Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87

Graham87

Graham87 (talk · contribs · he/him)

• Links for Graham87: Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Graham87 can be found here.
• Previous discussions:
  • ANI (3 May 2022)
  • ANI (16 September 2024)
  • ANI (26 September 2024)

Numerated (#) signatures in the "Signatures" section may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "Discussion" section.

Signatures

1. I’m reluctant to do this, but due to two recent ANI threads (1 and 2), I’m starting this petition to desysop Graham87. This is a long-running issue as demonstrated by this ANI thread from 2022. Particularly, the comment you are not welcome here is astoundingly rude and falls far short of WP:ADMINCOND. It is unacceptable that of their 64 blocks in September, 12 had to be modified.
   Since the most recent ANI thread, he’s continued to act BITEy and unwelcoming:
   • A level 2 warning for an uncited statement in an infobox despite a citation being present for a corresponding sentence in the article
   • A level 4 warning for two edits
   • Jumping from a level 1 to a level 4 vandalism warning for what could quite possibly be a good faith edit
   • this curt message against a clearly good faith editor
   • Warning a user for adding a piped wikilink
   Sincerely, Dilettante 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   I specifically refrained from commenting on admin actions since I am not an admin and have never blocked a user. He's only placed a dozen blocks since the second ANI thread. However:

   • a one-month block on a /64 for two edits in one day, even with that blatant PA, feels overlong Struck per User_talk:Dilettante#Current_administrator_recall. I maintain that years of poor blocking isn't mended by a month of leniency and that it is up to an admin to make themself aware of norms, rather than having others update them. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

   Sincerely, Dilettante 19:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   Agreed on that block, but that's a judgement call not the kind of egregious tool misuse I feel deserves a desysop. On the contrary I think you've proved the 2024 ANI worked as he significantly decreased his rate of blocks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   If you decrease your rate (with thr caveat that the sample size is small and the error bars large) yet still have a 12.5% error rate, there's an issue. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   One last comment from me for now: we see no issue in judging a potential admin's character by their non-tooled behaviour, but not a current admin who's using the tools less than before. Why? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   Because when we judge potential admins we're using that to predict how they will use the tools. For currently admins we know exactly how they used the tools and hence that's a better predictor. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   Exactly! We know Graham87's used the tools poorly for years, and has continued to do so--merely at a reduced rate. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   @Dilettante: Just an fyi (I see nothing in the policy against me posting this, which is perhaps an oversight) -> there's this edit from 2 years ago by an IP that shares a /56 range with this recent IP which is almost identical... I mean sure IP blocks are case-by-case basis, but that's clearly the same person, and in that 2022 instance their /64 was also blocked for 1 month by a different admin (who is also a checkuser).

   It's good not to consider things in a vacuum. – 2804:F1...E4:60B (::/32) (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   Re your most recent comment: My use of "you are not welcome here" has probably been rather harsh and I'll avoid that phrase in the future. Graham87 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC). Unless there's evidence he's violated that promise it's irrelevant.

   And for the record I find nothing wrong with that phrasing anyway - blocking someone is a way of saying that they aren't welcome and it's no ruder to say that explicitly than to leave it implied. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

   I don't like that phrase. I see it once and a while, and I think it is unduly harsh. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

2. I'm not sure why responses to the petition are primarily limited to a few instances. An ANI discussion took place last month at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Overzealous blocking by Graham87, which was apparently resolved. A second one was opened a few days later at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Inappropriate blocks and WP:BITE by Graham87 when it became apparent that this was a much bigger issue than suggested by the previous one. As I said there, The fact that he's still blocking editors while the ANI discussion is ongoing is the end of the WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. I was surprised that it didn't go to Arbcom at the time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   The reason is that I see doing a recall now based on events that we're already discussed at ANI (and didn't get sent to ArbCom then) as impermissible double jeopardy. That, and I'm willing to assume that Graham87 took the 2024 ANI as a wake-up call and has changed his practices since. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

   I can see where you're coming from. I disagree because I see adminship more akin to elected office than "not being charged with a crime", and it should be based on community faith in the administrator rather than due process. To the latter part, I can't share that assumption per my self-quote above. I would expect at the bare minimum that an admin would know not to keep blocking people while their previous blocks were being discussed. To me, WP:BITE is the most important guideline by a wide margin and violations of WP:BITE should be given less leeway than violations of other guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

3. Per the several instances noted by the OP and the several more above as minimum. SerialNumber54129 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
4. Signed in support. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
5. Long overdue. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
6. The numerous examples spread over time show that the community needs to re-evaluate Graham. For those opposing below, if 25 supports happen, then support Graham in the re-rfa. Otherwise this recall will die and we move on. spryde | talk 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
7. Seems pretty quick with the block button, as evidenced by the prior thread at ANI. A quick look finds other problematic blocks like [1] where the user was given zero prior warning (to be fair, the block was quickly overturned by Graham). While I understand Graham was taken to ANI, I don't believe the resolution was satisfactory and also feel that, if given additional time, more problematic blocks will come to light. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
8. Signed in support.→StaniStani 00:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
9. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
10. I've lost confidence in Graham87 as an admin per the last 3 ANI reports in a 2 year time span. None of them appear to be invalid or unsubstantiated. And their blocks on school IPs and other IPs seem to me to be overly aggressive. This school IP started out with a 1 year block, then escalated to a ~3 year block, and then escalated to a 10 year block by Graham87, later modified by The Wordsmith to one year per the last ANI thread in September 20024. And this school IP block from August 2024, which appears to be their first block, is 10 years. Is it standard practice for a first time block on a school IP to be 10 years? And additionally, per the last ANI thread from September 26, 2024, The Wordsmith noted that they modified 8 IP blocks that were anywhere from 1-10 years that I shortened because I felt them excessive ... and a total of 4 user blocks that I ended up lifting. Therefore, I think a re-request for adminship to retain their administrative privileges is appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Re the August 2024 block, I set it to ten years because that IP range has been frequently used by schools since 2005. I'm not sure I would have done such a block now though. Graham87 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Also, I didn't know this at the time, but this query shows that IP's in the range 168.102.0.0/16 (which contains many Indiana schools IP's) have been blocked a total of 307 times since the establishment of the modern block log in December 2004. (the IP range I blocked was from 168.102.128.* to 168.102.191.*); from a quick an dirty check of the output of that query, IP's within the particular range I blocked have been blocked 94 times (including mine). I do honestly believe that Wikipedia's integrity is too important to risk school IP's (whose users are often here to cause mischief) the chance to vandalise it, but I understand that many users disagree with my approach so I'll dial it down in future. Graham87 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I've reduced that block to three years. I won't be so keen about fishing for IP data to find blocks like that in the future. Graham87 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I've narrowed it to 168.102.132.44/26 after a suggestion on my talk page. Graham87 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
11. If a candidate in an RFA had two very recent valid ANI threads I would not be supporting them. I am willing to give an experienced admin less leeway. Graham, I would be happy to support you in six months if can show you can be trusted to be less reckless over such a timespan. I hope this process isn't too stressful for you. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
12. I was closely watching the last two ANI threads, and I am not surprised it was brought here. MemeGod _chat 16:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

• The second bullet point seems like a completely fair warning. The edit was to insert a spam link to a dental clinic. We don't always need to go through four levels of warning and telling someone to stop spamming immediately is perfectly reasonable in my view. I won't be opining on the actual petition. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

This would be more convincing if it focused on admin actions after the ANI, rather than only admin actions before the ANI and edits after it.

