User talk:Athaenara

Athaenara's Talk Page

Thursday

28 November 2024

14:53 UTC

This is a Wikipedia user page.
If you find this page on a site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site.
The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara.

Athaenara's bulletin board

DID YOU KNOW?

Francis L. Sampson

... that German soldiers did not believe that Francis L. Sampson (pictured) was a non-combatant after his capture during the D-Day landings, because they had never seen a paratrooper chaplain before?
... that the hips of some 19th-century Fijian young women were tattooed with veiqia when they reached puberty?
... that the myth of Shunten, the legendary first king of Chūzan, was used to justify the 1872 annexation of Okinawa?
... that two best-seller lists initially classified The Children's Book of Virtues as non-fiction, but later moved it to their fiction charts?
... that Bahamian basketball player Waltiea Rolle moved to the United States at the age of 13 after being noticed while walking home from school?
... that the U.S. Air Force considered a bomber version of the F-22 Raptor known as the FB-22?
... that a new soccer team in Boise, Idaho, plans to play at a converted horse racing track?
... that geologist Gilbert Wilson was the fifth Wilson at school, so he was known as "Quintus"?
... that a medieval town in Poland disappeared?

TIP OF THE DAY

Tip of the day...

Same titles, different meanings

To distinguish between pages that would otherwise have the exact same title, disambiguation is needed. Unless one meaning clearly dominates, the article should be replaced with a disambiguation page, e.g. Pan, which links to the different meanings with a qualifier in parentheses, e.g. Pan (mythology) vs. Pan (moon), or using a more specific natural name, e.g. cooking pan. If there is one dominant meaning, (cat), add a link to a disambiguation page‍—‌cat (disambiguation)‍—‌or to the secondary meaning if there is only one, on top of the article.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Writing a previously deleted article

Please help me in writing a good article, previously u deleted it. it was about an author Zara2308 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @Zara2308: Cheron K. Griffin is not notable which is why your draft was deleted. You should wait several years until she becomes notable and then you can write about her. If you are her, know her, or were hired to write about her then you have a legal responsibility to disclose that fact. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am hired by her, she has written many books. Have i selected wrong option insted of hire i selected i don't know her because i dont know. Zara2308 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure. Please tell your client that she is not notable. I understand that many people in business are desperate for a Wikipedia entry but we are written by volunteers and are not for sale. Further, we cannot help you. I think you should find another line of work. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed Kia Rouhi

Hi you removed wrong about kia Rouhi , He is iranian singer and i make articles for Iranian Celebrity and i put sources with translate please recover and i can solve everything has problem , Sorry to bother you Kiava (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DriveNets

Hi Athaenara, why did you deleted the entry ? The org. has a significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject according to GNG (sustain with 31 sources if I recall correctly, and there are more, which I didn't concluded). I'm 16 years in the Eng. wiki and familiar with guidelines. Tzahy (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Builder Lynx

page deletion

Hi Athaenara, could I ask you to put into Drafts or my userspace Drafts the recently deleted page Builder Lynx while I look into better sources. Cheers. Mucm — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mucm: What you wrote was a business listing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free website for businesses to use in that way. – Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I modelled every sentence on existing sections of other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Kobo Inc. is the Kobo page also a business listing?) Plain neutral description of place of organization, purpose of the organization, etc. I'm just genuinely trying to understand what aspects of that were "blatantly promotional". In any case, could I ask you to put into Drafts or my userspace Drafts the recently deleted page while I look into better sources that indicate the notability. Cheers. Mucm (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ataman Brotherhood

hi, could you please help me submit this article to thread A? looks like you need to be an auto-authenticated user. or not? thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atakhanli: Sorry, I don't know what "submit to thread A" means. – Athaenara ✉ 03:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry, I meant to nominate the article for deletion. Atakhanli (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atakhanli: I think this is what you mean: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. – Athaenara ✉ 07:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a sandbox page

Hello @Athaenara. It has come to my attention that a sandbox page, User:ReVeluv02/sandbox/Dharampal Satyapal Group, was deleted without even my reasoning and I wasn't able to contest at all (though I know it was speedily deleted). I think it is important and professional to reach out to the talk page of the involved editor as the effort made goes to waste (though efforts doesn't apply to Wikipedia's guidelines). You could have reached out first and questioned the page involved before you reach a certain consensus to decide whether the page will be then removed (the fact that the page is a sandbox, and not a Wikipedia article).

As per WP:ABOUTSAND, sandbox is about testing and experimenting. This is the reason why I never put my sandbox page on my user page as I keep private of all the pages before publishing it in order to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. The sandbox entry was limited for access unless thoroughly searched on the search bar. As by the time you deleted the page, I have no intentions of officially publishing the page as I'm well aware of the "unambiguous advertising" sound of the texts and paragraph on the deleted page. ReVeluv02 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReVeluv02: I agree 100% with User:GPL93's {{db-g11}} tag on that page, which was loaded with promotional language such as "one of India's fastest moving", "distinguished quality and taste", "widely popular", "fervor for innovation and quality", etc., and an extensive list of products. I never undelete such blatant spam. – Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, don't undelete the blatant spam. Thank you for the response anyway. ReVeluv02 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Soares (Brazilian-American writer, actor)

Speedy deletion of Andre Soares (Brazilian-American writer, actor)

