User talk:James J. Lambden

WP:ARBAP2 Election Dashboard

Data collation of election-related sanctions →

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 15:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

Apropos that proposed VP article edit

See https://www.wikileaks.org/DKIM-Verification.html - FYI.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: Good to know, thanks. So far I only see it reported in the inquisitr (non-RS.) I'll keep an eye out. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017 update

In March 2017, I'll be able to update the table that you put up at AE. I've taken the liberty of copying it into a text file until that time and have added lines for several other users who dared be non-negative concerning a candidate other than HRH. (Some of these were effected without any discussion at AE). Ah, "Neutrality"... ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I've tweaked and expanded it with entries from the DS log (above.) Illuminating. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, James J. Lambden. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

May I use your table/findings for my appeal?

Would you mind if I cited your findings and data in my appeal? This all confirms exactly what I've been saying all along, but don't seem to be getting anywhere. I have been repeatedly accused of "POV" and asserting my "political views," when neither took place. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: Not at all. I hope it's helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:James_J._Lambden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the Milo Yiannopoulos WP article

Hello, Mr. Lambden! There is once again a discussion concerning Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos background. Could you help out? Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Thank you! Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is RudiLefkowitz. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Milo

This is a heads up, you may want to self-revert your revert at that page. The consensus at Talk:Breitbart News is very clear, and it's that the outlet is far right. The edit you undid was, itself a late revert of this edit, which added several sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. From the edit summary I assumed it was new content. I based my revert on a reading of the talk page discussion re: alt-right, correctly assuming that was concensus but failing to assume it was also consensus to define alt-right as a subset of far-right. It's strange to define a thing that in its name is an "alternative" to another thing, as also a subset of that other thing. Maybe a meaningless distinction because philosophically the term is too broad to be meaningful – I will define a new class of vehicle called "sports vans" to include Ferraris and Chrysler minivans. Then I will tell you "I only drive sports vans." Informative. Regardless, it's been reverted so no further action needed. James J. Lambden (talk)

Talk page discussion

There is a discussion going on about an edit that you reverted [1]. If you look at my edit I said I that I am opening a talk page discussion [2], which is now taking place. I notice that you did not offer an opinion on the talk page, and reverted without participating in the discussion here. I request that you self revert, and participate in the discussion. Let consensus determine whether or not it is restored. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I had read the talk page discussion but had nothing to add beyond what The Four Deuces and Guccisamsclub already expressed. I chose not to clutter the discussion with a "+1" for the sake of commenting. I do have thoughts on the inclusion of Binney and McGovern's comments on Clapper and will comment in that section when they're fully formulated. Note that I did not restore that particular text.

Your request – that I reinstate challenged edits until discussion concludes – is contrary to the "active arbitration remedies" warning on the article's talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you did not restore that particular text. But you are saying "active arbitration remedies" support your restoring the reference. Well, we will see how the discussion turns out for that reference. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference

Was this comment [3] a reply to my comment or Specifico? I was a little confused since I was agreeing with you. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It was in reply to Specifico. I was amazed he/she would make such a demonstrably incorrect claim. I can see how my comment could be misinterpreted; I've edited it to clarify. Sorry about that. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about them as well. Getting almost disruptive. Thanks for the reply, take care!PackMecEng (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

SPLC

Your blind reverting on SPLC, an article you have never edited before, constitutes WP:STALKING and possibly WP:HARASSMENT. Please stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you just broke 3RR on the article too, though I guess the fourth one could be "an accident" due to an edit conflict.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(a) It wasn't a "blind" revert as I preserved some of your edits. (b) You're mistaken, I have edited the article before. (c) There is no 3RR violation but if you believe there is feel free to report it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now you just broke the 3RR for sure. Please self revert.

