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:

Resolved per joint statement Double sharp–Sandbh

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 DS advised the same day that he had withdrawn the RFC.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.").

Resolved per joint statement Double sharp–Sandbh

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) 04:09, 17 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

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.

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~~ 3/5 do).

(removed some statements).

Given recent statements by involved parties, and the prospect following from there, I see a resonable route that the Project can be brought back to Wikipedia standards through future cooperation and contributions. I think in this situation a Case is not needed, and so I propose to reject this Case. No opinion on a Case-tracking form.

I thank editors for their useful consultations. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 23 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.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second conflict, Double sharp vs. Sandbh, has reached a conclusion and the editors have reached understanding to act together in a collaborative manner. No external action is required; I suggest ArbCom doesn't consider this conflict.--R8R (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After an interjection and a subsequent exchange with Guy Macon, I've been advised to make a commitment not to talk about DePiep, and I agreed with that. I will not do that, will not recall past conflicts, and do my best in general to avoid conflict in the future.--R8R (talk) 06:14, 18 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.

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]

The attempt by the parties to reach an agreement which would negate the need for an arbitration case seems to have failed for the moment, an indication of the mercurial nature of the dispute. Those of the arbs who have adopted a "wait and see" attitude, in the hope that the disputants will iron things out on their own may at some point need to get the lead out and reconsider, as this dispute is no common nickel and dime argument, but a gold-standard disruptive one -- but I zinc that the arbs can see that elementary point for themselves, if they take into account every sliver of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 17 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]
@Beyond My Ken: Facepalm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My original assessment remains unchanged. The disputants came close in August, yet here we are. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 17 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

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Deciding between ourselves Double sharp proposed " I would like to put aside all existing differences. We sometimes have very different views on the matter, but at the core, we all want to improve Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, we have to let go of any residual desires to 'win' the debate. That should not be our goal. Our goal should be high-quality encyclopaedic content."

Double sharp, DePiep and YBG all agreed to this, and as far as I can tell have stuck to it. Alas, R8R and Sandbh did not agree and instead have continued posting complaints about past behavior. So I think Arbcom should accept this case. If Double sharp, DePiep and YBG continue to put aside all existing differences they should be marked as "resolved: no arbcom action needed" and Arbcom should examine the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of R8R and Sandbh. (248 words) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have advised Double sharp, DePiep and YBG to not respond to any comments about anyone's behavior, and I have advised R8R and Sandbh to stop posting any comments about anyone's behavior.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that my advice had a good effect. This now looks like a decline to me. I think everyone involved is smart enough to know that [A] if the disruption comes back they will end up back here, and [B] Those editors who refuse to respond to any new disruptive comments will most likely not even be named involved parties in any new case. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(278 words)

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]

Final Comment

At this point, with this effort at resolving the case, can ArbCom suspend the case request (and so keep the current statements semi-active) for about two months, rather than either accepting or declining? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 17 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 Softlavender

I suggest that the committee decline this case. It was opened by someone who is not even remotely involved, and who has no clue about what is going on, and who does not even know who the main participants are.

Any one of the parties actually involved is free to open a request for arbitration here if they so choose, and in fact they were advised to do so if necessary by Jehochman (the closing admin on one of the more recent and longest of the ANI threads), but so far none has chosen to.

The OP should really mind their own business, especially when they are so uninformed about the situation.

