Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"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.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	275	5	9	98	Successful	11:31, 18 November 2024	0 hours	no	report
Graham87	119	145	11	45	Unsuccessful	11:06, 20 November 2024	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 12:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	275	5	9	98	Successful	11:31, 18 November 2024	0 hours	no	report
Graham87	119	145	11	45	Unsuccessful	11:06, 20 November 2024	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 12:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC). —

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, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The next administrator election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for further information.

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 community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Rusalkii	RfA	Successful	23 Apr 2025	156	0	0	100
EggRoll972	RfA	No consensus	19 Apr 2025	110	57	10	66
LaundryPizza03	RfA	Unsuccessful	17 Apr 2025	72	81	26	47
Goldsztajn	RfA	Successful	23 Mar 2025	136	1	4	99
Barkeep49	RfB	Successful	7 Mar 2025	219	5	8	98
Giraffer	RfA	Successful	1 Mar 2025	221	0	1	100

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). 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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

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 the extended confirmed right. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or 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

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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

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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 12:56:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

There are no current nominations.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Graham87

Final (119/145/11); ended following withdrawal by candidate. Closed by Graham87 (talk) at 11:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

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

Co-nomination statement

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

Co-nomination statement

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

Co-nomination statement

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

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

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept; thank you all for your lovely nominations and for continuing to have faith in me. As discussed above, this re-request for adminship is being carried out because I was subject to the first ever admin recall petition (initiated on 27 October), mostly focusing on my treatment of newbies). It passed with the requisite 25 signatures on 7 November, many of which were added after my block of Mariewan (talk · contribs) the previous day, which was way outside community norms. Subsequently, after much soul-searching, I've decided that I'll pledge to avoid blocking and have significantly reduced the number of pages on my watchlist, so I can refocus on my technical contributions on this site, especially my work on the early history of Wikipedia pages (more about that in the answers to the questions). ). The recall process is brand-new, had some inevitable teething problems, and has caused much controversy. However, it's now time for the community to decide whether they still trust me to be an admin. One thing that won't change, regardless of the outcome of this process, is my commitment to Wikipedia; I plan to continue editing this site no matter what happens here. My ranking at #5 (among human editors) on the longest consecutive daily editing streaks is a testament to that. I have never edited Wikipedia for pay and have no plans on doing so. Graham87 (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC) It's clear to me that there's not much good in this RFA continuing and it's highly unlikely to succeed at this point. Thank you everyone, supporters, opposes, and otherwise, for all your feedback; I promise to take it on board and have a good think about it. Graham87 (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in being an administrator?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Optional question from theleekycauldron

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

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

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

Optional question from S Marshall

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

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

Optional question from Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

6. What makes Wikipedia suck?

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

Optional question from MSGJ

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

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

Optional questions from GTrang

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

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

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

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

Optional question from JJPMaster

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

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

Optional question from Asilvering

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

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

Optional question from CFA

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

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

Optional question from HouseBlaster

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

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

Optional question from Banedon

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

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

Optional question from Patar knight

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

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

Optional question from Bunnypranav

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

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

Optional question from CFA

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

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

Optional question from Just Step Sideways

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

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

Optional question from SNUGGUMS

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

A: Maybe; I'll see what happens. Graham87 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Graham87
• Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

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

---

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

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

Support

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. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
4. Support without reserve. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
9. Support. Kablammo (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
12. Support - will add further comment later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    I promised to add further comments. Disclosure: about two weeks ago, Graham87 asked me to nominate him for this RfA, something that I declined. A few days later, Graham87 again asked me to offer a supporting statement to the RfA that had been started by HJ Mitchell. I feel guilty that I didn't do so at the time, this was mainly because of real-life pressures. I still don't feel up to it. I decided that I would start off by supporting, and then read each vote and comment, chronologically, before expanding my support vote with reasoning; but now realise that I won't make it (I've read comments posted up to 15:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC), that is, just over nine hours ago) and they keep coming in. However: I am dismayed by the amount of pile-on oppose votes, and am wondering how many of these people have taken the time to read Graham87's user page, or the excellent essay at User:Graham87/Personal Wikipedia timeline. Perhaps a few people could take a look at those, if only at the section User:Graham87#About me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
14. Support People should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
15. Disproportionate. —Cryptic 12:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
16. Support : No red flags here. They were amazing as a sysop :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
17. Support per Polygnotus, HJ Mitchell, DoubleGrazing, &c., &c. ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
19. Support, per nom. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
20. As nominator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

