Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

• DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Sandbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I regret being here again.

Members of WP:ELEM have recently been editing the periodic table article, as an exercise in continuous cooperative editing.[70]

I politely raised some objection to some of these edits and notified my intention to revert some of them.[71]

Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward.[72] The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp.[73]

Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion. In doing so he said, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish."[74]

I today started editing the periodic table article. My edits included reverting one of Double sharp’s edits,[75] as I had previously flagged. This one reversion restored content that had been deleted by Double sharp.

Subsequently, all of my edits were reverted by User: DePiep, on the basis that I had not established consensus.[76] In so doing, DePiep reverted my revert, in breach of BRD.

Discussion at my talk page ensued.

In summary, DePiep responded with, among other things, "Yes in a 16k revert some comma might be reverted unintentionally"; TLDR [77]; I do not have consensus [78]; I should ask Double sharp beforehand [79]; and I am editing without discussion [80].

I have politely reached the end of my tether with this disruptive behaviour by DePeip, which has been raised in this forum on multiple previous occasions.

Hence I am here, requesting DePiep be disavowed of this behaviour, in a suitable manner, so that I may complete my current round of edits, consistent with previous discussions.

Thank you, — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this thread after I had posted to Sandbh to raise my concerns with him. 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.
• Sandbh's announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG. R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected. I posted some thoughts and ideas, also encouraging Sandbh not to revert, and the discussion continued. I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.
• I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.
• 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. That being the case, DePiep's request for consensus is not unreasonable. A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment. 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.
• I do not see any sanction against DePiep as warranted at this time, even if he is not a model of politeness at all times.
• I do not think trying to argue which edits count as "B" and which as "R" is that important. It depends on time frames and perspectives... and, in any case, the bigger problem is that "D" either doesn't happen or becomes dysfunctional or swamped. The
  WT:ELEM history shows that 2020 has seen its size more than double
  from its previous high, to now over 600,000 bytes. It has seen 8,203 edits in 2020, the previous high point being 2,050 edits in 2013.
• I see Sandbh's discussion style as much more of a problem. The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel EdChem’s statement has several misrepresentations and errors. I’ve asked him, at his talk page, to please address my concerns as he sees fit. Sandbh (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "misrepresentations and errors"?: then reply and refute those here. I will ignore this multi-page threading. By itself, this illustrates bad discussion discipline by Sandbh, which is one of the amplifying factors of the ELEM editing problem at hand. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandbh posted a list of 9 misrepresentations that he requested I correct.

• 1 and 2 concerned opinions that I expressed. After reading his post, my views have not changed, though I again emphasise that my impressions and opinions are mine alone and that ANI readers should look at the evidence and form their own views. As always, ANI's attention may focus on the topic raised by the OP, on the OP themself, or on others who comment, etc. I am open to scrutiny for my comments and actions, just as is everyone else.
• 3: Sandbh notes that he paid heed to the requests not to revert while there was a discussion. My point was that he has gone on to undo Double sharp's change, returning 16,000 bytes to the article. Reverting after a discussion where objections were raised is still reverting. Arguing Double sharp said it was ok when others had raised objections does not make going ahead ok. Pointing to WT:ELEM, a 600,000+ byte discussion page, is hardly helpful for other editors.
• 4: On R8R's proposal for Double sharp and Sandbh to step back, Sandbh is correct that DePiep objected. It is also true that Sandbh did not formally object, instead suggesting a drafting in your own user space approach. This did contrast, in my opinion, with Double sharp's willingness to try R8R's approach.
• 5: Yes, there were many posts on 19 to 24 December. The reversion was on 26 December and I maintain activity around Christmas (and on 25/26/27 December given time zones, etc) is atypical.
• 6, 7, 8, and 9: All raise
  WP:IDHT concerns, and 6 and 9 both reply to points that I do not make. No matter how many times Sandbh states that the policy OR does not apply to talk pages, he seems unable to accept the view that talk space is not an OR free-for-all. Further, he disputes what original research actually is, leaving aside the WP policy on handling it. Sandbh notes (point 7) that he did comment (though not !vote), and that I made a mistake here, which is correct and I apologise... but looking at the relevant discussion
  and the preceding !votes, there seems a clear consensus and Sandbh's view is in a minority of one.

This whole user talk post to me feels like a reply that seeks to score debating points for minor issues while ignoring the key aspects of my ANI post. To be absolutely clear:

• Sandbh, DePiep is not the problem here.
• In posting at ANI, you invite scrutiny and you, Sandbh, are a source of problems at ELEM, one that requires some action.

EdChem (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I quickly looked at the link in "Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion" above. I might be missing something but reading the comment in context appears to confirm EdChem's above "Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem", at least as far as Double sharp is concerned. Further, Double sharp's comment appears to an ignorant onlooker such as myself as an authoritative response to Sandbh. Is there any chance of getting opinions from people who understand the topic (hello Beetstra)? Given that the current situation is untenable, what remedy is recommended? Perhaps Sandbh should be topic banned for a month to at least give people a break during this holiday period? If anyone wants to comment on my statement, the place to do that is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements, 12-28 November 2020, and WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55#ArbCom Case Request (Nov 2020), 15 November 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Here we go again! See here for slow moving edit war. I see nothing in Depeip's editing in terms of admins needing to do something. Sandbh I think has a case to answer EdChem's comments in an appropriate way. Other than that I see nothing but a close the thread down ASAP before walls appear demand! Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here. Games of the world (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not this again... I have been following the developments at WT:ELEM (project member), but only been more active the past two weeks (RL matters). I do not believe any sanctions against DePiep are warranted, for it is very true that many threads are unreadable and clearly have not led to any recent, substantial, and uncontroversial improvement to articles. I agree with EdChem that WT:ELEM has become unreadable, especially since there is no major progress to show for it. On the other hand, OR and lack of consensus have been persistent problems, and this is exactly why the changes to periodic table were reverted and the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads; it would contradict fundamental WP policy to build arguments and consensus around original research and the opinions of editors rather than established, undisputed facts. It seems that nobody at WT:ELEM (to name a few, myself, YBG, DePiep, and Double sharp) agrees with Sandbh on some of his proposals or matters related to group 3 and the periodic table; this blowout led to past ANI threads and the ArbCom case that have been judged as inappropriate by uninvolved editors and have not resolved the problem in any case.

Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute. In this case, though, this is not the first time that Sandbh has made major changes with which someone at WT:ELEM has disagreed, and indeed Double sharp has taken a step back in order to not engage in heated discussions. I have not taken part myself because I do not want to edit war or repeat myself to no avail.

Also, BRD states explicitly: In general, BRD fails if: (1) there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make. (2) there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.

The first is probably stretched because WT:ELEM does not override broader consensus, but at least holds true for the failed group 3 RfC. The second, though, accurately describes the current situation at WT:ELEM, as this is the same matter that megabytes of text have failed to resolve (i.e. stalemate, and a textbook case of TL;DR). Consequently, I'm not even sure if BRD is the correct way to approach the problem.

As far as solutions, my main recommendations would be to (1) establish clearer project guidelines to avoid these TL;DR threads and blowouts, (2) to redirect focus to articles on which there are no disagreements, so editors can use their energy and skills to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of reaffirm a stalemate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In my post in the ARBCOM thread, I identified
  WP:TL;DR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  At this point it's easier to just transclude {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You have a point. Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by DePiep

• (ec) Where to begin? I thank and compliment all responding editors here for their careful and well-describing replies. The replies show insight and understanding of the complicated recent history of the issue (five weeks?). In this, fellow-WP:ELEM members EdChem and ComplexRational are reflecting my thoughts in this (with more patience and eloquence). I note that two members, higly valuated by ELEM and with warm cooperating memories by me, have retired & blanked their userpages: YBG and Double sharp (a deep sigh over here, and a curse). If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN.

I am pondering to add a bulleted reply here too, more factual and less descriptive. For example:

• "Too bold". I started thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Too Bold (Dec 10):

1. [81].

2. re by Sandbh: 'Bold edits don't require consensus'

3. my reply: Not one [of Sandbh's] bullet is about 'time to talk'.

