Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moneytrees (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 2 November 2023 (→‎Lourdes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/1>: To clarify something, I don't doubt Lourdes statement "My RL identity has nothing to do with any celebrity or anyone like that." ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Lourdes   1 November 2023 1/8/1
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Lourdes

In the unlikely event that someone needs to privately contact the Committee about this case, all emails need to be sent to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. All recused arbitrators have been/will be removed from that list for the duration of this case request (and any case which may be opened).

Initiated by Beeblebrox (talk) at 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Beeblebrox

A year ago, nearly to the day, Lourdes was warned by the committee for breaches of administrative norms. There have been a few incidents since then in which I believe she has strayed in her judgement, often seemingly acting in haste, but this recent incident is different. These edits, among others, show a serious breach of expected norms for administrators:

  • Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand [7]
  • my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [8]

The reason this came up in three different discussions as noted above is that three diiferent users came to the same conclusion, that this is appalling behavior and basically administrative blackmail. In the discussion at the talkpage of 0xDeadbeef's RFA, she seems to apologize that it looks that way, which is troubling. In a twist I don't think I have ever seen before, Lourdes asked the opener of the AN discussion to just close it. Think about that, an admin, who is the subject of a discussion at the admin noteboard, shows up on the talk page of the filing party, a relatively inexperienced user with only a few hundred edits, and asks them to just close the thread they opened about them less than an hour in [9] and they did so, seemingly because Lourdes felt the issue had been adressed by them apologizing for it and pressured them into acting as she wanted.

Well, I do not feel this has been sufficiently addressed. An apology is not enough. Being polite in your replies is not enough. Admins are expected to learn from their mistakes, not just keep making new mistakes. Feel free to use that as a principle in the final decision if the case is accepted. Lourdes should have known not to do this in the first place, the same way she should have known not to do the things the committee warned her about last year.

I simply think she lacks the temperment and judgement expected of an administrator on this project and should either resign or be removed by the committee. The strongest warning has already been given, it didn't work.

I put it to the committee and the broader community that an admin engaging in this sort of conduct even after being explicitly warned by the only body able to remove an admin that their conduct has been out of line is enough in and of itself to warrant a desysop, but if the case goes forward I expect a decent amount of further evidence can and will be presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am close to 500 words already, and I expect a few questions to be directed my way, so I'd like to preemptively request a word extension. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah:, I added the users who first commented in each thread as parties, but if you feel like you should be a party as well, then you probably should be. That's my take anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

With all regards to the community and to the ArbCom's time, let me submit while reiterating my apologies for my actions, that I am ready to put in a request to give in my tools. I understand this would be considered to be giving in the tools under a cloud, and subject to the standard conditions as per procedure. Thank you, Lourdes 04:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also wish to add something here that might be quite dramatic, and I know how the result would be. So here goes.
I am User:Wifione, the admin who got blocked years ago.
My RL identity has nothing to do with any celebrity or anyone like that. I am not writing this to have any final laugh. It's just that I feel it appropriate to place it here specially for Beeblebrox, who I almost emotionally traumatised over the years with the aforementioned double sleight -- aka, pulling him around for revealing my so-called identity. It also required double-doxxing myself on at least one external project, namely Wikipediocracy, which even placed mentions of my name in the private section to protect my identity.
All I can say is that it has been good contributing to Wikipedia, whether as Wifione or as Lourdes. I know you guys are going to really give it to me after this statement. But well, at least it will be news for the month :) Good bye guys. It was fun. Thanks, Lourdes 05:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kashmiri

Statement by Star Mississippi

This is not a case of a legacy admin being out of touch with community norms that have evolved since they were granted the bit. Lourdes is an active admin who remains far out of touch with the community. She should not need to be told, and partially apologize for, badgering opposes for specious reasons, nor request an AN brought about her conduct be archived early especially when it was during a window of time when many active editors were asleep and therefore unable to weigh in. I raised this at WT:RFA and had no response, although Lourdes referenced it in the Talk page of the RfA in question. While I have had reservations going back to her not wanting the bit and overly criticizing the 'crat who granted it, those seemed more eccentricities. The logged warning and recent conduct is clearly conduct unbecoming of an admin which leaves ArbComm as the only route. (Never before been a party. Please advise if I've done something incorrect) Star Mississippi 03:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fermiboson

I was not aware that she had received prior warning to this effect. Had I known this, I would likely have refused to archive the AN thread that I opened. I'm a fairly inexperienced editor, so I don't want to comment on whether the action itself deserves a desysop, although it definitely is a concerning action, and I hope that whatever the outcome of this case, the message will be received by the wider community that this sort of transactional politics at RfA or elsewhere is unacceptable.

