User talk:EdChem/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Your ANI comments

EdChem, I feel your comments at WP:ANI misrepresent what actually happened. Could you please correct your comments as you see fit?

1. “It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.”

As noted on my talk page, YBG has temporarily left the project in the past. He'll be back. Double sharp has left the project in the past. He continued to contribute. He returned to the project. He has now left the project. Based on previous experience, he'll continue to contribute, and he'll return to the project. Project membership counts; contributions count more.

2. “I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.”

I wrote, “Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward. The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp. No other person commented on these items.

3. “Sandbh’s announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG.”

Objections which I paid heed to.

4. “R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected.”

Not so, I made no such objection. Rather, I observed that the normal practice was for the editor concerned to edit the article in their sandbox and to then seek comments, before going live. The editor who did object was DePiep.

5. “I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.”

Over 200 posts were made to WP:ELEM during the period 19 to 24 December.

6. “I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view.”

DePiep has often commented about how hard it is to follow the discussions at WP:ELEM. He has previously engaged in housekeeping of kind I undertook. YBG was the only one to object, per se. Does that mean he has a generally inconsistent view? In my case, which views “plural” are you referring to?

7. “A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment.”

Not so, I commented on this discussion in the discussion section.

8. “In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that “Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate”.

The analysis concerned was confined to the talk page where, in any event, OR does not apply.

9. “The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping.”

I use old sources where appropriate, especially in history. WP:OR provides for the use of primary sources. What uses of OR in the article space are you referring to?

Sandbh (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Replied in this post at ANI. ANI discussions belong at ANI, so I would prefer any further comments be made there. EdChem (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for help

Dear EdChem, I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental sense; help in how to meet WP expectations sense. I'm obviously missing something.

Is my goose cooked?

Appreciate any help or support either of you could provide.

thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've asked DePiep for help, too.

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

Hi Sandbh,

Clearly quite a bit has happened since I was last at WP. My initial thoughts on reading your request (which I have made into a separate sub-section, FYI) were two-fold: (1) recognising that a topic ban is likely and that you need help is a positive step, and (2) that it is quite likely to be too late. When I read the subsequent posts from others at ANI, my view on the latter strengthened. I think the chances of the topic ban being avoided are now very small. I know what is needed but I doubt it would have any effect at this point.

The reason that I am of that view is that your posts to the ANI thread have been making this outcome more and more likely. When you started the thread, I said that DePiep did not warrant any sanctions but you persisted in comments that read to me (and to others) as blaming DePiep. I invited you several times to reflect and to back away from that position, and though your table response did acknowledge DePiep's right to edit / revert (which was good), you did not take the opportunities to comment in a concrete way on your own contributions to the conflict. Your contributions at ANI made the same points repeatedly (which has also been happening at WT:ELEM) and which reads like IDHT to others' comments. The table post, for example, was in response to comments from DePiep and from me that indicated your response did not address what was asked. You rearranged your response into a table to made the connections clearer between your response and my summary, but did not alter the content – in educational terms, I felt that your response was like when a student says "I don't understand X" and the teacher gives an explanation and is then told "I still don't understand" so the teacher gives the same explanation but louder, as the problem is the student was having hearing difficulties. I accept that these were not your intent (and this is a few examples that came to mind), but this is how they came across to me.

One of the ANI posters commented "too little, too late", and I can understand why. Even though your recent post recognising a need for help and your "last post" are steps in the right direction, they don't actually show what the editors at ANI seek. You are not a naughty child and ANI is not your parents, and by that I mean that it is not contrition that is sought. You write that you've "acknowledged my problematic conduct," but what is sought is not "I'm sorry, I did the wrong thing" but "I recognise that X was a problem because of Y and I will do Z to avoid that recurring." The ANI editors want to see that you understand what is problematic and why. That you reached out to me and (importantly, IMO) to DePiep is a good sign, but it is not enough. No one is looking for you to grovel or beg to be allowed to edit in the ELEM area. No one wants you to be humiliated. We want you to be able to contribute your considerable base of knowledge, but it needs to happen in a way consistent with how WP operates.

What I've written here may well be difficult for you to accept. If this ANI experience does lead you to an epiphany on how to work collaboratively in ELEM, then it will have been beneficial (in the long term). Though you may not have realised, the proposal for a 6 month topic ban is generous in that is time limited. It could easily have been an indefinite topic ban that could be appealed after 6 months. I posted at ANI that I was conflicted about the ban because the situation was getting worse. You brought the issue to a head with your ANI post and the fact you thought when you posted it, and as it developed, that editors looking at your own contributions would not be problematic shows a significant problem in your evaluation of the situation. Even following your realisation that you need help and that your approach does have problems, I am not convinced that time away from the topic is not the best thing for you.