I think a better solution than an ArbCom case is, if deemed necessary, for the article Periodic table to be reverted to the state it was at before all of the controversial and non-consensus edits were made by Sandbh, and that version be indefinitely full-locked, and then any change be required to go through an offical RfC on the article's talkpage. That article is a FA (since November 2012), and should not be subject to such bizarre controversy and conflict (or else its FA status should be revoked). Softlavender (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: GuyMacon's recent comment here sums things up nicely [2]: Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG have agreed to the peaceful resolution of the main content dispute(s) at ELEM and have also agreed to let bygones be bygones and to move forward as a community (ELEM) in improving/preserving the Periodic Table article. R8R and Sandbh, on the other hand, are calling for blood and are demonizing DePiep and insisting on an "admission" of guilt, when in fact their behavior (on ANI and/or ELEM and/or Periodic Table) has been equally if not more disruptive and problematic. They have no intention of editing or discussing collaboratively, and are out to get DePiep, with whom they have content disagreement(s). This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the part of R8R and Sandbh, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. However, unlike GuyMacon, I do not believe an ArbCom case is warranted here. A simple warning to those two editors would do. Double sharp (and EdChem and YBG) is working very hard to preserve peace and community at ELEM, and yet those two editors are refusing peace and refusing community -- they are actively fomenting antagonism. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, would you mind giving your requested statement (requested here four days ago) within the next 24 hours? It has now been 48 hours since you posted that you were rethinking the matter [3]. To recap the current state of affairs, the problem(s) at present come down to the behavior of you and Sandbh. Others have agreed to let bygones be bygones and work collaboratively. If the ArbCom case is accepted now and proceeds, your behavior and Sandbh's – past and current, at ELEM, PT, and ANI – will be carefully scrutinized, and sanctions may ensue on either or both of you. If you agree that there is no currently pressing need to investigate, ArbCom will either decline the case, or will provisionally accept but defer it to several months from now (months during which you and your fellow ELEM members have a chance to demonstrate that problematical behavior is in the past and put aside) if needed then. Softlavender (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Seven ANI threads = 7x it was almost resolved without outside intervention. The four non-filing parties now named are the four parties to those seven ANI threads. The history is that some of the parties have resolved some of the issues amongst themselves, but we haven't yet resolved all issues among all parties. The issues in dispute affect more than just the parties involved. I think these four editors represent something like 80% of active WP:ELEM editors, and if this was WikiProject:Fidget Spinners, I'd say "just TBAN them all and be done with it", but in this case, doing so would really hurt the development of an important topic area. These are four dedicated veteran editors; they've given enough to the project that they deserve the project giving them some referees to help resolve their intractable dispute(s).

If Arbcom accepts, the schedule should be modified to have a round of "issue spotting" or "scope determination" prior to the evidence phase. If the arbs just accept and then wait for the PD, they'll find a megabyte of evidence and workshop text waiting for them. There are multiple overlapping non-content issues involving multiple and overlapping sets of parties, some of which are resolved, some of which aren't worth resolving, and some of which should be within the scope of this case. Let the parties and the public present/discuss which specific issues Arbcom should look at, and at the end of the "issues" phase, let the Arbs voice their opinions about what they want to review evidence about, and what they don't want to review evidence about. Maybe the parties will agree amongst themselves about which issues are in dispute; maybe the drafting arbs can decide; maybe the arbs can vote on it; maybe the arbs running for re-election should do the extra work :-) but one way or another, the parties should be given some guidance about the scope of helpful evidence, rather than leaving it open-ended. The more specific the guidance, the better. The extra effort up front will pay dividends on the back end.

A non-exhaustive list of potential issues (some of which may be resolved, some of which may be active) might include: (1) civility/casting aspersions/bludgeoning/IDHT, (2) OR/SYNTH/self-published sources and how they can/can't be used in talk page or project space discussions (as opposed to mainspace edits), (3) when can an editor IAR, and IAR's relationship with OR and WP:CONSENSUS, (4) [Levivich's suggestion:] when should an editor file at ANI, how/when should admin close ANI reports, and how should editors respond to ANI reports that are archived/closed without resolution. This is a case where not just FOF and remedies, but statements of principles, could be particularly helpful to the community as a whole. Le v¡v ich 18:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Games of the World

