User talk:EdChem/Archive 17

The ANI thread about Sandbh
Was closed today with no action by User:Jehochman with the message This is much too long and convoluted to resolve here. Try arbitration instead if you want to continue the dispute. I tried to restart it with another short version because I felt this ignored the views of most who managed to comment before the walls of text started, but after some initial reactions and me trying to shorten my OP even further to 3 sentences, I have been asked for diffs and specific policies violated. Since this will take time, and it seems clear from further talk-page discussions with Jehochman that this issue may in itself be rather too complicated for the ANI venue due to the use of sources thing going on, I asked for the ANI #4 to be closed while I discuss it with you since you are for sure more familiar with policy and now have been a party to this entire thing.

To be honest, I am quite tired of dealing with this. Over at WT:ELEM, we're still seeing the exact same sort of behaviour when it comes to how to use sources: sources presented that on closer inspection don't support the current situation, yet another forthcoming not-yet-published paper, and instead personal analysis being offered. That is why I ask for your help: are there clearly policies being violated here as long as things remain mostly on the talk page (they did go to the main page once at Periodic table, but mostly not yet)? Do you feel that anything should be done? (If general WP norms on source usage are such that Sandbh's there are within them, then I will accept that and not proceed further.) Is there anything that can be done, if so, since this seems to keep spiralling in circles? If there are policies being violated, which are the ones I would have a better time at ANI (and possibly ARBCOM) if needed with? I confess to having contemplated leaving the project if the problem cannot be solved, but I do trust that the processes do work and that it is only when the processes are not followed correctly by either myself or Sandbh that we get such an outcome (I've been trying to learn and follow). Double sharp (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we are discussing his behaviour: a ping to . Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Today Sandbh opened another thread that was closed shortly thereafter with another instruction to take things to ARBCOM. I will reserve judgement as to future actions until I see how he reacts to this. And I would like to have your take on things and how you feel we should proceed, too. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the close by was a poor one in that it did not assess any of the relevant parts of the ANI thread.  Relevant and outsider comments from  would have guided someone inclined to do a proper close, and his comments on ASPERSIONS in the subsequent thread strongly suggest that he hadn't considered Levivich's contribution at all.  At the same time, there was so much noise in that thread that finding the signal was very difficult without some familiarity and the more it grew, the more likely that no one would take the time to do a thorough job – and especially as this wasn't the first ANI thread.
 * Sadly, the extent of contributions from you and others both at ANI and at WT:ELEM makes it very difficult for anyone outside the process to evaluate and few appear to have clean hands. Your subsequent thread and 's retaliatory ASPERSIONS thread reinforces those sorts of presumptions.  The amount that can be achieved at ANI at this point is precisely zero.
 * This is not a situation that ArbCom would touch, IMO – at least, not at this point – and if they did take a case, they might go nuclear and topic ban all combatants to clear the field for new editors to enter. Now, you asked if something be done?  Absolutely.  The situation at WT:ELEM is problematic and is becoming increasingly disruptive.  But, is that something a topic ban of Sandbh?  I'm not convinced that it is, partly because he has a wealth of knowledge and can be a real asset, and partly because that would follow from an assessment that the only (or at least, the major) source of problems / disruption is Sandbh.  Further, ANI is not going to help, nor is individual admin intervention likely.  Had I been asked before the thread that Jehochman closed, I would have advised against it.  The way it developed, it has effectively closed off ANI as help for now.  We are left with needing an in-project solution.
 * That does not preclude getting help later, but it would need to be based on demonstrative failure of a meaningful new attempt to resolve the issues with at least the significant majority of any evidence presented being from after this point in time. Furthermore, any future report would need to be well constructed and managed.  ANI threads where one editor posts walls of text can be resolved successfully... once multiple editors do it, things become much more difficult.
 * I can try to start a process to see if the project can move forward productively. There are no guarantees and my time is limited.  My last seven days have included a night in hospital for tests (nothing serious) and I'm in isolation after a COVID test earlier today, so you'll appreciate that I have a few other things going on.  EdChem (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EdChem. I do indeed appreciate that you have other more important stuff going on, and I really thank you for helping to facilitate and giving advice in every step of the way during this. If you feel you have time – please do start an in-project process, and if you don't – that's also fine with me. I hope for the best, but not too much. I have seriously considered whether or not it is best to leave the project, but we'll see what happens if and when you have time. Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * EdChem, I'd merely like to second Double sharp's gratitude for coming over and trying to help our project. I didn't recognize the need for it when you first suggested it but it's evident to me now I was wrong. Thank you and by all means, I wish you not to suffer any medical complications.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe I forgot to say that too: I wish you the best of health! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, User:CaptainEek has opened an arbitration request. I have told him no his talk page that I had decided to agree with you and not proceed to this step in favour of letting you try to mediate some more, but since we will be there anyway if User:Sandbh wants it, perhaps it's best to wait till he expresses an opinion. Double sharp (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The last time I was in hospital the people who care for me where more concerned than I was! I used to fear the worst. It turns out that the worst is the most unlikely thing to happen. And even if the worst happens, their are ways of dealing with that, after the inevitable period of adjustment (and angst about what one has lost; instead of focusing on what one has gained, that one could not do pre-loss). Nowadays that kind of approach gives me a lot of calm.

