Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079

I'd really wish there were less of these NOTTHERAPY expressions by those espousing this CBAN masquerading as an oppose unblock. El_C 12:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: And I'd really wish you didn't rush to push the unblock button before the community had a chance to give their input on it. I find my comment to be extremely frank and transparent. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I used my discretion when blocking and I used my discretion when unblocking. "Extremely"? Yeah, maybe. Good luck to you all. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought the "go take a walk outside" rhetoric to be pretty condescending and dismissive, actually. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is not really an unblock condition. It's so loosely worded that there's no real condition here except 'start slow then phase back in'. Probably why it isn't logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary like other unblock conditions would be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

At this time, that is correct. El_C 12:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on these terms. There is absolutely no commitment to avoid problematic or tendentious editing areas, only not to immediately start back on them (and even then, "1922 births" seems like such a niche area that it's hard not to assume they may have a biography in mind within the wheelhouse they're best avoiding); any request should ideally include a much more concrete tban from areas fraught with issue for JPL until they can demonstrate they're responsible enough to contribute. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions - the self-imposed conditions seem very stringent to me. We could change it to "1919 births" if there are doubts about the randomness of 1922. I have always found JPL's comments at cfd of interest and as valid as anyone else's (other than my own of course).
  Oculi (talk
  ) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the current conditions and Support asking everyone to step back from the edge a bit. None of the recriminations, aspersions, or sniping helps build the encyclopedia. There's far too much personalization of actions and ascribing of motivations occurring. Take a break and go smell the flowers or dance in the rain, as your local weather indicates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The categories of 1921 and 1922 births are not random and seem quite inappropriate. The people in this category will tend to be either (a) recently dead or (b) centenarians or (c) of uncertain BLP status. JPL was blocked just three months ago for messing with BLP categories of this kind and the proposed restriction seems likely to increase the chances of this happening again. It would be better to restrict them to a less sensitive age band such as 1821 births. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) It seems pretty ridiculous to unblock so soon after JPL's sockpuppetry. Seems as though people were simply swayed by his strong emotional reaction to the original block to the point that the subsequent misbehavior was treated as immaterial or forgotten about entirely, but it's a pretty serious infraction. At a minimum it seems more reasonable for JPL to wait out the standard offer before being given the opportunity to return with such restrictions, in light of how easily he fell into the temptation to evade editing restrictions (that is, a full block). --Equivamp - talk 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) 1922 and 1921 look oddly specific, but people on the spectrum often view the world in non-mainstream ways, and I read nothing more into those dates than that. There's no doubt that improving existing articles is valuable work which can make a real difference. For a pragmatic reason, I'd suggest 1770 births and working backwards from there; before the birth of any prominent member of the LDS Church I know of. If JPL can get any article in that class up to DYK or GA status - well, enough said! those are hats well worth collecting. Narky Blert (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions under the assumptions that concerns about the pattern of emotional blackmail etc have been addressed in private off wiki by JPL and relevant admins. If my assumption is incorrect and those issues have not been addressed then I can’t in good faith support an unblock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I was incorrect the main issue has not been addressed, I must therefore change my position to oppose per my previous statement. At this point I’m not even sure that they understand that what they did was wrong, which is really the bare minimum and should be just the start of the conversation. On the philosophical side (because apparently thats also what we’re discussing), is there nothing compassionate about enabling an abuser? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I see an attempt at an apology, but nothing more, and nothing to address the issues that JPL was blocked for and why they wont repeat that behaviour. Then it goes to the non sequitur of tasking themselves with articles in the 1921 and 1922 births categories. That's before you get into the issue of socking and the recent BLP-related block, that Andrew Davidson mentions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Although this all seems moot now, as I see their account is unblocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose given all the drama, second/third/fourth chances, and the fact that none of these restrictions get at the original problematic behavior, the sockepuppetry, etc.; enough
  chances have already been given. Grandpallama (talk
  ) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the complaints at the top of the thread that it's "insensitive" to have an ANI thread must be rejected; unless ARBCOM is involved or the restrictions clearly (and voluntarily) include all the suggestions in the initial thread there MUST be this follow-up thread. It seems the unblock condition is that JPL can only edit articles regarding people born in 1921 or 1922? This is one of the most bizarre unblock conditions I have ever seen, and it doesn't address the issues regarding the Manual of Style's guidelines on short names of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all. Obviously this isn't a long-term solution, and we must expect an appeal; if there is an understanding that further disruption (particularly regarding Manual of Style issues) before an appeal will result in a Community Ban Not Appealable For 180 Days this may be minimally acceptable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @力: It's my understanding JPL agreed to not edit any articles, even those appearing in people born in 1921, that are in any way related to the LDS Church. Additionally that topic restriction means he can't edit the MOS. So, for those reasons, isn't his issue regarding the MOS guidelines on short names of the LDS Church fully addressed?

  I do agree that this ANI thread is a requirement and appreciate Floquenbeam for following through with it. ––FormalDude talk 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I must endorse the

  WP:NOTAVOTE claims; I don't feel I am supporting or opposing any specific written proposal regarding the unblock of JPL. That editor is currently unblocked, yet consensus is clear that an unblock would need conditions. I support there being fair conditions; not unreasonably burdensome conditions that amount to a procedural block, yet also not so vague and minimal as to amount to an unconditional unblock. If anyone can tell me whether that is "support" or "oppose", they might be more enlightened than Bodhidharma. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν

  )

• Tally — 9 Support to 7 Oppose as it currently stands. ~18 hours post thread opening. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @

  WP:NOTAVOTE wouldn't be required. No comment on the matter at hand, since I really don't care for the drama, although if it's this close, it might be that there is no consensus here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

  ) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  NOTAVOTE is so idealistic and much of it hardly applies in practice these days. Maybe it used to apply more once upon a time. When was the last time a large-scale dispute was resolved by building actual 'consensus' (using the traditional definition of the word, not the WikiSpeak definition)? I don't remember, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  snow close a discussion rather than let the discussers try to come to some understanding of each others' perspectives. Though I will agree that so called "drive by voting", and people talking past each other rather than listening to each other (not to mention gamesmanship of many forms), seems to be becoming more prevalent, which I do find disenheartening. - jc37

  03:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  My anecdotal experience with

  WP:NOTAVOTE is that it applies when people are not justifying their votes, or when there are people piling on just to pile on, rather than to further expand support or opposition for a particular point. To that extent, everyone here seems to be furthering the discussion. ––FormalDude talk

