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	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Lourdes

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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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 [5]
• my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider [6]

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 realatively 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 [7] 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)

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? I do intend to make an actual statement when I get back to a computer. Noah, AA^Talk 20:40, 1 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 about 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 {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).

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• recuse as filing party. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)