855:
more bad actors hidden in plain sight, wielding their editing privileges as a cloak for censorship or for commercial and political gains. Knowledge (XXG) prides itself on being the bastion of open-source information, but as this case indicates, the current vetting mechanisms for admin misconduct are insufficient. With the ascent of LLMs and generative AI, Knowledge (XXG)'s human element is its unique selling point, but also its
Achilles' heel. Without stringent and proactive measures to reinforce accountability and transparency, WP risks not only reputational decay but also obsolescence, as users turn to emerging technologies that offer reliable information with less human baggage.
1303:
why someone like this does the things they do, and also don't be fooled by them implying they confessed out of some sort of kindness to me either, that's just as much of a lie as all the other lies they told. They did email the committee a while back to say they thought I was losing it and should be forced into some sort of counseling. That made me laugh and also almost certainly made the rest of the committee less likely to take "her" seriously. Now that we are reasonably certain of the connection between the accounts, in hindsight there are some other indicators that have come up, things that might habve tipped this situaion over a bit sooner, but per
130:
150:
478:
1723:
here is
Lourdes. I noticed the claims that they were Russian Red and looked into that too. I checked on their early history and noticed the keen interest in cricket. It then seemed quite likely that they were Indian whereas the idea that they were a Spanish singer seemed quite incredible. I didn't say anything about this at the time because the evidence was just circumstantial and Lourdes was actually quite polite to me:
1549:- a comment which, unfortunately for Slick, is destined to never age well. Part of me wonders if any of those editors might think to apologize to Andrew. Not that they need to. I'm sure those editors deep down feel just as fooled as everyone else. They might even feel that I'm being unfair, that hindsight is always 20/20, and that whatever idealized hero I saw in Andrew was probably just as much an illusion as was Lourdes.
110:
140:
1804:, wouldn't it? And that person might just well have been blocked for casting aspersions on an editor in good standing. As I read replies to Andrew's oppose at Lourdes' 2nd RFA (as Spintendo points above), I think we've been there already. In this case, not real sanctions, but editors assuming bad faith and trying to imply malicious behaviour on someone who pointed out a red flag.
36:
160:
1076:): Any "fix" would require a fundamental reworking of how editing on Knowledge (XXG) works since anonymity is a central corner-stone and that would most likely be even worse since there a number of highly respected editors and admins that do pride their anonymity and who would probably quit if they had to out themselves in the name of preventing such socking. Regards
1529:, I was struck by what I imagined was some secret ability of his to see right through Lourdes' machinations. Andrew made a salient argument that Lourdes might have been, at one time, attempting to artificially increase their edit count (through what they assumed was some sort of editing script). As soon as Andrew's oppose was posted, scorn was heaped upon him by
120:
1322:
country that person was living in. Back in 2021, in the aftermath of the RexxS case, they were complaining about OUTING when their supposed real identity was mentioned offwiki, and managed to then get the original edits they made pretending to be the celebrity oversighted (these edits have now been restored). Ideally, they should have been blocked under
1411:*not* to cover this story. A bent admin with special privileges has been watching over other Wikipedians (as well as their paid clients) for about a decade. As far as why other stories weren't published - we've all got time pressures - but please feel free to submit a full story, or even just a brief paragraph for inclusion for the next issue.
170:
1557:. Or maybe I've just romanticized his opposition. I suppose that like a broken clock which is right twice a day, a serial opposer was bound to get lucky. Perhaps, if anything, it is a cautionary tale for editors at Rfa not to jump so quickly on opposers. One never knows when the next Lourdes might be lurking about. Regards,
1715:
contributions. If I found something that indicated that the candiate was unsuitable then I would oppose because that's the way it's supposed to work. RfA should not be an easy pass because failed candidates are able to try again, as
Lourdes did, but successful candidates cannot easily be recalled or suspended.
