WikiProject Elements has had a number of issues recently. The most intractable currently is between Sandbh and Double Sharp. I don't honestly understand the crux of the issue, but I know there is one. The dispute has been to WP:ANI some FIVE different times. The third trip to boards was almost productive...before both Sandbh and Double Sharp starting posting just absurd WP:WALLS of text. The third thread was closed on the 11th (yesterday) with the recommendation that it was too complex for the community and that it go to ArbCom. Neither participant has listened to that request, and each of them opened a new ANI thread in the last 24 or so hours, each of which has been closed and the participant told to go to ArbCom. But seeing as neither listened when they were told it previously, I am shortcutting and directly reporting both of them. I do not believe that I have been previously been a party to the dispute, and have only commented on one of the ANI threads. This has gone beyond the ability of the community to solve the issue, and I hope the ArbCom word limit will be of much use here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of Nick, I have added DePiep as a party. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The astute Levivich has pointed out that I missed two ANI threads, which brings the total count up to a whopping seven: a report from July that saw no outside involvement, and another thread with Sandbh, Double sharp, and DePiep from September CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandbh

Here's an annotated timeline with the context:

1. ANI, Jul 21^st: Self-referral by DS on objections raised by Sandbh at Talk:Periodic table#Unacceptable behaviour on how DS had initiated the RFC. DS advised the same day that he had withdrawn the RFC.

2. ANI, August 4^th: DS v Sandbh on alleged misuse of sources. Closed the same day as it was deemed a content dispute.

3. ANI, Sep 27^th: Sandbh v DePeip on incivil conduct. Closed Sep 28^th as I wasn't able to provide diffs due to physical-mental health issues. My request for an extension of time to do so was ignored.

4. ANI, Sep 28^th: R8R v DePiep on alleged incivil conduct. Closed Oct 12^th with no action and mild warnings to DePiep ("don't warn other[s]…will block them…Don't even say…you will have them blocked") and R8R ("if you're going to file a report…you need to do…A lot better.").

5. ANI, Oct 24^th: DS v Sandbh on conduct. Closed Nov 11^th: "This is much too long and convoluted to resolve…Try arbitration…if you want to continue…"

6. ANI, Nov 11^th: DS v Sandbh on conduct

7. ANI, Nov 12th: Sandbh v DS on multiple breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS. Closed same day: "This thread is a lot of inactive words. The parties can come back and file a proper complaint if they wish using the format I showed…"

Throughout our time at ANI, DS and I have continued discussing technical-philosophical matters of mutual interest. Just as we agree on some things, we have philosophical differences in others.

Please do not conflate the several ANIs as one continuous slab of contention. There are two themes. The first re conduct issues involving DS and I. The second re conduct issues raised by myself and R8R v DePiep.

The content issues at WP:ELEM, some of which overlap into concerns re RS, SYNTH, DUE etc, can be dealt via RFC. To help keep track of things, the WP:ELEM RFC register is here.

Joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh

The two of us have discussed the ArbCom filing, at User talk:Sandbh and WT:ELEM, with input from User:YBG, and cognisant of observations by User:EdChem.

We've agreed to withdraw, and move past, previous allegations, and to continue to work together.

We recognise we agree on some things, and disagree in other areas on philosophical grounds. We intend to not bludgeon one another (so to speak) on philosophical grounds but to engage in civil discourse, as becoming of Wikipedians. We've mostly done that anyway for the past nine years, and recognise that our philosophical differences should not escalate to the point of detracting from the WP:ELEM experience, requiring ANI involvement, or a referral to Arbcom.

We apologise since maybe after the first few rounds we should've figured that out rather than sending each other to ANI.

We thank Captain Eek for bringing the matter to ArbCom.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: courtesy ping. Sandbh (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Double sharp

I am trying to de-escalate this dispute by giving way on the the two major content issues that sparked this (that EdChem lists) to the current status quo that Sandbh seems OK with, based on information/advice from most of all User:Sandbh, User:Jehochman, User:EdChem, and User:Andrew Davidson. To that end, I have structured a proposed compromise that gives way on almost everything to Sandbh's preferences at WT:ELEM#Deciding between ourselves and asks for everyone including myself to put aside all existing differences.

