John Pack Lambert violates his topic ban

[Giraffe Stapler]

There's a already thread about John Pack Lambert in the member's only area*, but I'm starting this one in the public area for more visibility.

John Pack Lambert arguably** violated his topic ban by posting about the biographies of religious figures on his talk page and asking for other users to make the changes for him. Both the people he pinged told him he should not be even asking about religious figures because it violated his topic ban.

I'm not going to do it because you shouldn't be worrying about the contents of articles about Mormons at all. Just let stuff like that go. There's plenty other things to worry about. Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus is giving you sound counsel. You shouldn't even be making suggestions for content on articles dealing with religious figures or even religion. The topic ban was broad. Just let it go. --ARoseWolf 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Still, nothing came of it. No block. No warning. So, I'm kicking it up a notch. Here are two examples of John Pack Lambert directly violating his topic ban. As a reminder, the topic ban was "Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed".

This edit was to Ernest Cassutto (T-H-L). Reverend Ernest Cassutto was a minister in the Dutch Reform Church.

This edit was to Waldo Penner (T-H-L). Waldo Penner, or The Reverend Doctor Waldo Penner, as the infobox calls him, was a Baptist minister and missionary.

*Did you even know that there are member's only parts of the forum? That's so they aren't accessible to Google or other search engines. If you want to read those parts, all you have to do is sign up. It's not a trick - no one is trying to harvest your precious IP data or any nonsense like that you may have heard on Wikipedia.

**John Pack Lambert definitely broke his topic ban by posting those notes on his talk page. It would have been kind of admins to at least warn him not to do it again, but they didn't so here we are.

[Poetlister]

He could probably argue that he's doing nothing controversial, only making unambiguous improvements. Still, that won't cut any ice with the powers that be; he's definitely breaking the rules. Is he deliberately trying to become a martyr?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Two examples weren't enough? Ok, here is another one.

Lawrence Lazelle "Larry" Durgin (September 28, 1918 – August 11, 1981) was a Congregational minister and social activist.

Pretty hard to edit the "Larry" out of that sentence without noticing that he's a minister. Or seeing it in the infobox. Or as "American Congregationalist ministers" and "Clergy from Newark, New Jersey" and "20th-century American clergy" in the categories.

Dear Wikipedia admins: The longer this takes, the worse it's going to be because you know Johnpacklambert is going to try to make it your fault. Deal with it now. Indef Johnpacklambert for violating his topic ban before someone brings it up on ANI and he gets dragged into a community ban discussion. It's the kind thing to do.

[Anroth]

Na, just wait til he has quite a few then report en-masse. You dont get the accusations of following their edits ("I noticed recently JPL has made X edit so I looked back over the last blah blah") and your chances are significantly increased to get a harsher sanction vs 1 or 2 small infringements.

¬.¬ Have a look at the ANI archives for banned editors to see how often that tactic is used.

[AndyTheGrump]

Fussing over minor infringements is liable to be counterproductive. JPL will do something blatantly disregarding the topic ban soon enough. He just can't help himself.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Fussing over minor infringements is liable to be counterproductive. JPL will do something blatantly disregarding the topic ban soon enough. He just can't help himself.

Oh I am sure you're right (although I think his immigrant/emigre/expat categories may lead to a problem before that). I just think it would be better for his mental health to do it quickly and quietly for simple yet clear violations of his topic ban instead of waiting for an "incident" to appear on ANI.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Another topic ban violation. Pravrajika Shraddhaprana is described as a "Sannyasini" or "mendicant nun". She is in the categories "Hindu nuns", "Indian nuns", and "20th-century Hindu religious leaders".

[Giraffe Stapler]

Here's my process for finding violations of John Pack Lambert's topic ban. I use the "tooltips" gadget which shows you a snippet of an article when you hover your mouse over a link. I look at his contributions list, hover my mouse over each one and read the sentence of two of the lede which tooltips displays. If it says "John Smith was a geographer..." I stop reading. So John Smith could have been a geographer and a priest and I'd never know. I also skip articles with titles like "John Smith (football)". And I probably miss a bunch because I'm watching videos on YouTube at the same time and only half paying attention.

Even still, I have noticed that John Pack Lambert is not a very good editor. He's just going through looking at birth dates and missing some pretty obvious problems. Occasionally he even creates new ones. I have noticed that when he changes dates, he doesn't bother to figure out why there might be a discrepancy between the article and the category, he just changes the category. I'm not trying to find this stuff, so I have no idea how often it happens or what else he's missing.

