Athaenara - Schadenfreude and Outrage

[ScotFinnRadish]

.
Moderator's note: This thread was split from the News from RFA thread.
.

diff

[Hemiauchenia]

diff

For those who cannot be bothered to click the link.
Athaenara (T-C-L) wrote:

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

The only response I have to that is uh, yikes. I can't imagine that Athaenara will remain an admin in a week's time.

[Ansh666]

diff

For those who cannot be bothered to click the link.
Athaenara (T-C-L) wrote:

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

The only response I have to that is uh, yikes. I can't imagine that Athaenara will remain an admin in a week's time.

Already at AN/I by the way: link

[Midsize Jake]

Indefinitely blocked by User:Floquenbeam, who "hopes it's a compromised account" situation.

I wouldn't be so hopeful — User:Athaenara (T-C-L) is one of those people who was given admin rights back in 2007, at the top of the "rapid mass adoption curve" when they still thought "adminship is no big deal" and they were also desperate for people to help them fight link spammers and vanity-article posters. I believe she actually refused the first RfA nomination and had to be cajoled quite a bit into accepting the second one. At that time there was very little vetting against transphobia among nominees, and of course same-sex marriage was still not legal in most countries, etc. So it's quite possible she's had these attitudes all along.

Technically it's also possible that she isn't even a "she" herself, and this whole incident is just her way of flipping off the WP community on the way out. You just never know with Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

The offending vote.
Had to dig out the other account to see it.

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

Is this any worse than saying you won't vote for a Republican for Admin?

If so, where's the line?

[Moneytrees]

The offending vote.
Had to dig out the other account to see it.

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

Is this any worse than saying you won't vote for a Republican for Admin?

If so, where's the line?

C'mon man, that's not fair. Of course that's a worse and far more hateful thing to say.

[Midsize Jake]

If so, where's the line?

I don't think there's anything mysterious going on here — the line is somewhere between ideology and identity, but when 98% of the people who have a particular identity have roughly the same ideological tendencies (and justifiably so), there will always be situations where the opposing side insists that it's their ideology that's being targeted. This is true throughout the culture, not just on Wikipedia, and there's not much that can be done about it. (Unless you want to start "getting rid of" people, of course — and we've all seen how that turns out.)

That said, Wikipedia has always had an above-average percentage of trans women in proportion to the more "traditional" kind. That's because it's online and (mostly) anonymous. The fact that it's male-dominated probably factors in as well (though if we try to explain that, we'll inevitably insult a few people). So maybe the transphobes should blame Jimbo and Larry Sanger instead of the trans women in question — especially Larry, since he's a transphobe himself.

[nableezy]

The offending vote.
Had to dig out the other account to see it.

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

Is this any worse than saying you won't vote for a Republican for Admin?

If so, where's the line?

Lol yes it is worse. The line is somewhere between feeling trumpistas are bad and not voting for them and saying trans women are actually males masquerading as females and not actual genuine real women and that is why you are voting against one.

[Hemiauchenia]

Chris troutman (T-C-L) coming in with a frankly just bizarre take at her talkpage:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special ... 1115362739

Many on the right wing have accused Wikipedia of being a left wing website. Some editors argue the point but I know better. Now we see a 15 year editor getting very swiftly blocked and de-sysopped for cause all because she spoke against the neofascist orthodoxy of this website. Unfair as it is I can't say I'm sad about it. At least I know how to read the writing on the wall.

[Trismic]

[Ansh666]

Arbcom now link

(I know these links will break pretty soon, anything we do about that?)

[The Blue Newt]

If so, where's the line?

I don't think there's anything mysterious going on here — the line is somewhere between ideology and identity, but when 98% of the people who have a particular identity have roughly the same ideological tendencies (and justifiably so), there will always be situations where the opposing side insists that it's their ideology that's being targeted. This is true throughout the culture, not just on Wikipedia, and there's not much that can be done about it. (Unless you want to start "getting rid of" people, of course — and we've all seen how that turns out.)

That said, Wikipedia has always had an above-average percentage of trans women in proportion to the more "traditional" kind. That's because it's online and (mostly) anonymous. The fact that it's male-dominated probably factors in as well (though if we try to explain that, we'll inevitably insult a few people). So maybe the transphobes should blame Jimbo and Larry Sanger instead of the trans women in question — especially Larry, since he's a transphobe himself.

At the risk of unmasking myself as a reactionary (and having to burn the papers and the images, and smash the threshing machine), you appear to be entirely acknowledging the factual side of Athaenwhositz’ position.

