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.

I request that Athaenara be desysopped per WP:LEVEL2. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athaenara

Statement by LilianaUwU

As a trans woman (and filer of the original WP:ANI thread), I don't feel safe having an administrator so openly pushing transphobic views such as this one. Thus, I would like to see this whole situation resolved, preferably with a desysop. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker and Dennis Brown: to echo Black Kite, Moneytrees, etc., saying that 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 isn't a controversial opinion. It's hate speech. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mitchazenia

There's a line that was crossed here. And yet, is somehow a product of society. But something does not make sense. Why, after 16 years, would you go out of your way to make a comment on an RFA this transphobic? The CheckUser did not come back with any sign of it being compromised. People are certainly open to hold their opinion, but this is a gross act by someone with the community's trust.

Transphobia is a giant no-no and with the problems we've faced through the 21 years of WP:BITE and the Gender Gap, this is a major smack in the face to have of all the effort we made on that regard. While the attacked party is certainly not a newbie, there is certainly a good reason to understand why the behavior of the accused here won't drive away other editors.

As someone who has been emergency desysopped for self-harm reasons, not only should ArbCom make sure the Admin powers are removed, but take the case and make sure that they do not return to the site. There is no place in the world for transphobia, let alone here.Mitch32^{(sail away with me to another world.)} 01:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

Think I said all I needed to say at the ANI thread, but would like to note that I have checked Athaenara due to concerns about possible compromise. Based on technical data, I do not believe they are compromised. Happy to describe in more detail privately. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apparently do have more to say. To start off, I have in the past held similar beliefs to those expressed by Athaenara, so I think I am better suited than most to understand where she is coming from. I also tend to be pro-"free speech" on Wikipedia. I generally oppose blocking people for simply stating a controversial opinion, even if that opinion is distasteful, as long as it is not creating an unsafe environment. The line between "controversial opinion" and "controversial opinion that makes others feel unsafe" is a rather subjective one, and balancing the "freedom of speech" with creating a safe editing environment is no simple task. To do otherwise, though, risks us becoming an echo chamber where we only permit opinions that everyone else agrees with.

With all that out of the way: I have to strongly disagree with my colleagues Risker and Dennis. This was not a matter of slapping a userbox on one's userpage expressing their opposition to the concept of being transgender in general, nor an abstract comment made in a discussion (and for those keeping score at home - I am not saying those are not blockable either, but to me they are not bright-line violations like this case). This was a comment directed at a human being, in this case a human being going through one of the most stressful processes on Wikipedia, made in a very public space, worded cruelly and directed at a fundamental part of that candidate's identity. I have blocked LTAs without a second thought for making comments not far removed from what was said here. We would not be sitting here debating the merits of a block if someone had opposed a hypothetical RfA because "women are temperamentally unsuited to be administrators" or "black people lack the intelligence to use the admin toolkit" or some other attack on the candidate's identity.

What was said here was nothing less than a naked personal attack, one unbecoming of an administrator, and if it had been said by anyone besides an admin they'd have been indeffed without a second thought and we would all be going about our days without any of this discussion. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sarrail

Here's a question I want to ask here: Why? After nearly 16 years of editing and nearly 15 years of being an admin, Athaenara blatantly, carelessly uses transphobia in their statement. Not comfortable and not okay. And this proceeds violation of WP:NPA. Clearly, this admin wants to push transphobia, and actually, IMO, almost required to be desysopped. Sarrail (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by That Coptic Guy

Prefacing my comment by saying that I haven't interacted with Athaenara throughout my time here so far. However, I just refuse to believe someone would throw 16 years of quality editing out the window from 1 comment, never mind one that was so out of the blue. This is clearly someone who is privy to Wikipedia policy and conduct, not just because of their position as an administrator, but from years of experience. I truly think more investigation is needed prior to a desysop. The block they have already received should give them time to reflect on their conduct (if it truly is them commenting), or if not, then a matter of possible compromise or otherwise can be sorted out.

16 years of editing should not be negated based off of 1 comment. It is a mistake; we have all said or done things we aren't proud of, either on Wikipedia or off-wiki, and have been given chances to try and make amends. A chance should be given here before nullifying such a great track record. One would expect the same if they erred and wished to go back to the way things were before the incident. There is more than meets the eye here, I believe. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC) ~~:Couldn’t agree more here. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 04:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)~~ (Obviously wasn't agreeing with my own comment.) — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 14:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk note: above comment moved from GizzyCatBella's section. firefly ( t · c ) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

(on reflection, I suppose I might be a party? Since I blocked them? I hope not) While this is certainly no smoking gun, doing a ctrl-f for "Athaenara" in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour will show several comments that are consistent with this actually being Athaenara. Particularly "Another funny part of this to me is that I recall years ago checking the preferences thing about gender, because I'm a woman and don't care who knows it, and now find myself wondering if because of this some users will assume I'm really a guy pretending to be female because hormone issues, neurotic confusion, whatever, and it's just down a rabbit hole again. For the record: I'm not pretending to be anything." (emphasis added by me). I no longer believe this is a compromised account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone can give me a realistic example of something Athaenara could possibly say that would prevent a desysop? Considering what she said, how she said it, and how she reacted on her talk page, what could she possibly say now? Are Arbs hoping for a Road to Damascus moment? Or are there Arbs who would accept a "I still feel that way but won't say it out loud anymore"? This seems like either fairness theater, or like there's a chance ArbCom would be willing to give this a pass if she promises to keep her hate to herself in the future. Just propose the motion to desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: that might suffice for an unblock (not necessarily for me, but I can see how it might be enough for others), but the block is a community matter. I'm talking about why we're waiting before a desysop motion. I want to know what she could say to prevent a desysop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Statistics-wise, that data - even overall - is suggestive but IMHO not convincing. What would complete it is her support rate of all the other RFXs. If Athaenara nearly always opposes, then your observation is a false positive. If her support percentage in other RFXs is much higher, it's a much stronger case that there's a likely cause and effect going on. I have neither the time nor the skill to compile that info myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thanks for the updated info. It certainly feels like something is going on there. But I guess I'm still concerned about the sample size. I'm sure someone with statistics skills could do some kind of Bayesian magic and figure out what the odds are that these opposes occurred naturally. Probably higher than our instinct would suggest. But there's really no need, because she was so 100% clear on Isabella's RFA. So theoretical me still has qualms about using these numbers, but realist me doesn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

There is no situation where I would defend Athaenara's comments but I'm just having a very hard time reconciling those comments with the admin that I know. Night after night, I encounter Athaenara as we patrol CSD categories and delete problematic comment. They are diligent and are dependably putting in time on unglamorous admin tasks. I can only imagine that something is happening in their off-wiki life. I understand that their account was checked and it doesn't appear to be compromised. But this one edit is out of character with the admin I've come to know and combing through tens of thousands of edits to find one or two questionable comments should not result in a permanent ban.

