Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The true message

[edit]

Because of threats elsewhere, I am moving the link to this most important message here. [1] Also see this link [2]. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of college sports teams in the United States with different nicknames for men's and women's teams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hoping there's another solution, but I think it's time for this conversation, unfortunately. Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Star Mississippi 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. This is an unjustfied extreme reaction to my attempts to defend myself. This whole situation is unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. Unless you comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, your editing privileges risk being revoked entirely (as they have been now) or in part. I recommend that you take a break from editing Wikipedia in the interim, consider why your conduct was inappropriate as a whole and what steps you are willing to take so that you do not engage in this conduct in the future. The issue isn't your personal views on a topic or even your wish to defend yourself. Rather, it is how you have approached disagreements. Personal attacks, incivility and accusations of bad faith are not tolerated. The discrimination due to autism accusation was just the tip of the iceberg; you will need to do more soul searching, but I don't think you actually can appreciate the issues until you have at least taken a break from Wikipedia to do things which you enjoy or will help calm you in real life and return to this tomorrow after you have had a night to sleep on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

[edit]

Johnpacklambert, the LDS disruption was already bad enough, but now you also charge that the thread's OP is part of a general pattern of discrmination on Wikipedia against those who have Autism (diff)? Sorry, but it's too much. As far as I'm concerned, some major assurances are going to be needed if this block is to be lifted. If you wish, you may appeal this block to another admin by making use of the {{unblock}} template, but I'd advise you to read WP:GAB carefully first and then apply it to the context of this sanction. El_C 19:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Johnpacklambert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I renognize that my claim that the attack on my over my autism was over the top. I sincerely apologize for this. I reognize that I have been escalating some discussions in ways that lead to incivility, and I most sincerely apologize for this. I also most sincerely apologize for having lashed out with attacks against some other editors. I would like to apologize for doing this. It was most un-Christlike of me, and I am ver, very sorry for having done so. I will noit try in any way to justify what I have done, and take full responsibility for it. I only ask that people forgive me and allow me to return to editing Wikipedia, even if it be with a few restrictions. I explain more below, but I will agree to an additional one, I will not move any page without first at least seeking some sort of discussion of the move first. Unilateral moving of pages was the big source of this debate having come up. So I will not do it ever again, even in cases that seem very obvious. I really, really, really value participating in Wikipedia, and ask that my editing privaleges will be restored. I agree to A-not accuse others of targeting me for various reasons 2-not edit any page related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Latter-day Saint movement in general 3-I very, very sincerely apologize for my comments. I am most sincerely apologetic and wish to have my ability to edit Wikipedia restored. Please, please, please, please undo this block. I am very, very, very, very sorry for my actions. I recgonize that my falsely implying negative reasons for a proposed ban was rude and unfair, and I most sincerely apologize for it. I really just want to go back to my systemic edit of articles on people born in 1922, adding various categories on occupation, where they lived and a whole slew of related factors. I am most sincerely apologietic about my comments about Autism. I realize they were uncalled for and I most sincerely apologize for them and ask that the ban please, please, please be lifted. I recognize that my attack on another editor was wrong. I cannot fully justify it because it was wrong.I wish I had not done so. I am so very, very, very, very sorry about it. My heart and soul is broken. Please, please, please give me another chance.John Pack Lambert I am really trying to get people to regnoze that I understnad I want too far. I am sincerely sorry. I most fully and completely apologize. Please let me edit Wikipedia again. There was a comment on the ANI "I agree with the "too much" sentiment for the indef, but don't think the indef needs to be infinite (hopefully the autism comments were a one-time mistake). I think a topic ban relating to the intersection of WP:Manual of Style issues and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is necessary for an unblock, I'm not sure how broad it has to be beyond that to be understandable and enforceable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)" I will accept that topic ban. An indefinte block is not justified. Please, please, please give me a second chance. In addition to the ban on edits to articles directly related to MOS concerns, I will agree to the following I have agree to a general ban on MOS topics. I instead will argue that my edits on say Dallin H. Oaks have been very constructive. I will also in the future seek to A-be more measured in my discussion of topics that are contentious. B-not accuse anyone of hate speech for using the word "M-----". C-respond to discussions with more information. D-only make edits on articles in any way related to religion that either A-are in-line with existing manual of style (such as mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name in the first reference, making mentions to the Catholic Church agree with that as the name of the article, etc) or B-are fully backed by reliable, secondary 3rd party sources. Thus I will not add information to articles with religion as their topic that are not to recognized secondary sources and I will not make edits that are more substantial than edits to comply with existing MOS guidelines except when they are backed by reliable, 3rd party sources. I will also agree to never again accuse anyone of proposing any restriction on me based on dislike of me because of any specific class of people used broadly (that is not just class as generall understood, but sex, race, religion, religious fervor index, medical diagnosis, and lots of other grouping) or out of a general desire to inhibit people in that class from editing Wikipedia. I will also not make any edits to article that are about the beliefs or practices of the Latter-day Saint movement. That is the specific set of articles where the most recent set of mainly discussions of views got so heated, so I think it is a fair scope of a reasonable set of articles that I will not edit. I am not sure what I can say to make things better. I recognize that I was getting way too worked up. I am really, really, really sorry about this. Please, please, please let me edit again. I am pleading for this. I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better. I am very, very sorry for my comment. I recnognize now that it was out of line. Please let me edit again. I am wanting to be civil, and I will do so in the future. I promise to not accuse others of ill intent. I promise to never again accuse any editor of engaging in hate speech. I promise to never again attack any editor for a porposed restriction on me as having any other intent than restriction my actions. Please, please, please, please let me edit Wikipedia again, please. I am also sorry for having acted uncilly in talking with others, and will seek in the future to assume good faith. I am very sorry I have gotten so frustrated about these matters. I want to sincerely apologize for my actions. I have very strong feelings about using the proper name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and recognize I became way too worked up and emotional over this issue. I want to sincerely apologize for this. I want to apologize also for unfairly accusing another of blocking based on Autism. I have very strong feelings when editing on some issues, but in general I edit in an even handed and mesured way. I am pleading for another chance. Please, please, please, please let me edit Wikipedia again. I realize that my reflexive comments on the user page of the person who made the ANI were out of line and I most sincerely apologize for them. I am very, very, very, very sorry for having made that comment. I am sorry for getting so defensive. I am most, most, most sorry about this. Please, please, please let me return to editing Wikipedia.(talk) 19:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining this unblock request as I have decided if I grant it that I likely will be made to feel foolish about it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • I am really, really, really, really, really, really sorry for my post. I was very frustrated. I am very, very, very sorry. I really, really, really, really want to be involved in Wikipedia. I am asking that I be given another change. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want one. Please, please, please, please let me edit again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment to anyone considering unblock, I accept JPL's apology he extended here I realize that my reflexive comments on the user page of the person who made the ANI were out of line and I most sincerely apologize for them and am neutral as far as this request is concerned as I believe he's agreeing to the topic ban I proposed. However I'm aware of the other concerns raised, and know this might not be acceptable to all involved editors Star Mississippi 20:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will apologize for saying anything was hate speech. I was wrong for saying such. I was taking too defensive a position and apolgize for it. I wish to express this apology in the most sincere manner possible. I was also wrong for getting so defensive about the general matter. I wish to apologize for that. I am most sincere in my apolgy. I wish to apologize for not assuming good faith on the part of all editors involved. I most sincerely and fully express this apology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I promise to never again say that anyone is every engaging in "hate speech" based on any edit they ever make in Wikipedia, ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to sincerely apologize for my unfounded accusations against others for engaging in "hate speech". There is no good justification for choosing such a course of action. I would like to most sincerely apologize for this. I promis to never do so again. I wish there was more I could do to fix this matter. I wish to sincerely apologize for rashly attacking people. I recognize I need to take a more measured and balanced approcah to some of the issues involved. I would like to sincerely apologize for my actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to other specfic block considerations. I am really trying to find a way to get back to editing articles in the way I love. I wish I had just stuck with editing articles realted to Category:1922 births from Monday on, and never tried to edit articles on anything else this week. I wish I was more patient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi JPL - I've seen this, and I get that you're hurting over it. It's been a long day and I'm tired, and your unblock request is long (!), so I think it would be better for me not to review it right now. It might also be good for you to go for a walk, or read a book, or do something else for a little while, just to de-stress. I promise to look back on in this tomorrow (UK time), and to consult with El C promptly. Just putting a note here to let you know that people have seen it. Best Girth Summit (blether) 21:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wearing my admin hat here (so I am not endorsing or declining) but I just wanted to remind JPL that the community has talked with you about this before, how you get frustrated in dealing with others, even when you may feel like they are "baiting" you, or "against you" in some way. I suggested disengagement then, and I suggest it now.
This is merely a suggestion, but I also think that it might be in your best interest (presuming you are unblocked) to avoid LDS-related pages/discussions for awhile. It's a topic that (from my experience in seeing you in discussions over the years) seems to lead to these situations. YMMV, of course.
I recall in the last discussion, they were starting to discuss banning you outright - if you are unblocked, please, please keep this in mind, I don't think another trip to WP:AN/I would be in your best interest.
I hope this helps. - jc37 23:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this. I honestly dunno what to think at this point. Regardless, I hope nothing but the best for you. - jc37 23:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock (Involved editor) While I have not known John Pack Lambert long, I do know they are an experienced editor who's participation Wikipedia greatly benefits from overall. Considering this is one of his only major slip-ups I've seen, and that he is agreeing to topic-bans, I think he deserves a second chance.
I find JPL's agreeal to not make any edits to any articles that are related to the LDS Movement to be particularly convincing that he understands the community's reason for concern. His promises to not take place in similar uncivil and disruptive conduct again makes it easy to hold him accountable moving forward. I support his unblock request at this time.
I still support a temporary topic ban of at least 6 months from all LDS-related topics. I understand there are editor's who have spent more time interacting with JPL than I have, and I think their requests should be equally heard out as well, even if they weren't involved in this dispute. ––FormalDude talk 23:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the situation, I think waiting for consensus at ANI (which will likely be for an unblock with Topic-Ban conditions) is the best approach. Surely an infinite block is not necessary, yet JPL needs to be required to avoid the topic of short names of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the short term. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of promised conditions, to get unblocked. If you're unblocked, I reckon many editors will be closely watching your actions, from here on. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing this unblock request. I will not proceed with it without an agreement with the blocking admin which will probably involve conditions. Failing such an agreement I will leave it to ANI to decide. Nothing done regarding this unblock request will prevent ANI from reaching further conclusions. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is now turning into a throw everything and the kitchen sink at me forum. I just want to go back to editing articles related to Category:1922 births. The issue here is really that I get frustrated when people disagree with me. I have promised to A-not engage in unilateral editing in violation of MOS B-always discuss any page moves. C-not accuse anyone of "hate speech" and to assume good intent. I think the attempt to broaden this limit is illogical. I will even agree to D-I will not nominate any article on a bishop in the Catholic Church for deletion, even if it is sourced only to blogs (as a huge number of them are) and I do a good faith search for additional articles on the subject and find nothing. I will alos agree to the other very spefic limits I mentioned above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorrty about ***:*Zelnhelm_the_Wise (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    There is more information related to multiple undisclosed accounts operating in project space at WP:PROJSOCK, and at [3]. This isn't something from years ago being brought up. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to ping User:Girth Summit but I am not sure I really know how to ping anyone. I am very sorry about the way this is turning out. I am really sorry I got so scared I tried to circumvent the rules. I was tired of people attacking me for things that happened 8 years ago or more, and for a bit thought that maybe just a clean start would help. I realized I was wrong the first time and stopped. Then when this discussion came up I panicked again, but that time I really did not do anything at all. I am very, very sorry about this. I will abide by all the rules of Wikipedia and the polices at hand hear. I am very sorry about this. I really want to edit Wikipedia again. Please, please, please, please please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really am a failure. I wish I had never tried to create other accounts. I was really scared though. I was also really tired of being attacked and judged for every indisgression I had had for decades. This whole process is very frustrating. I just wish I had not panicked. I was not trying to game the system, and even when I made the scoed comment, I made sure not to vote. Comments are not the same as votes. I am very sorry about that lone mistake, and very much apologize for it. I just want to get back to editing, and as can be seen above I have agreed to a whole slew of restrictions. Can someone please unvblock, Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit Zelnhelmthewise was created yesterday. At the time I had decided to just give up on this account, and move onto a new one. I thought better of it, and then came back to this account, and did not use that account any more. I should have admitted it, but asking people to admit something in the way done I think was unfair. Asking someone directly if they were using that account is a far better approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very frustrating that the block is sustained for actions that have no relevance to the issue at hand. As I said before, my plan with Zelnhelmthewise was to start anew, with a new account unburdened by people harping on my for past actions, and to just edit a few things and forget about my old account. On further reflection I decided that was not a good course, and so returned to my old account. Unwisely instead of just keeping my head low, I began to fight again. Please, please, please, please, please give me another account. When confronted with this I panicked, I was in a situation where no matter what I said I risked everything. I wish I had admitted up front, but I was very, very, very, very, scared. I was for a little bit yesterday hopeful, but no I am sinking again into despair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I may

