Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFA)

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Graham87 87 72 8 55 Open 10:11, 24 November 2024 5 days, 19 hours no report
Current time is 14:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Graham87 87 72 8 55 Open 10:11, 24 November 2024 5 days, 19 hours no report
Current time is 14:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Worm That Turned2 RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91
FOARP AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 268 106 242 72
Peaceray AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 270 107 239 72
Sohom Datta AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 298 108 210 73
DoubleGrazing AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 104 206 75
SD0001 AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 101 209 75
Ahecht AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 303 94 219 76
Dr vulpes AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 322 99 195 76
Rsjaffe AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 319 89 208 78
ThadeusOfNazereth AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 321 88 207 78
SilverLocust AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 347 74 195 82
Queen of Hearts AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 389 105 122 79

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 14:45:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Graham87

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (87/72/8); 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Also see my answer to question 12 below. Graham87 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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
  1. 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. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Support without reserve. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - in particular per HJ Mitchell who outlines the circumstances and benefits of this candidacy well. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Support. Kablammo (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. Support - no concerns. Should never have been recalled in first place. If anything is so serious, it should have gone to ArbCom. GiantSnowman 11:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - will add further comment later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No doubt Grahams87 ability with the tools and that he will continue to be a positive user of the mop. Gnangarra 12:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support People should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Disproportionate. —Cryptic 12:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support : No red flags here. They were amazing as a sysop :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Polygnotus, HJ Mitchell, DoubleGrazing, &c., &c. ~ LindsayHello 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. Support, per nom. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. As nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23. 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)[reply]
  24. Support per nom.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. 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)[reply]
  26. Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. 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)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. 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)[reply]
    Support mostly per Drmies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  33. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - useful admin, promises to change, and no more bad blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. 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)[reply]
  37. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  38. Support: by nominations and for keeping Wikipedia:Requests for page importation alive. win8x (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 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)[reply]
  40. 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)[reply]
  41. 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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, in opposition to WP:RECALL. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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)[reply]
  44. Support a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. 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)[reply]
  47. 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)[reply]
  48. 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)[reply]
  49. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Volten001 ☎ 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Excellent admin. Also, this recall process is a farce. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 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)[reply]
  54. 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)[reply]
  55. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  56. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 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)[reply]
  58. 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)[reply]
  59. Keep--v/r - TP 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. SUPPORT. I am fine with this user remaining an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. 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. SpencerT•C 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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)[reply]
  63. Support, the concerns seem to have been adequately addressed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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)[reply]
  65. 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)[reply]
  66. Support as a net positive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support trusted – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 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)[reply]
  69. Support. He is capable to be an administrator. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 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)[reply]
  71. Support Valuable administrator with an undertaking to avoid the problem raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 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)[reply]
  73. 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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 03:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  74. 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)[reply]
  75. Noting that many in the oppose section make good points Mach61 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, Good admin. first WP:RECALL. Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  76. 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. ~SG5536B 06:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support under the assumption that Q12 is followed Leijurv (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  78. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per the very experienced nominators whose judgement I trust. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Maliner (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  81. 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)[reply]
  82. 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)[reply]
  83. 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)[reply]
  84. 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)[reply]
  85. 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)[reply]
  86. 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)[reply]
  87. Support. I'm convinced by the nominators' arguments. Bishonen | tålk 14:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
    Past thread and discussion moved to talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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? EF5 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per TBUA charlotte 👸♥ 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 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)[reply]
  10. Per SN54129 and David Fuchs. Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. per Serial Number. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 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)[reply]
  13. 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)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15. 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. SilverserenC 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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 (blocktalk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Per Aoidh, TBUA, and Serial Number. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
  21. 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)[reply]
  22. 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)[reply]
  23. 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)[reply]
  24. 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)[reply]
  25. 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)[reply]

  26. 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)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per a number of the interactions pointed out above, particularly Srijanx22's. Sorry. Johnson524 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. Oppose based on the hostility shown in the various diffs linked to throughout the opposes above. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. Oppose Sadly. Per Levivich's analysis and Just Step Sideways' assessment Llwyld (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose diffs cited above are just too troubling. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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)[reply]
    WP:RECALL requires that the admin go through this WP:RRFA process within 30 days of the petition's success. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  39. 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). JJPMaster (she/they) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  42. 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. Schwede66 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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)[reply]
  44. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  45. No confidence, per Levivich's examples czar 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Attitudes not appropriate for an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  47. 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)[reply]
  48. Oppose per Aoidh. FifthFive (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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)[reply]
  50. Oppose, Per Levivich. Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. 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)[reply]
  52. 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)[reply]
  53. (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)[reply]
  54. 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)[reply]
  55. 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)[reply]
  56. Oppose per what Levivich has said, and the response to question 13.  novov talk edits 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 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)[reply]
  58. Oppose too many bad blocks and broken promises to improve. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 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)[reply]
  60. 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)[reply]
  61. 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. JavaHurricane 09:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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)[reply]
  63. 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)[reply]
  64. Oppose Nobody (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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)[reply]
  66. 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)[reply]
  67. Oppose: Per SerialNumber and others. GrabUp - Talk 12:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose per SerialNumber, Thebiguglyalien and Levivich. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  69. 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)[reply]
  70. Oppose - I don't think hist merges are worth the number of newbies that are getting bitten BugGhost🦗👻 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  71. 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)[reply]
  72. 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 an 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)[reply]
Neutral
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. I mostly agree with Star Mississippi's comments above. I am conflicted here, because Graham's technical work is invaluable and something that (to my knowledge) basically no other admin does, but I have a hard time supporting an RFA that is essentially contingent on "I'm not going to use this part of the toolset." My vote my change, but this is where I'm sitting right now. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  5. Neutral/weak 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. The ONLY reason why this ain’t going in the oppose column is because Graham87 vowed to stop using the block tool. That is the ONLY reason why I’m neutral. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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! 02:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    Not 75%, you mean? :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    trout 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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? SilverserenC 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. SilverserenC 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Anyone can change their vote before the RfA closes. EF5 01:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then @EF5, you’re looking at one who just has. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 editingadminning activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert 

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1258159603"