Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎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." ~~~~
Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee
Tag: Replaced
Line 7: Line 7:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
<noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>

== Lourdes ==
''In the unlikely event that someone needs to privately contact the Committee about this case, all emails need to be sent to {{nospam|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 ''' [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) '''at''' 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|Beeblebrox}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Lourdes}}
*{{userlinks|kashmiri}}
*{{admin|Star Mississippi}}
*{{userlinks|Fermiboson}}
*{{userlinks|Hurricane Noah}}
*{{admin|GiantSnowman}}
*{{userlinks|SMcCandlish}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lourdes&diff=prev&oldid=1183031828]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&diff=prev&oldid=1183031793]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Star_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1183031809]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fermiboson&diff=prev&oldid=1183031779]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiantSnowman&diff=1183075989&oldid=1183017727]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=1183120099&oldid=1183117420]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal_and_reinstatement_of_Athaenara%27s_block#Lourdes:_warned Lourdes warned by the Arbitration committee for "''breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms''"]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef#Lourdes's_canvassing discussion on talkpage of 0xDeadbeef's RFA]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Banning_replies_at_RfA_and_otherwise_moving_RfA_reform_forward Discussion at WT:RFA partially about the same issue]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#A_recent_row_at_RfA 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:
* {{tq|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}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef&diff=prev&oldid=1181782012]
* {{tq|my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef&diff=prev&oldid=1181620186]
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fermiboson&diff=prev&oldid=1182775075] 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. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::{{yo|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. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Lourdes|<span style="color:blue; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 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, [[User:Lourdes|<span style="color:blue; background: white">Lourdes</span>]] 05:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=827692653 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) <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 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 [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A recent row at RfA|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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1182774902] 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. [[User:Fermiboson|Fermiboson]] ([[User talk:Fermiboson|talk]]) 23:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:I can say nothing but echo Moneytrees' sentiment. What the actual hell??? [[User:Fermiboson|Fermiboson]] ([[User talk:Fermiboson|talk]]) 08:52, 2 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? [[User:Hurricane Noah|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200"><b>Noah</b></span>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<span style="color:#ff0000"><b>Talk</b></span>]]</sup> 20:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)</br>
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:
* {{tq|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}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef&diff=prev&oldid=1181782012]
* {{tq|my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef&diff=prev&oldid=1181620186]
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 {{tq|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. [[User:Hurricane Noah|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200"><b>Noah</b></span>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<span style="color:#ff0000"><b>Talk</b></span>]]</sup> 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:I am requesting an extension of word count in case I need to reply to questions. [[User:Hurricane Noah|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200"><b>Noah</b></span>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<span style="color:#ff0000"><b>Talk</b></span>]]</sup> 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:BOLD]]ly added {{u|GiantSnowman}} as an involved party since they were the user who Lourdes was trying to get to change their vote at the RfA. [[User:Hurricane Noah|<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200"><b>Noah</b></span>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<span style="color:#ff0000"><b>Talk</b></span>]]</sup> 01:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
=== Statement by GiantSnowman ===