196:
1765:
when that opposition is very much in the minority, is a profound waste of time that would be better spent doing something else. I also haven't put forward any RfA candidates for a while, but for those I did, I mentioned that there would be some opposition, most of it would be at best good feedback or
1726:
I didn't want to write it there. I actually commend your discussion style (except for a few words, of course, like "absurd", but forget that) and applaud your persistence in something you believe in. I'm also in awe that you don't cow down to number pressure – that is, the social pressure of having a
1718:
But casting such opposes generated hostility and unpleasantness because the voting process is public. Admins such as
Kudpung in particular would make regular personal attacks on me, claiming that I was part of an anti-admin brigade. This was a fabrication because, so far I can tell, there's no such
1714:
This didn't happen because I opposed everyone at RfA; I supported plenty of candidates such as
Ritchie333. It's because I did due diligence as seemed appropriate for the granting of such lifetime powers. I would usually check the candidate's user pages and then systematically check a month of their
1151:
Get away with what, exactly? Did they get away with becoming an admin by not doing the bad things that led to the earlier ban (or much other bad things)? Or did they get away with doing bad things before the "Godfather" thing? The first possibility I think we can't do much about without a significant
854:
This episode isn't just a one-off scandal; it's symptomatic of a more pervasive ailment that could undermine the very foundation of
Knowledge (XXG): trust. If an abuser can use their admin privileges for clandestine purposes until choosing to come forward, it stands to reason that there could be many
1722:
The attacks culminated in my being taken to ANI to ban me from RfA. This was not done but I was warned. I continued to vote in RfAs to demonstrate that I could not be cowed or intimidated but then I stopped and haven't done much since. I have my reasons but that's another story and the main issue
237:
in this very periodical said "it was a matter of deep concern" that an abusive editor who had obtained administrator privileges "was able to fool the community for so long". At that time, they were banned by the
Arbitration Committee following a long case. We are sad to report that, not only did the
1827:
when it came out that such a productive and ever-present administrator had socked for so long, socked in an ArbCom election (where it most certainly would be discovered and was) and had no remorse about it. There have been other "Admins gone Wild" cases as well but most of them were awhile ago (see
1657:
Andrew had a reputation for
Opposing the majority of RFAs for any reason they could think of. Andrew didn't outright say "I believe they're a sock of x" or "they're acting similarly to x", They were opposing because they felt Lourdes was making COSMETICBOT edits ..... No connection between Wifione
1302:
I was as surprised as anyone, I thought
Lourdes was a terrible admin because they rushed into things and tended to chose the "Path of the Most Drama" more often than not. That was all I expected to be addressing in the request I filed. I would suggest that it is not a worthwhile endeavor to ponder
672:
This is kind of a surprise, but I think this could easily have been avoided with proper screening measures. The fact they were able to fool the community for so long is more than concerning. I am not saying that all admins need to be screened, but there should be this expectation of trust. I don't
365:
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,
1686:
As Davey said, no apology is required. I was one of those four opposes and I didn't know about the socking. I think your latter point is more prescient: maybe we shouldn't so quickly attack opposers. The truth of RfA is that it is always an attempt to create the appearance of political consensus;
1350:
that more "surprising" socks will be outed in the coming years. You just asked where all the administrators were – I choose to focus on the content of the encyclopedia, rather than editor behavior. There are shortages of admins in many areas; you can't help in them all so you need to prioritize.
1321:
What goes unmentioned here is that Wifione was impersonating a moderately famous celebrity with same first name behind the scenes, going all the way back to their first edits on the Lourdes account late in 2015, including in their emails, and going as far to use a VPN to appear to be in the same
431:
Nobody is quite sure what to make of this. How did they get away with this for so long? How did they conceal it this well? How did nobody notice? What was the point of spending years as a productive administrator, making tens of thousands of edits and logging thousands of actions, to implode the
1928:
Like babe, you were living a TRIPLE LIFE??? Not even pretending, BEING a respected member of the admin community who is PRETENDING to be Spanish indie pop sensation Russian Red, who is PRETENDING that they haven't scammed anyone before. I can hardly wrap my head around this, this is some George
1005:
This could certainly be the last sock from this user, and they may not have any other accounts at this point. Still, the paranoid side of me wonders. Will someone with a decade or two of experience in ban evasion give up for good, after surrendering this readily? It almost seems like a stunt.
298:
That prior account was later linked to another account called Wifione, which was created in 2009 and that had become a Knowledge (XXG) admin in 2010. The Arbitration committee case found that Wifione was engaging in search engine optimization related to an Indian educational firm. Wifione was
1124:
Now this is a saga, but a better (funnier at least) saga would be a trilogy, next time ArbCom need to take some time to review every RfA candidate, but still very funny for what it's worth. This was just a what the hell moment and then when I saw Lourdes' name, a second what the hell moment.
1658:
and Lourdes was made in his Oppose !vote (and going by Wifione's contribs they didn't do script work anyway).... so no apology is required as to me it's not like Andrew said "This user is a sock of x" and they were ignored (If they said that we would've took them far more seriously.) –
747:
Aren't checkusers supposed to be done at the time of adminship? A checkuser will reveal stuff like proxy use and alternative accounts. The whole point of emailing ArbCom about any alternative accounts is to come clean that there was not any breaches of trust or community expectations.
1431:
You know, I vividly recall that something was off about Lourdes when she unilaterally reverted the block on Athaenara after having not made any major contributions to the project in ages. I thought it was very odd for someone to randomly do that out of the blue. Still, I'm shocked.
