MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) →Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!: new section Tag: |
→Responding to EdChem: r Sandbh - ANI will impose a tban, I don't believe that can be prevented, nor do I believe that it should be prevented |
||
Line 364: | Line 364: | ||
Your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you too DePiep, if you'd be so inclined. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 05:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
Your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you too DePiep, if you'd be so inclined. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 05:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Sandbh}}, quoting your post and adding thoughts: |
|||
::{{tq|'''1.''' Re support at ANI, I have nothing to lose from trying.}} |
|||
:::I disagree. My suggestion of allowing a single page in my user space where the tban is not in effect can only occur with ANI agreement. Otherwise, the tban will apply to that page and discussion will be more difficult – and you will face sanctions for tban violations there just as will apply anywhere else. I think it is to your benefit to be able to have discussions on-wiki to provide evidence of any change that occurs. What you have to lose from trying for a less restrictive option is editors at ANI seeing your efforts as evidence of trying to create loopholes and concluding that my suggestion is too risky / not appropriate at this time, etc, and ending up with the blanket ban imposed. |
|||
::{{tq|'''2.''' Yes, I am asking for your support and that of DePiep and R8R, in light of my many contributions from 2012 to 2019, as referred to by DePiep.}} |
|||
:::It is my view, based on {{u|DePiep}}'s comments above, his comments at ANI, and those at his talk page, that DePiep thinks a tban is appropriate – and I agree with him on that. I also think he has formed the view that my suggestion is unwise. I can't and won't try to speak for him (or for anyone else) but my opinion is that DePiep might help in providing input on problems but not support for anything less than the full tban presently proposed at ANI. |
|||
::{{tq|'''3.''' Re consensus at WP:ELEM, that will not be my call. Someone else will need to decide if consensus has been established—I most certainly will not.<br />'''4.''' Re adding citations, I will exclude these from my gnomish work.}} |
|||
:::I don't think wither of these will be allowed under the tban and I think both you and the other ELEM editors can benefit from time apart. |
|||
::{{tq|'''5.''' For a redraft of the PT article in my sandbox, I will seek consensus at WP:ELEM, per item 3. There will be no fight since I will not proceed unless consensus has been established. I have done this before when WP:ELEM agreed an earlier non-metal category reorganisation and it worked fine. I did it with another proposal and failed to attain consensus. And that was that. C’est la vie. I learnt a lot along the way though.}} |
|||
:::Pursuing the idea of working on a PT redraft in your sandbox is (IMO) likely to strengthen views at ANI that no exceptions be made. This article has been a source of much conflict. My advice on it is to sit silently while any changes occur and, once the tban has ended, approach it with a huge amount of caution. As a general rule, problematic behaviour at an article that led to a tban that happens soon after a tban expires is an efficient route to an indefinite tban. We should also consider (once the tban is in place) whether things that you feel worked fine are seen that way by others. |
|||
::{{tq|'''6.''' In terms of what others think, I expect they would be looking for a ban of some sort, which I am proposing. In terms of what an admin thinks I can only hope that they would apply the principle that an imposed ban of the kind proposed is a last resort, and that there are many other solutions short of that. They may not, though. I can only hope.}} |
|||
:::A voluntary restriction might have been an option when the ANI thread was first building a consensus that your report of DePiep was ill-advised. Maybe even when the tban was first proposed. I can't know how you thought your attempt to withdraw the thread would be seen. My impression is that you thought it would render the ANI moot, which is not how ANI works. In my opinion, how it appeared and how it was taken by ANI participants was as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. What followed included more comments on DePiep, which I suspect was taken by some as confirmation that action was needed. This reduced the chances that a voluntary restriction was insufficient and that an ANI-imposed tban was appropriate. Please remember that harsher measures exist, including an indefinite ban which can only be ended with a successful appeal (rather than a time-limited ban), interaction bans that would make participating at ELEM difficult, the tban being cast more broadly (such as chemistry, broadly construed), blocks (which are likely if there are tban violations), and even a site ban. I think the chances of the ANI ending without a formal tban of some sort are practically zero. |
|||
::{{tq|'''7.''' If I have an agenda I won’t be able to push it, given the restrictions I'm proposing to place myself under. Metaphorically, I have a loaded gun at my head. I lack judgement as to the Wikipedia way. I am not so stupid (now) though to prompt the trigger to be pulled. I’m more interested in learning with your guidance.}} |
|||
:::By far the best way to persuade others about your intentions is through actions. Accepting that the ban is inevitable would be sensible. Editing unproblematically in one or more areas away from the tban would be good. Ultimately, the proof will be a lack of problems when you are able to re-engage in the ELEM area. I am glad that you want to learn / develop and no one expects perfection – everyone makes mistakes – and the tban is an imposition on you but is also an opportunity to demonstrate through your actions that you can contribute and learn from the past. Arguing that the metaphorical loaded gun isn't needed because you aren't going to prompt the trigger to be pulled will not lead to it being withdrawn. Try thinking of the tban as a mechanism to help protect you from going to an area that has proven problematic and thus protecting you from further problems, while at the same time allowing the topic area to regain a greater calm and for wounds to heal. |
|||
::{{tq|'''8.''' I prefer not to have a t-ban imposed on me. Having said that I’ll be happy for my proposed self-ban to be recorded in my block log. I hope that will in some way contribute to a yes solution for the ANI ivoters.}} |
|||
:::What you prefer is not what ANI contributors are thinking about. They are thinking about the readers of the encyclopaedia and the editors in the ELEM area. The opportunity for you to volunteer for self-imposed restrictions and that idea to gain traction at ANI has passed, in my opinion. Pushing for it now will likely be interpreted as you not recognising the reality of the present situation and thus reinforcing the view that an ANI restriction is needed. The tban is going to happen, that is out of your control... but you can control how you respond and what happens next. |
|||
:::As for it being recorded, it will be recorded in the log of community-imposed restrictions. It will not appear in your block log unless you are blocked for violating it. It will be noted on your talk page when imposed. Once it is over, it will be forgotten by most editors so long as problems do not recur. It will be remembered by those involved, but there won't be a reason to discuss it so long as problems don't recur. Yes, it can be found if someone goes digging... but editors will defend you if it is brought up inappropriately to criticise you so long as the problematic behaviours have not returned. Recording it in your block log would actually make it more visible. You are far from the only editor to have had a sanction imposed by ANI. Some prove that they are unable to work collaboratively, that they are here to push an agenda / engage in advocacy, or that they seek to cause disruption – and they ultimately earn the site ban that is needed to protect the encyclopaedia and its editors. Others learn from the experience and end up valued and respected for their contributions and admired for their ability to change. You have the opportunity to become one of the latter. |
