Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

Graham87

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (115/131/9); 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)

Also see my answer to question 12 below. Graham87 (talk) 01:32, 18 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. Yes, I may well have to add my own resignation to the former adminnistrators pages. 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)

Optional question from HouseBlaster

13. Is there anything you would like to say in response to the comments and !votes left below? Completely optional, and if you do choose to exercise this option, feel free to expand in the future if you have more to say :)

A: ~~Not at the moment. Graham87 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)~~ if I notice a problem, either with an editor on my watchlist or elsewhere on Wikipedia, my instinct has been to try to fix it everywhere and to stop it from happening again. This has served me well when dealing with old Wikipedia edits but of course went spectacularly awry with some of my blocks, especially that of Mariewan. My ability to notice things that other people don't is both an extreme blessing and an extreme curse. Graham87 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Banedon

14. In the event this RfA passes, and then you block someone anyway (in spite of the voluntary indefinite topic ban from blocks and unblocks, broadly construed, in question 12 above), what would you suggest the community do?

A: Strongly encourage me to resign, as I said in question 10. It'd probably be best to start a discussion about that on either my talk page or somewhere like ANI/BN; it wouldn't need to be a formal petition or Arbcom case unless I make some sort of colossally ill-conceived block that has effects way beyond the block of that single user. Graham87 (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Patar knight

15. Your answer to Question 14 implied that the enforcement mechanism for your self-imposed prohibition on doing blocks would be for the community to "strongly encourage [you] to resign". Under the previous voluntary scheme for administrators open to recall, recall pledges were completely unenforceable. Also, per the current official recall mechanism, no petitions can be started within a year of a successful Re-RFA. If you become an admin again, choose to do a block in violation of your self-imposed prohibition within 12 months, and subsequently refuse to resign, would the only way to desysop you be a community ban or through ARBCOM?

A: Yes, that would be correct. But I pledge not to refuse to resign; I'd just hand in my bit straight away. There is indeed no binding process to hold me to that promise but, given how absolutely black-and-white it is, it'll be much easier for me to process and act on. Graham87 (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Bunnypranav

16. You mentioned that you will still participate in (un)protecting pages. If biting new users was a concern, wouldn't protecting pages and preventing those very users from editing it lie in the same area and bring back the same concerns?

A: My watchlist purge has very much decreased the chance that page protection/unprotection will be required. I actually think that page protection helps save newbies in some cases because it stops them from being the hundredth IP to annoy an article watchlisster and thus incurring the wrath of said potentially grumpy editor. It does make it potentially harder for a legitimate new editor to contribute to a page, but I don't think semi-protection or the protected edit requests system are high barriers for a determined editor to overcome. Graham87 (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from CFA

17. Follow up from Q12: Would you agree to allow any uninvolved administrator to block you, at their discretion, if you violate this topic ban?

A: Yes. Perhaps naturally my instinct was to say no (as a block for a block sounded odd to me). But thinking about it, violations of regular topic bans are met with escalating blocks, so I don't think this particular tban should be an exception. Graham87 (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Just Step Sideways

18. As of this writing, this RFRA is "underwater" with more opposition than support,with every single opposer offering some sort of rationale, and multiple users striking their originally neutral comments and moving to the oppose section. Have you considered the possibility that the community has truly lost faith in your continuing to be an admin here, and perhaps you should just withdraw/resign? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A: Yes, going in to this RFA there was a cutoff point at which I'd determined that I would withdraw. We've almost reached it, but not quite, and discounting a few blips we may well get there soon. Right this very second? I'm not sure what I want to do yet; I'll give it some thought. Graham87 (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from SNUGGUMS

19. If you withdraw or this otherwise ends without enough support to retain admin rights, then do you foresee yourself ever re-applying for those after sufficiently improving yourself based on the concerns raised? It looks like you've lost lots of trust from the community and that would take a while to fully regain (assuming that would even be possible).