[edit]

Hi John. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before, so I'm coming to this as an uninvolved observer. I totally understand your frustrations in this entire episode. I have a tendency to overreact when I feel "attacked", and often respond by digging an even deeper hole for myself. Then once I "come to my senses", I'm really overcome with guilt at allowing myself to react badly. This seems like where you are now. If I may suggest, take a days off of Wikipedia. Do some things that you enjoy, and/or be with some people you like/love, etc. Wikipedia will still be here when you return. If you want, you can send me an email, and we can talk further in private. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What I meant is that this isn't something you have to solve today. "Indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, so that can be addressed later, when you're ready. BilCat (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I intentionally deleted part of my discussion above to seek to avoid ANI. I was trying to be reasonable. I have sincerely apologized. I have made over 400,000 edits to Wikipedia. Indefinte is permanent most of the time. The limiting of me to one nomination at AfD has gone on for years. I have been hounded at times for being 30 minutes under 24 hours between nominations. It is excessive and this has the potential to be too. I wish I could just unwind the clock and not get into this fight at all. Going away and letting things boil over does not solve problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mvbaron I have agree to a general ban on MOS topics. I instead will argue that my edits on say Dallin H. Oaks have been very constructive. I will also in the future seek to A-be more measured in my discussion of topics that are contentious. B-not accuse anyone of hate speech for using the word "M-----". C-respond to discussions with more information. D-only make edits on articles in any way related to religion that either A-are in-line with existing manual of style (such as mention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by its full name in the first reference, making mentions to the Catholic Church agree with that as the name of the article, etc) or B-are fully backed by reliiable, secondary 3rd party sources. Thus I will not add information to articles with religion as their topic that are not to recognized secondary sources and I will not make edits that are more substantial than edits to comply with existing MOS guidelines except when they are backed by reliable, 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a failure

[edit]

I always fail at everything I set out to do. Everything I try comes to naught.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The things I most want in my life are routinely taken away from me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • John, take some deep breaths, if you have any pets give them some attention and love, focus on something else and get your mind off this place for a while. You are not those things and its not the end. If you have anything constructive and positive that you normally do to calm yourself then take a moment to do that. It's going to be okay. Everything is going to work out. --ARoseWolf 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're all failures, at various times and in various degrees. Not everything we do is useless though often it's not easy to see that. Here is my advice, since everyone else has given you some already: put the computer away and come back in a day or two. I have a feeling that you're going to be unblocked if you agree with a set of editing restrictions--from LDS, maybe from BLPs, maybe a 1R restriction or a serious "civility" warning. Right now, there's really nothing you can say that will make this better; you already have editors willing to stick out their neck for you. I know you and I have probably never agreed on anything, and in your heart of hearts you probably know that I was usually right, but I also proposed you be unblocked. So go do something else for a few days and come back to see what the community can agree on--because it's up to the community now. Take a walk. Pet a dog, or two. See you later. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having seen you at times on AfDs, CfDs, and other venues, I believe that you really had a lot better understanding of policies than most people here. You should never think for a second that you failed here, instead you need to think that you deserve better. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Abhishek0831996 I really want to ping you. With the "throw the kitchen sink at him" phase of ANI having begun it is very hard to feel this. They are bringing up things like my expressing frustration at the actions of the Group of 88 who prejudged a group of people guilt when the evidence clearly shows the accused were not guilty. I will admit that I over-reacted and was too harsh in my language in that incident. The fact it gets aired again in a forum where I A-cannot currently defend myself B-if I do try to defend myself in any way, it will be interpreted as trying to say what I did was OK, which I am not saying, but I am saying that to constantly rehash, rebring up, relitigate, and reattack for single incidents that happened years ago is unfair. No one seems to bother to look at all the positive things I do, all the categories and articles I have edited in ways that truly improve them. This is very Frustrating. I will sit back and let these people rehash old things, and not in any way speak ill of anyone for doing so. It is a very frustrating thing though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really am a failure. I wish I had never tried to create other accounts. I was really scared though. I was also really tired of being attacked and judged for every indisgression I had had for decades. This whole process is very frustrating. I just wish I had not panicked. I was not trying to game the system, and even when I made the scoed comment, I made sure not to vote. Comments are not the same as votes. I am very sorry about that lone mistake, and very much apologize for it. I just want to get back to editing, and as can be seen above I have agreed to a whole slew of restrictions. Can someone please unvblock, Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Johnson

[edit]

At least my article on Peter M. Johnson still stands. We will see if my prediction about Johnson being the next person called to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes true. My record of actually making such predictions is abysmally poor. Pretty much with all openings after 2003 I predicted the call of Claudio R. M. Costa. In the 42 years that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has had the practice of giving general authorities emeritus status not once has an emeritus general authority been called to the 12, so it is extremely unlikely that Costa will be called. Also, I predicted that Gerrit W. Gong would never be called as a general authority because I thought his long career of working for the US government in foriegn policy would make him too much of a liability in a Church that seeks to be international in scope, but clearly I was wrong, so I know nothing about making such predictions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your strong devotion to your faith is truly admirable. Peter M. Johnson is a very well-written article that you deserve to take pride in. Try not to fret over what you perceive as shortcomings. You have many successums to celebrate that outweigh the things you haven't yet succeeded at. Reminds me of a good quote: if you're not failing, you're not trying hard enough. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, failing at something does not make us a failure. I do the WP:BRD of life. I make a bold attempt, I pull myself back when I see its not working or is negatively impacting my world around me. Then I evaluate my trajectory making adjustments and boldly go again on the new path. Sometimes we might have to give up something for a while but it comes around full circle again. You got this, John. Just keep your head up. Dude is right, that is a well written article. --ARoseWolf 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARoseWolf

My thoughts

[edit]

We have only interacted a few times before, but I feel that now is the time to share personal information. I have not fully assessed the situation, but I think I know enough to offer some encouragement. I am autistic too. Thankfully, it does not affect my Wikipedia editing all that much, but it has reduced the quality of my life substantially.

I just had to drop out of college for the second time and get on disability because the anxiety that comes with Autism is crippling me. There have been times in life where I have considered ending my life because I am unsure as to whether I can succeed in this world. I'm not a LDS, but I do worship the same God as you. He is looking out for you even when it does not seem like it. Before I started editing Wikipedia, I was on the brink of suicide. Wikipedia literally saved my life because it helped me distract myself from my suffering. Had I not been on the brink of suicide, I would have never discovered Wikipedia. The fact that you are in what seems like the worst situation ever should not make you think you are a failure. I just dropped out of school again, but I have enough life experience to know that this does not mean I won't achieve my childhood dream of becoming a Forensic Scientist. I know my advice sounds crazy, but it is true. Again, you are not a loser.

I hope to see you unblocked soon. Administrators have said that they are willing to review your unblock request, so you should not be 100% discouraged. Until then, it is just best to wait. A topic ban might be all that is needed to help you come back. It is never too late to change your editing.

Based on the support you are getting, it seems that a lot of people genuinely care about you. I'll pray that you come back stronger after this before I go to bed. Peace. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator in question has accepted your apology. That is a good first step. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although you and I have not always agreed in our editing, I'll second what Scorpions has said in this post. I am wishing you the best; from one autist to another, I know it can be difficult to get along (especially when it feels like there's no way to predict what people will get mad about). I hope that everything turns out all right for you. jp×g 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. People accepting my apolgy is of no worth. I still cannot edit Wikipedia. I am still being attacked for all sorts of things. People are still keeping me from doing what I want. My life is still unlivable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • jp×g I wish I knew how to ping others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    {{ping|editor-name}} is the template you use to ping people. Just input the editor's name where I wrote "editor-name". Please don't believe that your inability to edit Wikipedia right now makes life unlivable. Wikipedia ultimately just isn't that important and indef blocks aren't necessarily forever blocks. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{ping|Scorpions13256}}@Scorpions13256: I am more discouraged than ever now. People seem to like to hit me when I am down. I cannot even defend myself. I have apologized over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It is never enough. People still literally attack me over something that happened in 2013. Something that we corrected in 2013.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{ping|Celestina007}}@Celestina007: I really need more communication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the ANI at times is unhealthy. People are attacking me because I do not appreciate That in 2019 dozens of articles that I created were deleted. This whole approach is very discouraging. I really just want to go back to editing. One of the people arging for a permanent ban says that only 2-3% of my edits are problematic. This whole process is frustrating. I have apologized over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. It is not helping at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Scorpions13256 and Celestina007: Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    John, I promise you things will work out. We are working out a way to help you edit more productively. I see your talk page access has been revoked. Use this time to do something nice for other people in the real world. INDEFINITE IS NOT PERMANENT :). Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request review

[edit]

I am creating a new section talk about this as it is a bit crowded up above.

I have discussed this with the blocking admin. First and foremost before an unblock can occur it needs to be understood that accusing other editors of hate speech or discrimination against neurodiverse persons will not be repeated. I recommend if you truly believe this is happening that you compile evidence and submit it to arbcom offline.

It also needs to be understood that if I do unblock you it in no way vindicates your actions, the block itself in my opinion was justified. The block will be removed because it is no longer needed because of your assurances.

Finally I want you to know that if I unblock you it in no way interferes with whatever conclusions the community comes to at ANI. I considered making a topic ban a condition of this unblock, however El C has suggested to leave this to the community and I see the wisdom in that.

Your unblock request seems to cover the conditions needed to unblock you. I just need a short statement saying you understand and accept my comments here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also please ping me when you respond so I notice it. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chillum, personally I think that we can unblock after we figure out on ANI what to do about restrictions, which will give us time to mull things over and will prevent JPL from being tempted to jump in into the ANI discussion, which I believe is likely to be counterproductive. Let me suggest an intermediate solution: you unblock with the restriction that for now JPL stay away from ANI/AN (and LDS topics, but I think JPL should realize this), or an unblock with a partial block for ANI. The more I think about it, the more I think that in the case of an unblock some restrictions, even while we are talking about a more detailed proposal to cushion their return, are warranted lest it appear that even for the moment that they can return to business as usual. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support an unblock with a relatively narrow topic ban restricting any edits related to the decision of the nonagenarian senior LDS church "prophet" leadership to repudiate their long-treasured word "Mormon" three years ago, and redefine their own previously preferred brief euphemism as "hate speech". It is crystal clear that this editor is incapable of anything remotely approaching NPOV regarding this narrow topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will accept the general limits of your recomendation. However I highly object to your putting President Russell M. Nelson's title in scare quotes. I also think your harping on his age ignores the fact that such a decision was done jointly by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, that it has been implemented by a wide range of changes throughout the institution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that you ignore that on multiple occasions prior to this the leadership of the church had tried to reshape the use of words. "Cherished" is far too strong a moniker. However the use of scare quotes is truly uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed this with the blocking admin. It is their position that topic bans should be left to the community to decide in this manner and I see the wisdom in that. This block was for a specific thing and that is the thing I am addressing. There is an extensive discussion going to on resolve the larger issues.