I was pleased to hear that your assessment of your hospital visit was that it was nothing serious, as I'd expect it would be.

I flagged my 12 Nov ANI at ANI on 4 Nov.

I filed my ANI for the following reasons:
 * ANI thread #3 was heading to a happy outcome, then fell off the rails.
 * DS filed ANI #4.
 * DS started receiving advice on his talk page as to how to file a report at ARBCOM.
 * My allegations of breaches of WP:ASPERSIONS were never properly assessed since Levivich was WP:INVOLVED via his support for a T-ban.
 * I said I was willing to overlook this and focus on the happy outcome, until that went bad.
 * So the allegations are still there, on the record, forever.
 * I know from past experiences that such allegations can get resurrected as supporting "evidence" in the event that I have to revisit WP:ANI.
 * I wanted to clear my name.

WP:ANI, IMHO, is not well equipped to handle such cases. The focus there seems to be on closing filings ASAP, rather than investigating fully as per WP:BOOMERANG. I believe the count of unsuccessful ANI filings is DS v Sandbh: 3; Sandbh v DePeip: 1; R8R v DePiep: 1; Sandbh v DS: 1.

Re, "The situation at WT:ELEM is problematic and is becoming increasingly disruptive."

There are no issues of substance at WP:ELEM. We have 3-4 RFCs on the way. There was some progress on the colouring project; it has now again fallen into abeyance.. I recall liking 's colour scheme proposal from 4 or 5 years ago, so I'll draft an RFC about that. I'll post an RFC register to WP:ELEM so we can keep track.

Double sharp and I have been having an interesting discussion, which is what talk pages are for I thought.

What issues there are, are simply differences of opinion. These could be resolved via RFC.

Re, "ANI threads where one editor posts walls of text" is a misrepresentation. Recall what Andrew wrote: "While Sandbh has made 163 edits of 188 Kb, Double sharp has made 183 edits of 107 Kb (and counting)." DS 107 Kb were directed at 1 editor. My 188 Kb was in response to at least seven other editors i.e. 26 Kb per editor.

Re this allegation by DS v me: "I have shown zero interest in following policy" [italics added] and DS response: "I have zero interest in WP:POLICY and the opinions of the bush lawyers at WP:ANI. I have zero interest in citing POLICY within our project. (already presented in my ANI #3 first report)". That is a good example of misrepresentation. Have I ever said I have zero interest in following WP policy? No. There is zip, zero, nil, nada evidence. Did I say I have zero interest in WP:POLICY? I sure did!

We're now in the peculiar situtation of having being summoned to WP:ARBCOM, with none of us having filed that report.

Per DS, I have no interest in visiting WP:ARBCOM. The situation at WP:ELEM is that DS and I have a difference of opinion, in the same way that he and R8R have a difference of opinion. Even then DS and I agree on other things. As do R8R and DS.