  01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I would agree, this is not a vote @RandomCanadian! But I still think a vote tally is a useful gauge to approximate how the discussion is going. When closing, arguments and policy must be examined, as well as the strength and merits thereof. But that doesn't mean we just ignore the vote tally. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support somewhat reluctantly, mainly on the basis that the
  WP:ROPE has been extended so many times now that it's on its very last thread, and any further issues will probably be a CBAN, and I'm sure JPL knows this. Black Kite (talk)
  22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Probably meaningless now, since it's a fait accompli, but oppose per Black Kite above. There has been so much drama and so many numbered chances, not imposing a restriction of some kind (not a "plan"; that's neither meaningful nor enforceable), let alone not addressing the socking...it's hard for me to see this ending at all well. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Involved support I was the editor who brought JPL to ANI which spun into this situation. I have accepted his apology about the actions that led to El C's indef and as I said here or his talk (can't find-but someone can), I won't stand in the way of an unblock as that was not my goal when I brought his Mormon / LDS edits here. I remain concerned about JPL's ability to edit with an NPOV, but there are enough folks watching that I'm sure any 192x issues will be addressed if and when they happen. I do think this is the last last straw though as he's a productive editor but he has been here one too many times Star Mississippi 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LindsayH et al. - the socking is a major aggravating factor. GAB^gab 01:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with a "But" Given the behavior included socking, I think we're beyond the point of a simple apology sufficing. I do not believe that JPL editing Wikipedia is in either Wikipedia's interest or JPL's interest given the behavior in the last few weeks when they were unable to edit. However, since it appears that the block will not be reinstated, if JPL's allowed to edit again, I'd argue that it's crucial that any condition of return involve a topic ban specific to religion, given that the behavior in that area has been repeated and is why we are here in the first place. So yes, allow JPL to post about 1922 births or whatever, but make sure that we're not talking about religious figures, broadly construed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think JPL has done much more than a simple apology, but either way I agree that a topic ban specific to religion is a good idea. Since he is limited to only 1922 births, that is a given, and he has already agreed to the further restriction from editing any 1922 articles that are in anyway involved with the LDS Church. I think it is likely he would agree to not editing any religious figures broadly construed too. Following his two week break, he has been very reasonable and accommodating in his request to be unblocked. ––FormalDude talk 04:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Leave as is unless something new happens A lot of people supporting or opposing the unblock. However the unblock was performed by the blocking admin and no admin needs community consent to reverse their own action. So the question to me is not if the unblock was appropriate, it was. The question is if a new block is justified. I say for a new block to be justified there would need to be new behavior to justify it. I suppose it is possible that the previous discussion of sanctions could resume, but I think it lost steam. That being said the community is clearly close to its breaking point with this user and I recommend to them to walk as though on egg shells. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Observations: 1) First, thank you Floq for following through on your promise. 2) I think a couple of the early replies were uncalled for, and I was disappointed to see that kind of behavior. (the douche comment was also over the top - but I understand it due to the frustration). 3) I agree with High in BC in that since it was El_C's block, it was his right to unblock (although I'm not convinced it was a particularly good unblock). 4) Again I agree with HighinBC in that once someone has been unblocked, it would not be right to re-block ... absent continued disruption. To that end, I'd suggest just closing the thread, and stop snipping at each other. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with no conditions - if they can't edit productively without any conditions attached to their account, they have no business editing Wikipedia. If they are truly a net negative to the project, leave them blocked indef. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a philosophical question that doesn't belong here, goes against years and years of actual practice and actual processes -- hell, actual software features like partial blocks. If you want to make fundamental changes to how Wikipedia does things, start an RFC. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not starting a RfC, and I did not ask a philosophical question. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding whether or not a block can be issued, as with any scenario, the community is free to review what has transpired and reach a consensus on the best path going forward. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. He definitely should be banned from any deletion discussions due to his well-documented history of indiscriminate voting and prodding and any topic related to religion per Only in Death and CoffeeCrumbs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. A read of his talk page will show a history of shifting rationales, of saying whatever he thinks will let him get his way. His sudden and aggressive attempt to use "racism!" regarding the word "Mormon", for example, and his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win. The restrictions he wants don't address the issues that keep bringing him to ANI, and seem so specific and unexplained that I can't help but wonder what's behind them. Unless there are firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors and have consequences for attempts at testing or gaming them, Wikipedia is better off without him. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win" is what I was referring to in my comment as "emotional blackmail etc” I assume its been addressed off wiki by admins in emails with JPL. I assume that there are in fact firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors that we just don’t know about. I would actually like clarification on that, @El C: can you help? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No. El_C 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So the big issue was never even addressed? You’ve gotten enough shit already so I won’t pile on but smh. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is JPL agreed to a broad topic ban and would likely agree to additional firm restrictions. ––FormalDude talk 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support full unblock, a productive long-time Wikipedian. Gets carried away on a topic from time to time, but then those are discussed and ultimately solved. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed If we're going for a last-chance unblock, then, looking at what ultimately caused JPL's block, and now the aggravating socking (from someone who has been here long enough to know that's not the way forward); the conditions strike me as entirely missing the mark. What I could support is an unblock with the following, simple restrictions: topic ban from religion, broadly construed, and, of course, a single-account restriction; but in principle no one is essential to the project so I don't see why we'd want to make yet another example of
  WP:UNBLOCKABLES. We indef new editors for way less, so I'm not convinced in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
  ) 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions - I have thought about this all weekend. My mind has wandered in both directions. I believe Wikipedia is a net positive for JPL but is Wikipedia a net positive with JPL here? Ultimately, I agree that Wikipedia has ben affected negatively by JPL in certain areas of focus. However, other areas have benefited greatly from JPL being here. The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor. That being said, the community must also protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and I believe adding restrictions and conditions to JPL will not only accomplish that but will also be beneficial to him. What I genuinely request of my fellow Wikipedians is to please treat this situation with sensitivity. We are dealing with a real human being, not a robot, not a machine and not just a name on a computer screen. Please make sure your comments going forward are done so in kindness and respect for JPL as a human. I am in no way saying you can't speak the obvious according to the way you see it. Just that we can do so while realizing the complexity of the situation and respecting the individual we are discussing. --ARoseWolf 14:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  "... The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor."

  Absolutely no.

  I am and have been a strong supporter of the idea that we need to remember that there is a person behind the username. And in my opinion, this situation is a mess.

  But it is up to JPL to manage their own health issues, whatever they may be, we are not doctors, and we can not (and should not be expected to) do that for him.

  So I'm sympathetic, but at the end of the day, JPL is to be held to be responsible for their own actions and their own choices. - jc37 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  WP:AGF is nonnegotiable and it has no limits in regards to content. If this were a simple content dispute then the application would be simple. However, there is behavior and content issues and the only way to address them is to address them all. Sticking your head in the sand and saying that a person's health issues can not be a determinant factor in the behavior of a person is in-effect, denying its existence. I kindly ask you not to put words into my mouth or read into anything I have said as if I am claiming we should be doctors or manage his health. What we should be is humans and we should look at the human equation in its fullness. My call was to uphold policy but do so with understanding, civility and kindness in regards to JPL's health and status as a human being. That was not and has never been a blank check for which JPL can do anything he wishes. I believe that this AN/I discussion and the results has been eye-opening for JPL and the break he was forced to take was impactful. Only he can decide what he will do with what he has been told and shown. I choose to help him if he decides to call upon me or seek my advice. Many others have offered the same. --ARoseWolf

