Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is not even a hint of a consensus that there is even a problem to be resolved here, and no voluntary agreement was arrived at. I note that other than the certifiers themselves nobody endorsed any statements by them. The only statements to gain any level of significant support were those critical of the filing parties and this process. This apparently should have been dealt with at some lower level as the problems do not appear to be of sufficient concern to the community at large to have warranted this process. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the dispute

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnpacklambert is very active in Category-space, at CfDs, and adding or removing categories from pages. Too active, IMO, and active to the point of OWNership. Among CfD discussions that began in November, JPL has 848 edits; on three of those pages, he thrice made 60 edits or more on a single day's worth of CfDs. This translates to voting in almost every CfD for the month (a practice that's frowned upon), and commenting in many CfDs ten or more times, often to continually reiterate the same point or badger people who disagree with him. A large portion of CfDs are either ones he himself has nominated or ones of pages he himself has created. Meanwhile, he adds or removes categories at a very fast clip; often 20 or 30 more in an hour. Many of these changes are somewhat controversial. He has edit-warred numerous times over categories, and also added or removed categories when that category was in the middle of a CfD (oftentimes, a CfD that wasn't going quite the way he wanted). His talk page is filled with comments imploring him to stop doing what he's doing vis-a-vis categories or reconsider his position; yet he has failed to ameliorate his behavior, and sometimes even to acknowledge their concerns, choosing instead to proclaim how right he is and to accuse his detractors of being "rude" or "combative", then claiming their signatures are "annoying". However, he is quick to comment on talk pages or user talk pages when someone does something that he doesn't approve of. Also troubling is that Xvon, a new user who shares JPL's point-of-view, essentially asked JPL for permission to edit war to place certain categories, and JPL responded with an answer that wasn't a flat-out no.

A final point of concern is that he doesn't add a lot of content, apart from categories, to articles. When he does create articles, they are often unreferenced (see edit filter log, below).

Please note that this is not in response to any one CfD discussion or any one series of category adds or deletes. This is more of a "lifetime achievement" RfC/U

Desired outcome

Johnpacklambert dials it down in the category department, making fewer edits in Category space, at CfDs, and adding or removing categories

Because he is making fewer edits, he considers each edit more carefully.

JPL focuses his efforts in other directions than categories.

Evidence of disputed behavior

89 edits on just a single day at CfD
66 on another day at CfD
60 on another day at CfD
edit-warring at Dragging Canoe
Contribution log in Wikipedia-space in late October and November; you'll see in roughly five weeks, there are 1000 contributions to Wikipedia-space; over 900 of which are at WP:CfD
JPL's edit filter log

Attempts to resolve the dispute

By Purplebackpack89

By others

Relevant policies

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

(Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.)

Response

I am trying to figure out the best way to respond. I have tried to make logical nominations in CfDs. At times it was stated that what I had said in a CfD to that point did not actually defend my position so I made a comment pointed towards more action. The fact of the matter is that the biggest motivation behind my editing of categories has been that a very large number of categories have been placed on articles without in-text support. On multiple occasions it has been shown that my postion is the correct one, that if a category is not supported by the text it should be removed. I really do not think the complaints here are well grounded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rates of categorization are not excessive. Considering how many articles mention what year the thing was established and are not categorized, I really see nothing wrong with categorizing these articles, and it is possible to do quite a few in an hour.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about "adding or removing pages to articles at CfDs when it is not going my way" is plain false. The only thing that might be close to that is the Tennessee colonial people category. The removal of people from that category had no relevance to the naming of the category or its merger with another category, they were not related at all. The other possible place might be Category:American people of African-American descent. However that category involved people massivly removing articles before they ever nominated it at CfD, apparently in an attempt to do an out-of-process deletion. As a general practive that claim is just plain false.

On many other articles I have added education categories to them. No one has ever complained about this, but the person here has decided to just ignore this large section of my contributions.

There is no reason to have year establishment categories for places that did not exist in the year involved. To call it brash to call to end having a category for a place that did not exist in the year in question just seems odd.