At this time all I intend to do is to ask some questions at WP:AN about WP:ANI written processes i.e. a lack of same. I also intend to ask about how I could go about attempting to clear my name, presuming there is any interest within the WP community, of their being an avenue to do so. The "Wild West" manner if which WP:ANI currently operates is worthy of an academic study and write up.

Happy to discuss further. It's nice to not currently be in any review forum.

Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See my talk page; I'll decide what to do tomorrow morning after I've managed to get some sleep. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you to, , and for the well-wishes for my health.  My night in hospital was for tests that I have waited some months for, so I do see it as routine.  It would have happened a couple of months back except for COVID meaning tests were not being conducted, and the fact that it was non-urgent and could be delayed shows that the situation is not acute.  My COVID test yesterday was negative, as I fully expected.  I just  hope that results can focus on the test and what the problem I have is, rather than being (understandably) testing for what we know it is not.
 * Secondly, I see that an RfAr has been submitted. Everyone at WT:ELEM should be aware that arbitration is a long and distressing process and I can't see any truly good outcome resulting.  I will post a submission on the case request, though I have yet to decide what to advise ArbCom.  Just so everyone reading here has some idea, and in case anyone wants to direct questions my way that don't belong in a case request, I summarise a few thoughs:
 * ArbCom does not rule on content so the content issues will not be resolved by this process
 * ArbCom is responsible for ending disputes not for pursuing justice. Its purpose is to act in the best interests of readers and content and only then editors, and so editors with good intentions and content knowledge can still get sanctioned for poor conduct.  ArbCom decisions are made by a majority of the Arbitrators on the case by actual voting.  As you would expect, some are much more inclined to sanction than are others; similarly, some are more open to winding-back sanctions by appeal than are others. Appeals based on a sanction being unfair are rarely successful as the focus is more on whether the disputed area has calmed down. Appeals based on a sanction having served its purpose and is no longer necessary receive better responses, though evidence to support those claims is generally needed.  Arguing that a sanction is no longer necessary because it was never necessary and should not have been imposed in the first place is expected to be received positively some while after the heat death of the universe. A solution sometimes adopted by ArbCom is to remove all major disputants from an area and hope to leave a clean field for new editors to come in and deal with content.  So, multiple topic bans is definitely a possible outcome, which could be based on their sense that disruption is occurring because editors can't or won't get along.  Topic bans can be tailored narrowly (article space but not talk space, for example) or broadly (everywhere on WP) and for a topic that might be narrow (articles dealing primarily with the periodic table and its history) or broad (chemistry, broadly construed).  Discretionary sanctions can be authorised, which empower uninvolved administrators to impose difficult-to-reverse sanctions which can lack merit. In short, arbitration is the sledgehammer process for dispute resolution, with an emphasis on ending a dispute and which can have the consequent collateral damage that is typical when using a sledgehammer on a nut, or a watermelon.
 * Since ArbCom doesn't do content, this means that who is perceived (correctly or incorrectly) to be right or wrong on content issues won't (or at least shouldn't) influence their assessment of conduct
 * ArbCom not making content rulings is a double-edged sword. In the case on climate change, they did not address directly that there really is settled science.  In the pseudoscience case, they gave examples of what is and is not pseudoscience which more recent ARCA postings show is seen in retrospect as a mistake by at least some Arbitrators.  In one way, this is appropriate, leaving the question of content to community consensus and regular editing.  In another, it means that a dispute which sees obstruction from editor A and frustration from editor B can leave A and B looking the same to ArbCom. Please note: to pre-emptively address any thoughts that my points might be provoking as a comparison to the ELEM disputes, I am thinking specifically of a past ArbCom case in which I posted evidence in describing A and B.  It is not a reflection or summary of the present situation.  In the case I am thinking of (I don't remember the name at present, it was years ago), I was looking at the evidence and A was making statements about science that sounded possible / plausible to a lay-person but which were deeply flawed and reflective of poor understanding of the content or possible misrepresentation.  I submitted evidence that explained objectively why A was wrong on the science and B was right.  Up to that point, I think ArbCom were inclined to see A and B as similar problems, whereas in fact A was not following RS and editing in a POV way and B was getting frustrated trying to undo the damage and consequently behaving inappropriately towards A.  A was behaving similarly inappropriately so it did look a bit like he said / she said.  The outcome was that I got positive comments from Arbs (which was nice) and A was sanctioned while B was reminded to follow dispute resolution procedures.  This is one reason why I see that "no content" can be a double-edged sword as knowing that editor B was actually following NPOV and RS and trying to improve the encyclopaedia while perhaps displaying some conduct issues (like incivility and some edit warring) was a much less serious problem than A adding content that was flawed or outright false.   In the present dispute, there may be concerns around DUE or SYNTH or OR but no one (as far as I am aware) is unaware of RS and trying to publish views with no basis in science.  Consequently, ArbCom will likely not understand the content dispute side (at least, not in any depth) and probably won't be interested in it, beyond adding principles about proper editing, a principle about ArbCom's role, and a finding that there is a content dispute that reflects areas where the literature is not settled and that are properly left to ordinary editorial processes to address. In other words, in terms of content, nothing will change after an exhausting and potentially bruising arbitration process that could extend into 2021 (and thus possibly even into contributions from Arbitrators who are yet to be elected).