  18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  In much of what you are saying, you are preaching to the choir. I totally agree, it was merely the way in which you seemed to frame this as if we must allow JPL to edit because to not allow him to edit may adversely affect his health. To that I say: assolutely no. If Wikipedia is being used in that way, that has zero to do with us as editors or as a community. That may be between JPL and whatever health provider he associates with. But that has nothing to do with whatever decision-making we do here. - jc37 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, DiamondRemley39. I was sidetracked by something off-wiki. It is great to see you as well. There really isn't much difference between your "oppose" view and my "support with" view from what I can see here. I respect everyone's opinion and I think there have been a lot of valid points. One of the things I wanted JPL to understand is that, while some of the actions like vandalism of his talk page and the trolling sock account meant to try and get him in trouble are concerning, the opposition to him being here is not unfounded. His actions have affected a lot of people negatively. The socks he created, which, though they didn't cause harm from what I have seen of their contributions, are a direct violation of trust that so many have placed in him, especially those that have defended him. It also indirectly led to the fake sock being given so much credence. Actions have consequences. I believe, if JPL is here for the right reasons then he should evaluate his editing and avoid the contentious issues like religion, among others, and by avoiding I mean even AfD discussions. Cut it out completely. I believe it would be wise for JPL to find a group of editors here willing to assist him with advice. No one should feel forced to intervene but if there are those who would be willing to offer advice then I think that can't be anything but a positive. Should JPL follow the guidance I think we will avoid a lot more discussions like this involving him. If he refuses to follow guidance then he may wind up here again and the community may have to ban him. I am trying to avoid that recourse and its why I have asked JPL to help us help him. That's a choice he has to make and it appears he is taking serious which I am thankful for. My goal has never been to silence people who think different than me, I don't care how different, positively or negatively, good or bad, we may think about something. I don't want you or anyone silenced. I've been there and I have realized we are not solo dancers in life. We can not be a symphony if we all play the same instrument. That being said, the disruption can not persist. That's why I have implored upon JPL to heed our advice here, even those he doesn't agree with. All of the points made here are made with reason. --ARoseWolf 19:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - colleagues, you are wasting your time supporting/opposing an unblock that already happened. This round began with a community discussion about a topic ban from religion based on personal attacks and other disruptive editing. It's not the first time; April 2021 was the most recent ANI thread involving personal attacks (and other disruption). During this discussion, JPL had a bad reaction and was blocked, and has now been unblocked. The next step isn't to argue about the block/unblock but to resume the discussion of the topic ban. If others agree this is the next step, perhaps someone should propose it formally. Personally, I don't think restricting JPL to Cat:1922 births addresses the issues raised in this month's ANI thread. Levivich 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. Since JPL's was initially a unilateral admin block, the admin is also able to undo it. Due to the fact that the earlier ANI was closed for compassionate reasons, a consensus to enforce a ban on the editor did not arise. I suppose the closer of this discussion will have to interpret "opposes" here as implicit supports for a site ban, and "supports" as implicit opposes against a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  And thus the compassionate block/unblock has turned a tban discussion into a siteban discussion. Levivich 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. What will he be allowed to do and not allowed to do? For how long? Everyone needs clarity here, especially John. (Go to his talk page, he doesn’t know how he is supposed to use it at this time.) If John is to be successful, such arbitrary phrasing is likely to lead to trouble. He had talked about being on the autism spectrum before; however, all users deserve more specificity than this. Beyond the as-proposed issue: Socking to double-vote and perhaps to get around a likely block reveals an addiction to using this site. This is not some unbecoming behavior that can be chalked up entirely to frustration and is quickly forgivable when one is contrite (accusing someone of something one has a history of experiencing in the heat of a moment is; I can overlook that in light of the apology). But the socking is unethical, problematic, a red flag, of utmost concern. Outside of this website, this kind of deceit is the sort of thing one could lose credibility, licensure, and career over. It doesn’t matter how long the accounts existed. Are there other accounts? Will there be accounts in the future? John desperately wants to stay. His actions suggest he should move on. I would love to see him enjoy anything in the real world, or even something more creative online. His comments about his life being a failure, etc. are alarming. Anyway… I asked John on his talk page about his involvement in deletion point-blank; his reply suggests he is uncomfortable answering questions there and here because he is concerned about repercussions. Reading between the lines of what he said, he may be agreeable to this. He could keep going on with category work and perhaps more minor edits to articles and I’d be fine with that (though “minor” perhaps should be defined; I know there have been run-ins). A permanent ban from all AfD processes is a more than fair compromise. He is stuck on it enough to sock. 99.9% of what he does in AfD is prodding or nominating; anyone can do that. We aren't losing one of our better HEY researchers by taking him out of that space. (NOTE: John and I have probably been on the same page in AfD as often as we are opposed, and when we’re opposed, I generally can make an article pass muster, so I’m really more disappointed at the thought of losing his votes in the religious corporation space than I am threatened by the thought of his continuing here.) Socking must be met with a permanent consequence of some kind… or some of us will lose faith in Wikipedia. Can’t we iron out some specific terms? FYI, I would support his return if a full and permanent ban from deletion is in the terms. Per Morbidthoughts, Only in death does duty end, and others. Sorry this is so long!
  talk
  ) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from religion and article deletion (previously "oppose but might support with more appropriate specific conditions"). Indefinite topic bans from religion (all religions) and from all article deletion processes (including CSD and PROD, and project-side discussions about deletion) ought to be minimum, owing to the fact that JPL has on two separate occasions within the past six months created socks to
  evade a block to edit those topics. While some others in these various discussions have applauded JPL's devotion to Wikipedia, I see a level of fanaticism that is disruptive to the project: after being blocked, in two spurts totalling five hours of editing JPL made more than 80 comments on his talk page which were some variation of this begging apology, including "my life is unlivable", "I am sinking into despair", "I am not going to kill myself", "I always fail at everything", "I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better", and including a handful that required suppression. But in amongst this flailing against a block he considered "like a death sentence" he nevertheless continued to ping editors to his talk page to start new discussions about LDS content that he disagreed with ([20] [21]). That is not dedication, it's obsession: John is demonstrably unable to disengage from this topic. If he really only wants to edit articles about people born in 1921 and 1922 then fine, these restrictions shouldn't hinder him much but ought to keep him out of the areas he frankly can't handle. That being said, the unblocking admin's wrist-slap unblock, and their flippant and dismissive comments in this thread, shouldn't be held against JPL. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts
  ) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good to know a lot of this, I suppose. But my block wasn't a CBAN and the unblock wasn't the TBAN, though I did intend on working on that component of it in consultation with the community. El_C 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from religion Levivich is correct above that it is a waste of time to express support for or opposition to unblocking. Johnpacklambert is unblocked. Everyone whose has paid attention knows that the recent disruption has to do largely with topics pertaining to the Salt Lake City church he belongs to. Right now on his talk page, he is going on and on about expatriate categorization for Gerrit W. Gong, a senior figure in the leadership of that church who was born in 1953 not 1921 or 1922. I think a clearly defined topic ban is necessary if there is to be any hope of this editor continuing to contribute to this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current unblock restrictions, support topic ban from religion -
  WP:GS, so I guess it's both a GS and a DS). When an editor has been disruptive in one area, restricting them to a DS area is a bad idea. Additionally, those categories include dozens of Latter Day Saints [22] [23], which is the topic that started this round of ANI. The unblock conditions should address the issues raised in the ANI thread that led to the block, such as a TBAN from religion. Levivich
  16:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, thanks for that analysis. It is interesting that Walter Gong was born in 1922 and is the father of Gerrit W. Gong, who Johnpacklambert is discussing on his talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current unblock conditions, support topic ban from religion A topic ban from religion is an absolute must. The socking has not been adequately addressed either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• TBAN from religion indefinitely, formally log the voluntary 1922 restriction and call for a quick close. I appreciate Floquenbeam keeping their word and soliciting community review of the unblock conditions. The most recent flurry of inappropriate conduct was centered on the question of religion, and the archived discussion included evidence that this wasn't the first time. It's sensible for the community to protect itself from the further abuse that is likely if JPL continues to edit in the topic area. Some editors/admins note the drain that continued discussion is having on both JPL and others. JPL is communicating that the 1922 voluntary restriction will be helpful to them and formalizing such a restriction should help clarify the bounds. I'll be likely to support dropping the restriction in a while on appeal. Finally, continued discussion on this matter is clearly a drain on both JPL and the community; I encourage an uninvolved admin to be bold on closing this discussion quickly. Not now, but ideally soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose religion topic ban (Involved) I'm a regular editor in the Mormonism topic area. JPL's moving and renaming spree was annoying and disruptive. I know. I spent nearly an hour reverting it. And I was shocked by his complete loss of objectivity...calling people bigots for using the word "Mormon" and such. That said, in my experience this kind of behavior is not normal for JPL. I think part of it may have been a negative reaction to stress or something. More importantly, I think JPL has realized he crossed a line and is committed to correcting course. He's been unblocked for 2 days now and is gnoming articles in the 1921 category or whatever, as promised, drama free. I hope after several months of productive editing on this tiny sliver of the encyclopedia he can eventually return to full editing. The bias is still a concern, but that's something that can be managed. Recognizing it's a problem is the first step. I appreciate having gnomes around who are both knowledgeable about the subject matter and capable editors. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock without very stringent editing limits, particularly with regard to religious topics. JPL has an established history of religious hate speech off-wiki coupled with targeting articles relating to religions he disfavors on-wiki, especially the Roman Catholic Church. There's also his bizarre comments here, barely two weeks ago, declaring that the concept of Islamophobia "invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons" and that people who use the term support "physical punishment for apostasy". He seems unable to sustain rational discussion when religious ideas he disputes are involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the basis of socking. Will except an unblock in 6-months, if no socking has occurred between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock His presence on AfDs and CfDs is missed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also Support Religion TBAN as an add-on that, in a formalized way. I think the unblock was proper, I think the conditions were workable, and I think this discussion is malformed. We should, in general, be focusing on the TBAN proposals below and not on critiquing the behavior of an admin who was acting in good faith. If the unblock conditions are adhered to, I think it would be a perfectly fine outcome. But I do support the religion TBAN as a prophylactic measure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock I believe that editor has expressed sufficient remorse. The block etc. have been logged and are part of their wiki-record. That's enough if we ever need to revisit this; let them resume their productive activities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deja vu