|||
::{{tq|'''9.''' I’m all ears with respect to FAC participation, and imposing extra restrictions.}} |
|||
:::You are free to participate in FAC so long as it is not on articles within the area of your tban. If you do try reviewing, my advice is to state your views once, engage in dialogue if the nominator responds with comments / questions / alternatives / etc, and accept if others express views different from yours. |
|||
:As far as your proposed self-imposed ban goes, I won't respond in detail because it won't happen, IMO. However: |
|||
:*A tban means no editing of the area, no gnomish work, leave the articles alone. |
|||
:*{{u|R8R}} will not have the authority to make editing the aluminium article for an FA nomination an exception to the tban. Nor can I or any other individual editor make such an exception. Permission to do this would be needed from ANI. Asking for it now would be counter-productive, IMO, but perhaps in (say) 3 months with productive editing elsewhere, ANI might allow editing of this one article. Note the word "might". |
|||
:*Pinging editors if they have asked that you do not can be taken as harassment, so please respect any no-ping requests. Since any discussion of the topic will be a tban violation, you should have no reason to ping anyone for anything ELEM related. |
|||
:*We can consider an off-wiki Zoom chat, though keeping as much on-wiki as possible is desirable, subject to whatever terms are imposed on the tban by ANI. Given DePiep's question above, I want to be clear that I am not open to making content decisions based on off-wiki discussions. |
|||
:Apologies that this response is so long. I struggle with being brief. |
|||
:'''TL;DR version''' |
|||
:*I don't believe that any self-imposed / voluntary restriction will be viewed favourably at ANI. |
|||
:*Consequently, the tban is going to happen, with whatever terms are decided at ANI. |
|||
:*I am open to a user space page where it doesn't apply, if ANI will support that, but I am not going to oppose the tban as I think you need time away from WT:ELEM, the PT article, and the ELEM editors. |
|||
:*You get to choose what happens next in how you respond. |
|||
:*Working on a redraft of the PT article in your sandbox is likely to be prohibited, as is any posting at WT:ELEM... and I think this is good for you and for the project. |
|||
:[[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup! == |
== Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup! == |
Revision as of 00:35, 2 January 2021
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome!
Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
- Courcelles (submissions)
- Kosack (submissions)
- Kees08 (submissions)
- SounderBruce (submissions)
- Cas Liber (submissions)
- Nova Crystallis (submissions)
- Iazyges (submissions)
- Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
- Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
- Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
- Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
- Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
- Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
- Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
- Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
- Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
- MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
- Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
- Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
GA idea
I have an idea I would like to run past you to see if you like. I have a large list of potential GANs that I keep a running tally on. If any of these that do NOT have a date on them look interesting to you, just do some copy editing on the article and submit GAN. Then BOTH of us will get credit - you as the nominator and me as the original creator of the article. What do you think? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Here is additional on the above proposal. All these articles I created as previous Did You Know articles, so I a very familiar with them. When the GA review comes up I can answer the more difficult issues the reviewer brings up, as I know the material. You as the nominator could reply to minor issues, like grammer. I produced 31 Good Articles during this past October GAN drive. I now have over 100 Good Articles and plan on making another 100 Good Articles in 2021. If you are interested in collecting several green icons for your user page, nominate several of these above I am proposing - since I plan on turning these into Good Articles. I don't know your schedule, so don't know how busy you may be or if you would have some time to devote to this proposal. I am retired, so have all the time in the world for making Did You Know articles and Good Articles with my computers.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- If any of the articles in my large list of potential GANs that don't have a date on them look interesting to you just do some copy editing on the article and submit GAN. I will respond to the issues brought up by the reviewer. I'm sure I can handle 90% of them. Both of us will get credit for the GA. What do you think? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Here is my latest upgraded article I just submitted GAN. To me this is at Good Article standards. There should be just minor issues to take care of to get it promoted. Time will tell.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell, thanks for stopping by and making your kind offer. My thoughts, however, were about GA nominations where there are two (or more) editors who did the work on the article, rather than the DYK-style of having a separate credit for the nominator and editor(s). I would like the green icons but I want them for the articles I have worked substantially on. When the GA review for my nomination of hexamethylbenzene came up, for example, I stated that I saw the credit as belonging to me and to another editor. In that case, the reviewer (Double sharp) was kind enough to post to DMacks' user talk (now archived) advising of the GA promotion. To me, this "officially" recognises that DMacks and I can both claim the GA credit. To me, there should be an official process built in to GA nominations to grant credit to multiple editors.
Of course, I could just list the articles on my user page and link to the history to substantiate my contribution. We could put together a list of the articles that we both substantially contributed to and link to that (assuming you agreed). But, I really think that it should be built in to the GA process to list multiple contributing editors, and probably (like DYK) a separate nominator credit for cases where the nominator has not substantially edited the article. I am sure that some will view this as trivial and it is true that the important issue is the contribution of strong content to the encyclopaedia for our readers. I do believe that contributors being acknowledged is desirable and helps build the Wikipedian coconmmunity.
Doug, please note that I am not blaming you for the system or for not having posted a note similar to the one I did for the hexamethylbenzene GA nomination. You did a lot of work on the articles and are totally deserving of the GA credits. It was an interesting collaboration for us both (I hope), I just think (as I commented at the GA review) that the system could and should recognise cases where building an article to GA is predominantly the work of a group of editors working together (or even in series). The GA reviewer did mention my contribution and thanked me for my comment... Right cite, do you have any thoughts? I see that Moxy has since commented on the GA review and might have thoughts.