 * There is, IMO, no good outcome available to ELEM from an arbitration case.
 * It could end with no action beyond reminders, which would put the project exactly where it is now, but with potentially a couple of extra months of hostility added to what already exists.
 * It could end with one or more contributors being reprimanded, leaving any such editors with a permanent mark on their record that will be brought up by others in the future.
 * Topic bans could be implemented, in which case we lose one or more editors who have a breadth of scientific knowledge and understanding of the content and who are enthusiastic about the topic.
 * Even if one or more editors is removed, those remaining will have to deal with the situation as it then stands and try to work collaboratively and collegially. It is sad but true that the post-case period can see good editors struggle with restrictions and sometimes abandoning the project.  It can also see good editors who "won" at ArbCom gloating about the situation and fostering ongoing resentment within the project.
 * Sadly, we also face a situation where there is no certainty that a "win-win" outcome where the project members can work together and put aside existing differences and modify their own problematic behaviours is possible. I was going to start a WT:ELEM post about this before  filed the case request, because I believe that a collaboratively agreed solution would be preferable to an ArbCom-imposed solution... but I have to admit, if that failed, it would be back to ANI for a last attempt at a community-imposed resolution and if that ANI was unproductive, ArbCom would be the logical final step. Please Note: This is a comment about conduct.  As Sandbh has noted, we have RfCs for content questions, though those can also be long and painful and ultimately pointless if they are not kept limited to specific content questions and addressed on content grounds.
 * My uncertainty has several elements:
 * Do I have the time to try for a mediated resolution, and if so, do I want to devote the time to it? This depends heavily on whether I think compromise and resolution can be achieved and provide longer-term stability.  Additionally, will other outsiders to ELEM help with this, perhaps on an informal basis?
 * If this is attempted, will I be accepted for the role or see as too involved by some? Will others (like  commenting on OR) be seen as outside advice or as partisan in some way?
 * If it does not succeed, does ArbCom become inevitable? If so, is it better to jump to that point now?
 * How much of the problems are content disagreements, policy / editing issues about how to include agreed content (including DUE, NPOV, RS, BLP, ...), conduct issues which can include WP:RGW and WP:OWN and which can cross into earlier issues (for example, disagreements about OR can be editing issues in talk page discussions or become conduct issues with disruptive / POV article space editing), and consequently where are they best addressed?
 * Do editors share goodwill and mutual respect or is disagreement / hostility resulting in some being seen as opponents? Are motivations guided by high quality encyclopaedic conduct or moving into wanting to "win"?
 * Do editors have the intellectual discipline and willingness to self-assess, reflect, and modify their approach (with or without support / guidance) or are some entrenched with an "I'm right / X is wrong" mentality?
 * I am pinging and  as the other top-5 editors at WT:ELEM to participate in this discussion as they see fit. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Earlier, I said that "This is not a situation that ArbCom would touch, IMO – at least, not at this point."  This comment might come as a surprise given 's comment that "this is likely to be accepted", since backed up by .  's comment on belt sanders and nail files is what I was thinking of when mentioning ArbCom taking a "nuclear"  option.  I thought that ArbCom wouldn't touch the situation at present because there is a lot that is content dispute mixed in to all the ANIs, which is outside their remit, and that the conduct / behavioural side is not well explicated in the threads.  It appears that that is less evident to non-chemists than I had thought, and I can see the Arbitrators' point that so much ANI smoke must have some fire involved where ArbCom can act. To all ELEM members,, , , , :  This is going to be an ArbCom case unless the five of you (and especially the three named as parties) can act together to show ArbCom there is an alternative.  You may be able to agree to some process that would lead the Arbitrators to decline this case request without prejudice to it being re-filed if the alternative is not progressing within a fixed time frame, or to opening the case but suspending it for a time.  Note that I have said you may be able to do something to provide ArbCom with an alternative.  They don't want a case, but this dispute is heading to them on its present trajectory, so you need to decide – have it now, or try an alternative that may prevent the case altogether, but which will be scrutinised in the case that follows if it fails.  My advice, for whatever that might be worth, is to decide between yourselves and if you want to try to something, post jointly to the case page (i.e. Statement from A, B, C, ... // We have had discussions (link?).   We propose X.  We have agreed to this posting.  I am signing as the poster and ask (pings to B, C, D, ...) to co-sign. Signed by A.)  This would demonstrate that you can agree to something.  I'm willing to contribute to such a discussion but not to lead or start it – it's up to one of you to get the ball rolling by starting a discussion with one of the others and inviting the rest in. I have pinged the Arbitrators who have been quoted out of courtesy.  They may be willing to respond / comment, but they may also decide not to, and instead simply wait to respond to something specific posted on the case page.  EdChem (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100% and have started the discussion at WT:ELEM. Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you,. I have been off-wiki for (I think) 2 days, so I've yet to check on developments. Things were looking positive in some areas and concerning in others. I am far from certain that this will all work, but am telling myself if it all falls apart and ends up at ArbCom, at least there will be a better basis for the likely results. I am really pleased to hear that what I am trying has been noticed and appreciated, though. :) EdChem (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And, now I've read / skimmed some of what has happened... I'm more discouraged and believe that a case has become much more likely. :(  EdChem (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