Look at this edit. There are two birth dates in the article lede. Instead of figuring out why, John Pack Lambert changes "Category: 1917 births" to Category: 1910s births". The reason there are two (different) birth dates is because a date-changing IP vandal did it. This took about 30 seconds to figure out, but John Pack Lambert doesn't appear to have even tried.

[owl be it]

Boy, you really hate that guy, huh? I suppose he is kind of a dumbass...

[Giraffe Stapler]

Boy, you really hate that guy, huh? I suppose he is kind of a dumbass...

The funny part is that I don't hate John Pack Lambert. If I've ever had a problem with him on-wiki, it wasn't memorable. The reason I am spending time on him is that he represents one of the problems with Wikipedia. The "community" lets problem editors hang around long after it becomes apparent that they need to go. Sometimes it's an abusive admin, sometimes it's a guy like John pack Lambert. I think when the community sees well-known, prolific contibutors like John Pack Lambert indef'd, it makes the unblockables a little less unblockable.

[FelinaLavandula]

He’s still posting “edit requests” on his talk page, the madman! Now if only we could figure out why nobody has given him at least a warning for this. In fact, nobody has posted any replies to him on his talk page since… November 10? And he’s still violating his topic ban too… hm.

[Giraffe Stapler]

John Pack Lambert has made a couple of posts on his talk page which raise the question of his topic ban:

Melba Rae
Melba Rae appears not to belong in Category:1917 births. She appears to belong in Category:1920s births since the article states that she was born in 1921 or 1922. I am refraining from editing the article because of how broadly the religion topic ban written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Melba Rae (T-H-L) was and actress and "lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". (I don't think editing this would violate his topic ban. She's an actress, not a religious figure. John Pack Lambert does not seem to understand the simple terms of the ban.)

Darlene Rose
The article on Darlene Rose never gives her date of birth. Someone either needs to find it in one of the sources and add it, or to delete it as a category. I am trying to abide by the very broad religion topic ban I was put under, and she appears to be someone who would be classified as falling under that topic ban.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Darlene Rose (T-H-L) "was a born-again Christian missionary...".

Two problems here. John Pack Lambert, who is under a topic ban on religion of religious figures, is asking people to fix errors on articles which fall under that topic ban. That right there is a violation of the topic ban. He's been told before not to do this - "You shouldn't even be making suggestions for content on articles dealing with religious figures or even religion".

The other problem is that while he knew not to edit those articles, it didn't stop him from editing Olivia Robertson (T-H-L) "high priestess of the Fellowship of Isis". And it didn't stop him editing Francesco Repetto (T-H-L) who was a Catholic Priest.

[Ada Sinn]

How long before someone reports him to the admin enforcement squad?

[FelinaLavandula]

How long before someone reports him to the admin enforcement squad?

I’d do it, but I only have 193 edits so it might be viewed suspiciously, especially against an editor of his tenure…
Edit: Jeez, wording!

[Giraffe Stapler]

A brave but foolish new account reported Johnpacklambert's latest (?) topic ban violation on ANI.

Johnpacklambert is violating his topic ban and unblock conditions

Johnpacklambert was indef blocked following a long discussion here in August. He was unblocked soon after with another long discussion following here to discuss unblock conditions. The discussion was closed with the following statement of Johnpacklambert's topic ban "Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed".

On October 29, Johnpacklambert posted something on his talk page about two officials of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Clark Gilbert and Horacio A. Tenorio. He was told "you shouldn't be worrying about the contents of articles about Mormons at all" (italics in original) and "You shouldn't even be making suggestions for content on articles dealing with religious figures or even religion. The topic ban was broad". Despite these reminders that discussing religious figures on his talk page was a violation of his topic ban (and knowing that figures associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a longstanding concern about his editing), Johnpacklambert started a new discussion on his talk page a couple of days ago. Both of the people discussed (Samuel E. Waldron and Steven D. Bennion) are religious figures.

Johnpacklambert's indef block was lifted with the understanding that he would follow conditions set by the community. The terms of his topic ban are quite clear and he was warned the first time he tested them on his talk page. Since he has violated his unblock conditions, his indef block should be reapplied. Non Fungible Tolkien (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The thread lasted all of 8 minutes before someone summarily removed it, citing "obvious block evasion". No information was provided as to which block or account. Non Fungible Tolkien (T-C-L) was quickly blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". No word as to which other accounts they were abusing. They should probably globally lock the account as the sockpuppet of an unspecified "long term abuse" case just to be sure.

[Beeblebrox]

I saw that and thought "this won't last long". Waste of a good username.