I welcome whatever thoughts that you (or anyone else) might have. EdChem (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It so happens that in the Did You Know process that several editors can get credit when the article officially becomes a Did You Know. See Template:NewDYKnomination/guide and the contributors section, where it notes |author2=, |author3=, etc - so, until the GA process has such a structure officially, then I am suggesting that we could each get a GA credit for collaborating on an article IF you did copy editing to one of my articles that I created I am suggesting in my list of potential Good Articles (with no date). If you have 30% or more authorship (by copy editing) I would consider it fair. Then you nominate it GAN, so you can get credit as the nominator. I would be glad to handle most of the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, since I have more time on my hands since I am retired. Is that workable for you until the GA process gets officially changed to allow several credits like the Did You Know process is now? I plan on making 100 Good Articles in 2021. I made 100 Good Articles in 2020.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I just did an upgrade to Frederick Morrell Zeder, an article I originally created in 2012. It's not that far from a Good Article. IF you will do some copy editing to make improvements to the article and nominate it GAN then we both can get a GA credit. I will be glad to handle the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, as I am very familiar with the article. It will become a Good Article without to much trouble. Does this sound like an interesting proposition?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is my thoughts on the present way the GA credits are given to editors. From my experience of making over 500 Did You Know articles I think it is correct the way it is now. Here is why. The creator of the article should get a credit, because without the article then there would be no credits for anyone. They usually have the most amount of authorship - 80% of the time. The nominator should get a credit since they had the ambition to nominate the article for GAN. This is usually because they usually have the second largest authorship into it and therefore an interest in the article subject (80% of the remaining 20% or about 16% of the time). Editors of authorship of #3, #4, and #5 have little to no interest in the subject written about in the article. They just did small edits (e.g. grammar, spelling, fixes). They are about 4% of the total amount of authorship (combined) to the article. They should not get a GA credit like the nominator and creator since they have basically no interest in the subject of the article. So therefore the GA credit process requires no changes and is correct the way it is. In the case of DYK articles the editors of #2, #3, and #4 authorship are creators of the article when it was originally constructed for that intent (time restriction in play of 7 days).--Doug Coldwell (talk)
I just did an upgrade to Robert Grace, an article I originally created in 2017. It's not that far from a Good Article. IF you will do some copy editing and make improvements to the article and nominate it GAN then we both can get a GA credit. I will be glad to handle the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, as I am very familiar with the article. It will become a Good Article without to much trouble. Does this sound like an interesting proposition?-Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Robert Grace is a prime example of what I am talking about. Editors #3, #4, and #5 added up for total authorship is 4% of the article. The #2 editor has no interest in being the nominator since he only has 2.9% of the total authorship. I have 91.5% of the authorship of the article. If you want to be the GA nominator you should have an interest in the article of over 3% and perhaps of something near 20% authorship. Does that seem fair to you? Otherwise I will just nominate it myself and have the only GA credit issued when it gets promoted to a Good Article. Keep in mind that I have a good idea what a Good Article looks like since I got 31 Good Articles during the month of October and now have over 100 Good Articles (represented by green icons on top of my User Page). I say that Robert Grace is not very far from being a Good Article. Are you interested in collecting GA green icons for your User Page? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Let me point out that there is NOT a separate "nominator credit" and "creator credit" in the Did You Know process. The DYK nominator is usually the creator of the article. At the time the creator nominates the article for DYK s/he also lists author #2 and author #3 (rarely) at that time (immediately) as co-creators. All the editors know ahead of time they are ALL going to be participating in creating the article (since there is a seven day time limit). This then creates about an even distribution of authorship of the article by natural default (as my 14 year DYK experience has shown of 500 DYKs). You can see that in the case of potential Good Articles that the creator has much more interest and authorship in the article, than the nominator. However the nominator gets the same GA credit as the creator (mainly because they solved the issues of the reviewer). Generally speaking editor #3, #4, and #5 added up together is 4% or less authorship. It would not be fair to the creator and nominator for any of these last three editors to get the same credit as the creator and nominator - since they did not really participate in the creation of the article in becoming a Good Article. They made little edits (or minor) as any other drive-by editor would do, that has no interest in the subject (material) of the article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello EdChem,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding alternative PTs
Hey EdChem,
I wanted to ask you something. In your career as a chemist, have you often seen any tables that really differ much from the standard one like those mentioned at Periodic table#Tables with different structures or Alternative periodic tables?
The reason I ask is that I have some worry of whether it's due weight to mention them at length if they are not much used. My impression of chemistry texts is that the three common forms are (a) the standard 18 column format, (b) the previously standard 8 column format of Mendeleev [mostly confined to Russia and her near abroad, very rare elsewhere], and (c) the standard 32 column format (as an explanation of how the f block fits into the 18 column format). Those are the three that were present in the 1990 Red Book, and of these (b) and (c) were cut out of the 2005 one. Anything else seems to be of surpassing rarity. Other alternatives have been mentioned in Eric Scerri's secondary-source text The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance (well, it's secondary when he covers other people's formulated alternative PTs), but it seems to me that the really weird alternative forms have since about WWII mostly been an almost fringe-y sideline, with few serious chemists using anything such, and with the only questions really acknowledged in textbooks and the literature by many chemists being the period 1 (where to put H – standard Greenwood & Earnshaw exceptionally worries about He also, but most think that one is obvious) and group 3 questions. Janet's LSPT maybe lives on some sort of limbo where it is often mentioned as an alternative but not much used; the rest, so far as I can see, have barely even that in the standard literature. Is that correct? And if that's the case, then is our current coverage of this at periodic table OK, or should most of it be moved to the specific article alternative periodic tables? Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp:
- Have I seen other tables? Yes. But seen them being used? Not significantly that I can recall. I think they have utility in education to get students to stop and reflect. So-called discrepant event teaching can be very effective - grab and hold attention by showing something unexpected or that challenges their expectations / beliefs. Giving them a strange-looking PT could be a great way to discuss the nature of science, to explore the distinction between models and reality, etc. However, the familiar PT is here to stay and our article on it needs to focus on what it is, not on alternatives or history, which belong primarily in other articles.
