Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

Graham87

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (67/33/5); Scheduled to end 10:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Fathoms Below (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Graham87 (talk · contribs) – Okay, this one is a little different. We have a new policy, WP:RECALL, which allows the community to force an admin to stand for reconfirmation. Graham has made some errors in judgement and he has the dubious honour of being the first admin ever to attract the requisite number of signatures on the petition, so here we are in uncharted waters. To be clear, the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 are not easily dismissed as trivial or vexatious. Concerns raised mainly focused on Graham's approach to new users and over-zealous or heavy-handed blocking. Graham has pledged to step back entirely from blocking and focus on other areas, and of course we now have a new process to hold him to account if he doesn't live up to his promises! Elsewhere, Graham does some excellent technical work that is easily overlooked. He is one of a vanishingly small number of people who import edits from old databases, he performs a lot of history merges, and he works to help other blind users navigate the site through his work on accessibility. I'll let him and my co-nominators tell you more about that. I'm here to tell you that, despite legitimate concerns raised during the recall process, Graham is still a net positive as an admin and should retain the community's confidence. He has sought to address the community's concerns and refocus his activities to avoid similar problems in future, which is all we can ask for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I first met Graham87 when I was working on rewriting Miriam Makeba, and that it eventually became an FA was due in no small part to Graham's careful and diligent polishing. At the time, Graham had already been an admin for a decade, so this is not a position I ever expected to be in. So much for expectations: the recall occurred, and here we are. As with Harry above, I do not dismiss the concerns brought up at recall. I agree that Graham was too harsh with his blocks and warnings. When we discussed it, however, Graham was very considered and self-reflective, which is exactly what you want to see in an administrator. He has committed to stepping away from blocking, but also to recalibrating his approach to newbies in general: and our conversations on the subject have convinced me this recalibration will happen. Graham has been a valued contributor for a long time. He has over 300,000 edits (included deleted edits); he is one of very few people working to preserve the history of our oldest articles; he tracks administrator activity; and he is too modest about his content contributions, which include polishing and maintaining prominent pages as well as creating a variety of shorter pages. I am confident Graham will remain a large positive presence in the admin corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Graham87 is a valued editor, and a capable administrator with a very specific set of skills for which he needs the tools. While I was initially not convinced of the recall in the first place, I changed my mind after the block of Mariewan and the justified follow-up on the recall page. Baffled by that block, I wasn't going to support, let alone co-nominate, but after a few days I saw that Graham was really going to change his tactics, and committing to not use the block tool was the right thing to do--that he is willing to give that up was pretty much a requisite for me in order to support. Here we are: Graham has indicated how he is going to change his approach, and no doubt there will be eyes on him to make sure he keeps that promise. In the meantime, I support this nomination. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I am not an admin and not familiar with all of the rules and regulations here, but must admit I was quite shocked to read that Graham87 had been recalled as an admin. In my experience he has been nothing but helpful and showed good judgement in when to sanction editors, and only blocking in fairly extreme cases, when they were causing continual and annoying disruption to other editors. Over the years he has joined me in discussing problematic edits without blocking (such as an issue with the Lin Onus article, and a more recent one where the DAB for "14" eventually needed page protection). I do so much editing that I tend to forget many specific incidents, but I have never observed any of his actions that seemed over-hasty, and in my experience his judgement has appeared sound. Anyhow - I accept that there has been a problem recently (without trawling through the whole story, for which I don't have the time nor the experience to judge as an admin), but as he appears to have responded to the criticisms and modified his approach, my vote would be in favour of keeping a valued, experienced, and useful admin. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your words of support. I discussed these two instances with you but I think it's worth noting that, in the "14" incident, I also gave the IP range involved a short, sharp block; I obviously won't be doing that now and will report such a situation to other admins at the appropriate place. I've taken the liberty of adding links to the message. Graham87 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you all for your lovely nominations and for continuing to have faith in me. As discussed above, this re-request for adminship is being carried out because I was subject to the first ever admin recall petition (initiated on 27 October), mostly focusing on my treatment of newbies). It passed with the requisite 25 signatures on 7 November, many of which were added after my block of Mariewan (talk · contribs) the previous day, which was way outside community norms. Subsequently, after much soul-searching, I've decided that I'll pledge to avoid blocking and have significantly reduced the number of pages on my watchlist, so I can refocus on my technical contributions on this site, especially my work on the early history of Wikipedia pages (more about that in the answers to the questions). ). The recall process is brand-new, had some inevitable teething problems, and has caused much controversy. However, it's now time for the community to decide whether they still trust me to be an admin. One thing that won't change, regardless of the outcome of this process, is my commitment to Wikipedia; I plan to continue editing this site no matter what happens here. My ranking at #5 (among human editors) on the longest consecutive daily editing streaks is a testament to that. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay and have no plans on doing so. Graham87 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in being an administrator?

A: To refocus on what I'm best at: my technical work, sometimes known as Wikiarchaeology, mostly imports and history merges , often of old pages as early as the dawn of Wikipedia. I'll say more on that in my answer to the next question.

As touched on in the nominations and my nomination acceptance statement, due to recent events relating to my admin recall petition, one thing I'll pledge not to continue doing is blocking users, as it's caused extreme controversy, especially regarding my treatment of newbies. I'll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on; instead of delete/block/protect, my core toolset will be delete/report users/protect. I'd be happy for someone to make me a big honking banner for my user/talk pages to this effect, with appropriate alt text, of course. I've taken 1,173 pages (mostly articles) off my watchlist, which is where I had found most of the users I'd blocked, in my first watchlist purge since 2007. I should therefore find far fewer potentially sticky situations on pages that really don't interest me that much. I've also hidden many block links in my common.css.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Probably my wiki-archaeological work; if I had to pick a single example, it would be rewriting the page about Wikipedia's oldest articles, which was previously like this. More generally, I've done many history merges and imports, especially of old pages (see my page history observations and import notes). I'm not just stuck in the past though; I also respond to requests at the requests for page importation noticeboard, which mostly gets requests from the German Wikipedia (where importing is wildly popular). As a result of these operations, I've done the highest number of imports (by a long way) and the third-highest number of undeletions of all time according to the admin stats page. I think that it's important that edits be attributed as much as possible and my importing/history-merging operations help with this. There's a lot more work to do in this area, particularly importing the August 2001 edits. As I'm one of the few importers on here, I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) with or without adminship, but imports are much easier with admin tools, which make it possible to undo any mistakes, and sometimes both imports and history merges are needed to deal with old pages, especially those with CamelCase titles (for example see the relevant logs at "Normal distribution"). [. My favourite history merges of all are those I find organically; a recent major example was at Madonna: Truth or Dare on 11 November.