Four of the five major editors at ELEM have responded favourably so far. I hope that with a bit of luck this can resolve the entire issue without needing to proceed to a case. We may disagree sometimes, but I count these other people as friends and if the choice is between fighting things out at ArbCom and extending hostilities on the one hand, and restoring the pre-2020 friendly ties at the small price of getting a content outcome that is not my initially preferred one, I've decided to choose the second. I therefore ask that the arbs wait on this to see how the response is to my attempt at de-escalation. Double sharp (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I agree to the above statement by Sandbh. Double sharp (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DePiep

(my pre-statement cmts here [1]). IMO R8R is an involved party.

WP:ELEMENTS has ~half a dozen regular editors, including me. It was a pleasant and productive group, since many years and with few brushes. Then, in 2020, talk, mainspace and behavioural problems (between most of us, including me) became insufferable, were degrading WP and took away editing pleasure. ANI posts did not solve this (but hey, obviously the ANI process is not helpful dealing with non-standard situations; being here at arbcom with this is an ANI failure). Since EdChem described this dire Case situation, I have learned current status (i.e., next level DR).

I reject all ANI-like comments, like diff'ing singular posts, to make statements or even arguments here. If I understand ArbCom/Case well, as I do the WP:ELEMENTS situation, these can not make a case — this is next level.

Luckily, Double sharp took initiative to propose #Deciding_between_ourselves, to which I can sign & commit without reservation. Hopefully, all pinged editors can (now 4/5 do). For this we-editors-route to prove success, ~~I propose to postphone/deny this case request, until the route fails per superior judgement~~. If trust for guidance is needed, I recommend EdChem and Levivich for their thoughtful earlier contributions (EC throughout, L here, 2nd half). -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Double sharp, while promoting their pacification proposal I could sign for, was dealing elsewhere with the one non-signing editor. I call this duplicity. I have to reconsider my statement's conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I'd suggest adding DePiep as an involved party - they have a long history of low level tendentious editing which should be examined, though I would doubt there's anything in their involvement here which rises to the level of being seriously sanctionable. Nick (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Please accept this case. I closed thread #3 on WP:ANI when it grew so long that uninvolved editors started posting desperate pleas to close the thread. Once a thread grows to a certain size, the only people who will read and comment are the disputants themselves. Uninvolved community members simply will not invest the time to read hundreds of kilobytes of redundant, convoluted and irrelevant argumentation. These disputants will benefit from the structure provided by arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's this about?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements - permalink

Key witnesses:

@EdChem, R8R, YBG, and Narky Blert: please comment.

Relevant essays and articles:

WP:BIKESHED - Summarizing EdChem below: There are different ways to decorate the periodic table and classify elements, but the reliable sources contradict each other. Jehochman's thoughts: I think we will need to have an RFC to establish a style guide so that Wikipedia can maintain consistency from page to page so as not to confuse the reader. Meanwhile, editors will have to check their egos at the door because everyone is not going to get their favorite colors and layout. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very different periodic table which cites Alternative periodic tables

PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS: LANL - the closest thing to a standard that I can find. This is "A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students", which means it should be suitable for a general audience such as Wikipedia readers. If anybody is an advanced chemistry student, they will know where else to look to find more advanced information. ArbCom can't impose a standard, of course. This is a suggestion that might help us all find a path forward from this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Much to my surprise, I NAC-closed the first ANI as a content dispute, but in glossing the subsequent reports, it seems to me that behavioral issues have come into the foreground, which puts it into ArbCom's territory. I urge the committee to accept the case to deal with those issues, as I don't believe that any other mechanism will be useful, since they lack arbitration's capacity to structure the case and strictly limit the participants' obvious verbosity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG's statement below, except that I think we should be looking not at what specialists use for periodic table style, but what generalists -- in this case, science educators -- use. Thus Jehochman's link to "A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students" above seems to be more pertinent than the arguments of any of the specialist editors involved in this dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Please accept. What Jehochman and Beyond My Ken said. I went cross-eyed trying to read #3. These are obviously very bright people, but they need structure to focus their thoughts and to help them sift this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for that. I feel less dumb now. Made no sense of all that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Guy Macon, I think the hope of this being solved at ANI is overly optimistic and I think it is too late for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that DePiep sometimes flies off the handle and refactors the posts of others and does not always deal well with legitimate concerns about such being brought to their attention. (Granted, the source of their irritation in this instance is often seen as irritating.) I note that DePiep is under an editing restriction that may have been violated by their recent behavior toward others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mr rnddude