The claim that I create unreferenced articles is false. The filter log identifies an article as such, but the article has a reference on it. Other articles I have created have recently been through AfD, and three survived. The fourth that didn't was also referenced but people decided the person was not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems to have become a point of contention, I will also link to Category:1903 establishments in Turkey and especially the CfD page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by Ephebi

Unfortunately it seems JPL seems unaware of the mischief he makes with his approach to editing. His edit history shows an avoidance of editing of articles (other than re-categorisation) which makes me wonder about his motives, and his sensitivities towards genuine editors who take trouble and care over the way they develop subjects they are interested and knowledgeable about. His prolific edits to the CfD area frequently is little else than repeating the same points, and comes across as hostile and blind to other POVs. Unfortunately JPL appears unaware or unwilling to carefully consider or prepare for the proposals he submits. This is demonstrated by his ubiquitous comments - does he really know enough to have an opinion everything? - and the rash of proposals eminating from him. This is illustrated by the blunderbuss approach he has taken to reorganising 'By year establishments in Foo', for which he has submitting half a dozen batches of proposals between [Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 13 13] and [Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 17 17] December. During this period I his approach was obfuscating and aggressive - where people !vote he was instead littering proposals with his own comments and replying dismissively to each dissenting comment. I tried contacting him privately and politely about this but he ignored me. Also that by using the blunderbuss approach, some proposals would overwhelm and sneak through under the radar before being reviewed.

The proposal here caused me concern. I was pleased to see some new participants in the discussion, and was pleased to discover that he had at long last contacted the appropriate WP project for participation. However, he did not paste up a neutral CfD notice, instead he couched it in terms of "muslim state" - so that people that would come to the CfD would be primed and WP:STACK'ed to think the issue at hand was an India-Pakistan partition issue.

I would like to see JPL spend more time developing editing on article pages, getting better with planning and preparation and developing his own research skills, and less time at CfD. I would hope that this could also cool down the heated atmosphere at CfD - very few people have the hard skin to stick around long there.

Users who endorse this summary

Addendum to statement of dispute

Since this RfC/U began, Johnpacklambert has continued to engage in controversial activities. Only a few weeks after Category:American actresses was deleted, JPL recreated it without the need for consensus, populated it against consensus, questioned the need for a DRV. This is further proof of the detriment of JPL's actions in category-space p b p 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just plan rubbish. There was a CfD that closed to keep for Category:Actresses by nationality. No one has yet explained how American actresses is exempt from that decision. No one has even tried to explain the exemption. A look at the current discussion on Category:American actresses will show that most people agree with what I had done. The attempt to force the irregular closing of that category on us makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum No. 2

In the past few days, the user in question has repeatedly been warned on the use of edit summaries in CfD, adding further to the already-long list of problematic behavior in CfD- and Category-space p b p 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I approached JPL and suggested he use edit summaries for his CfD edits, and GO concurred. Within hours, JPL started adding edit summaries and correctly noted that he is one of many editors at CfD who hadn't been regularly using edit summaries. This is hardly an example of "problematic behavior in CfD- and Category-space". Alansohn (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked over the conversation on JPL's talk page, and this seems like an example of good behavior on the part of JPL. Someone approaches him with a problem, he responds with something along the lines of Oh, sorry, I didn't know that was a problem, and then he fixes the problem. End of story. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the response I mentioned below from JPL after my initial interaction with him. He successfully made a behavioral change as requested.

Unfortunately, #Addendum No. 2 reinforces my concerns about PBP continuing to WP:HOUND editors. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Benkenobi18

I'm going to cite WP:Boomerang here. User PBP, as you can see from JPL's user page, has been extremely hostile, aggressive and altogether uncivil in his dealings with JPL, and with others in the category section. I have worked with JPL over the last 6 months or so, and while people might disagree with his way of doing things, JPL has never failed to be polite and respectful of differing opinions. This RFC/U is better used to assess PBP and his interactions with the community rather than JPL. Also, doing this over Christmas? Really, PBP? It couldn't wait till the new year, or did you hope that by doing this now, nobody would step in to speak up for JPL? Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it." Also, note that this is an RfCU of JPL, not me; comments directed toward me are inappropriate p b p 02:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a.) rfc is a consensual discussion, and b.) in my experience, oppose sections are not uncommon practice. YMMV, of course. - jc37 10:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I have renamed the section from "Users who do not endorse this summary" to "Statement by Benkenobi18". Hopefully this resolves the concern. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by jc37

Without getting into the questions of assessing particular edits, I just wanted to note that being active in a particular process is not in and of itself a bad thing. And I can think of others who have plenty of edits in various processes. So "edit counting" is just a bad idea.

