User talk:James J. Lambden

Notes

WP:ARBAP2 Election Dashboard
Data collation of election-related sanctions →

Editors who have banned me from their talk page
Volunteer Marek

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)

Just curious...

What do you think about this article? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Personally my broad view is that in modern times Russians have always interfered in our elections (for various values of "interference") and journalism has always been unreliable (for various values of "unreliable"). The current situation is better understood as the sum of the actions of individual, selfishly-motivated actors than grand conspiracies. As for predictions I think former NEA chair Bill Ivey has it right. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Per this section at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are now subject to the following restrictions:

• You are banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
• You are banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek for three months. This is subject to the usual exceptions plus you may report violations of this IBAN to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You are counselled to not use the exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations except in the most obvious of obvious cases.
• You are warned to edit collegially.

GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

When you're topic banned, you're expected to stay away from the topic. A ban from Trump is narrower than a ban from all post-1932 politics, but editing articles (or their talk pages) for organisations that are basically organisers of pro-Trump rallies - or where that is disputedly their purpose - is across that line. Take 48 hours off, then find something unrelated to edit for the remainder of the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems we are in the same boat except I reverted a topic banned editor and got a one month topic ban while you were reverted and received a 48 hour block. I guess broadly construed is rather myopic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Since others are wikilawyering the point, for the avoidance of doubt, your topic ban is to be broadly construed. GoldenRing (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

You are still subject to an IBAN with Volunteer Marek. These two edits revert material introduced by VM. Now, the material was introduced months ago and these two edits were part of a larger series, so I'm going to AGF and not take any action on a technical violation. But please go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

My block prevented me from responding to this earlier. Thank you for assuming good faith. I had surveyed the last 100 edits to the article to verify our edits didn't conflict but did not recall the content dispute several months prior. I will try to be more careful in the future. Is there a way to determine whose edits my edits will affect? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see you back

I'm not surprised that Coffee indeffed you on totally groundless suspicions—the guy's losing it, and should have had his admin tools taken away long ago. In fact, I was literally about to confront him on his talk page to say that he doesn't comprehend the meaning of WP:DUCK if he thinks this (no SPI, no elaboration, just a series of diffs in which you and an IP edit completely different pages and never interact or edit the same page) constitutes "DUCK evidence," but decided not to after he put me on "probation" later the same day! Good luck out there!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck to you. It was bewildering. Apparently there is oversighted evidence which I cannot evaluate. I may be wrong but I don't believe Coffee's intent was malicious. There are AP2 admins who express strong political opinions and whose admin actions consistently favor those opinions. There are those who protect disruptive AP2 editors exclusively on one "side" of an issue. As far as I can tell Coffee is neither. He was mistaken, which is less harmful and not unethical. While I am glad that Arbcom has cleared my name the practical implications are negligible. Prior to my block I had concluded that my time here would not be well spent until these more serious problems were addressed. You appear to have reached a similar conclusion. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Alliance for Saving Democracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest you review the article and talk page histories. There's been substantial discussion of the Greenwald BS. It's ad hominem. If you are suspicious of this organization, perhaps you can find some substantive discussion of their work or methods that would more convincingly convey a genuine concern. At any rate, since the premise of your edit-warring is incorrect (that there's been no talk page discussion) I suggest you undo your reinstatement of Greenwald's bizarre smear. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I reviewed the article and talk page histories but could not find consensus for including "neocon warmongers." If you can point me to it I will reevaluate.

The text you object to is:

• Glenn Greenwald reported that advisory council member William Kristol and staffer Jamie Fly have previously cooperated on neoconservative causes

This is sourced and cannot reasonably be considered a "smear" much less a BLP violation as you claimed in your edit summary. "Greenwald garbage" on the other hand is borderline. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope you're sharp enough to know that "Greenwald garbage" is not calling Mr. Greenwald "garbage". His ad hominem denigration of national security professionals in his hatchet-job self-published opinion piece is garbage. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your initial post here implied there was consensus to include "neocon warmongers" and to exclude Greenwald's claim that Kristol and Fly had previously cooperated on neoconservative causes, thus the "premise" of my restoration was "incorrect." If that was your claim please point me to that consensus. If it was not, please restate it clearly. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You first. I can make not hide nor hair of your words. It's clear enough however that I don't advocate labeling folks "warmongers". SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANEW

Isn't the interaction ban between you and Volunteer Marek still in effect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware. The ban, on Nov 15th, was for 3 months. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That was not mentioned in the sanctions logs. I'll add a note there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested Diffs

[4], [5], [6], [7] EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently so. I'm surprised you remember diffs from last year directed to me better than I do. My guess is that "fuck off you creep" stuck in my head more than the request itself. Regardless, thank you and noted. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I honestly didn't remember them, just did a quick search in the talk page history. Prompted by the CAPSLOCK edit summary by VM. But yeah, seems the request was made. Just for the record, I looked because I'm procrastinating on prepping an exam by following the recent changes log and my watchlist... nothing against you or VM. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I am in somewhat of a bind. VM violated the "consensus required" provision of DS with this edit [8]. I believe I have always given editors the opportunity to self-revert before filing a complaint and I would like to in this case, but his request that I not post to his talk page prevents it. What would you suggest? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's already being looked at, and VM is aware of it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Apparently not but I thank you for your effort. To the more important point, I see another editor has reverted the addition so my warning would be pointless. If a similar situation arises where I would prefer, prior to filing a complaint against an editor who has banned me from their talk page, to warn them, how do you suggest I handle it? James J. Lambden (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

James, I don't understand your revert at Trump. Your edit indicates it is back to 3/22, but it doesn't appear so and appears to reinstate a blocked editors edit war. Could you explain? regards, O3000 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The text I reverted was introduced on 3/29 [9]. The text it replaced had been stable for some time; a comparison with any 3/22 version shows it's identical, so your point isn't clear to me. Your restoration of the 3/29 text [10], after it had been challenged, violated DS "consensus required." Yours was one of several edits preceding mine which violated the DS. You should thank the administrator who closed the AE complaint against Zbrnajsem before anyone had a chance to comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what I reverted was, I believe, a triple-DS violation. But yes, I thank NielN. O3000 (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that editor violated the DS and was correctly sanctioned for it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, James J. Lambden. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I had to change my email address. Please resend your email. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: See above. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Data collation

Not sure if you update your "Data collation" at User:James J. Lambden/sandbox anymore, but is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anythingyouwant relevant? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have temporarily abandoned my effort to keep the table current but you are welcome to edit it. It is unfortunate that no centralized block tracker exists. In some cases the only record is an editor's block log. Transparency benefits everyone. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm just now seeing your tracker for the first time. What a highly useful resource. Thank you, JJL. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I will say again that anyone is free to edit it. If you have suggestions for how to maintain it, how best to gather the data, or anything else, I'm receptive. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I just saw your sandbox, it's fascinating. With all due respect to all the work you put into it, I'm having a hard time believing that only "pro-Trump" (gray row) editors are receiving sanctions and "anti-Trump" (white row) editors have been given free reign. Have the incidents which have been selected for inclusion been cherry-picked to show ArbCom and the admin corps in a negative light? Consciously or subconsciously? Because if the underlying data is accurate this has the potential of being a bombshell that could rock Wikipedia to its foundations.– Lionel^(talk) 01:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not been cherry picked. There's a clear trend that right wing POV editors are sanctioned more frequently and more severely than left wing POV editors (in the AmPol topics in the AmPol sense of the words). Take my case for example - I received an immediate indefinite ban from participating in AE because I tried to call out a report as frivolous - note my ban was officially for "casting asperions" even though you see them thrown left and right at that venue. The question is - do right wingers misbehave more frequently and more severely? Or are left wingers given more leniency? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of sysops here are now liberals in the American understanding. We have to reckon with that.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I am less concerned with an administrator's politics than I am with their respect for policy and process. Some administrators see their role as arbiters of content when application of content policy is ambiguous rather than arbiters of behavior when application of content policy is clear. It is not surprising to see those same administrators support the weakening of WP:INVOLVED or expressing strong political opinions. Editors are constrained by WP:RGW but there is apparently no equivalent policy for administrators. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: The pattern is longstanding and familiar to editors involved in political articles so "bombshell" may be exaggerated. But it is possible that perspective is colored and yours is more objective.