I don't see the value in keeping them away from their own topic ban discussion. I also think it would be poor of me to withdraw my offer after making it. I will however caution Johnpacklambert that they should be on their best behavior there. I will have no objection if another block is issued for new poor behavior.

I do respect both of your opinions and you may be correct. However I don't think it is my place to impose these conditions when the community is currently discussing the matter and the blocking admin prefers leaving it to the community. I am sticking to the standard laid out by the blocking admin.

Johnpacklambert please do not make me look foolish for this :). HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert do you have any other accounts that you would like to disclose to us at this time? !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want to have the block lifted as soon as possible. I have profusely apologized for my out of line actions and promised to not do it again. I just want to go back to editing articles related to Category:1922 births. I really would like to get back to editing. I am really, really sorry for my actions and would like to again profusely apologize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighInBC, Drmies, and Cullen328: Please hang on until my question is answered. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 12:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw my offer to unblock as I am now concerned that there is a strong likelihood that if I unblock that I will be made to feel foolish about it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, Just ask You will not be made to look foolish. I am very sorry about creating those accounts. This was done not in direct attempts to skirt the unblock but just trying to move on to a new forum, where I was not weighted down by my past mistakes, and did not have people harping on me for it. I really did not go anywhere with them. Please, please, please, please, please, please reconsider. Wikipedia is my life. I just want to go back to editing. When I can't edit my life feels empty. I promise to abide by all the restrictions I agreed to above. I am very, very ,very sorty about this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really do not like the trying to coerce a confession methods used above. If someone thought they found sockpupets they should ask directly about it. I have not effectively used either account in any where near the number of times to make it an issue, and had no plans to continue to use them. One has only done 4 edits. I am very sortry about this. I was not trying to game the system. I was just trying to find a way so that I would not be constantly attacked for things I did nearly a decade ago, but on further reflection realized I should abode by the rules and stopped using them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did ask directly, my very direct question can be seen at this link, [7]. Your reply can also be viewed at [8]. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A direct ask in my view would have been asking about the specific accounts. I know I made a lot of mistakes. I am asking for forgiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing unfair about the question that was asked. That you weighed in with two accounts on the same AfD is simply not acceptable--it doesn't matter if one is a "comment" rather than a vote or something like that. And it's obvious too that these weren't made to move on to a new forum: Conservapedia or Wikia would be a new forum. It's very simple: you broke the rules and weren't truthful when you were asked about it--that is the part that's unfair. If you really wanted to move on, there were other things you could have done--like following the rules. Accept the restrictions and try to come back, for instance. But now everything is unfair, questions are asked the wrong way, there is a "mass attack" (when SO many people, including me, stuck their necks out for you)--no. You are not the victim of the actions of administrators; rather, we are here being distracted and working on your case only to find that confessions are followed by evasions and lies. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really unfair. My unblock request is refused for actions that have nothing to do with the blocking. Wikipedia really does believe in throwing the kitchen sink at some users.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All meaning and purpose have been drained from my life. I thought today would be an ok day. I thought I could do a few edits of articles related to Category:1922 births. I wish I had just confessed, although I am not really sure that would have turned out any better. I tire of all my mistakes being so minutely scrutinized. This is so frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorry for my mistake. I just was tired of being attacked for things that happened 8 years ago. I was tired of the cruel things people still say in relation to that event. It hurts on the iside to be attacked. I gave up on these accounts. I did not even remember the name of the first one, and Zelnhelmthewise I had given up on. I wish I had just confessed, but I felt like a deer in the hedlights, and I froze. My one true joy in life is editing Wikipedia. I want to do it. Please let me. I have agreed to a whole slew of restictions, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, plsese give me a chance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could reverse the clock and admit to the sockpupetry. I was really, really, really scared though, and admissions do not often lead to better things. I am really, really, really feeling depressed. This is so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really wish I could just turn back the clock. I am asking for people to forgive me. I have promised I will try my hardest to abide by the rules. Wikipedia editing is the only thing that brings any joy to my life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am again asking people to forgive me. Please. I promise that I will abide by the words. I am a person of very strong integrity. It is tearing me up that I lied. It hurts me to my very soul. It was not a justified act. I apologize. I apologize profusely. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mass attack approach

[edit]

Now the disucssion about this issue has turned into a mass attack on all my editing. This is a very frustrating phase of ANI. Bascially I am chastied for everything people disliked in my past. It involves brining up an incident from March 2013. The whole thing is a very unfair exercise in which all my moments of being frustrated or over reactive in the past are rebroadcast and attacked. Then people start proposing all sorts of much larger bans. They start attacking me for my expression of my opinion of various issues on my talk page. The whole process is very unprofessional in my view. Instead of letting past issues that were resolved stay resolved, the wounds and issues are repoened and all sorts of bans on editing on my part are put forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the way that ANI is turned into a free for all attack on everything I have ever done is horrible. People who have specific gripes against me on issues not at all relevant to what was under consideration start coming out. The whole process seems to be unfair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have apologized multiple times for my actions. Yet what starts to happen at ANI is people attack me for actions done years ago. They attack me for not properly understanding the very complex ERGS rules of Wikipedia categorization back in 2013, even though I have tried very, very hard to abide by these rules in my creating categories for the last 8 years. They attack me for every episode where I overreacted, or became frustrated. They harp on things not at all related to the issue at hand, and they attack me for on my talk page expressing frustration with the fact that some articles stand with only blog sourcing, and others get deleted with multiple sources that are published in organizations that have regular editorial oversight. That last is in my mind over the top. Treating posts from my talk page where I express my general opinion that we should start to evenly enforce regulation of inclusion of articles sourced not at all to reliable sources being used to argue to create an ever widening and growing scope of a ban on my participation in Wikipedia just seems unfair. My post just stated my general views on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about AN/I. The same can be said for ArbCom though I think some have tried to start keeping that aspect out of it. But this is the issue with being brought up before AN/I so many times over the last decade and especially the last year or so. These things follow your editing journey here and you have to understand that its not going to change no matter how many times you apologize. I don't believe there are people following you to get you in trouble but they will not hesitate to bring out issues they see when you are mentioned. If you are ever unblocked and allowed to stay I would suggest you find another topic to invest your time in and completely avoid religious subjects. That is just my suggestion. I think for most here there was a level of trust and that trust has been damaged and if you are here for the right reasons then you need to decide if you are willing to put in the time and effort to rebuild that trust and repair the damage while also understanding that, for some, it may never be enough. Is that fair? No. But it is what will be inevitably required should the community decide to allow you to remain here. I echo the sentiments of others here in that I wish you all the best no matter where or what you do in life. I care about you as a human being and I want you to be successful. I empathize with your frustrations and the pain you are feeling in this moment. It's never easy and everyone has moments where they react irrationally to fears. Please take comfort in the fact that this will pass and life will continue. Much love. --ARoseWolf 14:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People are attacking me for things that happened over 8 years ago, that were fixed over 8 years ago. Your response does not at all acknowledge how hurtful that is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, it addresses all of it, including the pain you are feeling. In fact, I said that directly in my comment. What you need to realize is that you caused pain and hurt as well and that other editors are talking about what they view as a vicious pattern of cause and affect within your editing here from day one on. You have been hurt and you caused hurt. These things don't simply go away with a few apologies or even with remedies specific to each situation. Some hurts are lasting and when they see your name come up for AN/I again there is a natural piling on and it happens at every instance. I acknowledge it isn't fair to you but it isn't fair to anyone that the pattern seemingly continues. These are things that need to be addressed, not only on the case-by case basis but also on the whole. Right now your future here is left up to the community. If it decides you can remain then the decision becomes yours as to how you will deal with this pattern. --ARoseWolf 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I have agreed to remove a comment where I responded to a direct ping. I am really trying to comply with all these rules, The fact that they are sort of thrown at you over time makes them even more frustrating. No one said to begin with "If someone directly pings you with a comment, you are not allowed to respond to this direct ping in any way". I had no idea that doing so was not in compliance. I am trying my best to comply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New unblock request

[edit]
JPL, still trying to catch up to all of the above since I wrote my "Indefinite block" notice, but (and not to pile on), here's the thing: SQL wan't really obliged to prompt you with their findings (if they even CU'd you prior to asking that, who knows) so as to safeguard you against providing an untruthful answer. Their query was phrased in a way that's quite conventional. I've personally asked the same thing, phrased in that same way, like a million times. This isn't meant as a moral judgment on your character. Sorry for the distress that this is causing you. Hope you can draw comfort and strength from your faith. Best wishes, El_C 14:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have apologized for eveything. I am admitting everything. I admit that I was wrong. I have listed a whole bunch of restirctions I am willing to live with. I wish it was ever enough. Yet, the way ANI goes, no matter how much one corrects and fixes a problem they caused, as I have done in a great measure for the issue that came up that I get attacked as a negative publicist for Wikipedia for in 2013, I still get attacked for it. In 2013 we fixed the general framework so that the ERGS violation did not exist, just reversing the process as some argued would have caused others to argue Wikipedia was making it harder to study American female novelists as a group. The fact that then and since I have been routinely attacked with very unkind language that implies I am sexist and worst, is very frustrating. I have apolgized for my actions here. I have promised to never do anything like it again. I have promised to not use the two accounts, Zelnhelmthewise and the toehr one whose name I do not even fully remember. I am trying with all my might to fix this. Please, please, please, please, please, plase, please, plase, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: is it still possible to get you to look over this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed a comment that I had which was a direct response to a comment to me. It was a comment on a discussion. I was not trying to edit mainspace. I was responding to a comment to me. I removed it becasue I am trying to comply with this restriction. I am trying to comply with everything. I really am. The way this block is being interpreted as not even allowing me to respond to direct statements to me in discussions seems a bit over the top in restricting what I can do, but I am willing to respond. Especially when the issue was directly brought up with a pinging of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really want to go back to editing. I promise I will be much more measured in my comments. I will try harder to explain them. I will try harder to use soft words and not over state my position. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. I have made literally over 400,000 edits. I have tried to explain ideas, but I recognize at times I have been less than politic in doing so. I will abide by all the restirctions I have agreed to and will in addition strive to be more measured, more calm, more willing to listen to what others have to say. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please let me edit again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have admitted that I was wrong and unjustified in attacking others. I have apologized for it. I am asking sincerely that I be given another change. Please allow me to contribute to Wikipedia again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have admitted my wrong over and over and over again. I have asked for forgiveness. I have come 100% clean. I am sorry about my actions, and have now admitted them. I made a mistake. I am asking that I be forgiven. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please give me another chance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was drawn here by a ping from Usedtobecool, who is ever gracious. Okay so coincidentally i was discharged from a hospital following a very horrible injury. That I am short of words and for the first time, in an unimaginable catch-22 is an understatement. On one hand JPL is a friend who significantly inspired me during my early days here on the other hand my disdain for anything related to sock puppetry or unethical editing here(UPE) is basically my very core. I note that this started with the ANI filed by Star Mississippi who obviously didn’t envisage what this is spiraling into. I haven’t yet read every entry here meticulously and I am almost tempted to ask El_C, Girth Summit, and SQL how they knew JPL was guilty of socking and if Checkuser rights was abused but it’s a moot question because it doesn’t invalidate that JPL is guilty of this(perhaps done in ignorance) Please for anyone reading what I’m about to say(type), this may come off as something other than what I intend it to be, @El_C, could you be so kind as you have always been to “forgive this” putting into perspective that JPL is a unique editor? Please I do not want to get in trouble and I’m carefully choosing my words and treading with extreme caution because I see this has been raised elsewhere but can the fact he is managing a “problem” Take for example, he appears to have been here a decade+ but from what I’m seeing here he appears he doesn’t know how to ping properly, this appeal is to anyone one is a system operator. Socking warrants a block no doubt, an indef block even, seeing as they have been here for 10 years plus and know or (ought to know) to not violate our policy on abusing multiple accounts. Putting other factors such as productivity and passion as their plea above shows be put into cognizance? For the initial proposal by SM at ANI I do not object to that apparently even JPL agrees to that. In all my years of editing I never thought a day would come where I’d plead that IAR be evoked but that seems to be the only plausible reason to accept this unblock appeal. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007, correct. The only outcome that I thought might happen depending on consensus was the LDS topic ban. Unfortunately, the conversation spiralled and unfortunately led to personalization and socking. Star Mississippi 16:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JPL, I'm responding to your ping. Last night I promised to look at the unblock request; since then, I see that HighInBC took on the unblock request and declined it, you made a new request, you have removed that request, and about a million words have been written here and at ANI. I need to read through and digest before I make any fresh promises about taking action or offer you any advice, give me some time. Best wishes. Girth Summit (blether) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, JPL. I've read through now. When I left the last message, I didn't realise that TPA had been switched off. My advice to you is to take the week off and do something else, and then discuss a possible path forward with Floquenbeam, who I think is offering you really good advice. I'll leave it at that for now - best wishes. Girth Summit (blether) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