I agree whole heartedly with what Soft Lavender and Guy Macon has stated. As someone who has commented at previous ANI's I am very annoyed that R8R and Sandbh are continuing to be childish. We have looked at Depiep's comments and said that no action is to be taken. Both need to drop the stick instead of hounding other users and trying desperately to get him off the site. This behaviour was seen in past ANI's from these two. This political move from Sandbh (he has done others stating how many people have mentioned Depeip on here etc) tonight shows that he is not interested in consensus here only in winning and thinks that he has done nothing wrong. While we have seen numerous ANI threads and calls for users to improve their behaviour, Sandbh thinks that all of the comments calling for this does not imply to him. R8R meanwhile continues to do what he has done before and only seems to want to drop it if he gets an apology. Let me say this what he refers to is when he refused to listen and didn't like someone's frustration. So him and Sandbh continue to regurgitate past discussions which are done and dusted /or where they can't get their own way then cry wolf when someone snaps in frustration, as they refuse to listen and sink discussion by posting walls of nonsensical text. I would strongly agree with the last sentence from Guy's 18:14, 16 November 2020 comment. I think - as per Softlavender - a very strong warning to both certain users may do the trick here at a risk of it exploding back at us. Games of the world (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at the moment is this: Sandbh wants to win and bury DePeip because he thinks it will be easier for him to pull his usual rubbish as DePeip is a (I mean this in a good way) pain as he challenges him. R8R has finally buried the hatchet. Basically if Sandbh now stops with the campaign then DePeip would withdraw his notion of going to Arbcom. I would urge Arbcom to decline the case as there is nothing that the community cannot sort out and what ever people think of how this one started it seems to be having the desired result - plus the DePeip issue is resolved and has not sparked off since about 5 ANI's ago so I see nothing that needs attention from Arbcom anyway in that respect. It has only got here because of the mass walls of text of hysteria of "your not punishing me and DePeip must die" on the ANI threads along with multiple accusations of the issue raised not being investigated properly which is had been which has sunk every single one making it very difficult for any resolution to occur. Mean on the last proper one there was a very strong proposal and support for a T ban on Sandbh but Sandbh managed to side-tracked it with walls of text. I think there is something that Arbcom could look at and should perhaps propose rules around this type of behaviour to make is clearer and justifiable for blocks to be issued so that resolutions can occur. Games of the world (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

It appears the parties have suddenly discovered within themselves the determination to resolve this matter without parental assistance. As Dr. Johnson put it (sort of): The prospect of a hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully. E Eng 22:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

@GorillaWarfare: instead of saying "the case is accepted and suspended for N months or until xxx happens." would something like "the case is accepted and suspended for N months. If requested, the committee will consider reopening." (i.e. explicitly giving discretion to the future committee) relieve your concerns about Robert McClenon's idea? Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates – Wikipedia:Avoid Parkinson's bicycle-shed effect

Rather than rewrite the already well-said, I'll simply "violently agree" with:

Thryduulf: "saying ... something like 'the case is accepted and suspended for N months. If requested, the committee will consider reopening.'" – Alternatively, Robert McClenon: "ArbCom [should] suspend the case request ... rather than either accepting or declining." – Both are pure WP:Common sense (distinct only in process nit-picks).
Robert McClenon: "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."
Beyond My Ken: "The attempt by the parties to reach an agreement which would negate the need for an arbitration case seems to have failed" – And didn't include all parties; one says they feel excluded from resolution involvement.
BMK: "I don't believe that any other mechanism[s] will be useful, since they lack arbitration's capacity to structure the case and strictly limit the participants' obvious verbosity." – Even I, not exactly Mr. Brevity, think the debates are so TL;DR it impedes resolution.
McClenon: "if an editor has [a long] block log ... the community is not dealing effectively with their conduct. ArbCom should address [that] ... in the interests of the encyclopedia" – But I'm less certain whose might sufficiently qualify as "long".