• re "continuous cooperative editing": I call BS. Repeatedly, since mid-November, Sandbh (and Sandbh only) refers to some editing process labelled "continuous cooperative editing" [82][83]; first link names four subscripted editors. Also in the OP complaint here. I have not met any description (let alone definition), of this. To me, obviously kept an outsider to the concept, this is either (a) standard Wikipedia process or (b) a cult-creating process of preventing critique, as in: 'If you don't agree with this edit, you are breaking a secret bond'. Two of the four adhering editors have now blanked their userpages, indicating frustration.
• re "DePiep ... in this [ANI] forum" (in original complaint; search for 'behaviour by DePeip'): A good opportunity to reply to this jab. First, it is disingeneous for invoking (a) unspecified BF talk and (b) unrelated and/or finished business. ("You are bad now because you were bad yesterday"). Anyway, let me remind Sandbh and others to this recent ANI thread (Sep 28), ignited by Sandbh. Closure: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented". Also note that multiple editors confirmed a staight BRD issue. IOW: Sure I am present at ANI. Vindicated. Time for Sandbh to read and digest.
• "Source handling": WT:ELEM has not solved the issue of source handling. A discussion + polls about WP:TERTIARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:PRIMARY > WP:OR(!) (wp talk NOTAFORUM, poll 2) went nowhere; I note the negative response by Sandbh showing evasion of commitment (8 members engaged). Then, a talk about doing DUE/UNDUE, FRINGE had not even started.
• Overall, my opinion is that this situation floats into sight the running problems in ELEM discussion process & productivity into better articles. Interaction is still re editors not the edits. The discussion problems started early this year, then the ArbCom Case request paused the problematic interaction—synthetically, as we learn now.
• Maybe more later. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second reply by DePiep

About article Periodic table

• To describe the extend of current issues, this is an overview of edits to article Periodic table (PT). Period Nov 15 (closing ArbCom request) – Dec 28, 2020 (current version).

Periodic table (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Earlier, Oct 17: EdChem had written a longer critique re article content and quality [84] (in Archive).

Nov 13–16: Discussion opened on FA-status and EdChems' critique [85]+[86]. "fresh energy" claimed, but no cooperation nor content discussion ensued.

Nov 15: After ArbCom Request was put on hold/denied, Sandbh started completely turning around the article es:'WP:BOLD step towards bringing the standard back up to FA: see WP:ELEM talk---Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start' (−7.5k); removed section "Overview" w/o replacement; group 3 rewrite (rm 4 section titles)[in next diff, R8R's edit. DePiep]. No talk at talkpage. Not referenceing the original EdChem critique (while using 'back to FA' as a statement to make these changes).

Nov 15: R8R es:'continuing the spirit of bold edits. ...' (-15k)

Nov 30: a 3-editor discussion in userspace [87] decided major changes. Double sharp changed dozens of PT-templates [88] [89], affecting hundreds of PT-articles. [90]

+Announcement at WT:ELEM: [91] "in the spirit of WP:BOLD".

+DePiep: asking for reasoning behind the edit [92];

+Rationale afterwards, as provided by Ds [93].

I note that of the three user-talk editors, two have left. In total four editors had some side-agreement [94] (Sandbh, R8R, Double sharp, YBG); two have left and one has had not enough time to engage here (R8R).

Nov 15–Dec 28, all changes: before – after; see for example change of the TOC. (diff: 131 revisions by 15 editors, 155k → 86k).

Meanwhile, at WT:ELEM: Various issues and issues discussed, skipped here. Some went nowhere (a good impression is in § Comments by YBG).

I specified some in my first reply above, Where to begin?-bullets.

Dec 22: YBG announces Wikibreak [95], [96] see also § Comments by YBG [97].

Dec 25: Double sharp left [98].

-DePiep (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More replies by others

Brief comment by Sandbh: What brought me here was a breach of BRD by DePiep i.e. he reverted my revert. Even so, rather than re-reverting and bringing myself into breach of BRD, I attempted to discuss my concerns with DePiep, on my talk page. That led nowhere. If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post. I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

To prevent the walls of text phenomenon I have posted my thoughts at the talk pages of EdChem, Games of the world and ComplexRational. My simple ANI post took up 276 words. This thread, not counting this brief note, is approaching ten times that size. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus your WT:ELEM side-discussion. I ignore these off-ANI multi-page discussions. Might be considered WP:CANVASSING. Evades idea and intention of concise arguing. Still creates wall of text. All this is exemplary of current practices that frustrate and blunt discussions at WP:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh, your 'please to see' comment [99] is quoting me out of context. This gives a false and harmful presentation of my statement [100]. Please correct this in situ or strike it. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DePiep, I changed my post from…a

"I am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

…to:

I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: When I wrote 'out of context', I refer to: you left out the preceding sentence, where "me who caused this" refers to. Still missing. Also, I don't think it was necessary to repeat the sentence you corrected, uncorrected. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I can find no way to escape the conclusion that something needs to be done about Sandbh.
• Sandbh's comments at my user talk page (which I will address separately have now addressed above)) and those to Games of the world (user talk page thread) and ComplexRational (user talk page thread) lead me to conclude that Sandbh sees no issues with any of his editing (talk or article space) and that he truly believes the only problem is DePiep and BRD – as Sandbh put it the main hold up with respect to the PT article is that DePiep, in breach of BRD, reverted my revert.
• I am not sure that posting replies to user talk pages as a means of avoiding walls of text is appropriate as it fragments the discussion. Avoiding walls of text is best achieved by posting what is important and leaving it for others to decide. And yes, I recognise that this post is quite long.
• Consider this thread, which Sandbh characterised (to ComplexRational) as a discussion with DePiep that led to a "non-result." I posted at the end of it at about the same time this ANI was launched. I wrote that the request for revert-free editing as the best use of [Sandbh's] time when [Sandbh] have posted an intention to revert others certainly strikes me as seeing your contributions as worth more than those of others. DePiep saw an implied threat (to edit war, if I am interpreting him correctly). I can't read this thread and see one blameless editor being stymied from editing by another who should be taken to ANI to be "disavowed ... in a suitable manner" (whatever that means) – and yet, it appears that this is how Sandbh sees it. Even after past ANI threads, an ArbCom case request, and yet more discussion at WT:ELEM, Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM.
• In that same talk page thread, Sandbh asked me how Double sharp's comment So, you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish reads to me. My view was in the post to which Sanbh was responding, where I wrote:

  Sandbh, YBG is taking a break. Double sharp is stepping back and my reading of his comments is that he was expressing frustration at the editing environment. His withdrawal did not read to me to be an endorsement that you should go ahead with what you think is best; I read it as giving up having lost the will to continue discussing. DePiep is expressing frustration even more clearly, in my opinion. ... Editors leaving a project is never a good sign. My observations and the comments I have read lead me to suspect that you are a significant factor in both YBG's and Double sharp's choices. These are not good developments, in my opinion.

Sandbh characterised Double sharp's comment as Double sharp said I could do what I felt appropriate, subject to comments from others. Readers can draw their own conclusions on Double sharp's meaning – as I have said, I cannot speak for him – but I am concerned that Sandbh appears to read it quite differently from me.