Hi Athaenara, you deleted the article "Andre Soares (Brazilian-American writer, actor)" citing speedy deletion. I did not get a chance to contest before it was removed from the main namespace. I am in no shape or form affiliated with the figure I wrote about. This draft was extremely thorough, followed all the editorial guidelines, expressed no judgment and included sources from many reputable outlets. I was not compensated or pressured and the objective here was to bring light on a new creative I deemed notable enough to deserve coverage. Could you please review this speedy deletion and let me know if there are any changes you'd like made? Also is it possible to retrieve the source data? It took me weeks to build this. Thank you. A1ProtocolX (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1ProtocolX (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of draft: Kula perry

Please the information was copyrighted and I didn’t infringe on anything. Stitches03 (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stitches03: The page was full of preposterous claims such as "his work has been proved beyond every doubt he’s the crème de la crème", included a fawning interview that seemed scripted by his own advertising team, urged readers to "cough up the funds to buy"... There was nothing even remotely encyclopedic about what you wrote. – Athaenara ✉ 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Govindrkannan

→ in re:User talk:Govindrkannan (history)

Err, people are removed to remove warnings and notices. best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article: Vivhan Rekhi

Hi you recently deleted an article that I created on Vivhan Rekhi, a young social activist. Could you please provide me with the information from that article so that I can edit it and perhaps show it to you or upload it for review to be considered later once I fix the draft. Thanks Rr893 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion on draft:NodeReal

Good day to you Athaenara,

I have rewritten the article on draft:NodeReal according to Wikipedia's guidelines, you can please go through the article.

I want to ask that you should remove the speedy deletion tag on the article.

I will be expecting your response.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adekomi Solomon (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adekomi Solomon: You have been writing pages to advertise a company. That is not what this encyclopedia is for. – Athaenara ✉ 06:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Cosme article

hi,

why was the article Gino Cosme deleted? It followed the same format as other related articles. It was not an advertisement but a bio site with references to official media and academic article content on the web related to the author.

I understand that my author/bio page GinoCosme was miswritten since I misunderstood the purpose, but you deleted it before me being able to publish the update, which just included a one-liner of who I am. This now has deleted the associated article that was not contravention of any guidelines. GinoCosme (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Username change, ref User talk:Gcpt79.) – Athaenara ✉ 08:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've posted guidance on his talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness Instructor Maya Abdullah article

why was this article deleted? where is my mistake? what should I do to accept the article? Professor990 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor990: This is an encyclopedia. The page you wrote was an advertisement. – Athaenara ✉ 16:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LinkMe

Greetings I would like to edit a new page about this topic as the last one got erased after being marked for speedy deletion for being unambiguous advertising and promotion, but I would be using most of the same sources avoiding those marked as unreliable and using language that makes the article sound promotional. How can I proceed with this new edit of a topic on an already deleted article. Dispabasa (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dispabasa: No, it's an ad for an app. This is an encyclopedia. – Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response Athaenara. Dispabasa (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go for AFD not speedy delete

The article Vijay Pravin Maharajan was deleted by you without even intimating me who created the page. The article has many featured news reference and it is definitely not an Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Everything in it was written in neutral point of view as well. You may please reinstate the page and you may go for a deletion discussion. Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehowahyereh: I agree with the tagger that it's spam. I looked for sources better than subject's website, youtube videos, adulatory interview, etc. and found none. – Athaenara ✉ 06:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athaenara ✉ , Kindly undelete the article and do clearly specify what portion in it seems promotional. It was tagged for G11 by an IP whose only edit is adding G11 tag in that page. It seems suspicious as well. It would be fair if you could undelete the article and add a deletion discusion. Rather than deleting an article with enough and more featured articles in reputable and reliable news articles. Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article: Natasha Tsukanova

Hello, I see the page for Natasha Tsukanova was deleted due to advertisement guidelines. It seems I have had an issue with my writing style when it comes to biography pages, which I can only apologise for. I primarily work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and other draft articles I can find that I feel relate to this group.

After I found and fixed the page up I noticed it was linked back to an account that had been blocked, which is where I believe the confusion is coming from. I would like to start the page up again with aid in writing style as I was in the process of removing promotional content and wording. If you have any tips for this please let me know as I'm still learning. Thanks SecureJane (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecureJane: Other helpful editors posted on your own talk page about Articles for Creation and the Teahouse, you don't need more tips from me. – Athaenara ✉ 02:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article Delphos International

Hi, I've seen you deleted the page Delphos International. I have signaled a potential conflict of interest but the tone and content of the page was extremely neutral. Why then was it deleted ? Or what do you recommnend to improve / delete ? Best. PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme: The company would no doubt be happy with what you wrote. Unfortunately, it was not an encyclopedia article but a bog standard business listing. – Athaenara ✉ 00:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean like all the following articles ?

Don't really see the difference with Delphos ? Moreover Delphos works on development finance and on infrastructures in dozens of countries worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Why wouldn'd it be worth mentioning as soon as the enclopedia is open to articles dedicated to private consulting companies ?

Let me know, best.

PS : is there way for the article to checked by other Wkipedians ?