With that said, and without further background into her history, I was initially willing to AGF her asking me to archive the thread quickly as an anxious admin hoping not to attract too much negative attention - after all AN has been rightly described as a "drama board", and my intention in starting the thread was never to start drama. With this new information about past ArbCom cases, however, I'm beginning to view her asking me to speedily close in a very different light. I think it would only be honest to inform ArbCom that having an admin leave a closure request on my TP after me saying "No hard feelings, hopefully" [10] and her not replying did make me feel intimidated, and this played at least a part in my decision to quickly close. I don't know whether this was her intention or whether she was aware of this, and don't wish to speculate on that. Fermiboson (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say nothing but echo Moneytrees' sentiment. What the actual hell??? Fermiboson (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hurricane Noah

I have a question. Would I be considered an involved party considering my involvement on the talk page of the RfA? Noah, AATalk 20:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was fully aware that Lourdes had been at ArbCom about a year ago for breaching normal administrative conduct. I first noticed Lourdes' comments at the RfA and then saw a thread had been opened on the talk page regarding potential canvassing. Two quotes in particular stood out to me:

  • Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand [11]
  • my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [12]

I don't believe this was canvassing, but rather a violation of WP:GAMING since it seeked to undermine the consensus-building process by changing existing votes. While some editors saw this as harmless behavior, it appeared to me to be what others described as "transactional politics". My own interpretation of those quotes as I stated at that RfA TP thread was I helped you out and you owe me, so please do this to repay my actions. While this may seem harmless to some, I believe this kind of behavior may motivate certain editors to change their stance in discussions on the basis of said transactional politics as they may feel it to be their duty to return a favor since they had something done for them. This also brings about the other possibility that an editor may change their stance on the basis of fear that support will stop if they don't comply. I don't believe anyone changed their votes on the basis of Lourdes's comments regarding her prior support, however, this type of behavior is quite appalling to say the least, especially when it's coming from an admin, someone who is supposed to have a much higher level of trust than a normal editor. I also watched the discussion at WP:AN, however, I chose not to comment there since I believed the issue to have been resolved via the discussion at the RfA. I didn't realize at the time that Lourdes was going to essentially quash the AN discussion and prevent it from reaching a natural conclusion. This behavior would be egregious from any editor, let alone an admin. Administrators are supposed to be individuals held to higher standards than normal editors since the community has placed a great deal of trust in them, however, Lourdes has clearly violated the community's trust in her. Given the fact that Lourdes has been here within the last year or so, and there have been two serious incidents here recently, I urge the committee to accept this case and strongly consider desysopping Lourdes and potentially taking additional action to prevent future occurrences. Noah, AATalk 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an extension of word count in case I need to reply to questions. Noah, AATalk 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for going past the word limit, and this may be out of place for me to do, but I WP:BOLDly added GiantSnowman as an involved party since they were the user who Lourdes was trying to get to change their vote at the RfA. Noah, AATalk 01:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GiantSnowman