320:
with 207 in favor and 3 opposed. The account went mostly unused for 2020 through 2022, with many months of total editorial inactivity, although it continued to perform admin actions. In 2023, they returned to regularly editing the English Knowledge (XXG).
1173:(That nobody seems willing to do anything about attacks and harassment from an on-wiki BADSITE is something I find substantially more problematic — I think people behaving poorly on a BADSITE should be blocked from here without it being considered
792:: "An administrator who is found once to be using one more alternative accounts inconsistent with the policy on sockpuppetry shall have their administrator rights removed. The rights may only be regained after a successful request for adminship."
315:
created the Lourdes account in late 2015, initially under a different name. In 2016 they renamed the account. They were most active in 2016–17, and ran an unsuccessful, self-nominated request for adminship in early 2017; a second attempt in 2018
1326:
after making the initial edits pretending to be the celebrity. Overall, this is undoubtedly one of the most elaborate ruses in Knowledge (XXG) history, and a clear demonstration of the fact that you never really know who's behind the mask.
366:
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.
1687:
it's never a fact-finding mission. Because we're not collectively holding folks like Ritchie333 to account for the nomination is why they continue to be so cavalier in their approach. This sort of thing will continue to happen because
1165:
While I already have a bunch of concerns about on-wiki functionary processes, I'm including to agree — while obviously ban evasion is something we would want the community to pursue and punish, if the evader doesn't get noticed
1152:
risk of the cure being worse than the disease, and unfortunately that's the direction I see some pushing. The second has more promise, but doesn't necessarily result in us catching that a sock is a sock versus just a bad admin.
1341:
I don't understand why so many are so surprised. Today is election day in Ohio, where I will be required to present a government-issued photo ID in order to be allowed to walk into a voting booth. Yet some MAGA Republicans
911:: The "Godfather" description seems to have been misquoted. Neither is the provided quote from the "case request", nor did "her request to Fermiboson that he archive the WP:AN thread he had opened" refer to that message.
573:
1641:
For what it's worth, I know Andrew Davidson in real life and have talked to him in person about various Knowledge (XXG) articles and events numerous times. We have also collaborated on several articles together.
1677:"how those 4 individuals saw so clearly what a room full of editors was telling them wasn't the case. Reading their opposes, I became fascinated by their ability, in the face of such support, to not be fooled."
1351:
Besides, if I were more active in looking for editors who weren't who they said they were, I'd still need to assume good faith and tiptoe around the "outing" policy to avoid getting in trouble myself. Want to
686:
What screening procedure do you have that would've "easily" detected that Lourdes was a sock? Certainly the many editors and admins who supported and nominated them for adminship didn't notice anything amiss.
1040:
Strange enough, this is not the first time I heard about admin with sockpuppets. The Dutch Knowledge (XXG) had also a few cases. Probably the current election and control is failing. How can that be fixed?
1785:
I was away from Knowledge (XXG) for quite some time due to real life reasons, and then got this news via Reddit and Twitter, and I'm back here to reiterate Moneytrees' feelings myself, "What the hell?".
465:
456:
281:
234:
650:
I believe it's merely a turn-of-phrase, using a modifier for a term that can't be modified because it's binary. "I tried to ask Abraham Lincoln about the quote but it turns out he's exceedingly dead."
527:
537:
532:
1494:
1225:
This wasn't the news I was expecting to read today. I'm not going to lie, it's actually kind of impressive that Wifione/Lourdes was able to successfully go through RfA twice as a sockpuppet. -
547:
522:
512:
96:
1930:
507:
495:
785:. An administrator should be trusted to have disclosed all alternative accounts they know they have created and used currently to either the community or to the arbitration committee.
1997:
292:
542:
489:
55:
44:
339:
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
257:— bullying other less-privileged editors over their votes during a recent request for adminship. With the case request around one day old, on 2 November, the respondent suddenly
419:
All of the details of the request and the statements made there — which arbitrators voted to decline as pointless soon after the revelations and the self-block — can be seen at
517:
1754:
350:
This kind of pressuring (there were other examples) was described by one of the contributors to the case request as "the kind of thinly veiled threat you'd expect to hear in
1829:
1836:, another active admin who socked. This one was unusual because the socking admin volunteered the information themselves and they were the sockpuppet, not the sockmaster.
1820:
I've always had an iffy feeling about Lourdes that I couldn't quite put my finger on and now I know why. Never would have imagined the problem to be this serious though.
113:
2049:
631:
288:
30:
Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015: "Is this an ArbCom case request or an M. Night Shyamalan movie?"