• YBG's final post (edit summary: No, it is not acceptable) in the Rearranging threads at WT:ELEM thread at user talk:Sandbh make clear (at least to me) his frustration. Sandbh has noted that YBG and Double sharp have taken breaks before and will likely return. Hopefully this will prove correct, but it does not diminish the problem that both departures appear to me to be significantly related to Sandbh. Further, his comment that they will be back and that Project membership counts; contributions count more strikes me as dismissive of the significance of two departures from the small ELEM group, and appears to me to be coupled with the implication that Sandbh's article-space contributions somehow excuse any connection between himself and the departures.
• Sandbh has considerable knowledge to share. He has published in the primary literature and (IMO) struggles to differentiate between original (be it OR or by SYNTH) and encyclopaedic writing. Discussions tend to become long and repetitive as he sometimes adopts interpretations of policy that are problematic and his views do not take on board the perspectives of others – at times appearing like
  significant points have been forgotten / disregarded
  . I don't know if it is possible for him to contribute collaboratively and constructively so that our readers can benefit from his expertise without our editors being frustrated by constant disputes and / or stepping back.
• Sandbh, do you see how you are causing problems for ELEM editors? Is there a way we can help to minimise the problems while retaining your expertise? Because if there isn't, I fear ELEM will end up with no editors but you, or back at ArbCom, or with you topic banned by ANI. EdChem (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note on BRD: It is my impression that the BRD cycle was broken when Sandbh proceeded with the revert on periodic table after several editors objected to his "notification of intent to revert" at WT:ELEM. The discussion between 19 and 25 December had a rough consensus in favor of Double sharp's removal, thus objecting to Sandbh's intent to reinstate it, yet he proceeded to do so despite this discussion. DePiep then most likely reverted as part of a new BRD cycle, since the "new consensus" was formed after Double sharp's removal was endorsed. While it may be a revert of a revert in the edit history, DePiep's revert would ideally lead to a new discussion (with Sandbh's edit being the "bold" edit) that would either support or oppose Sandbh's proposal. Instead of this content discussion, though, we are here at ANI. BRD is a rough guideline, so it should be roughly interpreted and adapted to specific situations, rather than applied as a strict policy with immediate consequences in case of violation. Although not the main scope of this ANI, the fact that discussions tend towards TL;DR makes this aspect of the cycle all the more difficult, and is causing editors to distance themselves from ELEM (which is a shame) or comment on contributors rather than content. That said, DePiep's revert was not part of the BRD cycle starting with Double sharp's edit, so it is not a breach. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, thank you. I'm reluctant to comment as it just adds to the wall of text, and my "complaint" was simple enough. DePiep reverted my revert in breach of BRD. Is that or is that not a breach of BRD? Subsequently, the scope of this threat has expanded to mention everything but my simple complaint. As I said, "If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post." The end. If there are remaining issues with respect to my conduct, I ask that these please be raised elsewhere. Is this too much to ask?

By disavowing DePiep I meant, could I please have some clear, revert-free, editing space, so that I can restore and edit the content (in the context of concerns raised at WP:ELEM) deleted by Double sharp, and in the spirit of his comment, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish." Once I've finished my editing, interested WP:ELEM members can comment. That is the normal way editing occurs, as I understand it.

I had already done this with respect to one part of the restored text, before it was all re-reverted by DePiep, in breach of BRD as I understand it. Sandbh (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandbh. It's not about me, we know. It's, you are chasing away good editors. Now teach me, about BRD. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by YBG

As I have been mentioned extensively, I believe the community deserves to hear from me.

Regarding my long term assessment of ELEM and Sandbh

• I value the friendship I have with my fellow ELEM members, and consider Sandbh to be my closest friend among that group, in part due to our FtF encounter several years ago.
• In my opinion, Sandbh's style at WP have changed significantly since he began pursuing publications in peer reviewed chemistry journals. IMO, he does not seem to do well distinguishing the "hat" one must wear to contribute to such journals and the very different "hat" one must wear as an editor at WP.
• Meanwhile, others at ELEM are, I believe, becoming better at wearing their WP-editor hat than we were a half-decade or more ago.
• This has meant that in many areas about how best to contribute at WP, the editors at ELEM fall into two groups: Sandbh and everyone else.

Regarding my attempts to resolve what I perceived as one of the main problems at ELEM

1. I noticed that the volume of material shared at WT:ELEM seems to be
   WP:TERTIARY
   , the exact opposite of the order in which we should consider these things.
2. I thought that this might be an underlying cause of our difficulties at ELEM.
3. I started an informal poll to see if others agreed with my assessment and perhaps nudge our project toward consensus.
4. Some agreed with me (with minor differences, many of which I agreed with.
5. However, Sandbh did not see a problem
6. WP:PSTS
   sources.
7. Sandbh replied that he saw no wildly differing views on sourcing.
8. So I started a 2nd informal poll about the potential harm of (a) reasonable limits, or (b) extensive use, of PRIMARY and OR at WT:ELEM.
9. Eight ELEM editors - everyone who !!voted -- agreed (with some minor caveats) that Editors should use 1RY/OR on talk pages only sparingly. Extensive use of such is harmful to our project..
10. Sandbh alone demurred. After much coaxing, the closest we got to an answer was The use of 1RY/OR as editors see fit may or may not improve our project. Limiting 1RY/OR to sparing use may or may not improve our project.
11. I then tried to get an answer as to what would distinguish problematic from non-problematic limits on or use of 1RY/OR at WT:ELEM, but I do not believe there has been an answer to this.

From this I draw the conclusion that not only does Sandbh have rather different ideas than the rest of WT:ELEM, but that he seems to have difficulty perceiving those differences.

Regarding the immediate cause of my wikibreak

• I generally follow the discussion at WT:ELEM by checking the diffs from my watchlist.
• Sandbh's extensive refactoring of WT:ELEM (which continued with several other changes), prevented me from continuing my normal routine
• I tried to patiently work out what the changes were but after spending an enormous amount of time, I was unable to.
• This seemed to me to be yet another case of Sandbh boldly doing something without taking others into consideration
• I considered several options (1) reverting the refactoring (but by that time there were other contributions) (2) raising the issue at ANI and (3) asking a question at teahouse.
• When I went to Sandbh's talk page, I found that EdChem had already commented. I added my own (stronger) objections.
• The ensuing discussion not only increased my frustration level, but convinced me that this was another example of Sandbh editing boldly without taking others into consideration - with no advance notice.
• I remain concerned that such major talk page reorganizations without the permission of (or even advance notice to) other editors could be a violation of
  WP:TPO
  .

This interaction seemed to confirm my impression of the differences between Sandbh's ideas and style and others' ideas and style, and his difficulty perceiving those differences. In the end, I opted for a wikibreak.

Regarding my wikibreak and future

• It is true that I have taken wikibreaks in the past.
• My prior wikibreaks have been intentional and seasonal, with my break and return planned in advance. Anyone can see that my breaks in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were all at the same time of the year.
• My previous wikibreaks have never been to avoid problems encountered while being online, but to avoid problems caused by being online too much.
• I have never before been so frustrated, even during ELEM's previous visits to ANI and Arbcon.
• I have not yet decided whether, when, and to what extent I might return to WP, much less ELEM. I have other productive things I can do with my time.

I will continue on wikibreak for the forseeable future, receiving only weekly ping summaries. I invite editors to interact with me at my talk page - or if you want to reach me sooner, by email. YBG (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I thank my good friend YBG for giving his account and setting out his concerns about my conduct, which I acknowledge and commit to changing. To clarify, I undertook the housekeeping at WP:ELEM IGF. The way ahead wrt housekeeping was then discussed and concluded at the WP:ELEM talk page, in order to avoid future incidents of this nature. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: a 6-month topic ban for Sandbh