Kearney (consulting firm)

Accenture

Capgemini Engineering

Boston Consulting Group

Grant Thornton International

KPMG

McKinsey & Company PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme: If they're as bad as that, nominate them for deletion. – Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same question again : is there way for the article to checked by other Wkipedians ? I mean Wikipedia rules are clear regarding publishable articles : they must be neutral, notable, properly referenced and not violate any copyright. For paid articles, Wikipedia states that : "Wikipedia recognizes the large volume of good-faith contributions by people who have some affiliation to the articles they work on" - > Help:Your first article. I respected all those rules. Deletion cannot be about personal judgments, right ? Any inputs on this @Possibly @Pereneph @Dormskirk @Dineshkumar Ponnusamy @B A Thuriaux @Polly Tunnel @Scope creep @Discott - all of you have contributed to various on different consulting firms. PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I don't think I can really comment here as I can no longer view the article in question. Having said that my instinct is to trust Athaenara's judgement on this. It is the case the Wikipedia frowns on paid-for/conflict-of-interest editing which I think would have added a level of difficulty to creating this article. Added to that is that conflict of interest editors tend to struggle greatly with NPOV. Its a bit like a lawyer representing them self in court; they might be the best lawyer in the world but because they are not unbiased about themselves they tend to do a bad job of representing them selves. That also adds another layer of difficulty for a paid editor. Then there is the issue of proving notability, a cursory look at Delphos International indicates to me that it might pass that test but that would need to be looked into in greater detail. All in all I would suggest just waiting until an unpaid editor with no connection to the subject of the article comes along to create an article independently. I know that might be an unsatisfactory or even frustrating answer but it is generally the best one when it comes to article creation.--Discott (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply @Discott

Below the article I wrote. Why not improving it and moving on with a totally non polemic topic ?

[copy of entire article redacted]

PouetPouetTagadaNicodeme (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Brooklyn Bank

Hello @Athaenara,

You deleted my article on The Brooklyn Bank just this month. You cited G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I disagree with your reasons, and I would like you to consider reinstating the article.

This is a non-profit organization, and thus, there is no reason for the organization to promote or advertise itself. It is a prominent organization in New York that has received considerable public attention, and as such, should be recognized encyclopedically. If you feel like the writing was too embellished, or that it seemed promotional, it would have been more appropriate to edit particular language, or recommend the language for edit. The content itself is statements of fact, but perhaps the descriptive language was unnecessary, and if that specific language would be modified from an objective and neutral perspective, then the article itself would have been satisfactory. The article itself should not be deleted. HalpernAdam (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @HalpernAdam: And yet, here you are: seeming-single-purpose account with an un-disclosed interest in Sam Eshaghoff. Perhaps, new guy, you should spend less time telling others on Wikipedia what they should have done and more time taking your advertising back to Facebook. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HalpernAdam: I initially considered your request seriously until I viewed the page again. It was an irredeemably promotional business description and Mean as custard's 17:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC) {{db-g11}} tag was appropriate. The institution is probably notable enough for an article, but what you wrote isn't it. – Athaenara ✉ 22:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wetelo