- On DUE for the main periodic table article, discussing the alternatives at length is not appropriate as they aren't the topic.
- I've not looked at the main article for this for a while (the last week has been very hectic) but I won't be surprised if there is material better suited to other articles.
- I can't speak for the literature as a whole, but the obvious core content of our article is what is covered in standard textbooks, probably of HSC / first year university level. WP's audience is not primarily people whose idea of finding out about the PT is Cotton & Wilkinson. :)
- EdChem (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp:
Use of sources at WP:ELEM
Your input would be appreciated at WT:ELEM § Informal poll 2. Thank you. YBG (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Two more threads
My apologies for giving you two more threads as requests for your comments, but I think we likely need them at:
- WT:ELEM#A direct comment about the above B-Al-Sc thread and
- WT:ELEM#Notification of intention to revert
I confess I am getting somewhat frustrated, which is why I am trying to limit my responses so that it doesn't bleed through. The former since you replied there; and the latter since it has to do with what we discussed. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Your ANI comments
EdChem, I feel your comments at WP:ANI misrepresent what actually happened. Could you please correct your comments as you see fit?
1. “It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.”
- As noted on my talk page, YBG has temporarily left the project in the past. He'll be back. Double sharp has left the project in the past. He continued to contribute. He returned to the project. He has now left the project. Based on previous experience, he'll continue to contribute, and he'll return to the project. Project membership counts; contributions count more.
2. “I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.”
- I wrote, “Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward. The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp. No other person commented on these items.
3. “Sandbh’s announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG.”
- Objections which I paid heed to.
4. “R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected.”
- Not so, I made no such objection. Rather, I observed that the normal practice was for the editor concerned to edit the article in their sandbox and to then seek comments, before going live. The editor who did object was DePiep.
5. “I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.”
- Over 200 posts were made to WP:ELEM during the period 19 to 24 December.
6. “I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view.”
- DePiep has often commented about how hard it is to follow the discussions at WP:ELEM. He has previously engaged in housekeeping of kind I undertook. YBG was the only one to object, per se. Does that mean he has a generally inconsistent view? In my case, which views “plural” are you referring to?
7. “A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment.”
- Not so, I commented on this discussion in the discussion section.
8. “In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that “Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate”.
- The analysis concerned was confined to the talk page where, in any event, OR does not apply.
9. “The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping.”
- I use old sources where appropriate, especially in history. WP:OR provides for the use of primary sources. What uses of OR in the article space are you referring to?
Sandbh (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Request for help
Dear EdChem, I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental sense; help in how to meet WP expectations sense. I'm obviously missing something.
Is my goose cooked?
Appreciate any help or support either of you could provide.
thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: I've asked DePiep for help, too.
I won't be online until tomorrow morning my time; about 10 to 12 hours time.
- Hi Sandbh,
- Clearly quite a bit has happened since I was last at WP. My initial thoughts on reading your request (which I have made into a separate sub-section, FYI) were two-fold: (1) recognising that a topic ban is likely and that you need help is a positive step, and (2) that it is quite likely to be too late. When I read the subsequent posts from others at ANI, my view on the latter strengthened. I think the chances of the topic ban being avoided are now very small. I know what is needed but I doubt it would have any effect at this point.
- The reason that I am of that view is that your posts to the ANI thread have been making this outcome more and more likely. When you started the thread, I said that DePiep did not warrant any sanctions but you persisted in comments that read to me (and to others) as blaming DePiep. I invited you several times to reflect and to back away from that position, and though your table response did acknowledge DePiep's right to edit / revert (which was good), you did not take the opportunities to comment in a concrete way on your own contributions to the conflict. Your contributions at ANI made the same points repeatedly (which has also been happening at WT:ELEM) and which reads like IDHT to others' comments. The table post, for example, was in response to comments from DePiep and from me that indicated your response did not address what was asked. You rearranged your response into a table to made the connections clearer between your response and my summary, but did not alter the content – in educational terms, I felt that your response was like when a student says "I don't understand X" and the teacher gives an explanation and is then told "I still don't understand" so the teacher gives the same explanation but louder, as the problem is the student was having hearing difficulties. I accept that these were not your intent (and this is a few examples that came to mind), but this is how they came across to me.
- One of the ANI posters commented "too little, too late", and I can understand why. Even though your recent post recognising a need for help and your "last post" are steps in the right direction, they don't actually show what the editors at ANI seek. You are not a naughty child and ANI is not your parents, and by that I mean that it is not contrition that is sought. You write that you've "acknowledged my problematic conduct," but what is sought is not "I'm sorry, I did the wrong thing" but "I recognise that X was a problem because of Y and I will do Z to avoid that recurring." The ANI editors want to see that you understand what is problematic and why. That you reached out to me and (importantly, IMO) to DePiep is a good sign, but it is not enough. No one is looking for you to grovel or beg to be allowed to edit in the ELEM area. No one wants you to be humiliated. We want you to be able to contribute your considerable base of knowledge, but it needs to happen in a way consistent with how WP operates.
- What I've written here may well be difficult for you to accept. If this ANI experience does lead you to an epiphany on how to work collaboratively in ELEM, then it will have been beneficial (in the long term). Though you may not have realised, the proposal for a 6 month topic ban is generous in that is time limited. It could easily have been an indefinite topic ban that could be appealed after 6 months. I posted at ANI that I was conflicted about the ban because the situation was getting worse. You brought the issue to a head with your ANI post and the fact you thought when you posted it, and as it developed, that editors looking at your own contributions would not be problematic shows a significant problem in your evaluation of the situation. Even following your realisation that you need help and that your approach does have problems, I am not convinced that time away from the topic is not the best thing for you.