As for content, I find writing for Wikipedia scary because of how widely its content is copied so I don't do so much of that, but out of the articles I've worked on by myself, among others I'm most proud of my work on the article about the jazz drummer Kenny Clarke which previously looked like this), related articles such as one on a group he was in, the Modern Jazz Quartet, which was previously like this, and articles about the area around Busselton in Western Australia where I now live (along with work on the Busselton article itself, which previously looked like this. I've also created articles as well, not just about the local Busselton area (my best probably being the article about the locality of Ludlow, but also about other Australian topics like the violinist Brenton Langbein and, going further back, the political journalist Alan Reid. I don't initiate content recognition processes but the latter article got on DYK and, as noted above by Vanamonde93, I helped them to get the Miriam Makeba article to featured status. I enjoy tying up loose ends on articles; for example when Vanamonde created the article about the South African musician Mackay Davashe, who wrote songs for Makeba, I tracked down his German Wikipedia article and used it to expand the English page. (Side note: The Wikipedia Library and the resource request page are amazing projects and have helped me greatly over the years).

I'm proud of a few other areas in which I contribute on Wikipedia. Firstly, I've done long-term work on the pages related to accessibility, where as a blind screen reader user, I advise editors on how to best make articles accessible and test proposed changes. My latest major win in this area was making fraction templates read out properly with screen readers and voice assistants. Secondly, whenever I go to an article's talk page, I like to check that its earliest useful comment has been archived properly. On occasions that has led me to do general archive cleanup, especially retrieving plenty of early text, like at Adolf Hitler's first talk page archive, and such work is sometimes aided by admin tools. Finally, I regularly update the former administrators pages, where the ability to view deleted contributions has occasionally been useful to double-check an editor's last editing date. I've written much more information about my Wikipedia journey at my personal Wikipedia timeline.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, absolutely. It's hard not to edit this site without running in to conflict sooner or later, despite our best intentions. My admin recall petition highlighted my harsh treatment of newbies, which I'm willing to work on improving; in particular, I'm willing to become more lenient about issuing warnings. I've tried to comply with the advice about the meaning of each warning level regarding good faith (or otherwise), but I've become too quick to assume bad faith when more patience and explanation was warranted. Also, regarding my block of Mariewan that turned the trickle of signatures on my recall petition into an avalanche, I was hyperfocused on that user's edits and failed to think about or notice either the situation around me or the human being on the other side of the keyboard. Going forward, if this adminship reconfirmation succeeds, I'll be hyperfocused on my pledge not to block users. Either way, I'll endeavour to advise them more clearly about where they're going wrong on Wikipedia (and give them positive feedback when they're doing things right).

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from theleekycauldron

4. Full disclosure, I am acting as monitor for this RRfA – monitors are only barred from voting, not asking questions, but if people think that this shouldn't be kosher, I'm happy to strike this question and/or step down as monitor. Is your commitment to avoiding the block button a personal pledge, or a topic ban that can only be appealed to the community should you wish to resume?

A: Interesting question; I hadn't thought of the "topic ban" angle. I was going to make it a combination of both, in a way ... a personal pledge *combined* with a note to the community if I wanted to resume blocking. But I'd be OK with making it a formal topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham87 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from S Marshall

5. Please confirm that the pledge/topic ban about the block tool includes pblocks?—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A: Yes, partial blocks are included as well. Graham87 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

6. What makes Wikipedia suck?

A: The edits that disrupt it, whether made with good or ill intentions, especially those that last so long they become visible to many readers. I won't encounter so much of that now. Graham87 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from MSGJ

7. You and your nominators have referred to your valuable work importing edits. To what extent would you be able to continue doing this if you are not an admin, for example, as an importer?

A: I addressed this in part of my answer to question 2, in the text beginning "I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) ...". Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from GTrang

8. If you are willing to do so, would you start recall petitions for other administrators?

A: I can't imagine a situation where I would. It's just not my style. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

9. Do you intend to also stop unblocking users in addition to blocking them?

A: I'd unblock users but only when undoing my own blocks and only when asked to do so through the {{unblock}} process or similar. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from JJPMaster

10. Would you be willing to agree to any enforcement measure for your pledge not to block, similar to what Lustiger seth agreed to in questions 4 and 5 of their RfA?

A: I'll agree to resign my adminship if I I violate my pledge to block for any reason. This route seems like it would cause the least drama in the long term. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Asilvering

11. You say that you will be more lenient about issuing warnings. Can you comment on this a bit more? Does this mean you will always start at level 1 and work up to level 4? If so, would there be exceptions?

A: It means I'll be more inclined to start at level 1. I've always tried to comply with the page about warning levels (level 1=good faith; level 2=no faith assumption; level 3 = bad faith), but my "faith-ometer" has been eroded over many years; I'll reset it, as it were. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from CFA

12. Would you agree to a voluntary indefinite topic ban from blocks and unblocks, broadly construed? It would be logged at WP:Editing restrictions.