Won't implicate accept/reject decision, but very important for full resolution:

Jehochman, DGG, BMK, Narky Blert, Double Sharp, DePiep, YBG, in one wording or another: WP's goal is verifiability, not "truth"; encyclopedic content, not victory of one viewpoint.
EdChem: "we have ... RSs taking different approaches ... the literature use a mixture of all of these versions .... the criteria used to decide ... overlap, ... are weighted differently, ... are notably different criteria." – As he says, it varies by subfield, as does intensity of feeling about it being crucial or bikeshedding.
BMK: "we should be looking not at what specialists use for periodic table style, but what generalists – in this case, science educators – use." – Absolutely. Imitating what academics write for other academics in their own field, without any regard to impact on understandability by our readers, is the same old WP:Specialized-style fallacy we've had to deal with over and over.
Jehochman: "I think we will need to have an RFC to establish a style guide [on this in particular] so that Wikipedia can maintain consistency from page to page so as not to confuse the reader." – I'd rephrase this as develop consensus on a standardized template version, and an instruction in MoS to use it. We don't need a new guideline page.

Two parties (with help) making initial but perhaps stalled-out efforts to back out of the bonfire doesn't mean the behavioral problems are all resolved, especially since it's multiple related disputes (with sub-disputes) involving different parties.

The request should not be outright declined on anything like a basis that only the next ArbCom should get into it. Especially given the request was filed by an uninvolved editor, and others say the disputes negatively impact them directly or the project in general.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Please accept per SMcCandlish. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 24 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 <1/11/0>

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]
- I have no idea what today's new round of bickering is about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm waiting on responses to Bradv's question below. I'll vote when we've seen those, but in any event by this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline at this time, per others below. If the problems recur, I'm sure we'll hear about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 26 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 don't think the dispute is right for arbitration at this point, so I vote to decline. Having reviewed the statements both here as well as discussions on WP:ANI and WT:ELEM, the impression I've formed is that this is mostly a content dispute, isolated to a very small subset of articles, and where the parties are still willing to collaborate. There doesn't seem to be accusations of serious conduct issues, and none of the parties seem to be interested in going through an arbitration case. I understand why the case was referred to here from ANI (walls of text going nowhere is one strong reason!), but given that the parties wish to work together more, and that this is mostly a content dispute, I don't think our involvement at this point is likely to improve the situation. Maxim_(talk) 20:12, 24 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]
Like GW, I'm reasonably satisfied – for the moment, anyway – that the parties have figured out a way to at least work peaceably with one another, so I'm going to decline. If this comes in front of us again, however, I'll accept it faster than that belt sander got away from me and knocked a hole in the wall last spring. And that was pretty freaking fast. Katie^talk 19:30, 24 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]
- Decline. Dispute resolution is happening, even if it might not have reached a consensus yet, which means this isn't ready for ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 25 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]
- I'm feeling decently satisfied that the parties have found a workable way forward, and so at this point will vote to decline the case request. I'm not convinced the rather unusual approach of accepting/suspending the case is needed here. If problems do recur, a new case request can focus primarily on disruption between this request being closed and the new one being opened, with pointers back to this case request for background information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: It's an interesting idea, and I do like the idea of saving folks having to go through a whole new case request should these solutions fail, but my concern is that accepting and then suspending a case effectively is (should it have to be unsuspended) accepting a case on behalf of a whole new committee given the timing. Robert McClenon's suggestion is certainly unusual, but it would resolve those concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 20 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]