However, I am willing to try to help. I am willing to post at ANI asking that the ban not be implemented for a day or two for us to talk about how I (or DePiep and I) can help if you are interested and he is willing. Be aware, if we try to help and it falls apart, and if after the ban expires problems recur in the ELEM area, the likelihood of a permanent topic ban would be significant. EdChem (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you EdChem. I accept your advice. This was not hard for me to do. There are evidently some shortcomings in my approach to matters at WP:ELEM (and, indeed, WP:ANI). And both up you and DePiep have a deeper appreciation of the situation. I’m ready to learn and change my conduct accordingly. I have no concerns about things falling apart since that would be self-defeating behaviour on my part, and I have no intention of doing that. Could you please go ahead and post to ANI as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, the sort of idea that I have in mind is:

1. Recognise that the Tban will go ahead, I doubt anything can be said that would persuade ANI contributors otherwise
2. Request that a single page be exempted from the tban, such as one in my user space – perhaps user:EdChem/Sandbh – for the purpose of discussing how / why the ban arose
3. You undertake to edit in some area of the encyclopedia that is unrelated to chemical elements, of your choice
4. Discussion on the exempt page will focus on the problems though perhaps allowing comment / suggestion on the topic. Such comments can be hatted by others if problematic and you will accept that / not re-argue. Discussion on the page can be paused by me at my request, or even ended if it proves unproductive.

Does something like this sound reasonable? Any comments / suggestions? EdChem (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal made at user:Sandbh

Sandbh, I note this proposal that you posted on your user page. It appears that my comments above and yours were posted nearly simultaneously, so I don't interpret it as having occurred in reply or anything like that. You have asked for my view, and that of DePiep, so here is a quick reply:

1. Your proposal won't gain support at ANI, in my opinion. Even if I thought it was a good approach and even if DePiep and R8R supported it (which I don't think they will), I don't think it would be persuasive at ANI. Reasons include:

   • Posting "with consensus" from WT:ELEM is problematic given you have struggled with judging consensus at times
   • WT:ELEM has seen massive amounts of posting (including IDHT issues), which ANI editors have noted needs to be dealt with, and this won't
   • "gnomish work" on citations has the potential to be an area of disagreement if citations are primary, viewed as problematic under DUE, etc
   • Drafting a new PT article in user space has me thinking of the robot in Lost in Space: "Danger, Will Robinson!" Though I don't think you mean it this way, I can see it as flagging a fight in 6 months the moment the topic ban ends

2. Read the comments at ANI and pretend they aren't about you. Maybe ask someone you know IRL to read them and to put aside what they know of you – maybe even edit out your replies. Ask them or judge for yourself what the ANI view is of the editor being discussed. DePiep has pointed out to you that the views expressed are clear even if his responses / comments are removed, and I agree. Further, if you remove mine (except insofar as they are endorsed by others) and look only at the comments from editors outside ELEM, they paint a clear view of an outsider's perspective on the area. You might say that portrait is distorted and is unfair to you. In some areas, I probably agree. But it is what others are seeing. Look at it and ask yourself what someone seeing that would find acceptable.
3. ANI deals regularly with editors who are on WP for the wrong reasons. People who want to push a biased view that supports their own beliefs. People who will deliberately lie and manipulate to "win". People who will always look for a loophole to get with continuing to pursue their agenda. It also deals with people whose motivations are good but who do not fit well with the WP approach. Some cannot step back and judge sources neutrally despite their best efforts. Some do not recognise the motivation behind policies and see them as rules to get around if possible rather than as principles to guide editing. You are not here for the wrong reasons, your motivations are good, and I still believe that your problem areas can be addressed with help and effort. However, you brought an action to ANI that looked a lot like trying to "win" and your history does show problems. Your actions during the ANI will have affirmed beliefs that your are creating problems in the area, causing disruption, etc, and that that needs to be addressed in the best interests of the encyclopaedia and its editors. Through that lens, and irrespective of whether that is fair, your request for help and then this proposal can be taken as one last attempt to avoid a ban while continuing to pursue an agenda.

I don't believe that ANI will allow you to continue editing WT:ELEM. I believe that the tban is inevitable and that you need to accept that. You could simply avoid WP for the next 6 months and try to return refreshed. A better approach would be to pick an area of interest that is unrelated to the elements, perhaps even unrelated to chemistry, and try to work cooperatively in that area. This will demonstrate that you can work with others. You could pick an article and work on getting it up to GA, but I would suggest it be one where you aren't working alone.