Hi Athaenara, not that I care much, but I did look at [1] in surprise... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: What surprised you about it? – Athaenara ✉ 21:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That I had removed the promotional material, demonstrating the ineligibility for WP:G11, and later saw Lavalizard101's message at User talk:Wetelo in my watchlist, with a red link to a page that didn't qualify for speedy deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: All your edit did was give the company what it wanted, which was a business listing here. That is not what this encyclopedia is for. – Athaenara ✉ 23:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my concern. Again, I could really care more. Still, it was an out-of-process speedy deletion. Perhaps an IAR action? Sigh. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: It's hard for me to see what your specific concern actually is! For some reason, you thought that removing the most egregious portions transformed it from Spam to NotSpam. It was still spam, written from an account initially named for the company, and still quite eligible for G11. Why do you think it merits inclusion in this encyclopedia? – Athaenara ✉ 08:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes its subject from a neutral point of view; if it was a notable subject, it would be an acceptable article. I have now reversed the inappropriate admin action; feel free to start a discussion somewhere if you would like to seek the required consensus for such a deletion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The big word in "if it was a notable subject" is "if". It isn't. – Athaenara ✉ 08:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be correct about this. And if you start a deletion discussion, it may even well end up with a deletion. I'm questioning none of this. The only thing I wanted to insist on is that a lack of notability (or worse, a lack of credible claims of notability) is not a speedy deletion reason in the Draft namespace. I'm probably pedantic, and I'm sorry for the annoyance caused by this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it to MFD here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Wetelo for you. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for hate speech or compromised account.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure, but the name Athaenara has never rang any alarm bells before - in fact, I sort of recall rational comments from you - so I'm kind of expecting/rooting/hoping for compromised account. If so, contact ArbCom. If not, then ... yikes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam - Honestly, I feel like there's no way this isn't a compromised account. For an admin to just blurt that out is definitely bizarre. Haven't seen it before. Would definitely be a waste of 16 good years of editing just because of one comment. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 01:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. But a block is appropriate in either case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is me, and my account is not compromised. I was almost astonished to see how swiftly I was blocked for opposing a current RfA candidate, regardless of my grounds. I was not at all astonished to see how swiftly cancel culture reached out to put a stop to my opposition. Carry on. – Athaenara ✉ 01:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's what an imposter would say too. I still hold out some hope that the real Athaenara isn't an idiot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam GeneralNotability has publicly stated there's likely no compromise. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For technical reasons that I'm probably wrong about, I still hold out some hope. Mr. Sunshine, they call me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: A check was done and no evidence of a comprimised account was found...so you might want to let go of that hope —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you just suddenly forgotten everything you've learned about civility on Wikipedia? Irrespective of your beliefs, calling a contributor a (Personal attack removed) is just terrible. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Athaenara - Why do it though? Why in an RfA? I don't get it. 16 years is more than MOST currently active editors right now, and I think it'd be a shame if you were to leave based off of 1 mistake. Is there any legitimate way to prove it's actually you? I just have trouble believing an admin with the pedigree you built on this website would do this. I haven't personally interacted with you, but this smells fishy. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't speak "against the neofascist orthodoxy of this website", she attacked a contributor. Your comment is pure nonsense. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand whether this is a Poe's law situation or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. I've editorialized at length of my misgivings about the "thought police" on Wikipedia. But give us a break. The "writing on the wall" is that Athaenara launched a vicious, cruel, unprovoked attack. It was of the sort that would get a newbie indeffed twenty times over, and it's considerably worse coming from an admin. Comments like yours, in implying you find nothing wrong with vandalism and thuggery as long as the perps are on your side politically, just confirms the thought police in the POV that they're justified. Ravenswing 17:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara I am warning you in my capacity as an administrator to read WP:WIAPA and WP:ADMINCOND very carefully, and if your next edit is not an unblock request apologising for your behaviour and seeking ways to restore your longstanding trust in the community, I will be turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 Can I ask that you not? I have specifically noted that Athaenara has the option to make a statement on the ongoing Arbcom case by making a statement here and asking it to be copied over. I ask that within reason this talk page remains open. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, I don't think we know each other. But, two points. (1) Wikipedia is part of the internet. That means we can't really know the sex of another editor, and it's reasonable to assume some editors are either concealing their sex (many women do that online) or misrepresenting it (many women do that online, too). That's quite apart from gender, and undermines all the arguments about how there aren't enough women editors. We simply don't know, I don't see how it could possibly be different unless the WMF implemented ID checks, and I'd be out the door soooooo fast and recommend any woman to get out, too. I'm not here to find dating partners of either sex, and I very much want people to feel safe here, unlike places where they are forced to reveal their identities. So it can't be about "niches" or relative numbers of any kind, and that's as it should be; we're volunteers working together, not representatives of our backgrounds jostling for prominence. I see you have a quote on your user page about the project being to build an encyclopedia. Right on. (2) Your oppose at the RfA amounted to accusing the candidate of dishonesty and implied they (I understand that's the pronoun the candidate prefers) were thereby taking power from other women. That's doubly uncivil, and I can't see any logic to the second part, the zero-sum argument about power, nor have you offered any. (When all's said and done, we still have a bunch of female admins, possibly more than we realize (lots of admins haven't stated their sex) ... although you've just effectively reduced the number by one.) What you wrote was startlingly hurtful to that one individual. Would you consider apologizing to them for unloading that double-barreled shot in their face? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As shocking as this incident is, whether the account is compromised or not, I think it is important to remember that regardless of whether the editor is behind the account or not, the account owner is always the one responsible for all edits, whether it is made by them or not, and the account owner is the one who has to quickly notify [email protected] to get the account quickly locked until they can regain control. See Wikipedia:Compromised_accounts#After_being_compromised. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel so disappointed with your conduct. We have never interacted before but you've deleted lots of my CSD noms and have contributed so much to Wikipedia. 16 years, 50k edits, 170k deletions. Why would you give it all up for such a comment? To quote from your own userpage, "This project is here to build an encyclopedia. Please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." That's all I had to say. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in shock, first at myself having blurted so rudely in the middle of an RfA, and second at the poisonous fury of those who descended upon me for doing so.

If I had been one of those policing public discussion pages and saw that blurt I'd've been likely to revert it, devrel, chastise the offender, and block for perhaps 24 to 72 hours.

Part of where I was coming from was simple hurt that my own womanhood is not as defensible in this milieu as transwomanhood is. My one "this is me" post above was me going down under a storm of figurative fists and boots trying to obliterate me.

There's more to say but, still in a state of shock, I'm not inclined to attempt to construct numerous complex logical statements, as for example drawing comparisons to puritans whipping quakers out of town, being tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, etc. – Athaenara ✉ 00:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you think a "24 to 72 hour block" is a suitable response to such a comment demonstrates how wholly unsuited you are to being an admin. Honestly, if you feel like you're being run out of town, keep running. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 00:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence here reads very much like intimidation. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, so did Athaenara's comment on Isabelle Belato's RfA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly confused by this comment on so many levels. On the one hand, you clearly know what you said in the RfA comment was unacceptable. You acknowledge that the comment was rude. And you've lain out some of the consequences you would expect had someone else said that. Yet, despite knowing such commentary was blockworthy, you chose to make the comment anyway and you are somehow shocked that consequences have now fallen upon you.

Then you proceed to double down on the hate. First by repeating your claim that trans women are a threat to your womanhood, followed by casting those who are rightfully questioning your inability to meet the requirements of WP:ADMINCOND as an angry mob, and finally by drawing on imagery of religious and racial persecution.

Honest question, do you actually know just how hateful you were towards another person yesterday, when you made that statement? Do you understand that there is a person behind every username, and the impact such words can have upon them? Do you understand how disruptive such hate speech is, both on Wikipedia, and elsewhere in life?

