Data collation of election-related sanctions →

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).[reply]

Template:Z33

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

Template:Z33

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]