I came here from the ANI thread. It seems to me the best thing would be:

  • JPL, you should remove the open, still un-answered unblock request that, I am confident, no admin is going to accept right now. The whole situation is too chaotic, no one is unilaterally going to over-rule a fairly clear consensus at ANI (even if you don't agree with that consensus).
  • I will remove talk page access for a week as a cool down period. I think you are stressed and feeling attacked on all sides. I really think you need to decompress, and take some time to get your thoughts in order. Right now you're just being reactive, and you're becoming your own worst enemy.
  • I'll restore talk page access in a week. Starting in a week, you can invite people you trust to discuss a future unblock request in a calmer manner. But this will likely be a slow, deliberate process, because...
  • You should be aware that in my unbiased, uninvolved opinion, an unblock in the next... I'm guessing a little now, but I doubt I'm far off ... month seems unlikely. I'm not imposing this condition, I'm predicting it, based on previous experience. It is my uninvolved best advice.
  • You should be aware that an unblock in the future is not impossible, but it's going to need to be a slow, calm, deliberate process. I don't see that happening in this current negative feedback loop.
  • Also, of course, you can't create or use any other accounts.

JPL, think about this and let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A week is super, super long. This is horrible. I will comply, but this is so horrible. This morning I thought I could see the thing unclock now. This is just horrible.John Pack Lambert (talk)
    • I have removed the unblock request because I am trying to show I will comply. I really feel down about all of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am really hoping there is a way to resolve this faster than in a week.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The above is the most discouraging post I have ever read.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if we do it this way, it won't be sooner than a week, because I would remove talk page access. And I'm guessing there won't be a super rapid resolution when the talk page is turned back on. I'm not imposing this on you, John, I'm suggesting it. I honestly think, after reading the ANI thread and this talk page, that an unblock is a ways off. I know you hope differently, but we don't always get what we want. I suggest a better approach is to refocus on a practical way to resolve the problems, rather than continue to hope for really unlikely outcomes. I understand you're down about all this. Tell me if you want to do it this way, and I'll remove talk page access. If not, I won't do it without your permission. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have suggested a whole slew of restrictions. I will even agree to not A-nominate any articles for deletion until at least December 2021. B- Not edit any articles that have as their subject The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all. C- not make any edit that is out of line with MOS. D- Not make any nomination of any page for deletion that could be construed in any way to relate to religion. D-not to ever attack anyone again. E- If I ever attack anyone again I will agree to a 6 week suspension, but I promise to not attack anyone again. I really, really, really want to edit Wikipedia again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I give up. I will agree to have my talk page editing suspended for a week. It seems to be the only possible course to ever return, which is what I want most of all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize you're agreeing to this because you feel backed into a corner, but I still think it's for the best, so based this comment above, I'll remove TPA for a week. The easiest way to do this is to reset the indef block but with talk page access revoked, but you have my word I'll restore talk page access in a week; don't panic about what looks like a permanent talk page revocation. See you in a week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to talk with anyone here in a private forum though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, you may be unable to reply to this but Floquenbeam, is doing what is only apt here, I’m your friend and I can see how this is taking a very negative effect on you which is the inverse of what editing Wikipedia should be, “a hobby”, Please I worry greatly about the potential mental stress this is causing, please as suggested elsewhere by Girth Summit and now by Floquenbeam, please just take a very short break. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklamber, I wrote you a long email. I also am about to CC you (send a copy to you) of an email I'm about to write to Floq, El_C, Celestina, HighInBC, and ARoseWolf. I'm hoping (and confident) that we'll be able to move forward. Best, D. (you know the letters after D), Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access restored

[edit]

I hope the break helped de-escalate for everyone. In addition to Herostratus' email, I also received an email from someone else with suggested unblock conditions. I want to make it clear, I am not taking lead on an unblock here. I have neither the time nor the understanding of the underlying history. All I did was remove talk page access because the discussion seemed to be getting out of control, and after reading this talk page and the ANI thread, I couldn't imagine things improving in that timeframe. I do not support, or oppose, an unblock, and I do not have unblock conditions in mind. I'd suggest that JPL reach out to someone they trust to discuss what happened and how the problem might be solved, rather than multiple people all chiming in with their own suggestions. I would imagine that a torrent of friendly suggestions, mixed in with some non-friendly suggestions, could be overwhelming. But that's just a suggestion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been talking with someone. I think we may have found a way to move forward. I think I may be waiting for him to come up with the exact verbiage for a formal proposal for an unblock. I will see what exactly he wants to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

[edit]

Not sure why goats can now be given, but here is a goat.

Naraht (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was ancient times, you would be consider quite wealthy if you had a few goats! Govvy (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou all for your expressions here. I very much appreciate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward perhaps?

[edit]

Hello colleagues. Johnpacklambert has offered and suggested that it would be OK if he restricts himself to the subject of persons born in 1922. Working on existing articles from that cat and adding missing refs, fixing grammar and improving writing, finding new material, possibly creating new articles in that cat, and so on and so forth. And ONLY bio articles of people born in 1922, for a good long time (we can revisit in some months I guess). And if the article is by random chance is of a Mormon, no, move on to the next!

This will be easy to check, an occasional quick random look at User Contribs will show compliance or lack thereof. I'll do a bit of this occasionally, and probably also team with him on some of the articles, for a while anyway. It's up to johnpacklambert to stick that. He knows if he can't it is probably curtains. He may soon enter a formal unblock request (up to him), but before that any informal comments on whether this sounds acceptable?

Johnpacklambert, may I also offer you my congratulations and admiration to sticking with this and not taking a "take my ball and go home" attitude. Sydney or the bush. Herostratus (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The plan is to move back to 1921 when I get through the 1922 articles, but I can bring up that in a specific petetion when I get done with them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems extremely restrictive. Personally I'd be fine with no restrictions, as I think the lesson was learned. If forced to choose a restriction, I'd say something like a global WP:1RR or BRD restriction. I'm involved here, but I'm on the side opposing JPL in the dispute that led to this block. @JPL, if you haven't already, go read the guide to appealing blocks. Then read over this page and the AN/I. Then write down the things you did wrong, and make a plan for what specific changes you're going to make so those problems stop. Write those down too. Now boil that down to just 3-4 sentences and make that your appeal. (If you write a novel nobody will read it.) ~Awilley (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit I do see this as restrictive. However for the time being it seems better than nothing, and I think the best way forward is starting with a low level unblock with a limited focus and then expanding as we move forward in time. Basically I am willing to take this because I want to be able to do something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having watched this saga from the sidelines for the past week or two, I'd say why not give this a go and see how it pans out. John and Herostratus have obviously been chatting about this behind the scenes, and decided that this 1922-births plan is a good starting point for John's rehabilitation into the project. And while yes it's clearly a hugely limiting restriction to be under, if they feel this is the best way for John to edit without the temptation and risk of getting embroiled back into conflict and drama, then I'd say let's support it. Further easing can come later on, once a good track record has been set. Just IMHO of course. I guess we'll have to take this back to one of the community noticeboards, or at least link to this discussion from there, because that's what was promised when the recent ANI was closed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @El C and Floquenbeam:, who were involved in the blocks and protections over this, and are probably aware of this thread, but just in case they're not!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, I agree we'll have to take it back to ANI; that's partially my fault (for the way I closed it), and partially reality (since there were a lot of people with a lot of opinions on JPL's block and possible unblock conditions when I closed it). I do like the idea of an extremely narrow editing area. I would think this would gain a consensus at ANI. I suspect there will be tweaks added at ANI (WP-space editing? Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints topic ban? Talk page limitation?), but this is a good foundation, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johnpacklambert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recognize that my over reactions, over defensiveness, and general attacks on others were disruptive and would like to apologize for it. As detailed above I am requesting an unblock authorization. The plan is that I will work on articles in Category:1922 births, adding sources, adding categories, adding text, and doing general improvments to the articles. For the time being I will only edit articles that are in that category when I began editing them. The plan is in the short term to when I complete that category move back to Category:1921 births, but I will wait until I get through the 1922 births to do that. For now I will only do edits on those pages that are in the category when I find them. Again I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. I want to be an editor who improves the project and does not cause problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This looks likes a good long-term plan that's both productive and is unlikely to cause further discord. The reflection and apology for the attacks also look good. If I'd also add something to watch for, it'd be bludgeoning, which is also tied to excessive length.

As for the socking, it's just weird. It's definitely vote-stack'y (seeing as on Wikipedia we !vote rather than "vote"). Still, if there's one thing I do know about JPL's body of work, is that he is an AfD fiend. So sock-voting once of twice, how does that help to the million AfDs he engages at? The reasons may well then be more idiosyncratic in nature (hence, "silly").

To that: JPL, I hope we're not gonna see a million AfDs listed for Category:1922 births pages, because that would be bad.

Finally, the level of harassment faced by JPL throughout this block is abhorrent and I will have none of it. El_C 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Scorpions13256 and Celestina007: since they may also want to comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPL's proposal reflects cautious wisdom about returning to the project in a gradual fashion. It also reflects a remarkable level of dedication to the project. I support lifting the block on the terms requested. Cbl62 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a fair request, echoing Herostratus, I too, want to thank JPL for their demeanor. It is self analytical and very concomitant with that of a good editor(person) as (IMO) this applies to all spheres of life off wiki also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I support rehabilitation on this basis. We can look at expanding the terms after X weeks or months or whenever the unblocking admin thinks is best. I don't get why we have to go back to ANI... admins have a lot of discretion on these matters I thought. Herostratus (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would seriously recommend a much longer break, and I don't think agreeing to a narrow topic area addresses the internal turmoil. To be blunt: when you want to edit Wikipedia so bad you spiral out of control when things go very much not your way, the issue isn't the "spiraling out of control" bit, it's the "wanting to edit Wikipedia" that I think is the root cause. I think what would be much better is for you to be totally unblocked and "asked" to take a 1 month vacation. In that one month, I would encourage a bunch of introspection, seeking balance, and learning to prioritize things other than Wikipedia in your life. If you can't voluntarily stay away for a month as part of rehab, you should not be allowed to return, whatever the restrictions, because editing Wikipedia would be bad for you. You've been a formidable Wikipedia contributor, but I would much rather you end up finding inner peace and balance, even if it means your contributions will never be the same, because that would be better for you in the long run. Wikipedia is a fun hobby, but when it gets to be more than that, badness ensues. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JPL would probably acknowledge that he and I have had some... terse... interactions recently, primarily at AFD where we both like to contribute. I didn't comment at ANI because, at the time, I would have just been piling on, and with the benefit of having plenty of unrelated diffs to paint a pretty picture. I'm inclined to chalk some of our recent interactions, the sock-puppetry, and the "spiral" (as Jclemens calls it) up to a temporary loss of clarity. If JPL thinks he can make a worthwhile contribution while restricted to that very narrow editing space, I'd support it. But given JPL's sheer volume of edits, I wonder whether he'll run out of things to do in a few weeks. So I'd be okay with Category:1920 births to Category:1925 births, inclusively, or some other such tweaking. St★lwart111 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hi all. Floquenbeam suggested opening a discussion for community consensus regarding unblocking at ANI, and I think this is wise given the valuable input that was provided in the initial thread surrounding JPL’s block (not to mention the subsequent sockpuppetry that was uncovered during the first unblock discussion on this very talk page). Perhaps the community as a whole should be given the opportunity to discuss this before any decision is made. Vetocrux (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC) LTA sock[reply]