- However, I am willing to try to help. I am willing to post at ANI asking that the ban not be implemented for a day or two for us to talk about how I (or DePiep and I) can help if you are interested and he is willing. Be aware, if we try to help and it falls apart, and if after the ban expires problems recur in the ELEM area, the likelihood of a permanent topic ban would be significant. EdChem (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you EdChem. I accept your advice. This was not hard for me to do. There are evidently some shortcomings in my approach to matters at WP:ELEM (and, indeed, WP:ANI). And both up you and DePiep have a deeper appreciation of the situation. I’m ready to learn and change my conduct accordingly. I have no concerns about things falling apart since that would be self-defeating behaviour on my part, and I have no intention of doing that. Could you please go ahead and post to ANI as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, the sort of idea that I have in mind is:
- Recognise that the Tban will go ahead, I doubt anything can be said that would persuade ANI contributors otherwise
- Request that a single page be exempted from the tban, such as one in my user space – perhaps user:EdChem/Sandbh – for the purpose of discussing how / why the ban arose
- You undertake to edit in some area of the encyclopedia that is unrelated to chemical elements, of your choice
- Discussion on the exempt page will focus on the problems though perhaps allowing comment / suggestion on the topic. Such comments can be hatted by others if problematic and you will accept that / not re-argue. Discussion on the page can be paused by me at my request, or even ended if it proves unproductive.
- Does something like this sound reasonable? Any comments / suggestions? EdChem (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sandbh, the sort of idea that I have in mind is:
- Thank you EdChem. I accept your advice. This was not hard for me to do. There are evidently some shortcomings in my approach to matters at WP:ELEM (and, indeed, WP:ANI). And both up you and DePiep have a deeper appreciation of the situation. I’m ready to learn and change my conduct accordingly. I have no concerns about things falling apart since that would be self-defeating behaviour on my part, and I have no intention of doing that. Could you please go ahead and post to ANI as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Proposal made at user:Sandbh
Sandbh, I note this proposal that you posted on your user page. It appears that my comments above and yours were posted nearly simultaneously, so I don't interpret it as having occurred in reply or anything like that. You have asked for my view, and that of DePiep, so here is a quick reply:
- Your proposal won't gain support at ANI, in my opinion. Even if I thought it was a good approach and even if DePiep and R8R supported it (which I don't think they will), I don't think it would be persuasive at ANI. Reasons include:
- Posting "with consensus" from WT:ELEM is problematic given you have struggled with judging consensus at times
- WT:ELEM has seen massive amounts of posting (including IDHT issues), which ANI editors have noted needs to be dealt with, and this won't
- "gnomish work" on citations has the potential to be an area of disagreement if citations are primary, viewed as problematic under DUE, etc
- Drafting a new PT article in user space has me thinking of the robot in Lost in Space: "Danger, Will Robinson!" Though I don't think you mean it this way, I can see it as flagging a fight in 6 months the moment the topic ban ends
- Read the comments at ANI and pretend they aren't about you. Maybe ask someone you know IRL to read them and to put aside what they know of you – maybe even edit out your replies. Ask them or judge for yourself what the ANI view is of the editor being discussed. DePiep has pointed out to you that the views expressed are clear even if his responses / comments are removed, and I agree. Further, if you remove mine (except insofar as they are endorsed by others) and look only at the comments from editors outside ELEM, they paint a clear view of an outsider's perspective on the area. You might say that portrait is distorted and is unfair to you. In some areas, I probably agree. But it is what others are seeing. Look at it and ask yourself what someone seeing that would find acceptable.
- ANI deals regularly with editors who are on WP for the wrong reasons. People who want to push a biased view that supports their own beliefs. People who will deliberately lie and manipulate to "win". People who will always look for a loophole to get with continuing to pursue their agenda. It also deals with people whose motivations are good but who do not fit well with the WP approach. Some cannot step back and judge sources neutrally despite their best efforts. Some do not recognise the motivation behind policies and see them as rules to get around if possible rather than as principles to guide editing. You are not here for the wrong reasons, your motivations are good, and I still believe that your problem areas can be addressed with help and effort. However, you brought an action to ANI that looked a lot like trying to "win" and your history does show problems. Your actions during the ANI will have affirmed beliefs that your are creating problems in the area, causing disruption, etc, and that that needs to be addressed in the best interests of the encyclopaedia and its editors. Through that lens, and irrespective of whether that is fair, your request for help and then this proposal can be taken as one last attempt to avoid a ban while continuing to pursue an agenda.
I don't believe that ANI will allow you to continue editing WT:ELEM. I believe that the tban is inevitable and that you need to accept that. You could simply avoid WP for the next 6 months and try to return refreshed. A better approach would be to pick an area of interest that is unrelated to the elements, perhaps even unrelated to chemistry, and try to work cooperatively in that area. This will demonstrate that you can work with others. You could pick an article and work on getting it up to GA, but I would suggest it be one where you aren't working alone.
The idea that I am proposing, a single tban-free page in my user space, would allow us to talk about specific problems without running the risk of a tban violation. I think a face-to-face Zoom discussion is a good idea, but having discussion on wiki as well allows others to see your thoughts and perspectives. I believe in your good will and think that this would be of benefit for you – though I do note that if it showed little progress or an unwillingness or inability to reflect and make changes, that would be problematic for you in the future.
If you don't like me idea (which is fine), or want to suggest modifications, that is fine. I will listen. You can simply accept the tban and be scrupulous in staying away from the area. Participating in FAC in articles away from the tban are fine, though there is a problem with determining how far it extends. The "broadly construed" language certainly captures any element page, even the content unrelated to the recent areas of debate, and it could be argued that it captures a lot of the chemicals / chemistry topics WP-wide. Since the general advice on tbans is to not test the edges, this could be a problem – and one I would see as reasonable to seek clarification on.
I await your thoughts.
EdChem (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest: getting tired of this side-hugging. For historical reasons (for over five or six weeks that is), I have no easy confidence in whatever deal. And somehow, I am always kept out of it. Or, in this situation, it depends on me? Reading current ANI, I'd say: forget about me, convince all others. -DePiep (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- ... and also, EdChem, there is the opinion of involved editors R8R (currently no time to edit) and YBG, Double sharp (both left) to consider. So I am not a fan for n:m editors-deals (btw, are you?). -DePiep (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- ... and once again, EdChem [1] to get their play.