[Vigilant]

The offending vote.
Had to dig out the other account to see it.

Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

Is this any worse than saying you won't vote for a Republican for Admin?

If so, where's the line?

Lol yes it is worse. The line is somewhere between feeling trumpistas are bad and not voting for them and saying trans women are actually males masquerading as females and not actual genuine real women and that is why you are voting against one.

Trumpistas were not what was railed against.
Republicans was the word used.

We're not en.wp. Words mean things.

Blanket voting against someone because of their political party affiliation is over the line in near the same way as voting against someone for being trans.

Both are wrong.
Both are about as wrong as it's possible to be.

Can they do the admin work?
Can they act in a neutral manner and uphold the rules?

A pox on both their houses.

[Vigilant]

Athaenara, I'm absolutely shocked. I see you working every night, alongside me, reviewing pages tagged for speedy deletion. This is not about the fact that you opposed this candidate it's because of your hate-filled words. You know better, why would you feel compelled to say these things in such a public forum? I just don't understand, I know the good work that you've done. It will be sad if this is what you are remembered for. Liz 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We prefer the genteel racism of the South where these words are only said proudly aloud in the most exclusive sitting rooms...

[Konveyor Belt]

Blanket voting against someone because of their political party affiliation is over the line in near the same way as voting against someone for being trans.

Both are wrong.
Both are about as wrong as it's possible to be.

It's really going to come down, as Jake said, to whether being trans is an ideology/opinion that relates to the external world or an identity that relates to one's internal world. Then the comparison to being a Republican is either relevant or not relevant respectively. I think it isn't particularly relevant, but I'll leave it at that.

That said, people aren't mad at her for the rationale of her vote, they're mad at her for making a transphobic personal attack. Surely describing someone as Republican or even "far-right" is not as bad as describing them as "males masquerading as females".

[Black Kite]

That said, people aren't mad at her for the rationale of her vote, they're mad at her for making a transphobic personal attack. Surely describing someone as Republican or even "far-right" is not as bad as describing them as "males masquerading as females".

This is the point. She didn't simply say "Oppose - editor is a trans woman", she actually made a transphobic attack on all transwomen. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having an argument over semantics if she'd posted a racist diatribe.

[Mason]

That said, people aren't mad at her for the rationale of her vote, they're mad at her for making a transphobic personal attack. Surely describing someone as Republican or even "far-right" is not as bad as describing them as "males masquerading as females".

This is the point. She didn't simply say "Oppose - editor is a trans woman", she actually made a transphobic attack on all transwomen. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having an argument over semantics if she'd posted a racist diatribe.

Lol, don’t be so sure. I’d bet there would be at least one entirely-serious “First they came for the Klan…”

[nableezy]

Trumpistas were not what was railed against.
Republicans was the word used.

That isn't true, the initial quote was "I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote ''against'' someone solely on that basis)." and the follow up was "This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election ..."

But Vig, I really dont get the point youre trying to make here. One person is saying Ill keep my mouth shut if somebody who is on record for supporting what I feel to be an oppressive regime stands for adminship, the other is nearly on the level of shouting the n-word at a random Black person on the street. You can be critical of the former without pretending it approaches the latter.

[Mason]

If there’s not a rule specifying an indefinite block for anyone whining about “cancel culture” after saying something hateful, there ought to be.

[Anroth]

On the plus side, if we are now engaging in purges for those with views not consistent with Wikipedia's values, it should be easier to get rid of problematic people like John Pack Lambert...

[MrErnie]

A bit fitting that a male admin blocks a female and calls her an idiot.

Edit: a word

[Mason]

A bit fitting that a male admin blocks a female and her an idiot.

Clearly she’s not an idiot, she’s got a Mensa userbox right there on her user page.

[Botto]

After one day shy of sixteen years on Wikipedia, Athaenara was indefinitely blocked within 37 minutes of one horrific contribution.

[No Ledge]

After hesitating for a moment to even post in this thread for fear of putting my foot in my mouth again, given the extreme lack of tolerance in this matter, I note my discomfort with the blocking administrator, who in their second (controversial) request for adminship said

I knew the reversal of an office action (in spite of having consensus behind me) would cause further disruption, and I did it anyway. I've never really written articles, and contribute to article space even less now than I did before my previous RFA, which was charitably characterized at the time as "uninspiring". I said "f*** you" to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized. I've probably made some enemies from trying to solve disputes at AN/ANI. I'm grumpier than I used to be. And I haven't even been terribly active in the last year. I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf.

