good on this side with your decision. Thanks, Lourdes 00:47, 3 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)

@Lourdes: 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)

@Lourdes: 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)

(edit conflict) 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)

• (talk page watcher) 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  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

About evidence, in this first posting: [26], KofA did present this permalink: [27]. --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)

Aspersions

At 18:54, 3 April 2019 your comments on WP:AN3 included three claims about SarahSV (SlimVirgin):

• "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"

Your other comments at WP:AN3 also included claims about SV with links [28] and [29] 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 [30] 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)

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)