Also, at the risk of branding myself a heretic, keep in mind User:Pppery/The iceberg here - Graham87 is known for doing a lot of neglected admin work, and among other things is near-singlehandedly keeping Wikipedia:Requests for page importation alive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Warning a user for adding a piped wikilink - if you think Template:uw-notbroken shouldn't exist then nominate it for TfD - don't use using a standard warning in a case where it applied as a desysop offence. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the template. It was incorrectly applied. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A level 4 warning for two edits - that IP address is a blatant bad-faith spammer who quite possibly should have been blocked. There was nothing wrong with level-4-warning them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur on this one. That kind of link spam is always paid-for black-hat SEO, often from the kind of firms we've community banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And oh look, there have been spam links added from Special:Contribs/122.180.242.0/24 since 2016! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Completely justified. This warning should not be a factor in a recall. And frankly, this is a warning, not an admin action. I am not a fan of recall, but if we must have it, this sort of thing creates a very low bar and if accepted as a contributory element to a desysop, it would enable poor faith nominations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I agree completely. This is the sort of thing I was worried about when the system was agreed. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Jumping from a level 1 to a level 4 vandalism warning - correction: that's a level 3 warning, not a level 4 warning. While I would probably have used {{uw-unsourced3}} there rather than {{uw-vandalism3}} I think you're reading way too much into this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