A: Sure. Graham87 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

Links for Graham87: Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for Graham87 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support

Support – I have followed this process with great interest, not because of the details of Graham87's supposed wrongdoings, but because I have been eager to see how editors treat and use the opportunity to recall administrators. What is the recall process intended to do? Editors generally agree – or at least really ought to agree – that (1) administrators perform an important and necessary set of tasks that enable the project to function, (2) all else being equal, it is better to have more administrators than less, (3) the general lack of a formal hierarchy on the project means administrators can and often must make decisions at their discretion, and (4) administrators are elected by editors and thus they must exercise their authority in line with expectations and the best interest of the project. A recall process that is fit for purpose should (1) allow editors to express dissatisfaction with an administrator's actions, (2) provide that administrator with an opportunity to modify their approach, and (3) failing that, allow editors to remove them from their position. The process should be primarily corrective, not destructive. Graham87 is clearly a very distinguished contributor to the project, has used administrator tools productively for many years, and has much to contribute as an administrator. He has given us every assurance that his future use of the tools will reflect the concerns raised by the 27 editors who signed the recall petition – not concerns I share. I have every confidence that Graham87's future conduct will be exactly what he has promised, and see no reason any editor would doubt this. Any editor intending to vote against this re-RfA must present some very convincing evidence for why we should distrust Graham87, and I do not expect any evidence of that kind will emerge. Once re-confirmed I look forward to seeing Graham87 contribute as an administrator for many more years. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support This clearly shouldn't become a rehash of the discussion on the validity of the whole recall process, so Imma shut up about that. In the occasions where I have encountered Graham87 I have found him to be to be civil and effective. It was quickly clear from discussion during the recall process that Graham87's blocks were pretty much the only area of concern raised and given he has acknowledged the issue and agreed to step back from the detonator box, I'm confident there's nothing more to see here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The pledge not to block makes what would have been a difficult decision for me into an easy one: Graham does important work in other areas and has shown no signs there of the unfortunate lapses in judgment that got us here. If you'll forgive me my soapbox, I think this is a great example of the recall process working as it should: we've found a good compromise between warnings and desysop (something that's been very elusive for ANI, ArbCom, etc.), and the community as a whole gets to decide whether that compromise is an adequate one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support without reserve. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - in particular per HJ Mitchell who outlines the circumstances and benefits of this candidacy well. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, glad to support after not being here for Graham's original nomination. It's a chance to heep praise on a very good administrator. His depth of achievement on Wikipedia's history alone is worth the tools, and with the pledge in place, and a working history of excellence, the project has and will benefit greatly. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd support this, subject to absolutely strict and rigorous compliance with the pledge not to touch the block tool under any circumstances at all.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Has done invaluable work to preserve and document the history of Wikipedia, would be a shame to discontinue it now. Nardog (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I've only ever had positive experiences with Graham87. I'm not saying they've never done anything wrong – who among us is perfect? – but even admins should be allowed some "errors is judgement" as the nom puts it. Huge net positive for the project, both as an editor and as admin, and I would really hate to see them be the first casualty of RECALL. (Then again, if this RfA reaffirms, as I hope and believe it will do emphatically, the community's trust in Graham87, then I guess something good will have come out of it.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - no concerns. Should never have been recalled in first place. If anything is so serious, it should have gone to ArbCom. Giant Snowman 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - will add further comment later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support No doubt Grahams87 ability with the tools and that he will continue to be a positive user of the mop. Gnan garra 12:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support People should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Disproportionate. —Cryptic 12:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support : No red flags here. They were amazing as a sysop :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per Polygnotus, HJ Mitchell, DoubleGrazing, &c., &c. ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Have always found Graham87 to be diligent and helpful. The positive response to the recall is to be applauded. On balance I think a real benefit to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, per nom. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
As nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Graham's wiki-archaeology work is valuable and requires admin tools. He recognises that in his zeal to protect the encyclopaedia, he has strayed far from community norms and expectations for administrators, and has pledged above that he will no longer use the block button. That promise enables me to support his continuing as an admin. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support specially the way that the issues have been answered by the candidate - in view of the resolve to modify behaviour, there is no hindrance in any way to a very positive future as a very effective admin. JarrahTree 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
All of the issues were in relation to blocking, and Graham has promised to not block people anymore. With that in mind, I think his other contributions that require the mop are valuable and should be kept. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per nom.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per Yngvadottir . Like and trust Graham. A hard-working, dedicated member of the community. Admins are needed. Ceoil (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Has a need for the tools because of his technical work, and has responded well to the recall by pledging to avoid entirely the area that got him into trouble. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per the noms. Absolutely a massive positive to the project, and like said in the nomination, if he did decide to start blocking people unjustly (which I have absolutely zero doubt that he won't!!) then it's a pretty easy thing to fix. CoconutOctopus talk 14:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. The comments from the nominators and Graham himself convince me that reconfirming him would a net benefit to the project. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Graham87 has made some mistakes - so have I, so I'm sure has everyone, we all have off days. Those mistakes do not, in my view, outweigh the enormous amount of positive work he has done, and they do not make me doubt my trust in him. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, though I think Serial Number 54129's concerns about the bundled nature of the admin toolset are valid. To me, this nomination (with its baked-in self-imposed restraints) is an imperfect solution, but probably the best that we will get until we are ready to start talking about uncoupling some of the badly needed admin functions from the block button. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support mostly per Drmies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I had the pleasure of interviewing Graham87 a few (10? 12? 15? time flies!) ago for signpost and was impressed both by his thoughtful responses as well as by his obvious desire to make Wikipedia the best possible compendium of human knowledge. Reviewing the recall petition, I still see the same thoughtful and self-reflective person I saw then. While he is not perfect (who is?) and has likely made mistakes like all of us do, Graham87 is more than a satisficing admin choice and I strongly support this request for retaining the admin tools. RegentsPark (comment) 15:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oops correction. We actually discussed the possibility of an interview but it didn't actually work out as Graham87 has reminded me on my talk page. My memory is obviously fuzzy (but this was a long time ago!). Apologies, but I did research Graham87 at that time and stick with my impressions of him! RegentsPark (comment) 16:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - useful admin, promises to change, and no more bad blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If we de-adminned everyone who had an ANI thread opened on them we would have zero admins left. I'm not thrilled with a couple of the blocks, but nothing noted in the recall seemed egregious enough to warrant a desysop. Wizardman 16:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Weakly, especially so after reading Aoidh's comments bellow. At the moment, I take Graham at their word on not using blocks anymore and changing behavior that led us here. Typically I don't really buy into unbundling—I'm in agreement with SN's oppose—but Graham's work on imports and history merges is literally invaluable. If we can have sysops with active sanctions on them then I think we're okay here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support—Apart from the issues brought up at the recall petition, Graham is an excellent administrator and has served in that capacity for over 17 years. In light of his pledge not to block anyone, I see no reason not to trust him for many more years to come. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