GA idea
I have an idea I would like to run past you to see if you like. I have a large list of potential GANs that I keep a running tally on. If any of these that do NOT have a date on them look interesting to you, just do some copy editing on the article and submit GAN. Then BOTH of us will get credit - you as the nominator and me as the original creator of the article. What do you think? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is additional on the above proposal. All these articles I created as previous Did You Know articles, so I a very familiar with them. When the GA review comes up I can answer the more difficult issues the reviewer brings up, as I know the material. You as the nominator could reply to minor issues, like grammer. I produced 31 Good Articles during this past October GAN drive. I now have over 100 Good Articles and plan on making another 100 Good Articles in 2021. If you are interested in collecting several green icons for your user page, nominate several of these above I am proposing - since I plan on turning these into Good Articles. I don't know your schedule, so don't know how busy you may be or if you would have some time to devote to this proposal. I am retired, so have all the time in the world for making Did You Know articles and Good Articles with my computers.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If any of the articles in my large list of potential GANs that don't have a date on them look interesting to you just do some copy editing on the article and submit GAN. I will respond to the issues brought up by the reviewer. I'm sure I can handle 90% of them. Both of us will get credit for the GA. What do you think? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my latest upgraded article I just submitted GAN. To me this is at Good Article standards. There should be just minor issues to take care of to get it promoted. Time will tell.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

, thanks for stopping by and making your kind offer. My thoughts, however, were about GA nominations where there are two (or more) editors who did the work on the article, rather than the DYK-style of having a separate credit for the nominator and editor(s). I would like the green icons but I want them for the articles I have worked substantially on. When the GA review for my nomination of hexamethylbenzene came up, for example, I stated that I saw the credit as belonging to me and to another editor. In that case, the reviewer was kind enough to post to ' user talk (now archived) advising of the GA promotion. To me, this "officially" recognises that DMacks and I can both claim the GA credit. To me, there should be an official process built in to GA nominations to grant credit to multiple editors.