And if you've ever edited the thing, it's been a long time, so obviously the only reason you came there is to make revenge reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 5 Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong about 3RR. If you want to count my restoration of a ref for content I had restored but neglected the ref, and subsequent correction of that restoration (I restored text that was not part of the ref) as separate edits you're welcome to but I doubt others will. There is no if about whether I've edited, all articles have version histories. When I see significant removals on my watchlist I investigate. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That still leaves four reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

5 - 2 does not equal 4, as far as I'm aware. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Challenging a close

Per Closing discussions, you can challenge at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.Casprings (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait for more feedback on whether a challenge is appropriate in this case. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your sandbox

You may want to log the sanction against me and the warning against User:SPECIFICO in your sandbox. You can find the relevant info here. Note that I have recently successfully appealed my sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Your sanction was recorded in the Noticeboards / Other section. I can't see where the warning against SPECIFICO or your successful appeal (congratulations) would fit with the current format. I intended this page/table to be a collaborative, definitive record which I was surprised to find did not already exist. But the format is not optimal and coverage incomplete. I will work on improving the former which I hope will encourage the latter. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

more stalking

This is yet another article that you have never edited until now, that you show up to revert me and attempt to amplify the dispute.

Stop. Stalking. My. Edit.

This is outright WP:HARASSMENT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Another nonsensical accusation. Considering the number of edits I have make to articles on politics and immigration it is not surprising that I might edit Illegal immigration to the United States, one of the primary articles in that area. Note that I posted reasonably detailed arguments for my edits which neither you nor Wishes rebutted before reverting. This is the greater problem as I see it.

While your blame is misdirected there are steps to address your complaint:

1. Based on my random sampling you have edited the majority of significant and controversial political articles, making it difficult for any editor in those topics to avoid overlap. What you see as conspiracy is probability. You can minimize overlap by reducing the number of controversial and political articles you edit, a number in the hundreds by my estimate
2. You have a tendency to make broad and controversial edits without discussion, viewing discussion as a burdensome formality rather than a tool to establish agreement. It is not surprising that such edits would face resistance and often reversion. The solution is to discuss and establish consensus prior and/or make incremental and uncontroversial improvements

Judging by noticeboard complaints either by you or against you I am struck by the number of editors with whom you've had conflict. This suggests a problem. A possible but unlikely cause is that a significant portion of editors have conspired against you. A more probable cause is your approach to editing.

To address what I can: repeated and unjustified accusations do not help the editing process and what should be a collaborative environment. If they continue I will be forced to ban you from this page. Take care to ensure further complaints are well-supported. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing editor's comments

Hi James J. Lambden. Per WP:TPO, please do not remove other editors comments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG article talk pages are for discussion of article improvement. Your comment was unrelated to article improvement. Please don't worsen an already difficult environment. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

P4 is correct. Do not mess with other editor comments. The only exception is when there is a clear WP:PA. But the "as you claim" remark was not PA. If you think there is a personal attack, ping me and I'll look at it. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The comment I removed was: At this point, it may be necessary to take this to ANI. James J. Lambden is no stranger to performing in this manner. I believed off-topic comments could be removed or collapsed. Apparently that is not the case. Noted and thank you for the offer. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a note - I closed the ANI. Please do not alter other talk page comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Understood. Thanks for the close and your comments. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the status of Breitbart News

Hi James, hope you are well. I noticed your participation on a recent RfC on Breitbart News, and thought I might run this by you. Feel free to ignore if it doesn't interest you, of course. It seems that Breitbart has established a recent trend of fact-checking other widely read news outlets that are considered more reliable than Breitbart (on Wikipedia, at least). Breitbart has fact-checked the New York Times, Associated Press, and CNN, which subsequently led to retractions and/or corrections from all of these outlets (read here). Is Breitbart still not considered a reliable source for citations, here? The NYT and AP (and many other outlets) have been falsely reporting for months that "17 intelligence agencies" arrived at the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton, and only issued their corrections recently. However, several of Breitbart's controversies are listed in its main article, whereas they are absent from the articles of other outlets that have experienced similar (and arguably worse) journalistic missteps, i.e. CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. Maybe you could direct me to any existing discussions regarding this issue or point me in the right direction to begin the process of upgrading Breitbart's status? I can't find any remotely-recent "falsehoods" or "conspiracy theories" coming from this outlet, so it seems its article and reliability status may be out of date. Thanks! Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll review the recent comments. Mainstream sources are more likely to criticize Breitbart than each other. As a consequence of policy this means our Breitbart article is more likely to include criticism. As an example: few weeks ago in the Murder of Seth Rich article an argument was made to include an allegation made in a Washington Post article that Kim Dotcom tried to "hack" the Rich family. The main proof of this was a "Welcome Email" sent from Mega to Rich's account. The allegation fell apart under minimal scrutiny but I didn't see criticism of the article or allegation in major publications. It is unfortunate that as the quality of journalism declines so to must the quality of our articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: A week has passed since I promised to review the recent comments; I apologize for not having done so. I will make time later today or tomorrow. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it's just something that I noticed that probably could use some attention. On a related note, would I be able to email you? I didn't see the link on your user page, but I believe you should be able to shoot me an email also, whenever you have time. I wanted to send you a link with a comment regarding this, but find it easier to speak privately than on Wikipedia. Someone always seems to be lurking around praying that I say or do something that they can use to get rid of me. Not sure how all that works, but feel free to use a spam/throwaway email address if you have one. Thanks again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hounding and harassment