Statement by RoySmith

As I mentioned at WT:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef, I was trying really hard to AGF. And while I think her response was, at best, tone deaf, I was willing to grit my teeth and move on. It was not until I read Beeblebrox's statement a few moments ago that I was aware of her request to Fermiboson that he archive the WP:AN thread he had opened. That's mind-blowing. It totally exhausts the normally generous amount of AGF I'm usually able to bring to the table. It's the kind of thinly veiled threat you'd expect to hear in The Godfather. I don't care if you do it by motion or by case, but this kind of behavior cannot stand. RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I don't have an issue with Lourdes generally. But there was an instance in the Request for the recent Scottywong Arbcom case which shocked me in terms of Lourdes' judgment - albeit it was only me that seemed to notice it at the time. Scottywong was, ultimately, desysopped for the poor treatment of a user with a non-Latin alphabet username. Lourdes posted this in the case request page. Black Kite had seemingly taken the comment at face value and reacted against Lourdes accordingly. Lourdes then subsequently clarified with this post, saying that they were being "sarcastic" and it should not be taken literally as their opinion. But that's not my issue. In that latter post Lourdes claimed that The above are lines (sarcastically) copy-pasted [my emphasis] from SW's diatribe against the non-English editor. If the above left a tough impression on you, imagine what the other non-English editor would have gone through... Food for thought for the committee, esp considering these as words from an administrator...... Black Kite AGF'd that this was copy-pasted from a Scottywong post and posted a retraction of the criticism of Lourdes here and added this, indicating the impact of what they believed were Scottywong's words. Primefac understood Lourdes' clarification in the same way as Black Kite.[13] Except it wasn't copy-pasted. Sure, what Scottywong said was poor but what Lourdes claimed was "copy-pasted" wasn't copy and paste and was, in fact, an exaggerated/doctored version. What Scottywong actually said was this and this. As I said, what Scottywong said was bad enough but I was shocked that Lourdes would alter the text (eg adding in inflammatory phrases such as "As for you people", "Anglo-imperialistic views" etc) and claim it was cut and paste. I highlighted this on the request page and Black Kite reverted their post as a result. But Lourdes never corrected their claim - and no one else noticed or cared (I don't know which) but I think it was lacking in basic integrity, certainly that expected of an admin. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

Don't forget this incident from earlier this year: the bad deletion and unnecessary drama was unimpressive to say the least. I really don't see how it's tenable for Lourdes to keep the tools after so many issues in such a short period of time, and I sincerely hope she'll do the right thing and resign. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really want to say that was just an attention-grabbing parting shot, but...just a few minutes of searching found both Lourdes ([14][15]) and Wifione ([16]) using the same unusual spelling "nomm'd", which has only otherwise been used three times in the project's history. Wow. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also [17]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Actively tampering at RfA creates all sorts of problems. Not just for those being canvassed who feel badgered, but it also leaves a very sour lasting impression against the RfA candidate since it's assumed that the tampering is being welcomed by the candidate as an effort to swing support !votes in their direction. We have regularly blocked editors who engage in such heavyhanded canvassing efforts, or at least given them firm warnings, under the assumption that they may not be aware of our guidelines on canvassing. That in itself can be forgivable. An administrator doing it is completely unacceptable. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EggRoll97

While the wording is bad, I find myself lacking much of a clue on what exactly is problematic here. There's arguments made constantly against oppose votes, and pleas to change a vote. It's not uncommon to see at WP:RFA, and I don't see these comments as being more than an appeal for someone whom Lourdes is familiar with to reconsider their stance. It's an impassioned appeal, and the wording, admittedly, isn't the best, but I find it dubious that Lourdes was intending to leverage any kind of connection as a tactic to coerce vote-changing. I also strongly disagree with the assessment of Beeblebrox in this instance that the behavior mentioned equates to "administrative blackmail". It's a request, nothing more, and Lourdes clearly did not promise to engage in retaliation or similar actions if the !voter didn't change their vote. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SamX

( Peanut gallery comment) Regardless of whether or not this person is telling the truth, we're clearly being trolled here. I don't see any point in further public discussion. The sockpuppetry angle (if there is one) can be explored privately on cuwiki or the functionaries' mailing list. In the meantime, let's move on and do something else. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legoktm

I started reviewing articles Wifione was known to have focused on, and came across this edit by Lourdes to Indian Institute of Planning and Management in March. The content it added to the lead is similar to the content pushed (e.g. [18]) by a now-blocked SPA. Without implying blame or fault, I note that the corresponding SPI for that SPA doesn't appear to have gotten full CheckUser attention, so I am curious whether it could've turned up a connection to Lourdes/Wifione. Legoktm (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

Large if true. Some investigation is obviously necessary, but I'm not really sure if any action can realistically be taken at this point. jp×g🗯️ 06:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