The idea that I am proposing, a single tban-free page in my user space, would allow us to talk about specific problems without running the risk of a tban violation. I think a face-to-face Zoom discussion is a good idea, but having discussion on wiki as well allows others to see your thoughts and perspectives. I believe in your good will and think that this would be of benefit for you – though I do note that if it showed little progress or an unwillingness or inability to reflect and make changes, that would be problematic for you in the future.

If you don't like me idea (which is fine), or want to suggest modifications, that is fine. I will listen. You can simply accept the tban and be scrupulous in staying away from the area. Participating in FAC in articles away from the tban are fine, though there is a problem with determining how far it extends. The "broadly construed" language certainly captures any element page, even the content unrelated to the recent areas of debate, and it could be argued that it captures a lot of the chemicals / chemistry topics WP-wide. Since the general advice on tbans is to not test the edges, this could be a problem – and one I would see as reasonable to seek clarification on.

I await your thoughts.

EdChem (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest: getting tired of this side-hugging. For historical reasons (for over five or six weeks that is), I have no easy confidence in whatever deal. And somehow, I am always kept out of it. Or, in this situation, it depends on me? Reading current ANI, I'd say: forget about me, convince all others. -DePiep (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

... and also, EdChem, there is the opinion of involved editors R8R (currently no time to edit) and YBG, Double sharp (both left) to consider. So I am not a fan for n:m editors-deals (btw, are you?). -DePiep (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

... and once again, EdChem [1] to get their play.

I note again that I did unvoluntary had to refrain from editing (eg article Periodic table) to let the previous whatever-named n:m editors' deal take effect. We now know the effect. So don't try to pull me into a "save an editor" action that has cost us multiple editors already. And an FA star. -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The following reply was written to DePiep relating to comment up to 02:19, and posted after (edit conflict) with subsequent comments:

DePiep, if my approach of a tban-free user space page happens, I welcome your participation and I apologise for any suggestion that it would be otherwise. I commented after the ArbCom situation that you should have been included in the discussions and asked that Double sharp and Sandbh reassess. Sadly, they didn't. I agree with you that the ANI is going to impose a tban and do not think any "side-hugging" would or should change that. My idea is to give Sandbh a place to talk about the past so as to avoid future problems whilst respecting ANI's verdict that he needs time away from ELEM (and ELEM needs time with him away). I would appreciate contributions from anyone at ELEM willing to offer them, including R8R and YBG. I hope Ds and YBG do return and that R8R has more time and chooses to offer it over the next six months. I believe Sandbh can contribute positively with fewer problems, but only trying will tell the story. Maybe I am foolish to think so. I don't know, but I am willing to try.

Also, I don't really see what I am suggesting as some side-deal between me and Sandbh. This will only happen if ANI decides it is willing to allow the tban-free page. If it turned into a problem interfering with content or as a source of stress for any editors, I would consider any request that it be closed down. Failing that, ANI could be asked to revoke the exception, MfD could be asked to delete the page, etc. I have no more authority than any other editor, I can make mistakes and be held accountable for them, and I have no power over Sandbh beyond the ability to persuade. If you see a problem with my suggestion that I have not addressed (or not addressed sufficiently, in your view) then please point it out, discuss it, etc. If there is a better idea / approach, or if this is a "deal" that is problematic, please say so. I also don't speak for anyone but myself, though I thought you would have some concerns about the present proposal at Sandbh's user page that were similar to mine. I hope that I have not given the impression of speaking for you, or for anyone else, or for the participants at ELEM. EdChem (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The following comment written after DePiep comment at 02:32 were read after my 02:37 post was made, but before (edit conflict) with DePiep's question of 02:49 adn subsequent post at 03:03:

My apologies, it is not my intent to involve you in anything that you don't choose to undertake. I think that deals between small groups of editors can be highly problematic, especially if they (in effect) create a local consensus that does not reflect policy / broader views, etc. I would appreciate your comments on how what I am suggesting is a problematic "n:m editors' deal", as you put it, as I am not clear on your meaning. My suggestion does not include any deal about article content, nor will I support anything inconsistent with policy. I am disappointed by the departures of YBG and Double sharp and hope that both choose to return at some stage, and I do view Sandbh as a significant factor in both departures. It is true that I could simply support the TBAN and see Sandbh leave for six months... but I fear that doing that means more problems on his return if efforts aren't made to help him change. Does that make me naive, to think I can help facilitate / guide change? Maybe it does, and that will turn out to be my lesson in all this... but maybe we can (in time) have a collaborative and cooperative ELEM with Ds and YBG and you and R8R and Sandbh... maybe...