If the answer to any or all of those questions is no, then regardless of what else happens over the coming days at ArbCom, I really recommend that you do some soul searching. That you take the time to do some reading on the harms that those words can have, and that you take the time to do some reading and realise that trans women are not and have never been a threat to women. Please do this before you let this irrational hatred of a group of people consume you, and consume your life like it has so many others. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, you're going to lose the mop. The only question is whether you are going to be blocked or banned from actually editing the Wikipedia. Did you join Wikipedia in order to edit articles, or only to edit editors? If the former, I recommend a statement like "I realize that my views are not in line with the requirements of Wikipedia adminship, and I give up the tools. I hope to be able to continue to edit, as I have done for the past N years. I would like to be able to continue to improve articles without allowing my views on transgender editors to affect that." Browbeating, sackcloth and ashes are not required, but acknowledgement of the fact that Wikipedia insists on treating transgender people, and editors, as fully valued people and editors, is strictly a requirement. If the latter, and you're not really interested in editing articles anymore, then do as you like. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no small amount of sympathy for cis women who feel in an awkward position in spaces where trans women are as visible or more visible than they are. Personally I think that's a false dichotomy, the sort that the patriarchy uses to divide communities who are natural allies, but I absolutely understand where the feeling comes from. But what makes me find that explanation lacking is that you hurt a real person, a person who had done nothing to harm you, and you have not apologized, nor even acknowledged the hurt caused. Indeed the closest you've come to acknowledging Isabelle's existence is to say that you would only block someone for 72 hours for saying that to them. Your pain matters, yes, but you're the one who has acted as aggressor here, and you should make things right. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the pile on. Athaenara has done a tremendous amount of good work, and apparently had a severe lapse. It can happen. Let's give her space to reflect on this and we can then figure out how to go forward. Sometimes a person has stress or other factors that cause them to act out of character. The situation seems so out of character I was sure the account was compromised, and I'm still not confident that the owner is the one in control of the account. We should not prejudge what the result might be after a bit of time and careful consideration. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, Jehochman. Athaenara has made it plain that the "lapse" -- if it be such -- was in failing to continue to keep her views to herself, and Tamzin among others has documented the degree to which those views (unbeknownst to the rest of us) colored her actions on Wikipedia. Her fate -- for the time being -- is in the hands of ArbCom, but it's not at all inappropriate for the community to register its shock and dismay at this turn of events, nor to blame the aggressor, rather than make excuses for her. Ravenswing 12:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing up for women's rights. Many of us who didn't know Wikipedia was captured now have dramatic and irrefutable proof. Tkircher (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkircher: What do you mean "standing up for women's rights"? If Athaenara stood up for women's rights, she wouldn't be indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkircher: So hurling hate speech at other women, just because they aren't "real" women (by her standards), is standing up for women's rights, you say? (Personal attack removed) a!rado (C✙T) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed personal attack from statement above. Calling someone a name or associating them with a group like that is not civil. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief twice. First off, Athaenara, spare us the "cancel culture" bullshit. You launched a vicious, unprovoked attack for which your follow-up comments have reinforced that you do not particularly feel apologetic. Not only are you are not some innocent victim, but given your documented pattern of knee-jerk opposing RfA candidates with known gender fluidity, the irony of you being unhappy at the premise of people doing you down because of your views is manifest. It is not one slight bit more justifiable for you to want to deny trans people positions of authority on Wikipedia than it is for us to not want you in a position of authority on Wikipedia because of that bigoted view.

Secondly, suggesting that your own womanhood is at threat here is both farcical and puerile; it's of a piece with the chowderheads who argue (devoid of the slightest measure of common sense or logic) that same-sex marriage is somehow a "threat" to hetero marriage. No one here has challenged your right to identify as a woman. No one is like to do so.

An admin should not need reminding that actions have consequences. Admins ruling on block appeals, from someone who maintained they were justified in their offensive actions, as a matter of policy reject those appeals. Your only recourse for your shocking betrayal of the community's trust was abject contrition. This wasn't the path you chose, and that action comes with predictable consequences. Ravenswing 11:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athenara has clearly stated that her account is not compromised: No, this is me, and my account is not compromised. Other veteran admins who have done a tremendous amount of good work - including supporting women's issues, outreach, editathons, cleaning up RfA, and spending 1000s of $$ on the project - have been desysoped for less. 'stress or other factors that cause them to act out of character' have never been taken into consideration by ANI or Arbcom and there is no reason to start now, particularly in the gravity of this case and where there is a pattern in her oppose votes in many RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: I just want to take this opportunity to say thanks for the unblock, however long it lasts, I appreciate it. – Athaenara ✉ 08:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No comments at all despite a case request against you, and then this minutes after Lourdes unblocks you? One could call that incredibly suspicious. Might you have been in contact with each other? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: No, I don't know her/him, and there has been no contact. – Athaenara ✉ 08:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk about you immediately going back to editing as if nothing happened? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Athaenara, I strongly advise you do not continue to edit just because you can when there is an ArbCom case open about your use of hate speech against an innocent third party. — Trey Maturin has spoken 08:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: That's not so much editing as my usual followup after deleting spam listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam: I check each time to see if the editor who created the spam page created other such pages or added spam anywhere else. – Athaenara ✉ 08:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that trans women are "males masquerading as females". I don't think it's the time for mopping. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara, I know that you enjoy the work you do and I appreciate it, but you need to remember that on the other side of the screen is a real person, WP:NPA is a policy. While I recognise that there maybe genuine concerns in real life, a transwoman gaining the mop would not automatically deprive any ciswoman from gaining it. So why did you make such a comment at the current RFA, and why did you decide to systematically oppose all such RFAs? Our goal is to build a better encyclopedia for our readers and editors and we should judge editors by their work rather than their race/religion/sex/gender/etc. Such conduct is not expected from anyone, especially from admins who are supposed to lead by example. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"usual followup after deleting spam listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam" – so, editing (and doing admin actions as if nothing happened too, which does not make it better to say the least). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment, for the sake of those who think I should post more (some even telling me what I ought to say), that I learned very early after registering this account exactly 16 years ago today that Wikipedia:Drama is not why I'm here. There's a lot of that on the Arb Request page and some here as well. – Athaenara ✉ 09:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that @Athaenara, but equally there is an open Arbcom case regarding yourself and per WP:ADMINACCT, you have been requested to contact the the committee regarding your actions. If you want to stop feeding the wikipedia "drama", that is absolutely reasonable, and the committee's email is open to you at arbcom-enwikimedia.org (I say that as an Arbcom member) Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate that. If you didn't want drama, you wouldn't have made a discriminatory attack. You caused this drama, you wanted it, and here it is. PS: you're not important enough to be "cancelled", that's a term used to describe popular celebrities and such. Rather, you have been and will continue to be treated the same as any other editor who engages in discrimination. Levivich (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not interested in appealing your block or demonstrating remorse, I am disabling your talk page access. You can still appeal the block via the ticket request system or submit a statement to Arbcom as mentioned by Worm.