You've been stalking various users for quite some time now. In my opinion the only reason you haven't been blocked or banned is because editors don't have the time to waste on documenting your behavior. Going to AE is risky business. I suggest you withdraw your AE "complaint" and withdraw from American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the message you wrote before hitting submit? Have you reread it now? Step back and imagine a movie where an anonymous note is pinned to a character's front door:

Going to the police is risky business. I suggest you withdraw your complaint and leave the neighborhood.

Do the good guys or bad guys leave that note? I don't know you well enough to know whether you began as one of the "good guys" but I give you the benefit of the doubt and encourage you to reflect on the circumstances and decisions that led you to this point. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just one of the "POV guys", waste your time at your own peril. Arkon (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

I'm not sure why you blanked the discussion with comment "odd", rather than addressing questions. How is it an issue that an editor at Stephen Miller (political advisor) is uninvolved? How is The Economist reference poorly-sourced? And how can anyone possibly claim that Fox News is undoubtedly RS given they are fringe media, involved in numerous bizarre conspiracy theories, and don't seem to meet criteria laid out at WP:RS? Nfitz (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fox News, like Huffington Post. can be used as WP:RS if proper care is used, following guidance in WP:BIASED. loupgarous (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV proposal

Is there anything objectionable about my current proposal as it's written? If so, please don't hesitate to tell me. But regarding your counterproposal, what kind of labels would you consider to be contentious enough to apply to this rule? Some that I have in mind are: Anything related to racial supremacy, alt-right, or anything related to nationalism; racial or otherwise. Any more ideas? THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 00:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: I had thought about this previously and put down those thoughts in my comment. I will re-read your proposal critically. Regarding the list, that's a good start. I would definitely exclude objective terms like "terrorist" which are legal or at least official designations. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Molyneux

Please expand the views section of Molyneux when it comes to Race / 'Decline of the West' or whatever you want to call it. You can't deny it's not a major topic of his for the past couple of months. I am not biased against him, but believe those rather 'controversial' views of his are barely mentioned and should be.Wadaad (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wadaad: I don't know enough about the subject to be for or against him. My only concern is that all edits are properly sourced whether favorable or unfavorable. Please read WP:IRS carefully. In the meantime I will review the recent edits and talk page comments. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

For stopping fake news

	MAGA
	You are real news and I appreciate what you do Clown town (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Sean Hannity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Kindly self-undo

You are liable to get yourself blocked at Sean Hannity. Your BLP argument is vacuous and you can see that there's no support for your POV. This is in lieu of the edit-war template. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO: I have raised defensible points regarding the inadequacy of pinknews and a book published by an assistant (entry-level) professor as sources in a BLP. Your response is derogatory and threatening while addressing none of my points. Participate in the discussion on the article talk page as required by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Marek isn't editing in good faith

His old account was Radeksz. He was caught by Arbcom in the WP:EEML case where he and others (including an administrator) coordinated edits on a mailinglist to control the content of articles, to game 3RR and to get other editors banned.

Their focus was anti-Russian editing and everything described in that case is being repeated in his (and others') Russia related edits. An archive of the mailinglist and excerpts are here: offsite coordination 5.157.7.59 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)