[Jim]

The thread lasted all of 8 minutes before someone summarily removed it, citing "obvious block evasion". No information was provided as to which block or account. Non Fungible Tolkien (T-C-L) was quickly blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". No word as to which other accounts they were abusing. They should probably globally lock the account as the sockpuppet of an unspecified "long term abuse" case just to be sure.

Anyway, the ANI thread got "restored" by a "user in good standing", and JPL was blocked for a week for tban violations...

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#Johnpacklambert you are "indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed". I know that you know this. You however went and violated this ban with this post.

You must have been aware that this person is the "president of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary in Owensboro, Kentucky" which very much fall into religious figure, broadly construed.

Since this seems to be the first enforcement of your topic ban I will only block you for 1 week. However future violations will likely result in longer violations. (sic)

The community has made the decision that you are not to interact with this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, you need to respect the decision of the community. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"future violations will likely result in longer violations."

[orangepi]

If you guys are going to make your socking that obvious ...

[Ming]

Some serious Alice-in-Wonderland judicial activity there.

[FelinaLavandula]

Only a week? That’s just offensive. I mean, we can all see the repeated religion-related requests on his talk page…

[Anroth]

As a 'first offense' a week is generally reasonable. What happens after is that depending on the editor's standing and/or circumstances of the breach, further blocks will increase in duration at a variable rate.

Some problem editors who every admin knows are unlikely to mend their ways go from one week to months-long blocks. Some who unintentionally or make minor breaches just get a short duration.

JPL is almost certainly going to fall into the former rather than the latter, the one week block is a shot across his bows, and it will be a brave admin who for future breaches doesnt go for a significant length of time.

[owl be it]

Isn't he basically a broken man living in exile at this point anyway?

[Anroth]

Isn't he basically a broken man living in exile at this point anyway?

Obsessives like that dont become 'broken', they snap and lash out.

[Giraffe Stapler]

John Pack Lambert on Facebook:

I am just crushed. Wikipedia has imposed a very, very broad topic ban on me from editing any pages at all related to religion. I went ahead and posted a comment on my talk page named with the head of a religious seminary. However it was part of a broader discussion of whether or not all heads of universities and colleges are in fact notable. I am now banned from editing Wikipedia for a full week.

This whole process seems very unfair. Wikipedia community regulations are meant to stop disruptive behavior. There is no way to construe what I did as disruptive.

I do not like this at all.

No comment.

[FelinaLavandula]

I hope they end up just putting this guy out of his misery with an indef block. It’s clear that editing religious articles is his entire raison d’être on Wikipedia. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that his account shouldn’t be indeffed so they can keep an eye on him (admittedly I haven’t followed the discussion very closely) and I have no doubts that new accounts pulling the shit he did will be indeffed within seconds.

[The Garbage Scow]

I really liked this comment in the "restarted" topic ban discussion:

(snip)....I believe if an arsonist sets a fire and then reports it to the fire department, it's best for everyone if the fire department nevertheless responds. Levivich 22:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Just sayin.

[Jim]

I hope they end up just putting this guy out of his misery with an indef block.

He's already had two of those...

JPL has become conditioned to believe that a block is just a temporary inconvenience to be argued away. Over time this has been reinforced by that repeatedly proving to be the case for him.

Anyway, he's been unblocked now (as "time served", 23 hours into a one week block) - after, you guessed it, a 1500 word argument that he had no idea he was doing anything wrong - and presented with his newest very, very, final, final warning -

So that'll teach him a lesson...

[FelinaLavandula]

[Giraffe Stapler]

John Pack Lambert on Facebook (bolding mine):

Henri Alain Liogier lived much of his life in the US. He needs to be placed in either the Wikipedia category [[:Category:French emigrants to the United States]] or [[:Category:French expatriates in the United States]]. Wikipedia cannot regulate what I do off the website. I wish I had thought of this earlier, and placed a lot of my comments that I put on my talk page here. I am not sure anyone here will see them and respond, but at least there is a record somewhere of these needed improvements.

I don't think that John Pack Lambert is a bad person. I don't have any personal grudge with him. Wikipedia has a problem with knowing when to get rid of toxic people, In the context of a collaborative project, someone who is obsessive, obstinate, and incapable of self-reflection is toxic.

Johnpacklambert is my case study in Wikipedia admins protecting the wrong people. He works very well for this purpose because I never have to wait long for him to do something blockable.