Oof, not seeing why we need to do that. Why do we even have admins if they can't decide stuff like this, we could just run Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conducts to decide these things. I've certainly seen admins no be shy about performing unilateral actions at other times. Let the admin corps talk it over on the their IRC or whatever they do, and if nobody wants to unblock the guy, then don't I guess. There's a limit to how much you want to drag somebody over the coals I think. Herostratus (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. There was nothing resembling consensus for an indefinite block at AN/I. And the current block wasn't imposed by AN/I, but by an individual administrator. It can be undone by an individual administrator with the blessing of the blocking admin. ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to return to editing. I think this us a very reasonable first step. It has very clear limits. It will involving editing in only a very clear set of articles to begin with. I would like to see it approved as soon as possible. However I want to return to editing so I want whatever has to be done to get there to get done. I want to again say that I am sorry about the disruption I caused. I really just want to go back to editing Wikipedia in ways that make it better, and in a very limited way that will be the result of focusing on Category:1922 births. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my comments above, I would be happy to unblock on the strict terms above, but we'd need Floquenbeam to OK it as well, since he earlier promised a return to ANI. I don't want to overstep other admins on this, that's all.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C said "If there's a solid plan to resolve this amicably by charting a path for JPL's return (which looks to be the case), from my perspective, that would be ideal... if your conclusion is that the threshold for a conditional unblock has been met, you have my blessing to unblock with immediate effect". To whom did did Floq make a promise and why? In what way is he empowered to do that? Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the person who made the original statement here about Floq's suggestion is a banned LTA. I removed their second comment per WP:BMB, but left the first because otherwise replies wouldn't make sense. I don't know the context they're referring to, but I wouldn't trust them to be giving an accurate accounting of events. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving up on indenting because I'm replying to 2 different people. Nobody needs my OK, exactly. It's not my block. And I'm not God Emperor of Wikipedia, I can't stop anyone from doing anything. But when I closed the ANI thread - an active (if dysfunctional) discussion that seemed headed towards even more sanctions on JPL, because everyone was acting like sharks with blood in the water - I said people would be able to discuss any unblock conditions later because I wanted the thread to stay closed until people were more chill, and if they thought I was just simply shutting them down, they would have reopened the thread. It's only fair to the people who participated in the discussion to have a say on unblock conditions. I'm "empowered" to do this because I can start an ANI thread about anything I want, whenever I want, just like anyone else.
  • Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but I get the impression at least one of you thinks I somehow did JPL a disservice by removing his talk page access and closing the ANI discussion with a promise to bring it back to ANI, instead of letting it run its course. I tend to think, based on the way discussions were going on this page and at ANI, and the stress JPL was experiencing, that JPL would be community banned right now if I hadn't. So, you're welcome.
  • If someone wants to unblock without an ANI discussion first, I can't stop them. But all the people who were pissed off at JPL before are going to be even more pissed off at him when a review of the unblock is brought up at ANI after the fact. It seems like it would be smarter to propose this unblock plan at ANI before the unblock, because people will be substantially less annoyed if they feel they weren't tricked. I promised an ANI thread, and I'm going to keep that promise. Whether it's done before, or after, the unblock is up to you.
    • --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I guess nevermind. I'll start an ANI thread tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, your prerogative. El_C 03:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As was unblocking when you knew another admin had reservations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, I am the blocking admin. If you have reservations, you can re-block yourself. El_C 04:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you don’t understand what prerogative means. Please re-read. —Floquenbeam (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)″[reply]
No. El_C 04:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ANI thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert unblock conditions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if I should comment directly on ANI. On the issue of starting with Category:1922 births any perusal of my record will show that for the last few months I have been much more restrained in adding people to the possibly living category. I have said that I understand that it is not acceptable to have multiple accounts and have profusely apologized for it. Considering the short term condition is agreeing to only edit articles in one category, I am not sure how it could be considered anything but faily constructive. I will even go so far as to agree to not add any articles to the possibly living category and only remove articles from the living people category if A-there is a clear statement of date of death in the article or B-I find a source that clearly indicates the person is dead, preferably with a death date indicated. I considered mentioning this before but really did not want to get dragged down in the minutiea. I have for the last few months been going heavily through 1923, 1924 and 1925 births, and have been showing a lot of restraint in the last few months in adding people to the possibly living category. One of the few cases was a person who was born in one of those years, marginally notable for something in the 1950s and 1960s who a search found no mention of inany source after about 1978. I have been trying to be very restrained and very based on sourcing in the movement of any individual to the possibly living category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for replying to my question from ANI about multiple accounts here. The current conditions are solid as Jell-o, so I'd like your answer on one more thing: Would you agree to a permanent and complete absence from all AfD processes, from prodding to nominating to voting to commenting, if it means you may continue on Wikipedia in other capacities? Succumbing to sockpuppetry is unethical, and unacceptable; there must be a consequence and the most natural one seems to be an absence from all deletion processes. (I, personally, think all socks should be permanently and 100% gone forever, but support for that is mixed already in the ANI.) I can support your continued presence on Wikipedia at that ANI if you agree to no deletion involvement, ever again, and a complete and permanent block/ban/whatever we call it if you are caught violating it in even the smallest way or if you are found to be socking again. I and others may check you on it now that we know you have created multiple accounts. I am so mixed on this and that's why I haven't voiced an opinion in ANI already. While we've disagreed much in AfD, we have agreed on probably more AfD topics, especially regarding corporations, so I know I'm losing support in those AfDs when I write this. I, personally, find category work tedious, so if you can make a go of it just in categories and not in deletion, where your character has been called seriously into question, I could support your continued presence under those conditions. Can you be done with all deletion processes forever? Please think carefully about this. Have a good holiday. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current conditions are solid as Jell-o — except this particular Jell-o would have followed up, would have structured something more concrete, and failing that, re-blocked and taken it back to ANI. But I suppose now we'll never know. I'll let uninvolved reviewers decide if the "extremely frank and transparent" comments currently featured at ANI are an improvement. El_C 18:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I would like to know is, is responding to any and all comments on my talk page still allowed, or would responding on my talk page to questions outside the scope of 1922 births be considered a violation of the spirit of this agreement?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C and Floquenbeam: Do you have any thoughts on my last comment here. I noticed someone expressed fear I will AfD several 1922 births. My understanding though is that my wording on what I will do limits me to editing pages in Category:1922 births, and creating a new page (which is one of the steps of AfD) would be outside the scope of doing that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, JPL, looks like +8,000 blocks and +200 unblocks still does not earn me the trust of the community wrt to undoing my own block, so I have withdrawn from this. Wishing you the best in all your future endeavors, El_C 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't knw what "last comment" you mean; the comment about the two article edits? If so, I don't see anything wrong. If you mean the question of whether to answer questions posed at the ANI thread, yes, you can safely do that without violating your topic ban. My main concern is that there were multiple editors bringing up multiple concerns and suggesting multiple topic bans a week ago, and I'm not sure a limitation to 1922 births solves those editors' concerns. My own opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that you should engage (calmly) in that discussion to clarify what the topic ban(s) should be, and put this behind you. But I am certain you can do so without violating your topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus: @Celestina007: @Awilley: do any of you have any opinion on if I can at this point safely post responses on my talk page to any question someone places there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so things are up front. I moved Johnny Dollar (musician) from Category:1922 births where I found him to Category:1933 births which is the year the article actually states he was born, in 2 different places. Since he is no longer in Category:1922 births I will do no more edits to that article. Checking the sources Find-a-grave (not reliable) and Allmusic (I am not sure how reliable this is considered), both place his birth on March 8, 1933, which is the date given in the article. My search for any other sources got swamped by the fact this name was a key part of some sort of theatrical production, Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar, and so I did not find any other sources on his birth, but since there are 2 sources that give his birth date on the same day, and I found no sources to suggest the birth that the category was reflecting when I found it, I will leave it to others to search for more information if they feel there is doubt.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources I could find are brilliant, but I'll buy 1933 as his DOB. I couldn't find an obituary. IDK how good this site is; but the post is attributed to David Dennard, who looks as if he knows what he's talking about; and the name of the site, rockabillyhall.com, reassures me. There's also the gut-feel point that his career looks more believable for someone born in '33 than '22. Good catch! Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well since when I found it the article opened this way "Johnny Dollar (March 8, 1933 – April 13, 1986) was an American country and rockabilly musician." seeing a problem with the birth year categorization was easy. It is the easiest type of problem to identify with this issue, because I know everything is in the Category:1922 births so I do not have to cross check with that. Identifying when the death date in off (which I have found on occasion) takes a little more looking around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having seen a lot of articles that were misplaced as to year of birth, the bigger question to me is how this mistake entered at all. Probably 80% of articles in the wrong date of birth are either off by less than 5 years, or sometimes even more common we have the article says "Fred X was born about 1923" and someone categorizes in Category:1923 births, when our sourcing really only justifies placing the person in Category:1920s births. The next one I have not seen in any 20th century cases, but for a while I was working with 10th and 11th century articles, and there were some articles on rulers (most often in kingdoms in what is now India, but I saw it elsewhere to) where the article opened something like Ramagata (1023-1045) and so they were placed in the 1023 births category, but when you read the article closely you found out that the dates in question were not the life dates of the individual, but the beginning and end dates of when they ruled the specific kingdom they ruled. Then there are those people who the article gives their birth in the Islamic or some other calendar, and someone mistakenly mistook those for dates in the Christian calendar years. That in a few cases has lead to 20th-century people being put in much earlier centuries. I have also seen dates transposed, so I think when I went through Category:1990 births I found one article that really was supposed to be in Category:1909 births. Johnny Dollar however is a case where I scratch my head and cannot figure out how the mistake occured, and having reviewed and search for sources, I really do not understand how this error came about at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • One key off at a guess, '2' for '3'.
I remember seeing something similar to the problems which you've spotted in one of my articles. Someone had added an infobox, copying my fl. dates in as DOB and DOD. No matter how precocious he was, I very much doubt that that Ancient Greek commanded an army before his first birthday... Narky Blert (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am sure you are right. There are however people who were rulers from birth, but those are fairly rare. It requires a system that has so much structural support for the monarch that the monarchy can remain intact when there is not a living monarch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

[edit]

Back early, so may as well. El_C 03:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special issues

[edit]
  • I just came across Laverna Katie Dollimore who for multiple years worked at the Canadian embassy in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. I was going to place her in Category:Canadian expatriates in Ethiopia but that category does not exist. For now I have placed her in Category:Expatriates in Ethiopia. Since she is already in other Canadian expatriates categories, putting her in the parent Category:Canadian expatriates category is probably not needed. If someone feels like creating the category in question and moving her to that one, I support it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is the only person directly in Category:Expatriates in Ethiopia. All other articles are in by country sub-cats (some of which only have articles in a more specific sub-cat, such as X country expatriate sportspeople in Ethiopia, or y country ambassadors in Ethiopia). Some of these categories only have one entry. The theory though is A-we are neither at the max of possible articles, and have not done a good job in placing people in expatriate categories that do apply, so we could in theory expand many of these categories, B-they are part of larger schemes, so yes for example Category:Brazilian expatriate sportspeople in Ethiopia has only 1 article, but it maybe could have more even if we better categorized all our existing articles on Brazilian sportspeople, and it is part of a larger series of Brazilian expatriate sportspeople by country, some of which are of reasonable size. C-X expatriates in Y country cats in theory reduce the number of categories a person has to be in. For example Garrit W. Gong was an American expatriate in China when he was special assistant to the US Ambassador there (he was also the first president of Beijing Branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). So Gong is in Category:American expatriates in China which has a few hundred direct entries and multiple sub-categories. If this category did not exist we would need to place Gong in both Category:American expatriates and Category:Expatriates in China so having him in the intersection category reduces the number of categories we have. Also in theory, American expatriates in China are a distrinct group in some ways from American expatriates in France, or Kenya, or Argentina, or Mexico or any other country, and American expatriates in China are a distrinct group from Canadian, or French, or Mexican, or Argentine, or Kenyan expatriates there. Although this set of considerations may not be enough to justify any possible inrersection of X country expatriates in Y country intersection we come across. Gong is an example of why this comes about. Gong was also an expatriate in Taiwan earlier with a different US government assignment and he was a Rhodes Scholar in Britain (we have Category:American Rhodes Scholars which is a sub-cat of Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom as well as of Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford). If we did not subcat, Gong would be in Category:American expatriates, Category:Expatriates in Taiwan, Category:Expatriates in China and Category:Expatriates in the United Kingdom (I am assuming that Hong Kong counts enough as China, at least post 1997, so that we do not need a seperate category for that since he did live there a few years while a counselor in the presidency of the Asia Area of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then as Asia Area president. The point though is that as the countries a person has been expatriate in during their life increases above one, the amount of category clutter avoided by having the intersection categories goes down. So the avoidance is always X-1. However when x is 5 or more the amount of category clutter avoided can be low. All this to say, we may not need all fooian expatriates in boo categories that we can populate with at least 1. However to start nominating some of the 1 articles categories for upmerger one would maybe want to make a reasonable effort to see that they are not likely to grow, and even how to do that is hard to imagine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ottoman emigrants to England has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Ottoman emigrants to England has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rathfelder: personally I support this. My current limited reading of my operating condictions for my currently allowed editing of Wikipedia does not allow me to directly contribute to this discussion. Best of luck in your efforts to improve categories. It can be a tedious work and needs to be thanked more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CfR (Female → Women composers, musicians, etc.)