I know that editors are angry and asking for a desysop but I hope there won't be a rush to judgment. I'd like 24 hours to pass and hear from Athaenara after the situation has cooled. If they defend their comments and don't apologize, then I understand that action will likely be taken. But Athaenara is blocked, there will be no further violations and I think there is not an urgency to act to protect the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that over the years, I have had my share of abuse directed towards me, as many female editors have and as many admins and anti-vandal fighters have. I'm not unsympathetic to those who feel personally attacked by the comments. I just think there is more going on here than we know and I'd like to hear from Athaenara when some time has passed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement GizzyCatBella

Echo Liz. The comment was shocking, but it would be wise to wait for statement, explanation, perhaps a cause of such bizarre behaviour and apology will arrive. Then you can take it from there. (assuming the account isn't compromised) People have nasty days, you know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker - It's okay to have an opinion. What's stunning to me is the time, place and a choice of words used by Athaenara to express it. The fact that it has been directed at the specific editor also saddens me deeply.😔 Something must be going on.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Athaenara’ account is blocked site wide - no possibility to provide a statement. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I'm going to disagree with Risker here, specifically on the phrase Athaenara has expressed what many would consider to be a controversial personal opinion. That is permitted, generally speaking. No - it isn't permitted at all. We routinely indef editors for hate speech such as racism or homophobia, and that edit was simple transphobia, which shouldn't be treated any differently. ~~Having said that, I would agree with Liz that we should wait and see what Athaenara comes back with, if she does at all.~~ Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Athaenara's comment, I note that she says (a) it wasn't that bad (block should be 24-72 hrs), (b) doubles down on the original comment ("my own womanhood is not as defensible in this milieu as transwomanhood is"), (c) contains no hint of an apology to Isabelle, and (d) still blames some type of "cancel culture". Let's be clear on that last point, if you are an intelligent person and quite aware that a thing that you are about to type and post is going to land you in a pile of opprobrium from multiple people, it is not their fault that you still went ahead and did it. Having said all that, leaving this (and the ANI thread) open for much longer when the consensus is obvious is probably something that ArbCom should think about. Black Kite (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I second Black kite– Risker, I'm disappointed to see you describe this as just "a controversial personal opinion." Ultimately, it's an excessive, inflammatory, and unnecessary attack on the candidate's identity, and therefore the candidate themselves. It's just mean. It's probably the most over-the-line personal attack I've seen on Wikipedia barring outright slurs. Compare it to an actual example of an LTA saying some nasty stuff at the RfA; the language is just nicer. I'm sure we have a few admins who agree with what Atheanara said and hold other offensive views- but where have these admins expressed these views?

Per Checkusers and Floquenbeam's posting above, it does not appear the account is compromised, and I don't really think the block is in question, so now the question is should Atheanara still be an admin? My view is that Atheanara has done generally good work in anti-spam and deletion areas over several years. This does make me question judgment and temperament though. The "cancel me" comment indicates she knew what she was saying would be considered inflammatory– but she said it anyways. It seems to be a preemptive attempt to deflect criticism. Saying something so controversial and then implying any resulting criticism or consequence is "cancel culture" is just immature and not the kind of approach I'd want in a sysop. This is all especially hard to take given Atheanara's oppose of Tamzin's RfA, in particular where she says, "Wikipedia adminship is not about joining political caucuses and ganging up on designated victims." How is that consistent with her behavior at Isabelle's RfA? Regardless of all that, I'd like to see if Atheanara has anything further to say before moving on with a desysop– it seems she is in contact with the committee right now, and she still has talk page access

I think this is sad to see given Atheanara's lengthy service and otherwise fine behavior as an admin. Why waste it on this? I feel bad for Isabelle Belato now having this oddness happening alongside their RfA. It's not fair. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Tamzin below, I'll note this early 2018 oppose at the GreenMeansGo RfA– "[...] We're not supposed to be here for the dramahz, we're supposed to be here for the encyclopedia. [...] To anyone tempted to badger me: knock yourself out, I'll probably give the same attention to it that Roseanne Barr does to those who object when she expresses an opinion", which has not aged well for some obvious reasons and has some unfortunate parallels to this current situation. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

Echoing those above, this is not a "controversial opinion", it is hate speech directed at the candidate in an RfA from an administrator. That is indefensible and, since it's becoming clear that Athaenara's account is not compromised, I'd suggest the committee deals with this with a Level II desysop motion rather than a case. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that WP:LEVEL2 simply describes the procedure by which the committee "expediently" desysops someone by motion. It doesn't matter if the motion is public or private. But whatever you call it, we need ArbCom to act now, to draw a line under this and to show the outside world that we take transphobia seriously. I kind of understand the initial instinct to wait—though, as others have said, what response could possibly be worth waiting for—but Athaenara has responded, and the ANI thread shows near-unanimous support for the indefinite block, a de facto community ban. The committee's built-in lethargy aside, what purpose does further delay serve? – Joe (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SoWhy

I can somewhat understand where Risker is coming from since, generally speaking, having a lot of people with different backgrounds working together is in fact beneficial to the project and personal beliefs should usually not be relevant if there is no indication that said beliefs will impact the editor's approach to other users and content (speaking here as someone who experienced opposition at my own RFA because of my strong atheism). The question is thus not whether Athaenara is allowed to hold certain views, even if they are incredibly hate- and hurtful. The question is whether we can still trust someone who has expressed such views to treat other users fairly and lead by example as required by our policies. Here I do see a problem because Athaenara did not just spout transphobia, she explicitly attacked an adminship candidate for somehow being complicit in driving away users who she sees as "real" women (of course without any evidence whatsoever). And she did so willfully and knowingly ('Go ahead, "cancel" me, I don't care') just to hurt this editor and make some kind of political statement because she knew that an oppose !vote with that rationale at this point in the RfA would not alter the outcome in any way. This I don't see as compatible with how admins should behave themselves per WP:ADMINCOND ("Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others"). Regards So Why 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheresNoTime

I have nothing further to add to the above other than to call on ArbCom to accept this case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: With the utmost respect, I'm not sure what reply could be made which would make what was said any less of an issue, and require any less action... I know you well enough to understand that's certainly not what you're saying, and in real terms there is no major rush to process this — there is something to be said for swift action to ensure such behaviour is clearly shown to not be tolerated though — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much hemming and hawing here — I'd say it was "unbelievable" that we're debating the "pros and cons" of such a comment, but it is no longer unbelievable to me. It's par for the course, and it's exhausting. Some have suggested that the community can handle this, so I ask the following: if a RfA-comparable (>75%, well advertised, etc.) request for comment found consensus to desysop Athaenara, would ArbCom respect the result and make the request for the bit to be removed? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: precisely, thank you — ergo, the community can't handle it, and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to reduce the severity of such a hateful comment — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sakura emad

there are sum of statements i must summarize here: Transphobia is gross and there Must not be any excuses to allow it, administrators are lead by example, community doesn't expect such thing from a trust-worthy user, our community is big and diverse we have variety of people here: and among them are LGBTQA+ community, we must make sure that they feel safe here, a long time of service should not be neglected based on one comment, but we have to make sure that such thing e.g racism does not repeat itself. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