this curt message against a clearly good faith editor - I personally don't see the problem with that message at all. But then I nearly failed RfA for a curt communication style, so maybe it's just me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A level 2 warning for an uncited statement - I'll grant this is a mistake, but desysopping someone over a series of minor mistakes that don't even involve use of admin tools is a ridiculous overreaction. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'd say desysoping someone over a series of individually non-desysopable mistakes is exactly what recall is for: the situation where an admin never does anything major enough to count as tool abuse that would result in an arbcom desysop (aka a "major mistake"), but consistently uses the tools in a way that is contrary to community consensus (aka a series of "minor mistakes," or at least less-than-major mistakes--it'll be up to the community to decide how minor the mistakes are). No comment on this particular admin and their tool use, but "consistently makes blocks/gives warnings they shouldn't" is exactly the kind of situation recall was made for. I think we'll see many more recall petitions based on these types of complaints. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And I'll likely oppose most of them - I'm not convinced these people should even be desysopped in the first place. And even harder to convince that desysopping for conduct not even involving admin tools is appropriate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to that opinion (and to vote support at RRfAs), but recall is now here. Recall petitions shouldn't be used as an opportunity to express disagreement with the entire idea of having recall, which is to permit the community to desysop for things other than serious tool abuse (which arbcom would desysop for). Levivich (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Pppery, this kind of feels to me like the folks who oppose at an RfA because 'we have too many admins' or 'it's too hard to get rid of bad admins'. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Is really what we want admin recall to become? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Seems extremely premature. not seeing significant issues worth desysopping personally. Note that a level 4 warning after 2 edits isn't necessary problematic, depending on what's being warned about. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• I agree that the post-ANI part of this looks like a nothing-burger. No comment on everything before that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• As presented above, the conduct post-most recent ANI discussion does not meet the threshold (by some margin) for me to support an administrator recall petition. Daniel (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• This seems entirely unnecessary, per what people have written above. Do we really need to drag Graham through this for a whole month? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Since this is the first admin recall petition, I think it's a good idea to lay down a more general philosophy for why I'm signing. It meets three criteria: 1. It's a long-term issue that goes well beyond one mistake or a small handful of mistakes. 2. It specifically involves the use of admin tools in a way that's harmful. 3. It has been discussed several times without resolution despite general agreement that it's a serious problem. Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all way to consider these things, but this is generally what I'd look for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  fwiw, I think these are a good set of criteria but that there's a missing piece here: evidence that the discussed issues continue to be problems. I suppose you've got that rolled into #1 in a way, so maybe this is just a difference of opinion, but I don't see how the evidence raised in this petition is evidence that Graham87 is doing the same thing he's been warned for (inappropriate and bitey blocks). There are no blocks in the evidence at all. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is my view as well. The actions that led to the previous ANI thread were bad... but he hasn't repeated them. The evidence raised here is not anywhere near the level to indicate he hasn't taken that feedback on-board. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose petition. Does that cancel out a Support? First, the user warnings evidence is far from compelling. Second, starting a petition when the latest ANI thread has yet to be closed is poor form; it feels like kicking someone when they're down. Sorry for that. I misread the archive. Withdrawn. 23:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Third, Second, the nomination statement doesn't explain how the administrator has "lost the trust of the community" as described at WP:Administrator recall. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  @SuperMarioMan Petitions can't be formally opposed, but the Re-RFA's successful petitions lead to can. Mach61 20:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Good thing RFAs aren't a hell most editors want to avoid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Mach61. It was more to express my disagreement with the opening statement than anything else. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Second, starting a petition when the latest ANI thread has yet to be closed is poor form. It's been archived for a month ... Third, the nomination statement doesn't explain how the administrator has "lost the trust of the community" as described at WP:Administrator recall. That's not required. I should know since I wrote that. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I see that now. Sorry. I wrote the above when the page still had "Nomination"/"Support" sections (instead of Signatures) and had the idea that the nomination statement was to include this. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  No problem. That really should be more clear. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm with you Pppery. I don't like this discussion section at all. Possibly thirty days of this? Possibly followed by seven more days of this? That's extremely brutal for Graham. A process like this, of course, is going to be rough regardless of its configuration, but trying to minimize the roughness would be nice. I wish the process was simply like a guestbook - just sign your name - and if enough signatures show up in the time frame, then have the nitty-gritty discussion during the RRFA proper. Useight (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly how I thought it was going to work. This is turning into a shitshow. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  It turned into a shitshow on the German Wikipedia too. Personally, if I got dragged into something like this, I'd just resign. It's not worth it. No amount of dedication to volunteering my time is worth being abused and harassed like this. What an absolute <censored>. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  What happened on German wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd need to revisit it to ensure I have the details right, but they lost something like 1/3rd of their active admin corps. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  According to a comment below, that is how the Dutch Wikipedia handles recalls. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't believe there is a need for recall, and I would support a reconfirmation RFA. I see no evidence that Graham87 is failing to take on board feedback, and the examples provided above I do not see as problematic. Here, Graham apologized for misreading a diff; what more do you expect from him? This is a bit sharp, but the user admitted they weren't a new account. This is making a mountain of a molehill. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I want to add that the warnings for unsourced content were Twinkle's default warnings for unsourced content. If we as a community find them bitey, we need to change them, because that's what everyone is going to default to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I also want to express my disagreement with this petition. Admins should not be expected to be perfect, and the faults claimed here do not rise to the level where this admin loses my trust. Admins should not have to worry about being made to go through a process like this. I fought hard to prevent this process from becoming policy, but I accept that consensus was against me. That this would be the first attempt to use the process convinces me more than ever that it is a net negative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• If the opposition to the recall were based on the work that an admin has done, I wouldn't think that a good reason, but on the evidence presented, I do not see a breach of ADMINACCT, or anything approaching that. I haven't done RCP in a while now even if I still use rollback every so often, but in my opinion a 4im was perfectly reasonable conduct for what could have been a block, even by the higher standards of ADMINCOND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Neutral on the recall, but procedural question: what happens to Graham's importer rights if he loses adminship? Would there have to be a separate discussion to remove importer? (you ask for importer at VPR, will the discussion to remove it be there?) Would a steward remove them? Would Graham keep being a non-admin importer? Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Importer is such a rare right that I don't think anything would happen to it by default (no procedure is set for granting or revoking it). And while most import work also needs admin I don't see any reason it would need to be revoked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: what is an importer? I have not heard of it before, and it is not on the list of permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User access levels#Importers and transwiki importers * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:IMPORTER. They can import XML files from other places (as opposed to just other WM wikis for admins) and Graham and Xaosflux are the only ones. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've thought about this and had surmised that, since it's an extension of my admin tools, I'd lose importer rights along with adminship. It would be more than a little disconcerting to be able to import edits but not be able to fix any mistakes I'd made during this process (and I've made many). I'm the main reason the import process exists here, which I've largely used for importing edits from old Wikipedia databases (see my old explanation of my import work and my list of page history observations). Graham87 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Dillettante, I picked a diff to check at random, and a short conversation included Graham apologizing for a misunderstanding after a very short conversation with the other editor. I kind of feel like when there are five diffs and the first diff I pick looks like a nothingburger...? Valereee (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  (Since you tried to ping) 5 pages of the ~60 I checked (all the User talk edits that happen to fall in his last 500 total edits) is a signifciant percent. The editor stated right now my blood pressure is through the roof, and at my age that is not a good thing. Even if most would have a milder reaction, that is exactly the kind of thing that makes people reluctant to edit Wikipedia. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I get it, we all should be kind all the time, and this was a newish editor, under 1000 edits. But are we really going to use as evidence the fact that the other editor is upset? I don't know. I just feel like if one of the worst of the last 60 includes an apology, is it really even a thing? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then that's a difference in our fundamental opinions. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  May I please remind you that last time I said smth like this it had serious consequences for me and zero consequences for the user whose actions made my blood pressure rise. When later I went to the talk page of the user hoping to fix the issue, I was told to fuck off, in these very words, again without any consequences for that user. This kind of sets the level of expectations of the community I now have. Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Personally opposed to the recall. While the issues brought up at ANI were more serious, the post-ANI evidence shown here doesn't seem to be that far out of the bounds of acceptable conduct. The only real mistake (the piped link thing) was followed by Graham apologizing to the editor in a respectful way. Without more serious issues for now, I prefer to assume good faith that Graham understood the lesson from the last ANI. However, I disagree with the characterization of this recall as "double jeopardy". If we want the recall process to make adminship truly "no big deal" once again, then removing adminship when the community stops giving their support should also be a regular process, rather than exclusively a sentencing (that could leave the community vulnerable to the Super Mario effect). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