[edit]

Hi! You were helpful in supporting 2 recent CfRs, one in July and another in August, for changing categories like "American female classical composers" to "American women classical composers". I thought double-precedent would be enough to switch to "speedy" for my next batch; unfortunately that doesn't seem to have as many eyes on it. Would you mind looking over the current CfR (below the collapsed yellow bar on that page) and, if it still seems reasonable to you, supporting it? Thanks so much! // Knifegames (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Knifegames (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...Apologies if this isn't how (speedy) CfRs work, by the way… I'm new to these! // Knifegames (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Knifegames: I am suspecting that any change from female to women is always going to require a discussion. At times we have tried to do a universal rename to one or the other and there is always too much oppposition. I am currently under a tight set of agreements on what I can edit, and in my understanding it does not currently allow any participation in CfD or any direct editing of category contents, so I wish you luck in the endevor, but am not able to help you more. If you wish to comment on anything else on my talk page or linked from it, you are welcome to, but sadly I cannot help you more at this moment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

As a fellow editor I want you to know that I am glad you are back. I want to offer words of encouragement but also of caution going forward. I don't think I should have to tell you that many in the community have no faith that the current conditions would be honored or that we won't be right back here again. I don't want that to happen. I believe you have so many positives and you bring those to the table every time you log in to make an edit. We haven't always agreed and we are not always going to agree but I respect you and your contribution to this community and encyclopedia. I am just one of many here that are willing to help you through difficult situations and discussions. I plead with you to ask for guidance if there is any doubt. I see you have done that a few times since being unblocked. Please continue that. I will not sugarcoat things with you because I feel that's a disservice to you. I might also be in the minority here but I agree that Flo did the right thing in bringing up the discussion at AN/I but I also believe El_C justified in unblocking without discussion. It was never stipulated that community consensus was a condition for unblock but Flo did say they would bring it up so others could comment. Both were done. I don't see anything clear coming from AN/I discussion. It saddens me that your talk page had to be protected and I alluded to that in my comment. I think it is a very complex situation and we have to handle it with care. We, as a community, must protect the encyclopedia, the community and you as an editor. We must uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia and Wikipedia policy while also taking into account the affect on a human Lifesong. I want what is best for you but we can not continue to jeopardize the community to maintain that goal. We need your help. Please consider every move you make here with care and thoughtfulness going forward. We can ill afford to lose good editors but, likewise, we can not continue to tolerate one that violates policy, skirts around agreements made and causes disruptions, no matter how much they contribute. Remember that we are here to help you. --ARoseWolf 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thankyou for your comments. I just edited Bobby Donaldson placing him in Category:United States Army personnel. The article clearly states he served in the US Army. However it looks likely since it says that he did so in "the early 1940s" that he served during World War II. The US was in World War II from December 1941-September 1945. So in theory he could have served in 1940 and part of 1941, but this is not that likely. I am for now going to leave him in the larger category that does clearly apply, but if someone else finds clearer indication of exactly when Donaldson was in the service or feels the World War II assumption is justified on other grounds, I will not object to moving him to the more specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very astute observation based on the wording in the article itself. No where in the article does it say he was a member of the Army during WW2. One could suppose he was based on the article saying he was in the Army during the early 1940's but the article does not give us any further details on his service time. Including them in the category of Army personnel is a safe and sound decision until and unless further evidence presents itself. --ARoseWolf 15:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, John. It's very disheartening to see it take this turn. I believe we can work on this together. You have a lot of people who are willing. All you can control now is what you do going forward. I suggest you work with us and take all advice given. You made a very good observation below in saying it is going to take time. It is going to take time and also it is going to take you showing others why you are here and that you can be a positive. One part of that is action on your part. The other is something out of your control and that is time. Please, refrain from confrontational responses at AN/I. Also avoid contentious discussions at all costs. If you feel yourself being drawn into it then simply walk away from your device or computer. Nothing you can say at this point on AN/I is going to be seen as a positive. Anything you say is going to be used against you. If an editor asks you something I would respond on their talk page but do so with the upmost care. You need to focus on you and on the limited areas you can edit. Focus on those things which you can control now. --ARoseWolf 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have really been trying to focus on making positive edits to entries in Category:1922 births. I am not sure what else to say at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the ANI had closed I was glad. Then I saw that the biography topic ban is still live. This makes no sense to me. I thought as a tact on to the ANI it should close at the same time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it now looks like the religion ban will probably prevail, but the broad biogrpahy ban will probably not, and so for the short term we will stay with Category:1922 births with a religion ban, that might be slightly more than the understood one before, but will not be a major change. I think that is the best we can hope for, and I am just hoping that the current turn against the complete bio ban holds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

[edit]