A: Maybe; I'll see what happens. Graham87 (talk) 23:42, 19 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. On 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 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)
Looking over this again, I am no longer able to support this, primarily per Levivich. I can't bring myself to oppose either, since his Importer work is quite helpful, so I am now neutral. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:16, 18 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)
This was the discussion, and it impacts everyone. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:50, 18 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)
I encourage all support !voters to leave some reasoning, even if it's just per nom', since this may come down to a 'crat chat. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:39, 19 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)
Just want to say that while this RfA has drawn my attention to some old blocks that are disturbing, I don't have much concern about his recent blocks, and it's moot anyway because he won't be making any more. Re: the concerns about it being absurd that we need to ban an admin from using his tools, we are in this position because of the community's unwillingness to unbundle blocking or viewing deleting revisions, and I support making accommodations for someone who is literally the only person who knows how to do what he does. And I will note that when I was a young, wayward new page patroller, I needed a lot more than six chances to conform my practices to the community's expectations; I don't think the number of chances matters, as long as progress is being made. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:37, 18 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)
While I still support this RRFA, Levivich's comment in the oppose section is by far the most convincing one in this RRFA. Assuming this passes, the no blocking condition needs to be strict, and Graham should probably steer clear of interacting with new users. Is that set of restrictions compatible with continued access to the tools? I think so, but only just barely - downgrading to Weak Support. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:41, 18 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)
Support trusted – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: If they will not be blocking or unblocking anyone, I see no reason to oppose. C F A 01:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. He is capable to be an administrator. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support has made mistakes, as have we all. Still a net positive as an admin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Valuable administrator with an undertaking to avoid the problem raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I hope to have time to explain my thoughts further but want to be clear that I am aware of the arguments made in oppose (and earlier discussions). Skynxnex (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This is not a literal one-to-one match of a new RFA, for example there are how ever many other admin actions and time as an admin Graham87 has in their favor, compared to a new RFA. I wish that Graham had effectively stopped on blocking or tried harder to match their behavior to current expectations but overall given all that's happened and their assurances, they continue to have my trust as an admin. Skynxnex (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support If Floquenbeam feels comfortable that the pledge to not issue blocks is in good faith, then so do I. In any case, with a recall process in place, the consequences of trust being misplaced are far less. Good admin outside the specific problem area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Do note, CoffeeCrumbs, that with the way RECALL currently works, if this RRFA passes, then no recall can be started against Graham87 for a year, no matter their actions during that year. Silver seren^C 03:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Silver seren Given their pledge not to engage in any blocking, I'm not seeing this as a high risk RfA. That said, if there were a serious issue the next stop would likely be ARBCOM which is where the community has generally gone in the rare cases of a problematic admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking more long term. I can't imagine that he'd suddenly go Ha-HA and immediately start blocking people or anything. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support He does work in areas few other admins do work in like importing edits from old databases, helping blind editors as well as performing a lot of history merges. He has agreed to step back from making blocks and focus on other areas. I feel like they deserve a 2nd chance. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Noting that many in the oppose section make good points Mach61 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, Good admin. first WP:RECALL. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - Graham87 has done lots of excellent work on Wikipedia since the day he started editing (which was on 17 February 2005). He also continues to play a major part in page and file importation as of mid-November. Also, with the fact that Graham87 pledged to refrain from blocking users and as it appears that he is willing to change for the better, I also think we should give him another chance as an admin (and importer) on the English Wikipedia for an extended period of time. ~SG 5536 B 06:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support under the assumption that Q12 is followed Leijurv (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per the very experienced nominators whose judgement I trust. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Maliner (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: The situation as I see it is as follows. The reason the recall petition passed was due to concerns with Graham87's actions regarding blocks. In Q12, Graham87 has indicated that they would agree to be indefinitely topic banned from blocks and unblocks and with the ban being broadly construed. The other situation in the recall petition and at ANI to my understanding was Graham87's treatment of newer editors. While there has not been a focus on this from the questions above, Graham87 does agree that they need to change as indicated by his response to Q3 and Q11. The understanding I have is that Graham87's work as an importer is both possible and significantly made easier by being an admin and would be hindered by being desysopped. I believe that Graham87 can still be an admin without being able to block. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Agree with HJ that G is a net-positive for the project! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per above. Graham87 has pledged to do better and avoid the behaviors that led to recall in the first place. -Fastily 11:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per 5225C and more. I have a good feeling that he has changed his ways. On top of that, he has been a clear net-positive for the wiki. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. Graham87 has agreed to a voluntary indefinite topic ban from blocks and unblocks, broadly construed, and has pledged that he will resign should he still block someone in breach of the topic ban. If Graham87 refuses to resign under such circumstances, breaking his pledge, ArbCom will desysop him painlessly via motion, because, clearly, at that point, as someone who has disrespected his topic ban and broke his pledge and with a track record of clearly identified admin misconduct that led to a recall petition passing and the topic ban, it would be unimaginable to still consider Graham87 deserving of the trust needed for the role.—Alalch E. 14:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - This editor will continue to be a net positive as an admin because they agreed to a ban if they engage in blocking again. - tucoxn\^talk 14:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. I'm convinced by the nominators' arguments. Bishonen | tålk 14:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC).
Moral Support FOARP (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I was very close to saying "oppose" Treatment of editors (e.g. on (alleged) conduct issues) is immensely important and I don't see how they could have fundamentally changed regarding that this quickly. The "no block" agreement 90% solves this but I'm still concerned about them giving warnings with the imprimatur of an admin. But I think that they will be under the magnifying glass regarding this which I hope would avoid any problems there. And this experience would hopefully be the start of a genuine evolution there. So we have someone who has immense background and knowledge and track record for doing work and as I understand it, having the tools is needed or significantly helpful towards doing that work. Hence my "support" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid at this point I can only offer moral support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per Q1. The block issues are in the past and I hope Graham87 can continue to help out with Wikiarcheology work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
— TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support still a net positive in my opinion. Lightoil (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I end up here because I think that Graham87 remains a net positive for this project. --Enos733 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - I have concerns that we are standing on the edge of a slippery slope if this is our first revocation of admin rights via this recall process ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Mike gigs: Could you possibly clarify what you mean by that? It's not clear to me if you are criticizing recall as a process or if you think this specific situation is a bad test for it, or some other thing I'm not seeing. How is it a "slippery slope?" Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Both, I suppose - though this is not the forum to criticize the recall process as a whole. I don't think that Graham87 has been abusive enough of his tools to warrant being desysoped and if he is I think we are setting a bad precedent for future RRfA's. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - We need more admins willing to protect the project. Graham will undoubtedly proceed more carefully than before. Hy Brasil (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support: has clue. if he blocks anyone I can just block him. ez jp×g 🗯️ 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support I understand the concerns that someone who cannot be trusted with the blocking tool should not be an admin, but I disagree with that perspective in this case. Graham has made an extremely strong pledge not to make any further blocks; I especially appreciate his answers to Q12 and Q17, agreeing to a topic ban on blocks and allowing an administrator to block him if he does make a block in violation of this topic ban. Honestly, I normally would not be okay with an admin remaining an admin without the ability to block, but I feel that Graham is so beneficial to the project in his other roles that he should be given one last chance. I would like to add the caveat, though, that his block during the recall petition struck me as especially egregious; the text of the warning actually seemed worse to me than the block itself, because of how bitey it was. If there continue to be problems with treatment of new users, which I really hope there will not be, Recall and Arbcom still exist. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, a recall petition cannot be started for 12 months after a successful RRfA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the grace period should be removed for admins who finish their RRfA in the "discretion" range? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
JBL (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I had nothing but positive interactions with Graham over many years. Looks like any overzealousness on the block front came from a good place - trying to protect the best interests of the project. I think that should count for something and I would much rather see the community help admins overcome obstacles than take away the tools. Admin numbers are dwindling and I believe the admin corp would be stronger with him than without him. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I’m confident that he brings considerable value to the project. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - Never had a problem. I think the good should outweigh the bad in this case. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I have no concerns about Graham87's willingness to heed community advice and to carry on with his good work.Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Administrator brings value to the project and should be allowed to continue the work which may not otherwise be done. Urbanracer34 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Supported over 17 years ago, still support now. Also agree with WJBscribe. Acalamari 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support - this is obviously I difficult case, but on balance I am sure he will be a good administrator and we need new admins. I was an admin for many years, but retired as I am now well over 80. Bduke (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. I care a lot about civility and the way new editors are treated, and I'm comfortable with Graham's pledge to stop blocking altogether. The wikiarchaeology work he does with admin tools is truly valuable and I don't see why a non-blocking Graham who is allowed to keep doing history merges would be a bad thing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support. —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 03:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support contingent on topic banning Graham87 from blocking users. Graham87 does rather unique work (see Q1) that cannot be done without sysop rights, and history of problematic behaviour notwithstanding, I still firmly believe that they are a net positive for this project. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support I continue to trust Graham. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, Graham87 is one of our most experienced contributors or administrators on Wikipedia and I trust Graham to make things better on Wikipedia. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on what? He’s made all these promises before. MapReader (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Largely a moral support at this point; I truly appreciate and admire all of the different and unique things that Graham87 does. I'm disappointed by the final block that finally tipped the scales and hope that in the future his no-block commitment is sufficient. Legoktm (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support, clearly, without conditions and per GiantSnowman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support per Q17 Q: 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. Graham's block-ban resolves the main issue here. So long as this can be adequately enforced by any uninvolved administrator, that's good enough. (That said, I'd like to see these rights unbundled at some point in the future.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Support (or Moral Support if you prefer) in recognition of the 42,000+ administrative actions that Graham87 has performed over the last 17 years, which – if I'm reading the stats page correctly – puts him in the all-time top 100 admins by number of actions. I seriously doubt that anyone could find fault with the vast majority of those actions. Graham clearly does far more good than bad, and his de-adminship would be a real loss to the project. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:59, 19 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)
Past thread and discussion moved to talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 18 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)
This statement is persuasive. It seems advantageous to unbundle, or separate out, some of the admin tools, but that would best be done through policy, not an ad hoc situation like this. ProfGray (talk) 14:28, 19 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)
Oppose. I wrote in 2007, "I believe that editors are the most precious resource this project has", and I stand by that. I don't feel that any of the administrative areas that Graham works in are more important than the basic duty of admins to help and encourage good-faith new contributors. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Espresso Addict's sentiments and Levivich's detailed analysis. This brings me no joy; I appreciate Graham's commitment to Wikipedia. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Sadly. Per Levivich's analysis and Just Step Sideways' assessment Llwyld (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose diffs cited above are just too troubling. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Asking for the perms back so soon raises questions about judgment and if the concerns at recall have received serious thought and due consideration. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:RECALL requires that the admin go through this WP:RRFA process within 30 days of the petition's success. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This badly misunderstands the RRFA process. Asking for the permissions so soon is what is expected. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Running an RRFA within 30 days of a petition passing is neither required nor expected by the WP:RECALL process. It's an option available to a recalled admin, if they want to retain admin rights, to run within 30 days and need only 60% to pass. The other option is to run later and get the usual 75% to pass. Personally, I was hoping Graham would have chosen the second option, and be able to post some diffs from the interim of interactions with new users that demonstrated responsiveness to community feedback. (I'm hoping the same of the other recalled admin.) Levivich (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
It's a bit rough to set up a process whereby a petition triggers the option of a time-limited set of RFA rules, and then criticise a candidate for taking up that option. If we want the expectation to be that a successful 25-vote petition is itself a desysop with reapplication only after months/years as a regular RfA, then we should be making that clear at the recall page as it might affect how people vote. I wouldn't particularly oppose that outcome, but the current lack of clarity is suboptimal. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I like that the recall system gives the admin the option of either conceding that the petition represents a loss of community trust, or else challenging whether the petition represents a loss of community trust; it's a test of the admin's ability to gauge community expectations. If the admin concedes that they've lost community trust, then they (rightfully) lose the bit (and can ask for it back with an RFA when they think they've regained that community trust). However, if the admin thinks they still have community trust (or at least 50-60%) and the 25 petitioners represent a minority of the community (40-50% or less), then the admin can run an RRFA and test that theory. Hence, if the admin thinks they still have it (and they're right), they can keep their bit; if the admin thinks they don't still have it, they rightfully lose the bit until they regain the necessary level of support. I think this is one of the best failsafes against "bad" petitions: if the petitioners are a disgruntled minority, the admin has a way to challenge them and keep their bit; if the petitioners represent a significant portion of the community (like half), then the admin can accept that and move on (but can still regain adminship in the future with a regular RFA). Levivich (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the RRfA is a challenge to the apparent loss of community trust—that's why assurances and even a pledge of changed behavior from here on out is central to this request. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point, the RRFA doesn't have to be a challenge, it could also be, as it is here with the suggested blocking TBAN, a response addressing the concerns raised. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