- DePiep, it appears the other parties have all agreed to work together to resolve this dispute without ArbCom's intervention, but you are the lone hold-out. Your statement as it now stands doesn't really contain any evidence of misconduct by other parties, yet you still feel there's a need for us to investigate. Could you please expound on what, in particular, you feel still needs to be addressed? – bradv🍁 00:58, 19 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]
- Accept Unfortunately, based upon the discussion at User talk:Double sharp#Arbitration notice and above, it appears that two of the four involved parties (DePiep and R8R) have still called for arbitration with a particular focus on conduct. The joint statement by Double sharp and Sandbh appeared promising, but without the support of all involved parties, the material issues will remain unresolved. Mkdw ^talk 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like I am the lone dissenter in thinking that this case should be accepted now. There is nothing that would prevent the involved parties from resolving the dispute during arbitration -- that is one of the purposes of arbitration after all. The parties have seemingly had repeated opportunities to resolve the matter without being able to do so. I am wary that the apparently lack of conflict right now is simply due to added scrutiny and public attention. I worry the situation will devolve again once out of the spotlight and in just a few month's time the dispute reaches another breaking point and the communities find ourselves right back here. Nonetheless, there is a near-unanimous majority to decline the case and so the case request should be closed at the next earliest opportunity. Mkdw ^talk 05:18, 26 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 SoWhy 08:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not outright opposed to the idea of suspending the case or the case request and I see the arguments for doing so. However, I also see that there is no actual mechanism to do so and furthermore, there appears scant need for it. Nothing said here will be lost and if in future intervention by the Committee is necessary, a new Case request can simply point to the old request's comments instead of repeating them. As such, I don't see the benefit of leaving the request or an accepted Case in limbo for potentially months because to unsuspend, we would necessarily need to hear new comments as to why we should do so. Which is basically a new Case request anyway. Therefore, I think declining without prejudice against a new case if things change to require intervention is the most logical way to go. On a side note, I do think that having the sword of Damocles that is a suspended Case hanging over the parties might actually hinder attempts to resolve the content dispute that is underneath the case request. Regards So Why 19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the situation is getting resolved without us. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully convinced either way as of right now. This is clearly "ripe" as we say, having been to ANI over and over again. The question then becomes one of determining whether it is merely an overblown content dispute, in which case we should probably decline, or a situation where one or more users' behavior is the real problem, in which case we should accept. I'm glad to see an good faith attempt between some of the parties to resolve it without a case, but as of now I am not convinced that effort has or will succeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClennon's idea is an interesting one, but I think the way that would technically work is first we would accept the case, and then suspend it. I think I kind of like the sound of that, it would allow us to see if the recent efforts bear fruit, without requiring an entire new case request should that not prove to be the case. I'm not sure the committee has ever done something quite like that before, but I also don't see any reason we couldn't do it if there were a consensus amongst the committee to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I feel we should accept at this point. We can discuss suspending it once that's done. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Amending my vote to decline. My accept vote was kinda weak anyway. I still suspect we may end up dealing with this later, but for the moment leaving it to the parties to resolve among themselves seems worth a shot. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline There is no current conflict between the parties. What could we do here but say they ought to cooperate to settle the dispute? -- which they are already doing.
We're not here to punish people, so how can we concern ourselves with what they did in the past when there is no current problem? Arb com are not here to help them mediate their conflict problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as dispute in process of being resolved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horn of Africa disruption