@Awilley: I just removed a section that I felt was best not here. I have to admit I am hoping for positive developments, but I can tell that it will take some time to convince some I can be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. I have tried to follow your advice to avoid direct confrontations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: and generally notifying all other editors. The turn near the end of ANI to proposing either a 1-year or an indefinte ban on all editing of biographical articles ever seems to be a major change in the whole process of the ANI. I am telling myself that I do not need to worry too much about it, because it has to overcome the various levels of support for the agreed upon condition of return worked out further up. However the whole tenor of the discussion is not to me very encouraging. I am trying to follow Awilley's advice to not say anything. However it is very hard to sit back and have people say things about you and not be able to defend yourself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I understand how difficult it can be to feel like you don't have a say in a matter the involves yourself. Please feel free to leave any thoughts on my talk page about my comment at the ANI. I promise to be accommodating in any discussion that ensues (I often make concessions for fair rebuts). I will not use anything you say on my talk page against you either (I have a habit of not doing this–I think is discourages important discussions). As long as you keep the very respectful demeanor you've been using, I think it would be more than fine for you to make responses to the ANI, though I do agree it is best done at another venue. So again, feel free to use my talk page to respond to me, or you could use your own talk to post general thoughts about the AN/I as well. ––FormalDude talk 19:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the same way. You can always be candid with me so long as you are respectful. Thank you, FormalDude, for offering this as an outlet for John.--ARoseWolf 20:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record Category:1922 births was not chosen because of anyone who was born that year. It is an outgrowth of other projects, but in my mind most relveant to the fact that it is the most recent year of years that would have large numbers of World War II veterans that has not been fully reviewed. I am not sure there is much else to say on this matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That reason is a good reason. Narky Blert (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FeydHuxtable: I really appreciate your comments. I also appreciate your insight and willingness to look at things broadly. I would be willing to support a 1 year topic ban from any article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Latter-day Saint movement more broadly, or anyone who was ever a member of The Church or who is notable for their opposition to the Church. I would also support a 1 year ban from any participation in article deletion, both nomination or discussion, although I am not at all convinced that there is a need to impose such. I am not convinced that there is a reason to call for a more broad ban on any edits related to religion, and I think even the ban encompassing all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really has a very broad tendency. I am not really convinced that there is any subject connected to religion where people actually have brought up issues with my contributions that would not be covered in one of the above. I might consider more specific bans on issues beyond this, but I think just a general tag of "religion" is too broad. I would also agree to not edit any articles on a religious institution or religious belief or practices for the next year. I think a more broad set of biographical carve outs than the ones I have mentioned above really need to be justified by some specific mentioning and specific issues highlighted. These 3 carve outs to me seem to address the issues that people most often complain about. A whole year would allow us to build from the current very limited state to a slightly broader one and then even broader. So I will agree to those restrictions. For the time being within the Category:1922 births, this only means not editing any article on a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or on any person who is notable for being an opponant of that Church. The other restrictions, such as from participating in articles for deletion in any way, are clearly outside the scope of Category:1922 births and so not relevant at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FeydHuxtable: I have also very much tried to exercise restraint in editing articles on living people in the last few months, and have really tried to only remove people from that category when I have made a concerted effort to find more sources on the matter. I have in the interim been reviewing many articles in the 1923 and 1924 births category, and maybe 1925 births as well, so I had multiple times of exercising a new restraint on the matter and letting stand articles that there were no easy to find sources showing them still alive, but for whom there was reason to suppose that if they were alive they would have come up. However even at that, if the issue is with BLP, than we should limit the restriction to BLPs, and not exapnd it to all biographies period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome JPL. I've never been able to countenance a witch hunt, and the fact RW thinks highly of you goes a long way; one could meet a million people and not encounter such a noble spirit. Unfortunately, the final form for any restrictions / topic bans isn't going to be up to either you or a not especially influential non admin like myself. That said, its good that your open to different possibilities. FWIW, I agree it looked like you'd been taking good care with the bio editing you've been doing this past few months – I sampled several dozen and didn't see any mistakes. Personally I think your LDS editing is mostly very good, especially at AfD where your vote is always sensible. Sadly though there probably is going to be a topic ban from at least LDS, per that being the recent loci of conflict. (Though for me and some others your 1921 suggestion also does the trick, and there is still a chance of that being the final result.)
As for religion in general, at the ANI last week there were some specific examples given. And it's well known you can cast unwarranted delete votes for non LDS religious figures, even for Bishops. Ive known that about you for years, and I hardly ever look at AfD. That said, I mostly agree with what youre saying, and wouldn't support a religion TB, just said I wouldn't oppose.
FWIW, while socking is always unwise, several much esteemned long time editors are known to have socked much more widely than your 10 or so sock posts. It doesnt effect the opinion most have about their good character and it shoudln't for you either. Lastly, I think Awilleys advise to you is good, and youre showing good character by resisting the temptation to respond to some of the nonsense being posted there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that one editor who most generally opposes both the current agreement and want to permanently put in place blocks are opposing this last proposal, I am starting to think that the topic ban will not succeed. I just wish that it was a bit easier to tell how an ANI would close, and to tell what level of support there would need to be for a topic ban for it to be imposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will all be over soon, one way or another. I think you need closure and you need to be able to continue the process of rebuilding trust with the community at large. My hope is that you get that chance. Keep moving forward and impose restrictions on yourself to keep yourself from moving in the wrong direction until the AN/I is completed. --ARoseWolf 20:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth 1922 births is the smallest 1920s birth category. I personally like the focused on what will be done current proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking in the morning I will undertake to see if I can get better sourcing on John H Dowd. It might not be easy. I am sure the sourcing is enough for an article but it is a weak article that basically boils down to early Wikipedia's overemphasized on geek pop culture, thus anything connected to Sci fi, especially TV and movie science fiction made from 1970 thru 2004 gets over covered. I can tell there is more to Dowd than this, and suspect it will be hard to move past the reuses pieces in ET advertising win, but I just hope we can find more sources to flesh out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ARoseWolf: and @Celestina007: and maybe I should do some more but I can't think of whom. I think That A Rose Wolf is right that the religion topic ban is too broad. I think for the time being a ban on any editing of articles on members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is justified, although part of me does feel even that is too broad, but the very nature of having a lay priesthood in the Church, having a large percentage of members serve 2 years or more (especially in a lifetime) as missionaries, and the even broader participatory nature of the Church, means that the vast majority of members will have served in some office. A total ban on topics that have as their clear subject religion, be they denominations, societies, buildings, beliefs etc. I sort of feel is too broad, but I think that is workable. With religious figures I think though we need better langauge than "religious leaders broadly defined". I think for the time being although I think it is still over reactive, if we state all holders of clear office in Churches, such as bishops, priests, ministers etc. I guess that would be OK. I would also accept for the time being not editing any mention to religion in an article. I know some people will argue this is essentially what the current proposal means, but I think the worry of attempts to over interpret it is valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't wait on the community to decide that. You should be self-imposing that ban as we speak. John, I only know you from Wikipedia and our past interactions. I believe you are an amazing editor and you have so much positive room for growth here and you really can be a huge positive for the encyclopedia. I am totally advocating for you by requesting a more focused TBAN while also protecting my community from further harm from your disruptive editing in those specific subjects. I say "my" because I want you to understand that I may not be able to take ownership of specific articles or topics but I do take being part of this community and an editor here seriously. I love Wikipedia and the people I have met here. I will fiercely defend you but I will equally defend this community. I feel I can do one without compromising the other but it is a delicate balance. I want what is best for you and what is best for the community and I believe a topic ban on all LDS and Mormonism related articles is the very least TBAN we could put in place. I will not agree to a broadly construed TBAN on religion but I am just one voice. --ARoseWolf 13:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John, it looks as if the religion topic ban is going to pass. I need you to fully understand what this means. If it is an article of a person who was a shaman for x religion in the deep woods of South Asia for two years and only one sentence in their article is attributed to it then you CAN NOT edit that article under any circumstances and especially not that sentence. That is what broadly construed means. No nibbles, anywhere, under any circumstances on any subject or article related to any religion that has ever existed, period. And it is going to be on you to make sure you don't violate that TBAN. I would go further and say not to even mention anything on your talk page or any talk page either. Nothing, ever. --ARoseWolf 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John. Not sure whether I'm welcome here, but I'd like to pile on. Delete this if not and I won't post on here again. If this passes, get a ton of clarification on what it means upfront and as time goes on. If something seems gray to you, someone needs to definitively say black or white. There will some nuance to the ban. Harvard Divinity School graduates came to mind. You'd want to find out if you can edit graduates of that school who didn't go on to be ministers, but rather writers. Same goes for alumni of seminaries if they don't go on to ministry. If you end up touching on one article unintentionally and someone gives you beef about it, you can ping me and various others and we will emphasize the need for continuous clarification... and how the burden isn't just on you. As long as you're not trying to get around to edit something you're not supposed to, I would be glad to advocate. Take care. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would read DR's words and take heed of them. I hope that the closing admin offers further clarity on a TBan but we can't count on that. As it stands it is any subject related to religion. The part that most concerned me was the broadly construed. That is a catch all phrase. I don't believe the nominator intends it as a trap but that is exactly what it will be so you will need to tread carefully. It is going to be so important that you seek clarity. You have those willing to help you and I would advise you to continue to utilize them. --ARoseWolf 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I wish I could just turn the clock around and go back to the first day of August and relive the whole last month in a very different way. Since I cannot in fact do that, I will just accept the situation and hope that people take the religion topic ban as a workable place to start. I do have to admit that this is potentially very broad. I am going to have to be very careful about editing large articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are and I am just going to warn you that there will most likely be very little leniency if any, especially from the community, so this is a proverbial mine field and how you are going to navigate it is hard to say. I'm not arguing with others to say that they aren't valid in their approach. It's partly my own personal philosophies of which very few here know exactly what they are and the fact that discussion is never easy for the community but is necessary for growth. What ever the decision, you have to live by it if you want to edit here. You also need to fully realize, which I think you do, that the decision is not just based upon how others view your actions but ARE a direct consequence of your actions. You have said you own your actions in every apology you have made. You have to own the consequences and results going forward. --ARoseWolf 17:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really glad to see some of your comments here JPL (and really glad to see the restraint in not commenting at ANI). The situation may not be fair, if one of these TBANs passes, but it will still have to be your responsibility to fully understand them and abide by them. I have seen autistic editors blocked indefinitely for things that they did not understand were in violation of a badly-defined warning/restriction. I would echo ARoseWolf's advice that you want to seek clarity, and get as fleshed out an understanding of the restriction as possible.
Stay away from edits that might be borderline (it's not worth the consequences if it's over the line). If someone argues that what you've done violates the restriction, you need to not edit war or make personal attacks, but take it to a higher authority. If you're going to do something out of emotion (anger, frustration, desperation) then you need to leave it in the edit window without submitting and wait 24 hours before deciding if you want to click "Publish changes". Find someone you can talk to off-wiki or some creative outlet to express your emotions that is not on Wikipedia. Whatever you do, make a plan for how you will act when things get tough before you actually get in that situation.
I understand that it's really, really hard to ask all these things of someone, but I know from the strength of feeling you had when you were blocked that Wikipedia is important to you. You can do so much good here, but you have very little leeway before you lose us and we lose you. — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully believe you would like to do that and you would do things differently but you cant dwell on that, okay? You need to read and really seek to apply what Bilorv says above. that was such excellent advice given. The last thing we want is for you to become one of those other blocked editors as Bilorv suggested above. Being autistic doesn't mean you are "broken" as others seem to suggest I am trying to "fix" you. That's so far from the truth. I don't see you as broken or needing to be fixed. I saw you as desperate and I do believe your autism does affect how you edit. That can not be and will not be an excuse for disruptive editing so you definitely need to make a plan going forward. It also means you will have to be more attentive and might have to ask more questions before editing but I would suggest that to anyone facing a topic ban as broad as this one could be. I echo Bilrov's gladness over your decision not to respond at AN/I and I think that was an extremely sound decision. I, too, believe you can do so much good and that will be dependent upon you and how willing you are to do the things you need to do to remain here. --ARoseWolf 18:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad some people are pushing for more clarity on what a topic ban encapsulates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to add Lars Edlund to Category:Swedish expatriates in Switzerland, but decided that someone might object that he is too closely interlink with religion, although personally I do not see anyway to define Edlund as having been a "religious leader".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ARoseWolf: I just realized how crazy some unresticted interpreations of the topic ban might spread. I came across G. C. Edmondson and realized something was up. I added him to the US Marines category and linked to articles on one of his alleged places of birth. Then I went looking. There was little strong sourcing, and the whole thing keeps running into the claim that he "shod Poncho Villa's horse", which seems odd since he was 9-months-old when Villa died. Then I went looking through the history of article revisions and came across this interesting claim "I am his daughter. Alicia Edmondson Johnson. He was not born in Mexico, that is where his wife, my mother is from. He was born in Omak, WA PLEASE MAKE THE CORRECTION. The reason he has the Hispanic names is because he converted to Catholicism upon marrying my Mother. His birth name was Garry Cotton Edmondson. His mother, Edith Cotton and father William James Edmondson. I can be reached at (Redacted) for further information." when I said "some will claim this is a religion topic". This is a believable claim, but it is unverrified original research, and it does not fully explain why in supplying information to Robert Reginald for his Contemporary Science Fiction Authors work, Edmondson explicitly claimed to have been botrn in Mexico. This is truly an article that needs to say a lot more of substance about the nature and merits of Edmondson's work. Drawing back the curtain and telling the true story of who Edmondson really was may take a level of original research that cannot be used in building an encyclopedia, but if someone does do so and manages to publish the work elsewhere it would be greatly beneficial in building an accurate article on Edmondson. For now I am not going to make any more edits to the article itself, and just hope that people will either A-determine that being a convert to Catholicism who may or may not have changed his name at the time is not in any way, shape, means or form on the level of being a "religious leader" or making the article have religion as the subject B-we generally do not claim that people have to consider all notes burried in comments on edits in the talk page in considering the scope, subject and nature of an article and 3-adding links to articles elsewhere on Wikipedia and adding to the US marines category seem both to be very minor edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I am doing what I am doing at AN/I. I believe you need clarity. I believe the community needs clarity. Just passing it off as "we can discuss that later" just has that gotcha feel to it. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad about this. We need as much clarity as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John H. "Jack" Dowd

[edit]

Well I did find a few more sources on John H. Dowd including a 1982 Washington Post article that partly quotes him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avis M. Dry

[edit]

I just added Avis M. Dry to Category:British expatriates in New Zealand. It is a hard call between this and placing her in both Category:British emigrants to New Zealand and Category:New Zealand emigrants to the United Kingdom. The latter seems excessively silly to me, and needlessly adding more categories. However since she went there at 5 with parents who the article says "emigrated", and stayed there into her college years, I can see a strong argument that the dual categories would be technically correct. However I think an argument can be made either way, and especially in those days and with the status of the Commonwealth what it was in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, I think a strong argument can be made on grounds beyond order in categories. Anyway, the primary reason for categories is to group people, and so arguing that anyone who goes to country X and later returns on a permanent basis to country Y where they also started counts as an expatriate and not an emigrant makes sense on several grounds. If someone really wants to go to the 2 category route, I will not object, but I think the one category used at present makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difang and Igay Duana

[edit]

So I came across this article in my search of Category:1922 births. The redirects exist from Difang Duana and Igay Duana. So since they were born 2 different years, Difang Duana the redirect and not the joint article would seem to be the one we would want to put in Category:1921 births and Igay Duana the redirect would seem to be the one we would want to put in Category:1922 births. I am not going to do it though, because those two article (redirects count at articles) are not currently in Category:1922 births and my agreement was to only edit articles that were in Category:1922 births when I found them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Spain establishments

[edit]

@Fayenatic london: so I started in the year I started because I did not at the time feel like going all the way back to roughly 1519 or so and nominating every potential category. Right now I have agreed to only edit the contents of Category:1922 births, but I would think that from about 1520 or so on the New Spain structure would apply. As I mentioned elsewhere, Mexico started out as the Mexican Empire. Also it looks like early on the Mexico categories only exist higher up and at the year level there are only New Spain ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was not aware at all of the stuff linked above. I hope it all turns out for the best.
As for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_4#More_pre-indepdendence_"Mexico"_categories, I have pinged the other participants in case they may wish to continue that series of mergers. – Fayenatic London 21:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Dusanko

[edit]

Julie Dusanko was in 20th-century American woman and in 20th-century American people categories. The issue is that she is more specifically in Category:All-American Girls Professional Baseball League players a legue that existed from 1943-1956. All the players were women, so the players cat would flow as a sub-cat of women cats (it is already a sub-cat of American sportswomen). I was going to directly recat the parent to those other cats, but decied that was outside the agreed upon scope of edits. However I removed those other two cats because it really does not seem justified to place an article directly in such large categories when we have so much better small cats to place the article in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dvorin

[edit]

When I came across the article on Al Dvorin I saw it lead with saying he was born in 1923, so I initially changed the category. However I dug further, and IMDb and Find a Grave both give 1922. The linked news source I could not see the whole thing, and so could not tell, and the other source did not list his birth date. This [9] source suggests that Dvorin was born in 1922 if the day of birth is correct, but if we did not know when in the year he was born we would guess he was born in 1923. This New York Sun obituary [10] only says Dvorin did at 81. So if his date of birth is correct it agrees. I may post more on the talk page if I find it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. C. Edmondson

[edit]

This article is truly a puzzler. G. C. Edmondson seems to say that he was born in Washington State, but the only clear source attibution says he was born in Mexico. I am going to see if I can shed any more light on this mess, but I have to admit it is not promising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Engler

[edit]