I have archived that behemoth thread. You can reference it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

I have been watching this ongoing dumpster fire but have not commented on the pages involved because I too do not understand what the dispute is about. I have one suggestion: instruct the clerks to revert any statement by anyone on this page that goes over 550 words (the extra 10% is in case they are using a different word count tool).

Edit ...and of course shortly after I wrote the above, EdChem posted a hugely insightful statement that comes in at 1672 words, every one of which I would keep.

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Edited 07:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

I first saw this dispute near the end of September. At that time, one of the ANI threads was running and there was a dispute over the blurb for the TFA for October 9, 2020. The blurb's history shows some disputes, culminating when Amakuru said on September 28 to "OK stop edit warring on this already". Correcting mis-spelling of Amakuru's username – my apologies! – and re-signing to generate ping. EdChem (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC) The talk page section where I began contributing was productive and collegial. I didn't edit the other threads, which were clearly more problematic, but I know now that the picture thread touches on an area that has seen dispute over several years. I implemented the consensus version (diff from Amaruku's revert) on October 6 and it is the version that ran (aside from minor formatting changes). I was optimistic from the experience that I could help with some of the broader issues.[reply]

A lot can be said here, but I think (oddly, for ArbCom) that the most helpful comment that I can offer first is some background on the content issues.

The periodic table can be shown with 18 columns (and with the f-block of 14 or 15 columns below) or in a 32 column format as a single table. In both versions there are disagreements both on WP and in the literature as to where to place the elements lanthanum, actinium, lutetium, and lawrencium (symbols: La, Ac, Lu, and Lr, respectively).
In the 18 column version, there are three options:
1. Place La and Ac as the first elements of the two periods (rows) of the f-block, with Lu and Lr in the main part of the table as the two elements below scandium (Sc) and yttrium (Y) in the d-block – as can be seen in File:14LaAc_periodic_table_IIb.jpg.
2. Place La and Ac as the first elements of the d-block, under Sc and Y, and ending the two periods of the f-block with Lu and Lr – as can be seen in File:14LaAc_periodic_table.jpg.
3. Place all four elements La, Ac, Lu, and Lr in the f-block, which is consequently 15 elements wide (as opposed to 14 elements wide in the above two cases), and placing markers of * and ** below Sc and Y, placing the entire f-block below those two elements – along the lines of File:15LaAc_with_LaAc_in_group_3.jpg
Similar versions exist of the 32 column versions, such as:
1. La and Ac with the f-block, Lu and Lr in the d-block under Sc and Y - see File:32-column_periodic_table-sr.png
2. La and AC under Sc and Y with the d-block, Lu and Lr in the f-block - see File:32-column_periodic_table-a.svg
3. La, Ac, Lu, and Lr all below Sc and Y - see File:32_column_stretched_periodic_table.jpg
Textbooks and the literature use a mixture of all of these versions. Some authors and contributors to the literature see the correct placement of these elements as being incredibly important and argue strongly for one version or another. Sometimes the criteria used to decide which is correct or preferred overlap, sometimes they are weighted differently, sometimes they are notably different criteria. I have colleagues who are inorganic chemists who view that La and Ac in the d-block was a historic presentation but that the 'correct' table has Lu and Lr and the d-block... and that the matter is largely settled. I have colleagues (particularly organic chemists) who know little about there being a dispute, and care less. I know chemists who see the PT as an educational tool and will live with either of the versions with a 14-element f-block but believe that the 15-element version with "*" and "**" notation should be deprecated as a source of confusion and as misleading (how can one element in a group / column suddenly be above 15 elements?, etc).
So, we have a content dispute over a fairly obscure area of chemistry but which sprawls onto many chemistry pages on WP (the PT appears on every element page, for example).
The second content dispute, about which there is also no definitive answer to be found in RS, is whether and how to categorise elements and whether, once categorised, they should be coloured on PTs shown on WP. Plenty of different colouring schemes can be found in commons:Category:Periodic table. The possibilities for dispute are endless, including:
- Are there two type of elements – metals and non-metals – or are there three, adding in a category of semi-metals. Is there general agreement on which belongs in each category? Yes... except for the edge cases where there are many views. Should categories be mutually exclusive or not? What about historical categories based on groups / columns, like the halogens – taking a halogen as anything in group 17, they are fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, astatine, and tennessine. The first four are undisputed as halogens and as non-metals. Astatine is recognised as a halogen in mostly places, including by IUPAC, but is either a semi-metal or a metal. Tennessine is so new that we have little data on its chemistry, but it would be a shock if it turned out to be a non-metal. Similarly, organesson, the element below radon in the noble gas column, is not expected to be a gas and is predicted to be quite metallic in properties.