So in reading all of this, I'm getting a strong feeling of Deja vu. The apologies, and the volunteering to limit editing to certain articles of a year-related category (which I don't think ended up happening in that case). I spent some time doing searches, but couldn't find what I was looking for. Maybe someone else remembers more clearly. I dunno if it would help bring insight to the current situation or not, but it just seems like an odd thing, the offer being so similar (in my memory, at least). - jc37 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• This also occurred to me, but I can't find anything either, and if my memory is correct it wasn't quite the same issue (I could be wrong, but wasn't that one to do with "YYYY in sports" or "YYYY in the United States" type articles?). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  I can't say for certain, I don't completely remember. I wish I did, because the similarities between then and now just makes something about all this to 'feel' disingenuous. It's funny, in my head I can see my computer screen with the text of the discussion in question, but not quite what all the text was (I think there were one or more cfd discussions involved?). But I do remember him protesting that it wasn't fair the things people were saying, that he felt he was just trying to say "x", and so on.

  The thing is, it's sometimes kinda true. Quite often these things with JPL are situations of "it takes two to tango", but all too often they either start with someone baiting him (typically in an effort to discredit his perspective while trying to push their own perspective in an xfd or rfc), or with him just saying something that is less than stellar, or making edits that are less than stellar (to put it kinder than I prolly should), or some combination thereof. I don't think the above proposals (the unblock conditions) are going to do much more than kick the can down the road (again), but I also don't think indef is necessarily warranted yet. I think there are solution possibilities, but no matter what they are, I am pretty sure JPL will feel they are "unfair". Anyway, that would be a whole new discussion I guess, and right now, people seem more concerned about the immediate situation. - jc37 02:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the "Deja vu" feeling. We've had a fair number of "Last chance unblocks" that didn't work out over the years. Can't say any particular "one" comes to mind though. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Totally, every time JPL ends up here it seems to be because they are incapable of dropping a stick, they're given rope and we end up back here a few weeks later—blindlynx (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• I will say this, if JPL is blocked again, that's it. Enough "last chances". I do not care how "vital" someone is to Wikipedia, you are NOT bigger than the project itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Look, if an individual admin has done their research and still viewed my unblock to have been in error, I wouldn't have seen it as

Still, I'd have wished to have gotten a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL about, well, everything I'd previously noted to him. From the LDS issues (including about Mormonism, whose full and move protection first brought him to my orbit), to the attacks, to the socking and so on. I admit to have found it hurtful not to have even gotten a chance to try.

But, okay, if someone feels committed to doing something then that's that and there's not much more to say (and for me, to also do) about it now. That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that during JPL's block, I've had to protect both his talk and user pages due to repeated harassment. So, yes, I thought that the path forward could continue being charted with them unblocked. All things I'd have touched on had I been asked. But I was not ... asked. Oh well, spilled milk and all that. El_C 05:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, I can't understand the approach you're taking to this discussion. You still have a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL, and it seems you're doing so. You still have a chance to try. The path forward is currently being charted with them unblocked. You have been asked above to touch on all sorts of aspects of the block/unblock. Do you just generally disapprove of community discussion on a TBAN or other restriction? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. I don't understand the maudlin self-pity—what's preventing you from following up with JPL now that he's unblocked? MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give me a chance to answer before twisting the knife, MastCell. Firefangledfeathers, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the block was for egregious personal attacks and harassment by JPL. That's it. As for my original intent of figuring out the right TBAN package: no, I don't want to do that anymore, not like this. And if the prevailing view is that that is a defect on my part, so be it. Finally, the various NOTHERAPY expressions here are ones I find particularly objectionable and I want no part of that. I really don't know what else to say. El_C 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think El_C's unblock was 100% appropriate. We don't want to get into a rut where we need to go to AN/I to overturn the unilateral action of a single admin (especially when the admin wants the action undone). I think Floq also did an ethical thing in allowing the community to finish its discussion on whether to impose a topic ban. I'd guess that discussion will finish with no consensus, but if people want to have it, fine. I personally prefer trying to resolve issues at a lower level, but accept things won't always happen that way. ~Awilley (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Though it's worth even less, I also agree that the unblock was appropriate. The "support unblock"/"oppose unblock" framing of the above debate is unfortunate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would take it a step further and say that I think Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)'s approach in particular left a lot to be desired. Yes, they closed the original thread because the situation warranted sensitive treatment, compassion and/or calm discussion with minimal drama, which is admirable. But the unpleasant taste left by reading the first posts in this thread was in my view caused entirely by Floquenbeam's ill-considered wording within the closure text and their subsequent exercise of unintentionally poor judgment. Their closure of the original thread noted: It is not possible that he will be unblocked without significant restrictions... I do not think a community ban discussion has, or is about to gain, consensus, but I also don't think unblock conditions are going to be hashed out now either. When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment. That is, there was no consensus on unblock conditions or bans, which made it within El_C (talk · contribs)'s discretion as individual blocking administrator to unblock if El_C was persuaded, but the wording of the text concurrently and inappropriately suggests that El_C cannot unblock without community discussion (that is simply not the case). A more considered closure would have swapped the promise with something like "Discussion on restrictions will resume at the time or shortly after the block is lifted"; that might have been worthwhile and generated less concern and frustration at the outset, though arguably, Floquenbeam could have left it at that too. In any event, even with the ill-considered text that was written, exercising sound judgment and "doing the right thing" in that scenario would involve Floquenbeam having a discussion with El_C individually about his desire to return to ANI to fulfil said "promise" (or indeed, seeking input about El_C's views on it prior to opening this thread as an unblock review) at the outset; I believe that level of courtesy and camaraderie is expected of administrators and would have generated a response from El_C which was far less "frustrating" to Floquenbeam, and in turn probably would not have resulted in Floquenbeam's unseemly response in this thread to El_C about "nonsensical comments", being a "douche" and "disrupting this thread" about their own unblock. (Lastly, my observations are certainly less pleasant, less disappointed and more wordy than El_C was in answering Floquenbeam's question at the outset of this discussion of what else they could have done, but personally, I'd prefer El_C's response over mine - but then again, maybe my comments are also somehow nonsensical.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, while I appreciate the support, I'd really like to put this behind me. Yes, the oppose unblock !votes were weird to me, to say the least. At no point did I promise that JPL will remain blocked during a TBAN discussion phase. As I noted above, I used my discretion when blocking (not a CBAN) and I used my discretion when undoing my own block (not the TBAN). It just feels like a lot of confusion and tension followed for naught, but maybe I have too rosy a view of my own actions (probably). El_C 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for the last sentence, the comment was intended more as clearer feedback about Floquenbeam's approach rather than support for you specifically. I couldn't do that without mentioning you unless I did so indirectly (which would make the response more wordy), sorry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Biographical information

User:El_C has posted to JPL's talk page that they have withdrawn from this. So in some ways everything above is apparently moot now.

But from what I can tell, the community would like something done, and would like some sort of solution or resolution to these situations.

Ok, well for JPL, this means a tban related to biographical information (including but not restricted to

Yes, over the years people have complained about LDS, or other religion, biases, as well as actions with categories, and at XFD.

But biographical information is simply the main issue. And BLP editing is not a minor thing.

There are many many discussions concerning him and editing information on or about people, which go back many years.

Does the community care about the other things? Sure. That seems clear in the comments above. But most of the other issues fold back to biography-related editing. And besiides, to keep him out of various Wikipedia process discussions would seem to be counter-productive.