PS: DePiep, I have adapted based on your reordering of comments but I think I made the sequence of comments clear. I would appreciate you not reorganising my user talk page in future. EdChem (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you have off-wiki or out-of-(my)-sight talks with Sandbh these days? -DePiep (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not communicated with Sandbh at any time, either in recent days, or around the ArbCom situation, or at all except on wiki. He has suggested (in the proposal on his user page posted today) that Zoom conversation might be useful, and I can see the benefit of such a conversation. However, I do not have any off-wiki contact details for Sandbh. I have not spoken to him by phone or Zoom or by any other means. I have not exchanged email or had any other private contact. I can understand the concern that motivates this question, and it is a reasonable one, but I assure you that no contact / communication has occurred except that which is publicly viewable to you and everyone else here on WP.

Now, if a Zoom conversation were to be organised, I would be open to it including any members of ELEM who wished to take part. The idea of a call has been raised and nothing more. I think there are situations where private conversations are appropriate but I do not see how a discussion of WP article content could be one of them. I cannot declare that I would never agree to an off-wiki conversation with Sandbh, or even a private conversation, but I do not believe that article content be decided in such a way. I hope this addresses your concern, and please ask any follow-up question(s) that you might wish. EdChem (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

ffs, what is a "tban-free page"? Anyway. By 'saving' Sandbh's editing freedom, you are restricting mine, and supporting PA's towards me. Also, wrt YBG and Double sharp: spreak for yourself only. Same for R8R. -DePiep (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

How am I restricting your editing or supporting PA's? Where have I spoken for YBG or Double sharp or R8R? I have tried to be clear that do not and can not speak for anyone but myself.

My idea of a page in my user space would allow discussion with Sandbh about the problems that have happened at WT:ELEM without having to tip toe around the TBAN. To be able to say "Sandbh, this edit (diff) was a problem because of X, Y, and Z. Do you see why?" and him not have to say "I can't talk about those as that would be violating my tban" or "I was trying to express A, how could / should I have approached this?". I am not proposing that he be allowed to make any article space or article talk space posts. I agree that him pinging editors to suggest article changes would not be ok. I agree that posting PAs should be sanctionable. I agree that the experiment could be shut down if it proved problematic. I don't see this ad "saving" Sandbh's editing freedom as the TBAN would apply everywhere in main / project / talk / etc spaces. Please, help me to understand what I am missing / what is so bad / ... EdChem (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR. (occurs to me that since you advocate to allow Sandbh editing, your postsparagraphs are getting longer).

I want to note that Sandbh, while generously saying "I won't add to this ANI thread any more", he started asking multiple parents, you & me, for 'help'. Apparently you were the favoured parent, since you started 'helping'. I'd say: we were played, and you lost. In general, such 'help' is not helping WP. -DePiep (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, DePiep, my tendency towards over-long paragraphs and posts has been a problem since long before I heard of Sandbh. And unfortunately, if you choose not to help me understand the specific problem(s) that I am missing, it's more difficult for me to reflect / adjust. EdChem (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to EdChem

Courtesy ping DePiep; thanks EdChem. I’m glad I invited you to drop by WP:ELEM for a metaphoric cup of tea. I regret the length of my reply. Whatever else happens, I thank you for the offer of a tban free page.

My overall goal is to reach a yes-yes solution for all concerned. Thus my proposed editing restrictions and conditions + the situation at WP:ELEM is relieved. At the same time I can use my six months, with your guidance, to practice my WP-way editing skills.

1. Re support at ANI, I have nothing to lose from trying.

2. Yes, I am asking for your support and that of DePiep and R8R, in light of my many contributions from 2012 to 2019, as referred to by DePiep.

3. Re consensus at WP:ELEM, that will not be my call. Someone else will need to decide if consensus has been established—I most certainly will not.

4. Re adding citations, I will exclude these from my gnomish work.

5. For a redraft of the PT article in my sandbox, I will seek consensus at WP:ELEM, per item 3. There will be no fight since I will not proceed unless consensus has been established. I have done this before when WP:ELEM agreed an earlier non-metal category reorganisation and it worked fine. I did it with another proposal and failed to attain consensus. And that was that. C’est la vie. I learnt a lot along the way though.

6. In terms of what others think, I expect they would be looking for a ban of some sort, which I am proposing. In terms of what an admin thinks I can only hope that they would apply the principle that an imposed ban of the kind proposed is a last resort, and that there are many other solutions short of that. They may not, though. I can only hope.

7. If I have an agenda I won’t be able to push it, given the restrictions I'm proposing to place myself under. Metaphorically, I have a loaded gun at my head. I lack judgement as to the Wikipedia way. I am not so stupid (now) though to prompt the trigger to be pulled. I’m more interested in learning with your guidance.

