Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:49 pm

So, it's well established now that one side effect of the dearth of applications to undergo the protocological examination required to become an admin, is that anyone who isn't showing major warning signs, is just waved through, procession style. Even people who raise legitimate issues, as Andrew Davidson did, are stomped on, for their suppressive acts. Once a cult, always a cult.

But aside from the issue of low volume, is this new wave of processional coronations even guaranteeing a high quality crop of mall cops? This will be crucial, if they're to be doing the workload of ten in the coming years, due to retirements, firings and even death. The latest promotion doesn't inspire confidence.

I'll start by making the obvious point - to be a good Wikipedia admin, you need to be a well adjusted, perfectly normal, emotionally mature human being. You need perspective. Wikipedia isn't attractive to normal people, so as close to normal as is possible, is the best they can do.

So, meet Lourdes, who just passed 2017-3-1. By all accounts, she's a fantastic candidate, perfectly suited. But are the Wikipedians themselves, especially in this current climate, really the best judges of such things? I know nothing of her record, and can't be bothered to look. I can only report on what I happened to notice due to events after her passing, which seem to suggest she isn't all that well adjusted. If it's that easy to spot warning signs, it suggests others buried in her detailed record have been missed, or worse, deliberately ignored.

First off, there's the fact she had already failed one RfA, and had apparently been unable to spot this would happen, given it was a self nomination. Reasons to oppose were lack of experience, overly literal interpretations of policy, and issues of tone. Perhaps most worryingly, unless she's a re-tread, her profile was very atypical for a new user, showing signs of addition/obsession. So, even by Wikipedian's standards, she's been marked out as being a bit odd, perhaps a little unbalanced, either caused by, or a symptom of, her evident enthusiasm with all things Wikipedia.

Very disturbingly, her sheer joy at finally passing a second time, has manifested in a most bizarre sight, something I don't recall ever seeing before. On the RfA page, she posted what amounts to some kind of Oscar style acceptance speech, thanking a whole host of voters by name. It is most vomit inducing, it really needs to be read in its horrific entirety. This is a clear sign she's got no real perspective.

I mean Jesus, if this is how she reacts to the relatively trivial event of passing RfA, can you imagine what she'd be like at her graduation (no way can she be over 23), the birth of her first child, or even their graduation? It doesn't bear thinking about. She'd fit in at the Oscars no problem, the key difference being that is at least an actual worthwhile achievement in one's life, and the profession is predisposed to the overly emotional.

Her user page contains further clues at her lack of perspective. She of course has an alternative account named "❤️", and she of course uses it to spread her appreciation of her fellow editors. Sheesh.

Now we come to a most amusing incident, which spilled over into a most hilarious spat at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. See both sections here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =828036436

As it turns out, she was intending to travel before she would have passed her RfA, and because she had promised to lend her laptop to a church group, she posted a request asking that the flipping of the switch be delayed until her return, when she would, of course, be installing 2FA, as all sensible admins should be doing these days (most don't, and you can draw the inevitable conclusions).

This, in of itself, was a bizarre sign of a lack of perspective. She wanted this rare thing to be done, involving all crats, for a very trivial risk. It's not a nuclear suitcase girl, Jesus. People got better shit to be doing than pandering to your paranoia.

But that isn't even the best part. Naturally, Wikipedia being what it is, namely dysfunctional, the bureaucracy could neither agree to do this in sufficient time, nor was the request even noticed before one of them had simply promoted her anyway. Panicked, and this is fucked up, she relays how, when a group of kids, yes KIDS, turned up at her door asking for the promised laptop, she told them to buzz off, keeping the laptop safely locked in the house, as she rushed out to catch her plane.

How messed up is that? Seriously, how paranoid do you need to be, how utterly devoid of any kind of perspective, to believe that what could have happened in this scenario, is that the kids would have taken the laptop to church, and using social engineering, hacked her Wikipedia account, just so they could delete a few Wikipedia articles and block a few users. A more likely scenario there, surely, if this church is really that bad of a place, is her losing real money. Evidently this wasn't a concern.

