Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leyo (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 3 August 2023 (→Dominion (2018 film): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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.

Third opinion

I requested a third opinion on the names section dispute, see Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Megalogastor (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion?

Please feel free to delete this comment if you believe it inappropriately detracts from the issues you raised. Alternatively, I will delete it myself if you want. I just didn't want the immediately previous comment to hang there without a response from someone uninvolved with editing that page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, no worries it's all good. I don't plan to respond to that string of comments and just let it be (especially since you summed it up well already). It can be a complicated subject because many consumers believe it is a legitimate advisory group without knowing all the fringe stuff it pushes (or even if they are "right", it's often a broken clock problem). The Dirty Dozen list is maybe the most prominent in my field to the point there's peer-reviewed literature on it along with denialism about GMOs, vaccine denialism, etc. KoA (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at the EWG stuff, and it admittedly looks worse than what I'm seeing at glyphosate. It bothers me how the user keeps throwing around accusations based on incorrect readings of WP: shortcuts. On the other hand, this is someone who speaks English as a second language, and I think some of it is honest misunderstanding. At glyphosate, input from other editors seems to be keeping the dispute under control pretty well; perhaps that could work at EWG. Maybe post a request for more eyes at one of the content-related noticeboards (I'm not sure which one)? That might be less drama-prone than seeking admin intervention. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been weighing what to do with that EWG group one a lot too, but if you look at some of the history at other articles and the block log, the underlying behavior has just transferred over to these articles now rather than just being something isolated. I'm on my weekend anyways, so I'm mostly just trying not to engage with them for now while others maybe try to get a handle on it. I do feel like the problem is just going to get punted down the road though if there isn't some sort of admin intervention, but we'll see what happens. If previous interactions with the user are going to follow the same path as their past ones, they're likely just to continue badgering until admins in step in. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I already changed my mind for the worse once already when I saw the behavior history a few days ago. Hope all is well. KoA (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I earlier posted this message at FTN. Perhaps it will help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was planning to stop by there later tonight when I got back in. I think it's at the point where things are at a coherent enough stage (I hope) that it's easier for others to step in. KoA (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT

Hey KoA, other editors have pointed out that you are an expert on the subject of Glyphosate and you seem to have confirmed it. Could I ask you to clarify your expertise and affiliations? Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}   18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, to be frank, I'm tired of you hounding me and WP:IDHT behavior, so I have no interest in discussing my personal life with you. You've made it very clear you're transferring over and doubling down on the behavior that led to your topic ban in UFOs and other blocks. Given the amount of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior you've been exhibiting on and off talk pages, especially towards me, it's very clear you still haven't gotten the message about WP:BLUDGEONING these last few years. All I can say is that you need to step back from controversial topics (or ones you escalate behavior in like this) and learn the ropes of how editing and consensus building actually works. You've already had more guidance than most editors on that front. KoA (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, it's also nothing mysterious. Just look at KoA's user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I note that it is extremely bad form, if not actually disruptive, to exclude an editor from one's Talk page, as Gtoffoletto did last month to KoA here (At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page), and then come to that same editor's Talk page to deliver a message that could easily be interpreted as bad faith interrogation. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Asking for personal information such as affiliations is just not acceptable and could lead to WP:OUTING an editor who chooses to edit anonymously. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax KoA hasn't asked me not to publish on his page. If he does so I will respect that choice of course.

With regards to asking for personal information, I absolutely do not wish to lead this to WP:OUTING. I'm trying to follow WP:COICOIN that explicitly suggests one should raise the issue on the user's talk page (never had to deal with such issues so if I did something wrong please let me know). I believe that if an expert is editing in his area of expertise this could be a neutrality issue. I'm not saying this is the case. This is not an accusation of any wrongdoing. I just think that more transparency is appropriate here. I've explained my reasoning and I see more experienced users have stepped in so I think I can leave this section be at this point. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}   12:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I just think that more transparency is appropriate here. More transparency than what KoA presents on their user page?! That detailed information is somehow insufficient for you? At this point KoA would be doing you a great service by hatting or deleting this entire section. One administrator has already commented here, and the longer it remains open the more likely your behavior here (and here, and here) will attract additional administrator attention. Such attention might not end well for you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto as is linked above in this thread, you were asked on the 5th of June:" At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page alone and stick to the content discussions on the talk pages." Doug Weller talk 15:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That link is Gtoffoletto asking KoA to stay off Gtoffoletto's Talk page. I do not know if KoA has made a similar request. But as I wrote above, it is extremely bad form, if not actually disruptive, for Gtoffoletto to exclude an editor from their Talk page and then comment on that same editor's page. And that, of course, is independent of both the questionable reason for Gtoffoletto starting this section, and Gtoffoletto's bludgeon/IDHT behavior on other pages, as described by KoA above. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I never have asked Gtoffoletto to stay off my talk page, but that was also never an invitation for them to continue badgering like they are doing now after months now. What's interesting though is that they said they didn't want me on their talk page often only one comment, so that did seem pretty indicative of battleground mentality right off the bat. I do agree that coming here now after that plus the now months of hounding and the now COI bludgeoning really does not come across well.