My method was to go through the archives page by page. The AE section is likely accurate as there are fewer cases and the outcome is more likely to be recorded within the case. I would suggest picking a date range at random and comparing the AE archives for that range to my table. With Noticeboards / Other, because they're more numerous, because a complaint may involve multiple subjects and because the related sanctions may be issued outside a formal process, it is more likely I missed a case or potentially miscategorized an editor. Unfortunately those same factors make it more susceptible to abuse. I have seen topic-bans result from edit-warring complaints, for example, but my coverage of that board is almost nonexistent.

Your comment prompted me to review the Arbitration Enforcement section. The only error I found was one row, where the filer was "pro-Trump" (I use that term as shorthand to reflect the effect of their edits rather than a presumption of political leanings) and the subject was "pro-Clinton", and the filer was pressured into a self-imposed 6 month AE ban. I had colored that row white (pro-Clinton) where it should have been gray (pro-Trump.) Corrected.

I would like to have a definitive record for analysis so the more editors watching, adding or correcting the better. My presumption that I could maintain this single-handedly was optimistic. I hadn't updated the AE section, for example, since 4/28/2017. Do you think one of the Projects would be interested in adopting this as a case study? James J. Lambden (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm now wondering if WMF would consider it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. This ad hoc tracking is necessary only because the process of blocking and topic-banning is not standardized and automated. I would think if there were a role for the WMF it would be to that end, and support from administrators and the community would be near unanimous. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that admins and editors alike do not appreciate being "pigeonholed" or "typecast", so such a study will help eliminate some of the prevailing doubts. I can understand why it is difficult to AGF when the numbers prove otherwise, so formalizing the process should prove quite helpful. I have previously suggested the deployment of "content admins" rather than "behavior admins" because content disputes are what cause the behavioral disputes, and therein the problem lies. There are far too many ambiguities in our PAGs that leave the door open to biased decision-making. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think my suggestion was unclear. I meant the WMF could make a "block/ban tool" for administrators, which would issue notices and automatically record results in a centralized log. The automation would make administrators' jobs easier and resolve the main hurdle to data analysis, collation.

I agree there is much room for improvement with respect to content disputes. I saw a suggestion somewhere for a jury system, I believe in reference to behavioral issues, but it's even better suited to content issues where editor history is less relevant. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but the tech stuff is over my head. Question for you - is there a way to know what editors are consistently filing at AE, or is that something we must do manually? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I know of no better way than manually reviewing the archives but someone familiar with various wiki-tools may have an answer. If one exists I would like to know. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you removed my comment. That's a bad faith move, but it's your page. Just keep in mind that if you present this to WMF as some sort of "bombshell", an editor with your track record will not be well received when they learn you refused the logical explanation. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I assumed no bad faith and took you at your word – you describe editing as a competition among teams with various loyalties. That approach is pernicious. I believe sincerely that when facts conflict with my beliefs it's the beliefs that need adjustment. That fundamental difference led me to conclude our discussion would not be productive and your personal comment above confirms it. You are welcome to post editing concerns to my talk page but please refrain from participating in this discussion. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course the natural project for adoption would be WP:WikiProject Conservatism but I doubt if it would end well lol. Other projects that come to mind WP Politics, WP Countering systemic bias. I think the latter is primarily constituted to work on the "gender gap." My suggestion would be to create an independent task force under WP Politics and recruit researchers and fellows from other WikiProjects. Do we have any userboxes for "fellow"? lmao.

We should definitely submit a grant to WMF. If WMF can fund this they should be amenable to this research study.

I have a small familiarity with Wiki tech. Wikipedia is an antiquated text-based HTML system. To track something you need to enclose it in HTML tags or wrap it in a template. For example--to answer Atsme's question--a method to track the reporting editor would be to change the template when they file the report. In this report [11] change {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} to {{reportinguser|EvergreenFir}} Then scripts or queries can be written to search for the new, unique template "reportinguser." A note could be added to the edit screen at AE to instruct the filer to use the template. Setup templates for every data element you want to track whether AE, ANEW or ANI and you're done. At ANI, the template admins use to close a discussion could be modified to add parameters for user-sanctioned, sanction-type, etc.

– Lionel^(talk) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionel, can that be done without WMF involvement? What would be the best way to proceed? I am hesitant to label anything as biased or favored or whatever else without having the stats/research to back it up. Sometimes we perceive things to be true when that isn't the case...like when you purchase an awesome car thinking yours is unique...until you spend some time driving it and see how many are just like yours. 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Lol. I don't see any issue which would necessitate WMF involvement. To implement we would have to write a summary and post it on the Talk of ArbCom and AN/I for consensus.