I suppose she might have feared it being stolen, but seriously, it is quite obvious to anyone with a real grounding on planet Earth, that 2FA wasn't introduced to Wikipedia to avoid that sort of compromise. And again, if that happened, she'd have bigger concerns, and so likely wouldn't be lending it out at all, surely?

Finally, there's the issue Andrew identified. She was quite improperly making gnome edits which merely adjusted white space. That she wasn't aware this is an issue, is a troubling sign for her suitability as an admin on basic knowledge grounds. I can't see how any addict would be unaware of this, given it was renewed as a big issue this past year or so. That she immediately rolled over and promised to never ever do it again, shows how desperate she was to become an admin.

That she didn't explain how it could be that she was ignorant of this policy, evidently didn't raise any concern for the watching Wikipedians. But the most remarkable thing was the reason she gave for why she does/did it. Her answer to question 10 was......
These are simple gnomish formatting edits I undertake from time to time on articles that I get using the random article link. Thanks.
Seriously? Who does that? Who is so addicted to Wikipedia, they do this, even if it only ends up shuffling white space? Undoubtedly this work needs to be done, albeit only by actually making beneficial edits, but it is better done systematically, by people with sufficient knowledge and experience to do it (it says a lot that such people have almost zero chance of being rewarded with that admin userright, even though it shows a more enlightened and balanced approach to Wikipedia as a hobby cum charitable endevour than what she's doing).

All told, it's clear Lourdes isn't really all there, she has severe issues with a lack of real world perspective, things which probably explain the observations in their first RfA. This all speaks to a potential lack of judgement. Perhaps not in everyday settings, but absolutely in a high pressure situation when a mistep could cause huge drama and grave damage. It is clear Wikipedia has either screwed with her brain chemistry, or she was already a bit odd, and has naturally gravited to the home of the odd. And once there, the inbuilt systems which reward odd people, are doing what they do best.

She's female, but also a coder, so not the sort of woman they're looking for increased participation from. She has three FAs, one article on a legal case, and two lists about motorsport and cricket respectively. Other articles worked on are about male coders. Dare I say she may not even be a female, she may be one of those addicts so desperate to become a Wikipedia admin, they may have just adopted a female persona to achieve a PC boost for their candidacy from folks too dumb to look any further than their name. The bizarre Oscar speech and alt account might just be ham-fisted attempts to appear be a stereotypical emotional woman.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:18 pm

Settling elaborate traps for an Admin candidate (L235) based on information you had to dumpster dive through four years old old forum posts, for which you needed Admin tools to complete, and which was ultimately roundly rejected as big far nothing burger, if not a severe conduct violation in of itself, when you are technically an Administrator yourself, but for reasons nobody can fathom have chosen not to take up the role, is that crazy?

I think so.

To those looking to punish her for this, be mindful of the bad things that can happen when you put people with........perspective issues?.......under severe emotional strain.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by AndrewForson » Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:25 pm

I'd go for the sockpuppet with a badly constructed persona theory myself.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by Dysklyver » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:25 pm

Still hasnt got the tools back, months drag on...

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:21 am

It would be quite the problem if she did ask. She technically never resigned, certainly in the 'under a cloud' sense. She made a wierd decision to give them up temporarily a few hours after gaining them. So if anyone wants to object to her having the tools now, either because of concerns over that incident, or the way she acted in this RfA, or anything else she has done since, well, they have a real problem finding a policy based reason to deny them to her. It would be hard to see how an ad hoc rabble shouting at the crats not to let her have what she has been legitimately granted and never abused, could be allowed to have their way, even on an IAR basis. She'd likely need an RfC or second RfA, which could get really ugly.