8. I prefer not to have a t-ban imposed on me. Having said that I’ll be happy for my proposed self-ban to be recorded in my block log. I hope that will in some way contribute to a yes solution for the ANI ivoters.

9. I’m all ears with respect to FAC participation, and imposing extra restrictions.

I will not be pinging WP:ELEM editors. I will only post a request for consensus, no pings. If nobody answers I will take that as no consensus.

So, what my self-imposed ban proposal now looks like:

1. For the next six months I will not edit articles of interest to WP:ELEM, broadly construed, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus, as determined by someone else than me. Of course, if no one chooses to check my proposals for consensus, then there will be no consensus.

Exceptions

A. Vandalism reverts, gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections; links; correcting mistakes or missing parts in citations; minor housekeeping; edit requests by a WP:ELEM member.

B. Subject to the agreement and guidance of R8R I would like to be able to edit aluminium with him (as he chooses or not) in order to complete the work bringing it up to FA standard. I've worked with R8R previously when we attained a bronze star for astatine.

2. I will not ping WP:ELEM editors, unless unless I am pinged

3. Subject to EdChem's agreement I propose to zoom with him, in order to discuss and clarify his concerns, including IDHT, and seek further guidance as to the way ahead. I'll post a summary of this to wherever is deemed appropriate. He's already raised these concerns with me; there's nothing like a f-t-f meeting, even if remotely.

4. More generally, in my sandbox, I would like to redraft an FA standard periodic table article, for subsequent consideration by WP:ELEM members, and consensus seeking, which someone else (not me) will need to call.

5. Further, I would like to be able to participate at FAC, including editing improvements in FAC articles generally, but not articles of interest to WP:ELEM, broadly construed, unless I am so invited.
(I am not sure this is needed since I should be able to it at anytime, anyway)

6. If these conditions are accepted I will alert YBG, DS and R8R about them via PM.

7. Such further restrictions as are proposed.

Your thoughts? I'd like to hear from you too DePiep, if you'd be so inclined. Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, quoting your post and adding thoughts:

1. Re support at ANI, I have nothing to lose from trying.

I disagree. My suggestion of allowing a single page in my user space where the tban is not in effect can only occur with ANI agreement. Otherwise, the tban will apply to that page and discussion will be more difficult – and you will face sanctions for tban violations there just as will apply anywhere else. I think it is to your benefit to be able to have discussions on-wiki to provide evidence of any change that occurs. What you have to lose from trying for a less restrictive option is editors at ANI seeing your efforts as evidence of trying to create loopholes and concluding that my suggestion is too risky / not appropriate at this time, etc, and ending up with the blanket ban imposed.

2. Yes, I am asking for your support and that of DePiep and R8R, in light of my many contributions from 2012 to 2019, as referred to by DePiep.

It is my view, based on DePiep's comments above, his comments at ANI, and those at his talk page, that DePiep thinks a tban is appropriate – and I agree with him on that. I also think he has formed the view that my suggestion is unwise. I can't and won't try to speak for him (or for anyone else) but my opinion is that DePiep might help in providing input on problems but not support for anything less than the full tban presently proposed at ANI.

3. Re consensus at WP:ELEM, that will not be my call. Someone else will need to decide if consensus has been established—I most certainly will not.
4. Re adding citations, I will exclude these from my gnomish work.

I don't think wither of these will be allowed under the tban and I think both you and the other ELEM editors can benefit from time apart.

5. For a redraft of the PT article in my sandbox, I will seek consensus at WP:ELEM, per item 3. There will be no fight since I will not proceed unless consensus has been established. I have done this before when WP:ELEM agreed an earlier non-metal category reorganisation and it worked fine. I did it with another proposal and failed to attain consensus. And that was that. C’est la vie. I learnt a lot along the way though.

Pursuing the idea of working on a PT redraft in your sandbox is (IMO) likely to strengthen views at ANI that no exceptions be made. This article has been a source of much conflict. My advice on it is to sit silently while any changes occur and, once the tban has ended, approach it with a huge amount of caution. As a general rule, problematic behaviour at an article that led to a tban that happens soon after a tban expires is an efficient route to an indefinite tban. We should also consider (once the tban is in place) whether things that you feel worked fine are seen that way by others.

6. In terms of what others think, I expect they would be looking for a ban of some sort, which I am proposing. In terms of what an admin thinks I can only hope that they would apply the principle that an imposed ban of the kind proposed is a last resort, and that there are many other solutions short of that. They may not, though. I can only hope.