A bit shocked. Having re-read Athaenara‘s RfA, it’s not completely shocking. The opinion expressed is not unusual in the wider world, but there can be no doubt that Athaenara knew that it would be shocking to drop it in an RfA. The opinion should be tolerated, accepted for personal discussion, in a quiet place. An RfA is not an appropriate place. For the known offensiveness of the strength of post in an inappropriate place, the Level II desysop seems appropriate. Athaenara should lose adminship, due to display indicating lack of trust, for the inappropriate posting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel concern for Athaenara. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The shutting down of discussions at ANI is procedural mistake. ArbCom is a forum of last resort. ArbCom is not supposed to act until all other avenues are exhausted. Perhaps ANI is a seriously flawed forum for it, especially due to the tendency of heavy-handed Big man fast closing of discussions there, and the community discussion (on the block, etc) should continue on a dedicated page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I agree with Worm; there is no need for Arbcom to get involved at this stage. I appreciate TheresNoTime's comments, but I am simply looking at this from the view that this isn't a dispute the community cannot handle at this time. Indeed, there seems to be a pretty solid consensus that the block was good. After all, a blocked administrator who nobody wants to unblock cannot do anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, Dennis Brown Consider Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ritchie333/Userbox Trump, where I was criticised for having strong opinions (in this case, hating Donald Trump) that were felt to be incompatible with an administrator. Notwithstanding my view in that MfD, I decided to delete it anyway because there's no real point in needlessly causing offence. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam For what it's worth, I would consider something like, "I'm sorry for my outburst, I was going through a stressful time and lashed out in a completely unacceptable manner. The community is correct that such hate speech has no place on Wikipedia, and has clearly lost confidence in my ability to be an administrator. I would ask that I be unblocked in exchange for resigning the tools "under a cloud" and a topic ban on LGBTQ issues, broadly construed." If a majority at AN agreed with that, then unblock; if not, then Athaenara would be considered banned by the community. PS: I realise that's an argument for an unblock, so the answer to your actual question is "no". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a previously similar incident, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46, it was initiated on 30 March 2021, the motion to desysop and suspend was proposed on 1 April, the desysop was enacted on 9 April and made permanent in July. [4] I think it's a question of when, not if, Athaenara gets desysopped, and I think the relevant processes need to play themselves out. Things should shake out in the next day or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floq, a breakdown of Athaenara's RfA voting record is here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Compassionate727

Speaking as someone whose views of sex transition (as a depersonalized subject matter) are probably broadly similar to Athaenara's, the way she chose to attack a specific editor is, frankly, disgusting. Given that she was deliberately turning Isabelle's person into a political flashpoint and was obviously aware of how this would be perceived, we should be considering to what extent WP:NOTHERE and related policies apply. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why ArbCom shouldn't resolve this by motion. A suspended case is unnecessary because 1) there isn't anything she could conceivably say (apart from maybe proving that her account was compromised) that would rescue her reputation enough to keep her tools, and 2) Athaenara's whole goal was apparently to be silenced and lynched, so she isn't going to contribute to this conversation, if only so she can continue pretending to be the victim here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I would simply say that Risker's comments 100% reflect my own. I don't like the comment, but there is a difference in holding unpopular opinions, and using those opinions in an administrative way, or in a way that suppresses others, which doesn't seem to be the case. Desysopping for this is a slippery slope that might have unforeseen ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have no issue with the block, but this is being handled at ANI. What I don't want to see is a knee jerk reaction by Arb before the community has had the opportunity to handle the situation. Arb actions, in any, should be based on what the community has demonstrated a consensus for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with shutting the ANI discussion down. Arb shouldn't be taking a case unless it is demonstrated that the community can't handle it as it is the venue of last resort. There are a few exceptions to this, but this case doesn't fall into that category. It seems a few are refusing to find out if the community can handle it, to force Arb's hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vermont

Risker, this isn't simply a "controversial personal opinion". Everyone has opinions that would be controversial somewhere, and this has nothing to do with enforcing some sort of "right-thinking". It's patently disingenuous to even state that a response to this blatant, wide-reaching personal attack this is some sort of "no controversial opinions" test.

The "opinion" expressed here is an attack on a defined group on the basis of their gender identity, with a clear aim (given the oppose vote and prior comments) to dissuade or prevent people from that group from contributing to Wikipedia. How can you possibly expect someone to remain in community trust when their stated view is that trans people should not be admins?

I'll summarize my general position on this topic as this: If someone believes queer people should not have rights, they should not have admin rights. I urge ArbCom to accept the case. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflicted with Dennis Brown above. Voting on a RfA saying that trans women shouldn't be editing most definitely suppresses others. How would you feel comfortable contributing to this proejct if people with power over you clearly and publicly stated they don't believe you should be part of their curated community, on the basis of immutable characteristics? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Katie

I live in an area of the United States where this 'controversial personal opinion' is not only tolerated, but is the norm. It's awful, but those people are certainly entitled to that opinion. But we're not talking about opinion. We're talking about safety. We're talking about an administrator who decided to go to an RFA and slap a trans woman in her face. It's not only an attack on the candidate. It's an attack on women, all women, because it implies that cis women editors are being somehow dominated by trans women editors, and those poor cis women need protection from 'them'. It sows division and hate and has no place here. I'm sorry if Athaenara feels threatened by the trans editors on this project. That's not an excuse for her to make an unprovoked assault on someone. How can we seriously tell ourselves that we're working on increasing women's participation in this project if we tolerate attacks like this one? Katie^talk 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

I am surprised to see Risker and Dennis Brown, two well-established editors who I generally see as thoughtful and level-headed, suggesting that this discussion is about sanctioning Athaenara for holding "controversial opinions". Both in the discussion here and in the ANI thread, several people have explicitly criticised Athaenara's comment as a personal attack, including in this discussion at least one editor who says that they agree with her opinion on gender identity! WP:WIAPA is clear that "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [...] gender identity,[...] directed against another editor or a group of editors" is a personal attack, and that "Disagreement over what constitutes [...] gender identity [...] is not a legitimate excuse". Athaenara's initial framing of her comment ("Go ahead, 'cancel' me"), suggesting that she was well aware of how the comment would be taken, and the fact that her only response to the banning is this bit of political grandstanding suggest that her behaviour should also be examined with respect to WP:SOAPBOX. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

I’m frankly stunned to see editors I otherwise respect defending this garbage as merely a “controversial opinion.” “Oppose: Administrators should have at least 1 featured article” is a controversial opinion. What this administrator wrote was not only textbook hate speech, but had absolutely nothing to do with the RfA candidate’s qualifications and suitability for the position they were seeking, any more than “Oppose: Too many Jewish administrators currently” would be.