I have no idea how even his death is sourced, when the only listed sources on Robert Engler are books he wrote. On further review at least some is from a quote from a listserve posting in 2007 contained in the talk page. I have found a source that tells me that the Washington Post, Boston Globe and The Nation all published obituaries of Engler in 2007. Now we just hope there is a way to directly find the obituaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • My finding sources on Engler has lead me to the article on one of his leading critics, Aaron Wildavsky, or at least I doubt anyone wrote a more negative review of Engler's seminal 1961 book, Wildavsky says in the opening "this is not a good book" and procedes to justify this view by pointing out what he sees as flaws in mehtodology, opaqueness of work choice, and just plain unworkability of the underlying assumptions. Mr. Wildavsky lived for a time in Australia, so I wanted to place him in Category:American expatriates in Australia and was in the US navy, so I was going to place him in Category:United States Navy personnel. However since he was not born in 1922, I am not going to do those edits at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Ernst and María Enriqueta

[edit]

Leila Ernst that article clearly stated was born in 1920, not 1922, and so I moved her. I did try to see if the death notice from the Boston Globe would support this view, but it looked like I would have to pay to access it, so I did not follow up on that. Her marriage notice from the New York Times may also have leant some light on the subject but it was similarly behind a paywall. María Enriqueta the article only states she was born about 1922, so I moved her to the 1920s births category. So both these articles were in Category:1922 births when I Found them. As I understand the terms of my unblock, if an article is found in that category when I come upon it, with limited exceptions based on topic, I can edit it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand expatriates in Egypt

[edit]

The category Category:New Zealand expatriates in Egypt does not at present exist. John Feeney (filmmaker) is already in a by occupation sub-cat of Category:Expatriates in Egypt, and in another by country sub-cat of Category:New Zealand expatriates, so placing him in the direct parents of that category is not needed. If someone wants to create this category it would seem justified, but they may want to hold off until they can identify at least one other person who would need to be placed in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Finley (Missionary)

[edit]

This article Bob Finley (Missionary) is in need of several categories, since currently it is only categorized by year of birth and year of death. However since this would probalby fall under the religion topic ban that is most likely going to be imposed in some form, for now I will leave it to others to handle. I will also leave a note on the talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Fisher (businessman)

[edit]

I just moved Herbert Fisher (businessman) to Category:1920s births from Category:1922 births since the article only states that he was born about 1922, not that he was specifically born in that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Stuart Fisher

[edit]

I posted the following on the talk page of the article on Mary Stuart Fisher. "I noticed that in the early life section we refer to her as Blakely. This is more historically accurate, and avoids the oddity of refering her by her last name when mentioning her marriage, the event that gave her the last name Fisher. However it seems that in many cases the short name reference is standardized in all references to avoid confusion in the article. Either way, the move away from referring to her by her first name as was previously the case in one of the mentions in the early life section is an improvement. I am not fully decided about which form is best, and so am hoping others will consider the pros and cons of historical accuracy verses clearity of all references in the article." I am posting it here as well. Thinking about it more, I am wondering if somewhere in the manual of style there is something on "how to use short name references to refer to people who changed their name during their lifetime". I will go see if I can find any more information on this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, the Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts says "use full name in the first reference, surname after", which does not clearly answer the question about what to do with people who changed surnames. It also leaves us unguided on people with no surname.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It took quite a bit of reading but this paragraph actually seems to suggest the appraoch here "A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so material about the time before he became pope should use the name Albino Luciani. In some cases, it is helpful to the reader to clarify, e.g., Albino Luciani (later to become Pope John Paul I). The principle of avoiding anachronistic naming is also usually employed in the subject's own biography (including that of John Paul I), especially when the article is no longer a short stub." I still think there should be a larger section on shortened references practice. Especially "how do you do short references to avoid confusion when your article mentions lots of people with the same last name". And even more "how do you do short references to avoid confusion when your article mentions lots of other people with the same last name, and your main subject changed last name."John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further down there is this "Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name; exceptions include royalty, e.g. Prince Charles or Charles. Any subject whose surname has changed should be referred to by their most commonly used name. If their most commonly used name includes their earlier surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, refer to them by their prior surname. In other words, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, use "Rodham met Clinton while they were students at Yale", referring to Hillary using her then-current surname." I think this is not clear, possibly because Hillary Clinton is not a good example, because after a very long debate the article was placed under Hillary Clinton but was previously under Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mary Stuart Fisher as with many other women I have known, seems to have entirely replaced her birth last name with her married last name, and not used her birth last name as part of her name after marriage at all. I have known others who essentially added their married last name on the end of their name, which seems to be what this is referring to, but it means we are lacking in guidance on cases of entirely dropping a last name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was considerable discussion at Grey Owl. The guy changed his name about halfway thru his life from Archibald Belaney to Grey Owl. The period before he changed his name he's called Belany, the period after, Grey Owl. That seems to work OK. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Franchi

[edit]

I moved Franco Franchi to Category:1928 births since this is the birth year given both in the article and in the one actual source listed connected with the article. He was originally in Category:1922 births when I found the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles François (systems scientist)

[edit]

I have placed Charles François (systems scientist) in Category:Expatriates in Argentina. He would be better placed in Category:Belgian expatriates in Argentina if such a category existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Frost

[edit]

The article on John K. Frost only states that he was born about 1922, not in 1922, so I moved him from Category:1922 births where I found the article to Category:1920s births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on Al Dvorin

[edit]

John, I have sometimes agreed with you and sometimes disagreed with you strongly. But I have always known that you want to improve the encyclopedia. I have been saddened by recent developments but hope that your return will be gratifying for you and productive for the encyclopedia. I saw that you had mentioned Al Dvorin above, who was born in 1922. I spent some time researching him and have expanded the article significantly. I offer this article improvement to you as an olive branch and a "welcome back" gesture. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry

[edit]

I really am so sorry this is happening to you, if I was told to quit editing topics on occult related articles I’d be greatly devastated but if this is how you get back into the community I want you to embrace this knowing fully well that “this too shall pass” in due time all would be back to normal I promise you that. When I was new and inexperienced, yourself, Barkeep49, Rosguill, Serial Number 54129, Buidhe, Primefac, Swarm, 331dot & Herostratus taught me the ropes and were always there for me, me repaying that favor to you would be a great honor. Celestina007 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thankyou for reaching out. I have focused on edting category:1922 births contents for the last week, and tried to not get too caught up in the ANI. It appears that probably some form of the religion topic ban will be implemented, but the exact limits of that topic ban are disputed, and I have no way to see what the final decision will be. There was a very broad biographical topic ban, but no one ever exactly explained how that was meant to interact with the unblock conditions, and it clearly lacks the support to be implemented. The whole process is very messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the whole ANI thing is messy thus why I dislike drama boards, everyone wants to air their opinion for “talking sake” not that they really mean good but they just want to talk. Stay strong my dear friend all shall be well. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John

[edit]

Keep going as you are doing now. The results of the ANI are what they will be and are the results of past actions. You have a solid plan going forward. There is enough attention on the issues that a broadly construed topic ban like this can cause that we can always point back to that. It is ultimately your responsibility to make sure you wont violate it but there are those of us here that are willing to continue offering advice. You are not alone. Just be mindful of what edits you are making and take the extra time to confirm you would not violate a TBAN on "religion" broadly construed. If there is any doubt, ask, ask, ask. Though it should not be expected that those with whom you have affected negatively would suddenly forget the past, I do not believe that any of them are unreasonable and I don't see where anyone is waiting for you to make the slightest mistake. This means you should be able to gain clarity on fringe issues but avoid obvious violations of even a broad topic ban. Hopefully more clarity will come a from a closing statement. Either way, this is a chance for you to remain here, be constructive and useful, while helping to build a better encyclopedia and community of editors. That's a win/win! --ARoseWolf 16:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please archive

[edit]

Hey John, I am often reading what the plague rats write here, it's starting to get annoying to scroll down now. Please, please, please archive some of the chat away! be much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still a lot better, thank you. Stay safe, Stay strong, and if you see those wiki-rats, RUN! Govvy (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela Litz

[edit]

Well I came across the article on Gisela Litz. The one source on the article is from a database where it was contributed in 2004 although the photos date from 2011. She became a professor of music in 1969 after performing in the 1950s. If alive she would be 99. My search is not really truning up any other sources. So we lack anything that clearly says she was alive after 2004, and even that date is not fully affirmed, and I cannot find any substantial creation of information on her since 2011, and the uploading of photos does not show she was alive then. No luck on finding an obituary, but since it would most likely be in German, I think I would need to search in new ways. For now, I am holding off on any moves, and just putting this out there for others to look at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is not an easy question to answer. I added up the 500+ death categories from 1500 on, plus year of death unknown, and came up with 727004. Pre-1500 we are averaging less than 100 articles on people who died in any given year. By the time you get back to the 1390s it is about 50 per year. That holds roughly true for a few centuries. In the 1880s the largest category has 25 entries, plus 21 for the decade as a whole. By the time you get back to the 870s the largest category has 20, and there are still 21 in the decade category. This suggests to me that maybe we have 850,000 articles on deceased people, and allegedly we have 1,017,000 some odd articles on living people. I did not count the just over 6,000 articles in possibly living people. I do know there are articles that are biographical that have not been put in any of these categories. I think though we have probably 150,000 or more articles on living people than on dead people. Even though we do have articles on people who have died who have not been recategorized to reflect this, I highly doubt that we have enough to effect the balance. Category:1989 births is our largest birth year category, although only 4 above Category:1988 births. The 2 have switched places multiple times in the last 2 or so years. They are 4 apart, at 17,641 and 17,637. 1986 is next highest at 17,361. 1987, 1990 and 1985 finnish off the 17,000 plus categories. Of course we have huge numbers of people who do not have a given birth year, I did have to go through over 100 random articles to find any though. The first I found was Nikal-mati who is not in any category for birth or death in any way. For what it is worth though category year of birth missing has just over 21,000 articles while year of birth missing (living people) has 142,000 articles. The big question is do those 142,000 uncategorized by birth year living, plus the however many additional articles on living uncategorized yet by lacking the category but also lacking articles, distribute similar in actual birth year to the categorized articles, or do they skew in a different way. It is hard to say, but I suspect they may skew a little older. I think when I first figured out in about 2008 what year had the most births in the category it was 1981 or 1982, so this is moving forward at a rate of less than 1 year a year, so on average the average age of articles in Wikipedia are getting older. To take this a step forward, with us seeming to average now over 10,000 death articles per year, it will probably take about 15 years for the number of articles on the dead in Wikipedia to exceed those on the living, although that assumes that the main change in living people dieing and that new articles created are roughly as likely to be on the dead as the living.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janani Luwum

[edit]

I just came across Janani Luwum. 2 places in the article his birth year is given as c. 1922. This would suggest he belongs in Category:1920s births not in 1922 births. Even though this has no real relevance to his role as a religious leader, I am not going to directly edit the article, but I will leave a notice on this here and hope maybe someone else will address this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/101.html gives his year of birth as 1922. Perhaps some other sources noted uncertainty over the exact year, due to a back-calculation from his stated age at his death or at a previous date. IIRC it is acceptable to categorise by the best-guess year in such cases; uncertainty by one year does not mean we need to move it up to the decade category. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think unless we have actual certainty of the year, we should never categorize by an exact year. We should not be more precise than we can be accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

[edit]

I have closed the discussion on AN/I with the following consensus : Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. For further explanation, please see the banning policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Office of Strategic Services

[edit]

I just added Category:People of the Office of Strategic Services to Category:American people of World War II. I just realized this may be interpreted to exceed my agreement to edit only Category:1922 births articles. It is a direct outgrowth of working on the article on Frederick W. Mote. For now I will reverse that edit, and leave it to someone else to try to figure out if that category is placed in the right tree. I will also edit Mote, so people may want to consider updating his article if they change that category's structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think its better to be a strict about this as you can, for now. Herostratus (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to be away for the weekend as I travel home but if I can get on I will. You can always email me if you need something which I will be able to get faster than logging in to Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 20:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive_9&oldid=1115469639"