However, I would like to register my strong disapproval of his block of Mariewan, as outlined by Aoidh in the oppose column. That entire fiasco was... shocking, to say the very least. It was an egregious enough lapse in judgement that I honestly considered switching to oppose. I've decided to reaffirm my support, but I really don't want to see any more of that kind of attitude, especially towards newer editors who technically didn't even do anything wrong. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: by nominations and for keeping Wikipedia:Requests for page importation alive. win8x (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support the "renom" if you will, and vehemently oppose this recall process, which is too easy and lacked proper discussion from the user base that it impacts: admins. Consider this 50% a protest vote against a ridiculous process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Still convinced that a Wikipedia where Graham87 has the sysop buttons is better than one where he does not (he is the only admin working in certain areas). A lot of his admin work is in areas far removed from the block button, so I hope staying away from that won't harm his productivity much. (As an aside, there should be a way out of a no-blocking pledge, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it). —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Per their pledge to avoid blocking people in the future. Graham, this is a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" situation: I am trusting you that you will avoid blocks. I would add that you should have WP:BITE be a hyperfocus; good faith new contributors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. But your work at WP:RFPI is fantastic, and we cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good. Cautious, but strong, support. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, in opposition to WP:RECALL. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, as this is a stupid reason for an RFA, I don’t feel the need to give any rationale. Fish+Karate 17:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, best wishes Josey Wales^Parley 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, per my nomination statement. I also want to explain why I am unpersuaded by Serialnumber's oppose (though it is a reasonable position to take, and I am not asking him to change it). In a new candidate, I agree that we would see the errors in judgement that Graham made while blocking as disqualifying. Like it or not, though, he isn't a new candidate. He has a 20-year track record that we must judge. And in all the evidence brought forward at recall, and in my own digging, I found no evidence of judgement issues in other areas. Furthermore, the lengthy track record also gives me a great deal of confidence in his promise to recalibrate, which is in sharp contrast to the behavior of so many other editors of long tenure who were confronted about their behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support The lesson seems to be learned and Graham has chosen to step away from blocking, which is his decision but I believe he should still use his tools for dealing with obvious vandals. I believe the long years of experience and valuable representation is more than enough to deserve a second chance after realizing being in the wrong. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Graham is a great font of institutional memory, and the most productive person working on incorporating content from the earliest days of Wikipedia into the modern software— maybe the only person: the Importers group has a bus factor of two, and our other Importer seems to work primarily in transwikification.
Both of the first two recall petitions are of the "abyss gazes back" genre: defending the project against the faeculant influx of SEO spam, LLM slop, promo autobios, et alia induces cynicism and corrodes AGF. Some of Graham's admin actions were heavy-handed. He promises to do better, and I see no reason not to take him at his word.
More generally – perhaps uncharitably – that's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept. No one wants good faith newcomers to be driven off the project; no one wants SEO garbage articles or promotional biographies further cementing the misimpression that our project is an advertising stream. Personally, I'll accept a few misfires. And it's been made clear here that the misfires will be ceasing or dramatically reduced.
On the meta level, I'm finding deep irony that Graham is being dragged before the community under threat of having his mop ceremonially snapped in twain, very shortly after concerns were brought up and he was warned and promised to do better— the concerns in question being that he was too hasty in ramping up consequences before adequate warnings and time given for improvement.
Yall see that? We're not better. Folly Mox (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. I get uncomfortable when I see the words "net positive" brought up onwiki. It's too often dubious calculus used to excuse contributors who drive away others. In Graham87’s case, his work with importation was a common justification advanced by those who supported him remaining an admin. It’s impossible for any one person to weigh that against improper blocks with the potential to dissuade new editors. To err on the side of caution, I opened the petition. With that being said, now that he's promised not to block users, Graham87 isn't just a net positive—he's all positive.
There is an argument to be made that an admin with a prior history of serious misuse, including after it was pointed out, should not have the mop. However, the idea of NOPUNISH is fundamental to our blocking policy; the underlying philosophy, that we should block only to prevent further issues, seems applicable to all removals of permission. There’s no point deysopping Graham87 on the basis of past mistakes if they won’t be repeated.
In short, let’s let bygones be bygones. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Volten001 ^☎ 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Excellent admin. Also, this recall process is a farce. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not see anything in the recall petition that concerned me. Graham seems to be strict but not unreasonably so, responsive to criticism, and attempting to adapt. It would be a shame to lose him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Graham87 has been doing admin stuff that most admins don't do, like importing revisions. There are missteps by Graham87 but all these could have been resolved first before unilaterally opening a recall petition. I find that this recall petition is premature in many ways, with Graham87 still being able to block another while the recall petition was on going and that the voluntary restriction from blocking anyone that Graham87 put on himself here could still have been extracted from him at other traditional venues like ANI or ARBCOM and without all this drama and time sink. – robertsky (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - Outside of the block button, Graham's contributions are an overwhelming net positive. I have faith that the blocking problems are now in the past, and if they aren't, then per HJ Mitchell we have the tools to cross that bridge if we have to. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - a petition process which only counts supports is fundamentally flawed - Wikipedia has always operated by consensus, not by counting votes. I honestly have no opinion on Graham87 but I am opposed to the process, therefore I support this reconfirmation. If editors can pile on Worm That Turned's RRFA opposing solely on the basis of opposition to the process and not the candidate, then I can support on that basis too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Overall an excellent admin and outstanding editor. Yes, there have been a few issues, and they have been addressed to my satisfaction. We need to remember that when we give someone the tools, we are asking a volunteer to help out with some behind the scenes functions for an online encyclopedia. We are not electing the next Pope. Infallibility is not a reasonable criteria for the job. An ability and willingness to acknowledge the occasional misstep and self correct is. I have no concerns in that regard. Beyond which, I am not a fan of the new recall system. And I say that as an admin who actually has taken another admin to ARBCOM resulting in their being desysopped. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep--v/r - T P 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
SUPPORT. I am fine with this user remaining an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support While I think the concerns brought up are valid, I believe that given that Graham87 has committed to stepping back from blocks and re-evaluate that process. Concur with Ad Orientem above. Spencer^T•C 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I like Graham, but to be honest, I might be unhappily in the oppose column if he hadn't pledged to stop using the block button altogether. However, with that pledge, I have no concerns, and I fully trust him to keep that promise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, the concerns seem to have been adequately addressed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I have met Graham twice - at Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013, and in Perth as part of the History of the Paralympics in Australia Project in 2018. We have collaborated on-wiki in work on people with disabilities. Graham is a valuable contributor. A net positive to the project as an admin, an editor, and a person. We all make mistakes - my Old Pappy always to say that the people not making mistakes are the ones not doing anything. Proud to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Support for an admin who is a net positive and seems to have learned from his mistakes. We all make some, and Graham is aware that he's being watched. Miniapolis 00:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support as a net positive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