Athaenara did not participate in that RfA to start a good-faith discussion about the candidate, but to troll and soapbox and, it seems, go out in a blaze of “martyrdom” at the hands of the “woke mob,” as the comments about getting “cancelled” make clear. The indefinite block was entirely appropriate for such an outrageous abuse of the RfA process, the candidate, and indeed a whole category of people who’ve had to put up with way too much abuse already. I hope a desysop quickly follows. 28bytes (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

This is not about an opinion at all. Saying "there are too many trans editors" would be an example of expressing a (horrible, bigoted) opinion. But expressing an opinion is not what Athaenara did. She opposed an RFA because the candidate was trans. That's not expressing an opinion, that's actively discriminating against someone because of their gender identity. That's a TOS violation. If she said "oppose because candidate is Black/Muslim/gay/a woman", we wouldn't even be talking about this, she'd be blocked, locked, desysoped, and forgotten, without any need for discussion. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have an admin indef'd for very good cause, endorsed by the community. That alone is grounds for an immediate desysop (by motion). Ok, give her 24-48hrs to say something if you want to, but beyond that you're indulging an admin and doing the "supermario effect" thing: her editing privileges were immediately revoked; it doesn't make any sense to treat her admin privileges as requiring more consideration to remove than her editing privileges. Any admin who's indef'd needs to be desysopped asap. You can't let her keep having viewdeleted perms if she's not even trusted to make an edit. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Athaenara knew exactly what she was doing. This is not an "oh gee gosh, I made a mistake, I'm sorry". This is someone who is doubling down on an opinion that is almost totally incompatible with the values of Wikipedia. And if this made its way to WMF Trust & Safety, they would have banned her as well. This cannot stand. Unfortunately, I do also worry that the widespread outrage this has generated will engender thoughts that we are somehow an angry mob or the "woke police". But WP:CIV doesn't take a holiday for political reasons.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I think Thryduulf is right. I applaud ArbCom for its deilberate caution in approaching this incident. As much as we might want for them to agree with the rest of the community and impose the stiffest possible sanctions, that isn't what we elect them to do.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GiantSnowman

Just popping here to state that I have closed the ANI thread whilst this ArbCom discussion is ongoing. If ArbCom does not take it on, then if needed we can go back to ANI. I am otherwise keeping my views on the potential desysop to myself so as not to be viewed as INVOLVED, other than to say our main concern here should be absolute solidarity with Isabelle Belato (and all other trans editors/people here and around the world). Giant Snowman 14:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Echoing GiantSnowman, there's a whole person here, a person who was attacked in what may well be the most vulnerable place to attack them. This was not an expression of some political belief, this was purposely being hurtful to another human being, and the "oh its just an unpopular belief" idea ignores the hurt inflicted on that person, and indeed on all the other trans editors we have. You can be a TERF, you can hold whatever belief you want, but you cannot attack a person with your beliefs any more than you can with a rock. And I hope the editors who are if not quite dismissing but diminishing, editors I think highly of, what happened as "expressing controversial opinions" consider what effect that has on the person that was attacked. nableezy - 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think any ban on running for RFA needs to even be considered, and the only thing for you all to do is desysop by motion and leave the question as to whether or not Athaenara is blocked or unblocked to the community. All there is for you to consider is if this is conduct unbecoming an administrator and de-sysop for cause. If somehow Athaenara is able to convince the community that she should be unblocked and wants to see if the community believes that they should be an admin she should be able to do that. nableezy - 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maile66

Desysop, if for no other reason, the high possibility that this account is compromised. Besides the insulting nature of the statement, none of us really knows who is male or female, nor anything else about our personal lives, unless we choose to reveal the information. The offending statement presumes to know gender preferences of our admins. I don't even know what continent many of my fellow admins live on. — Maile (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

To oppose adminship (and possibly even to oppose someone's presence on Wikipedia) on the basis of the nominee's gender identity, claiming such editors are "highly toxic", is a clear violation of our code of conduct. Further statements reinforce that they are fully aware their comments are unacceptable. I add to the pile-on of dismay at the statements by Risker and Dennis Brown, who appear to be focusing only on the distasteful description of trans women, which is sadly not rare and probably would only earn a topic ban. I urge them both to reconsider. Possibly Evergreen's opening post about "transmisogynist views" is not clear enough about what was crossing the line, though the quote that follows makes things very clear. -- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

This is definitely grounds for prompt desysoping, for reasons already laid out by others above, and while I do agree that there is no imminent time pressure in the form of an unblocked Athaenaera potentially causing further disruption, there is frankly nothing that she could write at this point that would avoid the need for a desysop (since it seems we're no longer entertaining the idea that it may have been a compromised account, at least), and thus I don't think there's much reason for delay either. Otherwise, I think I agree with suggestions that the community can handle this without ArbCom: unblock requests can be evaluated as they come, and the community can also move to propose a site ban at ANI (timed or otherwise) if editors feel that is appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mythdon

Openly discriminating against a group of people should automatically result in a desysop at the very least. The benefit of discussing it with the community/ArbCom, however, is there'll be community/ArbCom sign-off, whatever sanctions are handed are handed down. The fact that she has administrative privileges and completely goes out of her to harass and target a specific group of people is alarming. Floquenbeam's swift action was sound, but with that said, discussing it with ArbCom is definitely the way to go as ArbCom's a much more contained way of handling it versus just the community continuing to go back and forth on it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nardog

Giving the accused an opportunity to have their say is fair and square, but I'd like the arbs to also consider what harm leaving this open alone could cause. The sheer knowledge that someone could come up here and make a roundabout point about a whole group of people at any moment, even if one can be reasonably confident it would be summarily dismissed or condemned, by itself makes this an unsafe place for them and thus harms the project as a whole. (I'm already uneasy about the strong reactions it's attracted even though I share many of them.) So unless Athaenara says she wants her privileges back, I suggest immediate suspension (like earlier this year) or some other remedy be explored to put this behind as quickly as possible, especially given the community seems fairly unanimous on whether she should still be an admin. Nardog (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

If your "controversial opinion" prevents you from treating your colleagues with the courtesy they are entitled to, it stops being just a controversial opinion. In such a large community, we're inevitably going to have a lot of opinions that some find troublesome. We can't, and shouldn't, regulate those; but we can and should regulate editor behavior, and this was beyond the pale. I'm rather concerned that some of my celebrated colleagues above can't see that. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Just wanted to note, the corresponding ANI thread has now twice been closed, once by GiantSnowman [5], and the second time by El C [6]. Given that several arbitrators were waiting to see the conclusion of the ANI thread, and that two admins have closed the thread in good faith because it was being discussed here, would it be possible for the arbitrators to clarify if they are satisfied with those closes or if the ANI discussion should continue? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam and Tamzin: Legoktm created a rfa voting history tool over on toolforge. It has a couple of caveats per the notes, might misparse a couple and put them into the unknown category, doesn't parse courtesy blanked RfAs, and requires separate searches for renamed users, but it should provide the basics for this check. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

Desysop by motion and leave indefinitely blocked. I've indefinitely blocked plenty of people for less.