    All of the issues were in relation to blocking, and Graham has promised to not block people anymore. With that in mind, I think his other contributions that require the mop are valuable and should be kept. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Looking over this again, I am no longer able to support this, primarily per Levivich. I can't bring myself to oppose either, since his Importer work is quite helpful, so I am now neutral. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

23. Support per nom.Clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
24. 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)
25. Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. Support, though I think Serial Number 54129's concerns about the bundled nature of the admin toolset are valid. To me, this nomination (with its baked-in self-imposed restraints) is an imperfect solution, but probably the best that we will get until we are ready to start talking about uncoupling some of the badly needed admin functions from the block button. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Support mostly per Drmies. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

31. Support I had the pleasure of interviewing Graham87 a few (10? 12? 15? time flies!) ago for signpost and was impressed both by his thoughtful responses as well as by his obvious desire to make Wikipedia the best possible compendium of human knowledge. Reviewing the recall petition, I still see the same thoughtful and self-reflective person I saw then. While he is not perfect (who is?) and has likely made mistakes like all of us do, Graham87 is more than a satisficing admin choice and I strongly support this request for retaining the admin tools. RegentsPark (comment) 15:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Oops correction. We actually discussed the possibility of an interview but it didn't actually work out as Graham87 has reminded me on my talk page. My memory is obviously fuzzy (but this was a long time ago!). Apologies, but I did research Graham87 at that time and stick with my impressions of him! RegentsPark (comment) 16:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

32. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
33. Support - useful admin, promises to change, and no more bad blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
34. 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)
35. 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)
36. Support—Apart from the issues brought up at the recall petition, Graham is an excellent administrator and has served in that capacity for over 17 years. In light of his pledge not to block anyone, I see no reason not to trust him for many more years to come. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    However, I would like to register my strong disapproval of his block of Mariewan, as outlined by Aoidh in the oppose column. That entire fiasco was... shocking, to say the very least. It was an egregious enough lapse in judgement that I honestly considered switching to oppose. I've decided to reaffirm my support, but I really don't want to see any more of that kind of attitude, especially towards newer editors who technically didn't even do anything wrong. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

37. Support: by nominations and for keeping Wikipedia:Requests for page importation alive. win8x (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
38. Support the "renom" if you will, and vehemently oppose this recall process, which is too easy and lacked proper discussion from the user base that it impacts: admins. Consider this 50% a protest vote against a ridiculous process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    This was the discussion, and it impacts everyone. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

39. Still convinced that a Wikipedia where Graham87 has the sysop buttons is better than one where he does not (he is the only admin working in certain areas). A lot of his admin work is in areas far removed from the block button, so I hope staying away from that won't harm his productivity much. (As an aside, there should be a way out of a no-blocking pledge, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it). —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Per their pledge to avoid blocking people in the future. Graham, this is a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" situation: I am trusting you that you will avoid blocks. I would add that you should have WP:BITE be a hyperfocus; good faith new contributors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. But your work at WP:RFPI is fantastic, and we cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good. Cautious, but strong, support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

40. Support, in opposition to WP:RECALL. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
41. 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)
42. Support a net positive to Wikipedia as an admin, best wishes Josey Wales ^Parley 17:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
43. 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)
44. 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)
45. 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)

    Graham87 himself appears to be doing the right thing in taking personal responsibility for his actions by admitting his "misfires" are mistakes that need to be corrected. These types of comments by his supporters that downplay or minimize those actions by implying they are an acceptable tradeoff make it appear suspect the supporting side doesn't truly support what Graham is standing for and is just voting for whatever personal reasons. I also think that Graham handing out non-escalating warnings or blocks is hardly the same comparison to what has been happening to him at AN so I think yes we are quite a bit better as a whole since we at least have given him the benefit of numerous lengthy discussion and advice and it should come as no surprise since the benefit of the village is bound to achieve more than the individual. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 03:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