But I think drawing a line at biographical info should be something rather straightforward to enforce.

Based upon previous discussions, I would not be surprised if JPL found this to be "unfair", and I am aware that there are others who feel that some of his edits concerning biographical articles has been good content. That's great, but do good edits counter this amount of regular, consistant disruption? I believe this is the only way the AN/I merry-go-round is going to stop, short of a site ban. And, as yet, I don't support that.

If JPL can show that he can contribute positively on Wikipedia in other ways for a year at least, then maybe he could come back to the community and appeal this topic ban (per

tldr version - topic ban

I hope this helps. - jc37 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Until a better proposal comes along. Though it does not address sockpuppetry directly, it effectively does address some of the practical implications from the abuse of multiple accounts, namely the XFD involvement. It is better defined than the "birth categories until it's time to do more" proposal. Would prefer topic bans of an indefinite nature (I'm not saying a universal one, John), but a BLP [edit: BIOGRAPHICAL, INCLUDING DECEASED PERSON BIOS] ban for a minimum of one year is workable.
  talk
  ) 18:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  A ban on all biographical information in addition to the current reverse Category:1922 births ban? That would reduce the number of articles John is allowed to edit from 8162 to zero. (Unless animals are included in the 1922 births category.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not in addition to, but to replace that restriction. Wikipedia has many articles that are not on people, and John has experience editing them.

talk

) 22:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC).

• Support However, I believe this should be a permanent topic ban. I say this based on my experience with the issue at hand that lead to this (being one of the first editors JPL challenged on his controversial edits reguarding the LDS Church), and based on the slew of community input that has been given, which largely considers JPL's past AN/Is as a key issue for why his actions have been so unacceptable. I honestly do not know if JPL could be a productive editor of religious or BLP topics again, though he is quite convincing, which others have noted could easily be an attempt to game the system, and this is not something that I can rule out, especially given the socking. What I do know is JPL has been here again and again, and given the seriousness of his misteps, the only tolerable action in my view would be a permanent topic ban with no option to appeal. Since he wants to stay a part of the project, let him contribute only in areas he has not yet proven to be disruptive in. ––FormalDude talk 19:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Overly restrictive. And also targeting the single area where JPL has been doing allmost all his recent good editing, at least over the past few months. If we look at these so called "many many discussions concerning him" , then out of 34 AN appearances , most are either trivial, have nothing to do with biographies, or are just JPL's name appearing in a thread attacking someone else. This strongly opposed 2013 Topic Ban request isn't trivial, but unless one just read the top few lines, it fails to show JPL in bad light. This said, while I see JPL as a big net positive for us overall, I wouldn't oppose a 1 year topic ban from religion &/or XfD -there has been some long term disruption in those areas. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  His block log dating back to 2015 tells a different story. ––FormalDude talk 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Look again. 5 blocks is not that much for such a prolific long term editor. And there only seems to be two BLP related blocks. One was admitedly for a severe violation, though still an understandable mistake. The other was just for removing a "Living persons" cat from the mainspace page of editor Brucedouglas1925. (Who was obviously alive exactly one year ago from today, and allmost certainly still is now.) But seeing as the most recent source was from the 70s, removing the Cat wasn't really that terrible a call. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  When I said "many many discussions", I wasn't exaggerating. There have been discussions on talk pages, user talk pages, project pages and talk pages. There's been at least one rfc/u (from back when we used to do those) and even a controversy where outside media and User:Jimbo Wales was opining. These things have simply been going on a long time. - jc37 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough - I struck "so called". Unless I'm missing something he didn't do anything that bad for the outside media controversary. Granted, the more elite types would have seen it as sexist in effect (if not intent) even at the time. But back in 2013 even some female editors were adding females to the "women tags", it was something that could been seen as boosting women. The Atlantic article that named JPL was actually partly defensive of him. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  A large majority of prolific long term editors have never been blocked. The problem I have with this proposal is that it does not address the topic area of the recent disruption, which is religion, specifically the editor's determined opposition to use of the word "Mormon" which was commonplace usage until three years ago when the leadership of his church suddenly rejected that term which they had previously long embraced. His recent disruptive editing justifies a topic ban from religion and religious figures, not from all biographies, and accordingly oppose this specific proposal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - a generalized topic ban on all biographies, including BLP's. If the proposal wants to be more topic specific, like biographies on religious figures, then it can be brought forward as a different proposal and evaluated on its merits. --ARoseWolf 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional Support while biographical issues are a large part of his issues, I think we also need to consider LDS/Mormonism as well as that is what led to this whole mess. JPL is unable to edit neutrally on the church regardless of whether it's about LDS people or not. The challenge (which led to the indef) is he does not take criticism of his edits well, so imagine we'll be back here. Star Mississippi 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative Conditional Support, although, much like User:Cullen328 and User:Star Mississippi (and multiple other users in the section above) have noted immediately above, I think the issue of a tban on editing LDS/religion in general broadly construed definitely needs to be addressed in definitive language and apart from any "ban on bios for a year and then come see us again". Heiro 04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as t-ban proposal is too broad. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is both too broad and also misses several areas of disruption. Try the narrower sanction first, and if the disruptive behaviour migrates to other topics then consider expanding the scope. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the user has shown they are capable of editing in the narrow areas proposed in the informal unblock conditions, and there's no reason why we should unnecessarily prevent them from editing the 1921/1922 births area. That, to my reading, would be included in this proposal and therefore the proposal is too broad. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unworkable. Few articles on Wikipedia don't contain biographical information. There's a sleight of hand being used here to switch between BLP and "biographical". TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is so broad that I don't think this will help clarify the distinction between this editor's constructive editing and ability (or not) to refrain from problematic contributions - which is in any case the purpose of considering an editing restriction over more extreme measures. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to give even the most condemned a fighting chance to survive! There's more than 1m articles in Category:Living people vs 6.3m articles on WP. Add in the deceased biographies, and it would be quite hard not to edit a biography. Unless you only worked on ant species in Rwanda or some such obscurity. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biographical information" can cover so much on Wikipedia that this is unworkable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Information about a person". A much more concrete definition than what I see in the thread below. Nearly anything can be associated with religion in one way or other. Which, I think, is being discussed below. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've seen how "broadly constituted" topic bans can be taken to include almost everything. This one is so broad that it's effectively limits the recipient to very small part of the project. Additionally, I don't find the rationale convincing (where are the diffs?). No, if you want something so broad, take it to ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale

The idea behind this was straight-forward. JPL has had multiple issues around information related to people. He's even currently under BLP sanctions which do not appear to be religion-related. And by setting an appeal date, we give him a timeframe and a chance to work and show the community (on a longer term than just during AN/I discussions) that he is moving forward as a productive contributor.

This actually is something he has done in the past. It sometimes took the community to show him, but once he understood, he did get better about trying to follow policy/process in those specific instances.

Limited sanctions should always have a sense of focus and rehabilitation to them. (We say 'preventative, not punitive' for these very reasons.)

I look and see in the discussion below that there are those who really seem to see this as a mere bureaucratic formality towards what is apparently their end goal - a complete ban.

This all is really starting to look punitive, not preventative.

If that's the plan, then just indef him now. Don't slowly drag him through this seeming torture, just to ban him anyway. That just seems wrong. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Religion

• The specific proposal is: Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed.
  I have no comment on the above TBAN proposal and do not intend for this one to create mutually exclusive options. Editors might support both. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Addressing some comments below:

  • I wouldn't oppose an LDS/Mormon-specific TBAN, but I do feel there was adequate evidence presented in the last ANI discussion that JPL has been disruptive also in Catholicism-related areas.
  • I certainly don't intend for this potential TBAN to be a trap, and I'd be happy to get more specific if there's agreement on some qualifiers; all TBANs, even if narrowly construed, have the potential for abuse as described below.

  Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support He needs to be topic banned from the topic area where he was most recently extremely disruptive and dogmatic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Whether sticking to 1922 bios or not, he's amply demonstrated that this is a subject area that is trouble for him. The community is entitled to some prophylaxis here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - There have been more bio-related issues than just religion-related ones, which is why the proposal above. That said, I am not opposed to this proposal, and I agree that both proposals could pass and not be mutually exclusive. - jc37 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from LDS topics only. A ban from all religious topic is too broad in my opinion. I haven't seen any examples of JPL being disruptive in non-LDS related religious topics. I think the TBAN only needs to be for the Latter Day Saint Movement and related articles. My preference would be that the LDS TBAN is temporary (rather than indef). ––FormalDude talk 06:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support In my experience JPL let’s his personal association with the Mormon/LDS Church color his editing activities and votes at AfD inappropriately and expressions of concern are not enough to curtail this. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be the root cause of the issues at hand. Demonstrating an ability to edit constructively outside of a wheelhouse that they hold personal connection to would be the best start to proving that being unblocked was warranted. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 11:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If this will resolve the endless amounts of time and ink we spend on this one editor in the absence of something stricter like a re-block or indef, then I'm all for this particular TBAN. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to oppose this proposal because it is too broadly construed. Religion is a huge topic. Almost anything can be considered a religion. There are pagan religions. He could inadvertently edit an article on someone who is linked to any type of religion and technically he would be breaking the TBAN. Anyone with an agenda would see the opportunity to get JPL into trouble. It's unfortunate that we have to look at it through this lens but it would be equally unfortunate to have went through all of this and still have JPL banned because of some inadvertent mishap. I believe we should focus a TBAN as tightly as we can in the specific areas that are an issue. --ARoseWolf 12:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I see your point on the breadth of merely "religion"; it does seem that LDS/Mormonism is the real crux here we could merely narrow it down to this if it were agreed upon. Ultimately the way I would want to see it done is in a manner that shepherds JPL away from areas of religious concern so as not to attract this same problematic editing pattern, if that takes a smaller rule to do so then the end result is what matters. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear your concerns, A Rose Wolf. I think this could be spelled out in more detail later--and in an official way--to protect John from drama. Certainly many biographical articles on older people may have mention of religion. But unless an article subject was in ministry, whether ordained or lay, or led a church or religious company, or is a journalist or essayist who wrote on religious topics, they should be fine. This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits. Just some ideas.

talk

) 12:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39, we have been here long enough to know that wont happen and it wont matter if he reverts after the fact once someone comes to AN/I over even the smallest violation. It is putting an enormous amount of weight on admins to decipher intent and purpose of even the smallest edit JPL can make. Whatever is the result here will be the only definition that matters. If the community supports a general TBAN on any article that even mentions religion as a focus then that is what JPL will be held to and that is what broadly construed means. No nibbling around the edges of any topic on religion, not just lay people or ministers. The specific wording of the TBAN above includes the topic of religion and religious figures of any kind, type, association or otherwise and it includes all religions and its indefinite. I feel this is wrong and could very easily become more of a trap in the future. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - if that's the area that gets him/her into such trouble. PS - I'm an atheist by the way. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - John has demonstrated a lack of objectivity in too many articles related to religion, specifically LDS articles. He and Wikipedia alike would benefit from his focusing elsewhere. To be candid, I'd miss John in religious corporation AfDs, but that's moot.
  talk
  ) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Would also be fine with an indefinite LDS topic ban, as that is where the trouble seems to be, and editing behavior outside of LDS but still within religion is better, in my personal experience with John. A Rose Wolf makes good points--this needs to be worded carefully.

talk

) 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support broadly as stated per my comments in the main thread. If the consensus is for a narrower ban then it should be worded carefully to cover both the LDS Church and Mormonism, since JPL has insisted that they are separate topics and has likened equating the two to hate mongering, part of their ongoing pattern of being completely unable to edit those topics neutrally. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Also, if consensus is for a narrower scope than "all religion" then it should also include Catholicism, broadly construed, as that seems to be John's go-to "whatabout" deflection. And a strict reminder that the community will not look favourably on testing the edges of the ban, so John should steer well clear of these topics. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Avoiding areas that this user has such strong feelings about(religion) may remove the trigger for their problematic behavior. It may be the best way to keep an otherwise good editor. If topic ban is violated or the same behavior is exhibited in other areas then a long term site ban may be needed in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unconditional support. This is as much or more a problem area for him as biographical articles as he is unable to edit in areas of Catholicism or Mormonism with an NPOV. Also, this was my original request before it spiralled. Star Mississippi 13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per Star's original report. "Religion" is a better scope than "LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism". The latter is too many enumerations, better to keep it simple. Levivich 14:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also support a narrower TBAN covering "Judeo-Christianity" or just "Christianity", either of which would cover LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism (which, as I understand it, are the three relevant areas). Levivich 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that too, it's a sensible limitation of scope. If the disruption is centered around three specific branches of Christianity, it doesn't seem plausible that it's going to suddenly branch out to Jainism or Zoroastrianism. If it does we can revisit. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, I think "Christianity" and especially these three concepts is ideal as a scope, broadly construed. The only reason I said "Judeo-Christianity" and not just "Christianity" is that there are some folks who do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion [24]. (It's complicated). Suffice it to say, a lot of Christians don't believe Mormons count: Basically a few Evangelical traditions, but also the American Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian conferences. And Mormons have actually said they consider themselves as close to Judaism as to Evangelicals. Even Evangelicals would admit that Mormonism falls within the bounds of "Judeo-Christianity" as a religion which believes the Bible to be a holy text, believes in the divinity of Christ, etc. Even if they don't consider them formal "Christians." And of course, LDS-adherents and basically all Mormons self-identify as Christians [25]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable compromise. --ARoseWolf 20:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's actually not that hard to explain. New

scriptures equals new religion. c.f. [26] for one take on it. Jclemens (talk

) 18:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per all above discussion. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism, which seem to be the problem areas.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for LDS topics, broadly construed. lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a long overdue religion TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as more workable than overlapping smaller bans in the problem areas of Mormonism, Catholicism, and Religion in America. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity, to exclude islam, buddhism, sikhism, taoism, etc. But including Catholicism, Protestantism, and topics relevant to the LDS church and the broader topic of Mormonism. Support a broad TBAN against all religious topics, as a close second. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be the main problem area for this user, and it would make sense to have a TBAN to prevent further disruption/timesinks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unworkable. "Religion" is far too broad and amorphous. TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv, what would you have the community do instead? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Outline a clearly-defined sanction that everyone in the discussion thinks they would be able to understand and comply with themselves; and that sanction should be as specific as possible to JPL's methods of editing. Your narrowed TBAN suggestion is much better. You could go in a whole different direction and try to restrict the type of conduct that leads to escalation, like 1RR or a "no more than one reply in threaded discussion" kind of thing (but then I don't know enough about JPL specifically to form an appropriate proposal). — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  The issue here is that JPL seems to hold deeply personal beliefs about the LDS Church and Mormonism and isn't able to depersonalize when editing anything close to that topic, and he loses objectivity and can't deescalate whenever someone challenges his POV, which is unfortunately often. Personally I don't see how we can craft a restriction which permits him to continue editing those topics, and per comments on his talk page recently he seems to agree. He's separately under a "one AfD nom per calendar day" restriction (since 2017) and has done well under that (blocked once for violating it, for less than 48 hours) and so I think "he won't understand/comply with the sanction" is an unfair argument. He may be neurodivergent but he's not incompetent. I guess the other side of that coin is that if he can't follow sensible restrictions then he gets site-banned, and I don't think there's really anyone here who wants that. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: if what I communicated with my comments is that I think JPL won't be able to comply with sanctions because of his autism then my several rounds of rephrasing and copyediting my comment were in vain. I did not intend to convey that and I do not believe that. My argument was that clear and well-tailored rules are needed, and I said that I (a neurotypical person) would really struggle with obeying the sanction as currently described. The "one AFD per calendar day" restriction is immediately clear (just the pedantic word "calendar" rules out the only obvious edge case). This TBAN is not at all clear. If the restriction were reframed, say, "any article in any subcategory of Category:Religion" then it would at least be clear (albeit still prohibitively expensive to follow). As framed, I see several major points of contention that are unclarified and would be unsurprised by a quick indefinite block when JPL does something that falls within their understanding of the TBAN's allowances, and maybe even several admin's, but not by the blocking admin. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently framed. I agree with Bilorv. Any restriction on JPL should be so closely tailored that both his and everyone else's understanding of it is the same. He and I recently had a friendly discussion on his TP after he'd expressed puzzlement as to why anyone should mistakenly write 1922 instead of 1933. It might be obvious to you, but it wasn't to him. On the other side of the coin, we do not want his enemies crying "Gotcha!" and dragging him here should he accidentally step over the mark.