Risker and Dennis Brown, this isn't about "wrongthink". This is about flat-out hate speech, which is unacceptable. I understand where you're coming from—I hold some very controversial pro-life opinions—but I don't go out attacking women who have had abortions. I also hold some heavily socialist opinions, which is why I quietly steer clear of American politics or I'd probably mouth off at Republicans. If Athaenara had simply kept her views to herself and stayed away from gender identity topics, everything would have been fine. However, she chose to find a trans woman and attack her for it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Moved from Statement by Tamzin Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I also opposed all of these other than Amanda's RFB. I think this is just a case of sampling bias. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron's RFA was withdrawn before I could vote, and I didn't see EvergreenFir's or Wugapode's in time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I think that Levivich, above, hot the nail squarely on the head. Having an opinion is one thing. Expressing that opinion in a specific place is another thing, in which the context must be taken into account (the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument). Taking action based on that opinion is yet another thing, and that is where we are in this case. Calling for revolution is allowed, picking up a rifle and shooting it to foment or participate in a revolution is not. Athaenara has the right to think what they want, they may have the right to express that opinion on Wikipedia -- a private website with no guarantee of freedom of expression -- that's debatable, but once they voted against an RfA candidate on the basis of that prejudicial and discriminatory attitude, she crossed a line, and should be de-sysopped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravenswing

Oof. I have considerable sympathy for the premise that we should be free to express unpopular opinions on Wikipedia; I’m one of the handful of editors on record as opposing WP:NONAZIS, I believe that defining “safe spaces” as “You don’t ever have to encounter a view you don’t like” doesn’t sit well with WP:NOTCENSORED, and it’s deeply unsettling how very eager many people are to conflate misgivings over aspects of transgender as Proof! Proof! of bigotry.

However. I agree with many above in the principle that expressing a general opinion is a far different thing than weaponizing it into a crude, vicious personal attack on another editor. (And what the pluperfect hell: be your views ever so anti-trans extremist, what could there possibly be about being trans that disqualifies someone from being an admin??) Having been a productive editor and administrator for sixteen years does not immunize someone against an offense that would get a newbie indeffed twenty times over.

Beyond that, to address the many comments about this being a bolt from the blue ... as may be, but quite aside from that being a frequent sentiment (“Why, she’s always been a nice and quiet neighbor, I just can’t believe she set that building on fire”), that misses the point. The point is – and ironically enough, given the venue of the offense – that prospective admins must secure the overwhelming support of the community. No RfA would survive a personal attack half that vicious being discovered. Whatever provoked her to make the outburst, it is plain that Athaenara will never again enjoy the trust of the community. She could not now get the support to gain the tools from scratch. She does not now have the support to keep them. Ravenswing 16:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I want to express my disagreement with Risker and Dennis Brown. This was not at its core an expression of a controversial opinion, but rather it was an exceptionally cruel personal attack on a specific person in a particularly high visibility place. It was also an attack on all trans people active on this encyclopedia. The "either/or" thinking that concludes that welcoming trans women equals discouraging or excluding other women is deeply problematic. The going out in a blaze of glory rhetoric is creepy. Please act. Cullen328 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, thank you for your detailed analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

While voting at an RfX is indeed not an administrative action—a point I've myself stressed in another context—it is worth noting that we appear to have a pattern of opposing permission requests by people who are openly trans, nonbinary, or request pronouns other than a simple "he/him" or "she/her". In addition to Isabelle's RfA, Athaenara has opposed my RfA (39th of 112 opposes), Wugapodes' RfB (14th of 39), Sdrqaz' RfA (5th of 5), theleekycauldron's RfA (2nd of 50), EvergreenFir's RfA (20th of 42), and AmandaNP's RfB (5th of 6). The only RfXes I'm aware of of such a person where Athaenara did not oppose are CaptainEek's and Rosguill's, which Athaenara did not vote in at all. Note also that these votes have tended to be rather weakly-reasoned, and are basically never cited by other users (see e.g. theleekycauldron's RfA, where Athaenara's vote of, essentially, "oppose per being good at what she wants to do", got a brief mention in one of 48 subsequent opposes).

N Other than the vote against Isabelle, none of these votes is individually that damning (least of all the one against me, which is probably the most unremarkable), but I think they overall paint a picture of a campaign to deny editors access to permissions on the basis of their gender, transgender status, or requested pronouns. That is not an administrative action, but it is leveraging the social influence of being a veteran user, and is further conduct unbecoming of an administator, in addition to that already identified above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Yes, was just about to do that. :) Gimme a few. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sideswipe9th (and by extension lego!) saved me some time there fucking around with insource. (That tool doesn't include RfB, but it appears Athaenara has not voted in any recent RfBs except Amanda's and Wug's.) In the timeframe since the oldest RfX considered above (AmandaNP's), there are 8 other opposes (RexxS, Daffy123, Floquenbeam2, AmericanAir88, Greenman, Money emoji, Shushugah, ScottishFinnishRadish) and 16 supports. So in other words, a 16⁄24 support rate in that timeframe for candidates who have not indicated that they are trans, nonbinary, or take pronouns other than just he/him or just she/her. And a ~~100%~~ 7⁄7 oppose rate for candidates who do (still ~~3/4~~ 7⁄9 oppose even if assuming non-votes were intentional). Contrasting this vote for Ashleyyoursmile (AFAIK a cis woman) with the vote against theleekycauldron may make for a good microcosm of the overall trend. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: You were neutral on me; did not vote on Wug, leek, or Evergreen; opposed Sdrqaz; and, as you note, supported Amanda. So that is in fact a 1⁄2 oppose rate, or 1⁄8 if counting neutrals and non-votes. Compare, again, to ~~6/6 and 6/8~~ 7⁄7 and 7⁄9 respectively for Athaenara. If you think there's a sampling bias here, what's the sampling bias? What about these six candidates makes us unrelatedly more likely to merit opposition from Athaenara? That would be a pretty significant coincidence, given, again, her general 2/3 support rate and the fact that 4 of these 6 RfXs closed as successful. Consider also the matter of Athaenara's "turnout rate" at RfXs in this category: 6⁄8, compared to 24⁄58 for other candidates in the same time period (taken by adding year totals at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological), then subtracting Jan.–Feb. '19 and the 8 in question). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Yes, missing the chance to vote in an RfA (or not feeling like it) is pretty common. It happens to me. It happens to Athaenara about 60% of the time... unless the candidate falls into one of these three groups, in which case it happens only a quarter of the time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erratum: Some statements and statistics above overlooked the obvious datapoint of the oppose at Isabelle's RfA. They have been amended where necessary. Without exception, the correction of this error strengthens, not weakens, the hypothesis advanced here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to the matter of what ArbCom should do, may I suggest one approach? Something to the effect of This matter is referred back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for continued discussion of community sanctions. If that discussion ends in a consensus to siteban, this motion is considered authorization for a bureaucrat to desysop. If it ends in any manner other than that, the matter will be referred back to the Committee to be resolved by a motion or full case, as the Committee deems appropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my intention here is to avoid a situation where a level-2 or by-motion desysop winds up undercutting efforts at community sanctions. I have no objection to a speedy desysop in itself. The community did manage a post-desysop ban in the case of Edgar181, so maybe I'm worrying too much. I do think ArbCom, if it does go with a speedy desysop, would do well to consider a TBAN or siteban at the same time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

W/re Tamzin's excellent accounting above, it's worth recognizing that some !voters, uneasy with gender nonconformance, may look (consciously or not) for a more acceptable reason to oppose. Age. An intemperate statement. In this case, there apparently being nothing like that, out it came.