46. Support. I get uncomfortable when I see the words "net positive" brought up onwiki. It's too often dubious calculus used to excuse contributors who drive away others. In Graham87’s case, his work with importation was a common justification advanced by those who supported him remaining an admin. It’s impossible for any one person to weigh that against improper blocks with the potential to dissuade new editors. To err on the side of caution, I opened the petition. With that being said, now that he's promised not to block users, Graham87 isn't just a net positive—he's all positive.
    There is an argument to be made that an admin with a prior history of serious misuse, including after it was pointed out, should not have the mop. However, the idea of NOPUNISH is fundamental to our blocking policy; the underlying philosophy, that we should block only to prevent further issues, seems applicable to all removals of permission. There’s no point deysopping Graham87 on the basis of past mistakes if they won’t be repeated.
    In short, let’s let bygones be bygones. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    I encourage all support !voters to leave some reasoning, even if it's just per nom', since this may come down to a 'crat chat. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    As I have been reading this I was thinking to myself that all these "net positive" comments by the supporters are totally irrelevant because Graham himself has stated that he will continue to be the same asset to the project that he always has no matter what the outcome of these proceedings is. I mean it's not like we are considering banning him from the project and we need to decide if he is a "net positive" or "net negative". I think most everyone even those who oppose will agree he is a "net positive" so it really just goes without saying... Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 03:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

47. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
48. Support Volten001 ^☎ 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
49. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
50. Support Excellent admin. Also, this recall process is a farce. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
51. I did not see anything in the recall petition that concerned me. Graham seems to be strict but not unreasonably so, responsive to criticism, and attempting to adapt. It would be a shame to lose him. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Just want to say that while this RfA has drawn my attention to some old blocks that are disturbing, I don't have much concern about his recent blocks, and it's moot anyway because he won't be making any more. Re: the concerns about it being absurd that we need to ban an admin from using his tools, we are in this position because of the community's unwillingness to unbundle blocking or viewing deleting revisions, and I support making accommodations for someone who is literally the only person who knows how to do what he does. And I will note that when I was a young, wayward new page patroller, I needed a lot more than six chances to conform my practices to the community's expectations; I don't think the number of chances matters, as long as progress is being made. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

52. 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)
53. Support - Outside of the block button, Graham's contributions are an overwhelming net positive. I have faith that the blocking problems are now in the past, and if they aren't, then per HJ Mitchell we have the tools to cross that bridge if we have to. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    While I still support this RRFA, Levivich's comment in the oppose section is by far the most convincing one in this RRFA. Assuming this passes, the no blocking condition needs to be strict, and Graham should probably steer clear of interacting with new users. Is that set of restrictions compatible with continued access to the tools? I think so, but only just barely - downgrading to Weak Support. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

54. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    Support - a petition process which only counts supports is fundamentally flawed - Wikipedia has always operated by consensus, not by counting votes. I honestly have no opinion on Graham87 but I am opposed to the process, therefore I support this reconfirmation. If editors can pile on Worm That Turned's RRFA opposing solely on the basis of opposition to the process and not the candidate, then I can support on that basis too.Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

55. 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)
56. Keep--v/r - TP 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
57. SUPPORT. I am fine with this user remaining an administrator. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
58. Support While I think the concerns brought up are valid, I believe that given that Graham87 has committed to stepping back from blocks and re-evaluate that process. Concur with Ad Orientem above. Spencer^T•C 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
59. 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)
60. Support, the concerns seem to have been adequately addressed. -- Visviva (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
61. 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)
62. 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)
63. Support as a net positive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
64. Support trusted – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
65. 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)
66. Support. He is capable to be an administrator. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
67. 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)
68. Support Valuable administrator with an undertaking to avoid the problem raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
69. Support I hope to have time to explain my thoughts further but want to be clear that I am aware of the arguments made in oppose (and earlier discussions). Skynxnex (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is not a literal one-to-one match of a new RFA, for example there are how ever many other admin actions and time as an admin Graham87 has in their favor, compared to a new RFA. I wish that Graham had effectively stopped on blocking or tried harder to match their behavior to current expectations but overall given all that's happened and their assurances, they continue to have my trust as an admin. Skynxnex (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

70. Support If Floquenbeam feels comfortable that the pledge to not issue blocks is in good faith, then so do I. In any case, with a recall process in place, the consequences of trust being misplaced are far less. Good admin outside the specific problem area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Do note, CoffeeCrumbs, that with the way RECALL currently works, if this RRFA passes, then no recall can be started against Graham87 for a year, no matter their actions during that year. Silverseren^C 03:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Silver seren Given their pledge not to engage in any blocking, I'm not seeing this as a high risk RfA. That said, if there were a serious issue the next stop would likely be ARBCOM which is where the community has generally gone in the rare cases of a problematic admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'm thinking more long term. I can't imagine that he'd suddenly go Ha-HA and immediately start blocking people or anything. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