To the 'crats: my apparent misunderstanding of WP:RECALL aside, reasons for my oppose include the pattern of behavior as outlined by Levivich, blocking Mariewan for something completely resolvable, and the WP:INVOLVED TPA revocation example on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2#Discussion on oppose #5. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I was initially planning on placing myself in the Neutral section, but I am now inclined to oppose. Firstly, I do not consider his response to Q10 to be sufficient, since there is no mechanism for holding Graham accountable for failing to resign, ~~unlike Lustinger seth, who said he would accept an indefinite block from any administrator if he exceeded his self-imposed limit to working on the spam blacklist.~~ Secondly, following Levivich, I believe that he's been given far too many chances at this point. And, responding to the comment by the original author of the petition that we should give him another chance per WP:NOPUNISH, that does not apply here. In addition to the fact that this is a petition for a desysopping, not a block, there is a "current conduct issue of concern," namely the long-term violations of WP:ADMINCOND that have been duly pointed out by several editors. The only reason why Dilettante says that it does is because Graham has promised never to block any user again. However, such a promise should not be sufficient to maintain an administrator who has made similar promises in the past, and repeatedly has failed to live up to them, as was eloquently pointed out by Levivich. And since WP:RECALL says that no further recall efforts can be made within one year of a successful RRFA, it would be unwise for us to simply hope that he really means it this time. To do so would be to hold him to an even lower standard than a non-admin who requests an unblock after similar unfulfilled promises. And lest we forget that the reason why we are here in the first place is because he has repeatedly misused the block functionality, and is now promising to never use it again. ~~Even under those circumstances, he is still making a promise that is significantly harder to hold him accountable for than a person who only ever intended to use one tool in the first place.~~ Thus, I cannot, in good faith, support this RRFA. In spite of that, I hope that Graham87 continues his well-regarded work that does not require his use of administrative privileges (and he should be allowed to keep his importing privileges). JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I have stricken out parts of my !vote due to his answer to Q17, which I do think is a good sign. However, I stand by my opposition due to the ROPE concerns. I still do not think he is ready to re-request adminship at this time. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting I've seen this rebuttal to my comment but still support Graham87. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per above, but more specifically per Levivich. The November 5 diff is most troubling to me. It's not biting, it's practically chewing a new editor. And over what? "harmful [sic] parts of attempted grammar fix" (a wrong comma and removal of "to"). No edits from that user since, despite editing daily prior to that. Most likely gone forever. I don't think that's a behavior we should encourage. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Levivich's analysis. I've given this some thought, read most all content on this page, and read most of the ANI threads linked to. Many supports seem to hinge on the idea that Graham should be given the opportunity to adhere to his pledge to not block. For one, I generally agree with the sentiment that an administrator which must have a restriction from one aspect of the toolkit does not have my trust to have the toolkit in whole. For two, Levivich's analysis makes it clear that Graham has demonstrated to make pledges on his behavior and then not follow through. Not only that, but he continued to engage in sub-optimal behavior while said behavior was under active scrutiny from the community. And he did this twice in a 3 month period. That is beyond the pale, I'm afraid. As noted by Thebiguglyalien, this behavior would result in a non-administrator candidate overwhelmingly failing. While not personally familiar with Graham's work to the project, given the numerous names I've come to see for years speak well of his work, I'd say he has done a lot of good for the encyclopedia. It is not my intent to diminish that. But I cannot support the retaining of the administrator toolkit given what I have seen. I wish Graham the best, and I caution he show much diligence in his future approach, especially if the RRfA succeeds. —Sirdog (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
There's a very big distinction IMO between a pledge to think differently, which the previous pledges were, and a pledge to not take a specific actions, which the current pledge is. Controlling how one thinks is much harder than controlling how one acts. The former kind is shades of gray - one can always will oneself into thinking it is being followed. The latter kind is pure black and white, to the point that I'm tempted to file a Phabricator task for "allow a user to be partially blocked from blocking other users" out of spite.
While I would probably have supported this RRFA even without the no-blocks pledge (and been in a miniscule minority in doing so I guess) to me the switch from the first kind to the second kind is a showing of strength. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not really what he did. "[F]rom 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)" seems pretty "pure black and white" to me. Although he did also pledge to change his way of thinking ("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 ..."), he rarely pledged to change only his way of thinking, and always pledged action alongside those pledges ("I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest."). And besides, he didn't even really "switch from the first kind to the second kind," as his answer to Q3 says "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)," which is quite similar in content to his previous pledges. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's still subjective/gray in a way that ll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on isn't. And that quote is what the second kind of promise was referring to, not the Q3 answer.
It would be impossible to write code to technically prevent anyone from block[ing] not 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). It would be possible to write code to prevent someone from pushing the block button at all. That's what makes the recent promise pure black and white in a way that the older ones weren't.
Maybe that difference means a lot more to me than it does to others because I'm an autistic computer programmer, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Filed that as phab:T380248 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – A good temperament is one of the most important traits of an admin. Whilst Graham does good and important work, he fails the good temperament test. Schwede 66 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per the answer to Q14. Apparently the enforcement mechanism for the proposed no blocking topic ban is that the community should "strongly encourage [him] to resign". Unless I'm missing something, this is formally toothless and would likely require elevation to WP:ARBCOM or a community ban to desysop if the block happens within in the 12-month period that WP:RECALL does not allow for new petitions after a successful Re-RFA. Given that serious issues with blocking were raised in the recall and this RFA, I must oppose even if Graham would otherwise still be productive in other admin areas, since the proposed safety mechanism is inadequate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Patar knight: If he does the thing he is banned from, breaching his ban, and then doesn't resign, breaking the pledge to resign, ArbCom will desysop him with a motion in short order. Because, at that point it's inconceivable that someone who would break their pledge after disrespecting their topic ban after failing to live up to previous assurances multiple times, during which there is really no dispute that they did perform poorly in an important area, enjoys the needed level of trust to be an administrator; at that point it would be extremely clear that Graham87 must be desysopped, so that would have to be a quick and painless process. Therefore, I don't see why that's an inadequate mechanism. It seems adequate to me. —Alalch E. 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
If an instant desysop would be the obvious result (I don't think it's that clear cut) then the enforcement mechanism should just be that bureaucrats can desysop him if he breaks the pledge. He chose not to propose such an airtight restriction and the answer to Q17 seems to imply that before that answer, he was leaning towards not being blocked if he violated the ban. I might've been persuaded to support if the pledge was airtight from the get-go, but I think the answers to this pledge entails shows continued lack of judgment given the serious issues raised. No issues with them getting importer/page mover/other rights that would allow them to do the technical work that doesn't require admin tools. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
To clarify in case this ends up in a crat chat, I generally agree with the analysis by Levivich. In my opinion, the bare minimum for seriously considering to support an Re-RFA here was for a no-block pledge with actual teeth. At this point, even if Graham does ultimately agree to one, it would be too little too late and reflects a continued pattern of ignoring community concerns about his behaviour around blocks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but is it even possible for such a pledge to have teeth? Is there any actual policy by which the Graham87 of today can bind the Graham87 of the future? Regardless of what Graham87 writes now (assuming this RfA passes), the only way for the Graham87 of the future to lose his admin rights is if he chooses to do so, or if ArbCom desysops him. Sure, you can try to hide from this reality by using the block tool in creative ways as Lustiger seth did, but I don't think that's really any better. The fact that Graham87 knows this fact shouldn't be held against him.
We could have set up a culture in which crats could enforce promises of that sort (i.e desysop me if I ever block someone in the future regardless of what future-me says), but we didn't. I'm not convinced that even a form of Lustiger seth's promise would work - if Lustiger seth were to perform a non-spam-blacklist-related admin action, some admin were to enforce the promise by an indefinite block, and then he were to file an unblock request that doesn't involve resigning adminship, perhaps with some attempt to justify what he did - then what?
I find it highly dubious that every single admin monitoring the unblock queue would decline on the basis that you said something in 2008 and now you're blocked from editing indefinitely because of it - instead there would be a quagmire from which the only way out is one of the processes for involuntary loss of adminship. And the same is the case with Graham87, regardless of what exactly he formally agrees to since we've chosen to build a community in which due process cannot be waived. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps as an editing restriction on blocking, broadly construed, for which the sanction would be desysoping. WP:Editing restrictions lists one administrative restriction already, though the remedy is not desysoping. In theory, if the admin is willing to be bound and the community agrees that it is a valid sanction, I think it should be possible. In any case, I'm not going to spend too much time brainstorming possibilities, since the burden is on the candidate and/or their nominators to propose an acceptable sanction/enforcement mechanism for community approval. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that you're asking for the impossible. We don't have any means of desysoping admins other than resignations, admin recall, and ArbCom. Given that the current consensus is against the recall period delay being waived, you have to truth ArbCom to desysop Graham87 should he block someone and refuse to resign. And I at least have no doubt they will do so even with the current wording of the promise, and any stronger wording is just presenting a false veneer while actually agreeing to nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose This editor can not be trusted to appropriately use administrative tools. Fortunately, having administrative tools is not required for this (or any) editor to make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment Here Graham872 writes that they pledge to avoid blocking, but they then write here that when they do block someone, the community of editors should Strongly encourage me to resign. (Personal attack removed) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@JoJo Anthrax: That answer was responding to a hypothetical question. I don't think it means that Graham intends to block someone. jlwoodwa (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For those interested it was certainly not a personal attack. See my Talk page for the related discussion, but in the interest of avoiding tangents I will not bother to restore the content here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You know, if the reason you're opposing someone amounts to failure to assume sufficient good faith, then accusing them of naked doublespeak is kind of hipocritical. I think it's just poor wording, not some attempt to subvert the very premise of this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
No confidence, per Levivich's examples czar 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Attitudes not appropriate for an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC).
Oppose. Blocking other users is the most serious task we assign to an admin, and Graham's actions while the petition was ongoing show he lacks judgment in that area. IMHO he'd have been better off resigning the bit and running again in 12 months instead of making a promise -- apparently toothless per Q14 -- to not block again. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Aoidh. FifthFive (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, regretfully. This may be a minority opinion but I tend to believe admins should be leaders in the community. If they do not have the skills to decide on appropriate blocks, I unfortunately lack confidence in their ability to be effective leaders. I would support a re-RfA after some time has passed and the candidate has demonstrated a higher level of skill interacting with and guiding new users. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, Per Levivich. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Many of the supporters who are happy with the pledge to desist from blocking users are missing the point that wrongful uses of the block tool indicate fundamental misunderstanings of the policy. Like the apparent violations of MOS:LEADCITE. Here is a diff showing Graham87 removing a bunch of references – which would be a plainly unconstructive edit had it not been for the technicality they were in the lead. LEADCITE assumes that content in the lead would also be covered later on in the article, which is indeed the case for longer or high-quality articles, but not for your average start-class article like Salesian Preventive System.
This kind of rigid application of policy (in this case the MOS, which is supposed to be optional) without considering the context makes me unable to support. – SD0001 (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - clearly can't be trusted with the blocking tools and it seems foolishly optimistic in light of the track record to rely on an (in effect) unenforceable undertaking not to use them. Ingratis (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oppose, Per many of the above. Bad blocks drive good editors away, and that’s a resource we shouldn’t be wasting. Over each of the ANI visits, he”s made the ‘yes, I’ll change’ promise, but then not changed at all, so—to my mind, at least—he’s run out of chances. - SchroCat (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, with regret. While I appreciate Graham's work on accessibility and importing pages, their repeated behaviour—despite six warnings—raises serious concerns. They have used an accusatory tone with new users, including comments like "You are not welcome here" and "Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style." More troubling are their dismissive remarks, like towards non-native English speakers, when suggesting a user was not a "competent English speaker" and gaming their edit count based on minor grammar mistakes, and revoking TPA after someone politely suggested they might be WP:INVOLVED. This kind of behaviour is incompatible with a position of trust on this project. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on answers to Q10-Q15. Either they are willing to accept hard topic bans from the community, with everything that implies. Or they expect this to be an informal understanding, with "strong encouragement". The fact that they have said both, implies either a lack of understanding of what WP:TBANs are. Or that they will rather say whatever gets them out of scrutiny instead of actually considering what they are promising. I would understand either an informal arrangement or a full TBAN, but this just feels like a candidate choosing the "paths of least resistance" when picking their answers. Soni (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per what Levivich has said, and the response to question 13. novov talk edits 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - So many trips to ANI and just as many helpings of insulting and insincere lip-service. No confidence he can follow through with his pledges even if he actually intends to. Primergrey (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too many bad blocks and broken promises to improve. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Really on technical grounds because the editor is asking to use some admin tools but not others. I would favor such an unbundling but, without that à la carte option, I can't support the overall nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because at the moment all admins have to be trusted with all the tools, and the blocks detailed here are way below the expected standard of behaviour and previous promises to do better have not led to an improvement in behavour. MarcGarver (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, per Levivich's analysis. I am dumbfounded as to how or why the incident brought up by Srijanx22 was not brought to AN/I (the block being egregiously out of line with policy), and per the evidence available Graham doesn't seem to have actually improved after that wrt the block button or interacting with new, good-faith editors finding their way around. I can't trust a person to be an admin unless they are shown to be competent with the Big Three (block, delete and protect), and based on what I'm seeing I don't think I can trust Graham with the block button. Java Hurricane 09:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, unfortunately. After reading the nomination statements, I was planning on supporting. But unfortunately, the opposes have convinced me that right now, Graham should not be an admin. If Graham can show to be less BITEy, I fully expect to be supporting a new RfA in 6-12 months. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, without prejudice for a re-RFA after some time (1-2 Years). A technically capable editor, but maybe needs to be on the other end for a bit to recalibrate what "involved" means for normal editors. AKAF (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Nobody (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Unfortunately, I doubt that the bite issue and unhealthy distrust of newer editors is limited to blocking. Charcoal feather (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Everything here's a TL;DR, but from what I can tell, the candidate claims that he will do a self-imposed prohibition on the block tool, even though such a thing is straight up impossible to enforce. If an existing admin can't even be trusted/trust themself with the block tool of all things due to repeated warnings of misuse, what is even the point of staying an admin? "Strongly encourage me to resign, as I said in question 10."? Those words mean nothing. Mox Eden (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: Per SerialNumber and others. GrabUp - Talk 12:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per SerialNumber, Thebiguglyalien and Levivich. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose This bitey block (mentioned by Levivich) while undergoing the recall process for bad blocks and after having agreed to dial back their bitey blocks is enough to make me not have trust in their ability to judge things. Sorry, I lack trust in them holding the admin toolset. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think hist merges are worth the number of newbies that are getting bitten BugGhost 🦗👻 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. A first-time RfA candidate who felt the need to promise not to make any blocks would snow fail. I'm almost always one to say the more the merrier, but there is a baseline for community trust that I don't believe is met here. With regret, WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. My initial feeling at the recall petition was that most of the complaints about Graham were excessivly nit-picky and the whole thing felt like some kind of out of control mob justice thing. But the block of Mariewan brought me up short. Partly because the block was unjustified, but mostly because it happened while Graham knew he was under close scrutiny, when you would expect somebody to be on their best behavior. Yet they went ahead and issued exactly the kind of block people were complaining about. I'm not sure what that is. Chutzpah? Deliberate testing of boundaries? Failure to read the room? Whatever you call it, it was antithetical to the ability to take on corrective feedback. Admins are human. We all make mistakes. As long as they are relatively infrequent and we learn from them, there's no problem. But I can't get past this one. As for the pledge to not block, that's a core part of the admin toolset. If we can't trust them to use the block button correctly, they shouldn't be an admin. If somebody can't behave themselves while everybody is watching, I don't see how we can trust them to behave themselves when nobody is watching. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