A voluntary restriction might have been an option when the ANI thread was first building a consensus that your report of DePiep was ill-advised. Maybe even when the tban was first proposed. I can't know how you thought your attempt to withdraw the thread would be seen. My impression is that you thought it would render the ANI moot, which is not how ANI works. In my opinion, how it appeared and how it was taken by ANI participants was as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. What followed included more comments on DePiep, which I suspect was taken by some as confirmation that action was needed. This reduced the chances that a voluntary restriction was insufficient and that an ANI-imposed tban was appropriate. Please remember that harsher measures exist, including an indefinite ban which can only be ended with a successful appeal (rather than a time-limited ban), interaction bans that would make participating at ELEM difficult, the tban being cast more broadly (such as chemistry, broadly construed), blocks (which are likely if there are tban violations), and even a site ban. I think the chances of the ANI ending without a formal tban of some sort are practically zero.

7. If I have an agenda I won’t be able to push it, given the restrictions I'm proposing to place myself under. Metaphorically, I have a loaded gun at my head. I lack judgement as to the Wikipedia way. I am not so stupid (now) though to prompt the trigger to be pulled. I’m more interested in learning with your guidance.

By far the best way to persuade others about your intentions is through actions. Accepting that the ban is inevitable would be sensible. Editing unproblematically in one or more areas away from the tban would be good. Ultimately, the proof will be a lack of problems when you are able to re-engage in the ELEM area. I am glad that you want to learn / develop and no one expects perfection – everyone makes mistakes – and the tban is an imposition on you but is also an opportunity to demonstrate through your actions that you can contribute and learn from the past. Arguing that the metaphorical loaded gun isn't needed because you aren't going to prompt the trigger to be pulled will not lead to it being withdrawn. Try thinking of the tban as a mechanism to help protect you from going to an area that has proven problematic and thus protecting you from further problems, while at the same time allowing the topic area to regain a greater calm and for wounds to heal.

8. I prefer not to have a t-ban imposed on me. Having said that I’ll be happy for my proposed self-ban to be recorded in my block log. I hope that will in some way contribute to a yes solution for the ANI ivoters.

What you prefer is not what ANI contributors are thinking about. They are thinking about the readers of the encyclopaedia and the editors in the ELEM area. The opportunity for you to volunteer for self-imposed restrictions and that idea to gain traction at ANI has passed, in my opinion. Pushing for it now will likely be interpreted as you not recognising the reality of the present situation and thus reinforcing the view that an ANI restriction is needed. The tban is going to happen, that is out of your control... but you can control how you respond and what happens next.

As for it being recorded, it will be recorded in the log of community-imposed restrictions. It will not appear in your block log unless you are blocked for violating it. It will be noted on your talk page when imposed. Once it is over, it will be forgotten by most editors so long as problems do not recur. It will be remembered by those involved, but there won't be a reason to discuss it so long as problems don't recur. Yes, it can be found if someone goes digging... but editors will defend you if it is brought up inappropriately to criticise you so long as the problematic behaviours have not returned. Recording it in your block log would actually make it more visible. You are far from the only editor to have had a sanction imposed by ANI. Some prove that they are unable to work collaboratively, that they are here to push an agenda / engage in advocacy, or that they seek to cause disruption – and they ultimately earn the site ban that is needed to protect the encyclopaedia and its editors. Others learn from the experience and end up valued and respected for their contributions and admired for their ability to change. You have the opportunity to become one of the latter.

9. I’m all ears with respect to FAC participation, and imposing extra restrictions.

You are free to participate in FAC so long as it is not on articles within the area of your tban. If you do try reviewing, my advice is to state your views once, engage in dialogue if the nominator responds with comments / questions / alternatives / etc, and accept if others express views different from yours.

As far as your proposed self-imposed ban goes, I won't respond in detail because it won't happen, IMO. However:

• A tban means no editing of the area, no gnomish work, leave the articles alone.
• R8R will not have the authority to make editing the aluminium article for an FA nomination an exception to the tban. Nor can I or any other individual editor make such an exception. Permission to do this would be needed from ANI. Asking for it now would be counter-productive, IMO, but perhaps in (say) 3 months with productive editing elsewhere, ANI might allow editing of this one article. Note the word "might".
• Pinging editors if they have asked that you do not can be taken as harassment, so please respect any no-ping requests. Since any discussion of the topic will be a tban violation, you should have no reason to ping anyone for anything ELEM related.
• We can consider an off-wiki Zoom chat, though keeping as much on-wiki as possible is desirable, subject to whatever terms are imposed on the tban by ANI. Given DePiep's question above, I want to be clear that I am not open to making content decisions based on off-wiki discussions.

Apologies that this response is so long. I struggle with being brief.