This content dispute was the basis for the picture dispute on the TFA blurb – what colour should each category be, should they be the same on every page, should the dashed line border (signally radioactivity on the WP full PTs) be used for a single cell / element as an illustration.

Why is this here?

So, we have content disputes with RSs taking different approaches – hardly WP unprecedented
We also have editors with strong views and problems with advocating for their views rather than dispassionately looking to RS – some familiar territory for ArbCom
While there is reason to hope that a definitive answer may be found to the PT structure issue (there is an IUPAC team looking to guide a ruling), the timeframe is unclear and IUPAC rulings are sometimes accepted and followed by the scientific community and sometimes ignored / more honoured in the breach. The categorisation issue extends well beyond chemistry (remember when Pluto was a planet?) and well into philosophy.
IMO, the extensive discussions at WT:ELEM and elsewhere have become increasingly personal. Conduct and content issues have been intertwined. Approaches to DR and the use of ANI has been ineffective, partly because of the inability to separate content from conduct. Unfortunately, content problems have also been morphing into conduct ones. The use of SYNTH and OR and limited application of DUE have led to behaviour that looks to me to be DE / TE territory. The extent to which this has invaded article space is unclear to me, though I have seen text that reads like a persuasive argument synthesising sources that is suited to the literature but should not be in article space.
We have Sandbh who has published on these topics and brings a wealth of knowledge, but who is also heavily involved in the disagreements. He was the target of the most recent ANI mega-thread. This was closed by Jehochman as (paraphrasing) TL;DR and thus as so much noise that there was nothing to be gained by reading it in detail. This is unfortunate as the two threads sparked by the close had origins in the mega-thread that were clear to me (at least) and could have been handled better. I do not suggest any misconduct on Jehochman's part, though I do disagree with some things he said.

Hopefully, this gives some help to Arbitrators in knowing where the disputes originate. This post is largely about content to provide framing, but of course ArbCom will not rule on content. There is definitely conduct that is problematic and it has influenced content, so to that extent (and following ANI being ineffective for behavioural reasons of contributors (including me) saying so much as to make recognising how help could be provided difficult) it is not out of place at ArbCom. I have posted on my user talk page to suggest to contributors whether they will agree on a way forward that potentially avoids an ArbCom case... but how they will respond is unknown. I am certainly less optimistic than I was after the TFA blurb discussions, though I have also been encouraged by interactions with the editors. All of the named parties are knowledgeable and can add value to the encyclopaedia. The loss of any from WP:ELEM would be sad, and I hope can be avoided... but it may also be necessary.