As I've implied above in question 3 and elsewhere, it wasn't just failure to read the room; I was so fixated on what the user was doing (and dealing with their edits), the room may as well have not existed. A no-block pledge would be much easier for me to follow. Graham87 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose User appears to have a pattern of promising to do one thing and then actually doing something else, which is especially problematic with blocks involving new editors. Intothat darkness 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, Per Levivich, who I thank for their comprehensive review. Jusdafax (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Largely per Levivich, this isn't the first, second, or even third incident. If an admin needs a topic ban from the most important admin tool, then they shouldn't be an admin. The other issue is the biting behavior and warnings which the topic ban would not address. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per JSS, Lev, SchroCat et al. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, which I hate doing. However, there are too many bad blocks. Let him keep importer. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. I was initially unpersuaded by the recall petition but, frankly, I was astonished by the block of Mariewan. Levivich has collected a series of direct quotations that show that this is a chronic problem. It is not just the bad blocks but also the biting. Graham87 has lost my confidence. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per just about everyone, especially Levivich. I'm honestly concerned by the amount of support this behavior has garnered. This was a long pattern of broken promises. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose – I had originally voted to support this RFA; but especially given new information brought up by EF5 and a couple others. I have removed that vote and I’m replacing it with this. I originally supported the RFA until I found out how many chances Graham87 had. While I’m in strong support of second chances; I ain’t in support of sixth chances. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
And to be perfectly honest; based on some of the ANI discussions (which I haven’t read and don’t plan on doing so); I’m not even entirely convinced that Graham87 would even be suitable for something like Rollback; given how he’s abused his blocks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Can’t support a person making ridiculous ten-year blocks. If you’re going to block someone for ten years; just indef them! Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
One may not indef IPs and IP ranges, this is strictly against the policies. Even open proxys are blocked for a number of years, not indefinitely. Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich's examples. A repeated refusal to learn the problems with his blocking style doesn't leave me in good confidence as to his abilities as an administrator. I can respect him doing good editing work and would not be opposed to re-nomination in the future if Graham can prove he can use the tools effectively, but as of right now, his usage of the tools seems to be actively damaging if it's warranting ANI incidents three times in the span of only a few months. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Looking back at Graham's original RfA, he indicates he "likes to thoroughly explain himself when doing something potentially controversial" (his words). I think the problem I'm having is the lack of understanding that comes with the explaining. He was engaging in the same kind of WP:BITEey blocks while the discussion/vote leading up to this was ongoing. I don't think he is malicious, but he doesn't "get it" and may not be capable of "getting it". We have the ability to restrict editors from certain editing activities so why we can't do that with admin tools makes no sense to me. If he was prevented from issuing blocks by the software and only did technical stuff then this would be a support for me. As it is, I don't think he can stop himself from getting involved in blocking people, so I must oppose this RRfA. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Levivich sums it up perfectly. There have been numerous discussions and promises over the last two years. We're here because they have all failed. Fool me once.... If tools were totally unbundled I could support a more limited scope; however, they are not so I cannot. spryde | talk 18:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. Similar to Schwede66. Your work improving things for readability and accessibility is unmatched and I'm sure incredibly appreciated by the visually-impaired, etc. You once even fixed one of my subpages. Thank you for that. WP:CIVILITY is the number one most important thing to me on Wikipedia (let alone for adminship). Show me six months of pleasant and kind interactions with others and I'd love to support you in the future. Also, your daily editing streak is mind-bogglingly impressive! Useight (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I’ve been thinking hard about this. The multiple actions over time which make Wikipedia a hostile place for newbies. In particular, Levivich and Aoidh have had really persuasive arguments. And I am not claiming to be perfect in this regard—but admins (whether we like it or not) have a lot of soft power. Your words matter, even if you cannot block. I don’t think that admins under sanction necessarily need to be desysopped, and WP:BANDESYSOP implies that the community agrees (by expressly stating that non-indefinite non-site bans are not considered).
Graham, I am really sorry to be casting this !vote. Truly. After you have a track record of interacting positively with newbies, I would be happy to support (or even nominate!) a future RFA. Given the support on this one, even with raw and recent mistakes, I think you have a good chance in ~12 months. If you ever mess up an import, I would be happy to help fix it. But with deep regret, oppose. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 18:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Levivich summed it up pretty well. "64 blocks in September, 12 had to be modified" isn't an insurmountable problem. His work on things like preserving the history of our oldest articles; tracking administrator activity etc are I'm sure positive contributions. But the repeated promises to do better blocking, followed by more bad blocks, are too much. They've had ample time and opportunity to adjust their blocking strategy. The conclusion of any one of the recent ANI threads would've been a great time to do so. But the bad blocking persisted, so here we are at recall. I wish this admin would've ceased blocking altogether, and focused instead on those areas that they and their nominators say they are beneficial using the tools at. It's a shame they couldn't get to this conclusion themselves earlier. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Based on detailed review by levivich and reasons of aiodh, Astonishing Tunes Admirer, Cullen and Ritchie. (As an aside, this episode illustrates the fundamental flaw with Jimbo’s familiar statement that being an admin is "no big deal". The power to block another editor from editing is a big deal. The entire discussion here leads me to think that we should consider separating the block function from the other admin tools, which are necessary to keep the project running and do not have such a potential impact as the block power.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I want to explain very precisely why I'm opposing, as well as the reasons that do not contribute to my oppose. I start at this as someone who has been, and remains now, very strongly opposed to the recall process. I think that it is too prone to sloppy evaluation of evidence, and can put good admins through a waste-of-time abusive process just because they make difficult decisions. And I think the procees of ArbCom handling desysops has come to work well, and does not need fixing. Also, I think Graham has done a lot of good work as an admin, and I very much respect the nominators. Most of the issues brought up in the recall petition were things that, for me, do not rise to the level of a desysop. But I have to oppose, ultimately, because of the Mariewan block. This was a good-faith editor who made some mistakes, but not blockworthy mistakes. Worse yet, the block was made too rapidly, not giving Mariewan enough time to turn things around. As I see it, if there had been no such thing as a recall petition, and this problem had instead been brought to ArbCom, I would have urged ArbCom to accept the case request, deal with it by motion, and pass a motion to desysop. So given that I feel that way, I have to oppose here. I also find fault with the self-imposed refrain from blocking because, as other editors have noted, we cannot unbundle the tools. So I want to be very clear about why, and why not, I'm opposing here. Sadly, I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
(ECx2)I came here to put down support , but after reading Levivich's comments (99% of the time, Levivich's analyses are well reasoned logic and the 1% that are not are mostly rooted in simple, reasonable disagreement on an conclusion...reasonable people can disagree), I cannot in good conscience concur. I agree with what MANY others have said that G87's contributions are substantial, but that does not excuse violations of civility. When under the microscope, these behaviors not only didn't change, but became MORE pronounced. Bad blocks following bad blocks with no remorse...I think that deserves at least some negative reaction from the community. I regretfully must oppose. However, I would strongly advise to do a little soul searching. I would not oppose another nomination in the future if he can credibly show better interpersonal interactions. Buffs (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per aforementioned concerns regarding edit warring and hostile tone toward other editors. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Graham87 has done a lot of good work over the years, but the chronic, repeated issues with their use of the block button leads me to oppose this RfA. If an administrator requires a topic ban to prevent them from using a core part of the toolset, that is also deeply concerning. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after having read the comments in the oppose section, I have to add an oppose as well. I can see Graham is a good editor, he has some great intentions to help the community, but after reading these oppose comments and seeing the repeated use of the block button, I just can't support anytime. I really don't want to make things more complicated and disappointing, but I agree with what everyone else said, especially with Levivich. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose; I am greatly impressed by the less public-facing work that Graham has done, but admins - all of them - do need to interact with the public, and I just can't condone the type of incivility that's been shown. If I'd met with that kind of attitude early in my editing days, odds are good I would have left and never returned. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich. BITE issues aside, Graham has done great work for the community, particularly regarding accessibility, and I hope he continues to contribute in other areas. Sdkb ^talk 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I was initially "neutral", but after the context provided by Levivich, it seems that Graham has failed to reflect and change more than once. His technical work is highly appreciated, but just a promise to not block does not suffice to erase the issues of not reflecting in time, communication issues etc. After a year the admin tools can be returned if Graham demonstrates to the community that he has reflected on the broader issues, which can't be addressed just by promising to not block again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich's analysis. I've said for years that my RfA criteria is, in its entirety, "can they be trusted to use the tools?" Not trusted to use some of the tools, but to have the awareness not to use tools inappropriately or that they do not understand. Mistakes are compatible with adminship; repeated reckless use of a tool and begging forgiveness later is not. Graham87 has demonstrated a pattern of tool misuse over an extended period, as well as disdain for new users. They've repeatedly promised to do better, but continue to make the same mistakes, even while their use of a particular tool is already being discussed. Banning an administrator from use of particular tools within the toolset is a poor solution: it is practically impossible to enforce, and is a back-door unbundling of the tools which the community has repeatedly rejected. Graham87 simply should not be an administrator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich's analysis and the fact that admin tools are one package, if someone can't be trusted with the block tool, they shouldn't be an admin. Graham can regain community trust in a non-admin role. Abzeronow (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose moved from neutral. (Re)reviewing how this has evolved, the responses and reconsidering the comments by all, both for and against, I find myself here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose RoySmith already said what I was going to say. @RoySmith: If it was a non-admin user at that ANI discussion, then they would have gotten a block per CIR, and IDHT. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I just realised my comment above would look bursque, or unapprecitive of Graham, or ignorant about their work. I have seen them a lot, and appreciate their work. In various scenarios, I have supported their rationale(s). But this is a larger issue than mere blocking. If they are apparently forcing their own opinion/views, and blocking editors, this is more than just "inappropriate use of block button". It is about overall judgement, and collegial editing. I can not support this RfA. Maybe next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
i've seen kind, competent & trustworthy editors fail at RfA (or recently, AELECT) for far far far less. per tbua & Levivich - it's pretty heartbreaking to think how many editors we've lost because of those bad blocks and harsh comments ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