At meta:WikiBlind User Group § Creating your account, Graham is specifically called out as the admin to contact for blind people looking to create accounts who can't solve the mandatory CAPTCHA. Now, while the positives an admin brings do not necessarily cancel out their wrongdoings, by the same token we've banned prolific content editors in the past, we should consider that Graham has a unique value with the tools that won't be easily replaced should he be desysoped. I haven't checked the full evidence presented yet so don't consider this an outright oppose !vote. Mach61 20:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna have to oppose this. I'm a consequentialist, and as such can't support desysoping based on communications not directly related to use of tools, since there's no clear marginal benefit to doing so (Graham could well behave exactly the same in that regard after desysoping). Adminship is not a noble title, so desysoping shouldn't be a punishment for unrelated conduct Mach61 20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A textbook example of the point I made at User:Pppery/The iceberg ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thought-provoking essay. I need to document the bots in case something happens to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose recall I've differed with Graham87, but they retain my trust. Miniapolis 22:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• I also oppose recall of Graham87. Since being brought to the noticeboard, he's has largely stepped back from blocking. (For full disclosure, I urged him strenuously at an off-wiki forum to do so.) He's reported at AIV instead. His indef-block of Zippo85 yesterday came after warnings from another editor in addition to himself, is of an unresponsive editor, and has an explanation after the block notice. His most recent IP block that I see, of 50.73.217, came after a lot of warnings by others. It was initially for 3 months, which strikes me as a bit long, and Graham extended it to 1 year after evasion. I would still like to see him be less severe, but so far as I can see he's no longer totally outside community norms in his blocking, and is no longer acting as sole reverter-and-blocker. He's warning users instead (sometimes in his own words instead of or in addition to templates) and returning to respond to them: User talk:Ya nsuka#October 2024, User talk:49.43.133.151, User talk:Deku3166, User talk:Tford1223, ... Here his was the 2nd in a series of 3 warnings and another admin blocked; here he reversed an excessive rangeblock. In addition as others have said, he's performing a lot of other, useful, admin actions, including responding and actioning requests at a little-patrolled noticeboard. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose recall overzealous blocking is def an issue that could require a warning but seems we should not try to desysop someone when there is already a dire lack of active admins willing to do the work on wikipediaBluethricecreamman (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is a dangerously irresponsible line of argument. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree 100%. There lies madness. BusterD (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do people not get that opposing a petition is not how petitions work? Just wondering. Silverseren^C 22:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I get that. And I oppose this petition. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's to convince anyone who looks at the discussion section before deciding whether to sign not to. Mach61 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Dissenting opinions can certainly be relevant for a discussion at a later point in time, and to possibly convince those who may be considering signing said petition. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry SN, but I'm not with you on this one. I have faith in Graham. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, this. Legoktm (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Lectonar (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely not on board with this. Desysopping by recall petition should be limited to those demonstrating consistently poor admin work, not someone's perception that warnings were given at the "wrong" level, or direct language when dealing with other editors. If he's been doing bad blocks since the ANI, then list them and let people have a look at them, don't list this sort of stuff, which IMHO is far short of the threshold for desysop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Yeah, no, I can't get behind this. Oppose the petition. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I believe that we should give Graham87 a reasonable amount of time to show that he has taken on board and learned from the criticism about various errors that he has received recently, and therefore I will not be supporting this petition. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• This shit show is beneath us. 30 days more?! If this is how admin recall is going to work, I expect the community will quickly come to a new consensus to get rid of it altogether. Can I suggest people just ignore this unless we get a lot closer to 25 people? -Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean...it was open for ONE day when you lodged this point... It's been 4 days and hasn't reached halfway. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Involved as ANI1 closer, but I do not see merit to this recall proposal. If consensus from ANI1 or 2 were that the conduct required deSYSOP, someone would have brought it to ArbComm. They didn't. Much of this is small fries compared to the actual issues addressed at ANI. Star Mississippi 01:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks very much to everyone commenting here, especially those defending me. Someone had to be the first. as @Yngvadottir: notes, I have been trying to change my approach since the two ANI discussions. Re the level two warning for an uncited statement at Hejira (album) (which is one of my favourite albums of all time and I highly recommend it as an escape from discussions like this): well I actually found after-the-fact that an already-existing source supported the edition. I honestly believe that level one warnings should only be used for genuine newbies who are making their very first edits, not users with thousands of edits who should really know better. Graham87 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Nope. If this is the bar for bringing a petition, we'll be sysop-less in months. On the merits, this comes out of nowhere. Two Three ANI threads and the nom's subjective evaluation of applied warnings? If this goes through, I predict major changes to this process. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt that. Anyone who gets recalled can automatically reapply per WP:RRfA: An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition. If an administrator election is scheduled within those thirty days, they may stand in it instead. Per the Petition section, any administrator that retains their privileges through RRfA following a successful recall is immune to recalls for twelve months. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• The nominator should have held off open the petition immediately after the policy has passed, especially since they are highly involved at laying out the policy page (being the second editor in terms of edit counts and and top editor for bytes contributed). There are no warnings of a petition going to be opened, and those threads had closed without action or referred for a further look into by the ArbComm. It does not give a positive impression of the nominator. Not cool. At least give a heads up that a petition is going to be opened! Since the recall procedure wasn't a policy yet, it should not have been used against admins who have had ANI threads prior to the recall procedure being a policy. What next? Dig out all ANI threads and open petitions against existing/legacy admins based on those threads that were closed with no further actions to be taken against the admins, lapsed with an implicit understanding that no further actions would be taken against them unless reopened or references in a future ANI thread? – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  It also reflects poorly on the nominator that they began their rationale by saying I’m reluctant to do this. For being reluctant, they sure didn't waste any time. I'd like to see recall work; let's not sabotage it right away with petitions like this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I join others in highlighting this as a really poor example to use as first-use/test-case of the process, with appearances of over-eagerness to use it, flimsy basis, and appearances of AGF failure. It risks sinking the whole ship (I'm not sure whether the ship in this case is the admin corps who finally say 'hell with this' or the admin-recall process that so many worked hard on). DMacks (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  For being reluctant, they sure didn't waste any time. There are circumstances that would prevent me from starting this later. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I also oppose this petition. The conduct it alleges is very far removed from misconduct that warrants desysopping; it does not even appear to involve the use of admin tools. In my view, this discussion indicates that there is not in fact community consensus for the purported recall policy in application of which this application is made. Sandstein 07:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose this petition. Being grouchy once in a while does not mean you should be desysopped. This recall policy isn't fit for service and needs to be reviewed, not sure how that can be done. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is the danger of a democracy without enough protections in-place for individuals: The masses can overwhelm even good decision makers and make new rules/procedures that undermine the structure of the community. That's no to say that tyranny is the answer, but that a balance has to be achieved. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Admins are not expected to be flawless; they must only be willing to take feedback on board. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose recall petition, which we should be able to do during this period, rather than having to wait for and remember any ensuing Rrfa (this seems to be the general vibe given the comments above; can this be taken as a community rejection of that bit of the new policy?) Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose if enough people oppose it might be possible to snow close it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of this process is that it reflects direct recalls. At the moment, users are attempting to gather 25 signatures. If successful, then a recall election must occur within thirty days at Requests for adminship where they must achieve 55%/60% to retain. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't really see the relevance of political process used for governments. Wikipedia is not an experiment in online government, and Wikipedia administrators are not and should not be holders of political office. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Alpha3031: I know you meant "holders of wikipolitical office", not a real-life one; but *cough cough* David Boothroyd *cough cough*. I know of a few other current and former Wikipedia admins who were or have been involved in real-life politics (in a way that affected their Wikipedia editing either in a less controversial manner or not at all), but I don't want to drag them in here. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• 'Oppose petition. There has been insufficient time since the ANI threads to know whether Graham has fully taken onboard the feedback and improved based up on it, but the initial signs indicate that they may have done. Give it another 3-4 months, if they are still acting in a way that resulted in the two ANIs then a petition could be justified but not now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • "A level 2 warning for an uncited statement in an infobox despite a citation being present for a corresponding sentence in the article". You're missing what went on here. The corresponding sentence said "November 1976" what was added to the infobox was "22 November 1976". The exact date was not supported by the article at the time so citation was needed.©Geni (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    No, a citation wasn't needed, what was added to the infobox was verified by a reference in the article at the corresponding sentence. If Graham had slowed down a little bit, assumed just the tiniest sliver of good faith, and did his due diligence, he would have seen it was verified by the ref already in the article, which by the way, he added himself on November 30, 2015. Instead, he assumed the worst, in that an editor had added unsourced content, and raced over to the editor's talkpage and slapped a level 2 warning on them. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