1518:
818:
442:
mentioned in Lourdes' final message has indeed discussed this issue, and that both Beeblebrox and the disgraced LTA have posted more about the events, but the
335:
filed this month alleged that Lourdes engaged in egregious abuse of their administrator status during a recent request for adminship, including the following:
21:
2025:
1521:, specifically, the opposes (there were only 4 of them). I was curious how those 4 individuals saw so clearly what a room full of editors was telling them
2020:
2015:
885:
Sorry, what? Are you suggesting that LLMs offer superior accountability, transparency, and reliability than Knowledge (XXG)? They're black boxes trained
1547:
pointless for any editor to validate Andrew's votes at Rfa...His decision for Lourdes, and any other worthy candidate, was set before the Rfa even began
272:, asked "Is this an ArbCom case request or an M. Night Shyamalan movie?" Others, like arbitrator Moneytrees in the quote above, were more to-the-point.
1719:
thing. I suspect that his real beef was that I had opposed him at his own RfA. And I was vindicated there too because he was eventually de-sysopped.
1757:. I haven't always agreed with Andrew's views of a candidate at RfA, but I absolutely defend his right to say them. Indeed, as I said at the time, "
2010:
284:
of how the Wifione siteban came to be, amidst allegations of paid editing while holding the admin bit, you can probably skip over this section.
1944:
I've only just read the whole thing and gotten context for it. Holy shit, I wasn't ready for this on a Wednesday morning. I need to lie down. -
1800:
FWIW, it seems that Lourdes already had many red flags, but how many others don't? To question Lourdes' "innocence" back then would've violated
1497:
note Izno's comment on Lourdes's checkuser results quoted above? I've already left a note about Lourdes on the talk of the Wifione ArbCom case.
1247:
Yeah. Must have had considerable passion for their project, so to speak. Perhaps your username in short for Zillionth Lourdes' Editor Account.
1508:
1626:
1596:
1287:
1252:
842:
1853:
1759:
voters are free to air whatever opinions they like, and banning people for their views is unlikely to lead to a conductive environment.
238:
abuse not stop in 2015, but the same person managed to obtain a second administrator account, and was just discovered a few days ago.
1934:
1525:
the case. Reading their opposes, I became fascinated by their ability, in the face of such support, to not be fooled. In the case of
2005:
477:
49:
35:
17:
1895:
1774:
1650:
1204:, agreed. This came up after Eostrix was blocked too. Malicious behavior is the core problem, not socking, which is just a mask.
1136:
420:
343:
332:
291:
used by the individual also known as Wifione was created in 2006. They created dozens of sock accounts, which were revealed by a
223:
1622:
1592:
1283:
1248:
838:
317:
1866:
1621:
I think you're right. We can deal with it as we are able when discovered, but the problem is not new and of limited concern.
600:
1985:
1953:
1938:
1917:
1901:
1879:
1870:
1847:
1813:
1795:
1776:
1748:
1706:
1671:
1652:
1630:
1616:
1600:
1586:
1565:
1512:
1486:
1470:
1456:
1442:
1424:
1390:
1378:
1364:
1336:
1316:
1291:
1277:
1256:
1241:
1217:
1192:
1159:
1142:
1118:
1087:
1054:
1034:
1015:
997:
975:
955:
935:
920:
898:
880:
865:
846:
832:
799:
776:
755:
742:
712:
696:
680:
666:
643:
625:
608:
407:
395:
211:
205:
1323:
817:
I was unaware of this arbitration case but had suspicions about Lourdes and was surprised when they passed their RfA (
789:
1744:
1711:
I didn't just oppose Lourdes; I also opposed their WifiOne alias at that RfA too. So, that's a big told-you-so.
1502:
1386:
Why did the Signpost chose to cover only the "news at eleven" story in this issue of the Arbitration Report? --
411:
2031:
1949:
1699:
871:
Agreed that this is a seriously concerning matter, that threatens to undermine confidence in the encyclopedia.
639:
1908:
They've probably only admitted to it because they have alternative accounts or have accomplished there goal.
981:
941:
796:
752:
677:
372:
262:
258:
634:
specified that Wifione can appeal after 12 months (whether the appeal would be accepted is another story).
1332:
932:
664:
325:
1971:
1542:
1538:
1440:
1186:
439:
1553:
noted Andrew as a serial opposer. Not knowing Andrew myself, I'd like to envision his role as more of
673:
think any person that has abused trust in the past should ever be allowed to become an admin, period.