i also just want to say, i hope Graham can return to his wikiarchaeology work at some point, or someone else with the mop will feel compelled to take it up. it's very valuable and i think unbundling those tools may be a good idea. if in a year or two we've seen some real reflection and change in attitude (towards new editors in particular) from Graham, i'd probably support him at a new RfA. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose An overzealous administrator can leave an editor feeling totally powerless. Blocks are a crucial part of combatting vandalism and disruptive editing, so we need admins who can use this privilege proportionately and with discretion. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose -- The administrator position is not applied piecemeal -- it is the entire toolbox or none of it. And Administrators must be trusted by the community not to abuse their position. It is clear from the comments here and at the ANI reports that the trust in Graham has eroded over recent years. Even with their pledge not to use the block button, the answers to Questions 14 and 15 suggest the possibility they might go back on their pledge, which will then require more rounds of discussion. My feeling is that it is better to let this discussion be the end of it. However, I hope Graham will continue on Wikipedia in their capacity as an experienced and admired contributor. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose reluctantly, noting Graham's extensive contributions. I do not believe Graham87 retains the trust of the community, and the Mariewan block was one of the worst I've ever seen anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich's oppose unforunately leaves me reluctant to trust assurances that this behavior will not continue. At this point I believe Graham87 needs to regain the community's trust before continuing as an admin, and that will likely take at least a year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose (moved from neutral) in the most reluctant way. I have been swayed by the demonstration of by the pattern of returning to making bad blocks. While Graham87 might not make a good admin, they are a good editor and should know that the community is appreciative of their service. Thank you for your work here in all the forms it has taken. Looking forward to more of it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like being here, but I don't understand many supports after Levivich's analysis. For example there is a support saying "block issues are in the past". How? A bad block occurred during the recall process immediately proceeding this RFA. Many supports speak as if this RFA is the wake up call that will turn things around, but we've been at ANI so many times already. It's difficult to take the varying responses to Q10-Q15 as concrete pledges, as they differ on what would or could happen if violated. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I don't ever come to RfA, but the Mariewan block is incredibly troubling. From my understanding, Graham87 is a great editor, but a great editor does not inherently a good administrator make. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Opppose The evidence presented here and in other forums and noticeboards is absolutely overwhelming against this editor. They don't make a good administrator but can continue as a excellent editor. Unfortunately, the pledge described above has no merit, since there is no control mechanism to check on it. Instead what would happen is that we would be back here in six months doing the exact same thing again. The time has long past. This is a good thing. You will have a period of reflection to go and do other stuff, a period of growth in other areas will follow. You've done you bit for aussie dude. Time to retire and relax. It will be a weight of your shoulders. I can assure you. scope_creep^Talk 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose.As the evidence that has been stated about shows, he cannot be trusted with the admin tookit.feickus (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Graham is a good member of the community and a good editor, to be sure. But I probably would have opposed even ignoring the recent bad block. I think one of the systemic, deep dangers to Wikipedia - a danger that is getting worse - is driving off future Wikipedia contributors. Laying down rules is fine, but there's a reason we try to treat newcomers with good faith. The past history of overly aggressive blocks is concerning, and a reason to oppose. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Per the evidence and rationale provided by Levivich, Isaidnoway, and many others. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. In light of the record of misconduct and unkept assurances, as Levivich references, I think the only sufficient and conclusive action is the removal of permissions. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I am extremely sorry to be posting in this section but the continuing bitey blocks on & nasty comments to new editors are a deal-breaker for me. Just in case my first sentence isn't enough (after reading the talk page) I think I'll also state "per whomever"...so Per Levivich. Per SchroCat. Per SD0001. Per Patar knight. Plus...as an aside to this discussion, I can remember very well when I started editing here how terrified I was of breaking any of the many rules, and how grateful I was that experienced editors were patient and gave me advice and helped me. How I was treated and greeted then is in the back of my mind now - I don't know what else can be done in this particular situation other than my Oppose. - Shearonink (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Unfortunately biting and prematurely blocking new editors is one of the main ways admins can be a net negative to the project. Not giving new good faith editors an opportunity to explain their edits or a second chance if they made a mistake, not attempting to guide them to our policies first and letting them gradually improve is one reason (of many) why Wikipedia hasn't grown to where it should've been as an ecycloedpedia and editing community by this time. Gizza (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich. There are simply too many adverse anecdotes and instances to believe that the candidate retains the confidence of the community. Establishing that an admin who has so regularly failed to live up to the standards expected of the role can ultimately be held accountable is an important step in the right direction for WP. MapReader (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Technical oppose. I have a lot of respect for Graham and for the backroom work they do on here. On a technical level, I don't think it's realistic to grant the admin tools with a topic ban against some portion of those tools. The nomination says, "I'll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on" in response to some recent blocks that were objected to, especially towards newer editors. I see alternatives mentioned in the nomination to "report users" or "warn" them. That may not be a realistic distinction. It relies on a newer editor (who may not even understand exactly what role an admin plays on Wikipedia) to understand that a particular admin warning or reporting them is not threatening to block them because that specifc admin is the only one not allowed to block other editors. It would be entirely plausible for a new editor hearing an admin say, "Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style"^[5] as a threat to block. I appreciate the work that Graham has done, including the merging and importing that few other editors are involved in, and wish him luck in continuing his editing streak, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose They say they're not going to block anymore, but there's really not a good way to enforce that. Ask for another RRFA or an Arb request when they do it again? Just seems like a waste of community time. You can get desysoped for inappropriate use of WP:rollback, let alone blocking (arguably the most powerful and devastating tool an admin has). Their blocks were unjustified (a warning for adding a Discord friend request?) and it seems like the community lost trust for this user. I thank the user for their other works, but the use of tools in such way warrants censure.--Takipoint123 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Tbua and Levivich. I very much appreciate the work that he does, but he has continued to repeat his adverse actions again and again, including during the petition itself. A topic ban from blocking (something I don't think an admin should have to do) is not sufficient to provide confidence. Most candidates fail RfAs for far, far less. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed alternative to removal as an admin, not being able to block, has no precedent and cannot be enforced. Given that it would be a fiasco if he decided he did not care for continuing to follow the honor system, I'd be more inclined to take the safer route of just... letting the decision stand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich. His excessive blocking and intolerance have continued despite multiple warnings, and despite his statements that he'll desist. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Basically per Zxcvbnm, the admin toolset comes as a bundle and WP:ADMIN is pretty clear the expectation that an admin is expected to use any/all of the advanced tools in line with community standards. Someone who could not be trusted to use the block tool would never pass RFA. Previous requests to have access to specific parts of the advanced toolsets (even with a promise not to use the others) have been rejected until they are unbundled. So all the suggestions in the supports above that we should have an admin running around who cant be trusted to block people, but still has the ability to, are way out of line with both our admin policy and the technical setup of tools. If they cant be trusted to block, they certainly cant be trusted to not block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per EF5, Serial Number and Levivich. Has proven to be too impulsive for adminship thanks to his track record of recent blocks. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per several other editors' convincingly good reasons, and because Graham87's words do not inspire confidence. If he does not trust himself with admin powers, how can I? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Great nominations and reasonings but I don't think it's enough to have the entire admin toolset when they have proved over and over (even during the recall) they are unable to use it correctly. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for actions unbecoming of an admin. Graham's warnings and threats are extremely bitey; even if he sticks to his promise to not block, we have no guarantee that he'll moderate his tone to new users. Toughpigs (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. While I recognize the candidate's contributions to Wikipedia, I have concerns regarding their interactions with new editors. There appears to be a pattern of behavior that could be as very hostile for new contributors. I believe this behavior can be fixed, but I recommend postponing adminship until the candidate demonstrates a more collaborative and supportive approach toward all members of the community. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I had planned to Support as I believe in second chances but it seems that Graham had been given many chances citing ANI cases and promises that Graham87 had made (and broke) in the past. His way to belittle others because of their English is a very bad look to the admin corps as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose too many mistakes and too many second chances, unfortunately. Noah, BSBA^Talk 18:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose the issues brought up with blocking are too glaring to let slide, and being bite-y makes things even worse. Same goes for breaking past promises on self-improvement. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per Levivich's analysis. I take no joy from putting myself here as imho Graham's a fantastic admin but I can't ignore Levivich's analysis nor can I ignore the fact Graham has had 3-4 chances to stop but yet still continued to make bad blocks. I also don't see a point in having an admin who won't block anyone .... kinda pointless being an admin really?..., I firmly believe in second and third chances and had they not made the bad blocks between their 2nd ANI report and the recall then this would've been a easy Support. Shame as I consider Graham an asset to this place but like I said I can't simply ignore the evidence presented. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 19 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 may 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) moved to "Oppose"
- 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)
  Regrettably moved to oppose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:29, 19 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) Striking, some answers since my contribution, giving me pause. Need to further reflect. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  Moved to opposed. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
While Graham has demonstrated technical prowess, his history of blocking worries me. If this RfA is successful, I recommend that he should get another admin to perform a quick sanity check before using blocks (if he does utilise them in the future). MiasmaEternal☎ 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Gonna ride this one out here until I see a bit more response/have time to read the ANI listings. Leaning to Oppose, and I don't do that likely, because I do firmly believe that adminship is no big deal. Unfortunately, this user has caused significant problems, and I don't know how to balance that with long tenure and important work.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Moving to oppose. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I, too, cannot make up my mind. I really appreciate Graham's promise to not block anyone ever again. I haven't seen anyone doubt that he would keep this promise. That resolves the main point of contention. Graham's important work in other administrative areas and the confidence of several co-noms I respect convince me that he will be a net positive to the project as an admin. However, the opposers make the valid point that if this is what it takes for him to understand his errors, this may signal an attitude of disregarding accountability and feedback in a way unsuitable to adminship. (I completely disagree with the logic that since an editor like Graham would fail at a normal RfA, we should oppose him here too – our standards at RfA are way too high and two wrongs do not make a right.) If this comes down to a 'crat chat, I guess you can count me as a reluctant support – so reluctant that I cannot put my name in the support column. Toadspike [Talk] 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I greatly respect Graham for following through with the recall process and taking the feedback that the community has given him. I was afraid that the new recall petitions would be met with stonewalling or, worse, resignation in protest from admins subjected to it. I am very happy that this hasn't happened here. The positive and constructive response cannot have been an easy choice for Graham to make. Toadspike [Talk] 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This is very difficult for me. On one hand I quite believe in a admins ability to improve themselves or avoid an area they know themselves to not be the best at. OTOH, if I don't trust someone entirely to handle the mop, can I in good conscience support them having it?^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
As an arbitrator, I have an oversight role of administrators. Recalls and admin behaviour might be submitted to ArbCom, so I will not be commenting on or publically evaluating RRfAs during my ArbCom tenure. This is a personal decision and not representative of ArbCom as a whole. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
An appropriate and wise choice of action! Buffs (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
To my understanding, Graham87 isn't asking for the core b/p/d rights for their core purpose of handling disruptive editing but primarily for specialist/technical use. I reflect on this essay, specifically considering whether the following argument holds up in this situation: The principal impediment to further unbundling is the failure to recognize that behavioral constraints, rather than technical limitations, are what make the power to move or delete something not particularly dangerous. After spending a few hours contemplating, I can't make up my mind on this. One of the main arguments that Graham87 cites for RRFA as opposed to just the importer right is that I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) with or without adminship, but imports are much easier with admin tools. In the general comments, Graham87 mentions that it is out of preference due to a longstanding bug and not a hard requirement for imports. There are only two users in the importer group, the other one being Xaosflux. I am not sure how to view if there has been history of any other users being granted or even requesting the role. The valuable skills, while not having currently been replaced, are replaceable, and I think a good argument for why they haven't is specifically because the role is highly restricted and is only available for assignment to a limited number of very trusted users. To me it seems there are two not-mutually-exclusive alternatives to this RRFA worth considering: either hold Graham87 to the standard that they are "very trusted" only with using technical privileged tools for imports, not considering adminship in that determination, and adding the necessary permissions to the importer role (potentially including history merge tools) -- or change the importer role to not be so highly restrictive so as to encourage/allow/enable others to contribute in that area and ask other administrators for help if they make a mistake they can't undo (if context-specific undo rights are technically impractical to implement). Darcyisverycute (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Even though we !voted differently, this closely matches my view that this is fundamentally a request for a non-admin role we don't currently have. Given how few importers we have I'm definitely open to expanding what that role entails, but I have no idea what the technical challenges would be. (Or maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat too, I dunno.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Graham87 mentions that it is out of preference due to a longstanding bug and not a hard requirement for imports. I think this misunderstands what Graham said. He was discussing the distinction between the specialized mechanism for performing history merges and an older technique where you move a page over a deleted page and then undelete the deleted version (thus merging the two pages). Neither of these can be done by non-admins. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Imports made using importupload (which I have) generally do not require history merges but sometimes do - that is in addition to the history merge phab task they mentioned. I do understand that currently only admins can do history merges, hence my argument that history merges and page imports should not be provided separately and only by two different roles since they have overlapping use cases. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I may very well have misunderstood the technical details since this is not a type of work I do; maybe fixing the longstanding bug would be the straightest route. But my desire remains the same: give Graham87 the access needed to do the unique work they perform without providing the ability to block users. (Also, since we have a support, neutral, and oppose in this side conversation, I suspect such a middleground would have broader appeal.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I would support automatically giving anyone labeled an Importer the ability to do history merges. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
As would I. It would allow Graham to continue their valuable work without needing the whole range of admin tools. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I really am on the fence with this one. On one hand, Graham says that he will no longer place blocks for the foreseeable future and instead focus on other technical stuff not related to user conduct issues, which I definitely don't have a problem with per se. But on the other hand is the concern of the user's behaviour in general, how they will acknowledge mistakes when using the other parts of the admin toolkit. Overall, I'm quite sad to see this is where we ended up, although some time ago I did have this slight feeling that maybe something like this is what would end up happening. One important thing I'd like to add is that due to the highly technical nature of IP addresses, it's no surprise only a rather small percentage of admins know what an IP range is, how to identify an IP range and more importantly, how to place an IP range block. And then of those small portion of admins, an even smaller proportion seem to be willing to place blocks (especially long-term ones) for IP ranges considered "large" that have a long and persistent history of disruption. Graham87 not only was in the former category, but also the latter. Part of what I do here on Wikipedia on the regular is to deal with such nuisance/LTA/whatever-you-want-to-call-them disruptive / sockpuppeting editors, and it's really just a pain whenever someone behind a rather large IP range gets away making at least a dozen unconstructive or guideline-breaking edits every day all because many admins either don't understand an IP range or don't feel like wanting to place a block on that IP range. That said, I can definitely agree that Graham's attitude in recent blocks especially towards new(er) editors have been disappointing. Though I wouldn't also feel discontented with an idea where Graham87 can make blocks again except not for newish editors (say, ones that have started editing 28 days ago or less), due to the short supply of admins that know rangeblocks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't seem to know Graham87, so I don't feel able to judge whether the apparent long-term problems can be made up for. So for now I feel unable to choose, one way or another. Deb (talk) 16:42, 19 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)
Desysop would not prevent Graham from being aggressive to new users. There are many ways to BITE that don't involve blocks. You're not suggesting any further restrictions, or? Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors who don't think this restriction is enough to prevent BITEy behavior might be right, but then the only way to be certain that no such behavior can happen is a block with TPA revoked.