71. 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)
72. Noting that many in the oppose section make good points Mach61 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Support, Good admin. first WP:RECALL. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

73. 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)

    Support under the assumption that Q12 is followed Leijurv (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

74. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
75. Support per the very experienced nominators whose judgement I trust. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
76. Maliner (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
77. 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)
78. 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)
79. 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)
80. 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)
81. 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)
82. 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)
83. Support. I'm convinced by the nominators' arguments. Bishonen | tålk 14:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC).
84. Moral Support FOARP (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
85. Support I was very close to saying "oppose" Treatment of editors (e.g. on (alleged) conduct issues) is immensely important and I don't see how they could have fundamentally changed regarding that this quickly. The "no block" agreement 90% solves this but I'm still concerned about them giving warnings with the imprimatur of an admin. But I think that they will be under the magnifying glass regarding this which I hope would avoid any problems there. And this experience would hopefully be the start of a genuine evolution there. So we have someone who has immense background and knowledge and track record for doing work and as I understand it, having the tools is needed or significantly helpful towards doing that work. Hence my "support" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
86. I am afraid at this point I can only offer moral support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
87. precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
88. Support per Q1. The block issues are in the past and I hope Graham87 can continue to help out with Wikiarcheology work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
89. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
90. Support still a net positive in my opinion. Lightoil (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
91. Support I end up here because I think that Graham87 remains a net positive for this project. --Enos733 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
92. Support - I have concerns that we are standing on the edge of a slippery slope if this is our first revocation of admin rights via this recall process ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Mike gigs: Could you possibly clarify what you mean by that? It's not clear to me if you are criticizing recall as a process or if you think this specific situation is a bad test for it, or some other thing I'm not seeing. How is it a "slippery slope?" Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Both, I suppose - though this is not the forum to criticize the recall process as a whole. I don't think that Graham87 has been abusive enough of his tools to warrant being desysoped and if he is I think we are setting a bad precedent for future RRfA's. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

93. Support - We need more admins willing to protect the project. Graham will undoubtedly proceed more carefully than before. Hy Brasil (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
94. Support: has clue. if he blocks anyone I can just block him. ez jp×g🗯️ 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
95. Weak Support I understand the concerns that someone who cannot be trusted with the blocking tool should not be an admin, but I disagree with that perspective in this case. Graham has made an extremely strong pledge not to make any further blocks; I especially appreciate his answers to Q12 and Q17, agreeing to a topic ban on blocks and allowing an administrator to block him if he does make a block in violation of this topic ban. Honestly, I normally would not be okay with an admin remaining an admin without the ability to block, but I feel that Graham is so beneficial to the project in his other roles that he should be given one last chance. I would like to add the caveat, though, that his block during the recall petition struck me as especially egregious; the text of the warning actually seemed worse to me than the block itself, because of how bitey it was. If there continue to be problems with treatment of new users, which I really hope there will not be, Recall and Arbcom still exist. Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, a recall petition cannot be started for 12 months after a successful RRfA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Maybe the grace period should be removed for admins who finish their RRfA in the "discretion" range? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

96. JBL (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
97. Support I had nothing but positive interactions with Graham over many years. Looks like any overzealousness on the block front came from a good place - trying to protect the best interests of the project. I think that should count for something and I would much rather see the community help admins overcome obstacles than take away the tools. Admin numbers are dwindling and I believe the admin corp would be stronger with him than without him. WJBscribe (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
98. Support I’m confident that he brings considerable value to the project. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
99. Support - Never had a problem. I think the good should outweigh the bad in this case. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
100. Support I have no concerns about Graham87's willingness to heed community advice and to carry on with his good work.Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
101. Support Administrator brings value to the project and should be allowed to continue the work which may not otherwise be done. Urbanracer34 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
102. Supported over 17 years ago, still support now. Also agree with WJBscribe. Acalamari 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
103. Support - this is obviously I difficult case, but on balance I am sure he will be a good administrator and we need new admins. I was an admin for many years, but retired as I am now well over 80. Bduke (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
104. Support. I care a lot about civility and the way new editors are treated, and I'm comfortable with Graham's pledge to stop blocking altogether. The wikiarchaeology work he does with admin tools is truly valuable and I don't see why a non-blocking Graham who is allowed to keep doing history merges would be a bad thing. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
105. Support. —— Eric Liu_{（Talk・Guestbook）} 03:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
106. Support contingent on topic banning Graham87 from blocking users. Graham87 does rather unique work (see Q1) that cannot be done without sysop rights, and history of problematic behaviour notwithstanding, I still firmly believe that they are a net positive for this project. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
107. Support, a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
108. Support I continue to trust Graham. Lectonar (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
109. Support, Graham87 is one of our most experienced contributors or administrators on Wikipedia and I trust Graham to make things better on Wikipedia. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 09:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