1889:
1772:
1740:
1648:
1526:
1498:
1417:
1312:
1213:
1130:
1048:
1030:
894:
1972:
So comfortable, we're livin' in a bubble, bubble. So comfortable, we cannot see the trouble, trouble
1261:
I've revealed the meaning of my username to only a few. Perhaps one day you will be one of them. -
1945:
1693:
1371:
1114:
876:
692:
635:
1174:
443:
1913:
1861:
1452:
993:
916:
793:
749:
674:
604:
1304:
1554:
123:
1728:
1360:
1328:
928:
651:
569:
403:
391:
143:
91:
Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015
300:
1433:
1201:
1180:
1156:
1065:
944:, I am pressed for time at the moment but I will have to review and see what I got wrong. ☆
737:
410:) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Abusing
1801:
312:
153:
1981:
1885:
1884:
Entirely possible, better not to rule that out because I would find that pretty possible.
1833:
1767:
1643:
1612:
1582:
1530:
1493:
Should the sockpuppet categories for Mrinal Pandey (MP) and Wifione be merged? And should
1482:
1412:
1387:
1375:
1308:
1209:
1126:
1102:
1082:
1069:
1043:
1026:
890:
772:
708:
621:
246:
219:
195:
173:
1876:
1761:" Similarly, I think responding (or, if you prefer, "badgering") opposition at an RfA,
1681:
1659:
1558:
1534:
1466:
1268:
1232:
1110:
1011:
872:
728:
688:
2043:
1909:
1857:
1824:
1691:
personalities know how to game the system and we have no desire at all to stop them.
1448:
1098:
989:
985:
971:
951:
912:
857:
595:
1808:
1790:
1606:
1576:
1550:
1476:
1356:
766:
702:
615:
399:
387:
359:
250:
163:
1758:
1727:
huge number of editors against you. It's an honest appreciation of you. Warmly,
1688:
1197:
1153:
1094:
1061:
734:
269:
1823:
While this Lourdes case might be surprising, I was actually more shocked about
133:
1977:
1964:
1852:
This page isn't really complete without the 2015 Newsweek article on Wifione:
1077:
1875:
Lourdes probably confessed because they already have another admin acccount.
1374:
to come to Toronto and make miracles is not how it's supposed to work. :) --
1462:
1402:
1262:
1226:
1106:
1022:
1007:
908:
724:
187:
1838:
1398:
966:
946:
904:
823:
261:
that they are the site-banned former admin Wifione. The case request was
183:
1355:
surprise me, Lourdes? Show up in Toronto this week, ready to perform. –
719:
Just to put it to bed, Lourdes was checked last night. Common UAs and
324:
Throughout their tenure, they made 2,282 admin actions, according to
1149:
How did they get away with this for so long? How did nobody notice?
1346:
cry that thousands of sock-puppets voted in the 2020 election. I
1177:
to raise the complaint. But that's a different conversation.) —
960:
Changed the wording a little bit. Hopefully it wasn't a horrible
781:
I think we should, especially because adminship is a position of
1854:
Manipulating Knowledge (XXG) to Promote a Bogus Business School
1495:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey/Archive
926:"The Godfather" was referred to in the "BADSITE", if it helps.
761:
Aren't checkusers supposed to be done at the time of adminship?
54:
1605:
still, it's like one "lourdes" to a thousand good editors. ltb
202:
1571:
One never knows when the next Lourdes might be lurking about.
476:
34:
1205:
432:
whole thing over a pointless argument on an RfA talk page?
354:". In response, Lourdes gave an admission nobody expected:
1073:
1060:
In cases like this one, I would probably agree with what
1307:
I don't think it is prudent to be discussing them here.
585:
578:
558:
384:
249:
opened a request for arbitration against administrator
1830:
Knowledge (XXG):Former administrators/reason/for cause
1461:
Eh? Why did they doxx themselves? Bizarre behaviour.
1766:
at worst easily ignored, and not to worry about it.
1395:The answer is obvious (though I'm not speaking for
964:, but I agree, correct attribution is important. ☆
821:) so decisively. I know hindsight is 20/20 though.
583:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
819:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Lourdes 2
1517:On seeing this, I felt a compulsion to re-read
1168:because they're acting like an exemplary editor
1105:come to mind... We can't foresee any and every
242:November 1 case request and startling admission
224:" title="Special:PermanentLink/1183169230": -->
614:my guess is "unappealable indefinite ban". ltb
438:'s sources have confirmed that the particular
1724:
717:
701:wasn't the "lourdes" account checkusered? ltb
381:
356:
337:
8:
1407:). It would be journalistic malpractice for
988:who knows what they have been referring to.
1832:if you are interested). And there was also
253:on 1 November, claiming misdeeds including
1755:closed the RfA topic ban as "no consensus"
446:doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.
2050:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2023-11
723:proxy use for the data retention period.