If this seems like exaggeration, I think it's fair after The only conceivable way to enforce this promise is to oppose this RRFA. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 18 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)
I see your point @Levivich, @EF5; but I don’t even know if I’m allowed to change my !vote #1, and #2; I don’t entirely know that it would be all that polite to change it to oppose. Maybe to neutral? Someone fill me in on whether or not that’s even allowed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Anyone can change their vote before the RfA closes. E_F⁵ 01:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Well then @EF5, you’re looking at one who just has. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I didn’t know that he had six chances. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:52, 18 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’m going to cross out my original statement here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
And also, complete PS: I remember reading about the Framgate scandal; and I don’t particularly want to see something like that happen with Graham87; I don’t think any of us do. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Recalls are quite prevelant, another one was carried out a few days ago, although that was unrelated to this. E_F⁵ 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
And so far it hasn’t gotten to RfA yet. Haven’t fully read that recall; but I plan to before that person’s RfA. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, ps: @EF5, I’ve changed my !vote again to oppose; after continued thinking. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:06, 18 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)
Don't we expect admins to solve problems as opposed to causing them? Is an admin who needs to make an eleventh-hour promise not to use one of the bedrock tools in the kit to save their status really fit to be an admin? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are supporting Graham if he agrees not to perform blocks because you don't trust him to exhibit good judgement, could you elaborate on why you think this lack of good judgement is isolated from his other ~~editing~~adminning activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary and, from I saw reviewing his other admin activities, he’s as accurate as one can reasonably expect. If someone were to find evidence of serious misuse of other admin tools, I’d change my vote—but I’d be willing to bet no-one will. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The core admin tools, in desceding order of the harm they can cause, are block, delete, and protect.These three tools are far and away the most important abilities admins have, they form a set where we expect an admin to know which tool is best to use in a given suituation and we expect them to use them responsibly. If they can't do that, they should not be an admin.