I would also ask everyone else to stay away from this talk page; despite what I wrote above, I do see the point that it has become a bit of a drama magnet. Hopefully disabling talk page access will keep the conversation to a minimum and any antagonistic comments (inadvertent or otherwise) at bay. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Just another note for anyone still interested: I accept the conclusions which have been reached and the decisions which have been made, and I will not be asking for any reinstatement of privileges of any kind. – Athaenara ✉ 06:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

ANI

currently located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Site ban for Athaenara

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ArbCom Case Request

currently located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Desysop_of_Athaenara EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

You are requested to email the Arbitration Committee at your earliest convenience. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

Per emerging consensus at Special:Permalink/1115609910#Athaenara unblocked by Lourdes — that unblock made a mockery of our due process. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level II desysop of Athaenara

currently located at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

The Arbitration Committee has determined that Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s behavior appears inconsistent with the level of trust required of administrators. Athaenara has not responded to contact from the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee resolves that Athaenara be desysopped in accordance with the Committee’s Level II removal procedures.

Support: CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level II desysop of Athaenara

-sysop

Hello Athaenara, per request from the arbitration committee your sysop flag has been removed. This may be reversed by a subsequent committee request. You would need to contact the committee to get more information on what is needed from them for that option. You may also seek reappointment via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Site ban for Athaenara. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

topic ban

Hi, Athaenara. I'm sorry to have to let you know that a discussion at ANI closed with consensus to topic ban from WP:GENSEX and from requests for permission. Appealable 1 year after expiry of most recent block or ban. The discussion closed here.

Best wishes. I know this is a hard time for you, and I hope you're taking care of yourself. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motions proposed

Arbitration motions that relate to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Athaenara. If you wish to provide comment on those motions while blocked, you may do so by emailing arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:

Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en

wikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
There will be no workshop phase.
Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

Proposed decision posted for Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block

Hi Athaenara, in the open Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked

I recognise your username Athaenara, but I do not recognise your words. To hold such a belief is one thing, but to say it so plain when it did not need to be said... I'm disappointed. I'm hurt for my candidate to whom we'd already explained RfA can be a nasty experience, but we never expected comments like this. I'm hurt for those who read your remarks and have internalised them. I'm hurting for you, who must have such hatred in your own heart to feel and believe such things, where people are merely trying to live their lives. Simply — how dare you? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i really must say that Wikipedia is not a place for Transphobia and it's gross, as TheresNoTime said, people are merely trying to live their lives, especially people from this community who face any kinds of disrespect in this world, their life is hard as it is, how can we make it any harder? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a meme going around on the Internet, "people who were saying never to trust anything you read on the internet in the 90s are now saying Biden is three lizards in a trenchcoat". Irrational statements like the WP:AFD vote sparking this episode do not originate through any organic thought process. Something is affecting people to this end. BD2412 T 20:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sixteenth First Edit Day!

Hey, Athaenara. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Hey, thanks, Chris! – Athaenara ✉ 08:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reset

A couple of things:

At the request of WTT, I've restored talk page access, so you can post a response to the RFAR here and it can be transfered over.
Since I'm the original blocking admin, if you want to ask any questions about the block - instead of guessing incorrectly why I did it, and why it was indefinite - feel free to ask.
Everyone, I think Athaenara is now probably aware of the near-universal opposition to her initial post. I don't think any further chiming in here will do much good.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara

Let me start off by saying I disagree with the comment you made in opposition to Isabella's AfD. However, I realize you are a human being as well. I hope you read this and it is encouraging and enlightening for you but that is for you to decide how to take it. It doesn't require a response. You are a beautiful Song. We don't have to agree on anything for me to make that statement confidently. I know it. You also don't spend 16 years on a project without it becoming a big part of your life and it must be shocking to have it removed indefinitely from you. I know it must be difficult as you expressed what you felt should have happened and this is so far beyond that. I don't know your past, where you come from or anything about you before what I can see here on Wikipedia but I don't have to know that to know you must be hurting. Wikipedia is not a forum or social media platform but we are human beings and I wanted to stop by to say that I see the light in you, the star in you, the good in you and a comment, a disagreement or even a philosophical difference, though one I might vehemently disagree with, wouldn't change how I view you as a human being. Please take care of yourself. --ARose Wolf 13:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf: Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

There's an interesting quote found on, of all places, your user page — just below the one from Crossmr, and above the one from Bradpatrick.