My initial reaction to Lourdes' statement was skepticism, thinking that this was a parting shot to mess with people, like Lugnuts' claimed subtle hoaxing. However, I found this, what remains of 18 deleted edits on hiwiki (which, I've verified with a steward, were all to that same page). The subject of that article, Shyam Rudra Pathak, apparently has some degree of affiliation with Amity University, a previous target of Wifione's COI editing. As much as I hate to say it, combined with Legoktm's find, this makes me think we should probably take Lourdes' word for it about the socking. Which is a real fucking shame, on a number of levels. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Adding myself as a party, since I helped Hurricane Noah draft an amendment to WP:GAMING about this (and, in examples, about conceptually similar tit-for-tat "horse trading"), which is currently an active proposal at Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Revised proposed text and so far seems likely to be accepted. The material in question doesn't address Lourdes by name or link to the incident or discussions about it, but is clearly directly modelled on what happened, as is stated explicitly in the drafting discussion just above that. Honestly, I thought about opening this desysop request myself, but figured it was more constructive to address it in community guidance and let others with more ArbCom experience take the desyop action. (That said, I have discouraged at the above-mentioned proposal discussion drawing personal attention to Lourdes, e.g. by making it a WP:CENT matter, because the principle being addressed in that proposal is general and it is not just some WP:AJR.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just noticed the "I am Wifione" bomb. Shouldn't this case request proceed anyway, but as a determination whether to site-ban? Or is that something that can only be done by ANI? I don't spend a lot of time in the "dramaboards" so I'm not sure what the exact bureaucracy is about that stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Moneytrees.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

My opinion of Lourdes has frankly never recovered from the whole fiasco at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 37#Request. WJBscribe's comment at that thread [19] echoed what I was thinking, and I suspect that of most observers as well. While I did not expect something as dramatic as this, it quickly became evident from the moment this person was sysopped that something was off.

I would probably decline an arbitration case at this point. I can't think of any benefits that would justify the cost of time. Mz7 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rotideypoc41352

(🥜 Peanut gallery question) Kind of along SMcCandlish's and Moneytrees's conversation, should a wikilink to this page be added to the Wifione case page itself or its talk? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Wifione arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
FWIW, any tagging of Lourdes' userpage has to be done by an admin because she increased page protected back in 2018. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

Having first seen this yesterday, I really didn't think it would amount to much. Lourdes received an ArbCom warning last year, which I believe carries less weight than an admonishment. Her recent comments at RfA and ANI were concerning, as they seemed to imply a sort of quid pro quo mentality, and it came across—intentionally or otherwise—as being somewhat manipulative in nature. I thought that maybe Lourdes would apologize, the case request would be dismissed, and we'd all move past this unfortunate business.

But Lourdes being Wifione??? Is this an ArbCom case request or an M. Night Shyamalan movie? Kurtis (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't see any point in a case at this time. Wifione has long since been banned, and it's clear to me that they haven't changed since adopting their Lourdes persona—just as manipulative as before. Kurtis (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waggers

Given the confession to sockpuppetry to avoid a ban, I don't see the need for a case now. In fact per WP:DENY I would actively discourage one - it seems Lourdes wants this to be "news of the month" and I don't think we should give her that pleasure. WaggersTALK 10:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

When I saw this I went to their page, and there is nothing explaining. I don't have a great deal of experience in tagging User pages in such circumstances, perhaps none, except to watch occasional controversy arise over whether to tag and with what, etc.

Can't we just settle that here (I think blanking and tagging is the way to go, so the community is informed, but again, I don't know if I get the arguments about not tagging.) So, I am asking you to settle it, now. Or before the case is closed.

I should say, tag their pages. Why leave it for people five years from now to have to piece together as Wikiarcheogists? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lemonaka

Is checking user eligible for this case? Why some socks from previously blocked users can get, or close to get sysop right again and again?---Lemonaka‎ 11:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The process we have mainly focus attention only on remedy, ignoring how to prevent it from happening again.---Lemonaka‎ 11:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra A previous case that stopped LTA becoming a sysop on this project is Eostrix (talk · contribs), a likely case failed to stop them on English Wikiquote is Poetlister (talk · contribs), a case that a banned user become even a Checkuser as Cato (talk · contribs). This is nothing funny, a banned user can even sign NDA without being noticed. How to scrutiny them will be a long way to go. -Lemonaka‎ 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Should y'all go through her edits looking for stuff that needs fixing? Is a checkuser warranted to see if she has future admin candidates waiting in the wings for their time onstage and preparing to once again astound us all? Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Lourdes: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Beeblebrox you are approved for up to 1000 words. Since you're the first person to ask I will take this opportunity to issue a general reminder that even when addressing other's statements, comments made on this page should be directed towards helping Arbitrators decide how to handle this case request and not towards parties or community members. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1183169230"