- I note again that I did unvoluntary had to refrain from editing (eg article Periodic table) to let the previous whatever-named n:m editors' deal take effect. We now know the effect. So don't try to pull me into a "save an editor" action that has cost us multiple editors already. And an FA star. -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The following reply was written to DePiep relating to comment up to 02:19, and posted after (edit conflict) with subsequent comments:
- DePiep, if my approach of a tban-free user space page happens, I welcome your participation and I apologise for any suggestion that it would be otherwise. I commented after the ArbCom situation that you should have been included in the discussions and asked that Double sharp and Sandbh reassess. Sadly, they didn't. I agree with you that the ANI is going to impose a tban and do not think any "side-hugging" would or should change that. My idea is to give Sandbh a place to talk about the past so as to avoid future problems whilst respecting ANI's verdict that he needs time away from ELEM (and ELEM needs time with him away). I would appreciate contributions from anyone at ELEM willing to offer them, including R8R and YBG. I hope Ds and YBG do return and that R8R has more time and chooses to offer it over the next six months. I believe Sandbh can contribute positively with fewer problems, but only trying will tell the story. Maybe I am foolish to think so. I don't know, but I am willing to try.
- Also, I don't really see what I am suggesting as some side-deal between me and Sandbh. This will only happen if ANI decides it is willing to allow the tban-free page. If it turned into a problem interfering with content or as a source of stress for any editors, I would consider any request that it be closed down. Failing that, ANI could be asked to revoke the exception, MfD could be asked to delete the page, etc. I have no more authority than any other editor, I can make mistakes and be held accountable for them, and I have no power over Sandbh beyond the ability to persuade. If you see a problem with my suggestion that I have not addressed (or not addressed sufficiently, in your view) then please point it out, discuss it, etc. If there is a better idea / approach, or if this is a "deal" that is problematic, please say so. I also don't speak for anyone but myself, though I thought you would have some concerns about the present proposal at Sandbh's user page that were similar to mine. I hope that I have not given the impression of speaking for you, or for anyone else, or for the participants at ELEM. EdChem (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- The following comment written after DePiep comment at 02:32 were read after my 02:37 post was made, but before (edit conflict) with DePiep's question of 02:49 adn subsequent post at 03:03:
- My apologies, it is not my intent to involve you in anything that you don't choose to undertake. I think that deals between small groups of editors can be highly problematic, especially if they (in effect) create a local consensus that does not reflect policy / broader views, etc. I would appreciate your comments on how what I am suggesting is a problematic "n:m editors' deal", as you put it, as I am not clear on your meaning. My suggestion does not include any deal about article content, nor will I support anything inconsistent with policy. I am disappointed by the departures of YBG and Double sharp and hope that both choose to return at some stage, and I do view Sandbh as a significant factor in both departures. It is true that I could simply support the TBAN and see Sandbh leave for six months... but I fear that doing that means more problems on his return if efforts aren't made to help him change. Does that make me naive, to think I can help facilitate / guide change? Maybe it does, and that will turn out to be my lesson in all this... but maybe we can (in time) have a collaborative and cooperative ELEM with Ds and YBG and you and R8R and Sandbh... maybe...
- PS: DePiep, I have adapted based on your reordering of comments but I think I made the sequence of comments clear. I would appreciate you not reorganising my user talk page in future. EdChem (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you have off-wiki or out-of-(my)-sight talks with Sandbh these days? -DePiep (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have not communicated with Sandbh at any time, either in recent days, or around the ArbCom situation, or at all except on wiki. He has suggested (in the proposal on his user page posted today) that Zoom conversation might be useful, and I can see the benefit of such a conversation. However, I do not have any off-wiki contact details for Sandbh. I have not spoken to him by phone or Zoom or by any other means. I have not exchanged email or had any other private contact. I can understand the concern that motivates this question, and it is a reasonable one, but I assure you that no contact / communication has occurred except that which is publicly viewable to you and everyone else here on WP.
- Now, if a Zoom conversation were to be organised, I would be open to it including any members of ELEM who wished to take part. The idea of a call has been raised and nothing more. I think there are situations where private conversations are appropriate but I do not see how a discussion of WP article content could be one of them. I cannot declare that I would never agree to an off-wiki conversation with Sandbh, or even a private conversation, but I do not believe that article content be decided in such a way. I hope this addresses your concern, and please ask any follow-up question(s) that you might wish. EdChem (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Did you have off-wiki or out-of-(my)-sight talks with Sandbh these days? -DePiep (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- ffs, what is a "tban-free page"? Anyway. By 'saving' Sandbh's editing freedom, you are restricting mine, and supporting PA's towards me. Also, wrt YBG and Double sharp: spreak for yourself only. Same for R8R. -DePiep (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- How am I restricting your editing or supporting PA's? Where have I spoken for YBG or Double sharp or R8R? I have tried to be clear that do not and can not speak for anyone but myself.
- My idea of a page in my user space would allow discussion with Sandbh about the problems that have happened at WT:ELEM without having to tip toe around the TBAN. To be able to say "Sandbh, this edit (diff) was a problem because of X, Y, and Z. Do you see why?" and him not have to say "I can't talk about those as that would be violating my tban" or "I was trying to express A, how could / should I have approached this?". I am not proposing that he be allowed to make any article space or article talk space posts. I agree that him pinging editors to suggest article changes would not be ok. I agree that posting PAs should be sanctionable. I agree that the experiment could be shut down if it proved problematic. I don't see this ad "saving" Sandbh's editing freedom as the TBAN would apply everywhere in main / project / talk / etc spaces. Please, help me to understand what I am missing / what is so bad / ... EdChem (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- TL;DR. (occurs to me that since you advocate to allow Sandbh editing, your
postsparagraphs are getting longer). - I want to note that Sandbh, while generously saying "I won't add to this ANI thread any more", he started asking multiple parents, you & me, for 'help'. Apparently you were the favoured parent, since you started 'helping'. I'd say: we were played, and you lost. In general, such 'help' is not helping WP. -DePiep (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sadly, DePiep, my tendency towards over-long paragraphs and posts has been a problem since long before I heard of Sandbh. And unfortunately, if you choose not to help me understand the specific problem(s) that I am missing, it's more difficult for me to reflect / adjust. EdChem (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- ffs, what is a "tban-free page"? Anyway. By 'saving' Sandbh's editing freedom, you are restricting mine, and supporting PA's towards me. Also, wrt YBG and Double sharp: spreak for yourself only. Same for R8R. -DePiep (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Responding to EdChem
Courtesy ping DePiep; thanks EdChem. I’m glad I invited you to drop by WP:ELEM for a metaphoric cup of tea. I regret the length of my reply. Whatever else happens, I thank you for the offer of a tban free page.