I haven't seen this degree of toxicity for quite awhile though. Way back when we crafted items at the GMO ArbCom, we had to have this principle on aspersions for exactly the kind of stuff Gtoffoletto is doing here in order to quickly remove those editors from the topic or interaction. That was because the tactic was frequently used to badger editors with no real evidence of being paid off by Monsanto, etc. rather directly. It was to the point that I had to bend over backwards with my user page description as you saw. When that behavior was initially cracked down on, now blocked or banned editors switched to making vague statements to try to game the principle with statements very much like just saying they're asking questions, not accusing or attacking anyone specific, etc. as a way of gaming the principle to use COI as a bludgeon. That was cracked down on too as clear bad-faith attempts. What Gtoffoletto still is pushing in the name of "transparency" despite what I've already provided is more of the same, and I think they've had ample warning. KoA (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto How does WP:COICOIN have anything to do with being an expert? Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what you are an expert in. If you work in pesticide/pest research (this is what KoA is saying) the chances you have worked with one of the few large industrial pesticide producers can be pretty high. Should you edit pages on Misplaced Pages related to controversial topics on the subject? I don't find it so absurd to be asking this question. I've never dealt with WP:COI before so I would appreciate some guidance from more experienced users, especially if this is not appropriate. Once again, I would like to clarify that I'm not accusing KoA of any wrongdoing here. They are an anonymous user as far as I'm concerned and I value their privacy. But they admitted themselves that they are an expert in this sector so some transparency is needed as there appears to be a potential COI. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}   18:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate some guidance You have already received such guidance from "experienced users," Gtoffoletto. You seem either unable or unwilling to take that guidance on board, and you are now tripling down on implied bias against another editor, under the false claim that transparency is needed, in an apparent attempt to gain advantage in content disputes. When combined with your other, disruptive behaviors in article space as described above by KoA (WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BLUDGEONING here and here), to say nothing of your past challenges with those same behaviors, it creates the impression that an additional topic/pages ban for you is needed. I believe you are fortunate that no such sanction has, as yet, been requested or imposed. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As the filing party in the GMO ArbCom case, what is going on here is, unfortunately, all too familiar to me. Gtoffoletto, you need to drop, right now, your efforts to imply that KoA has a COI with respect to glyphosate. What he voluntarily reveals on his user page is sufficient to put that accusation to rest. At the time of the ArbCom case, it became commonplace for editors who wanted to have our content criticize glyphosate accuse other editors who simply wanted NPOV of being "shills for Monsanto" (now Bayer). See: . Such accusations are disruptive conduct, and are subject to the GMO Contentious Topics restrictions. As it stands now, there are at least three editors at Talk:Glyphosate who disagree with your arguments, and no one is agreeing with you. Personally, I have been trying to be extra fair to you in those arguments, but my patience is wearing thin. One more comment from you, accusing KoA of having a COI, and I will personally take you to WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Using spiders to protect crops

I'm growing Cordyline fruticosa in a container, and we have lots of spiders in my area. I've noticed that the plant does better when the spiders take up residence. This led me to find this recent article ("Using spiders as environmentally-friendly pest control") from February. Since you have a stated interest in biological pest control, I'm curious if you think this research will pan out and farmers might start using spiders to fight pests. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

At least for widespread farm fields, probably not, but it also depends on the type of insect you're trying to prevent. When we look at how much predation occurs on crop pests, spiders are usually generalists that make up a small, but often present percentage of the total feeding activity out there. Spiders often won't bother with really small things like aphids (depending on the size of the spider). Ambush style spiders might be going after small grasshoppers, flies, etc. while your stereotypical web spiders might be more prone to get moths and other flying insects. Spiders are also a bit more developed mentally than insects, so there's a lot more that happens on the behavior side of things. They tend to be a bit territorial and some get into really interesting social behaviors, but that also makes it hard to have large colonies of spiders in a garden or crop field at times. That's where the paper you mentioned comes in for non-cannibalistic spiders. I don't see spiders like that though being mass-reared for releases elsewhere though.

That's not to say they don't help a lot, but when it comes to directed biological control, releases of a predator from a native range, etc. it just gets really tricky with spiders. If I'm going to pick a generalist like spiders often are, then I'm more apt to go with something like a lady beetle you really can release en masse. For something like the tomato leafminer they mention, parasitoid wasps are often an even better choice since they often will oviposit through the plant tissue into the developing larvae that is protecting from generalist predators like spiders or beetles. That and parasitoids are often very genera or species specific, so we don't get non-target effects as much with them.

Spiders are cool though, so I'd love to see more of them, but most of the time they're just going to do their thing rather than us really being able to direct them as well as other critters. High effort and low reward situation usually unfortunately. The best case for spiders though is instead of classical biological control (permanent introduction) or augmentative (mass temporary releases like a pesticide), they get looked at more through the conservation biological control angle where if you maintain or alter habitat to benefit existing spiders, you can possibly see more ecosystem services from the spiders. I'm not familiar with your specific case though to say much about that system, but if you're having spiders hanging around more now, you're probably doing things well. KoA (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Dominion (2018 film)