On length: I know this is long for an WP:A/R/C submission. I have explained the content to aid the Arbitrators in understanding the underlying content dispute. I ask that the length limit be waived for this post as there have been requests for explanation and as I am the one who has been helping to moderate disputes over the last month and so have perspective on both content and conduct. I also ask that WP:ELEM contributors DePiep, Double sharp, R8R, Sandbh, YBG not comment on content here at the case request page or address my content summary unless there is something that is significantly in error. The Arbitrators don't care about the nuance of content at this point, they want to decide if there is a dispute that they can help to solve and so they are interested in content only to the extent that it helps them to understand / address conduct. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--- @Andrew Davidson: I'm sorry to say that I wouldn't class the periodic table article as FA or even GA... the ongoing disputes on categories have certainly adversely impacted the quality of that article, and it has other problems. I was hoping to get ELEM editors to focus on weak parts of it where there is no dispute on the science, but that has yet to yield much improvement. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narky Blert

I thank Jehochman for inviting me to contribute.

I became aware of this dispute from one of the WP:ANI threads; a page I watch mainly out of morbid curiosity. I am a retired organic chemist; my knowledge of inorganic chemistry is degree-level, but what I remember of it is 50 years out-of-date. I posted twice at WP:ELEM, trying to confine my remarks to policy and not to comment on the merits. I hoped that might help calm the situation; but alas! no.

I urge Arbcom to accept EdChem's lengthy submission in full. IMO it is a fair summary, and a useful primer to establish the context. As I understand it, there are two points of contention, both under active scientific debate:

The proper placement of several elements of the periodic table, particularly in graphical representations
Whether or not the non-metallic elements should be subdivided into two classes

I urge Arbcom to accept this case. Normal methods of dispute resolution have failed. An WP:RFC which needed a chemistry degree to understand would be unlikely to be productive. Arbcom cannot, by its role, rule on the merits. What it can do is rule on behavioural issues; and I would single out WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH at least. I would not wish knowledgeable and productive editors to leave WP; but these interminable circular discussions must stop. Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT to the mix. This is not a complete list. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if the threat of a formal ArbCom action may have concentrated minds, if what I can digest from recent WP:TL;DR posts at WP:ELEM be true; if so, so much the better.

That said, I endorse, even at this statement stage, those parts of comments by Jehochman, DGG and Beyond My Ken which I summarise as saying that our goal is WP:V not WP:TRUTH. Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrew D.

I commented on the ANI threads (!vote; stats). At that time, I supposed that an RfC was needed. But, now that I check further, I find that there was already an RfC in August which was closed as a trainwreck. So, a case does seem needed to resolve this. Note also that the main article in question – Periodic table – is an FA which has been featured on the main page twice. It therefore appears that the parties are trying to "gild refined gold" and so should be advised to leave well alone. See "perfect is the enemy of good". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ComplexRational

I'd suggest ArbCom accept this case, because I see perennial issues that have gotten out of hand and that project discussions and ANI threads have failed to resolve.

I'm also a member of WP:ELEMENTS – I've been part of the project for two years, but have been less active due to RL commitments these past few months, so I have only superficially participated in talk page discussions and have not commented in any of the ANI threads (lack of time and lack of desire to be involved in conflict). My experiences in the project have been generally positive, at least from the standpoint of content creation and review (e.g. GA/FA, peer review, drafts). However, I have been unable to follow anything at WT:ELEMENTS the past few months, because the same discussions about group 3, coloring, etc. seem to be going on for an eternity and exceeding the TL;DR threshold with no tangible outcome. While it is true that IUPAC and external sources have not offered a clear resolution to the content issue, I'd pose the question: what's left to discuss that hasn't been discussed in megabytes of text (WT:ELEMENTS is currently >400 kB and >600 kB have recently been archived)?

Additionally, I find it disheartening to see the users who I have worked with constructively the past two years engage in verbal wars, accusations of bad faith, and personal attacks. From my peripheral point of view, the once-constructive and welcoming environment of WP:ELEMENTS has deteriorated into something that I cannot follow and quite frankly do not want to follow (so I myself am not dragged into a heated argument or a subject of an ANI thread—seven in a few months are seven too many).