  Excess detail will help no-one. I tentatively suggest "Christian religions and people closely associated with those religions". That would solve some problems both of breadth and of over-specificity. It would allow him to edit (especially, to gnome) articles about people which mention their beliefs, but which are not important towards their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Narky Blert, I don't think talking in terms of "his enemies" is warranted here. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Propose another word, if you will. The people I have in mind are the WP:GRAVEDANCERS who infested JPL's UP and TP during his recent block. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, gravedancing troll LTA sockpuppets are not just Johnpacklambert's enemies. They are enemies of all of us and of this encyclopedia, and any such nonsense would gain no traction here at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, I counted two socks on his talk page and one sock on his user page; all, no doubt, the same editor. (That's actually very, very little, considering the exposure this has gotten.) All had CU run on them and if that delivered an "enemy", I'm sure it was blocked. This troll is not the kind of editor who is going to be someone calling "Gotcha" as if they were a real editor. In fact, that thought is so far-fetched that I am wondering how you could seriously think that this was a real opportunity. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support but I don't mind a Christian tweak. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity (or just Christianity) My personal view largely matches Ivanvector's. If we're going to exclude JPS from LDS which he's passionate about, I'm not sure a general Religion ban would be much more onerous. Yes the trap potential is there, per religion still permeating so widely. But I agree with Ivanvector about JPS's competence, and (mostly) his assessment that the community is too decent to punish JPS for the inevitable minor violations. That said, RW, Shibbolethink etc strike me as insiteful editors - perhaps they are right that a more focussed Tban is for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support either all religions or the more specific Judeo-Christianity area. For some reason or another, their editing in this area is disruptive, and well this seems like a good attempt at preventing that disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support narrowed to Judeo-Christianity per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's clear that this is a problem area for JPL. I don't want to see JPL re-indeffed, this seems a good compromise. -- Mike 🗩 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support a topic-ban narrowed to Judeo-Christianity, but... I guess my query is whether articles like this one (about someone who taught at a Jewish Community Centre) or this one (about someone who wrote about Secularization in Multi-Religious Societies), or this one (about someone "prominent in her efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church in China") would be caught up in either version of the topic ban? JPL has made largely innocuous edits to each since being unblocked (in an effort to establish he can be productive). But his typical editing pattern seems to consist of rapid-fire categorisation until he stops to read something, stays to fix it a bit, and then moves on. I have to query the value of sanctions that force a substantive change to JPL's editing pattern so that he can diligently assess each and every article for indications that it might covered by his broadly construed TBAN. Why not just let him focus on the one category he is currently interested in for a while? (I did advocate for expansion to 4-5 specific-year categories on his talk page). St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Surely the answer is to be found in what part religion plays in the person's notability. I haven't looked in detail, but the third example above (Audrey Donnithorne) self-evidently would fall under the ban based purely on the quote given from the article's lead ~ anyone whose notability depends on efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church would naturally fall under such a ban. As for changing editing patterns, aren't we all supposed to be diligent in assessing our edits? What difference if JPL needs to assess them with regard to a ban? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but I suppose that's easier for those of use who wouldn't be subject to sanctions for making a mistake. If I include a factual error I can go back and rectify it. I can re-write the same paragraph 17 times before being happy with it. And I can drive-by tag a bunch of articles regardless of what they are about (and then go back and fix my mistake if I make an error). But I recently clarified that even talking about the subjects covered by a topic ban, with admins, to rectify damage done by someone else, was considered a breach. So I imagine all of those articles could be interpreted as being covered by the ban. I just think it will inevitably lead to dozens of editors watching JPL's edits and at the first mistake, we'll be back here again (again!). This is supposed to be about getting everyone back to productive editing, including JPL. I'm not sure this proposal will achieve that, but there seems to be support for it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This was my biggest concern going forward. JPL's disruptive editing, thus far, took place in the natural course of conversation. It's not like he was trolling along looking for ways to be disruptive. He allowed his emotions to get the better of him during conversations and in his editing. Such a broad topic ban is basically a delayed site ban. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. We are asking a human being to never make a single mistake in editing or discussing anything related to one of the most broadest subjects on Wikipedia. And with it we are inviting other editors to watch him for the slightest mistake so they can drag him back here for more punishment. To this point, it has been a legitimate reaction to a disruptive editor. This ban, as it was worded, doesn't just cover obvious subjects but also subjects at the very edge of the periphery. He could literally be in violation for discussing the birth or death date of an individual that attended a religious institution, even if their focus was not religion and they didn't pursue that in life, and even if the institution doesn't clearly define itself as religious. Baylor University is a private university in Texas. It is operated by the Baptist church. According to this broadly construed ban he can't even discuss anyone that attended that university. Nothing in Baylor's name indicates they are a religious institution. This is what Bilrov is talking about when they say that JPL and the community needs to know what the details are of such a ban. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be overly broadly interpreting the

WP:TOPICBAN scope. It would cover any edits about those persons where the edit was related to their involvement in religion. But not in mundane facts about their life. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". (emphasis mine) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You've emphasised the wrong bit: the point is all pages ... broadly related to the topic, so that edits that are not about religion can fall afoul of the ban. Any of the three pages (in their entirety) given by Stalwart11 could fall under the TBAN, or not do so (except that the third is pretty blatantly under it), depending on which admin makes the decision—and crucially, JPL is not permitted to discuss whether any of the three articles fall under it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe they are allowed to ask for clarification on their TBAN? Of the Admin in question? If it's a super complex case I think it's supposed to come back here, but I think if it's relatively simple the implementing admin is supposed to be able to assist with that. Am I wrong about that? It's been my experience with other people's TBANs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in this case (and many others) the admin in question would simply be implementing the will of the community. While holding a mop comes with more responsibility, I don't (personally) believe that should extend to constantly re-adjudicating the original context of a ban to determine scope on a case-by-case basis. If it's too complex for an admin (or the community) to agree on its application (as indeed those three random examples suggest it might) then we should probably default to the proposal suggested by JPL himself (and provisionally accepted by the unblocking admin). In the end, JPL's conduct will determine if he can return to unrestricted editing (regardless of the scope of any ban). I don't see the value in making this more complicated that it needs to be, whereas I see merit in his choosing the length of his own

WP:ROPE. St★lwart¹¹¹

01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support either full religious ban or narrowed Judeo-Christian one. Should help JPL and the community in avoiding further conflict. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support At a minimum a full religious topic ban (although I will again say this is hardly the limit of JPL's disruptiveness). The idea that a ban limited to judeo-christian specifically would actually be worthwhile is just setting up for wiki-lawyering later on. Its laughable the idea that given the chance JPL will be productive/not distruptive about religions that are not Judeo-Christian. When JPL holds, by any standard, views that are extremist both about their own and other religions. I am pretty confident that the Buddhists wont want him touching their articles either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe discussing the merits of the personal views of another editor are where we want to go as a community. Discussing edits is one thing, attacking personal views is another entirely. --ARoseWolf 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Buddhists owned any articles on Wikipedia, or that anyone did... or that we make decisions based on what we assume members of a group believe about articles of particular interest to them.