My thinking on the matter, at this moment, aligns with Risker's and I'm wondering why it wasn't sufficient to simply revision-delete the !vote and give a warning threat not to repeat such statements online.

[Ritchie333]

If Floq hadn't made the block I would have done it myself - it was 2am when it happened and I was asleep. Administrators are not above the law and can be blocked like any other editor if it's appropriate to do so. (Well, at least they should be blocked).

[Vigilant]

That said, people aren't mad at her for the rationale of her vote, they're mad at her for making a transphobic personal attack. Surely describing someone as Republican or even "far-right" is not as bad as describing them as "males masquerading as females".

This is the point. She didn't simply say "Oppose - editor is a trans woman", she actually made a transphobic attack on all transwomen. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having an argument over semantics if she'd posted a racist diatribe.

Would that have any difference.
I suspect not.

[Vigilant]

Trumpistas were not what was railed against.
Republicans was the word used.

That isn't true, the initial quote was "I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote ''against'' someone solely on that basis)." and the follow up was "This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election ..."

But Vig, I really dont get the point youre trying to make here. One person is saying Ill keep my mouth shut if somebody who is on record for supporting what I feel to be an oppressive regime stands for adminship, the other is nearly on the level of shouting the n-word at a random Black person on the street. You can be critical of the former without pretending it approaches the latter.

Fair point. I should have looked up the actual quote. My bad.

I am trying, and apparently failing, to point out that blanket voting on RfAs based on their politics or gender is wrong on either count.

Whether one or the other is better or worse is immaterial.
They're both wrong to such a degree that should disqualify you from taking any part.

[Vigilant]

A bit fitting that a male admin blocks a female and her an idiot.

Clearly she’s not an idiot, she’s got a Mensa userbox right there on her user page.

Well, that merely proves it.

[Botto]

Squared.Circle.Boxing (T-C-L) was being a little edge-lord on Athaenara's page,link so they were blocked for two weeks for it.

[The Blue Newt]

Trumpistas were not what was railed against.
Republicans was the word used.

That isn't true, the initial quote was "I will never vote for an admin candidate who's right-of-center by American standards (although I wouldn't vote ''against'' someone solely on that basis)." and the follow up was "This isn't about conservatives. It isn't about Republicans. It isn't about people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 or 2020. It is about people who continue to support him after he spent months trying to undermine the outcome of a free and fair election ..."

But Vig, I really dont get the point youre trying to make here. One person is saying Ill keep my mouth shut if somebody who is on record for supporting what I feel to be an oppressive regime stands for adminship, the other is nearly on the level of shouting the n-word at a random Black person on the street. You can be critical of the former without pretending it approaches the latter.

Fair point. I should have looked up the actual quote. My bad.

I am trying, and apparently failing, to point out that blanket voting on RfAs based on their politics or gender is wrong on either count.

Whether one or the other is better or worse is immaterial.
They're both wrong to such a degree that should disqualify you from taking any part.

Gotta disagree here. Someone saying “hey, I’m not voting for one single more guy/honkey/Catlicker/cabbage eater until we have enough gals/nonhonkicators/Prodescules/cabbage haters in the mix” might be making a principled objection. Someone who says “I’m gonna really have to think twice &cet” the same. Except in very limited circumstances, I think this mindset is a bad idea, but it isn’t always evil, or so wrong that it should “disqualify you from taking any part.”

[No Ledge]

After hesitating for a moment to even post in this thread for fear of putting my foot in my mouth again, given the extreme lack of tolerance in this matter, I note my discomfort with the blocking administrator, who in their second (controversial) request for adminship said

I knew the reversal of an office action (in spite of having consensus behind me) would cause further disruption, and I did it anyway. I've never really written articles, and contribute to article space even less now than I did before my previous RFA, which was charitably characterized at the time as "uninspiring". I said "f*** you" to another editor a year or two ago and haven't apologized. I've probably made some enemies from trying to solve disputes at AN/ANI. I'm grumpier than I used to be. And I haven't even been terribly active in the last year. I'm not really planning on turning over a new leaf.

My thinking on the matter, at this moment, aligns with Risker's and I'm wondering why it wasn't sufficient to simply revision-delete the !vote and give a warning threat not to repeat such statements online.

Expanding on this, after further research...