Something similar was decided (or not?) when Ymblanter recently got his tools back, without much fuss, relatively speaking compared to the bloodbath another RfA would have been, despite him resigning in January after admitting he himself believed he had "consistently got signals that some users do not trust me as administrator" and "I do not feel I have sufficient community support to remain administrator", while covering his ass by saying he felt "this is not a resignation under a cloud".

The bureaucrats were presumably left ruing the fact they took the view determining the cloudiness should not happen until he requests the tools back. By which time, when he did, things were far more complicated. Still got them back though......even though one 'crat noted he had violated civility standards (showing how little that matters to these people). Despite lots of people saying they would immediately file for Arbitration if it happened, he is still currently an Administrator. Empty threats from loudmouth bullies, as usual.

These sort of issues are where all those people who take the view you can only desysop an Administrator for 'abuse of the tools', have reality fucked the Wikipedia community in the ass. Every single person who says this, is only demonstrating either their ignorance, or their complete lack of giving a fuck, about the whole character and general conduct expectation of the office. Which is policy.

The same potential issue exists for Malik Shabbaz. Technically, due to the corrupt nature of Drmies, he is entitled to ask for his tools back at any time, and is due them back, no questions asked. Although it would be at least easier for the 'crats to deny him, because his behaviour since losing them (via emergency desysop), includes official censures by Administrators, including blocks. None of which, of course, were abuse of the tools, because he didn't have them! So even there, he could have a lot of people demanding he be given back what is rightfully his, on basic principle. Many might insist on it, if only so he can be sent through an official ArbCom motion to desysop him officially.

In this sense, they're all nuts. They are neither 'not a bureaucracy ', nor are they remotely capable of making sensible decisions through calm ad hoc consensus guided by only a few general principles, like 'Admins must be competent and decent people.'

Maybe someone should start an RfC to clear up now these sort of cases should be handled. Would be most entertaining.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:00 pm

So, she finally asked for, and was given, her Administrator rights.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ol ... t_(Lourdes)

....not even a whisper of objection.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:00 pm

Well done Wikipedians. Despite the obvious warning of seeing a candidate identified by Ritchie333 as competent, and despite this being her second RfA, the first specifically identifying problems with her communication skills, you still let someone as chronically incapable as this to become an Administrator, by a LANDSLIDE.
Edit warring

Consider this your formal warning for edit warring at Template:Centralized discussion. I personally suggest that you tone down your crusade against the phrase "fuck off" for the time being as it is seriously clouding your judgment. Nihlus 14:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedian you were edit warring with has come to your talk page to issue you an aggressive warning. You could have avoided this by......not edit warring (and by extension, not attempting to resolve a dispute via edit summaries, which you are also told not to do). They are warning you well after the edit warring that has caused the issues to become moot because you forced another Administrator to protect the page, so your decision to edit war has not only fired this guy up to obviously come looking for a fight, you've forced a colleague to have to face accusations from this user of protecting you.

But we are here now, so what's the response?


Hi Nihlus, you should probably join the talk page discussions that I initiated and discuss the issue there. That might be procedurally more appropriate than investing your time here. Warmly, Lourdes 14:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Borderline acceptable, at least compared to an Administrator edit warring. Asking them to join a discussion you should have opened as soon as you saw them revert you first (WP:BRD), is unlikely to improve their mood, not when you are positioning yourself as the better judge of what is and is not proper procedure. The less said about the implicit suggestion that coming to your talk page is a waste of their time, the better.

I already have. However, whether or not I join in the discussion in a time frame quick enough for you is irrelevant to your edit warring. Nihlus 14:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

An entirely predictable snarky response. Things are getting heated. Time to remind yourself of your role as an Administrator - regardless of who you think is in the wrong, always be looking to calm a situation down and seek help from your colleagues if necessary, even if that means saying nothing for a bit.

That probably is evidence of your ignorance of procedural matters, where participating in discussions is primary to resolve editorial disputes. Irrespective, glad you finally joined discussions instead of blindly reverting. Please do continue discussions on the respective talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 14:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. The flame war that is about to happen after you took all of seven minutes (including typing time) to compose this response, is entirely on you.