Proposing: a 6-month topic ban for User:Sandbh from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Notification of intention to revert and, IMO, EdChem's description above of the events there is essentially correct. The problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements have been endemic, and with Arbcom recently almost accepting a case on the matter. Clearly, things are still not working out. One of the principal participants in the prior disputes, User:Double sharp, has stepped back, but the other one, User:Sandbh, has not. Another editor, User:YBG, has recently left as well (appparently Wikipedia and not just WikiProject Elements), and, again as EdChem notes above, and it appears that frustration with Sandbh has been a significant factor in that decision[101]. This ANI report, while filed by Sandbh in good faith, is substantively very much misguided and thus far has all the makings of another interminable unproductive ANI thread on these matters. The other party in these disputes, DePiep, although with some record of problematic behavior (mostly, as far as I can tell, on topics unrelated to chemistry), appears to have been essentially in the right, at least in terms of procedure, in relation to the recent issues at WikiProject Elements. User:Sandbh, although a long-term and well-intentioned user, is essentially an SPA with a narrow scope of editing interests concentrated exclusively around the periodic table. That rarely bodes well when getting involved in difficult/intractable content disputes. Sandbh has been at the center of the recent disputes at WikiProject Elements, and remains so, even after the departure of Double sharp's from the scene. Clearly, some radical external action is needed to relieve the situation at WikiProject Elements. IMO, giving User:Sandbh an enforced 6-month wikibreak from the topic of chemical elements would give everyone else at WikiProject Elements the room to work out the issues there in the meantime. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as the proposer. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nsk92, what's an SPA? Sandbh (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A Single Purpose Account. See
  WP:SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Nsk92, contrary to what you wrote above, YBG has not left WP nor has he left WP:ELEM.[102] He is still contactable via his talk page, and email.[103] Sandbh (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering support See also other posts in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, after seeing behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alteratives proposed unacceptable to me (Sandbh Self-regulation, EdChem tban-excempt page in userspace), as explained elsewhere. (Would leave open door to reoccurrence). Below is my Question to revert article Periodic table to pre-Nov 15 status (I support). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not only did Sandbh dispute whether
  WP:A11Y, but it got drowned out in this trivial argument. Pastels, anyone? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: LaundryPizza03, the discussion you refer to took place at the WP:ELEM talk page. All such discussion is freely entered into or ignored. The technical content you refer to has a long historical, and ongoing record in the literature. WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The so-called OR I am alleged to have engaged in could be done by a ten-year old. In any event, you will not find any so-called OR in the article space. You can hold an RFC at any time, as I did and failed. You’re free to raise concerns about the colouring scheme, at any time, at the WP:ELEM page (as you have done, thank you) where this is a major topic. I see R8R has updated you as to where this is up to. Go the pastels! Sandbh (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per proposal. This is a complete mess which seems entirely to land on Sandbh's shoulders. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The disputes at WT:ELEM have spilled over into ANI several times and once into ARBCOM, and have taken up the best part of 1Mb. Two good editors have left WP, seemingly in frustration, and this complaint is directed against a third. It alone is 48Kb (by my count (29 December): 24% by Sandbh (10 posts), 13% by DePiep (7), and the balance by 12 other editors (27)), and it verges on vexatious. This is
  WP:TALK
  and collaborative editing.

This incident struck me. On 2 November 2020 (

WP:BLP prevents you from improving WP, ignore them, per WP:IAR' (emphasis in the original; Wikilinks added). Those statements are preposterous, and no editor should have to waste time refuting them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Narky Blert, contrary to what you wrote above, neither Double sharp nor YBG have left WP. Both still belong to WP:ELEM.[104] Double sharp is more in lurk mode. As R8R wrote below, "Double sharp… admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table."[105] YBG is still contactable via his talk page, and PM. Both Double sharp and YBG have taken breaks in the past, and returned. As for WP:IAR, in nearly 10 years of editing I cannot recall ever relying on it to justify an edit in the article space. Sandbh (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Storm in a teacup (acknowledging residual concerns by EdChem). Per WP custom and practice policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort:
  WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. Nobody has in fact left WP or WP:ELEM. Six consensus proposals have already been posted at WP:ELEM.[106] In making this vote, I note DePiep just reverted some content I posted to this board.[107] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. What he did represents the kind of disruptive behaviour that was the subject of this complaint, which I attempted to withdraw. The last time he and I were here he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I've reposted my content. @EdChem and Levivich: fyi. ​ Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please see my request for help.[108] I recognise my problematic conduct and am ready to work with EdChem, and other members of WP:ELEM to address this. I have already posted requests for consensus at WP:ELEM.[109] Sandbh (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The sealioning, wikilawyering, and self-righteous disruption on this page alone says that
  WP:ELEM -- and maybe Wikipedia as a whole -- needs the break. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Sorry but this appears to be the only way to get some calm and stability into the area. Good editors don't leave (or almost leave) without reason. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - causing too much disruption, over a long period of time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although I'm not optimistic that Sandbh will suddenly "get it" during those six months. EdChem said Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM and I'm afraid that will still be the case down the road. There seems to be wide recognition that Sandbh has valuable expertise to contribute to ELEM; it's how Sandbh approaches collaborative editing that needs improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding: I've seen the two comments added by Sandbh today (Help request and My last post). Asking for help in meeting WP expectations is a positive step, although it's disappointing that it took so long to happen, particularly after the incredibly long and painful ANI discussion last month. But then Sandbh says I've acknowledged my problematic conduct; I haven't seen that. I've seen the realization that this time there might actually be a ban. I understand that Sandbh does not want a topic ban. I sympathize. But in my view, the two comments today are too little and too late. I stand by my support. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I recognise and acknowledge it took to long, and that I engaged in IDHT, among other things, to my cost. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Subject matter experts are a great help to building an encyclopaedia. However subject matter experts who struggle to adhere to our relatively simple guidelines for improving content can become a major problem. It's only six months. Take a breather and reflect. The periodic table article will still be here when you get back. Maybe try your hand at some other topics. I don't know, its up to you. It can't continue as it is though and this has gone on long enough. AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Request: (now completed) added by EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Sandbh made a request for help below and at my user talk page and those of DePiep and R8R. Given the current state of !voting, it appears that this topic ban will be imposed soon. I have replied to Sandbh and I ask that this thread not be closed and the ban not implemented for a day or two so that Sandbh and I can discuss how I / we might be able to help without the restrictions of the topic ban interfering. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will shortly propose a set of 6-month editing restrictions and conditions that I will propose to follow, to DePiep and EdChem. Thank you, EdChem. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've put my proposed 6-month editing restrictions and conditions to DePiep and EdChem, and will await their advice. A copy can be found at the top of my user pape. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020 (for everyone). Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As he has noted above, Sandbh has posted a proposal on his user page. I posted some ideas for him on my user talk page 2 minutes prior to his making his post. I have now posted some thoughts for him on his proposal on my user talk page. ANI readers will see that they are quite different as I am considering a single user-space page be exempted from the tban whilst he is suggesting editing restrictions short of a tban. I hope for productive discussions shortly. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I thank EdChem for his thoughts, and his help. I acknowledge the strong likelihood of at least six months of editing restrictions. Subject to EdChem’s availability I hope to wrap up our discussions tomorrow. I won’t be online for the next 12 hours. I thank Johnuniq for their thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all at ANI who have chosen not to close this thread, and I am posting here to say that I now favour this ANI thread being closed whenever an uninvolved admin sees fit.

WT:ELEM, and YBG has commented above. Sandbh has made a proposal on his user page and subsequently here at ANI in the section #Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. Everyone can decide for themselves whether the discussions, including Sandbh's most recent comments, influence their positions. I have added "(now completed)" to the "request" bolding in my post, for clarity. I will add a formal !vote in my next edit. EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support - Unfortunately, it appears that Sandbh is trying to play it both ways. First Sandbh files a complaint against DePiep, and then, when multiple editors say that Sandbh is the problem and should be topic-banned, Sandbh tries to close the case. That gives the appearance that Sandbh wants to use
  topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - It appears that the parties and ArbCom were all too optimistic in thinking that this dispute would be resolved after the last ArbCom request. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment only to clarify. I lodged my request to withdraw after one editor proposed a topic ban, rather than mutiple editors. I hope I have interpreted Robert correctly. I will revert this post if that is not the case. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:XFD all the time, and works very well. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support: I have commented elsewhere in this thread on problems as I see them and that action is needed. I am disappointed that the point has been reached where a knowledgeable contributor (who I believe is contributing in good faith) warrants a tban... but it has. I believe that a topic ban is needed at this point and I think the consensus here is clear that a topic ban is a suitable remedy – Sandbh and ELEM need some time apart, and I hope that will prove to be of benefit to both. I understand Sandbh's preference for a voluntary restriction rather than an ANI-imposed ban but I do not believe that would be appropriate either in the face of the above consensus or as a suitable declaration that the editors at ANI have collectively concluded that formal action from the community is necessary and appropriate. I have discussed with Sandbh at my talk page and in a section below the idea of ANI allowing a single page, say in my user space, where discussion is permitted without the tban restrictions in place for the purpose of helping Sandbh to better understand the problems that have occurred and how to avoid them in the future. Such a page could be protected or even deleted if it was misused. Based on this recent post to ANI, Sandbh seems willing, though he would clearly still prefer to be allowed some involvement in the ELEM project. My suggestion is opposed by DePiep (if I am interpreting him correctly, and not in any way seeking to speak for him). There has been little other comment, a fact that is open to multiple interpretations. I ask that the closing admin consider the suggestion, and also to provide some clarification on the extent of any tban imposed as "the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed" (Nsk92's words in the proposal) could be functionally the same as a tban from all of chemistry... which would be an overbroad sanction and disproportionate to the relatively small part of chemistry article / talk / project space where problems have occurred. Perhaps a form of words along the lines that Johnuniq suggests below, such as "the topic of the periodic table and its presentation and representation anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed"? Boundary testing could be easily dealt with by expanding the ban to something closer to Nsk92's form of words. EdChem (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem is citing me correct. I'd oppose a backdoor-entrance to the Project because it would keep the cause & undo the purpose of the tban: reintroducing problematic discussion flows + their effects. We'd still encounter prohibitive policy-hairsplitting talks, one-topic/two-place talks, source-handling questions, which were so energy-consuming and improductive. (Reading this thread, looks like it is not my personal perception only). -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: per proposal. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm sorry it had to come to this, but especially following the most recent comments here by YBG and EdChem, this seems to be the only viable short-term solution, and in my opinion, one that can benefit all involved parties. I would also support a narrower TBAN only encompassing periodic table-related articles, but would oppose anything offering a "backdoor entrance" to the project. In fairness, I would also recommend that no involved editors make substantial changes to periodic table in the immediate future; I wouldn't oppose FAR or a collaboration with uninvolved editors, but it must be clear that this TBAN will not be used to favor the POV of other editors. The purpose of the TBAN should be to restore a balance at ELEM and allow Sandbh to understand the roots of the problem and take necessary steps to prevent it from occurring again (which would mean, among other things, keeping WP writing and journal writing disjoint). As such, I hope that the TBAN proves constructive, because Sandbh's work (at least prior to these conflicts) is valued and it would be a shame for him to leave the project permanently. ComplexRational (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ELEM

• Question to Nsk92 as the proposer of this TBAN, and to anyone else willing to comment... where are the boundaries of a topic ban "from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed"? As a chemist, I can imagine a lot of territory that I could argue was connected to the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed, and I can also imagine a lot of places where I would see such an argument as an unhelpful / inappropriate stretch (from a WP point of view). I know that boundaries are hard to define and are a matter of judgement, but given all chemical reactions involve chemical elements or compounds of chemical elements, that all substances consist of chemical elements, their compounds, and mixtures, and that chemistry deals with matter, energy, and change, does this TBAN extend essentially to the entirety of chemistry? Does it cover much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? For example, would editing cisplatin be a problem if mentioning its action of binding to the N7 of guanine bases in DNA? ANI will impose a ban on whatever scope it sees as fit, I accept that, and I can't argue that one is not warranted in the circumstances... but in fairness to Sandbh and to all the ELEM editors who may see him in other parts of the encyclopaedia, I do think it is appropriate to have some degree of clarity on where this ban is meant to cover. We all know how edits that are perceived as attempts to test the boundaries of a TBAN are treated at ANI. In my dealings with Sandbh, I have learned that he can adopt quite literal interpretations at times. While I think that he needs to work on that, I think it would be unfair of ANI to set him up with a TBAN that is unclear in extent and where he would see a topic as outside his ban (and certainly outside the areas that have been contentious) but which could be interpreted differently here. EdChem (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about. I think it involves details of how the periodic table should be presented and I believe one comment I saw mentioned that sources differ regarding those details. That issue needs to be resolved, even if the outcome is sub-optimal because a never-ending dispute is corrosive for the community. That is, I would be happy if Sandbh were restrained from editing or commenting regarding that issue, broadly construed, but I know of no reason they shouldn't work on other chemical matters provided there was no boundary testing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As a chemist, I don't read "chemical elements, broadly construed" as extending to
  WP:UNDUE. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have been following the below for the last few days and I have to say that we finally have something positive from Sandbh and I am enthused. However Sandbh your proposal is too late, even if it is welcomed by most here. Given how Sandbh has interpreted comments both here and at ELEM, I would agree with EdChem that it would be better if the closing admin was specific in their meaning so that there can be no argument of gaming or winning. Narky I'm sorry I cannot agree with that might extend to stuff, that is a recipe for disaster, given what has gone on over the last few months (a lot of point scoring), it either does or does not. For starters it is clear that Sandbh is prohibited from Periodic table article and all associated files and table pages of the article along with the ELEM project talk page and any subpage talk page (note not actual articles talk pages) within the project (I note you want to tell people about articles, do it else where, not on the project, since you're not banned from user pages). He should also not go near any article that is up for DYK, GA, FA or FL, if he wants to participate and collaborate in that area, on any chemistry article apart from to comment on MOS issues or plain up spelling or grammar issues, until it is proven (at least 3 months) that he can provide worthwhile comments without having the issues that we have seen in regards to sources, owning pages, detail and POV in that area etc. I am uneasy about Sandbh having a draft user page for the PT article, as I am very concerned in what he wants to achieve and how it will go down once his restrictions expire. He says that there will be no fight, so what is he going to do? Edit in a way to bring it to FA status, following the consensus of the group and using published sources (not peer reviews or a preview articles as many have noted before) or edit to his own POV? Sandbh can you give some intension of what you aim to achieve on this and how and we can consider the proposal and whether this ban needs to include draft pages. aluminium collaboration sounds good to me if others are happy to allow him to edit this (I admit seems some what gaming of the proposed ban). Sandbh, I would not lone wolf nonmetal whilst you are under restrictions (again seems somewhat gaming IMO of the proposed ban). Do it in the user space and bring over once you are free we want to see collaboration and a change from you, not a Sandbh did X (in good faith) and a, b and c (negatively) resulted from it. It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction, but it does depend on how far people want to take it with Sandbh. Games of the world (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  physical chemists would even know how to begin disrupting a page about organic chemistry. Narky Blert (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I support
  WP:IBAN, which is a different approach. So far, clear enough I think. About WP:CHEM or WP:PHARM articles, like for example guanine or {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}: IMO the "parts" criterium in WP:TBAN cover these. Any more bordercases to look at? -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question. I added § About article Periodic table to my original reply. It illustrates that the article was treated rough, under the (now disapproved) editing & discussion processes. Since it has an FA star, would it be reasonable to revert to status ex-ante (pre-mistreatment i.e., as of pre Nov 15, 2020) [110]? I'm sure improvements can be added or re-added, based on sound discussion, esp since EdChem provided good first criticism (unused so far). As a detail, we could consider keeping the category changes, provided the Rationale, sourcing and copyediting is acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Supplementary note: I had intended to cease commenting, however my case, and related matters are still being discussed.

• EdChem posted an apology to DePiep regarding "triggering posts" and "emotional triggers," and the pain and anguish associated with such.
• I'm a very recent survivor of long-term medically diagnosed clinical depression. This included bouts of considering how to kill myself. The picture by van Gogh says it all. I'm OK now, having obtained help from professionals. I'm still on medication. Among other things, editing WP gives me purpose and meaning. I suspect I'm now resilient enough not to lapse into depression during my topic ban. That is why I proposed a voluntary ban, to maintain at least some connection with WP:ELEM collegues, and the meaning and purpose of WP:ELEM goals. I was not going to mention this. However I saw EdChem's post to DePiep, so there it is.
• I will not be posting to WP:ELEM, part from interesting publication alerts, and consensus requests (which I will not be discussing further), unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited.
• Re the question from Games of the world, I'll answer shortly. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ouch. Ouch. Hard to read & learn this. I wish you have good caring people around nearby, by miles or by bandwidth. For now, I think I cannot comfort you. Many bests, DePiep (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DePeip. Staying and seeking to be connected with others, largely got me through it. Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 Sorry to hear that. I strongly encourage you to stay connected with others as you say you have been. And, following the rules of the TBAN, you are still free to communicate with us outside project space or via email. ComplexRational (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I sympathise and empathise with Sandbh's statement, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Games of the world: As you say, "It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction." It depends on the good judgement of the closing admin. I presume the objective is the minimum required to achieve calm at WP:ELEM. I’ve proposed the scope of the ban as "articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM" as that is black and white.

On drafting a polished periodic table FA in my sandbox, I propose to seek consensus from WP:ELEM, subject to how they want to play it, on a section by section basis. I propose to draft the whole thing, since all the parts are interconnected. I propose the same approach as I have done with my nine current requests for consensus, at WP:ELEM, where consensus or not will not be called by me. I will not comment on these requests for consensus unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited to do so. None of this will prevent anybody else from editing the PT article. If that happens I'll take these edits into account in my polishing sandbox article.

The categorisation scheme for nonmetals was recently agreed by Double sharp and I. Allowing me to bring the current nonmetal article into conformance with that scheme, and subsequently up to FAC status, will allow me to demonstrate that I can meet WP:ELEM expectations. Anybody else is welcome to help.

In the talk space I have referred to peer reviews in the context of the process that occurs for articles published in professional and reliable journals. I expect I've mentioned preview articles in the talk space. In the article space I only cite published sources. I do not cite peer reviews nor (AFAICR) preview articles.

Thank you for support of my proposal to complete bringing Al up to FAC, under the guidance of R8R. That will demonstrate my capacity to edit cooperatively, as I have done previously with R8R, and extensively with YBG (here).

I have no intention of gaming or exploiting loopholes; that would be self-defeating behaviour. Maybe others have done so; I am not so stupid to bite the hand, so to speak. If I happen to find any loopholes I’ll bring these to the attention of those concerned. Nothing will get out of my sandbox unless it complies with the conditions of my ban.

I don’t understand what you means by my user space—are you referring to my user page, talk page, and sandbox?

In conclusion, the only places I will be seen in the WP:ELEM space are aluminium, and nonmetal, plus the occasional news post, and consensus request to WP:ELEM, with no after discussion from me, unless asked, pinged or invited. Oh, and at least discussion with EdChem, as previously mentioned.

My objective is to reach a win-win solution. That is, a topic ban + a small window for me to stay connected with colleagues and their expectations, in some fashion.

Your thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, stop this, Sandbh. -DePiep (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions

As flagged, I'll wait to hear from EdChem. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made a long post at my user talk page to Sandbh about the present situation and proposals. In it, I have said that I do not expect a self-imposed voluntary restriction to be acceptable to the editors who have !voted above on the tban proposal.
• I do not support a proposal like this as I believe that the point has been reached where both Sandbh and the ELEM editors / the ELEM topic area would benefit from time apart. In saying this, I do not presume to speak for anyone else, I am simply expressing my opinion of what is needed. I thank YBG for his recent contribution to this ANI thread, which I believe provides several reasons to think that a tban is needed, and I urge Sandbh to read and consider it carefully.
• Sandbh, to be clear, I do support a topic ban. I think the above proposal is inappropriate both because there is consensus that ANI action is necessary and because the idea of a topic ban is to separate an editor from the problematic area. Your continuing to contribute to the area as you are proposing is inconsistent with WP experience that staying away from an area is beneficial in circumstances such as these. I think you would be wise to accept that ANI action is inevitable and focus on how you can move forward in a productive way... and thus, I ask you to consider withdrawing this proposal by striking it.
• I have suggested that a small exception be carved out, that a page (perhaps user:EdChem/Sandbh) be created which ANI endorses as being exempt from the tban, so that Sandbh and I (and any ELEM editors who wish to participate) can hold discussions without the constraints of the tban. The purpose would be to be able to review (in a transparent manner) what has led to the tban and to discuss problems. It would not be for Sandbh to suggest article space edits for others to implement, nor to make proposals such as the ones currently at WT:ELEM. If misused, the page could be protected or deleted (as appropriate) and / or the exemption revoked by ANI. Sanctions could be applied if the page was used to pester / harass any ELEM members (through pinging, etc) and all the usual behavioural policies would apply. It is my hope that such a page can facilitate Sandbh coming to better understand the problems and I believe that will be easier to achieve if conversations about, for example, WT:ELEM problems do not have to be worded so as to avoid a "broadly construed" topic ban on chemical elements.
• I acknowledge that this idea may prove to be unwise – DePiep has already suggested that I am being played. My suggestion cannot occur without ANI consent and I will accept any restrictions viewed as necessary to prevent such a page being misused to circumvent the topic ban. I also acknowledge the risk that such a page weakens the benefit of staying away from the topic area entirely. My hope is for Sandbh to build experience collaborating by editing in unrelated areas and that such a page can help him to reflect and understand the problems he has faced in the ELEM area. When he is able to return to the ELEM area, I want him to be able to contribute without a repeat of current problems, and I don't believe that is more likely if no effort is made to help him to understand those problems. If this proves ineffective, then the page will at least be able to inform any future action that is deemed necessary.
• I am open to any feedback / suggestions / comments / etc on my suggestion. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• EdChem I've accepted I'll incur some form of ban. To the extent I'm allowed, I've set out my preferences for what that ban could look like.
• Other editors have raised concerns about my capacity to turn around my behaviour. I hear your and their concerns. Since I am the driver, the car will do a u-turn back to the driving behaviour of 2012 to 2019. Anybody who chooses to will be able to watch, or not. There will be no impact in the article space and no impact caused by me at WP:ELEM, as I won't do anything unless consensus is established by some one else.
• I'm able to PM Double sharp, YBG, and R8R, and will do so as part of my rehab. DePiep and I agreed to leave the past behind.[111]
• I heard EdChem's concerns about a perception or risk of a loophole seeking. Respectfully and politely to everyone, I'm not so stupid that I'll be looking for loopholes. I'll be walking on glass and exercising the greatest caution, wherever I go. That behaviour will continue most likely for as long as I still live, since I never want to visit ANI hell again.
• My personal preference is to safely practice the art of being a good WP editor, in a topic I have expertise in, take inspiration from per an SPA, and have good access to sources modern and historical, rather then spending several months away from the painting easel so to speak. I request space to practice.
• There'd be quite a bit of work happening in my sandbox, which is where it'll stay unless I have approval from WP:ELEM or whomever to do otherwise. I may shoot myself in the foot here but I hope that allowing access to my sandbox, in order to draft e.g. a polished periodic table FA, after nearly nine years of smooth WP editing and three FA's would be modest request. There will be no fight after my topic ban concludes.
• Failing all that, I appreciate the offer from EdChem for a single page in his user page.
• I'd like to keep WP:ELEM informed of interesting publications. There are a few of these on the way.
• I took comfort in Johnuniq's support, as an admin, for "the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about." That was the aim of my request for a voluntary ban. A nuanced ban rather than a one size fit alls, so to speak.
• I may be bold at times but no so foolish as to plead for a voluntary editing restructions only to have the whole thing blow up in my face through my own actions.
• I'll keep ANI or an admin, and WP:ELEM informed (presuming I'm allowed to do so) on at least a monthly basis as I go along or if I have questions about conduct under the terms of whatever the ban looks like.
• In these dot points I've attempted to set out my thoughts and feelings in a plain, polite, manner. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
• Unless there are questions I'll await the determination of the admin who closes the thread.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re @Sandbh: DePiep and I [Sandbh] agreed to leave the past behind: for the record. As I replied just now on my talkpage, not a 'leave behind' meaning 'as if noting happened' [112]. Sigh, since I replied to a friendly talkpage-help-request, I only got more trouble and misreadings. I will stop it. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not support this Sandbh § Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. IMO the problems and issues not solely are article-editing, but also discussion process and intereaction. These issues might easily reappear. Some details in here are not reassuring either, such as "Under the watch of [editor:XX] I'd like to edit ..." and "As lead editor, I'd like to edit [article ZZ]". This introduces side-deals with editors for 'consensus' and WP:OWN issues, both causes of current situation [113]. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my complaint

​​​​​​​​ Is there a protocol for so doing?

I feel that the stress of pursuing my complaint is not worth the bother of resolving the question of whether a re-revert of deleted content is a breach of BRD.

I subsequently intend to seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there. While the periodic table is shown as FA, it is no longer of that standard. Which was what the "fuss" was about. It'll be slow going but we'll get there.

As Games of the world said, "Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here." --- Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a report is filed on the noticeboards, it's generally the case that the behavior of all the participants in the dispute is examined. Considering that a proposal has been filed asking for you to be sanctioned, it's rather late to withdraw your complaint, and doing so will not stop consideration of that proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I welcome Sandbh's intention to nullify their request to "disavow" [sic] me, for whatever reasons, I prefer this thread to be continued. Multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, have noted irregularities in the editing & discussing process, and so it could be benefiting WP:ELEM & this Wiki to address these. Included in what Sandbh calls the "fuzz" is the issue of two project members who walked away from the project, apparently with frustration. Also, since ELEM may be scrutinized once more as a (paused) potential ArbCom Case, an ANI outcome could prevent the project from breaking down. "We found ourself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost." -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura / esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte / che nel pensier rinova la paura! Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is indeed open and drawing input from uninvolved editors, so it should remain open until a clear solution is reached. Otherwise, the problem will remain, and we'll find ourselves here again in no time.

And on another note, if it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review, where uninvolved editors can give a (hopefully) impartial review of the article content. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh

Thank you for your post, DePiep.

I'm no longer stressed since I notified this board of:

• my request to withdraw my complaint against DePiep; and
• that I would seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there.

My two consensus requests at WP:ELEM are here and here. I've had one response to each request: No and no, from DePiep.

Re: "what Sandbh calls the "fuzz", I have no idea what this is referring to.

Double sharp has previously withdrawn from the project and subsequently returned. During his first withdrawal he remained in contact with myself and WP:ELEM. DS is still a member of the project [114] and is now in less active lurk mode.[115] YBG, who I have met ftf and count as a good friend, has taken at least one previous wikibreak, and returned to the project. Contrary to what Nsk99 wrote, YBG is still member of the project [116] and is contactable via his talk page.[117]

Re: "it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review", I formed the view the article was no longer up to FAR some months ago. Subsequently EdChem expressed the same view.[118] I don't have a diff as some our discussions were on user talk pages rather than at WP:ELEM. EdChem can confirm.

Rather than seeking FAR, that is what prompted the recent round of continuous improvement editing on the PT article—which I initiated[119]—and which resulted in some 220+ edits.

I'm still contributing to efforts to bring the PT article up to standard [120]. I notified WP:ELEM of my edit (68 words, or 1.9% of the article) and my reasoning.[121]. DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician"[122] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit.[123]

I have listed this revert at WP:ELEM with a request to obtain consensus.[124]

I regret the need to add to the 5,300+ word count. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandbh, you can withdraw your complaint against DePiep, but that won't stop ANI from considering the proposal relating to you.
• This is not the place to discuss content but, for the record, I confirm that I do have concerns about whether the periodic table article meets FA standards.
• Seeking consensus is good, but this thread started as you flagged an intent to revert (which is good), started a discussion and participated in it (also good), then took Double sharp's comment as a reason to carry out the revert anyway (not good), and was reverted by DePiep. You've suggested DePiep's revert violated BRD. It is suggested above that your revert was a new bold edit and thus DePiep's edit was the "R" in BRD. A less favourable analysis was that your revert following the discussion was against a (developing?) consensus and thus (arguably) disruptive. Whether either or both of you and DePiep violated the BRD guideline is much less important than whether there is an ongoing problem with editor behaviour / actions / whatever that is impacting the quality of article content and the editing process... and there is. This is why the posts above mostly skipped over the technical BRD question and went to ELEM dysfunctionality.
• For me, the above provides an example where your evaluation of consensus has been problematic. This is not an isolated problem as other examples exist on the WT:ELEM page, dealing with consensus on what is OR and what is appropriate on talk pages. I am genuinely torn on what options exist for moving forward. To be honest, noting DePiep has responded with "no" to your suggestions and then coming here to ANI to comment on him as you have is adding to my concerns. How do you see writing that DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician" [125] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit [126] is helpful? ANI doesn't deal with content and it appears to me that you are suggesting / implying that DePiep lacks the competence to edit the article, or is edit warring, or disruptive, etc... which seems inconsistent with withdrawing your complaint?
• I am sure this is an unpleasant experience and you have so much knowledge to share. However, ANI readers / contributors are concerned with the editing environment for all and the impact on articles. They are assessing your approach, your actions as part of the ELEM team, your contributions to WT:ELEM, etc, and whether the topic area would benefit from you being restricted (or even excluded from it). What I advise is to reflect on your actions and explain what you see as problems and how to address them. Can you persuade uninvolved admins and editors that action is not needed from ANI, or suggest what action would help? EdChem (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been summoned here by User:DePiep. I've been rather inactive for the last month or so and only watched the ongoing developments at WT:ELEM from the sidelines (and I didn't watch them too closely), although I have intervened once, unsuccessfully, when an intervention seemed in order, as it was previously mentioned in this section by other editors.

As for the original post, I don't think DePiep has committed any action for which DePiep should be held responsible. I admit I do think some arguments could be made better---especially when it comes to rationalization of DePiep's words, because some remarks are blunt but the explanation for this bluntness is not quite as clear as I would expect---but I haven't been able to identify a single red line that was crossed that would necessitate any action against DePiep, and I would oppose any such action being taken now. That being said, that's not Sandbh was asking for, at least as I read his post. I read his post as "please make him let me add my contribution," not "block him so that I could add it." As for the contribution itself, my understanding on the issue is---and I stand ready to correct myself if I misunderstood something---is that there's been no explicit agreement to make it mandatory to seek consensus to add new material, and as such, I could understand where Sandbh's frustration about being blocked from adding it until consensus was reached (I'll return to the topic of consensus later) came from. After it was made abundantly clear that this is where things stand today, Sandbh accepted that; it was in this spirit that the original post was retracted (or at least it was attempted to get the post retracted) and it was in the same spirit that Sandbh petitioned to seek such a consensus at WT:ELEM; problem solved, in one way or another.

As for where thing stand today and whether should be any sanction against Sandbh, the issue seems very uncertain. What would such a sanction really achieve today? I'm leaving aside the topic of whether a sanction would be deserved---ANI, as I understand it, doesn't do justice, it tries to help build the encyclopedia (right?)---what would it effectively achieve today? We most certainly would lose the knowledgeable author that Sandbh is, and what we get in return? Sandbh's main disagreement was with Double sharp, who admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table. I haven't had a conflict with Sandbh and I'm going to keep it that way. ComplexRational hasn't had a conflict with Sandbh and is also likely not going to get himself into one. And that's it, that's all editors left at WP:ELEM now; only DePiep has problems with Sandbh and Sandbh has problems only with DePiep, and even the two of them have very different main areas of interest within our project: Sandbh writes articles and DePiep doesn't, instead doing primarily supplementary work, including outstanding contributions on graphics.

As for consensus building for periodic table, that seems rather unlikely today. I assume that there are four editors left in the project, and I'm not going to intervene as long as there are no editors on the verge of leaving, and ComplexRational hasn't intervened too much in this sort of issue, either, and as I see it, DePiep asking for a consensus essentially means asking for a veto power over future additions. I'm not at all implying that this was the original intent---I don't believe it was that---but it does look like this is what "consensus building" essentially boils down to in current circumstances... is it really that good of an idea, today?

My proposal for a solution would be that an external arbiter outlines how things should proceed in the future (I think

I don't understand why were are discussing a "breach" of BRD as if it's some sort of bright line policy violation or worthy of an ANI over a single instance. If this is a general or discretionary sanctions area with enforced BRD, then that should have been mentioned in the opening statement and further for DS, it would likely be better to bring this up at

WP:ARE or in both cases, maybe just speaking personally to the admin who introduced the page restriction. If not, then as always BRD is good practice and and an editor who consistently ignores BRD is likely to be a problem editor but it's dumb to bring an ANI case over a single alleged "breach" since it's not an explicit policy violation let alone a bright-line one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not agree with R8R's conclusion that this is an issue between me and Sandbh. For example re periodic table: until Dec 25, I have not intervened since Sandbh starting "restructuring" it. Started: Nov 15, -7k, and R8R -15k. So there were serious issues re the editing, and the article is about to loose its FA star—all without me. Also, R8R is playing down the fact that two contributors left. As for ComplexRational's involvement: CR's absense is not a confimation of "no problem"; just read CR's posts in this thread. I think the issue does not need to be brought down to editors instead of edits. btw, I did not 'summon' R8R, but noticed them [127]. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of clarification points: when I said that ComplexRational and I had no problems with Sandbh, I meant no problems that prevented anyone from improving the encyclopedia, rather than mere disapproval. I also note that I did not use the word "summon" to cast negative light onto DePiep; if that's how my wording is perceived (I'm struggling to see how that could be the case, but let's say that's it), please rest assured it wasn't the case. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the comment I've already given without repeating myself.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 'notification/summoning' misunderstanding is gone. Then re User:R8R. Others might correct me, but I still do not see why this would be about me having to make 1:n agreements or commitments. Unless editors can convince me of usefullness, I am not open for such side-deals. I recall other ELEM editors created side-agreement(s) in November when the CaseRequest was open, and a generic wide open pacification truce R8R and Sandbh did not sign up to. Now here we are. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to EdChem and R8R's helpful contributions, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given R8R is a long-serving member of WP:ELEM he understands what is going on. I support his perspective and comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ So am I, so do I. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​EdChem, thanks.