Cabayi, that's the part that's so stupid about this sword-falling. Many women keep a low profile online for caution's sake. Those of us who don't may have a reason. In my case it's that I want people to see women working here. In the case of a trans woman it could totally be the same, and for reasons they find even more compelling. It could be that a trans woman willing to out herself is more likely than most people to think RfA is worth the stress. We can't assume that the simple fact many of those identifying themselves as women who've RfA'd recently also identify themselves as trans means that trans women are somehow disproportionately filling some "woman niche". There's no pie, here. A trans woman running RfA doesn't mean someone assigned female at birth gets shoved out.

Statement by Barkeep49

Many have already replied to Risker and Dennis but I feel there's an additional nuance that hasn't yet be touched. So I want to echo general those sentiments while expanding on a different point. Risker asked Does it in any way affect their ability to block vandals, review CSDs, close AFDs? And while I could answer "Maybe" to this question it's not actually the right question in my mind. We don't just expect admins to be proficient in their tool use. We expect that they ...lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. For me this action fails completely on that basis. And given the way the thought was stated, and the venue in which it was chosen to be expressed, it is for me disqualifying and enough to justify a fast desysop. But even if doesn't cross that brightline for everyone (though I notice it does for many others here) it's not like we're inventing some new unreasonable standard to hold Athaenara to.

And crucially, at least for me, this is specifically about her as an admin. I actually think a successful appeal of the indefinite block would be fairly easy to do with an appropriate appeal. And it should be that way. I think the standards we have for being part of this community are lower than the standards we should have for being an admin. Right now Athaenara isn't crossing either of those.

One of those is fixable by her, and one of these can only be fixed by ArbCom acting as the community has decided it and it alone my act on it. I note that several arbs have said they don't think this qualifies for Level 2 because it's being conducted publicly. That's fair. But I think acting with-in the Level 2 framework of concern, chance to respond, vote to desysop or not, followed by the chance to appeal through a full case if the choice is to desysop is the right format for ArbCom to use rather than that of a concern/case request, vote to accept/decline case, followed potentially by a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheresNoTime I would hope ArbCom would not do that because the community has repeatedly declined to endorse such a process. Instead I hope ArbCom fulfills its responsibilities by desysopping, and doing so relatively quickly after waiting for Athaenara in the slim chance there's something mitigating, while allowing an appeal through both a full case and the chance for Athaenara to re-RfA. It'd be that re-RfA that would let the community weigh in if Athaenara so chose. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RoySmith

The RfA vote analysis presented by Tamzin is compelling, and really is the heart of the matter. As ugly and hurtful it may be to hurl insults in public, the real damage is what flies under the radar. We now know how they have been quietly trying to move the needle on RfAs. What we don't know is how many blocks, how many page protections, how many deletions they've performed in the past because of their personal opinion of an editor. Let's make sure that number is zero in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have noted that the community can handle this, or at least part of it (teasing apart the issues of banning and desysopping). To some extent I agree with that, but as a practical matter, the ANI thread has recently been closed, deferring to arbcom to take the next step. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I know that "per RoySmith" is not a terribly useful contribution to the discussion, but yes. Tamzin's analysis of Athaenara's voting patterns shows that Athaenara is unlikely to be able to regain the community trust required to be an admin here. We're not just discussing opinions, we're looking at actions -- and those actions are not acceptable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

At this point there doesn't appear to be much doubt that Athaenara will be desysopped. On the question of whether it shall be done by motion or by case, I think a central question is that of a ban. A case would be expected to decide whether Athaenara will be banned, while a LEVELII motion would leave that question open. Right now, I do not see a need to open a case, as there is a strong consensus to desysop Athaenara, and I know of no reason that a subsequent discussion regarding bans or other sanctions would be beyond the community's ability. There is no private evidence or overly large quantity of evidence, which would require an arbitration case. Therefore I currently think it is better for ArbCom to open a desysop motion under LEVELII rather than accepting this case. Madeline (part of me) 19:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think questioning whether LEVELII is appropriate because it was requested publicly rather than privately veers into WP:NOTBURO territory. Involving the UCOC in this case would also be excessive; we can deal with hate speech just fine using local procedures. Athaenara has now had the chance to respond, so in my opinion the Committee should proceed with the motion. Unnecessarily protracting this affair would not be beneficial. Madeline (part of me) 06:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike1901

I've nothing really to add regarding my own views on the overall sitaution other than to say I agree with the majority of others that the trust of the community is surely lost at this point, and am just relieved that the RfA has seemingly continued as if the post wasn't made at all, but there's no getting over the fact that it was, and a personal attack of a similar nature by a non-admin user would almost certainly (and rightly) result in an indefinite block. My main reason for posting here is to pick up on Tamzin's suggestion on a way forward which I think is generally sound - but I don't think it needs to be as complex as that, bearing in mind there's already an indefinite block on the account. I think it could potentially be referred back to the community (via ANI), with no preconditions aside from two - that ArbCom would, exceptionally in this case, action a desysop by motion if that was the consensus of the community (be it standalone or as part of a siteban) and that if an agreement on an overall sanction couldn't be reached in a reasonably timely manner, a full case/ArbCom motion as appropriate could be opened without further consultation being needed. Just a thought on a possible way forward. Mike1901 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

Hate leveled at a trans editor (or perceived trans editor) is not a "controversial opinion" or "unpopular opinion", and shouldn't be minimized as such. From a policy perspective, the English Wikipedia and WMF projects both have clear expectations around egregious personal attacks and hate speech, and those should be enforced. I think Athaenara clearly recognized that, and that her behavior was contrary to it, given she wrote "Go ahead, 'cancel me'".

Far more importantly, we need to cultivate the community we strive to be: one where behavior like this is not tolerated. The idea that trans women are somehow threatening to "Wikipedia's woman niche" (whatever that's even supposed to be) is ridiculous. Trans women are women, and just as much a part of the contingent of women editors on Wikipedia as cis women. I hope that the community's response to this incident will make it clear that Athaenara's hateful statement is not reflective of the opinions of the general editing community, or the subset of it who are women. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

We simply can't have an administrator, a person in a position of power over other editors, who admits to prejudice against a subset of those editors because of who they are, rather than how they edit. That's not "cancel culture" any more than taking a felon's guns away. Having an opinion about whether trans women are or are not women for purposes of sports or bathrooms or many other issues is one thing, but thinking that makes them not qualified to stand for RfA is clearly just bigotry. We may or may not allow bigots on our encyclopedia, but we certainly shouldn't allow them to carry mops. Also, am I terribly immature by being amused by the phrase "woman niche"? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

I disagree that the level II removal-of-permissions procedure is precluded by the community making a request to the arbitration committee that advanced permissions be removed. The community should not be required to wait and see if the committee will initiate the level II procedure on its own initiative before making a request. Indeed, having a request in place with many supporters helps establish support for starting the level II procedure. Note that the level II procedure does not establish a fixed timeline. Following it does not mean the committee needs to come to swift judgement or rush its deliberations. Hearing from the user in question, and then deciding if a motion should be made, and what that motion should be, as some arbitrators and commenters have suggested is precisely in alignment with the level II procedure.

