Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Lourdes		1 November 2023	3/0/1

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

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-bwikimedia.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)

Involved parties

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Lourdes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Star Mississippi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fermiboson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Lourdes warned by the Arbitration committee for "breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms"
• discussion on talkpage of 0xDeadbeef's RFA
• Discussion at WT:RFA partially about the same issue
• Truncated discussion at WP:AN regarding the same issue

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 [6]
• my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [7]

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 [8] 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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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" [9] 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)

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, AA^Talk 20:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
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 [10]
• my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [11]

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, AA^Talk 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting an extension of word count in case I need to reply to questions. Noah, AA^Talk 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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, AA^Talk 01:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.[12] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lourdes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <3/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• recuse as filing party. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I am likely to vote to accept this case request (or perhaps support some sort of motion, if appropriate) given our previous warning and the information contained in this case request it feels sufficient to meet the standard I've set for collecting further evidence in an Administrator Conduct case. However, I have a question first for Lourdes beyond any context she might want to give in response to the filing statement: can you explain your intent with your initial reply to the thread expressing concerns? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Accept. This case request meets the fairly low bar required of ADMINCOND case requests to proceed to a full case, or a motion as appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to remind participants that if the Committee accepts a case, it will specify the list of parties. The list here on this page is purely advisory. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Accept Concur with Kevin, low bar for ADMINCOND and I think there is enough evidence on the table right now to justify opening the case. I'm not currently inclined to proceeding via motion, though - I think there's enough history to unpack here that that we should take the time to discuss and read in a full case. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Accept. The RfA activity is a concern, though by itself could perhaps be a good faith error of judgement resolved through discussion, but combined with an ArbCom warning last year and particularly, for me, leaning on a new user to get them to quickly withdraw their reasonable enquiry, I feel a case is appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Lourdes has submitted a resignation request at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. I appreciate that this was not an easy decision and thank Lourdes for doing so. With that I don't think there is anything else to do here, and I am planning on declining this request when I have the time later today. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  What?????? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  What the hell??? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)