Initiated by TomStar81 (Talk) at 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TomStar81

I come before this board at wit's end. Repeatedly we have sought community assistance (to include community authorized general sanctions) to deal with the ever increasing amount of disruption on and around the Horn of Africa region and have been left wanting. The region's instability has fueled massive sock farms, multiple ANI complaints, and for better or worse has resulted in many familiar with the region to take a hair trigger approach when dealing with contributors whose MO matches known disruptive editors - many of them already blocked - and this carpet bombing has taken many of us (myself include) to the brittle edge of ipso facto assuming bad faith. I am asking the committee to take up this issue to gain a community perspective of the problem and judge for themselves what actions should be taken to help the situation. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I've been thinking about that myself since its a large request likely to involve a number of people interested in or involved with the region and thus subject to the case. The most useful areas would be WP:AN and WP:AN/I, so as to draw attention to the matter with those who end up cleaning up messes made by those working in the region. There are a total of seven wikiprojects that lay claim in some way, shape, or form to the Horn of Africa region, and there are likely to be more when considering regional race and ethnic groups, sexually based wikiprojects (those that focus on LBGTQ editing and Women in general and so forth in that manner), religious groups (Islam and Christianity in particular), and those interested in historical time frames for both regions and nations in regions. Notifying each project would be difficult and likely counterproductive, so I would consider excluding notifications to these projects except in cases where a project has an active coordinator group, in which case I may make the coordinators aware of the case. Notifying the checkuser corps would be of use, since these editors can look "under the hood" as it were they may be able to offer insight into this matter and connect dots for the committee to gain a fuller understanding of the problem. A handful of editors ought to be contacted specifically, to include @TomStar81, Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, Drmies, Nick-D, Kzl55, and AcidSnow:, as these editors have dealt with the offending editors repeatedly, while @Ben MacDui, Wadaad, and EvergreenFir: have dealt with socks in this editing region in the past and may be able to offer supportive evidence in favor of a case. In addition to Drmies, @Sro23, Sir Sputnik, Oshwah, TheSandDoctor, JJMC89, Callanecc, GeneralNotability, and Zzuuzz: have rendered opinions in favor of or against blocking the two most prolific accounts that are often listed at SPI, and should be consulted here. Additionally, as much as this board doesn't want to hear it, all necessary and reasonable efforts must be made to get in touch with Bbb23 (talk · contribs), as the checkuser who was arguably the most familiar with both case pages his input here is priceless and precious beyond all measure. I understand if he doesn't want to log back in to participate, but if his email address is still enabled reaching out to him on this matter would be eye opening. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: In regards to your bullet points, I provide the following answers

On both occasions when general sanctions were attempted, the community failed to respond in a positive way to the issues presented. Similarly, discussions on the possibility of an LTA page was deemed a bad idea and shot down. Given the numerous failures of the community to address the underlying issues, and the fact that the region could be argued to come under arbcom sanctions (broadly interpreted) from the existing cases Race and Intelligence (tribal-specific promotional edits and genetic based edits of who came from where) and Palestine-Israel articles (Arab league includes nations in the Horn of Africa region), I though it may be prudent to finally let ARBCOM weigh in on the matter and decide what should be done here.
This is largely sockpuppetry, a well coordinated offline effort to effect the articles we have online. A non-exhaustive list of people who could be said to be party to the dispute could be found at User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Questionable_editors, but most of these accounts are behaved enough or have been exposed and blocked that this is request would not directly undermine them. I note that the answer I give is shaped by the fact that I am usually requested to look at the two largest known sockpuppet farms, and that I do most of my contributing to on or related to articles that are related to the United States and Naval Warfare, so I am not the best person to speak for specific editors within the topic that should be reviewed. Others who have been pinged may be more active in this region and may be better equipped to answer this question, should they elect to leave a statement.
The scope here is difficult to determine, but is generally limited to articles on tribes, regions, nations, and genetic groups from the region. One of the reasons for the consistent failure of community requested general sanctions is over the term "broadly construed", as I have no idea what the accounts may do if abruptly restricted I include the phrase to allow enough leeway for us to pivot as needed to address what future issues we may have from the accounts, but the community appears to interpret this is blanket restrictions for everything instantly and eternally, and that in turn tends to dissuade them from supporting. As this is decentralized, I would be loath to place limits on this until we can see what happens next. As for long term semi-protection or extended confirmation protection, the accounts in question are patient and willing to wait to clear the thresholds for editing. Long term protection of this nature then would be of some use in forcing otherwise annonomous or ISP-based contributing accounts to register, which in turn would make it easier for the SPI people to block accounts instead of ISP ranges, however it would likely not be enough for us to settle the area down in any meaningful way. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim: Its already included, its the 977 link, you just need to scroll down a little (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Proposal_to_adopt_general_sanctions_for_all_articles_on_or_related_to_the_Horn_of_Africa_(broadly_construed)). In September, following another flair up, I again moved for the implementation of general sanctions - this time at the admin noticeboard instead of the admin incident noticeboard - and it too failed (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive302#Proposal_to_adopt_Community_Approved_General_Sanctions_for_Horn_of_Africa_Articles_(Broadly_Construed)). Other proposals for topic bans, SPIs, etc have also been made, hence the reason for that third link (User:TomStar81/Horn of Africa disruption), it is in essence a very consolidated look at both how long this has been going on and the number of times we have tried and failed to do something about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Horn of Africa)