Of course, I could just list the articles on my user page and link to the history to substantiate my contribution. We could put together a list of the articles that we both substantially contributed to and link to that (assuming you agreed). But, I really think that it should be built in to the GA process to list multiple contributing editors, and probably (like DYK) a separate nominator credit for cases where the nominator has not substantially edited the article. I am sure that some will view this as trivial and it is true that the important issue is the contribution of strong content to the encyclopaedia for our readers. I do believe that contributors being acknowledged is desirable and helps build the Wikipedian coconmmunity.

Doug, please note that I am not blaming you for the system or for not having posted a note similar to the one I did for the hexamethylbenzene GA nomination. You did a lot of work on the articles and are totally deserving of the GA credits. It was an interesting collaboration for us both (I hope), I just think (as I commented at the GA review) that the system could and should recognise cases where building an article to GA is predominantly the work of a group of editors working together (or even in series). The GA reviewer did mention my contribution and thanked me for my comment..., do you have any thoughts? I see that has since commented on the GA review and might have thoughts.

I welcome whatever thoughts that you (or anyone else) might have. EdChem (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It so happens that in the Did You Know process that several editors can get credit when the article officially becomes a Did You Know. See Template:NewDYKnomination/guide and the contributors section, where it notes |author2=, |author3=, etc - so, until the GA process has such a structure officially, then I am suggesting that we could each get a GA credit for collaborating on an article IF you did copy editing to one of my articles that I created I am suggesting in my list of potential Good Articles (with no date). If you have 30% or more authorship (by copy editing) I would consider it fair. Then you nominate it GAN, so you can get credit as the nominator. I would be glad to handle most of the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, since I have more time on my hands since I am retired. Is that workable for you until the GA process gets officially changed to allow several credits like the Did You Know process is now? I plan on making 100 Good Articles in 2021. I made 100 Good Articles in 2020.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I just did an upgrade to Frederick Morrell Zeder, an article I originally created in 2012. It's not that far from a Good Article. IF you will do some copy editing to make improvements to the article and nominate it GAN then we both can get a GA credit. I will be glad to handle the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, as I am very familiar with the article. It will become a Good Article without to much trouble. Does this sound like an interesting proposition?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is my thoughts on the present way the GA credits are given to editors. From my experience of making over 500 Did You Know articles I think it is correct the way it is now. Here is why. The creator of the article should get a credit, because without the article then there would be no credits for anyone. They usually have the most amount of authorship - 80% of the time. The nominator should get a credit since they had the ambition to nominate the article for GAN. This is usually because they usually have the second largest authorship into it and therefore an interest in the article subject (80% of the remaining 20% or about 16% of the time). Editors of authorship of #3, #4, and #5 have little to no interest in the subject written about in the article. They just did small edits (e.g. grammar, spelling, fixes). They are about 4% of the total amount of authorship (combined) to the article. They should not get a GA credit like the nominator and creator since they have basically no interest in the subject of the article. So therefore the GA credit process requires no changes and is correct the way it is. In the case of DYK articles the editors of #2, #3, and #4 authorship are creators of the article when it was originally constructed for that intent (time restriction in play of 7 days).--Doug Coldwell (talk)