I've always gotten along with Graham87, and I appreciate immensely his work on accessibility (which Wikipedia as a whole should strive to do better on), but there are too many bad blocks in my view, in addition to the recent ANI threads; Sep 2024 Sep 2024; I also found these thirteen blocks for ten years for IPs from 2023/2024: first time blocks for ten years: 1, 2, 3, 4; blocks escalated to ten years: 5 (escalated from 2 years to 10 years} – 6 (escalated from 1 month to 10 years} – 7 (escalated from 1 year to 10 years} – 8 (escalated from 3 months to 10 years} – 9 (escalated from 3 months to 10 years} – 10 (escalated from 6 months to 10 years} – 11 (escalated from 6 months to 10 years} – 12 (escalated from 3 years to 10 years} – 13 (escalated from 3 years to 10 years} I didn't look any farther back. Several editors have correctly pointed out that there were some errors in judgement. I'm just not convinced that he requires the tools, considering his recent errors in judgement. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied with a clarification in a new thread on the talk page. Graham87 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Until we unbundle the toolkit, an admin who can't be trusted with one aspect of it should not be an admin. Indeed, that'd be a pretty conservative position—in a normal RfA. We wouldn't approve a new candidate who has demonstrated the same "errors in judgement" as Graham87 (in fact we've rejected candidates for less). "All we can ask for" is that they perform as every other administrator is expected to perform, and the moment we start carving out exceptions, we're going to start treating editors unequally (well, more so than RfA does already). I also do not believe the "import[ation of] edits from old databases" is sufficient reason to grant advanced rights (e.g. the legal implications pertaining to WP:VDC) when the admin candidate has to give assurances that they will not actually be able to act like an admin in order to pass the same "RfA like process" that other admin candidates must undergo. SerialNumber54129 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Graham has bitten far too many inexperienced users to the extent that their actions can't be dismissed as "errors in judgement," but rather a reflection of their approach. I can't trust an admin that placed an inappropriate block while a recall petition about their problematic blocks was ongoing. Stedil (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree with SN above. We don't exist in a world where all the unproblematic tools can be bestowed a la carte, so we have to evaluate candidates based on their entire tool use. The other thing is that the pledge to not block and contrition only came after many editors suggested problems with Graham's approach, which led to the recall. I simply don't consider apologies made under duress after the winds have shifted particularly inspiring and hopeful for future behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If it took a recall to get Graham to see his errors, so be it. At least he eventually did see them. I was on the fence at first, but seeing the co-nom statements by multiple established editors gives me renewed good faith. If we're wrong, we can do this over again (as far as I know). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it would take a full year before we can recall him again if he passes here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Sometime ago, Graham87 had blocked an editor who made nearly 1,200 edits, after edit warring with him.[1] The editor's talk page access was revoked by Graham87 after he mentioned that WP:INVOLVED is being violated by Graham87.[2] This happened after he was already criticized back in May 2020 for imposing indef block on an editor with more than 15,000 edits after edit warring him.[3] Graham87 pretended to understand these issues when they were raised but he won't unblock the editor (with 1200 edits).[4] The recent series of issues with his admin actions confirm he should not seek this RfA. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Posting the discussion for convenience:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Triangle inequality, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Graham87 15:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Graham87:I did not add any external link except in the URL feild of cite tag and as per Wikipedia:External links these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
They are not reliable sources, they are refspamming and refbombing. You have already been banned from editing articles about your own country/region; this is just another example of your staggering incompetence. For this reason, I have blocked you indefinitely. You are not welcome here. Graham87 04:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Graham87: I think this was a content dispute and had to be resolved here. I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED. User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 08:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's not how things work here and your response is just another example of your continued pattern of just not getting it. I have disabled your access to this talk page. Graham87 08:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is typical of how Graham has approached these discussions and blocked countless new editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Graham spent years issuing harsh blocks with abusive comments, including many against good faith editors. This was raised at AN/I, and he continued issuing blocks while the AN/I discussion about his blocks was ongoing. At that point, it became clear that he lacks the judgement necessary for the tools and that we can't trust him to self-correct. Because of this, a recall was initiated. He then continued issuing blocks while the recall discussion was ongoing. A tenth of Graham's behavior would be enough to tank a non-admin going through RfA. If you've ever opposed an RfA on the basis of conduct or temperament, but you support this one, then your hypocrisy is damning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact that it took a (successful) recall for Graham87 to finally realize their behavior shows me that they are very trigger-happy with blocks, a major concern. As alien said, if I RfA'd after consistently doing things Graham's done, I'd 100% fail. This is way too soon after the recall in my opinion, not nearly enough time to see if they actually stand by their word about hostility. If I made 100 bad AfC reviews and promise to change, does that mean I actually will? No, not at all! Trust is shown in more than just words, and I cannot support at this time. Their statement made earlier today on this RRFA's talk page, where they say "Some of the given escalation figures about my blocks don't take into account the full picture", shows me that they still haven't learned. This user has been given numerous chances by the community to do better and they haven’t, so why give them another? E_F⁵ 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Per TBUA charlotte ^👸♥ 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style. That may seem unnecessarily harsh, but it is what Graham87 told a new editor for putting a comma where it didn't belong and a reference in the lede. They allude to this when discussing the block of Mariewan in their response to Q3, but the issue isn't just the block but also the disproportionate hostility that came with it. This isn't a one-off occurrence, it is a pattern of inappropriateness that occurred while there was an active recall petition ongoing, meaning even under ongoing scrutiny Graham87 still felt this was an appropriate and proportionate response to an editor putting a reference and commas in the wrong place. Even when it is appropriate to block an editor or address an issue, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing that, and Graham87 consistently chooses the wrong way. You can address an issue without noting how harmful you find it or asking that established editors be the ones to revert you. Even with a commitment to not block editors, comments made as an admin still have an effect on editors, especially new editors who see an admin telling them how terrible their edits are. Despite being unblocked, User:Mariewan hasn't edited since. I can't blame them, and nothing in this RfA has convinced me that anything is likely to change. I'd much rather Graham87 show that there has been change and come back later for an RfA than assume that though nothing else has prompted a change in behavior, this time it's somehow different. - Aoidh (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Per SN54129 and David Fuchs. Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