I feel the statement in question is needlessly divisive and contravenes principles enunciated by the arbitration committee in the past, such as "Decorum and civility", "Expectations and role of administrators", and "Administrator conduct". Accordingly, I believe that starting the level II procedure is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Among other errors of this administrator, if errors they are, and not gross personal and deliberate attack bordering on deliberate intimidation against the RfA candidate (which is what they appear to be), Anthaenara needs to take to heart fundamental policy that this website, including in particular WP:RFA, is not a free speech forum. If anyone is trying to "cancel", it is Anthaenara who is doing it, cancelling Wikipedia policies and other people. Also, yes, the Committee can Emergency Desysop, without hearing more, you just hear them later, if they wish -- that's clearly enough due process for these nothing but, voluntary permissions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Cline

If in fact the Arbitration Committee primarily exists to effect binding solutions for serious conduct disputes which the community has been unable to resolve, there is practically no reason what-so-ever for the Committee to accept this case. Not only has the community not been unable to resolve the matter of Athaenara's rather serious misconduct, it has achieved that resolution with a quickness and singular accord that I don't believe we have seen on Wikipedia until this day. There is no reason to suggest that we, as a community, can not achieve any of the other things that we want or deem appropriate regarding the matter at hand. Anything that Arbcom needs to do can be accomplished by motion, without the need for a case at all.--John Cline (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xeno that "Desysop of Athaenara" is a suboptimal title for this case request and have opened a thread on the corresponding talk page to allow further and fuller discussion. --John Cline (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pinguinn

I echo the statements made that this is not about a difference of opinion, but rather about harsh personal attacks. Athaenara's comment was not just about Isabelle Belato but about all trans women editors, and was intended to create an atmosphere of unwelcomeness and intimidation, which can be especially powerful since it came from an admin. As for what ArbCom ought to do about it, obviously the easiest solution would be to simply desysop by motion, perhaps in a suspended case if Athaenara refuses to comment further. However, the incident was not resolved in any manner at ANI, and editors both there and on this page have expressed a wide range of views not only on what they believe should be done, but what our policies actually require in these cases. For this reason I think ArbCom will set a big precedent with whatever outcome happens in this matter, and I urge them to consider if it might be better to do it in as clear a manner as possible, ie. with full principles and findings of fact. Pinguinn 🐧 22:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Rschen and CoffeeCrumbs that the case should proceed under our own rules, not the UCoC. Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OwenBlacker

That statement is hate-speech pure and simple.

Others have more eloquently said much of what I would, but remarks like this are far beyond the scope of creating a hostile environment for minoritised and under-represented editors that a desysopping seems the very least that should be done and a permanent ban feels appropriate. I hope we can rely on ArbCom supporting such action.

Frankly, I share TheresNoTime's lack of faith in the community's likelihood to do the right thing in the face of privileged users seeking additional rights, so I would also advocate a bar on RfA, for at least a year or so, if not permanently, were the permanent ban to be lifted. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Given the mention of being cancelled in Athaenara's comment, and the outrage the comment caused among those who are anti-transphobia (outrage which I share) there will be a lot of eyes (internal and external) on this matter from both ends of the spectrum. This means it is going to be very important for Arbcom to avoid knee-jerk reactions, to explicitly encourage Athaenara to explain their actions and give their perspective on the matter, to show its working to the fullest extent possible and to explain things in a way that avoids as much wiki jargon as you can. A few of whichever group(s) disagree with the eventual outcome will do their best to twist whatever can be twisted to paint Wikipedia in (what they perceive to be) a bad light. To my mind this calls for taking things slowly. If Athaenara gets in touch with ArbCom (and I encourage publicly (and privately) reaching out to them if you don't hear by the end of say Friday) then I think a full case with public evidence (actively moderated to keep it civil and ontopic) will be best. If they don't get in touch with arbcom with a week of the first message on their talk page asking them to do so, then I think a motion that opens and suspends (for 3-6 months) will be best. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbroken Chain

I do not support a desysop if this does not involve administrator action using the tools. Blocked for a personal attack, sure. I have trans family and as a CIS Gender male I don't pretend to understand what they are feeling or thinking but I still want them treated nicely and with basic respect. That's just common courtesy and just like a person should not say that outfit makes you look like shit sometimes people say really hurtful things. I think an arbcom case and the subsequent piling on is aggravating the issue. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

Athaenara has posted on their talk page: Special:Diff/1115539792.

Could this case request be retitled? The current title ("Desysop of Athaenara") gives the impression that it's about a de-sysopping that already happened, not a user requesting one. –xeno^talk 00:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Acalamari

Athaenara has been on Wikipedia for as long as I have and has been an admin for slightly less than me; I even supported her RfA 15 years ago. An attack such as hers, against any demographic group, should be taken as hate speech and is in serious violation of Wikipedia's policies and terms of use; as such, Athaenara should be both desysopped and banned.

In the off chance her account isn't compromised, which seems unlikely at this point, then my statement can be disregarded. Acalamari 01:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Opinions are one thing, but making discriminatory personal attacks on a RFA is another. I hope that ArbCom makes that distinction clear as this is inevitably going to be spun (maybe by outside media) as a "bad opinion" rather than a "personal attack" and I think it would be better to get this right than rush to judgment.

But - I think basing a desysop or ban on the grounds of UCoC is going to add another lightning round of controversy given the controversy surrounding the approval, and lack of enforcement guidelines. I don't think it is necessary for ArbCom to be implicitly making a statement on the UCoC when there are local policies.

There was a semi-recent case on the Amharic Wikipedia that led to a community global ban, which was also endorsed by WMF. I think that ban was conducted a bit hastily, though I also had concerns about inflammatory language on race that tipped the balance towards supporting. --Rs chen 7754 01:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockstone35

The gender identity of any candidate has absolutely no relevance to whether they should be granted adminship, and therefore, it is not a valid reason to oppose. There was no reason for Athaenara to say what she said, unless she intended to be hurtful and to derail the request for adminiship. Now, she wants to play the victim by claiming "cancel culture". We should not entertain her. She should be desysoped for this appalling behavior, and banned for her refusal to apologize. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that I agree with user:CoffeeCrumbs -- The UCoC should not be a factor here. Athaenara's actions violate enwiki's local rules, and we should follow our normal processes. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I have no position on whether here or ANI is the proper forum for these inappropriate remarks, but I want to second the notion that if there is an arbitration case here, that it should proceed under our local rules, and absolutely *not* under the UCoC. I feel this should always be the case, but it's especially important here because of the relative ease in which the UCoC could be invoked in this situation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Athaenara)

When I saw so many statements filed in such a short time, I thought of saying that the editors are piling on, but then I saw that that is a red link, because it does not show its usage in American football, in which it is a form of unnecessary roughness. There is no need for a full evidentiary case. ArbCom should act by motion. They can see the redacted attack, so there is no need for an evidentiary phase. ArbCom should in particular decide whether the sanction should be a desysop, or a desysop and a ban, and should consider whether an apology (which we have not seen) would make the difference between a desysop and a ban. I agree with those editors who say that our local rules should govern, and we should avoid using the UCoC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

This is a project to build an encyclopedia written by the people who use it. The expression of views that demean and invalidate our fellow editors is inherently incompatible with that goal and is a violation of our fundamental principles. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clovermoss

I could say a lot about this, but I'm going to try to be concise because everyone else has already made substantial arguments here. I just wanted to say that I agree that this can be resolved by motion and that we don't really need a case for a blatant personal attack like this. Something else I think is important to reiterate is that Athaenara has been indefinitely blocked for hate speech/possible compromised account. I don't see how she's still a sysop right now. It's true she can't edit, but she can still view deleted ones. There's harm that can be done with that, there's a reason people elect admins based off of trust.