     Based on what? He’s made all these promises before. MapReader (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

110. Support Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
111. Largely a moral support at this point; I truly appreciate and admire all of the different and unique things that Graham87 does. I'm disappointed by the final block that finally tipped the scales and hope that in the future his no-block commitment is sufficient. Legoktm (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
112. Support, clearly, without conditions and per GiantSnowman. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
113. Support per Q17 Q: Would you agree to a voluntary indefinite topic ban from blocks and unblocks, broadly construed? It would be logged at WP:Editing restrictions. A: Sure. Graham's block-ban resolves the main issue here. So long as this can be adequately enforced by any uninvolved administrator, that's good enough. (That said, I'd like to see these rights unbundled at some point in the future.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
114. Support (or Moral Support if you prefer) in recognition of the 42,000+ administrative actions that Graham87 has performed over the last 17 years, which – if I'm reading the stats page correctly – puts him in the all-time top 100 admins by number of actions. I seriously doubt that anyone could find fault with the vast majority of those actions. Graham clearly does far more good than bad, and his de-adminship would be a real loss to the project. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
115. Support. What we now have is a choice between two outcomes: one in which Graham makes no bad blocks and continues to do gnoming work that requires admin tools; and one in which Graham makes no bad blocks and cannot do that gnoming work. I see no reason to prefer the latter. Further, I'm baffled by the idea that we have no means of enforcing this TBAN. If he blocks someone, any one of us can drag him to ArbCom; if ArbCom refuses to desysop under those circumstances, we have a much bigger problem than Graham's bad blocks. I remain concerned about Graham's bitey behaviour towards newbies and strongly advise Graham to avoid doing this kind of work regardless of the outcome of this re-RFA. I am in the support column and not the oppose column because desysopping has no relationship to that behaviour; editors can leave bitey and rude comments whether they're admins or not. -- asilvering (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

     I agree that we have a much bigger problem if ArbCom refuses to desysop under those circumstances and that there are probably much deeper issues at play here than we realize. However, I would like to point out that the relationship desysopping has to bitey and rude behaviour is that it demonstrates there are consequences to it. I'm completely baffled as to why the thought occurs to anyone that just because someone can do it if they don't have the tools somehow means it doesn't matter if they have the tools or not because there are obvious differences in how we demonstrate consequences such as blocking non-admin/desysopping admin unless you are suggesting there should be no consequences for either? Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 04:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

116. Support Graham decided to step back from the parts that caused trouble and use the tools for something they do better than possibly anyone else. I'm sad to see the numbers don't look great at the moment, but I'm supporting nonetheless (or maybe even more so). Renerpho (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
117. Support. Graham has recognized where his work is not at the level expected by the community, and has agreed to step back from that work. At the same time, we have some really big deficiencies that the majority of opposers are not qualified or capable of doing, which makes the encyclopedia much poorer. While a repeat recall/RRFA cycle would be unacceptable for a year, if Graham crosses the line or fails to pull up his socks, there is no restriction in taking the matter to Arbcom; we are not stuck with a problem admin for a year if this doesn't work out. In the meantime, it would be a good idea if some of the opposers who don't think Graham is okay start learning how to do the tasks that he carries out that have few backups. Risker (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     I am really disliking all these support arguments that boil down to letting years of abuse be ignored because the person who did the abuse is useful. Silverseren^C 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     People who have been working together for 10 or 20 years are going to be very loyal to each other. It's human nature, we all do it, not worth worrying about, IMO. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     This is pretty disappointing behaviour from the two of you; both of you have already had your say. I don't think I've crossed paths even slightly with Graham more than two or three times in 20 years, and I had to read pretty intensively and research quite a bit to make a reasoned vote. It's sad that people are on the receiving end of this kind of nasty insinuation when it's that very kind of behaviour you seem to be unhappy about. If you don't want admins to do it, neither should you. Risker (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     If I saw someone kicking dogs at the park, my first instinct wouldn't be to scold the people shouting at them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     The dogs are gone, and there's still a lot of shouting. I agree with Risker that dismissing votes based on unfounded assumptions about the voter is bad, no matter the topic of discussion. Renerpho (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