per Serial Number. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Concerns are too large – if this were a regular RFA (as opposed to an RRFA), I'd oppose, so that's what I'm doing here. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 18:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I just don't see any other choice.Graham had every opportunity to improve his approach before the recall petition ever started, and just when it looked like the petiton would not pass, he did exactly the thing he was being asked not to do again while fully aware his actions were under the microscope. This startling lack of self-awareness gives me no confidence that he should be an admin. That he promises not to use the block button is too little, too late. An admin who, by his own admission, can't be trusted with one of the most important tools in the admin kit should not be an admin. I don't think Graham is a net negative overall, but he is not fit to be an admin. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The concerns posted by the users above, particularly by TBAU and Isaidnoway, are more than enough for me to believe that Graham should not have the admin toolkit. λ NegativeMP1 20:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Examples given above show that this is not a new issue, but a longstanding problem with the editor that has resulted in multiple ANI threads in the past for terrible blocks. Thus, their capability as an admin certainly seems in question. Adding to that points made below about how if we're going to agree to blocking off use of part of the admin toolset, then that fundamentally means we don't trust the editor with access to said capability, then they shouldn't be an admin. This reasoning seems very persuasive to me and Graham87's almost constant abuse of other accounts with their admin bit, particularly in INVOLVED situations where they were edit-warring with the person, seems like more than enough of a reason to believe that they are incapable of properly following required admin conduct. That they "do good work elsewhere" is irrelevant and, honestly, even more damning of an example when they can't conduct themselves properly in this particular area that is rather fundamental to the admin bit. Silver seren^C 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The excessive blocking concerns that were raised in the petition are unacceptable, especially when he was already under scrutiny multiple times even after claiming to change. fanfanboy (block_talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Per Aoidh, TBUA, and Serial Number. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I can't support this, the candidate hasn't shown patience with new editors consistently. Perhaps when the tools are unbundled further. →StaniStani 20:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not believe that, with rights not formally being unbundled, we should be granting adminship "à la carte" this way. If an admin candidate could not be trusted with the block button, I wouldn't support them becoming admin, even if they were capable of doing competent work in other areas. Furthermore, the fact that, without recall being possible for 12 more months, there wouldn't be a way of enforcing Graham's pledge to not block users worries me. The wording of a personal pledge *combined* with a note to the community if I wanted to resume blocking also concerns me – the inability to block should at least be a hard requirement, not a personal decision that can be changed by politely informing the community of it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If the community has to place somebody under a pretty severe editing restriction, they should not be an admin. This is different from somebody of their own volition acknowledging they have a weak spot, and pre-emptively assuring people they'll stay away from it. If WP:Requests for adminiship/Graham87 3 turns blue in a year or so's time, and we had proof the issues had been properly resolved, I'd probably support. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
One really shouldn't make the same actions that resulted in a recall while the recall is ongoing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
It's about time for Graham to just let go off the mop, it's clear that they cannot be trusted with the toolset. - Ratnahastin (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. I am not comfortable granting adminship to someone who cannot be trusted with the block button. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose; the run and gun approach that Graham87 has been running with over the past year, even continuing after being told multiple times that they perhaps should dial it back gives me an idea into their mindset, a mindset I'm not comfortable with. In my opinion, it would be better to drop the mop for the timebeing and just do things like a regular Wikipedian without admin tools. Kline • talk • contribs 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Bad blocks led to ANI #1 in 2022, and Graham said: "Yes, I will not make such broad sweeping statements about an editor's fitness to contribute to an article based on their seniority. ... Yes, I will take the gravity of blocks/block threats more into account in the future, especially with content disputes."
More bad blocks led to ANI #2 in September 2024, and Graham said: "OK, I'll agree to use more solid grounds than "just vibes" to block users in the future."
More bad blocks led to ANI #3 later in September and October 2024, and Graham said: "I will endeavour to use more warnings than blocks from now on where feasible ... My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that phrase in the future."
More bad blocks happened during ANI #3, and after that, Graham said: "OK, from now on any block I make will be based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate ..., and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist). If I come across a situation I've never encountered before, I won't use blocking as a first resort and will try to think about other solutions or explanations before resorting to blocking ... I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest."
That led to the recall petition at the end of October, and Graham said: "I have taken quite concrete steps to improve and become less bitey ... perhaps an unhealthy distrust of newer editors trying to change this content ... I've dialled down on blocking since the two ANIs. If you think I've made a mistake since then, let me know."
More bad blocks happened during the recall petition, on November 5, was this one: "... Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style. The commas you added after the words "approximately" and "although" in your edits to insomnia and Kopi luwak, respectively, would not be added by a competent English speaker, and suggest your use of some sort of semi-automated grammar checker, perhaps to game your edit count."
Trading "you are not welcome here" for "Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style" is not what I'd call attempting to dial down cynicism and communicate with new users in a more measured way. And the fact that the block was about commas is just nuts. I don't see any improvement here.
Under the rules of WP:RECALL, if this is successful, Graham can't be recalled again for 12 months. We couldn't get through September, October, or the first two weeks of November without a bad block. I don't want to give him another 12 months. Look at the damage that was done in just three months; 12 months is a long time. (And I don't trust arbcom either, nor do I trust ANI -- neither system prevented these bad blocks from happening, it took WP:RECALL to stop this disruption, so I doubt anything other than WP:RECALL would stop the disruption in the future.)
I cannot support an RFA where the admin says, "OK I won't block at all anymore" after so many times they've previously said they've taken feedback on board but clearly failed to do so. And anyway, if we're going to allow people to become admins while being TBANed from blocking, that's something we should open up to everybody, not just to an admin who has repeatedly WP:BITEs and makes bad blocks. IMO, nobody who needs a TBAN for any reason should be an admin.
I don't see the history merging or importing work as "important", it doesn't balance out the damage that comes from admins BITEing and making bad blocks. A3 says "I'll endeavour to advise them more clearly about where they're going wrong on Wikipedia", and I don't want Graham87 to do this. He has proven that he is not good at advising new editors. Sorry, but Graham just lacks the interpersonal skills needed to be an admin, because an admin needs to not be bitey, and Graham doesn't appear to be able to do that, like even just for one month. I'd feel differently if there were 12 months (or 6 or even 3) wherein Graham could point to non-bitey communications with new editors. So I'd reconsider my vote, but not until after there's a track record of improvement, which we don't have right now, and admin-but-TBAN-from-blocking is no substitute IMO. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per SerialNumber54129. To keep anyone as admin the criteria must be as tight or tighter than to a new admin. In 2nd case we are trying to predict the behavior, the first one we know the behavior. And we know that the admin for quite a long time had a conduct below what is required to an admin that lead to this. Now we have been asked to given him administration level with the promisses of not using some buttons. He can't use or can't be trusted to used those buttons, he shouldn't be and admin.Rpo.castro (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this unbundling of admin tools, which we certainly wouldn’t allow for a new candidate. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
An admin who can't be trusted to apply a block shouldn't have the toolset. There have been too many opportunities for Graham to modify his approach that he failed to take advantage of. (Thanks, Levivich, for that comprehensive recap.) This does not change my opinion of Graham as an editor nor my respect for his contributions to the project. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per a number of the interactions pointed out above, particularly Srijanx22's. Sorry. Johnson524 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: I was sitting on the fence for a bit due to their promise to stay away from blocking & support from other editors who know them better, but after reading the further context supplied by Levivich, I think they've had enough chances already. I have no issue with editors here who support Graham, but what bothers me is seeing people dismiss their bad behavior outright, especially coming from experienced editors. I know that if I, or any other newer editor behaved like this, they would not be treated so kindly. I stand by the idea that those given authority & community trust should be under more, not less scrutiny. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Does not seem to have the right frame of mind as show by the examples above. If they cannot be trusted to not abuse any of the admin privileges, they should not be an admin. Hypnôs (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose based on the hostility shown in the various diffs linked to throughout the opposes above. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

