User talk:Lourdes/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lourdes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You blocked them for sockpuppetry. Girth Summit found (as of 9/17) no evidence that they'd continued to do it, and I think we might consider an unblock. Take a look over there ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel, I never blocked this editor. Girth has been the only one who did. Warmly, Lourdes 08:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, sorry ... I think I was thinking of another editor you'd blocked. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  No need to say sorry Daniel. It's good to get a message from you either way. Warmly, Lourdes 05:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use that rude tone with me. I am innocent in all of this. I have done nothing wrong, in fact, I basically did nothing. I was largely inactive from Wikipedia from February 2023 up until now. Suddenly, I have been randomly attacked in the most egregious way possible. I have the right to be outraged, offended, and to feel violated by what has happened. I am incredibly angry at the events that have unfolded, and I request immediate administrator action to resolve the issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

My mental health is very bad currently, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I don't want to add another problem onto the pile. The user Grandmaster has launched a massive unprovoked assault against me, in a way that I was completely unprepared for. This horrendous attack must be punished severely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, I have been minding my own business, when, BAM, out of nowhere, I have been attacked. How can you expect me to be patient or civil in a situation like this? I have the right to defend myself from this horrendous attack. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. We haven't interacted much (though I remember back in 2019 when you gave me NPR, which led me to actually getting semi-involved there), but I'd like to ask for just some quick advice, if you have the time. I've requested EFH a number of times, albeit a few years ago, when I was younger and dumber than I am now. I'd therefore just like to ask you whether it would be a good idea to try again. I had generally resolved not to leap into requesting the permission before (given that, admittedly, my previous requests had pretty much been rushed messes that gave off the impression I was just trying to hat collect), but I've started running into private filters a lot more in my work on WP:EFFPR. I've rambled on a lot, but my main question is whether you would say it's a good idea for me to request again, or if you perhaps have some tips. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey EggRoll, good to see you here. Give me some time to ponder on this. Best, Lourdes Lourdes

Thanks. I'll add that one of the reasons I ended up thinking about requesting again is that this went unanswered and even got moved to the rolling archive without anyone reviewing, while I worked on a report that came in later but couldn't review that one. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lourdes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I think part of your subthread got cut off. Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I think it reads okay now (right?). Thank you Deepfriedokra. Lourdes 04:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for the hassle, I feel bad templating an admin! This is about the RfA comments. Regards Fermiboson (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, I guess thanks for providing maximum entertainment and not wasting time with an ArbCom case? Galobtter (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"maximum entertainment" is right... ltbdl (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

To anyone thinking of adding some snarky remark or general snark, I think it’s not worth it. Let’s just move on…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

^ What Moneytrees said. WP:GRAVEDANCING is untoward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, you've been a great editor and admin. I'm so sad to see you go :( SWinxy (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel the same. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You guys do realize "she" never existed and was some scammer in India playing us all for suckers this whole time, right? Everything you thought you knew about Lourdes was carefully constructed lies. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Wifione site-banned. Maybe take the time to be in possesion of the basic facts next time, ya'll look ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

also, @FeydHuxtable: you seem to have fucked up something in the template coding so now it says I gave her that kitten. Please rectify or just remove it as you are paying tribute to a site banned troll. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As you wish Beebs. Kitten removed, I'm sure the person behind the account would want that if it was annoying you, looks like they only confessed about WiFi as they felt bad for messing you about. Troll may be a bit harsh. They put enormous energy into the project, and from where I'm sitting many of their interventions were from the best of intentions, with and admirable concern for fairness even if that meant taking the risk of going against the crowd. That said, they did of course make mistakes, including quite a major one with the excellent ScottyWong and with your good self, so don't blame you for having a different perspective on them.. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: I will tell you that that wasn't the reason. She knew she had fucked up and that she was about to lose her adminship due to her actions. All of her carefully crafted lies and work over the years was going down the toilet. No wonder she wanted these discussions about her conduct at various places to stop, even quashing the one at AN. Since her adminship was clearly going away, she just decided to say to hell with it and made her confession. That's what happened in simple terms. Probably the only truthful thing she ever said was that she was Wifione. Don't believe for a second that she felt any remorse or sympathy for Beeblebrox as that was likely just another attempt at manipulation. I have dealt with people like this in real life. Only trust things that can actually be verified. Now, let's move on and leave this page to rest in peace. Noah, AA^Talk 21:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time a female admin with many many contribs was blocked because of issues brought to attention by their RfA edits, getting a lot of attention in the process, I'd have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 14:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we can assume that the person behind the Lourdes account is female. Yes, they declared that under this account; they have not made that declaration with the other accounts they have used, and given the dishonest activities that their original account was site-banned for, I don't think we can put any faith in any declarations they have made about themselves, or anybody else. The only parallel with Athaenara is that it was sparked by comments made at an RfA; let's not tar them with the same brush. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Even if there were zero chance an editor would falsely claim a gender identity when they're...well, falsely claiming an identity, the fact it happened twice to women isn't really much of a coincidence unless no man had ever been blocked for their comments at RfA. Which is patently not the case. Valereee (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Ah, but have any nonbinary people been? I dared you to block me at leek's second RfA and you didn't. To think of the glass ceiling we could have broken. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

And the headbombs as people try to parse it all. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What an enormous disappointment. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Bitterly disappointed to see an admin whom I liked and respected turning out to be an indeffed-sock. –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Lourdes, the arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Years ago, I wondered why your reaction here to me for activating your adminship was treated with so much hostility from you. There was no security issue about a hijacking of your account that you were worried about; rather, you were worried in case my flagging somehow exposed Lourdes for being a sock of Wifione. Like Mz7 as they stated here, I also never recovered any confidence in you after that. I did not deserve the anger I received that day from you, not on-wiki nor in the emails you sent to me.

Not that you'll have any remorse. And that's fine. But I wasn't going to let what happened go without comment, knowing what I know now. Acalamari 04:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating thread in retrospect. Props to @Ajraddatz and others for speaking up at the time about how something was definitely off, even if we didn't then know exactly what. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The question is moot; the user was site-banned by Arbcom, any appeal would have to go to Arbcom, hence there is no valid reason for them to ever edit this page. I don't see any benefit to discussing this further, but if anyone really wants to pull on that thread it should be done at a more appropriate venue. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Why was TPA removed? I didn't see any edits that were bad faith after the indefinite block. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@wikiexplorationandhelping: "lourdes" has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, so i doubt you'll get a response here. ltbdl (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's why I requested admin help here. Keeping discussions within a relevant page would seem better. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ah, you mean tpa removed for "lourdes". same reason, the account is a sockpuppet. ltbdl (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Is TPA generally removed when an account is determined to be a sock? Or does it stay unless the sockpuppeteer makes a disruptive edit/disruptive edits to their talk page? There is a small, but not zero chance that a block could be appealed. Also, sanctions aren't supposed to be punitive, right? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiexplorationandhelping: Barkeep49 revoked TPA. Please ask them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, Wifione does have talk page access. I would think the normal trend would be for socks to have the same block settings as their master. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to know. Barkeep49, I think TPA should be allowed to stay, as long as no disruptive edits are made? Think we should assume some good faith here. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I’ve been checking your access rights periodically after your my-sh*ts-don’t-stink way of conducting yourself on here. I don’t think I’ve ever felt more satisfied than I do now. Seasider53 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)