    • No sentence mentioned the 22 so there was no corresponding sentence.©Geni (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

      The source does actually mention this date. Direct quote from the given citation: "The HEJIRA album was released on the 22nd of November". I don't think this is the biggest mistake to make in the world and even the best of editors are too hasty in their judgement sometimes. But I do think it's important that we can all agree on what the facts are. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

      If the information isn't in the article (and it wasn't) there is no corresponding sentence and the claim in the infobox needs it own citation.©Geni (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

      That would be true. Ideally one would double check to make sure to see if the editor is making a change in good faith (add the named ref again and ping the editor to say "do this next time") instead of reverting instantaneously, but I wouldn't say the course of action Graham took in this particular instance is wrong either. It's not some smoking gun. Anyways, I think I'm going to unwatchlist this for now. There's a reason I haven't signed the petition and there's a reason I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater (the recall process). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

      I didn't say a "sentence mentioned the 22", and even if it did, sentences in an article are not a reliable source, it was the reference at the end of that sentence that verified what was added to the infobox, and I'm willing to assume good faith that editor Awkward & Plain checked the reference and then added the specific date, considering it was the correct date. Regardless, a level 2 warning was not required when Graham87 eventually got around to checking the reference (which he should done in the first place), and realized the exact date *is* in the cited source. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Request I'm trying to get up to speed on prior events, but it's a struggle to find all relevant history. Could somebody who is familiar with all this please generate a bullet-list of links (sans commentary) to previous discussions? I'm not looking for every little diff, just the major threads such as those on ANI. Perhaps stick it right at the top, just above the {{RfA toolbox}}? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith the nominator of this petition Dilettante has links to the most recent ANI threads in her comment that opened the petition. Those would be to here and here. She also mentioned an earlier thread from 2022. Is this what you were looking for? I agree that the discussion is a bit hard to follow right now and some changes to the process will have to be made soon at the very least. 30 days is a really long time. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To myself, 30 days seems like an abbreviated recall petition compared to those outside of Wikipedia. Usually petitions are circulated for months. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose petition I know I'm wasting my time, but I cannot see how this process helps fairly regulate Admins' behaviour - and note that Graham87 is not being accused of misuse of the tools/his position. Yes, he's been at ANI - and yes, there has been no time since those appearances to judge if they have positively impacted his work as an admin. But this? This is just a kangaroo court. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• I oppose both this specific petition (which is premature) and the recall process on principle (which is poorly formulated and poorly executed). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose petition - Graham has my confidence. Consider SNOW reclose. Recall process as a whole needs some thought/tweaks, but is still workable. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think we can snow close it. According to the rules, it doesn’t matter if there is 99% oppose. If it gets 25 signatures, the admin under discussion must go through a re-affirm RfA or go through the election process. That’s if this stands as policy, I guess. It’s also not clear whether the admin status is retained between should 25 signatures and the rfa/election. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding that last part, WP:RRfA seems clear enough. Paraphrasing from it, RRfA says that any admin seeking to retain their privileges can file a re-request for adminship. (Note that it doesn't say restore.) It then goes on to say that the bureaucrats need to ensure that an RRfA is started within the time frame of 30 days and, if not, they may remove the privilege at their discretion.