talk

) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Has the user in question showed any disruptive behavior in articles or on talk pages related to these other religions? if not, I don't think we should go around pre-emptively TBANning people based on what we suspect may become an issue. In the absence of evidence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I had asked you a similar question in a comment but rescinded it after seeing you post this question. It is a valid question and I asked for diffs earlier in the conversation because I cant find where he may have been disruptive on article related to other religions except LDS/Mormonism and Catholicism. Maybe someone will provide them. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is John's questioning of the (if I recall correctly) non-policy-but-precedence-set blanket notability of bishops of Catholic and Protestant (exclusive of LDS, and we won't get into its classification here) faiths. He works on and sometimes nominates such articles for deletion when they basically serve as little more than a Wikipedia-as-directory listing when they are unsourced or poorly sourced. That is generally met with significant pushback. For what it's worth (nothing, really), I agree with him on the need for a real standard on this issue and appreciate his more critical thought on the issue. But that's one example of behavior that some would consider disruptive.

talk

) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Questioning something is considered disruptive? I've questioned lots of things on Wikipedia. Surely it must have been the way he questioned it, like did he make disparaging remarks, and not the questioning itself. But isn't he already limited in AfD nominations? --ARoseWolf 19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this is easier to show than tell. See the recent

talk • contribs

) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DR. I really hope no one thinks that AfD was disruptive because I have about a million more that would be considered uncivil if that was disruptive. It appeared to me to be a back and forth discussion. Should we really be punishing editors for nominating at AfD when it is policy based, even if we believe faulty application of policy is involved? I'm sure there are better examples of disruption and incivility is intolerable but I don't see an example of either in that particular nomination. I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every bishop ever known to the Catholic church. At the same time, I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every chief of the Cherokee people either, so long as he thought he was going by policy and provided said policy as he understood it. I digress, it is only one example. I'm sure there are other examples that are actually disruptive. --ARoseWolf 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't. I was the one who suggested it be closed per

WP:SNOW and I did so because at the time we were dealing with another AFD at DRV which had to be overturned because of JPL's conduct. I thought it easier to rule a line under (or through, as it were) JPL's conduct that week and move on. But nothing about that particular AFD struck me as disruptive. St★lwart¹¹¹

01:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, my perception is that Johnpacklambert is consistently inclusionist about LDS Church officials and consistently deletionist about the officials of other churches. A long pattern of that is disruptive in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment, @Cullen328, from my perusing of his past conflicts as shown in his talk page history. That's part of why I think the TBAN should cover all judeo-christianity, but probably doesn't need to extend to non-abrahamic religions, and probably not even to Islam. But I think it probably should cover protestant christian denominations as well as catholicism and mormonism. And probably also cover judaism as there are many ways in which LDS doctrine associates itself with the early church (e.g. gnostics) and jewish history. See: Judaism and Mormonism. Compare this to Islam and Mormonism. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an entire TBAN on abrahamic religions, but I would prefer as narrow a scope as possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume this is Cullen and I apologize if it is not. I appreciate your perspective. Mine is different. If we decided that someone was disruptive just because they had "inclusionist" views on one topic and "deletionist" views on another (honestly, I'm not even sure why we still use those terms) there wouldn't be very many editors left at Wikipedia. It is just an AfD. One of the first lessons I learned about Wikipedia is if my favorite subject has to have an article on Wikipedia in order for me to feel legitimized, and I really hope JPL is looking at this because it applies to him too, then maybe I need to evaluate why I am here. I love articles on American Indians because that's my heritage. I remember being caught up in AfD's over about twenty articles on the Sioux people. I vigorously fought for those articles and we saved some and lost others. There was so much incivility thrown around that I realized it wasn't even worth it. The assumption that certain editors were here for dubious reasons and just being disruptive by nominating something they felt didn't belong felt so wrong to sit through and entertain. If I have to fight that hard then why am I here? You can nominate every article I care about and I'm still going to be who I am and I am still going to be here and I promise you that I will not view the nominators as disruptive just for that reason. Incivility and edit warring and socking are a different topic altogether but that isn't even being discussed at this point. Maybe it should, I don't know. I will never agree that a person's view and actions based on policy, even if misguided, is solely defined as disruptive. I'm yielding the conversation because I feel I have said enough and others opinions matter too. I was just responding to yours specifically. --ARoseWolf 21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to sign that comment and thank the bot who signed for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Beep boop. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARW, I think the question is "what solution can we find that prevents JPL from being his own worst enemy, and that also protects Wikipedia in the most comprehensive way." Questions about JPLs motivations can help us get there, but I don't find them very convincing. No one truly knows what evils lay in the hearts of men. (or what angels). I very much do not like hypothesizing about the minds of others. I just want us to look at his past disruptions, figure out what pattern there is, and prescribe a solution which prevents those from recurring in the most targeted way possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a full ban from all religion topics, indefinitely, with no appeals to be considered for a period of not less than two years from TBAN start. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reaffirming my earlier comment. A TBAN on "religion" would be too broad. It would, for example, preclude removal of the deprecated |religion= field from {{infobox}}es. From what I know of JPL, he would need a precise definition to enable him easily to distinguish between allowed and forbidden areas, and "religion" does not do that. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Since religious topics have been JPL's problem area, removing him from these topics gives him the best chance of continuing to contribute. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that after an indefinite period proving his ability to improve articles in the non-religion space that he be allowed to return. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This would be a stronger proposal if it included diffs to problematic edits, or links to prior places such diffs were presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a close

I think this has gotten to the point where it's pretty clear the result. I might be biased but I think we need a

I agree. It often seems that the length of time a discussion runs is inversely proportional to the obviousness of the result.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think a close now would be best. If it helps, I support whatever brand of religious TBAN the closer determines best matches the consensus here. Constructions as narrow as just LDS/Mormonism to as broad as my proposal are all fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for a close--and in the light. I hope the administrator(s) involved in the closing will post a clear overview of constraints for John and for all.

talk

) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I thought we didn't do RfC/User anymore. Well what it this then. It's the job of the admin corps to decide whether to block or unblock. The admin corps has IRC or whatever people use now, let them discuss it. There's a reason we don't do RfC/User anymore. Oof people complain about how stressful an RfA is, this is so much worse. FWIW I support letting the guy edit. The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, but come on -- it's a website -- probably ephemeral -- and hobby. Balance that versus the life human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here and contributing here is helping that a lot. Be kind. Even ExxonMobile allows for individual cases when a person has a condition. Should we be meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile.

I set up this fellow with the idea of doing a positive pledge (random narrow place to edit) as this is much easier to follow, and for other people to check, than a ban on certain topic areas. (I suggested (at random) working only in Category:Calabar which needs much expansion, but the guy chose 1921 births instead, and fine,

I'd like to see if "Restriction to only topic Y" could be a better approach than "Ban from topic Z", for difficult issues where the editor's career is on the knife-edge. I think it might be easier for the editor to stay IN someplace rather than OUT of an attractive place [for a probationary period might last even a year say]. At least it's new idea (I think) so let's try this test case and see.

I'll be spot-checking and if he edits outside 1921 births [for several months anyway and with eplicit permission], then that has to be the end and he knows that. If it happens, the Wikipedia will survive. Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons RFC/U was abolished, was due to the pile on effect. I remember, as years ago, I had an RFC/U done on me. It was like trying to climb out of a hole, with the sand falling in each time you tried. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's news to me. Can you give me a link to the change in ANI policy? I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure... Also importantly, I'm not asking for a close in the RfC sense. I'm asking for a close because the community wants to know what's gonna happen here. Is that what is meant by an RfC/user? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure...". Well now you are, cos I'm telling you. It's the ANI board, not the "let's have a bunch of rando editors kick some hapless mook around" board. The admins allows non-admins that aren't party to a situation to chime in. They don't have to, but it's worthwhile more often than it's not, so they do. But here, it's not helpful.