I just did an upgrade to Robert Grace, an article I originally created in 2017. It's not that far from a Good Article. IF you will do some copy editing and make improvements to the article and nominate it GAN then we both can get a GA credit. I will be glad to handle the issues brought up by the GA reviewer, as I am very familiar with the article. It will become a Good Article without to much trouble. Does this sound like an interesting proposition?-Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert Grace is a prime example of what I am talking about. Editors #3, #4, and #5 added up for total authorship is 4% of the article. The #2 editor has no interest in being the nominator since he only has 2.9% of the total authorship. I have 91.5% of the authorship of the article. If you want to be the GA nominator you should have an interest in the article of over 3% and perhaps of something near 20% authorship. Does that seem fair to you? Otherwise I will just nominate it myself and have the only GA credit issued when it gets promoted to a Good Article. Keep in mind that I have a good idea what a Good Article looks like since I got 31 Good Articles during the month of October and now have over 100 Good Articles (represented by green icons on top of my User Page). I say that Robert Grace is not very far from being a Good Article. Are you interested in collecting GA green icons for your User Page? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me point out that there is NOT a separate "nominator credit" and "creator credit" in the Did You Know process. The DYK nominator is usually the creator of the article. At the time the creator nominates the article for DYK s/he also lists author #2 and author #3 (rarely) at that time (immediately) as co-creators. All the editors know ahead of time they are ALL going to be participating in creating the article (since there is a seven day time limit). This then creates about an even distribution of authorship of the article by natural default (as my 14 year DYK experience has shown of 500 DYKs). You can see that in the case of potential Good Articles that the creator has much more interest and authorship in the article, than the nominator. However the nominator gets the same GA credit as the creator (mainly because they solved the issues of the reviewer). Generally speaking editor #3, #4, and #5 added up together is 4% or less authorship. It would not be fair to the creator and nominator for any of these last three editors to get the same credit as the creator and nominator - since they did not really participate in the creation of the article in becoming a Good Article. They made little edits (or minor) as any other drive-by editor would do, that has no interest in the subject (material) of the article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of sources at WP:ELEM
Your input would be appreciated at. Thank you. YBG (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ EdChem (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding alternative PTs
Hey EdChem,

I wanted to ask you something. In your career as a chemist, have you often seen any tables that really differ much from the standard one like those mentioned at Periodic table or Alternative periodic tables?

The reason I ask is that I have some worry of whether it's due weight to mention them at length if they are not much used. My impression of chemistry texts is that the three common forms are (a) the standard 18 column format, (b) the previously standard 8 column format of Mendeleev [mostly confined to Russia and her near abroad, very rare elsewhere], and (c) the standard 32 column format (as an explanation of how the f block fits into the 18 column format). Those are the three that were present in the 1990 Red Book, and of these (b) and (c) were cut out of the 2005 one. Anything else seems to be of surpassing rarity. Other alternatives have been mentioned in Eric Scerri's secondary-source text The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance (well, it's secondary when he covers other people's formulated alternative PTs), but it seems to me that the really weird alternative forms have since about WWII mostly been an almost fringe-y sideline, with few serious chemists using anything such, and with the only questions really acknowledged in textbooks and the literature by many chemists being the period 1 (where to put H – standard Greenwood & Earnshaw exceptionally worries about He also, but most think that one is obvious) and group 3 questions. Janet's LSPT maybe lives on some sort of limbo where it is often mentioned as an alternative but not much used; the rest, so far as I can see, have barely even that in the standard literature. Is that correct? And if that's the case, then is our current coverage of this at periodic table OK, or should most of it be moved to the specific article alternative periodic tables? Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Have I seen other tables? Yes.  But seen them being used?  Not significantly that I can recall.  I think they have utility in education to get students to stop and reflect.  So-called discrepant event teaching can be very effective - grab and hold attention by showing something unexpected or that challenges their expectations / beliefs.  Giving them a strange-looking PT could be a great way to discuss the nature of science, to explore the distinction between models and reality, etc.  However, the familiar PT is here to stay and our article on it needs to focus on what it is, not on alternatives or history, which belong primarily in other articles.
 * On DUE for the main periodic table article, discussing the alternatives at length is not appropriate as they aren't the topic.
 * I've not looked at the main article for this for a while (the last week has been very hectic) but I won't be surprised if there is material better suited to other articles.
 * I can't speak for the literature as a whole, but the obvious core content of our article is what is covered in standard textbooks, probably of HSC / first year university level. WP's audience is not primarily people whose idea of finding out about the PT is Cotton & Wilkinson.  :)
 * EdChem (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * EdChem (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Two more threads
My apologies for giving you two more threads as requests for your comments, but I think we likely need them at: I confess I am getting somewhat frustrated, which is why I am trying to limit my responses so that it doesn't bleed through. The former since you replied there; and the latter since it has to do with what we discussed. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WT:ELEM and
 * WT:ELEM

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)