My overall goal is to reach a yes-yes solution for all concerned. Thus my proposed editing restrictions and conditions + the situation at WP:ELEM is relieved. At the same time I can use my six months, with your guidance, to practice my WP-way editing skills.
1. Re support at ANI, I have nothing to lose from trying.
2. Yes, I am asking for your support and that of DePiep and R8R, in light of my many contributions from 2012 to 2019, as referred to by DePiep.
3. Re consensus at WP:ELEM, that will not be my call. Someone else will need to decide if consensus has been established—I most certainly will not.
4. Re adding citations, I will exclude these from my gnomish work.
5. For a redraft of the PT article in my sandbox, I will seek consensus at WP:ELEM, per item 3. There will be no fight since I will not proceed unless consensus has been established. I have done this before when WP:ELEM agreed an earlier non-metal category reorganisation and it worked fine. I did it with another proposal and failed to attain consensus. And that was that. C’est la vie. I learnt a lot along the way though.
6. In terms of what others think, I expect they would be looking for a ban of some sort, which I am proposing. In terms of what an admin thinks I can only hope that they would apply the principle that an imposed ban of the kind proposed is a last resort, and that there are many other solutions short of that. They may not, though. I can only hope.
7. If I have an agenda I won’t be able to push it, given the restrictions I'm proposing to place myself under. Metaphorically, I have a loaded gun at my head. I lack judgement as to the Wikipedia way. I am not so stupid (now) though to prompt the trigger to be pulled. I’m more interested in learning with your guidance.
8. I prefer not to have a t-ban imposed on me. Having said that I’ll be happy for my proposed self-ban to be recorded in my block log. I hope that will in some way contribute to a yes solution for the ANI ivoters.
9. I’m all ears with respect to FAC participation, and imposing extra restrictions.
I will not be pinging WP:ELEM editors. I will only post a request for consensus, no pings. If nobody answers I will take that as no consensus.
So, what my self-imposed ban proposal now looks like:
- 1. For the next six months I will not edit articles of interest to WP:ELEM, broadly construed, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus, as determined by someone else than me. Of course, if no one chooses to check my proposals for consensus, then there will be no consensus.
- Exceptions
- A. Vandalism reverts, gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections; links; correcting mistakes or missing parts in citations; minor housekeeping; edit requests by a WP:ELEM member.
- B. Subject to the agreement and guidance of R8R I would like to be able to edit aluminium with him (as he chooses or not) in order to complete the work bringing it up to FA standard. I've worked with R8R previously when we attained a bronze star for astatine.
- A. Vandalism reverts, gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections; links; correcting mistakes or missing parts in citations; minor housekeeping; edit requests by a WP:ELEM member.
- 2. I will not ping WP:ELEM editors, unless unless I am pinged
- 3. Subject to EdChem's agreement I propose to zoom with him, in order to discuss and clarify his concerns, including IDHT, and seek further guidance as to the way ahead. I'll post a summary of this to wherever is deemed appropriate. He's already raised these concerns with me; there's nothing like a f-t-f meeting, even if remotely.
- 4. More generally, in my sandbox, I would like to redraft an FA standard periodic table article, for subsequent consideration by WP:ELEM members, and consensus seeking, which someone else (not me) will need to call.
- 5. Further, I would like to be able to participate at FAC, including editing improvements in FAC articles generally, but not articles of interest to WP:ELEM, broadly construed, unless I am so invited.
(I am not sure this is needed since I should be able to it at anytime, anyway) - 6. If these conditions are accepted I will alert YBG, DS and R8R about them via PM.
- 7. Such further restrictions as are proposed.
Your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you too DePiep, if you'd be so inclined. Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sandbh, quoting your post and adding thoughts:
1. Re support at ANI, I have nothing to lose from trying.
- I disagree. My suggestion of allowing a single page in my user space where the tban is not in effect can only occur with ANI agreement. Otherwise, the tban will apply to that page and discussion will be more difficult – and you will face sanctions for tban violations there just as will apply anywhere else. I think it is to your benefit to be able to have discussions on-wiki to provide evidence of any change that occurs. What you have to lose from trying for a less restrictive option is editors at ANI seeing your efforts as evidence of trying to create loopholes and concluding that my suggestion is too risky / not appropriate at this time, etc, and ending up with the blanket ban imposed.
2. Yes, I am asking for your support and that of DePiep and R8R, in light of my many contributions from 2012 to 2019, as referred to by DePiep.
- It is my view, based on DePiep's comments above, his comments at ANI, and those at his talk page, that DePiep thinks a tban is appropriate – and I agree with him on that. I also think he has formed the view that my suggestion is unwise. I can't and won't try to speak for him (or for anyone else) but my opinion is that DePiep might help in providing input on problems but not support for anything less than the full tban presently proposed at ANI.
3. Re consensus at WP:ELEM, that will not be my call. Someone else will need to decide if consensus has been established—I most certainly will not.
4. Re adding citations, I will exclude these from my gnomish work.- I don't think wither of these will be allowed under the tban and I think both you and the other ELEM editors can benefit from time apart.
5. For a redraft of the PT article in my sandbox, I will seek consensus at WP:ELEM, per item 3. There will be no fight since I will not proceed unless consensus has been established. I have done this before when WP:ELEM agreed an earlier non-metal category reorganisation and it worked fine. I did it with another proposal and failed to attain consensus. And that was that. C’est la vie. I learnt a lot along the way though.
- Pursuing the idea of working on a PT redraft in your sandbox is (IMO) likely to strengthen views at ANI that no exceptions be made. This article has been a source of much conflict. My advice on it is to sit silently while any changes occur and, once the tban has ended, approach it with a huge amount of caution. As a general rule, problematic behaviour at an article that led to a tban that happens soon after a tban expires is an efficient route to an indefinite tban. We should also consider (once the tban is in place) whether things that you feel worked fine are seen that way by others.
6. In terms of what others think, I expect they would be looking for a ban of some sort, which I am proposing. In terms of what an admin thinks I can only hope that they would apply the principle that an imposed ban of the kind proposed is a last resort, and that there are many other solutions short of that. They may not, though. I can only hope.
- A voluntary restriction might have been an option when the ANI thread was first building a consensus that your report of DePiep was ill-advised. Maybe even when the tban was first proposed. I can't know how you thought your attempt to withdraw the thread would be seen. My impression is that you thought it would render the ANI moot, which is not how ANI works. In my opinion, how it appeared and how it was taken by ANI participants was as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. What followed included more comments on DePiep, which I suspect was taken by some as confirmation that action was needed. This reduced the chances that a voluntary restriction was insufficient and that an ANI-imposed tban was appropriate. Please remember that harsher measures exist, including an indefinite ban which can only be ended with a successful appeal (rather than a time-limited ban), interaction bans that would make participating at ELEM difficult, the tban being cast more broadly (such as chemistry, broadly construed), blocks (which are likely if there are tban violations), and even a site ban. I think the chances of the ANI ending without a formal tban of some sort are practically zero.
7. If I have an agenda I won’t be able to push it, given the restrictions I'm proposing to place myself under. Metaphorically, I have a loaded gun at my head. I lack judgement as to the Wikipedia way. I am not so stupid (now) though to prompt the trigger to be pulled. I’m more interested in learning with your guidance.
- By far the best way to persuade others about your intentions is through actions. Accepting that the ban is inevitable would be sensible. Editing unproblematically in one or more areas away from the tban would be good. Ultimately, the proof will be a lack of problems when you are able to re-engage in the ELEM area. I am glad that you want to learn / develop and no one expects perfection – everyone makes mistakes – and the tban is an imposition on you but is also an opportunity to demonstrate through your actions that you can contribute and learn from the past. Arguing that the metaphorical loaded gun isn't needed because you aren't going to prompt the trigger to be pulled will not lead to it being withdrawn. Try thinking of the tban as a mechanism to help protect you from going to an area that has proven problematic and thus protecting you from further problems, while at the same time allowing the topic area to regain a greater calm and for wounds to heal.
8. I prefer not to have a t-ban imposed on me. Having said that I’ll be happy for my proposed self-ban to be recorded in my block log. I hope that will in some way contribute to a yes solution for the ANI ivoters.
- What you prefer is not what ANI contributors are thinking about. They are thinking about the readers of the encyclopaedia and the editors in the ELEM area. The opportunity for you to volunteer for self-imposed restrictions and that idea to gain traction at ANI has passed, in my opinion. Pushing for it now will likely be interpreted as you not recognising the reality of the present situation and thus reinforcing the view that an ANI restriction is needed. The tban is going to happen, that is out of your control... but you can control how you respond and what happens next.
- As for it being recorded, it will be recorded in the log of community-imposed restrictions. It will not appear in your block log unless you are blocked for violating it. It will be noted on your talk page when imposed. Once it is over, it will be forgotten by most editors so long as problems do not recur. It will be remembered by those involved, but there won't be a reason to discuss it so long as problems don't recur. Yes, it can be found if someone goes digging... but editors will defend you if it is brought up inappropriately to criticise you so long as the problematic behaviours have not returned. Recording it in your block log would actually make it more visible. You are far from the only editor to have had a sanction imposed by ANI. Some prove that they are unable to work collaboratively, that they are here to push an agenda / engage in advocacy, or that they seek to cause disruption – and they ultimately earn the site ban that is needed to protect the encyclopaedia and its editors. Others learn from the experience and end up valued and respected for their contributions and admired for their ability to change. You have the opportunity to become one of the latter.
9. I’m all ears with respect to FAC participation, and imposing extra restrictions.
- You are free to participate in FAC so long as it is not on articles within the area of your tban. If you do try reviewing, my advice is to state your views once, engage in dialogue if the nominator responds with comments / questions / alternatives / etc, and accept if others express views different from yours.
- As far as your proposed self-imposed ban goes, I won't respond in detail because it won't happen, IMO. However:
- A tban means no editing of the area, no gnomish work, leave the articles alone.
- R8R will not have the authority to make editing the aluminium article for an FA nomination an exception to the tban. Nor can I or any other individual editor make such an exception. Permission to do this would be needed from ANI. Asking for it now would be counter-productive, IMO, but perhaps in (say) 3 months with productive editing elsewhere, ANI might allow editing of this one article. Note the word "might".
- Pinging editors if they have asked that you do not can be taken as harassment, so please respect any no-ping requests. Since any discussion of the topic will be a tban violation, you should have no reason to ping anyone for anything ELEM related.
- We can consider an off-wiki Zoom chat, though keeping as much on-wiki as possible is desirable, subject to whatever terms are imposed on the tban by ANI. Given DePiep's question above, I want to be clear that I am not open to making content decisions based on off-wiki discussions.
- Apologies that this response is so long. I struggle with being brief.
- TL;DR version
- I don't believe that any self-imposed / voluntary restriction will be viewed favourably at ANI.
- Consequently, the tban is going to happen, with whatever terms are decided at ANI.
- I am open to a user space page where it doesn't apply, if ANI will support that, but I am not going to oppose the tban as I think you need time away from WT:ELEM, the PT article, and the ELEM editors.
- You get to choose what happens next in how you respond.
- Working on a redraft of the PT article in your sandbox is likely to be prohibited, as is any posting at WT:ELEM... and I think this is good for you and for the project.
- EdChem (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)