Excuse you? I get off of my computer for the night and you want to turn around and call me ignorant for not responding to you fast enough? Are you serious? This is laughable coming from an "administrator" edit warring before discussing and while a discussion is taking place. Nihlus 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not call you ignorant. I only called out your probable ignorance of procedural matters. Your belligerent response perhaps may be exciting you further. I’ll suggest to you to keep calm and carry on discussions on the relevant talk page. That should be more helpful to you. If I can help you in any other way, do please tell. Warmly, Lourdes 14:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest not calling people ignorant if you wish to not excite them further. Trying to sidestep it by saying "probable ignorance" is just as insulting and a borderline personal attack. Nihlus 14:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If you feel insulted, my apologies. Have more self-confidence while conversing and self-respect while editing — perhaps that may strengthen you more than my words. Would you wish to continue discussions on the relevant talk page or dwell more on this procedurally incorrect mode of interacting here? Warmly, Lourdes 14:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's going to be hard for me to take this seriously so I will just move on. Have a good day. Nihlus 14:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I mentioned that at the start. You too, have a good day. Lourdes |

Have a nice long think about whether or not this would have been one of those situations where, if the user had responded with "fuck off" rather than finally walking away, others would view the context as you having driven them to it? What could an Administrator colleague have done in this situation except do nothing? Literally anything done to this user now, if not accompanied by an even more serious outcome for your part in it, merely adds to the body of evidence that Administrators are allowed to get away with things ordinary users are routinely sanctioned for, which is of course the exact opposite of how things are supposed to be.
Kupdung is right. RfA is horribly broken. No way should it not be spotting people who are as incapable of the basics of dispute resolution or are so lacking in simple good judgement as this. Did she get a free pass because she was a women perhaps? You have to wonder. Are her decisions in situations like this being influenced by the things I talked about above, her clear issues with a lack of perspective?

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by Dysklyver » Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:08 pm

That Randy Boys chap has decided to do some elementary research that I hadn't bothered to do for some reason and found that Lourdes is a real person.

See Russian Red which is her article.

As evidenced by some of her first edits to that articles talk page, which are still there,and this on the help desk.

User avatar
Carrite
Sucks Critic
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:59 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by Carrite » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:27 am

Dysklyver wrote:That Randy Boys chap has decided to do some elementary research that I hadn't bothered to do for some reason and found that Lourdes is a real person.

See Russian Red which is her article.

As evidenced by some of her first edits to that articles talk page, which are still there,and this on the help desk.


Looks like Tarantino beat me to the punch by a couple months, but he knows everything about everybody, so no worries deferring to my betters.

RfB

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Lourdes is the latest new admin, and she's probably nuts

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:36 pm

Still nuts.
I'll chew my shoes live on Insta the day DM becomes a reliable source (please ping me when it does and have your popcorn ready). Can somebody please close this moribund discussion? Lourdes 10:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
With this moon unit, you really can't assume that she doesn't literally intend to follow up on her promise, should she ever need to.

Can anyone here imagine Lourdes being given a job at a newspaper? I can't even imagine her being a Wikipedia Administrator, given the role theoretically requires the holder to be well balanced and of sound judgement. But she is one, somehow.

Why don't you close it Lourdes, you come across as someone who is well able to divorce your personal opinions from the facts on the ground. Wikipedia's criteria for deciding what makes a source reliable are very clear, it really is very easy to demonstrate whether or not the facts on the ground lead to one conclusion of the other.

So what are you afraid of? If you're so certain you are correct, then why would anyone have a problem with you both voting and closing? WP:INVOLVED doesn't prevent Administrators from doing things which are, well, just obviously the right call.

Go for it. You were born for this role.

------------------

These are the Wikipedians. You would trust them to look after a stick. Yet here they are, telling you what is and is not a reliable newspaper, with absolutely confidence.

Post Reply