Statement by {non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Athaenara: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse - I commented in the discussion leading up to this and checkusered Athenaera to check whether they were compromised, so I think it would be best if I did not clerk this. GeneralNotability (talk)
A general reminder that editors should only make comments in their own section. This is also the case for directly replying to other editors. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Recuse as INVOLVED given my nomination in the RfA which triggered this case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is aware and is discussing the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are entitled to hold controversial opinions. But they are not entitled to express them. Admins, better than anyone, should know that one of our core ideas is "focus on the content, not the contributor." To attack an editor based on a trait such as their race, religion, or sex is absolutely unacceptable. That Athaenara knew she was crossing the line, and simply ascribed that line to cancel culture (rather than to being a central policy of this Encyclopedia), entirely fails the administrative standard of leading by example. I'm certain we are going to take this on in some manner, though we've yet to figure out if we're going to do that by accepting this case, or rather resolving it by motion. I'm hoping Athaenara emails us in the next day or two. If she doesn't contact us, we'll probably do what we've done with several cases before which is open a suspended case by motion: she'll have the choice to return and participate, but if she doesn't by the end of the suspension period, she'll be desysopped for good.
I'll agree with my compatriots that this case is not urgent. It need not get resolved today, and I'd rather us do this slow and right, than fast and wrong. With regards to the close of the ANI thread, to me that indicates that the ball is now squarely in our court, and we will do something about as soon as we feel able (i.e. once Athenaera emails us, or it becomes apparent she won't be). In terms of continued feedback, the most helpful thing would be whether we should resolve this by motion, by case, or some other way (assuming either the presence or absence of Athenaera). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I still expect us to be able to resolve this matter this week. We are down five Arbs here, so that will slow us a bit, y'alls patience is much appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe this is a compromised account, if a compromise did occur, it may have been much earlier than recent (per Floq's comment) and accordingly outside CheckUser discovery. Either way, if it was a compromise, that materially only changes whether the account should be locked rather than the other questions that either the community or ArbCom should answer (whether the account should be blocked or desysoped or both on the merits of the behavior). --Izno (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie, a pair of technicalities re. a blocked administrator who nobody wants to unblock cannot do anything: such an admin can block the user who blocked them, and such an admin can apparently see private filters. I expect the former would lead to a clear and obvious cause for desysopping, so while it is certainly in the realm of possible given the case at hand, I don't expect it to be an issue. The latter is somewhat an issue but perhaps more for phab: than this request.

Others, just to quickly comment: this is conversation with the committee to understand if and how to deal with this request. Adding additional feedback on other particular users' comments should be limited, and expressed only if you believe earlier comments have not sufficiently provided context for those responses. Pointing to evidence that indicates that our action should be quick, or slow, or no action at all, or providing other rationale for a certain position, would be more helpful. Izno (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John, we have scope to act here per WP:ARBPOL#Scope and responsibilities item 3. Izno Public (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is not a Level 2 matter, simply because we have a case request. We might desysop by motion, if we feel that there is no need to hold a case, but I'd like to hear from the subject before we do that.
Otherwise, I will explain where I currently stand, my opinion may change as the case develops. Fundamentally - Admins can have controversial opinions, even radical ones, as long as they do not affect their work as an admin. As a counterpoint, publicising those radical opinions may cause the trust that the community holds in them to be re-assessed, especially if expressing those opinions tends towards hate speech, which this does. There is no mechanism to remove an admin for "loss of trust", except general Arbcom "catchall".
Beyond that, these are the facts as I see them:

Athaenara has made a statement on an RfA that is radically at odds with the general culture of Wikipedians, and can be viewed as hate speech (i.e. abusive and targeted at a group of individuals)
The location and nature of the comments breach the inclusionary values of Wikipedia, the UCoC, and can certainly be seen as a Personal Attack on the RfA subject - so breaches a clear local policy too.
She is currently indefinitely blocked, by an individual administrator and the review of that is playing out at ANI.
We cannot leave an admin remain blocked indefinitely. - so if the community agrees the block should remain in place, we should remove the admin bit procedurally.

So that leaves the question of how should the committee handle this. Well, I believe we should wait until the ANI thread reaches it's conclusion. Athaenara has been requested to contact the Arbitration Committee. She may do so by email, or she may request comments be transferred over to the case to respond to us here. I would like to also wait until she has had some opportunity to answer these issues. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime I understand what you're saying, but I also take my role seriously and want to offer fairness to the subject. I cannot suggest that there is nothing she could say that would affect my thinking, because I don't know what she will say. I can certainly think of things that she could say that would make it not an Arbcom problem, for example. The community has already taken swift action to show that it was unacceptable, by indefinitely blocking her. It's important that we follow our procedures so that the community can have trust that we will get the right decision and fairly. Worm^TT(talk) 09:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @GiantSnowman. Acknowledged that my first "wait" is complete. I'd certainly like to hear from Athaenara before progressing any further, though we will not wait forever. Worm^TT(talk) 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with WTT; while the conduct is serious and could potentially result in a desysop-by-motion or a full case, any damage has already been done, and the Committee are obligated to not rush into this. Personally, I am waiting for a reply from Athaenara about this situation before I make any firm decision on how to proceed, though obviously not receiving a reply is telling in and of itself. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with WTT & Prime in waiting.

Curious about "Wikipedia's woman niche". Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. No gender based exclusion. No race based exclusion. No orientation based exclusion. We make no effort to verify anybody's personal claims. We have no business in policing or doxxing this stuff. Where, Athaenara, is this niche of which you speak? Cabayi (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with WTT and with Cabayi. As the others say, I will wait a bit, but not too long. - Donald Albury 19:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been inactive for awhile due to real life business, had a look through my inbox this morning and found this - as the only person publicly identifying as a woman on the current committee, I thought I'd better catch up on the "woman niche". I am not going to vote yet, but the only response so far falls short for me of taking responsibility for the harm caused or attempting to repair it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
-== Desysop of Athaenara ==
+== Athaenara ==
 '''Initiated by ''' [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] '''at''' 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@@ Line 343: / Line 343: @@
 <!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Desysop of Athaenara: Clerk notes ===
+=== Athaenara: Clerk notes ===
 :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
 * Recuse - I commented in the discussion leading up to this and checkusered Athenaera to check whether they were compromised, so I think it would be best if I did not clerk this. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]])
 * A general reminder that editors should only make comments in their own section. This is also the case for directly replying to other editors. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
-=== Desysop of Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
+=== Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
 {{anchor|1=Desysop of Athaenara: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
 *'''Recuse''' as INVOLVED given my nomination in the RfA which triggered this case request. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 01:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)