=== Statement by RoySmith ===
As [[Special:Diff/1182505964|I mentioned]] at [[WT:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef]], I was trying really hard to AGF. And while I think [[Special:Diff/1182603995|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 [[Special:Diff/1182775075|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. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk: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 [[wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158642526 this] in the case request page. {{u|Black Kite}} had seemingly taken the comment at face value and reacted against Lourdes accordingly. Lourdes then subsequently clarified with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158652386 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 {{tq|The above are lines (sarcastically) '''copy-pasted'''}} [''my emphasis''] {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158656252 here] and added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158699302 this], indicating the impact of what they believed were Scottywong's words. {{u|Primefac}} understood Lourdes' clarification in the same way as Black Kite.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158653560] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ&diff=prev&oldid=1151085269 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ&diff=prev&oldid=1151458093 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158703060 highlighted this on the request page] and Black Kite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1158704070 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. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Extraordinary Writ ===
Don't forget [[Special:PermaLink/1143749347#BD2412's involved action|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. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 00:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:I really, really want to say that was just an attention-grabbing parting shot, but...just a few minutes of searching found both Lourdes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Lourdes_2&diff=prev&oldid=826873080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=prev&oldid=776761077]) and Wifione ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IntoThinAir&diff=prev&oldid=637269645]) using the same unusual spelling "nomm'd", which has only otherwise been used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=all%3Anomm%E2%80%99d&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=3i6fpdtmvapggbx7g8r84n1eh three times in the project's history]. Wow. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 06:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=all%3Ainsource%3A%22Do+write+back+if+you+need%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1]. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 08:06, 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 [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]]. That in itself can be forgivable. An administrator doing it is completely unacceptable. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 00:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:Jesus Christ. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 12:20, 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. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 00:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by SamX ===
{{peanut}} 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 [[WP:DENY|move on]] and [[Special:Random|do something else]]. <span class="nowrap">— [[User:SamX|SamX]] &#91;[[User talk:SamX#top|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/SamX|contribs]]&#93;</span> 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Legoktm ===
I started reviewing articles Wifione was [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Background|known to have focused on]], and came across [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management&diff=prev&oldid=1145640816 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management&diff=prev&oldid=1142895454]) by a now-blocked SPA. Without implying blame or fault, I note that the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivarjun Das/Archive|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. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 06:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<span style="color:#029D74">jp</span>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<span style="color: #029D74">g</span>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 06:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
=== 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 <span class="plainlinks">[https://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7:%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97_%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%89%E0%A4%97&wpSearchUser=Lourdes this]</span>, 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 [https://alumni.amity.edu/AmityNews.aspx?EventId=5924 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. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>(they&#124;xe&#124;she)</small> 07:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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]].) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 08:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
: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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification, Moneytrees. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 09:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=827936541] 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. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 10:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Statement by Rotideypoc41352 ===
<small>(🥜 <span style="color:#555;">Peanut gallery question</span>)</small> 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? [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 10:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:Courtesy links: {{RFARlinks|Wifione}}
:FWIW, any tagging of Lourdes' userpage has to be done by an admin because {{gender|Lourdes}} increased page protected back in 2018. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 10:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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&mdash;intentionally or otherwise&mdash;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? [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 10:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
: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&mdash;just as manipulative as before. [[User:Kurtis|Kurtis]] [[User talk:Kurtis|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 11:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 10:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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?--[[user:Lemonaka‎|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka‎</span>]] 11:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:The process we have mainly focus attention only on remedy, ignoring how to prevent it from happening again.--[[user:Lemonaka‎|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka‎</span>]] 11:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] A previous case that stopped LTA becoming a sysop on this project is {{user|Eostrix}}, a likely case failed to stop them on English Wikiquote is {{user|Poetlister}}, a case that a banned user become even a Checkuser as {{user|Cato}}. 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. [[user:Lemonaka‎|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka‎</span>]] 14:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

=== 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[[User:Deepfriedokra|-- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 12:28, 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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Lourdes: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*{{u|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. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

=== Lourdes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/1> ===
{{anchor|1=Lourdes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*'''recuse''' as filing party. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Barkeep49/ACE2022#Administrator_Conduct|standard I've set]] for collecting further evidence in an Administrator Conduct case. However, I have a question first for {{u|Lourdes}} beyond any context she might want to give in response to the filing statement: can you explain your intent with your [[Special:Diff/1182276631|initial]] reply to the thread expressing concerns? Thanks, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s>. 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, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|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, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 01:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:'''Decline''', expeditiously. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 12:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> 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. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 00:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:'''Decline''', quite thoroughly mooted. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 14:42, 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, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1182775075 leaning on a new user to get them to quickly withdraw their reasonable enquiry], I feel a case is appropriate. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 02:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*Lourdes has submitted a resignation request at the [[WP:BN|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. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 04:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:What?????? [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 06:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*::What the hell??? [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 06:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::Decline. Nothing else to do other than gawk and document this. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 06:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|SMcCandlish}} Having reviewed both behavioral and private evidence, I'm convinced that Lourdes is a reincarnation of Wifione. But, Wifione has already been banned by Arbcom, and Lourdes is now blocked and desysopped. I think the most to be done is tag the Lourdes account as a sock and maybe update the block log, which can be done at SPI and such by the community. Further review of the account's edits is also possible. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 09:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*::::To clarify something, I don't doubt Lourdes statement, "{{tq|My RL identity has nothing to do with any celebrity or anyone like that.}}" [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 16:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
* I have assumed Lourdes' self-block out of precaution. I took this as an ordinary administrator action and not on behalf of the committee, pending (mostly) committee members waking up to this apparent confession. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 06:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*:Just to put it to bed, Lourdes was checked last night. Common UAs and {{em|exclusive}} proxy use for the data retention period. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 15:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*Well that was not on my bingo card. Deeply disappointed. But I think that moots this case. Lourdes has requested her perms be removed, and I see no universe in which she gets them returned. Nor do I see her getting unblocked. '''Decline''' [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 06:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as largely pointless - we have all of the evidence we need from the confession, and the account is already blocked. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' I don't see there is anything left for the committee to do here --[[User:In actu|<span style="color: #0b0080">In actu (Guerillero)</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 12:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' as moot. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 13:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' moot. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:28, 2 November 2023

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

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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
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) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1183170493"