TL;DR version

• I don't believe that any self-imposed / voluntary restriction will be viewed favourably at ANI.
• Consequently, the tban is going to happen, with whatever terms are decided at ANI.
• I am open to a user space page where it doesn't apply, if ANI will support that, but I am not going to oppose the tban as I think you need time away from WT:ELEM, the PT article, and the ELEM editors.
• You get to choose what happens next in how you respond.
• Working on a redraft of the PT article in your sandbox is likely to be prohibited, as is any posting at WT:ELEM... and I think this is good for you and for the project.

EdChem (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdChem and Sandbh: reply 1/n:

[Sandbh:] It is my view ... that DePiep thinks a tban is appropriate. More precise: I have described more than once that eliminating my posts from the ANI discussion &tc., most other editors are clear. That eliminates my opinion, and I must think it being my opinion is not decisive by itself. I am involved, I had to receive the original report by name, I have expressed before problems with deals made (both re content and interaction), I had to reply --or not-- to personal reproaches (the editor not the edit); all draining energy. I think in all this I steered away quite often from counter-attacking, however triggering posts might be. This also includes emotional triggers on this side of the screen (e.g. distrust, fed by previous experiences). Also, recent days when responding to a personal Help-request, I specified problems to overcome (my talkpage). IOW, I tried to reason about a tban, not !voting. From these same 'last year's' arguments ;-) still follows that I see problems regarding new proposals made in this, as specified elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdChem: reply 2/n: I am not enthousiastic about a tban free page in (any) userspace. Feels like an escape from the causes and intentions of a tban: prevent disturbing editing. Also, difficult to oversee (preview, pre-evaluate) possible future complications appearing within such a construct. My opinion is, that one of the causes of proposed tban is that Sandbh is invoking policies more selective & into borderline cases; this could reoccur. Also, as a wiki-wide problem, it introduces a one-topic/two-place discussion, which I cannot see working in any situation. We both noted the alternative, already in view: Sandbh to start editing other topics. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Periodic Table Disputes

Sandbh came to WP:ANI, and threw a boomerang, and tried to duck. They then asked for permission to continue to work on aluminum and nonmetals. Aluminum reacts with some non-metals, with varying degrees of intensity. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robert... I'm sorry to say that I don't really follow what you are saying here. I saw that Sandbh's thread at ANI was always a risk of boomeranging if not shut down quickly, but don't think he recognised how it looked to others. If you are adding that working on either of the articles aluminium or nonmetals could be seen as tban violations, I agree. Would you please clarify what you mean? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I just meant that he blew himself up, just like an amateur chemist would if they tried to experiment with, say, finely divided aluminum, and chlorine. (But I went from chemistry into scientific computing fifty years ago for various reasons including that there were explosions in the chemistry lab. There was also that funny white powder that snowed when someone was using ammonium hydroxide at one end of the lab and someone else was using hydrochloric acid at the other end of the lab.) He blew himself up, like an enginer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Robert McClenon. I don't see how this post is contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, or to the cooperation between editors. Gravedancing and polluting the waters is not helpful, and does not show you in a good light. Be sure that I do not accept such talk in my userspace, and rethink if you want to post this stuff on other places. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I hope that your post was not intended as gravedancing, though I can see how DePiep could see it in that light. Given the background and the actions of which he was complaining, Sandbh's ANI thread had a significant chance of resulting in a WP:BOOMERANG... and the choices that he made once the thread had started led to its inevitable conclusion. He demonstrated that an amateur at ANI can fail to appreciate the dangers involved, but the fact that we have ANI professionals (both participants and disruptive editors who use ANI as a weapon) is the one I find more disappointing.

As a graduate student, I recall another student wanting to try an experiment with a combination of chemicals that I felt was an explosion waiting to happen. There was a strong feeling amongst the other students that we did not want to be around when the experiment was attempted (fortunately, our advisor vetoed the idea). I also recall the only major safety incident was an explosion that was caused by a freak accident by the postdoc who was responsible for safety. Explosions can be caused by the inexperienced, by those who lack knowledge, by the careless / incompetent, but also by the unlucky.

Sandbh has the potential to be an excellent Wikipedian. He has a breadth of knowledge that is impressive (especially for an "amateur"). He has skills suited to adding OR to the primary literature and others suited to contributing to an encyclopaedia. I don't know if the tensions between those can be resolved in a way that he can work comfortably in both fields... but I am of the opinion that it will be a loss for both Sandbh and Wikipedia if that does not occur. EdChem (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your Question

About your post at WT:ELEM. I hope I do not understand your question. AFAIK, I wrote a content-topical question at WT:ELEM. So I am surprised having to read questions about my intentions. I recall you posting on my talkpage what gave me similar impressions. Is there a more clear question I can answer? -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, DePiep, I was not meaning to ask about your intentions in any negative way. I'm happy to clarify what I am wondering, and I asked only because my response / thoughts are different depending on context.