Examine the page's relevant revision history

The offensive !vote was entered at 00:44, 11 October 2022‎.

Just four minutes later, at 00:48, 11 October 2022, ‎ Mitchazenia, an administrator!‎ responded online →‎Oppose: wtf

wtf indeed. If you considered this an incivil, transphobic personal attack that should be stricken and considered a major violation of Wiki policies, then wtf are you doing replying to it expressing that opinion online? You should be right quick putting on your administrator hat and doing your job, revision-deleting the damn message. You know, WP:DENYing them their soapbox.

Three minutes later, at 00:51, 11 October 2022‎, our own newly-minted admin ScottishFinnishRadish redacts the statement. Well, that's better than just replying to it, but it's still in the edit history!

Four minutes after that, at 00:55, 11 October 2022,‎ Mitchazenia adds an amendment to their previous comment, that should more appropriately been left on Athaenara's talk page.

Then at 01:11, 11 October 2022‎, Floquenbeam reverts the entire thread – that's better, but it still hasn't been deleted! – with an incivil edit summary →‎Oppose: redaction is too tame. not going to encourage people to look in the history for assholery

Then at 01:21, 11 October 2022 Floquenbeam blocked her account. So, it's more critical to block the editor making a nuclearly-toxic remark than it is to delete the remark itself.

So the community has an opportunity to crucify (or "cancel") this editor?

Finally, at 01:32, 11 October 2022, ScottishFinnishRadish changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)



You're a faster learner than these more senior admins.

[nableezy]

Finally, at 01:32, 11 October 2022, ScottishFinnishRadish changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)



You're a faster learner than these more senior admins.

That was also an hour after posting here if I'm translating timestamps right.

[Ansh666]

I mean, the comment is still present in full at ARC (which I guess is reasonable, but still)

[Ansh666]

Athaenara's oppose on Tamzin's RfA is pretty amusing in hindsight:
link

Should this be spun out into its own topic at this point?

[Botto]

Athaenara's oppose on Tamzin's RfA is pretty amusing in hindsight:
link

Should this be spun out into its own topic at this point?

It may as well be, as I don't think anything else will hold a candle to it. In the meantime, several admins are still editing the AN/I thread, despite it being closed.

[Konveyor Belt]

The timeline of how it unfolded over about an hour is quite interesting. Obviously it could have only took one admin to revert, revdel, block, and then post somewhere on AN for a block review, but obviously that's not what happened. My guess is that everyone was quite nervous about what to do with it, especially since it's a long-standing admin, but once one admin took one step, another felt empowered to take the next step, and so on. To be fair, showing up at ANI and saying "hey I just blocked an admin indef" would probably generate more heat than light, especially if the comment was revdeleted too fast for the peanut gallery to see.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Should this be spun out into its own topic at this point?

Yes, please call it "Athaenara TERFs herself off Wikipedia". I was going to start a thread about this but I saw it was already being discussed here.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Finally, at 01:32, 11 October 2022, ScottishFinnishRadish changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato: content hidden (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)



You're a faster learner than these more senior admins.

That was also an hour after posting here if I'm translating timestamps right.

After I made my post here my wife demanded my attention for a while. I was also pretty hesitant to fully revert and revdel an admin with 15 years of tenure without making sure it was reasonable. I decided on the rpa as a reasonable stop-gap, and assumed it would be revdel'd by another admin if they felt it needed it. In retrospect I should have just reverted and revdel'd immediately like I did with the other transphobic trolling at the RFA. I was a little stunned at who had made the comment, and was occupied shortly after the rpa and didn't get back to it until later.

[No Ledge]

I mean, the comment is still present in full at ARC (which I guess is reasonable, but still)

Athaenara used an RFA to air her transmisogynist views ([3]) that are incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, a violation of WP:UCOC, and the community trust granted to admins:
Oppose. I think the domination of Wikipedia's woman niche, for lack of a better term, by males masquerading as females as opposed to welcoming actual, genuine, real women who were born and have always been female, is highly toxic. Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care.

Statement by EvergreenFir
Athaenara used an RFA to air her transmisogynist views that are incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, a violation of WP:UCOC, and the community trust granted to admins:
I request that Athaenara be desysopped per WP:LEVEL2. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How convenient. Submitted the exact same minute that Radish revision-deleted. Too late now, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

EvergreenFir is currently an Associate Professor in Wisconsin. Originally from Ohio. PhD in sociology, concentrating in gender and criminology.