On a personal note, I will even say that this has indirectly affected me negatively: the projects that I enthusiastically worked on have fallen aside (in part due to RL commitments as well); every time I read WT:ELEMENTS, I feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu; and I simply don't see an overall collaborative atmosphere right now. I haven't had any personal disagreements with fellow project members, but this is only likely because I have tried my best to avoid conflict and only offer input directly concerning the subject matter.

In summary: from my observations, WP:ELEMENTS has deteriorated from a constructive, content-oriented atmosphere to a TL;DR battleground. As a result, no major content progress is being made, and these discussions have spilled over to ANI and now here due to lack of resolution. Whatever the core issue is, it hasn't been resolved through any discussion, so hopefully ArbCom can clear things up, and if appropriate, help establish unambiguous project guidelines. ComplexRational (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by YBG

WP:ELEM has been featured twice in WP:Signpost, in October 2013 and June 2011; as recently as 24 hours ago, I had resigned my self to being mentined a third time due to an ArbCom case. But this morning I saw a significant change in the tenor of things at the project. On this basis, I now believe that the project and its editors are back in a good place and there is no need to take up ArbCom bandwidth. At the very least, I encourage the arbitrators to wait a while on this. If the current pacific situation continues, then formally decline certiori. But if things spiral back out of control once again, by all means take up this case YBG (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

ArbCom should accept this case. There have already been too many disputes about the chemical elements that the community has been unable to resolve.

Any physical scientist or mathematician knows that some matters are determined by convention, and that the convention simply must be agreed to, without arguing over the reasons. A non-physical-science example is the north-up orientation of maps. The south-up or east-up orientations are not wrong (and orientation means where east is). The different arrangements of the periodic table are issues of convention, not of technical correctness. In Wikipedia, issues of convention should be decided by RFC, and should be civil.

Therefore the repeated conflicts between certain editors over what appear to be issues of convention illustrate that there are conduct issues involved. Either we have a case of two editors who DO NOT LIKE EACH OTHER, or at least one editor who does not listen or is uncivil or otherwise is stubborn, or more than one such conduct issue. The community has not been able to identify whose conduct is problematic. It is necessary for ArbCom to conduct a full evidentiary hearing and impose sanctions on at least one editor.

I have a few additional comments. First, when an ArbCom case involves a combination of conduct issues and highly technical content, ArbCom may need additional procedures concerning technical evidence of factual value, and concerning the designation of experts. Second, the statement by User:EdChem is very useful information and should be copied or moved into the Evidence section of the case. Third, the ArbCom may find it useful to identify certain editors as expert witnesses who should be given the same word limits as parties to the case, or even greater word limits.

At this point I see two technical issues, and conduct questions. Here is a summary statement of what I see as the issues:

What format should be used in Wikipedia for the periodic table, in particular concerning the lanthanides (so-called rare earth metals)? This should be a matter of convention, not of technical correctness. This should be decided by RFC. Apparently conduct is an issue.
There appears to be an issue about categorizing the elements into types of elements. The large majority of elements are metals. Some are noble gases. Some are non-metals and some are metalloids. There are issues about subtypes of metals. The categories to be used should be decided by RFC. Apparently conduct is an issue.
Should any of the parties be interaction-banned from each other?
Should any of the parties be topic-banned from chemistry?
Is User:DePiep a net negative to the encyclopedia?

If I am granted an extension of the word limit, I will review the dispute in more detail to identify any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to DRN

User:Double sharp brought a case to DRN on 4 August 2020. I tried to pre-mediate the dispute, noting at the time, as I have more recently, that the format for the lanthanides (La-Lu dispute or group 3 dispute) was a matter of convention. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_194#Periodic_table I offered to formulate a neutrally worded RFC. User:Double sharp and User:Sandbh were, as usual, verbose. I had to collapse comments about contributors. Then on 10 August 2020, the parties said that they had agreed to close the dispute, and I closed the dispute.

DePiep

I have written an essay on users with long block logs. To summarize, if an editor has as long a block log as User:DePiep does, the community is not dealing effectively with their conduct. ArbCom should address the question of their conduct, and should determine what is in the interests of the encyclopedia, which may be anything from nothing to interaction bans to a site ban.