362:, the admin who got blocked years ago.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1575:ok, but it's happened, like, twice. ltb
788:Maybe we can add the following line to
586:
562:
287:According to the 2015 Arbcom case, the
90:
1676:
1570:
1546:
1148:
760:
254:
1931:2600:6C65:627F:FA27:6C:B3E6:FE6F:1812
1021:Maybe he'll go for the sock-to-admin
379:And blocked themselves indefinitely:
268:One of the contributors to the case,
29:
7:
630:Is it actually unappealable though?
594:What does "extremely banned" mean?
984:looks good to me; in the end it's
56:
28:
568:These comments are automatically
68:File:Sock puppet and keyboard.jpg
1282:I'll strive to be worthy of it.
303:as part of the case resolution.
194:
168:
158:
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
265:following Lourdes' admission.
225:arbitration request for Lourdes
1068:noted below (and I also liked
790:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators
731:) 15:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
579:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1918:04:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
1902:08:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
1880:03:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
1871:19:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
1848:19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
1777:10:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
1749:23:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
1170:then I'm much less concerned.
899:16:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
1954:10:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1939:02:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
1814:18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1796:18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1707:20:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1672:13:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1653:09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1631:10:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1617:10:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1601:09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
1587:13:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1566:12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1513:12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1487:08:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1471:08:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1457:03:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
1443:22:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1425:17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1391:11:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1379:14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1365:11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1337:00:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1324:Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown
1317:23:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1292:20:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1278:18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1257:17:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1242:14:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1218:18:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1193:15:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1160:13:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1143:13:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1119:12:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1097:, this is it. Self-selected
1088:19:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
1055:11:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1035:11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
1016:11:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
998:20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
976:17:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
956:16:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
936:13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
921:07:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
881:06:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
866:05:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
847:14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
833:04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
800:18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
777:15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
756:15:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
743:04:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
713:04:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
697:03:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
681:03:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
667:11:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
644:19:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
626:03:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
609:03:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
209:What?????? What the hell???
2066:
1735:04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
307:An admin called "Lourdes"
216:
1986:02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
333:arbitration case request
255:administrative blackmail
1753:Just for the record, I
982:Special:Diff/1183811282
942:Special:Diff/1183036383
837:I voted for Eostrix...
235:2015 arbitration report
1998:looking for new talent
1737:
733:
576:. To follow comments,
481:
469:"Arbitration report" →
421:its last revision link
417:
377:
348:
326:User:JamesR/AdminStats
293:2008 checkuser request
39:
1924:This is so wild to me
1541:, and in particular,
1447:Certainly very weird
1093:If any saga needs an
480:
280:If you have read our
38:
889:Knowledge (XXG)! --
572:from this article's
461:"Arbitration report"
289:oldest known account
385:2023-11-01T22:47:55
1623:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
1593:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
1284:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
1249:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
839:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
563:Discuss this story
503:Arbitration report
482:
276:Wifione background
88:Arbitration report
45:← Back to Contents
40:
1898:
1892:
1869:
1591:That we know of.
1190:
1139:
1133:
940:I picked it from
587:purging the cache
528:News from Wiki Ed
444:thread over there
412:multiple accounts
231:
230:
50:View Latest Issue
2057:
2034:
1896:
1890:
1864:
1860:
1846:
1812:
1794:
1760:
1733:
1705:
1702:
1696:
1685:
1669:
1664:
1609:
1579:
1563:
1555:devil's advocate
1543:TheGracefulSlick
1539:The Rambling Man
1519:Lourdes' 2nd Rfa
1479:
1438:
1420:
1406:
1381:
1276:
1271:
1265:
1240:
1235:
1229:
1191:
1184:
1183:
1137:
1131:
1085:
1080:
1072:'s reference to
1053:
1046:
969:
949:
864:
862:
831:
769:
705:
662:
661:
658:
655:
618:
590:
588:
582:
561:
538:Featured content
500:
492:
485:
468:
460:
449:In short: what?
415:
375:
373:the case request
346:
344:the case request
313:long-term abuser
227:
203:
198:
190:
172:
171:
162:
161:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
62:
60:
58:
2065:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2030:
2028:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2008:
2001:
1990:
1989:
1962:
1926:
1862:
1837:
1834:User:Od Mishehu
1805:
1787:
1729:
1700:
1694:
1692:
1679:
1665:
1660:
1607:
1577:
1559:
1499:Rotideypoc41352
1477:
1434:
1423:
1418:
1396:
1369:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1263:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1227:
1179:
1178:
1103:performance art
1083:
1078:
1044:
1042:
965:
945:
858:
856:
822:
783:community trust
767:
740:
739:it has begun...