Misuse of these tools, in particular as regards new users, drives away editors. So the real question to ask is: do we value this one person retaining their status as an administrator more than we value new users becoming active and productive members of this community?

I'd repeat again that Graham is not promising to do better, to finally learn what is expected of an admin when dealing with new users, he is making a campaign promise to stop using one of the tools. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Quite frankly, if he were promising to do better, to finally learn what is expected of an admin when dealing with new users instead of promising not to block, I would oppose this RRfA. To echo Ppperry above, a no-block promise is easy to follow and nearly as easy for the community to enforce. If the end result is the same—no more bad blocks—I'll support. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
That's the issue that many of us have echoed, however. Someone who needs to be physically held back from having certain administrator privileges because of abuse shouldn't be an administrator. I do respect your opinion on the matter, however. It's sort of like me (hypothetically) reviewing new pages while being (hypothetically) blocked from mainspace, it just doesn't feel right, because it isn't. E_F⁵ 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be easy for the community to enforce. As I mentioned previously, if the intended result is to remove administrative privileges, it will require an arbitration case request, a community consensus to ban from the site, or after a year, another recall petition. All of these options are certain to use up a lot of community time in the aggregate. isaacl (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just adding some stats to quantity work at history merges (for those who might not have time to dig through the log), from the log [6], Graham has performed 5 of the the last 500 history merges. (1%) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Of the last 1000, they have performed 7. (0.7%).