Some subject areas, which are areas of the Earth, are the subject of battleground editing because they have a history of having been actual battlegrounds. ArbCom has typically dealt with these areas by imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions. The most difficult area may be the lands disputed between Israel and Palestine, where the history consists of low-level conflict interspersed with open wars, for which ArbCom has authorized the most detailed regime of discretionary sanctions. Other areas of battleground editing due to a history of battles include India and Pakistan, the Balkans, where World War One started, and Eastern Europe, where World War Two started.

The Horn of Africa region has been an area of battleground editing because it has had a history of battles for millennia. It is the meeting place between three distinct civilizations with very different histories: North Africa, which is part of the Greater Middle East that is the core of historic Islamic civilization; Ethiopia, which is a distinctive civilization with its own history; and East Africa, which has the longest prehistory of anywhere on the Earth because it is the original homeland of Homo sapiens.

I have repeatedly observed battleground editing and sockpuppetry in disputes involving Horn of Africa articles. I urge ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions by preliminary injunction and then open a full evidentiary case to determine whether any further remedies are needed.

I note that User:Cordless Larry has tried in the past to be a reasonable editor in an area with unreasonable editors, and I suggest that he make a statement.

ArbCom should accept a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cordless Larry

Posting here by request (in Robert McClenon's statement above). I've long agreed that we need greater attention to this area of editing (cultural and political issues relating to Somalia, and therefore likely the broader region). There are several sock farms apparently operating in relation to the topic, most prominently the one documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive. We know that Middayexpress has used external forums to "recruit" POV editors and there's possibly meatpuppetry going on too. I've also been told that the SomaliPN group on Facebook is being used for co-ordination of editing, but I don't use Facebook myself so haven't been able to investigate that further. This has all dragged on for years (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing, although the problem behaviour had existed long before then). There's now a situation where new editors frequently show up in this topic area and if they appear to share a similar POV to Middayexpress or another sock master and some clue about how Wikipedia works, they find themselves suspected of sockpuppetry. In many cases, this may be unfair. However, there's also the danger of socks slipping through the net, and what often unfolds is editing warring and the accumulation of significant damage across multiple articles that then needs to be worked out and undone if they later get blocked. Buckshot06, Nick-D and Drmies might also want to chip in on some of this, given previous discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buckshot06

I support and strongly endorse TomStar81's request, also endorsed by Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry. I often have to deal with biased and distorted information repeatedly introduced into Somali articles to denigrate or bolster the reputation of one or another clan. An example is the back-and-forth at Gedo. I have grown tired of repeatedly having to scan and recheck my introductions of good basic material like population figures which are then altered for political reasons. In some ways I've given up. This would allow consistent action in this regard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kzl55

I whole heartedly endorse TomStar81's request. It is justifiable after enduring the onslaught of wave after wave of socks and other disruptive editors to finally request something is done about it. The Horn of Africa projects have been the subject of persistent long-term disruption for quite some time. Ordinary procedures to combat said disruption are proving ineffective in the face of a determined sock farm. A cursory reading of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive, being just one example, shows a consistent (and continues) flow of disruption ongoing since 2018. There is a clear organised nature to this disruption, with many cases of sleeper accounts and many other methods employed to evade scrutiny. The cause of this disruption lies in the fact that the region has been engulfed in a state of constant war over the past 30 years. And so, like other hot-spot areas on Wikipedia, this becomes a platform for ultra-nationalist agenda, as seen in much of Middayexpress' rhetoric. This is especially potent in a region like the Horn of Africa with many different ethnicities, clans, administrations, religions, foreign actors all fuelling this constant state of strife. What is alarming is that recently new waves of socks are proving more sophisticated, and with clear confidence in ability to evade technical scrutiny. External canvassing as CordlessLarry touched upon is also a serious concern. I can completely understand and sympathise with Buckshot06's comment regarding "giving up" in the face of such overwhelming level of constant disruption, it would indeed drive most people to just do so. I urge the committee to consider this, seeing as the disruption is along similar lines to what is happening in Israel-Palestine and other problem areas. It is so difficult to go through normal sock-puppetry procedures when the sockmaster does not really care about losing the socking account. Middayexpress and other sockmasters would not be as hard to deal with if additional sanctions were in place, given the level of disruption they have caused. Imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions would be the first step in curbing these activities. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