703:
659:
656:
653:
652:
616:
592:
584:
577:
566:
565:
559:+ Add a comment
557:
553:
552:
551:
533:Recent research
493:
490:6 November 2023
488:
486:
483:
472:
471:
466:
463:
458:
452:
451:
429:
383:
370:
341:
309:
278:
244:
217:
199:
192:
191:
181:
180:
179:
178:
169:
159:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
103:
100:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
75:
72:
69:
65:
63:
57:6 November 2023
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2063:
2061:
2053:
2052:
2042:
2041:
2029:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1992:
1991:
1988:
1967:vibes to me.
1961:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1946:MountainKemono
1929:Santos stuff.
1925:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1900:(he|she|they)
1873:
1850:
1821:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1738:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1695:Chris Troutman
1674:
1655:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1573:
1545:- who felt it
1515:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1475:attention. ltb
1459:
1445:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1415:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1339:
1319:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1267:
1231:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1208:is relevant. —
1171:
1146:
1145:
1141:(he|she|they)
1091:
1090:
1038:
1037:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
958:
938:
902:
901:
883:
852:
851:
850:
849:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
786:
765:no. never. ltb
763:
738:
722:
699:
670:
669:
648:
647:
646:
636:Ian P. Tetriss
567:
564:
556:
555:
554:
550:
548:Traffic report
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
523:WikiCup report
520:
515:
513:News and notes
510:
505:
499:
487:
475:
474:
473:
464:
455:
454:
453:
428:
425:
371:— Lourdes, at
369:
342:— Lourdes, at
340:
318:was successful
308:
305:
282:prior coverage
277:
274:
263:closed as moot
243:
240:
229:
228:
214:
213:
210:
207:
201:
200:
193:
177:
176:
166:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
105:
104:
101:
95:
94:
93:
92:
87:
86:
82:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2062:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2045:
2033:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2007:
1999:
1995:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1976:
1974:
1973:
1968:
1966:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1893:
1887:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1878:
1874:
1872:
1868:
1865:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1849:
1845:
1843:
1842:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:User:Edgar181
1822:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1793:
1792:
1784:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1771:
1770:
1764:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1732:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1703:
1697:
1690:
1683:
1678:
1675:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1640:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1574:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1437:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1414:
1410:
1404:
1400:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1266:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1236:
1230:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1188:
1182:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1150:
1144:
1140:
1134:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:, after all!
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:sleeper agent
1096:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
977:
973:
968:
963:
959:
957:
953:
948:
943:
939:
937:
934:
931:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
867:
863:
861:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
834:
830:
828:
827:
820:
816:
813:
812:
801:
798:
795:
791:
787:
784:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
764:
762:
759:
758:
757:
754:
751:
746:
745:
744:
741:
736:
732:
730:
726:
720:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
700:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
676:
668:
665:
663:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
613:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
589:
580:
575:
571:
560:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
497:
491:
484:In this issue
479:
470:
462:
450:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
426:
424:
422:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
380:
376:
374:
367:
363:
361:
355:
353:
352:The Godfather
347:
345:
336:
334:
329:
327:
322:
319:
314:
306:
304:
302:
296:
294:
290:
285:
283:
275:
273:
271:
266:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
241:
239:
236:
226:
221:
218:— arbitrator
215:
208:
204:
197:
189:
185:
175:
167:
165:
157:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
106:
98:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1994:The Signpost
1993:
1970:
1969:
1963:
1927:
1840:
1839:
1807:
1789:
1768:
1762:
1730:
1725:
1666:
1661:
1644:
1560:
1522:
1505:
1435:
1409:The Signpost
1408:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1329:Hemiauchenia
1224:
1167:
1147:
1092:
1049:
1039:
1004:
961:
929:Usedtobecool
927:
903:
886:
859:
853:
825:
824:
814:
782:
718:
671:
596:
593:
508:In the media
502:
496:all comments
448:
436:The Signpost
435:
434:
430:
418:
400:User:Lourdes
388:User:Lourdes
382:
378:
368:
364:
360:User:Wifione
357:
351:
349:
338:
330:
323:
310:
297:
286:
279:
267:
245:
232:
114:PDF download
74:CC 4.0 BY-SA
2032:Suggestions
1689:dark tetrad
1202:OwenBlacker
1181:OwenBlacker
1095:interrobang
1066:OwenBlacker
570:transcluded
164:X (Twitter)
1965:John Titor
1886:Zippybonzo
1769:Ritchie333
1763:especially
1645:Ritchie333
1531:Ritchie333
1413:Smallbones
1388:SashiRolls
1376:SashiRolls
1309:Beeblebrox
1210:Ganesha811
1127:Zippybonzo
1070:Ganesha811
1045:The Banner
1027:Randy Kryn
990:~ ToBeFree
913:~ ToBeFree
891:asilvering
735:* Pppery *
632:The remedy
398:) blocked
301:sitebanned
247:Beeblebrox
220:Moneytrees
102:Share this
97:Contribute
22:2023-11-06
2026:Subscribe
1877:Jehochman
1682:Spintendo
1561:Spintendo
1535:Davey2010
1527:Andrew D.