  So, should any petition get 25 signatures, the admin involved keeps it for the next 30 days. If an RRfA is started, then they keep or lose their privileges based on the results. If an RRfA is not started, then their privilege is revoked at the discretion of the bureaucrats. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Are bolded opposes actually part of the recall policy? I do not see anything mentioning them. Do these do anything, or is this just instinctive Wikipedian behavior like salmon swimming upstream and not knowing why? At any rate, I am opposed to Graham being recalled. jp×g🗯️ 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  Opposes don't do anything at this point, you're correct. I think people are just expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and maybe trying to convince people not to sign. But the way things are intended to work is 25 signatures, then a re-RfA within 30 days if one wishes to keep the toolkit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  They also actually give a sign to the admin who is being discussed. I have been in a situation of pileup of votes against me. This is extremely demotivating and invites actions such as immediate retirement or voluntary desysop (which in this case inevitably is under a cloud). If people support you this becomes much easier. Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  They don't do anything in the procedural sense, but boldface is not a controlled substance over here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think we are too obsessed with bolded statements when determining consensus. But the commentary - bolded or otherwise - can help a person decide whether or not they want to sign the petition. And so in that sense the bolded opposes are doing something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's true (for example, I definitely didn't consider the importer aspect until someone brought it up). I'm also someone that generally has a growth mindset. I guess what I'm concerned about is that a huge oppose section like this might enforce social pressure for people not to sign it. That possibility leaves me a bit uneasy, especially given that people can easily support in an new RfA if they wish to. I think it's a bit harder for non-admins to go against the grain when it comes to high stakes processes like RfA due to complicated social dynamics. I'm not saying Graham's feelings don't matter, because they very much do, but ideally recall shouldn't be more tense than someone going to ANI with concerns (although certain things about the ANI experience could likely be improved as well). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  We've talked about this Clover, there isn't any easy way to help with these social dynamics. We have a whole system influenced by social pressures y'know? And yes, the ANI system could be improved as well, but have you seen the audio essay I suggested to you? I expected the recall system to have similar intensity to undergoing an RfA but seeing the whole thing in process right now still gets me very concerned about how a 30-day long system might act. A Sword of Damocles visibility hanging over your head can be very stressful right? We'll probably see at least some major changes after this. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying 30 days isn't a big deal, but it's much shorter than the period of time originally suggested when I took an admin to ArbCom. There was some debate about timelines and it ended up not mattering because he responded relatively quickly anyways, but before an arb said that they recently shortened the allowance to a period to 3 months. [2] As someone incredibly unfamiliar with ArbCom at the time, that seemed to be super long, and I suggested that a week or two would be much more reasonable in my case request. Again, it didn't end up mattering because he responded eventually, but my point is that a non-admin is already making a pretty brave stance filing something like this at all. It can be a bit intimidating to have a bunch of people telling you to back down when you're just trying to listen to what you think is right (not saying that's what happened to me, although I did have some complaints on my talk page at the time). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm not saying this process works fine as is. I think certain aspects of it should definitely be tweaked. I just wanted people to be mindful of what might be going on inside the heads of people who might want to support this petition but aren't. For some of us, it's been a long time since we weren't admins (even though that doesn't really apply to me as a relatively new admin). I'm not saying anyone currently opposing isn't thinking things through (some other new admins are commenting here as well). I'm just asking that everyone to please consider the perspective of a non-admin (I will also mention that there are several opposing this specific petition, but all the people for it are non-admins). I think it's about the perception of fairness. Something that bothered me a lot about the whole Dbachmann debacle is that I created my account around the same time they said some of the things linked in my report. I couldn't help thinking that if I had gone around saying that, I would've immediately been blocked as NOTHERE, end of discussion, and it's incredibly unlikely anyone would be going to bat for me. I don't want to speak for any of the supporters either, but by trying to place myself in their shoes, I can imagine what it must be like to feel like there's some sort of double standard going on. If a non-admin was accused of biting newcomers, or using inappropriate warning levels, they'd probably have their rollback rights removed and have limited rights to appeal. They'd be going through that mostly alone. And if they went through RfA shortly afterwards? There's a good chance that'd be a snow close as unsuccessful. That's ultimately why I think we should have a recall process in some form. It helps even the playing field a little bit, so to speak, and offers a way for non-admins to hold admins accountable if they feel like things aren't being handled correctly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - wiser people than me have said it better than I can. This is a bad idea. GiantSnowman 19:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Originally felt I had nothing to add not already stated, but I notice much of the opposition in this section is from admins, so for what it's worth as someone on the non-admin side: I feel that admin recall in concept is a good idea, but this specific case does not seem to be the level that recall was meant for. It's only been a month since the last ANI thread, and he seems to have adjusted his actions since; if there were still major issues several months on it might be different, but this seems too soon a petition given the time passed. I'd hoped this would stay closed, but since it's open again I'll hope instead that this results in a better-tuned process and is somehow not too stressful for Graham87. Perfect4th (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Independent of what happens to Graham87, I oppose this process. I did support a "recall process based on dewiki", but what we have here is nothing like the far more peaceful de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl. I do not think this discussion section is a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right. The other time this was done it was a simple matter: sign or don't. IFF you don't get enough sigs, the admin has not been raked over the coal, everything is all Sir Garnet and we get back to work. If it does go to to an RRfA, then is the time to go into detail. This is not going to work well, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I do want to say this: User:Graham87, first of all, you may be the second person to go thru this. I am the first. So if it comes to it we will be members a very exclusive club. I'll buy you a beer. Second of all, I hope you realize that none of this means you are a bad editor. It may just be that you don't have the right temperament for adminning on this particular website. I don't, apparently. In meatspace, I was drafted into management and I'm lousy at it. I'm a good coder tho. Nobody's good at everything. Third... look I know this might be hitting you hard. I have been there. Our hiring/unhiring process is horribly harsh. I don't like bullshit wall-poster slogans, but really "promoted to editor" actually applies to this. If it comes to it, we will look forward to your increased editing. We need good editors! I really hope you will see this thru to the end. Courage. You are a pioneer and we need you to be a pioneer.Herostratus (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I'm reading your recall RFA. With respect, what you said is completely inapplicable to the situation here (search for importer above... a lot of my wikiarchaeological work is greatly aided by admin tools)). Most of the problems I've had have related to the blocking tool and instances that I've found on my watchlist (which I'd continue to have and to check no matter what happens here). Also as noted above, I have taken quite concrete steps to improve and become less bitey. I have a healthy fear of adding content here (as we all should) due to how often Wikipedia's text is added and where it appears, and that's unlikely to change if I lose adminship. Of course, the flipside to this fear is perhaps an unhealthy distrust of newer editors trying to change this content ... Graham87 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also well aware how a picture of someone's editing career can be distorted by a process like this. User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova ... Graham87 (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support the process Let's see... if 25 experienced editors express their lack of confidence in an admin, said admin needs to run a quick reconfirmation RfA with a very low percentage of support votes required for passing, which should be a breeze if the community still has confidence in their ability to do the job. Sounds reasonable to me. Frankly, if you're an admin, and you don't believe you'd be able to get 55% of RfA voters to support you, we both know what you ought to do. If I were G87, I wouldn't even wait for this petition to close; I'd either start my reconfirmation RfA right away or turn in my tools right away because the optics of not doing so with 9 valid signatures in place already after just 2 days are quite poor indeed. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I've touched on this at the talk page about admin recall (in short: (a) the policy doesn't explicitly say this is possible and (b) I don't want to suck any more oxygen out of the admin elections process than this discussion already has). I also think this block on your IP is ... interesting. Graham87 (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    • To go with an analogy I made at the above discussion in which I half-seriously compared this process to Chinese water torture and any sort of RFA to stoning, now that the admin elections process is over, I've decided to continue with the Chinese water torture and not subject myself to the stoning unless I absolutely have to. I think that, as this procedure is being carried out for the first time, it'd be best to do things exactly by the book, so to speak ... and carrying out an unnecessary RRFA would duplicate the effort of the many, many people who have already commented here. For what it's worth if an RRFA does end up being required, I would very much prefer it to start as soon as possible; December will be a relatively busy month for me IRL. Graham87 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

      @Graham87: I am increasingly willing to support you if this goes to RRFA. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Graham, since the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureauracy, you won't get to choose when the RRFA would happen unless it's in the 30 day window. If this gains 25 supports, you'll have to file an RRFA between November 27 and December 27. There were already attempts to close this debacle, but it was undone. Similar reasons will be held to in order to ensure this runs until November 26. Sorry, you're out of luck on this one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm aware of that. I'd want the RFA to be held as close to 27 November as possible. Graham87 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this petition, and disappointed that we are here. I appreciate that bolded 'oppose' votes aren't necessarily a thing that was designed to be a part of this process, but our policies have always been descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if that's the way in which this process develops then sobeit. I think that the examples of inappropriate admin actions put forward in this petition are pretty weak stuff - they're not all perfect decisions, but they are judgment calls that some people are bound to disagree with, and it's not like he's unwilling to reflect on them or discuss them with others. FWIW, Graham87 retains my trust, and my gratitude for his many years of mostly thankless dedication to this project. Sure, it would be great if he could book himself onto a Making The Perfect Decision Every Time™ course, but availability on those isn't great and I wouldn't require it of anybody. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Graham has mended his ways and remains open to improvement. Should this petition pass, I intend to support him to retain adminship.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• (1) Oppose petition; the evidence provided is weak at best, and incorrect in a couple of places. The combination just doesn't rise to the level to give me doubt about Graham87's trustworthiness to have the tools, in fact rather far from it. Some decisions made that I wouldn't make. But, as an administrator I see that aaaalllll the time. I can't tell you how many times I've decided one action only to have another administrator take a different action on the same user for the same issue. Would I level4 someone for a couple of spam links? No. Would other admins? Absolutely. It's a serious problem that plagues the project, requiring inordinate effort to keep a lid on it. As one of the top websites in the world, companies are DESPERATE to get a footprint on Wikipedia and will do anything to do it. Level4 is not unwarranted at all. To give you an idea of the scale; more than 328 THOUSAND promotional accounts have been blocked on this project. That's 37 a day on average. And you want to desysop someone for issuing an early level4 against someone? Huh? REALLY?
  (2) Oppose process yeah sure, I know we already reached consensus to use this process and we're not voting again on it here. But, it's demonstrated itself to be highly problematic. This is a burning train wreck and never should have been attempted. On the bright side, this single attempt does show just how abjectly bad this process is, so there is that silver lining.
  (3) Snow close this petition; it's never going to happen, but it should. It's blatantly obvious that even if this process made any sense and Graham87 were forced by this process to re-RfA, there would be overwhelming support for them. There's no need to follow this bureaucratic nightmare to the end to draw this conclusion.
  Lastly, it has to be said, but (4) Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it!; people wanted this process, now they got it, now it's a total shitshow. Bravo! --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems like overkill. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Negative comment (not yet a "support recall" !vote) -- admins should never impose wide blocks such as /18 or even /24 unless they're certain the entire range is problematic (example: schools, open proxy) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I do try to do that, relying on the ASN description and/or checking a broad sample of IP's in the range. Graham87 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    Somehow you're still making mistakes, Graham. When in doubt, only block the offending IP. When I was an admin long, long ago, if I thought an IP range was a problems, I'd run a contributions check on the range, then look at each IP before blocking it.