Truly, because I can see both sides of this. (Disclosure, I closed one of the recent ANIs about Graham's blocks and in that close, I said I thought they'd learned from feedback.) I also initially disagreed with the recall petition. After the block of Mariewan, I struck my opposition (such as it really is with a petition) but did not move to support recall because I was concerned about the block when all eyes were on their edits and what it meant for their admin actions when fewer eyes were on them. Graham subsequently requested the discussion be closed because the number of signatures had been reached and I didn't get to further assess my recall POV. I am in much the same place here. There are editors who I wholly trust nominating Graham and I like the questions they (including Graham) addressed up front. There is also a lot of good work that Graham does including importing. However I remain concerned that the impulse that lead to the "block now, ask later" isn't something that's going to change after a long history of that being Graham's MO. He has promised several times over the last few months that he'll do something differently, and I believe that he intends to change and isn't just saying what we as a community want to here, but I'm not sure it's possible. I don't think there's any malice, which coupled with believing he's a strong admin outside the blocks, is why I'm here and not opposing. Star Mississippi 14:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Star Mississippi's comments above. I am conflicted here, because Graham's technical work is invaluable and something that (to my knowledge) basically no other admin does, but I have a hard time supporting an RFA that is essentially contingent on "I'm not going to use this part of the toolset." My vote my change, but this is where I'm sitting right now. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
While I am sure Graham is a good faith editor and would use the admin tools only for the benefit of the community, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that someone has a tool with which they made controversial blocks in the past. And questionable blocks are a serious thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I must concur with Star Mississippi and ThaddeusOfNazareth. I don't see myself voting oppose, but I am concerned that the precedent of biting here is too severe. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
As with all above. I'm not in the oppose column because there's a clear committment to change, but equally, I'm not in the support column because of the seeming inability to read the room during the recall. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