I only reverted after the discussion of my intent to do so petered out, including a suggested way ahead. I took the absence of further discussion as, effectively, consensus, especially since Double sharp, who deleted my content in the first place, withdrew from the discussion, and said I could edit as I pleased, subject to comments by others. I understand this is custom and practice at WP i.e. re when a discussion peters out.

My revert was not a new bold edit. Any WP editor has the right to revert at any time, as a way of seeking consensus. If DePiep had concerns with my revert he could’ve discussed these at the WP:ELEM talk page. Instead, he re-reverted.

As noted, I’ve never engaged in edit-warring. This year, among other edits, I made some to the periodic table article. Double sharp raised some concerns. In response I initiated the fresh energy for the periodic table article editing exercise. 220+ edits ensued. I subsequently notified my intention to revert just one of Double sharp’s multiple edits. The rest is history.

Re DePiep’s subject matter expertise, I raised this since the reasons for his re-revert, and his subsequent “no” responses to my consensus requests, included content for which he has no subject matter expertise, as he himself has freely admitted. In other words, this is not about content, it is about conduct. In this regard, note that even after Double sharp said I could edit as I pleased, DePiep was still expecting me to seek approval from Double sharp [128]. If that’s not disruptive blocking behaviour, then I don’t know what is.

As to the way ahead, the background to the “dispute” concerns a single article out of the hundreds that WP:ELEM has an interest in, and one revert at that.

As I can’t edit the PT article without being re-reverted, blocked, or reverted by DePiep, I’ve posted four requests for consensus at the WP:ELEM talk page.

As to the way ahead at the WP:ELEM talk page, all discussion there is freely entered into, or not. In the past, some discussion has been quite heated. I no longer engage in that kind of less than polite discussion.

More generally, in terms of “disavowing” DePiep, I simply ask that he contributes to WP:ELEM in a team-building sense, as a member of WP:ELEM, by engaging in discussion before reverting the work of other team members. That is a courtesy Double sharp extended to me, and me to him. Apparently this is courtesy that DePiep has chosen not to extend to me. Once again, this is a conduct issue not a content issue.

Since I’ve asked to withdraw my complaint, and am now engaged in consensus seeking at WP:ELEM, the whole thing has become moot IMO, in any event. @Nil Einne and Games of the world: have expressed similar sentiments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandbh, there is a topic ban proposal being considered, one that has a reasonable chance of passing, so the whole thing is not at all moot.
• What I infer from the above is that
  • you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content
  • DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you
  • that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation
  • that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team
  • that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely
  • that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour
  • that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour

Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem:: thanks for this effort. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you both for your interest.

Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.

Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.

DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?

Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.

Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.

OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so.

Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I'm not aware of what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition.

Post near-ArbCom:

• Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented.
• WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.

I hope this clearly sets things out.

Your thoughts (you too, DePiep)? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a TL;DR. Otherwise, readers might catch the wrong detail/subline as important etc etc. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and, this is your reply to EdChem's "fair summary?", right? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh, it is understood that you oppose any Tban / think it is unwarranted, etc. But, looking at my qustion, is what I posted a fair summary of your view? Or, "accurate / reasonable but for XXX" – in which case, what is XXX? Or, "no" it's inaccurate/ unfair – in which case, how? Or, ...? EdChem (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you. I've turned EdChem's and my responses into a table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem. The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do? --- Sandbh (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The post in which Sandbh created the table mentioned here has been reverted by DePiep. Further details below. EdChem (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, please no. Don't. Just reply to EdChem's posts. (formal note, Sandbh: I will not take ANI disruptions like this lightly any more). -DePiep (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh I have reverted your tabilisation. Please, just reply. [129] -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC):[reply]

• In reply to Levivich's question, which has since been removed, and because it was my post that was restructured and everyone may be confused:
  • WT:ELEM and added a note politely pointing to TPG. I am surprised that this restructuring of my ANI post has occurred and based on the post that DePiep made, I suspect that he is too. I think that the result is that what has happened is only clear by examining the diffs, though undoing the post would also create potential confusion and distract from the point I was seeking to understand – what Sandbh actually sees as the situation. In any case, I thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to clarify. EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • PS: While typing the above, DePiep has reverted and asked Sanbh to reply conventionally and posted to you. I'm slotting this (after ec) wherever seems plausible. Please, will someone not involved help to keep this on track? EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, it was me reverting Sandbh. Are we OK all? Promise: won't happen again -- by S.). Alle reverts & corrections OK by me (except by Sandbh). -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring my content reverted by DePiep

DePiep reverted some content I posted to this board, further to above section, in response to EdChem's questions.[130] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. The last time he and I were here, he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I trust he will extend that courtesy to me now. @EdChem and Levivich:, I'm reposting my reverted content. It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing. Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the edit summary? Undid revision 997146585 by Sandbh (talk) this is !vote area, no discussion. )If you want to diuscuss my conclusion?? - go elsewhere.)

"It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing" If your method involves ignoring talk page norms and guidelines for you exclusive benefit, nope, you're not. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, the disruptive revert I referred to was as per the diff. Non-reason given by DePiep was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Sandbh (talk) to last revision by Narky Blert)." Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @EdChem, DePiep, and Levivich: I regret the confusion cause by my IGF refactorisation of EdChem's comments, which has now been undone by DePiep.

I've copied EdChem's 7 to 8 dot point assessment/comments [131] and added my responses into the following table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem.

The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do?

Levivich, the 1-8 items are a verbatim copy of EdChem's comments.

DePiep Stop deleting content posted by others! Vikram Vincent 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The refactoring that has gone on here makes following it all difficult. DePiep reverting the conversion of my post and Sandbh's response into a table was certainly justifiable. Though it might have been better done by an uninvolved editor, it was necessary – and I say that accepting that Sandbh genuinely did not see it as problematic. Reverting the comment added after DePiep's vote was understandable given it is a !vote section (as calton also noted), though it would again have been better done by an uninvolved editor. However, I don't see the justification for reverting Sandbh's presentation of the table as his chosen response to my question. I was seeking a more concise and brief response, but I can't direct how Sandbh responds and nor can anyone else (so long as the reply is clearly all Sandbh's content, policy compliant, etc). DePiep, I think you are too close to the situation to be doing any more reverting of anything that is not absolutely clear cut. It is adding friction and heat where they are not needed and so I ask that you hold back from reverting and instead ask for someone uninvolved to consider action (which excludes me, of course). EdChem (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincentvikram: I was pondering an immediate edit block for Sandbh for this page. Their edits were disrupting the discussion full stop, both by rearragning posts and by changing topics &tc. Already multiple ANI reports have gone useless (=made unable to conclude) this way. Needed is an authorty (a cleck?) for this page to keep threads in good order. My goal is to keep this ANI productive. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental health sense; help in in a "how to meet WP expectations" sense. I'm obviously missing something. I have not read any more recent posts, including EdChem's comments above.

Is my goose cooked?

I have asked @EdChem, DePiep, and R8R: for any help they could provide.

thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I won't be online again until tomorrow morning my time; in about 10 to 12 hours.

My last post

​​​​​​​​​​​ I intend for this to be my last post to this thread.

I don't know what else I can do to express contrition. I've acknowledged my problematic conduct. I've reached out to WP:ELEM colleagues asking for their help. I'm ready to work cooperatively with WP:ELEM members.

Barring further developments I intend to work quietly on seeking consensus at WP:ELEM, and constructively working on related articles of interest.

To everybody here, and to WP:ELEM colleagues, I look forward to 2021 being an improvement on the train-wreck that was 2020.

--- Sandbh (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]