118. Support as per 5225C Chetsford (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
119. Support With one exception, the oppose votes are remarkably strong, especially Levi's. Biting newbies is not a concern to be dismissed lightly. But I agree a clear cut promise not to block full stop should be easier to follow than previous unsuccesful efforts. (Would prefer a commitment to step away from all aspects of user policing, including not even placing warnings.) Graham's +ve contributions are outstanding, and gotta love a wiki-archaeologist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
   • I've replied with a clarification in a new thread on the talk page. Graham87 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

   If it took a recall to get Graham to see his errors, so be it. At least he eventually did see them. I was on the fence at first, but seeing the co-nom statements by multiple established editors gives me renewed good faith. If we're wrong, we can do this over again (as far as I know). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Actually, it would take a full year before we can recall him again if he passes here. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

   Past thread and discussion moved to talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
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? E_F⁵ 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Per TBUA charlotte ^👸♥ 17:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
10. Per SN54129 and David Fuchs. Ajpolino (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
11. per Serial Number. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Silverseren^C 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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 (block_talk) 20:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per Aoidh, TBUA, and Serial Number. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

    This statement is persuasive. It seems advantageous to unbundle, or separate out, some of the admin tools, but that would best be done through policy, not an ad hoc situation like this. ProfGray (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
29. Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
30. Oppose per a number of the interactions pointed out above, particularly Srijanx22's. Sorry. Johnson524 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

    Having just seen Bradv’s comments below about Graham’s gratuitously cruel interactions with Lazborn, I am way past disappointed and now downright angry. I wonder whether Graham even belongs here but that question is beyond the scope of this proceeding. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

36. Oppose Sadly. Per Levivich's analysis and Just Step Sideways' assessment Llwyld (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
37. Oppose diffs cited above are just too troubling. Banedon (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

    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)

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

    Running an RRFA within 30 days of a petition passing is neither required nor expected by the WP:RECALL process. It's an option available to a recalled admin, if they want to retain admin rights, to run within 30 days and need only 60% to pass. The other option is to run later and get the usual 75% to pass. Personally, I was hoping Graham would have chosen the second option, and be able to post some diffs from the interim of interactions with new users that demonstrated responsiveness to community feedback. (I'm hoping the same of the other recalled admin.) Levivich (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    It's a bit rough to set up a process whereby a petition triggers the option of a time-limited set of RFA rules, and then criticise a candidate for taking up that option. If we want the expectation to be that a successful 25-vote petition is itself a desysop with reapplication only after months/years as a regular RfA, then we should be making that clear at the recall page as it might affect how people vote. I wouldn't particularly oppose that outcome, but the current lack of clarity is suboptimal. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    I like that the recall system gives the admin the option of either conceding that the petition represents a loss of community trust, or else challenging whether the petition represents a loss of community trust; it's a test of the admin's ability to gauge community expectations. If the admin concedes that they've lost community trust, then they (rightfully) lose the bit (and can ask for it back with an RFA when they think they've regained that community trust). However, if the admin thinks they still have community trust (or at least 50-60%) and the 25 petitioners represent a minority of the community (40-50% or less), then the admin can run an RRFA and test that theory. Hence, if the admin thinks they still have it (and they're right), they can keep their bit; if the admin thinks they don't still have it, they rightfully lose the bit until they regain the necessary level of support. I think this is one of the best failsafes against "bad" petitions: if the petitioners are a disgruntled minority, the admin has a way to challenge them and keep their bit; if the petitioners represent a significant portion of the community (like half), then the admin can accept that and move on (but can still regain adminship in the future with a regular RFA). Levivich (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    I don't think the RRfA is a challenge to the apparent loss of community trust—that's why assurances and even a pledge of changed behavior from here on out is central to this request. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, that's a good point, the RRFA doesn't have to be a challenge, it could also be, as it is here with the suggested blocking TBAN, a response addressing the concerns raised. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    To the 'crats: my apparent misunderstanding of WP:RECALL aside, reasons for my oppose include the pattern of behavior as outlined by Levivich, blocking Mariewan for something completely resolvable, and the WP:INVOLVED TPA revocation example on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2#Discussion on oppose #5. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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). JJP_Master (she/they) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    I have stricken out parts of my !vote due to his answer to Q17, which I do think is a good sign. However, I stand by my opposition due to the ROPE concerns. I still do not think he is ready to re-request adminship at this time. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Noting I've seen this rebuttal to my comment but still support Graham87. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)

    There's a very big distinction IMO between a pledge to think differently, which the previous pledges were, and a pledge to not take a specific actions, which the current pledge is. Controlling how one thinks is much harder than controlling how one acts. The former kind is shades of gray - one can always will oneself into thinking it is being followed. The latter kind is pure black and white, to the point that I'm tempted to file a Phabricator task for "allow a user to be partially blocked from blocking other users" out of spite.