[Mason]

They’re now analyzing her past RfA opposes in the arbitration thread, and based on that, it looks like she got irritated that no one particularly noticed or cared that she consistently opposed transgender RfA candidates, so she decided to shout “pay attention to me!” in the most obnoxious way possible.

[Vigilant]

Athaenara's oppose on Tamzin's RfA is pretty amusing in hindsight:
link

Should this be spun out into its own topic at this point?

Both ironic and hypocritical.

[Vigilant]

Statement by Risker

Administrators are allowed to have controversial opinions, provided that they do not allow those opinions to affect their administrator actions. There have been many successful RFAs where the candidates were known to hold controversial opinions, including some this calendar year. There's no administrator action involved in voting in an RFA. Athaenara has expressed what many would consider to be a controversial personal opinion. That is permitted, generally speaking. The question is whether it is appropriate to express that opinion in the middle of someone's RFA. I have little doubt that the closing bureaucrat(s) would assign very low weight to that oppose vote, just as they have in the past to other oppose votes that are essentially political statements. As best I can tell, no experienced editor has been blocked for expressing controversial opinions — some of which might also have "violated" the UCoC — as applied to an RFA candidate.

Think carefully about whether it is appropriate to strip administrator permissions from individuals because they are not right-thinking. Does it in any way affect their ability to block vandals, review CSDs, close AFDs? Do they show restraint in their admin roles by not carrying out administrator actions in the general topic area where they hold opinions that don't perfectly align with the current social climate? I wonder how many admins we'll have left if we desysop all the admins who have opinions that may be considered controversial. Heck, I doubt even Newyorkbrad would be able to pass the "no controversial opinions" test. Risker (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

[No Ledge]

Statement by Risker

Yes, I linked to her statement in my first post on this thread.

[No Ledge]

Statement by EvergreenFir
Athaenara used an RFA to air her transmisogynist views that are incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, a violation of WP:UCOC, and the community trust granted to admins:
I request that Athaenara be desysopped per WP:LEVEL2. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How convenient. Submitted the exact same minute that Radish revision-deleted. Too late now, the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

EvergreenFir is currently an Associate Professor in Wisconsin. Originally from Ohio. PhD in sociology, concentrating in gender and criminology.

Oh, and professor EvergreenFir is an administrator too, who could have simply revision-deleted her statement rather than burn her on a stake.

No need for an immediate block.

If she restores the deleted revisions, then block her for wheel warring.
If she just !votes again with a similar statement, then block for edit-warring.

Then the Arbitration Committee can vote whether to desysop based on the revision-deleted evidence.

[Ansh666]

No need for an immediate block.

Why should Athaenara be treated any differently than the two other users who posted similar transphobic personal attacks on the RfA and who were pretty much immediately blocked for it?

[nableezy]

I was a little stunned at who had made the comment, and was occupied shortly after the rpa and didn't get back to it until later.

It was certainly stunning, and I dont really fault your caution either, just like to pluck wings off of angels occasionally.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

No need for an immediate block.

Why should Athaenara be treated any differently than the two other users who posted similar transphobic personal attacks on the RfA and who were pretty much immediately blocked for it?

Quite. I've blocked transphobic trolls on sight in the past. Being an admin or long term editor should not afford extra privileges when it comes to hate speech, but I'm not going to kid myself that it wouldn't have baffled me.

[No Ledge]

No need for an immediate block.

Why should Athaenara be treated any differently than the two other users who posted similar transphobic personal attacks on the RfA and who were pretty much immediately blocked for it?

Quite. I've blocked transphobic trolls on sight in the past. Being an admin or long term editor should not afford extra privileges when it comes to hate speech, but I'm not going to kid myself that it wouldn't have baffled me.

Neither of the other two had reputations to protect. Indeed I don't think either even had enough edits and time to have become autoconfirmed. We still allow non-autoconfirmed editors to vote at RfA? The first was revision-deleted in five minutes, and the second was revision-deleted in thirteen minutes. So next to nobody ever saw the edits. The correct action was taken in both instances. Each of these also went even deeper into grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive territory, if you can believe that. I can be naive on such topics; one used a term I had to look up on the urban dictionary. The decision to revision-delete was a no-brainer. Blocking an editor with a long-term reputation over an edit where you're unsure or don't have the confidence for prompt revision-deletion is problematic.

[Ansh666]

Neither of the other two had reputations to protect.

See, that's the problem. Why does that matter?

[arkon]

Seems like suicide by cop to me