There's also one on my userpage — ninth bullet point from the top.

That said, you are certainly entitled to decide that your Fun Hobby is less important than your Political Views. DS (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtcrime

That's quite enough: Athaenara no longer has talk page access, and so continuing to post here isn't very fair. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Athaenara. I want to leave you my thoughts on this sad turn of events. We do not punish people for their thoughts or beliefs. However, if such thoughts result in "blurted" statements directed at another user, they are reverted, and the statement maker may be warned or blocked. (If the user is online it's even better to ask them to self-revert, because this proves that they understand what they did wrong.) I believe this is the first time you ever had a personal attack reverted. Am I right that you have no prior history of personal attacks being reverted, receiving warnings, or being blocked? I believe in second chances, very much so, because we are all human, and we all make mistakes. One severe mistake in 16 years is not the end of the world. The sanctimonious vitriol on this page and on ANI is every bit as destructive to the community as your remark. I wonder how many of those users have never made a serious mistake themselves? I also believe that administrators are subject to the same warnings and sanctions same as all other users in regard to non-administrative actions - the same, not more, not less. I believe you have been over-sanctioned in that regard. (Loss of sysop access is another matter that we need not address because you do not seek its restoration.) I recommend you contact ArbCom to confirm you are in control of your account and that you explain to them any circumstances that might have put you in a bad way on the day in question. In my 54 years experience I've seen that such things don't usually come out of the blue. There is usually a reason: neurological, medical, emotional, social, or something else. It is important that justice be done here, which means you should be sanctioned properly according to your circumstances, including matters that might be private. Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jehochman. I would hope there is a way for Athaenara to eventually be unblocked and free to edit within the terms of her topic ban.-gadfium 17:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: and @Gadfium: I appreciate your thoughtfulness, both of you, thank you. I'll have to disagree with some of what you've said here. "We", meaning people who edit Wikipedia, do punish people for their thoughts or beliefs, as is obvious over on the dramaboards where more than a hundred people have delighted in doing exactly that (displaying that "sanctimonius vitriol", what a marvelous turn of phrase :). As I said before, and meant it too, I have zero wish to resume editing here or regaining admin tools. I won't contact ArbCom: if they don't realize I am in sole control of my account that's their problem, and I think they do realize that anyway, they don't need me to confirm it. – Athaenara ✉ 02:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is aspirational. I’d encourage you to seek justice, imperfect though it may be. I think you should have a chat with ArbCom when you are ready. Jehochman ^Talk 08:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When someone has a sudden change of personality I would advise them to seek an MRI. Often nothing shows up, but sometimes the medical people find a small stroke that explains the uncharacteristic behavior. Keith Henson (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I have said things that we are all apparently forbidden to say, and thought things we are all apparently forbidden to think. The "topic ban" defines the limits of what I am allowed to say here in such a way that I am forbidden to address the disputed issues in statements which I have been told to make to ArbCom.

I am a woman. I am not ashamed of it. I don't think anyone should expect me to be ashamed of it. I am aware of so-called TERFs but I am not a feminist of any stripe. I do not see transgenders as a "threat" to me or to anyone else, they just are who they are. The orgies of self-congratulation in which some other editors have been engaging on the dramaboards are keeping them out of penalty boxes such as the one into which I've been placed. – Athaenara ✉ 07:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be one of the most inappropriately self-congratulatory (and self-serving) statements I have ever seen an editor make on their own Talk page - which is a fairly high bar. Yuck. Newimpartial (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If can’t say something nice, just unwatch the page and edit something else. I’m trying to help my friend and you just keep gloating at their downfall. It’s unnecessary and cruel. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that expressing discomfort with an ex-admin "gloating" in her own cancelation qualifies as "gloating" on my part. As far as your suggestion to unwatch the page, I don't feel that to be a safe option for me in the absence of a community ban. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have said things that we are all apparently forbidden to say "Apparently"? Don't play dumb. You were an admin. You know the rules.

and thought things we are all apparently forbidden to think What you think was, and is, none of our concern. No one asked for, let alone came to police, your thoughts in your head. It is your actions that matter. You, as a former admin, know this.

I am a woman. I am not ashamed of it. Okay. No one told you to be ashamed of it. In fact, because of our gender gap and lingering sexism in the editing atmosphere, we celebrate successful woman editors.

I do not see transgenders as a "threat" to me or to anyone else, they just are who they are. That is not what your !vote said. You know this.