1436:Rockstone
1419:smalltalk
1206:This XKCD
1185:(he/him;
1111:kencf0618
1107:edge case
1023:hat-trick
873:Funcrunch
721:exclusive
689:Galobtter
574:talk page
427:Aftermath
2044:Category
2021:Newsroom
2016:Archives
1910:1keyhole
1897:contribs
1509:contribs
1449:Bedivere
1305:WP:BEANS
1138:contribs
1074:xkcd:810
986:RoySmith
980:Thanks!
962:faux pas
860:Normchou
543:Wikidata
459:Previous
408:contribs
396:contribs
154:Facebook
144:LinkedIn
134:Mastodon
20: |
1960:Comment
1858:Andreas
1809:CX Zoom
1791:CX Zoom
1731:Lourdes
1551:Kudpung
1372:Lourdes
1370:Asking
1357:wbm1058
815:Comment
794:Awesome
750:Awesome
675:Awesome
518:Opinion
440:BADSITE
251:Lourdes
71:Alexbrn
1802:WP:AGF
1741:Andrew
1523:wasn't
1353:really
1348:expect
1198:Anomie
1175:OUTING
1154:Anomie
1062:Anomie
601:Anselm
270:Kurtis
259:stated
174:Reddit
124:E-mail
2011:About
1978:JLCop
1662:Davey
1344:still
797:Aasim
753:Aasim
678:Aasim
358:I am
311:This
16:<
2006:Home
1982:talk
1950:talk
1935:talk
1914:talk
1891:talk
1856:. --
1745:talk
1701:talk
1667:2010
1627:talk
1613:talk
1597:talk
1583:talk
1503:talk
1483:talk
1467:talk
1463:JMWt
1453:talk
1403:JPxG
1401:and
1361:talk
1333:talk
1313:talk
1288:talk
1264:ZLEA
1253:talk
1228:ZLEA
1214:talk
1187:Talk
1132:talk
1115:talk
1101:and
1064:and
1050:talk
1031:talk
1012:talk
1008:Mlkj
994:talk
972:talk
952:talk
917:talk
909:JPxG
895:talk
877:talk
843:talk
773:talk
729:talk
725:Izno
709:talk
693:talk
640:talk
622:talk
605:talk
467:Next
404:talk
392:talk
331:The
188:JPxG
1996:is
1867:466
1743:🐉(
1611:l (
1581:l (
1481:l (
1399:Bri
1084:Why
967:Bri
947:Bri
905:Bri
771:l (
707:l (
620:l (
184:Bri
182:By
99:—
83:400
2046::
1984:)
1975:.
1952:)
1937:)
1916:)
1894:|
1888:|
1863:JN
1844:iz
1747:)
1629:)
1615:)
1599:)
1585:)
1537:,
1533:,
1511:)
1485:)
1469:)
1455:)
1432:--
1363:)
1335:)
1315:)
1290:)
1255:)
1216:)
1200:,
1135:|
1129:|
1117:)
1079:So
1033:)
1025:.
1014:)
996:)
974:)
954:)
933:☎️
919:)
907:,
897:)
887:on
879:)
845:)
829:iz
775:)
711:)
695:)
642:)
624:)
607:)
597:St
457:←
423:.
406:|
394:|
328:.
295:.
233:A
222:,
212:”
206:“
186:,
2000:.
1980:(
1948:(
1933:(
1912:(
1841:L
1806:—
1788:—
1704:)
1698:(
1684::
1680:@
1625:(
1608:d
1595:(
1578:d
1506:·
1501:(
1478:d
1465:(
1451:(
1422:)
1416:(
1405::
1397:@
1359:(
1331:(
1311:(
1286:(
1275:\
1270:T
1251:(
1239:\
1234:T
1212:(
1189:)
1157:⚔
1113:(
1029:(
1010:(
992:(
970:(
950:(
915:(
893:(
875:(
841:(
826:L
768:d
727:(
704:d
691:(
660:G
657:M
654:G
638:(
617:d
603:(
591:.
581:.
498:)
494:(
414:)
402:(
390:(
80:0
77:0
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