I was recently introduced to this contentious area through SPI. I do not have an opinion on whether a case should be opened at this time, but I would like to provide some relevant information from SPI for informational purposes. I am aware of two major sockpuppeteers in this topic area:

Middayexpress - I'd call their POV "Somali nationalist"
MustafaO - similar POV to Middayexpress, was originally suspected to be Middayexpress before being split out of that case.

There are also a handful of lesser sock groups:

Mazi99 - quiet for the past decade, but has been referenced in recent SPIs
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive - long-term, seems mostly interested in Italian-occupied Ethiopia
Siciid Cabdi Cismaan (Siciid Africa) - interestingly, this group was reported by a Middayexpress sock
Sccsiciidafrica - looking at this SPI, I'll bet this is the same person as the above SPI based on the name.

I've spent the past hour reviewing the first two SPIs since they're more relevant to this case request. The checkuser findings in the first two cases tend to be pretty clear ( Confirmed/ Likely vs Unrelated), though some unrelated editors were subsequently blocked anyway on behavior and a handful of editors were linked to multiple accounts but not to those sockmasters. Between that and comments in the archives about off-wiki forums being used for coordination, I think that there is pretty clearly intentional disruption and coordination going on here, but these SPIs have also become dumping grounds for "people with Somali nationalist viewpoints". There have also been strange cases of people showing up at these SPIs to comment despite not being related to the SPI and having no apparent reason to show up there.

Regarding adding other parties, it is hard to identify specific editors on the "other" side of this case since so many of the prolific editors in this topic area have been blocked for socking. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:12, 26 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.

Horn of Africa disruption: Clerk notes

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

Horn of Africa disruption: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting statements. @TomStar81: How or where do you suggest notifying interested editors of this request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to hear statements from both sides. I would like to hear the answer to NYB's question, too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have many initial thoughts here. In no particular order:

The request for general sections at ANI is from 2018 and was sparsely attended. If the issues from 2018 still persist today, why has another proposal for general sanctions not been attempted again?
Usually cases like these, which involve disputes along ethnic or similar lines (which I'll call "advocacy" cases), tend to come with a reasonably exhaustive list of involved parties. TomStar81, you have pinged a plethora of editors, but these would seem only involved in cleaning up the mess. My question is as follows: are there any established editors who are disputants in this topic area whose conduct you consider worthy of review, or is poor conduct more exemplified by sockpuppetry?
How well defined is the scope of affected pages? Are we looking at a few key pages (e.g. Somali) or is the disruption more decentralized? If it's more centralized, has long-term to indefinite semi- or ec-protection been attempted? Maxim_(talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, you mention two attempts to impose general sections. There is the thread from September 2018 under previous attempts; could you please add the second attempt there too? Maxim_(talk) 20:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Elements ==
+{{hat|1=Declined by the Arbitration Committee. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 00:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)}}
 '''Initiated by ''' [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] '''at''' 21:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 360: / Line 361: @@
 *'''Decline''' There is no current conflict between the parties. What could we do here but say they ought to cooperate to settle the dispute? --  which they are already doing.{{pb}}We're not here to punish people, so how can we concern ourselves with what they did in the past when there is no current problem? Arb com  are not here to help them mediate their conflict problem.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 18:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Decline''' as dispute in process of being resolved [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 == Horn of Africa disruption ==