The orgies of self-congratulation No one is congratulating themselves, or having anything remotely resembling a good time, as a result of your actions and their consequences. In fact the entire drama that you knowingly caused (for absolutely no reason other than that you really, really couldn't keep your transphobia in) has caused direct hurt to one person (exactly as you intended, and for which you never apologised) and unnecessary stress to the rest as they deal with you, Musk-esque free-speech absolutists, and all the transphobes and assorted 19th-century dinosaurs who've crawled out of the woodwork. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 16:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here - though I feel odd adding 2 cents, this seems important - the initial message in this thread is something I broadly agree with. There are users with whom I disagree politically, but this has not been reflected in editing behaviour and how any of us treat each other as users and contributors, and long may it continue. I would imagine that a long-time contributor and admin would know this, and that with due self-reflection, status quo could be restored. Rather than reflect, the comment from Athaenara above has sunk into bad faith towards the rest of the Wikipedia community and a resolute determination to misconceive of the issue. It shows the opposite of progress towards positive interactions, which I take as reinforcing evidence that a level of ban was necessary to handle this turn of behaviour. Athaenara's "victimhood" comment here is the cherry on top of a shit sandwich, so to speak. It should be considered if any request to return is made in the foreseeable, as unlikely as that seems. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little gang of guys who don't like women but grant special status to those among them who not only wish they were women but like to pretend they are, and give them the special protection they'd conventionally give women if they did like them. (In a way, it's similar to earlier times when women were not allowed to be actors and female roles were taken by men.) They viciously defend the artificial construct: a lone woman has no chance to survive that predicament unscathed. It is a sick situation, and straight men are afraid to exert any authority in it, seeming to feel required to tolerate it. As in a witch hunt, one of the tests was drowning: if the accused survived, she was a witch, if she drowned she was innocent (but dead). – Athaenara ✉ 06:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of bad faith assumptions it would take to reach those conclusions it's surprising you lasted this long at Wikipedia. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that nonbinary people who are not male by sex assignment nor by gender identity might nevertheless be referred to (onwiki) as guys who don't like women is just kind of horrifying. I certainly don't experience the special protection to which the Karens of this world apparently feel entitled - that's for damned sure. And anyone who believes they can believe they can prove their innocence by drowning is simply lending too much credit to imaginary witch metaphysics - they ought to know better. Newimpartial (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two cents.

AFAIK Athaenara engaged in inappropriate conduct but I'm happy that the people I see are at least being understanding and remembering the human. Firestar464 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Firestar464: I appreciate it. – Athaenara ✉ 13:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Athaenara. I'm not going to comment on the reasons for your departure (we will definitely not be in agreement) but I do want to say that I'm sorry to see you go. I want to thank you for your encouragement and gentle shepherding on WP:3O in my early Wikipedia days (oh to be young again!) which pulled me out of the content world into Wiki world and is probably the single most important reason why, fifteen years later, I'm still here to type this. I have a busy and fulfilling RL but, for some obscure reason and even though I find I have less and less time for it, I care about Wikipedia more. I would be remiss if I didn't say this: Thank you. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access re-revoked

Given the soapboxing above, I've re-revoked your talk page access. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? Nobody is required to look at this page other than the user herself. How about taking some action against those who are grave dancing and needling her? Even just telling them to stop would help. Our goal is to help users behave better, not to goad them into getting themselves banned. This person made huge contributions over many years. She has an issue, but all of us have defects big or small. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access is a privilege, not a right. The editor was using it to continue to engage in the same flavor of bigotry that got her indeffed in the first place, which is, in my opinion a disruptive use of the talk page. I imagine the multiple users who have thanked me for making the edit feel the same. That she made great contributions in the past does not outweigh the fact that she is engaging in behavior that makes other users feel unsafe and unwelcome simply for existing. Glossing over her public bigotry as "an issue" and saying that everyone has issues minimizes the harm she chose to do - and the harm she knew she was doing, considering that her initial inflammatory remark was punctuated by effectively daring the community to block her. I will not be reinstating talk page access. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is three months of this long enough? It would be nice if the user ever came back, that she would find her talk page access restored. Maybe she will retract her intemperate statements. Jehochman ^Talk 02:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman Do you seriously think I, and other editors, would feel safe with her around following that comment back in October? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~:User:Premeditated Chaos, that is an overreaction. If Wikipedia is a mature confident and tolerant community, Athaenara will be allowed access. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)~~ Sorry I misread the timeline SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on events after her tools were taken away, I don’t see evidence that Athaenara is equipped to participate in a mature confident and tolerant community. Not to mention the events that actually resulted in her block. Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been months. Things can be complicated. No one would ask you to forget that you were offended. I would like to see Athaenara back contributing as she did, short of repeating certain statements or sentiments. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is why the non-conensus resulting from the CBAN discussion was so frustrating. I get that you personally would like to see Athaenara back contributing as she did (but without the expressions of anti-trans sentiment), and I personally would like nothing better than to see her take responsibility for her actions, make amends, and rejoin the community.

But that doesn't seem likely - there were certainly no signs of it in the fall - and more importantly, there is no community consensus that Athaenara is welcome to contribute "as she did" without a prior community process of some kind. The situation is in a kind of limbo in the absence of a clear process, but a "laissez-faire" return to editing was ruled out by most participants in the CBAN discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, can you link the cban discussion? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be found here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the message on SmokeyJoe's talk page, I will not be undoing my action, nor am I interested in litigating it further three months after the fact at the request of other editors. If Athaenara wishes to appeal, she can do it via the appropriate channels available to someone whose talk page access has been revoked; she does not require the assistance of others to do it for her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the action was yesterday, and retract my comment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, apology accepted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Numbered archives	Topics
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16	conflict of interest, spam
3	third opinion project
2	biographies of living persons
1	miscellaneous
0	did you know, signatures, meetups
00	deletions
000	adminship
0000	moving files to the commons