Of the last 2000, they have performed 11. (0.55%).

Of the last 3000, they have performed 17. (0.56%).

Of the last 4000, they have performed 23. (0.575%).

Of the last 5000 (dating back to 25 January 2022), they have performed 25. (0.5%).

Note that to my knowledge performing an import also requires performing a history merge and appearing in this log (but I'm not familiar with this area and open to be corrected).

Also please feel free to correct me (just edit my comment) if my stats are wrong! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@MolecularPilot: Thanks, but I don't use the merge history special page unless absolutely necessary because I don't like the way it logs merges (see this Phabricator task). My history-merging method of choice is this one, which relies on moves and page deletions. Having said all that, it's true that I haven't done as many history merges lately as I used to (but I still like looking for them from time to time, sometimes inspired by an essay a friend of mine wrote about ppages whose talk pages were created before their articles). Imports made using importupload (which I have) generally do not require history merges but sometimes do; admin tools are required to undo any mistakes though. Graham87 (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay! Sorry for the misunderstanding, thank you for sharing your (very vast) technical expertise in this area. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise in advance to the bureaucrats, who didn't volunteer for this.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Same. Graham87 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to you since you didn't volunteer for this either. Your conduct WRT the petition has been admirable, and I admire anyone can keep their head about them through it all. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Especially since (I think) they will be getting to decide if "no consensus" means Graham keeps his tools or loses them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Reconfirmation threshold is the only place I've found with relevant discussion. Voorts found consensus in that discussion for option C (i.e. "60% for a pass, 50% and above is at bureaucrat discretion"). They also stated that "While there is also significant support for option E [" Desysopping should gain consensus. Rights are removed if 65% editors !vote to desysop, 55% and above is at bureaucrat discretion."], most editors are of the view that the community should show that it has continued faith in an admin, rather than reach a supermajority consensus to desysop.. Which suggests to me that if the end result is greater than 50% and there is no consensus among the crats based on the strength of the arguments it should default to retention but should default to desysopping if the community is exactly 50% support and oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the 'crats should give too much weight to that close because the question of what to do when there's no consensus amongst the 'crats was not presented in that discussion. In any event, I think how the 'crats interpret the outcomes of their chats is (and should be) fully within their discretion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the outcome of 'crat chat is determined by just counting their votes for what the consensus was. I meant more that they typically frame their votes as either "consensus to promote" or "no consensus to promote [default to status quo, which is no tools]", and it's not clear to me if that latter outcome translates simply here to "no consensus [default to demoting]," or if the whole paradigm is flipped because the status quo is someone having the tools. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear that if there's <50% support, an RRfA is unsuccessful and the admin is desysoped, 50–60% goes to 'crat chat, and 60%+ is closed as successful. It would be immensely silly if the 'crats could just override the community by saying "well, less than 50% of editors have faith in this admin, but we disagree and they should remain an admin". voorts (talk/contributions) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

…? I'm talking about onus within the discretionary range, not… any of that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RECALL says A re-request for adminship follows the same process as a request for adminship, but with lower thresholds for passing. Since it is silent on if there is a reverse onus, I would assume that it means if there is consensus or not to promote, like normal RFAs. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not a question of promote vs do not promote, it's a question of retain adminship or do not retain adminship, and the only thing specified about onus is that less than 50% support means "do not retain" more than 60% means "retain" and 50-60% is crat discretion. If it is the discretionary range, crats will evaluate the strength of the votes cast. If they find a clear consensus one way or the other then that will obviously be the outcome. If they find there is no consensus of the community, or there is no consensus among the crats about whether there was a community consensus, then policy is silent on what that means. It could mean the status quo prevails (ie. retain adminship), it could mean there is no consensus to retain the tools (i.e. desysop) or it could mean no consensus to remove the tools (i.e. retain adminship) and all three are justifiable positions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the part I quoted is pretty clear in that the only deviation from a normal RFA is the threshold. In a normal RFA, if there is no consensus, the user will not be an admin after the RFA concludes. If the policy intended a reverse onus, it could've been easily included explicitly. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That works both ways: In a normal RFA if there is no consensus, the status quo prevails. If the policy intended a reverse onus, it could've been easily included explicitly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The ratio of support to oppose votes is at 49% now, so this will not succeed even if left to bureaucrat discretion. Maybe Graham should withdraw now? - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You do realize @Ratnahastin that he would almost certainly be deysysopped (almost immediately) if he does that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Why on earth would Graham withdraw when it is so close and he would be very quickly desysopped if he did? He clearly does not desire to be desysopped (he wouldn't have chosen to stand if that were the case), so unless it starts heavily snowing (which seems unlikely) there is no benefit to not letting this run the course. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If Graham wants to see this through, that's Ok. He started out with very strong support, then it tilted sharply against him. Maybe it'll tilt again (although I doubt it). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There's actually a lot more going on. This is a very well-attended RfA; it's very unusual to get 250 participants and for them to be nearly evenly split. The percentage held steady at about 50/50 for a day or so and has started to fall. It's not impossible that it might pick back up again, though I agree it's unlikely because I expect most people who have something to say will have said it by now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

For those arguing that Arbcom can desysop with a simple motion, is that guaranteed? How do you know? I can think of at least one admin that was bitey, promised to get better, and continued to be borderline abusive for two more years despite pledges to be better. And that admin was open to recall. spryde | talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
"Can" being the operative word. "Will" is a whole other animal. It's entirely dependent on the makeup of the committee and its collective willingness to make difficult decisions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
And that's the rub. Let this RFA be the first stone cast in the unbundling of the tools. There are a ton of people I would trust with lesser rights, including Graham87, that would have no connection to the block/unblock buttons. spryde | talk 12:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
What's Arbcom going to say: "Graham87 is reminded not to break a pledge to resign when breaching his topic ban stemming from community dissatisfaction with an aspect of his admin work in the future." Or: "Graham87 is admonished for breaking his pledge to resign..." These are absurd things, of course they will desysop him. —Alalch E. 14:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The absolute worst case scenario, if everything else fails and Graham goes completely off the rails and refuses to listen to anyone's advice, is that another recall petition can be started in a year's time (which feels like an eternity on Wikipedia but actually isn't that long in the scheme of things). But I don't think Graham would let things get that far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

ive been curious about what exactly the various outcomes of this RFA would entail. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:12, 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