[Giraffe Stapler]

HighInBC was the admin who blocked Johnpacklambert for a week and then unblocked him a day later. Non Fungible Tolkien asked about a couple of overt violations of his topic ban:

Question for HighInBC

@HighInBC: You unblocked Johnpacklambert with a note saying that you were "willing to accept that this was a misunderstanding" of the topic ban. Are you willing to accept that this edit to J. Charles Jessup, "American revival preacher", was a "misundertanding"? Or that this edit to Dadi Janki, "Indian spiritual leader", was also a "misunderstanding"? Non Fungible Tolkien (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC responded by revoking talk page access.

[AndyTheGrump]

Is this a JPL sock at work? Probably not, but can we be sure?

link

So who is the Patron Saint of Ladders? Probably John Climacus (T-H-L), though Joseph of Cupertino (T-H-L), the Patron Saint of helicopters (link) would probably be a good stand-in, what with the levitation and stuff...

[owl be it]

Is this a JPL sock at work? Probably not, but can we be sure?

link

So who is the Patron Saint of Ladders? Probably John Climacus (T-H-L), though Joseph of Cupertino (T-H-L), the Patron Saint of helicopters (link) would probably be a good stand-in, what with the levitation and stuff...

There is no way he would misspell "Latter Day Saint"...

[AndyTheGrump]

There is no way he would misspell "Latter Day Saint"...

Not unless it was a cunning plan - a deliberate typo to look like it isn't him. But JPL isn't capable of cunning plans...

[Smiley]

So who is the Patron Saint of Ladders? Probably John Climacus (T-H-L), though Joseph of Cupertino (T-H-L), the Patron Saint of helicopters (link) would probably be a good stand-in, what with the levitation and stuff...

I never really got on with my step-ladder.

baby photos for the curious

---

Aw no, they've deleted Climacophilia (T-H-L)! (AfD)

Was it something I said?

(There was a request for a photo at the top of the article at one point)

[Smiley]

Miss you Hex! *mwah*

[AndyTheGrump]

He's still at it.

The subject of a biography he edited on Dec 8th, the day after he was unblocked for violating a topic ban on "articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed":


In case the dog collar isn't clue enough:

John McManners CBE FBA FAHA (1916–2006) was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France. He was Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Oxford from 1972 to 1984. He also served as Fellow and Chaplain of All Souls College, Oxford, from 1964 to 2001.

ANI thread: link

I look forward to seeing how once again people explain why topic bans don't actually apply to JPL, because reasons....

[Black Kite]

He's still at it.

ANI thread: link

I look forward to seeing how once again people explain why topic bans don't actually apply to JPL, because reasons....

Yep, completely cut and dried, except the issue was raised by an obvious sock, so they can clearly fuck off. I'd love to see a CU on this one (and the previous one - this is the 2nd time that's happened). Can anyone think who the sock might be of (I have a few candidates)? One day JPL will mess up and an actual editor in good standing will bring it to ANI. Until then...

[AndyTheGrump]

Yep, completely cut and dried, except the issue was raised by an obvious sock, so they can clearly fuck off. I'd love to see a CU on this one (and the previous one - this is the 2nd time that's happened). Can anyone think who the sock might be of (I have a few candidates)? One day JPL will mess up and an actual editor in good standing will bring it to ANI. Until then...

Well, given your last comment at WP:ANI link, I'd have to suggest that if JPL was smarter than he appears to be, he'd be a damn fine candidate for the sock himself, seeing as he's getting a free pass for breaching the topic ban every time an 'obvious sock' brings evidence up at WP:ANI.

[Black Kite]

Well, given your last comment at WP:ANI link, I'd have to suggest that if JPL was smarter than he appears to be, he'd be a damn fine candidate for the sock himself, seeing as he's getting a free pass for breaching the topic ban every time an 'obvious sock' brings evidence up at WP:ANI.

Just to get this correct ... you're suggesting that JPL is reporting *himself* on ANI for edits he made 12 days ago. Okey dokey.

[Emptyeye]

(Edit conflicted, as they say, but bluntly, Andy and I were thinking along very similar lines)

Yep, completely cut and dried, except the issue was raised by an obvious sock, so they can clearly fuck off.

So, based on this, what I'm gathering is this:

If I'm JPL (Or really, anyone under a topic ban), my strategy would be "Flagrantly violate the topic ban; then have an off-wiki friend of mine create a new account to report it to ANI." (Even you admit it's cut-and-dried that he violated it)

What am I missing? Why wouldn't this work if, per your words, "we don't give presents out to disruptive socks", yet no one with the ability cares to do the digging to find out who the sock is actually of?

BTW: How can an new editor know about ANI?