Hi, my name's leeky and I'll be your ~~server~~ monitor for this week. As a reminder, this is a reconfirmation RfA as set out by WP:RECALL. The threshold for success is 60%, not ~~70%~~ 75%. Between 50%–60% is at bureaucrat discretion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Not 75%, you mean? :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Self-trout! you'd think after running two RfAs and nominating three more, I'd know that bamboozled from recently updating this module, i think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Fathoms Below and I'll be the assistant monitor, helping and consulting with theleekycauldron should the need arise (thanks leek for your permission to help, I'll see what I can do) Fathoms Below (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If, at some point in the future, they'd want to use the block button again, should they do another RFA? That seems reasonable to me. Polygnotus (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I think that will be a waste of everyone's time. If we do not trust Graham, we should just oppose them and be done with it.

Quoting a comment I read else elsewhere recently... "Admins should not be forced to bargain away pieces of their toolkit to get supports". Even if we treat it as a formal TBAN (and I do not), a simple consensus at WP:AN or similar is enough to undo the ban itself. If it's an informal agreement to not use the tools, I can see anywhere upto a simple AN notification being sufficient, depending on things.

There is no provision for admins to be "forced" to RFA again, other than exactly the conditions listed at WP:RECALL. In fact, the policy was proposed (partially) out of a desire to remove "informal pressuring" such as this. Soni (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to pressure anyone, formally or informally. I am just curious how things like that work and I haven't seen that situation before IIRC. Polygnotus (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
A question about future actions. We've received assurances in this RRFA about the editor avoiding blocking entirely in the foreseeable future. Alright then, not exactly a statement of one's capability to do the right thing, but I guess it will work in this instance. But what happens if that promise is not held to? How does the Recall rules work for a successful petition and subsequent successful RRFA? Is another petition banned from being formed for six months/a year even if similar actions occur again after this, leading to only Arbcom as an option? Silver seren^C 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Arbcom is the only option based on the policies as they stand.

I believe there's no easy way for the community as a whole to distinguish between "Same problems happening again" and "Improvement but not universally agreed on". So the net benefit from bringing the admin for recall again is lesser, and the net downsides from potential triple jeopardy is higher. So if the community as a whole has already affirmed the candidate in RRFA, and also issues continue to exist; in my opinion, Arbcom is best suited for that anyway. Soni (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I mean, in this particular case, it is quite easy to tell. Since they've agreed to not issue blocks whatsoever, then any issuing of blocks would be a direct violation of that pledge. Is that something that really needs to go to Arbcom? I feel like the community should be capable of dealing with it. Silver seren^C 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point, but to play devil's advocate: suppose five months from now, Graham makes a block that's utterly obvious, and any other admin would have made it too. (Let's say it's vandalism after a final warning.) Is that cause to start another recall petition? Probably some will say yes, because he broke confidence and should have reported it to AIV, and some will probably say no, that no harm has been done and there are multiple ban carveouts for obvious vandalism anyway to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy. Now imagine him making a block that's a little less obvious than that, or another that's a little less obvious still. Do you see where this is going? Most likely, in practical terms, how a violation of his pledge is handled will depend on the circumstances and the community's mood, and who can judge that but the community? And now we're back to the original problem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The community could enact an editing restriction based on consensus for any reason, so it could theoretically enact a sanction in that form. (*) Although there are some editors who disagree, others (including me) feel that current policy does not allow the community to enact an editing restriction preventing the use of administrative privileges through a consensus discussion (thus the adoption of the recall process), other than through site-banning. So if the community thought removing administrative privileges would be an appropriate remedy, it could only do so by site-banning, filing an arbitration request, or, after a year, filing another recall petition.

(*) I'm having difficulty, though, in conceiving of a suitable editing restriction that would also be compatible with the community exhibiting trust in the admin's judgement. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The only conceivable way to enforce this promise is to oppose this RRFA. I said many times at ArbCom that I believe an admin who needs an editing restriction imposed on them is not fit to be an admin. That still applies when it is self-imposed. Graham seems either incapable (doubtful) or simply unwilling (probably) to tone down his agressive approach to new users. That his only solution is not to actually do better but to bow out of that aspect of being an admin tells us a lot if you ask me. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to !vote, but I don't see an issue with giving someone the tools so long as they promise not to use one or a group of them. We already have precedent for it, as noted in Q10. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
One RFA from nearly sixteen years ago, where the closer explicitly cited the long abandoned idea that "adminship is no big deal" is hardly a precedent we should be expected to follow today. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I just want to go on record and say that while the “decade blocks” are certainly concerning; Graham87 did vow to focus on a different administrative area (eg: permission requests); and particularly because of that. I support giving Graham87 here a second chance.

And also, we need more admins; our RFA process is already highly dysfunctional the way it is, and more admins are quitting or being desysopped faster than new admin-hopefuls can be successfully RFA’d. I’m a strong supporter of second chances; especially when there is a years long chronic shortage of sysops. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
ANI #1 was the second chance. Since then we've had a third (ANI #2), fourth (ANI #3), and fifth (recall); in each case, failed. This would be a sixth chance. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As stated in my oppose, when is another chance too many? As levi stated, this is the sixth chance at a behavior change, which is quite frankly absurd. I do not have faith or trust that Graham will actually do better, they’ve had five chances to do so and only promised to do better after they realized it came with consequences. A wise person also said “No admin is better than a bad admin”, although I can’t remember what user said that.E_F⁵ 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the more relevant precedent is the half-dozen instances where ARBCOM or the community has seen fit to restrict an administrator's editing in some way, but decided not to levy further sanction or not to escalate to ARBCOM, respectively. These instances are considerably more recent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits AfC stats BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights