Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Broken code in blue "Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents" box

At the bottom of it:

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage.

|- | class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: var(--color-inverted, #fff); text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | Start a new discussion

Pretty sure the "|- | class= " etc. bit isn't supposed to be there. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I think I fixed it. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:REPORT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:REPORT to the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia only reports what the sources say has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19 § Wikipedia:REPORT until a consensus is reached. 67.209.129.48 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal

Your feedback would be appreciated at WT:Blocking policy#Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Transphobia from User:DarwIn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some editors from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia have expressed that they cannot question anything in articles about LGBTQ personalities without being accused of prejudice. Thus, by agreeing (even partially) with the topic opened by Skyshifter, one of the main accounts from this group, you from the English-language Wikipedia are, in a way, endorsing this destabilizing conduct.

The objective of the topic seems so evident that, as soon as it was questioned by Yamla on December 29, 2024, Skyshifter already mentioned the conflict on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia.

Although I do not take away your right to debate any issue, several editors from the Portuguese-language Wikipedia have approached me to classify your decision as interference in another community.

Skyshifter has merits as an editor, but has a history of destabilizing actions that led to their ban on the pt.wiki. This account set the bait, and you from the English-language Wikipedia easily fell for it.

My ironic congratulations! Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 14:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The actions taken against DarwIn were due to their comportment here on En.Wp. They have nobody to blame but themself if this has been disruptive at pt.wp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But also you are making claims that we have disrupted Portuguese Wikipedia without any evidence that Portuguese Wikipedia has been disrupted at all. Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Although this does not exclude your right to debate the actions of any editor within the anglophone community, when Skyshifter mentions the events on the Portuguese Wikipedia, it makes the request ambiguous. Furthermore, with all due respect, I’ve learned that people judge others' actions by their effects, not by their good intentions.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you assessed Darwin’s edits (or any other editor’s) within the English Wikipedia; the request was interpreted by some editors from another community as being made in bad faith, and, as a result, your decision followed a rather negative interpretation.

I will try to remedy this situation, and I hope this statement is recorded as a reflection of the indignation of some editors from the Lusophone Wikipedia. I also hope it serves as a warning so that you are not caught off guard, as those who wish may follow my advice. Do not be surprised if you find yourselves drawn into Skyshifter's editorial conflicts from other projects. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I'll feel free to disregard these vague and anonymous complaints. En.wp does not allow editors to misgender people. Have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I hope the other editors of English Wikipedia demonstrate a level of understanding superior to what you have shown in your comments; otherwise, its situation will be in jeopardy. I will try to be as clear as possible, and if I’m not, I might as well draw it: Skyshifter is part of a group of accounts that, in recent months, have been wearing down discussions on Lusophone Wikipedia with vague accusations of transphobia.

When an administrator from Portuguese Wikipedia is "sanctioned" on another Wikipedia for a case that did not result in a sanction on their own, the tendency is for this decision to be interpreted as interference, which is exactly what happened.

At the moment I make my statement, the first editor to comment shows the same line of reasoning; otherwise, they wouldn't have written that English Wikipedia editors respect people's gender identity and wouldn't have fallen into the trap set by the person who opened this request.

Skyshifter may respect gender identity, and I made it clear that they has qualities as an editor, but at the same time, he created a sockpuppet account to accuse an editor, who was a victim of attacks from other sides, of admiring Hitler.

As for Simon, I used irony in my comment, so I will ignore the irony in yours, but there's no need to wish me a good day. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Conde Edmond Dantès: I think you may have been misled. DarwIn was sanctioned for his comments here on the English Wikipedia. The background of the conflict on ptwiki was noted as context, but the impetus to ban came from his comments on enwiki in violation of enwiki policy. Obviously we can't look the other way about misconduct here just because the dispute started elsewhere; I'm sure you would feel the same if the roles were reversed. Courtesy ping @Voorts as banning admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if one strictly speaking must notify users about a discussion involving them, given that this is technically not the AN but rather its talk page, but I would have thought that it would at least be good manners to do so? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluntly DarwIn is not an admin on en.wp and it was entirely their comportment at en.wp that led to their topic ban. In fact our own community was quite quick to ask all parties, Skyshifter, Eduardo Gottert and DarwIn in particular, not to bring up the conflict at pt.wp as it was irrelevant to our proceedings. On the other hand, to suggest en.wp is not allowed to discipline an editor for misconduct just because they're an admin at a different project kind of is interfering with our self-governance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Conde Edmond Dantès: I found consensus for a topic ban and interaction ban based on consensus amongst our community that DarwIn was disruptive. Instead of apologizing for making uncivil remarks, DarwIn doubled down; I recommend that you read the thread that lead up to the ban proposal. DarwIn could've avoided this whole thing if he had known when to stop, but he dug his own grave. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.