It's really, really not that hard. I've known of Wikipedia almost as long as it's been around--this edit is actually mine from back in my college days (The IP itself is from said college). Wikipedia even then was in a number of news stories from places like The Register, and I'm fairly certain ANI/and or ArbCom boards were linked from several of those stories. My point being, with WIkipedia being 20+ years old, I doubt I'm alone in being someone who would fairly be considered "a new user" who would nonetheless know at least the existence of a lot of its arcane behind-the-scenes processes--I've noted before I find them way more interesting than the actual encyclopedia building.

[AndyTheGrump]

Well, given your last comment at WP:ANI link, I'd have to suggest that if JPL was smarter than he appears to be, he'd be a damn fine candidate for the sock himself, seeing as he's getting a free pass for breaching the topic ban every time an 'obvious sock' brings evidence up at WP:ANI.

Just to get this correct ... you're suggesting that JPL is reporting *himself* on ANI for edits he made 12 days ago. Okey dokey.

No, I'm not. As I said, I don't think JPL is that smart. If this 'free pass if a sock reports you' thing becomes common though, I'm quite sure that someone will figure out soon enough how to game it.

WP:ANI attracts trolls. Trolls who generally don't care if they get labelled 'obvious socks' as long as they create drama. Which is exactly what a call to ignore flagrant breaches of a topic ban is almost certain to do.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Yep, completely cut and dried, except the issue was raised by an obvious sock, so they can clearly fuck off. I'd love to see a CU on this one (and the previous one - this is the 2nd time that's happened). Can anyone think who the sock might be of (I have a few candidates)? One day JPL will mess up and an actual editor in good standing will bring it to ANI. Until then...

Can you explain why this matters? Johnpacklambert made the edits. That doesn't change because someone's sock reported them.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Johnpacklambert's reply to the latest violations:

On the edit with the man where it said John "Jack" then his last name all I focused on and saw was that Jack is the standard nickname for John and that the manual of style says that we should not put such a standard nickname is quotes inside the name in the lead. That is all I noticed before I made the edit. I only noticed that much and fixing that was all I was focused on. I realize now that I should have slowed down and surveyed the article a bit more, but I saw that and went straight to fixing it. I am very sorry for this mistake. I was not trying to break any rule, I was trying to comply with the common nickname rule. I thought I was surveying the articles before I did so but I was clearly not doing so enough. I am very sorry about this. I will redouble my efforts and make sure to survey articles more before editing. I am very sorry about this mistake. It was no way intentional. I was just trying to comply with the guideline. I will be more circumspect in the future. I am really sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the one with the picture. And the sentence he edited read "John "Jack" McManners CBE FBA FAHA (1916–2006) was a British clergyman and historian of religion who specialized in the history of the church and other aspects of religious life in 18th-century France".

[Black Kite]

Johnpacklambert made the edits. That doesn't change because someone's sock reported them.

We disagree there. I am not a fan of regular editors (which this clearly is) using socks to report people, and I don't think it should be rewarded. But it seems it is going to turn out to be irrelevant anyway.

[Vigilant]

It's a topic ban violation.
Cut and dried.

If he wasn't a time sink, there wouldn't be a topic ban in the first place.

We're at the 'extra life' thing again.
Give them a month off.

edit:
This looks like shit (from his talk page)

ANI again

I closed the report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban again due to a technicality. Time will tell if that close holds. You have to stay squeaky clean because any problems will lead to sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

[Mason]

If whistleblowers weren’t treated like shit on Wikipedia, they would probably feel less need to sock to do it.

[Vigilant]

If whistleblowers weren’t treated like shit on Wikipedia, they would probably feel less need to sock to do it.

Nobody wants to get dogpiled and violated at WP:AnusesNeedInvading.

Why isn't there an anonymous reporting mechanism in the first damned place?

[Mason]

Meanwhile, editors are still bullet-pointing their posts & obviously ignoring my complaint about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

That dog won't hunt.

The two articles where I changed shortened name references that is literally all I saw. It was not at all an attempt on my part to edit anything related to religion. I was fully focused on the name reference part and nothing else. The other all I noticed was the opening that only describes him as a state legislator. I was not trying to flaunt any bans by my actions here. These were legitimate mistakes caused by rushing and not paying attention to all the possible parameters. I am very sorry about this. I was not in any way trying yo flaunt any ban. I had no idea that any of these articles involved religious figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Either he did it on purpose (my suspicious nature) or he is not able to competently edit. At all.

Either way, he needs a vacation.

[AndyTheGrump]

Meanwhile, editors are still bullet-pointing their posts & obviously ignoring my complaint about it. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to reply to that with a (bullet-pointed) complaint about people making off-topic posts at ANI.