    Then there's your trigger finger for blocking people that make mistakes.

    Maybe do other admin stuff for awhile instead of blocks.

    Now that I'm not an admin anymore (I was desysopped for inactivity), I really understand the feeling among active editors that some admins are less accountable than the rest of us and some can even be a threat.

    If I can't feel more comfortable about your future blocks, then I'll have to reluctantly sign the petition. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    • I've dialled down on blocking since the two ANIs. If you think I've made a mistake since then, let me know. I've checked my own range blocks since then and can't find anything amiss, but of course I'm not the best judge. Graham87 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      TBH, based on my experience at UTRS, I'd come here with some concerns about blocking. Those concerns are now mostly allayed. I've found Graham to be approachable and amenable to suggestion since then. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      So is blocking a school /20 for 3 years normal? Or a /16 for 8 years? With no account creation and TPA? That seems extreme to me--ensuring that nobody at a particular school can in any way edit Wikipedia, for years to come--but I don't know anything about this stuff. Levivich (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      They are not abnormal in the case of escalating blocks where the teachers are not monitoring the students' activity (for years)) and the students are running amok here. I personally would not remove TPA or block account creation. However, they could still request account creation at utrs or the alphabet soup for requesting accounts. Sometimes the block message is to create an account at home. That works best if it's an anon only block. ( that's a little sleepy of me so I hope I answered the question adequately) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      Oh, if memory serves, a /16 is usually an entire school system ( of poorly monitored kids being kids). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      @Levivich, when I was an admin in olden days, I blocked schools as long as I could (1 year back then).

      Nowadays, some admins block for as long as 10 years. Personally, I'm fine with 10 year school blocks. Unless children somehow change over that period, that IP will always be a problem. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      Other than schools, I was slow to block people until they'd gone through the sequence of warnings (some things were obvious exceptions such as really nasty attacks). As somebody said on another site, we want admins that are more Sheriff Andy, less Dirty Harry. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      The IP from the high school I attended isn't blocked. I edited that way a few times (all good ones in mainspace, I swear) because I wasn't sure I wanted other people to know I had an account on Wikipedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      Wow, Clovermoss, I'm impressed by your school! The ones I blocked were ant hills of naughty kids just like I'd once been. As an admin, I felt like they were just doing their job being kids and I was doing mine -- plugging leaks in Wikipedia's dike. I blocked hundreds of schools and I think I got one objection.

      Universities were different - some undergrads vandalized but others added good content (plus grad students and professors). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      Yes this. The list of IP blocking options has changed over the years. There's also a database report listing very long blocks, sorted by length. Graham87 (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      Well, I think school IPs can definitely be a mixed bag (sometimes one jerk could ruin it for everyone) but I don't think they should be blocked as a matter of course because that can block good faith contributions too. The very nature of these IP editors is that there are going to be multiple people affected by a block. Through observation, I've noticed that when it comes to "childish" vandalism, it's usually a one and done edit that's easily revertable and even ClueBot is usually good at detecting these. Teens bored and testing the limits, I suppose. But many schools also have a vast majority of mostly well behaved students that are attracted to nerdy hobbies. Also schools employ teachers who might edit an article if they're allowed to do so, and are generally going to be at a school longer than the average student (given that most are only there for four years or so). I admit I don't have much experience blocking IPs, but I'd be hesitant to block a school just for that reason alone. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      I do check a school IP/range's contributions before blocking. The higher the proportion of reverted edits, the more likely I've been to block them. Also a lot of pages are on my watchlist due to long-term unreverted vandalism from school IP's. Gotta go soon. Graham87 (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      @User:Clovermoss, I checked a number of these accounts and they were >95% vandalism. I'm not exaggerating with that figure. I suppose you could go back and look at my block log from 10 years ago and check some of these. The user talk pages were often loaded with many ignored warnings.

      Teachers didn't have time to deal with this and that was before kids all had smartphones on the school's wi-fi network.

      I spent 5-6 years dealing with spam and finally got tired of it, so switched to school IP vandalism. I got tired of that much faster! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