Oh and the #Desired outcome is not only unenforceable, but the presumption that: Because he is making fewer edits, he considers each edit more carefully. - rather suggests a lack of understanding concerning the editing of a page. - jc37 09:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qetuth (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Lockley (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddst1

I stumbled upon PBP and JPL in mid-December as an uninvolved administrator when they were in an all-out feud with each other.

Based upon the actions of PBP with respect to JPL, I quickly became concerned about the emotional maturity of PBP and whether he or she could effectively edit since he or she seemed unable to move beyond the grudge he or she was holding against JPL. In that interaction, I referred to a draft of this RFC/U as "lame" since the #Desired outcome is unenforceable. PBP's hostility towards JPL seemed focused and I can't tell that it has diminished.

I had similar concerns about JPL's behavior but upon my suggestion, he moved beyond the feud these two were engaging as far as I could tell and those concerns have not resurfaced. My comments to JPL seem a bit heavy handed in retrospect.

As far as how much JPL edits categories, he seems to enjoy categorization, almost to an obsession. I'm sure that doing so isn't against policy, but I'll leave it to others to determine that it's disruptive.

Similar to Benkenobi18's comment above#Statement by Benkenobi18 I think PBP's behaviors have to be examined in the context of this RFC/U. A quick perusal of ANI issues related to PBP show many users feeling hounded by PBP and PBP filing similar grievances against other editors. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Oculi (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~Adjwilley (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lockley (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alansohn

I think it's time that Johnpacklambert got a life. A real one. It is ridiculous that he spends so much time on Wikipedia and that he has the unmitigated gall to devote so much time almost exclusively to categories. If only he was the only Wikipedia editor with a problem like this. Every day I see many other editors who seem to devote way too much time to categories, adding, removing and commenting, and JPL is far from the only editor with this "problem". While improving categories offers the benefit of making it easier for readers to find common articles, I see other editors who constantly pop up on my watchlist who seem to only make such non-critical edits as changing angled single quotes to straight up and down ones, or insert extraneous spaces in titles, or remove single quotes from decades (like the "1980's") or have a desperate need to "correct" every use of the term "comprised of". And those are just some of the more egregious examples that I could think of changes that others devote their editing careers to accomplishing, believing their self-chosen task to be God's work, but that I deem to be needlessly trivial.

JPL needs to get a life. I need to get a life. We all need to get a life. We all spend too much time soaking in the brain-distorting waves emanating from our computers and we all need to get outside more. Or we need to fashion properly configured triangular aluminum foil hats that will better protect us from these rays. I'd love to see all editors creating new articles, adding sources, improving articles to featured status and otherwise truly making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I agree that there is way too much time spent in elf-like functions, most of which make Wikipedia either a tiny bit better or rearrange deck chairs (or specks of paint) on the Titanic. But the thought crimes that are charged here are meaningless and the proposed remedies are ludicrously unenforceable. Is JPL to be obligated to make non-category edits or will he be punished for violating the terms of his sentence if his ratio of category to non-category edits exceeds some arbitrary value? Wikipedia justice is already rife with problems and this RfC seems to try to enforce what a tiny number of editors believe should be done, with no discernible equity in how it is applied or as to who is subject to this non-existent policy.

Let's end this and go outside and get some fresh air. Or at least get back to work building an encyclopedia. Nothing will ever be accomplished here. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Statement by Nyttend

Except for the Tennessee colonial people, I really don't understand why any of the evidence statements are considered a problem. A single edit war isn't a big deal by itself, and without other problems, there's no reason to bring this up. Lots of edits to CFD and elsewhere in projectspace are not by themselves a problem. Meanwhile, the edit filter log is good evidence of a problem with the filter, not a problem with JPL. Look at the first four that I checked:

This one has a source that humans can understand; apparently the filter doesn't recognise it.
This one is a malformed disambiguation page, and disambiguation pages shouldn't include references.
This one has a source that humans can understand; apparently the filter doesn't recognise it.
This one has a source that humans can understand; apparently the filter doesn't recognise it.

Meanwhile, the proposed solutions are unenforceably vague. Please just drop the issue and do something else. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Statement by Mangoe

I am also very active in CfDs, and thus encounter Johnpacklambert pretty frequently. And while I might second Alansohn's recommendation about getting ourselves various lives, and while sometimes, well, maybe fairly often I find JPL's approach to this to be pedantic or unreasoningly rationalistic, I haven't encountered behavior that I felt moved to comment on. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.