The Periodic Table

The periodic table is, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, used by chemists for explanation and teaching. It is not used for detailed understanding of the chemical properties of elements, for instance. Measurement with very sophisticated instruments and computer modeling are used for detailed understanding. There is no "technically right" answer either to the lanthanides question or to the labeling of types of elements. The fact that the parties have been unable to resolve those issues either by discussion, by mediation, or by RFC, is ipso facto evidence of some conduct issue. It is not obvious to me, on reading the arguments, who is at fault. I have read the WP:ANI cases in detail, and I thought that having been a chemist might help me understand the issues. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the parties use too many words. It is now the job of ArbCom to determine who is at fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by R8R

The issue of conflict at WP:ELEM can be separated into two largely non-overlapping conflicts: 1) Sandbh and R8R vs. DePiep, and 2) Double sharp vs. Sandbh.

The ongoing discussions at WT:ELEM make it look like both of these conflicts could be resolved internally. I suggest we all wait until those discussions have concluded; I believe there is a good chance both conclusions will be positive and the need for outside arbitration will vanish. If the efforts to resolve both conflicts have reached their objectives, or if the effort to resolve either conflict fails, I will update this post.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

I don't have the impression that we are facing a scientific controversy. This is rather another infobox war. Click at Oxygen. You obtain a marvelous enlarged Periodic Table. And you even have places where to click, and discover that at the left of any Oxygen, you have a Nitrogen, while at the bottom of any Oxygen, you have a Sulfur. If you are bold enough to click at the Yttrium cell, you can check that $39-1=38$ together with $39+1=40$ . Not so extraordinary! But if you click on the "below" button, you can hear the clamor of the fighting armies. Indeed who is the rightful owner of the "below Y" cell?