      I asked high school teachers about this at a convention, and they were unanimously in favour of blocking. They seem to be a lot stricter than your average Wikipedia admin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your position effectively amounts to "admins should not be able to effectively block IPv6 users".©Geni (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah when I first read that comment, I was wondering if you (i.e. A. B.) were around when Wikipedia enabled IPV6 support. I checked and it was enabled in June 2012 while you were desysopped in October 2014 (therefore becoming inactive a year earlier), so I didn't think it was worth bringing that up. Graham87 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Point well-taken re: IPv6. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  (aside for trip down memory lane) When I came back in 2017, I had no idea what was happening with those IPv6 addresses. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  De-sysopping inactive admins is a good thing even if it kinda hurt my feelings. A lot subtly changed during my hiatus. It’s taken awhile to get back up to speed. Temperament is still the most important criterion for admins but updated technical knowledge is important, too.—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• oppose recall Graham87 has been a good effective admin over many years, the more you the more likely there something that can be found to be of issue, but unless Graham87s error rate has climb significantly which I cant see any sign of then no need. As for the ANI reports its well known that any admin gets named there a pile on occurs, I dont see anything to warrant this. Gnangarra 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Someone who is as actively involved in the creation of this policy as OP should not be immediately doing something like this the moment that it gets approved. For someone who's "reluctant to do this," this recall seems very trigger-happy. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - this petition does not seem warranted: telling a user who is being/has been blocked that they are "not welcome" is simply stating the animus for blocking them in the first place, so I cannot understand why this is supposed to be a problem. On reviewing the blocks which were modified, none of them were actual abuses of admin tools, either. Theknightwho (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support process, Oppose recall - I know the bolded votes down here don't change this petition officially, but I did want to show my support for this process and for the user involved. I do think that a recall process is a good policy, though it might need some more tuning. That said, I believe this recall is deficient and am hopeful that it does not succeed or that the user goes through RRfA if this succeeds. As a non-admin, I will mention that telling someone they are "not welcome" after a block feels more punitive than preventative, but that is only my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support process, Oppose this petition. I firmly believe that some sort of community-based admin recall process is a good thing. It's even possible that the current process is a good process and what we're seeing here is just an exceptional example of how it can be abused; we won't know until we have a sample size greater than 1. But the more I look into the details of the complaints here, the more I'm convinced this is just a witch hunt. The original complaint was about a bunch of warnings. I looked at the warnings and I agree with most of them. As far as the blocks go, there's some that I think were just plain wrong, and a bunch more that I think were questionable, but not into desysop territory. Let's see how G87's performance changes after the most recent ANI discussion. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate the implication that I'm involved in a "witch hunt". Comments like this are hurtful, and impugn the motives of the editors who signed the petition. I'm not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, or Graham87. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I rather suspect that Graham87 also has not been trying to hurt Wikipedia, but that he has found this process personally hurtful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. Theknightwho (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  If someone wants to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, then they can substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for their concerns, which is exactly what I did, I substantiated my doubts about Graham87 with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people could understand the basis for my concerns. And then Graham87 responded civilly to those concerns of mine, stating he understood that many users disagreed with his approach so he would dial it down in the future.

  There's already been a lot of ink spilt about this process and this particular petition, and the one thing I have learned is that I will never participate in any future recall petitions since it's been clearly demonstrated that it has the potential to be personally hurtful and stressful for both the admin and editors who sign the petition. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  How is this an example of how this process can be be abused? With 80% support at present for not having adminship reviewed, I think it's safe to say that this process will be very difficult to abuse overall. Ie based on the fact this is a two part process to have an admin desysoped, and the first part being successful without the second (RRfA) is meaningless. Of course other users can abuse the process by creating petitions of no value or meaning that gains little to no support, but with 44% support so far, this is clearly not an example of that. Ideally this get's 25 signatures, admin is supported at RRfA, then wears it as a badge of honour. While I do sympathise that it's "not nice" to go through for an admin, the obvious solution here is to avoid this type of accountability process by not being an admin. Generally I'm under the impression that any admin who does not want to be held to account should not be an admin. CNC (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Could people please stop with the proposals for a WP:SNOW close aleady? Based on the current procedure of WP:RECALL, this process is an example of WP:NOTSNOW as others have already explained. Anyone proposing a snow close deserves a WP:TROUT, as it is directly encouraging other editors to make an aweful close based on lack of understanding of this new process. It's been 2 days and already the petition has 44% support, regardless of the quantity or quality of opposition, and this will continue for 30 days. While everyone is welcome and encouraged to engage in discussion and debate; as a reminder this is a recall petition, it is therefore not a !vote by default. CNC (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh we understand the process just fine. Meant gently; there is no 44% support or any other level of support. That's not how this petition works. The ratio of support/opposition is irrelevant. The situation we have is that this petition is obviously a flaming trainwreck, the original filer attempted to withdraw it [3], and now we're stuck with undergoing senseless bureaucracy in the name of bureaucracy. Nevermind that there's an editor at the other end of this that has to endure this for another 26 days (it's been four days, not two). --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'd disagree that we understand the process. Unlike most places, we don't pass laws and then require people to comply with them. We write down policies which document current practice. Quoting from WP:PAG: Policies and guidelines should be applied using reason and common sense. Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. We're in totally uncharted waters here, so it's not surprising that people are inventing process as they go along. It's chaotic, but it's the kind of chaos which has worked pretty well for the past 20-something years. RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much for Graham to endure here. You would have to be a fool to look at this page and think that there's any possibility of a RRFA failing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, I would agree. However, for 26 days Graham gets to wonder what other problems someone might decide to bring up. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

In this way the process is a bit "gauntlet" like. BusterD (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If I was skilled enough at RfCs, I think tweaking the petition period itself to 7 days might be a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Underestimate yourself at your own peril. After attending your talk in Indy, I ended up voting for admin last night on my phone just to check the user experience. BusterD (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I was considering going to that as it would have been my first in-person Wikipedia event ever, but then I took a temporary break from Wikipedia around the time I was making my travel plans and changed my mind. (I was considering hosting a talk about redirect creation and maintenance.) What I find particularly interesting is that finding any information about what happened at the event is akin to radio silence. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed the time-frame shouldn't be longer than the RfA would be. CNC (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

---

So, my understanding of this new process is that opposing this recall petition serves no purpose because the success of the recall competition is based solely on the amount of signatures supporting it. In other words, opposing this petition at all seems irrelevant to the current structure of this process, unless the intent is to convince editors who are signing and support of the petition to withdraw their support, and would be better suited on either the talk page of this petition or in any forthcoming RFA after this petition is successfully closed. I wasn't involved with any part of this new procedure getting implemented, so ... Am I missing something here? Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Two reasons were identified so far to oppose: (i) convince the users who are in doubt that the RfA is going to be successful, and thus discourage them from signing; (ii) convince the admin that the RfA is going to be successful, and thus discourage them from resigning under cloud. None of these reason requires signatures on the petition pages, talk page would be indeed perfectly fine. Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A third reason is to convey the opinion that this entire process is a trainwreck that should never have happened in the first place. And for that, comments here instead of in talk are just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My goal, as the first speaker in the discussion section, was to convince other potential signers that the claimed reasons for the petition were exaggerated and incorrect. And I'm sorry for the bloodbath-y precedent I set but the alternative precdent, of allowing claims to go unchallenged like that, would be just as bad. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Entirely with Tryptofish on this. The idea that people who don't support the petition should place their comments elsewhere is frankly wrong-headed. That sort of one-sided process is exactly what I expected from recall being made operational, and apparently that is exactly what we got. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)