If we are talking specifically about the PT article, then I think that the categorisation issues are not black and white in the sense of a binary "use X" or "use Y" choice. My inclination (and subject to editor input and consensus, etc) would be a black-and-white (ie. uncoloured) 18 column PT for the overview, to introduce basic PT geography using the form that appears most often. As the article goes on, different PTs can be used to illustrate different issues. So, we could have a 3-colour metal / metalloid / non-metal (plus white background for the difficult cases like At) and explain those issues as they arise. Equally, a 7 (or whatever) colour version could be used later once the finer categorisations are explored, in which we could explain At as a halogen despite At not a non-metal, etc. The unknown properties category for recently synthesised elements also fits well into an appropriate part of the PT article, IMO.

On the other hand, if we are talking about a PT for the top of infoboxes used on many articles then the explanation of nuance is not DUE and a consistent choice is appropriate.

In my ELEM post, I was thinking that the PT article fits into the world of grey where we should use different approaches / representations at different points in the article to suit different sub-topics. Starting with a PT with only black text on a white background and using different colourings emphasises that the choice of representation is a matter of discretion and that readers may encounter different PTs with different colourings / presentation / information and that there is no single "correct" PT. Articles which use the PT and where it is not the topic should (IMO) have a consistent PT used, one that links to the main article so detailed explanations are available if needed. Whatever PT is used on other articles should also be shown somewhere in the PT article itself for readers looking for those explanations.

I hope this makes what I was thinking clearer. I was not attempting to imply anything about your intentions and I am sad to read that previous posts of mine have left you with impressions that I did not intend. Your question was "content-topical" (as you put it) and appropriate. I had no problem with it other than being unsure if the context that you were considering was narrowly directed at the PT article itself or more broadly referring to the many WP articles where a PT appears – so I asked, rather than answering both.

Regards, EdChem (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. This is TLDR, to be honest. I keep: you did not want to question my approach. Fine, thanks. (I did not came here to consider article treatment, really). -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not want to question your approach, I was asking whether your question was about the PT article itself or PT appearances on articles across WP. EdChem (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

By now I have read the whole post carefully. I am seriously convinced that this is a line of thought to be added to a straight WT:ELEM discussion (about topic of Chemical Categorisation then; reappearing in Element & PT articles throughout). However, could use a TL;DR ;-) . -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Hello Mr.EdCheem I was reading over the Gay Conversion Therapy page and I was wondering if you have any scientific studies from Conversion Therapists. Specifically psyhological conversion that doesn't involve and shock therapy, lobotamy or mass-christian preachings. I am exploring the methods of the conversion therapy used by the more rehabilitive therapists. Also I am concerned about the Conversion therapy page's biggest editor, Born Gay who is banned for being one of 18 alts of a Sockpuppeter. I believe this detail is rather concerning as Born Gay made 13.4% of the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhrfuvf (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Ricky Martin invitation

Hello! I noticed you've made edits to Ricky Martin articles. I thought you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Ricky Martin We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ricky Martin and his discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

آرمین هویدایی (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Rhodocene for today's featured article

EdChem,

I have requested for the nomination for rhodocene because it has been 10 years since its nomination. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rhodocene. Thank you.

Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 19:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello EdChem,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

rhodocene

hello, EdChem! i had two questions regarding this article and the associated blurb. i noticed that the formula for rhodocene is presented in the article lead and the blurb with square brackets ('[' and ']'), while the blurb from 2011, as well as the leads of the articles of many other metallocenes, including ferrocene, ruthenocene, cobaltocene, nickelocene, and uranocene, omit these square brackets. is this discrepancy deliberate? the rhodocene article appears to use the brackets pretty consistently, so i did not want to unilaterally remove the brackets from the blurb to violate that convention. notably, the lead in the manganocene article includes the brackets, but i believe its ionic character is unusual amongst metallocenes.

also, the model currently used in the blurb appears to show rhodocene in an eclipsed conformation, while, from what i understand from the article, the monomeric form of the compound in its solid state exhibits a staggered conformation. you had previously mentioned on the article's talk page that metallocenes are typically described by its conformation in the solid state, which is why rhodocene and ferrocene tend to be illustrated with a staggered conformation, while ruthenocene tends to not be. the image in question appears to have been added after the article's promotion to featured status, so i do not know if you have had the opportunity to review it. dying (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)