In the real world, or even in the body of an article, some details can be given. But here, a black and white answer has to be given. Therefore, ArbCom should take the case. Since infoboxes are turning people amok, the quarell can only further degenerate. Pldx1 (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Elements: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Robert McClenon have you requested an extension by emailing the arbs, or would you like me to contact them for you (feel free to respond to this on my talk if you want to conserve your words)? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EdChem is granted an extension to cover his statement as is, and Robert McClenon is granted a word extension of 300 words (leading to a new word limit of 800). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elements: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting further statements, but given the history, this is likely to be accepted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Joe Roe below and some commenters, I'm glad to see some progress by the parties at addressing the disputes without need for a case. We can leave this request on hold for a few days to see how things work out, or perhaps decline for now with the understanding that if things flare up again the RfAr can be renewed. I also join with others in thanking EdChem for his cogent explanation (and I concur in granting his request for a word-limit extension). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also awaiting statements, but leaning accept. What I think could be very useful at this stage from the parties is a brief and succinct description of what the crux of issue is here. The ANI threads are unparseable given the walls of text: could you please try to explain the main points of the dispute (a bulleted list of, say, 5 members could work, 5 x 100 words = 500 words), without the extraneous details (these we can get to later if needed). Maxim_(talk) 00:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maxim that we need a short summation of the central problem. I consider myself to be relatively bright, and I have 18 hours of chemistry in my college transcript, but I can't make heads or tails of these ANI threads other than we're arguing about the periodic table somehow. If we can't understand the issues, there's going to be a serious temptation to use a belt sander where a nail file would do, and hand all these editors a blanket TBAN from chemistry-related topics, because this situation is not sustainable. To be clear: I don't want that to happen. Belt sanders are loud and messy. So help us out here and find us a way to use a nail file. Katie^talk 02:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear from the parties before going any further, but it certainly does look like the sort of thing we should be accepting. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On word limits, I do think that editors should generally keep these in mind and do their best to minimise their text output during arbcom proceedings - it does help the arbitrators understand what's going on and encourages people to focus on the heart of the issue. Personally, however, I would waiver the length limit for EdChem's "primer" above, which appears quite helpful in explaining what the underlying dispute is in less than a page of text. Thanks for that EdChem Worm^TT(talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom is an absolute "last resort", and I'm pleased to see that the parties have come to an understanding, which is a far better solution and one that is more likely to stand up to the test of time, if genuine. As such, I'd decline the case at this point, and remind the parties that they shouldn't be waiting until the threat of Arbcom before they reflect on their behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 09:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content part of the issue should not be which table is closest to reality, but on which presentation best meets the goals of WP. Worded that way, it does not involve arguments over the actual chemistry , which is none of our concern here, but of how best to present it, which is the sort of style issue that has usually been thought of as at least partially within the understanding of the committee. We should not be listening to arguments about what class an element actually is., and keeping discussions of this out of the case will make it easier to fit within word limits. There seem to be two factors involved in the question of presentation: how to deal with the alternate ways to show the position of La-Lu, and how many colors to use to indicate the different classes. I don't think it's within our scope to decide for either factor, which is intrinsically better. (The two excellent article in the fr and de WP take opposite approaches.) Rather, the question of whether we should use a manner of presentation familiar to the general reader (whatever that may be), or a manner now in use among specialists (whatever that should be), is a much more basic style issue, and worded that way it will focus the arguments; I think that's the sort of basic issue of the purpose of WP that might be within our limits. . DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Deciding between ourselves is a promising development, which I hope will remove the need for this case. I'll wait a few days to see how that pans out before voting. – Joe (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards accept, but given the parties appear to be willing to try one last attempt at sussing this out before the Arbitration Committee steps in, I'm holding off on my vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the ANI threads and related pages, I believe I ken the crux of the issue, but as such I don't think arbitration is likely to get much done. We can't rule on content, and fundamentally this is a question of sources and verifiability we can't solve except by wrist-slapping or topic bans. I think EdChem's suggestion on his talk is sage, and I'd like to see where this goes before we descend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. In light of #Joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh, together with the tremendous progress made on the relevant talk pages, it appears we can decline this request for arbitration. The principal parties have realized that the project is better served by having them work together rather than against each other, and I'm confident that there are several other people who are happy to support them in this effort. Speaking personally, I'm quite glad to see this as I really don't relish the idea of sitting through another chemistry class. It was boring 20 years ago, and even with such an exciting teacher as EdChem, I'm still not sure I would find it all that interesting now. Kudos all around. – bradv🍁 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards decline based upon the Joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer so the community has had the opportunity to review their proposal and comment on whether they still think a case is warranted. Mkdw ^talk 00:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The joint statement seems to be sufficient to resolve this but like Mkdw, I'm allowing the community to react to this first. Regards So Why 08:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magali Roques deletion

Initiated by Melchior2006 (talk) at 07:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Melchior2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification GorillaWarfare]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

the article was deleted immediately without any discussion.

Statement by Melchior2006

GorillaWarfare speedy deleted an article about a philosopher (Magali Elise Roques) whose publications have often been retracted because of plagiarism. I documented the retractions precisely. GorillaWarfare's claim that Roques was being attacked in the wiki article is mistaken, since the article only addressed the publications and the retractions, which are on the record.

Statement by GorillaWarfare

Statement by Johnuniq

Obviously the request for a case will be declined as there has been no preliminary dispute resolution. However, I will record what I found in the currently deleted Magali Elise Roques. The article listed the routine milestones and publications typical of any minor academic. There was no claim of notability satisfying WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. The lead consisted of 55 characters giving the subject's name, birth year and occupation, with another 220 characters describing claims of plagiarism. Given the lack of notability, that means the WP:G10 speedy deletion criterion (attack page) was accurate and review will not overrule the deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Magali Roques deletion: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Magali Roques deletion: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/4/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Obvious decline. Suggest the filing editor read about WP:DRV, or at the very least the criteria and requirements that must be met first before filing for arbitration. Mkdw ^talk 08:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. @Melchior2006: WP:DRV is the appropriate venue to request review of a speedy deletion you disagree with (after talking to the admin in question about it first!). Regards So Why 08:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't know that Magali Roques was a philosopher." "Oh yeah, she's the one that finishes with a 's'." Decline per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Not the venue for such a disagreement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]