That said... WMF is already collecting data and doing research on AN/I: ANI quantitative data analysis. I think it would be a good idea to see if we can use their data, or utilize their data collection process, or see if they could expand their already funded study to collect the data we need. The WMF researcher, SPoore, has personally reached out to the community here ANI_boards_under_criticism

@Lionelt: Could the data collected by these templates be queried via public API? If so in the "plus" column we have ease of implementation; in the minus column, ability of administrators to bypass and no positive incentives. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the API spec so I don't know. I think a search string could be constructed to locate all of the occurrences of the templates on the desired pages. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Hastemplate A better solution would be to write a script to locate and process the templates.– Lionel^(talk) 08:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the ANI Quantitative data analysis. The researcher wrote a program to identify and classify all ANI "cases" from Oct 2016 to Oct 2017. In 2016 there were 3,332 cases. While I didn't look at the raw data, it shouldn't be too difficult to write a script to further analyze the cases that were captured. However do we think that the ANI results will differ much from AE results?

Have you considered taking a 12 month snapshot of your AE data and writing a report and publishing it to Signpost? The current issue has the results of the editor survey of their ANI experiences Admin reports board under criticism. – Lionel^(talk) 09:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we write a proper research paper comprising 1 year of data from 7/26/16 to 7/26/17. That we derive recommendations. And submit the recommendations to ArbCom and/or Signpost. And of course The Right Stuff. Note that this does not preclude the collection of data from other periods or even other venues i.e. AN/I. – Lionel^(talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if @Netoholic: has any ideas about how to capture AE and ANI case data for analysis? And if my suggestion about creating dedicated templates will work? – Lionel^(talk) 09:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Motion: Interaction Ban

You are almost certainly aware, but I'm procedurally required to inform you that the following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard:

Following private discussion, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek are now subject to an indefinite two-way interaction ban, broadly construed.

Support: BU Rob13, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Abstain: None

For the Arbitration Committee, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Interaction Ban

@L235: I was not at all aware but as of now I have no objections. I will evaluate the implications and respond with any concerns. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

James, please allow me to apologize for not also posting here to alert you when I made the original post last night. That was my mistake (and mine alone) and not something deliberate on the part of either myself or the Committee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessary but thank you for your courtesy. I would appreciate a response to this post. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I've re-sent the original email to you, can you please let us know when you get it, either by replying here or replying via email? Thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Received and replied. Thanks. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Gamergate 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 all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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. You're probably aware, but I see you haven't received one about GG yet.

Strongjam (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(I know you don't need this--just FYI) Hi James J. Lambden! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm....

Can you please link the concerned diff(s) where the editors mentioned at User:James J. Lambden/sandbox have self-identified themselves as pro-Trump/Anti-trump.Otherwise, I'm inclined to ask you to delete the column.Best,∯WBG^converse 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm apparently listed as "pro-Trump" there, which couldn't be further from the truth. Nevertheless, the point of this table is to track systemic bias in arbitration enforcement, and there are two recognizable camps in many articles. They don't split along lines of pro- and anti-Trump, in my opinion, but more along lines of "aggressively pushing the general POV represented by MSNBC and similar outlets" and "objecting to that POV-pushing." -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I think the point of the table is not that those listed as pro/anti actually are pro/anti, but that those bringing individuals to noticeboards and AE for sanctions/blocks/tbans see the individual as such, hence their desire to silence the "opposition". My personal opinion is that it's no one's business how an editor votes unless they declare such, and that anything else is equivalent in some degree to outing. Making an issue/assumption re: one's political affiliations is neither here nor there and should never be assumed. It would be wonderful if that kind of accusation were included in WP:OUTING and result in a block - like I said, that's my opinion. I'm certain there are those who don't/won't share it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the perception. I've seen editors accused of getting their information from Breitbart et al., when they've never cited Breitbart. And I think that people who are perceived as being pro-Trump are handled in a very different way from editors who are perceived as being anti-Trump. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, James J. Lambden. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:James J. Lambden/sandbox

User:James J. Lambden/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James J. Lambden/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:James J. Lambden/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)