    While I would probably have supported this RRFA even without the no-blocks pledge (and been in a miniscule minority in doing so I guess) to me the switch from the first kind to the second kind is a showing of strength. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    That's not really what he did. "[F]rom now on any block I make will be based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate ..., and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist)" seems pretty "pure black and white" to me. Although he did also pledge to change his way of thinking ("If I come across a situation I've never encountered before, I won't use blocking as a first resort and will try to think about other solutions or explanations before resorting to blocking ..."), he rarely pledged to change only his way of thinking, and always pledged action alongside those pledges ("I'll continue to try to block for only extremely obvious stuff and communicate for the rest."). And besides, he didn't even really "switch from the first kind to the second kind," as his answer to Q3 says "Either way, I'll endeavour to advise them more clearly about where they're going wrong on Wikipedia (and give them positive feedback when they're doing things right)," which is quite similar in content to his previous pledges. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    That's still subjective/gray in a way that ll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on isn't. And that quote is what the second kind of promise was referring to, not the Q3 answer.

    It would be impossible to write code to technically prevent anyone from block[ing] not based on concrete disruption, adequate warning (where feasible and appropriate ..., and recent disruption (a day old at the most, depending on when I get to my watchlist). It would be possible to write code to prevent someone from pushing the block button at all. That's what makes the recent promise pure black and white in a way that the older ones weren't.

    Maybe that difference means a lot more to me than it does to others because I'm an autistic computer programmer, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Filed that as phab:T380248 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)

    @Patar knight: If he does the thing he is banned from, breaching his ban, and then doesn't resign, breaking the pledge to resign, ArbCom will desysop him with a motion in short order. Because, at that point it's inconceivable that someone who would break their pledge after disrespecting their topic ban after failing to live up to previous assurances multiple times, during which there is really no dispute that they did perform poorly in an important area, enjoys the needed level of trust to be an administrator; at that point it would be extremely clear that Graham87 must be desysopped, so that would have to be a quick and painless process. Therefore, I don't see why that's an inadequate mechanism. It seems adequate to me. —Alalch E. 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    If an instant desysop would be the obvious result (I don't think it's that clear cut) then the enforcement mechanism should just be that bureaucrats can desysop him if he breaks the pledge. He chose not to propose such an airtight restriction and the answer to Q17 seems to imply that before that answer, he was leaning towards not being blocked if he violated the ban. I might've been persuaded to support if the pledge was airtight from the get-go, but I think the answers to this pledge entails shows continued lack of judgment given the serious issues raised. No issues with them getting importer/page mover/other rights that would allow them to do the technical work that doesn't require admin tools. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    To clarify in case this ends up in a crat chat, I generally agree with the analysis by Levivich. In my opinion, the bare minimum for seriously considering to support an Re-RFA here was for a no-block pledge with actual teeth. At this point, even if Graham does ultimately agree to one, it would be too little too late and reflects a continued pattern of ignoring community concerns about his behaviour around blocks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but is it even possible for such a pledge to have teeth? Is there any actual policy by which the Graham87 of today can bind the Graham87 of the future? Regardless of what Graham87 writes now (assuming this RfA passes), the only way for the Graham87 of the future to lose his admin rights is if he chooses to do so, or if ArbCom desysops him. Sure, you can try to hide from this reality by using the block tool in creative ways as Lustiger seth did, but I don't think that's really any better. The fact that Graham87 knows this fact shouldn't be held against him.

    We could have set up a culture in which crats could enforce promises of that sort (i.e desysop me if I ever block someone in the future regardless of what future-me says), but we didn't. I'm not convinced that even a form of Lustiger seth's promise would work - if Lustiger seth were to perform a non-spam-blacklist-related admin action, some admin were to enforce the promise by an indefinite block, and then he were to file an unblock request that doesn't involve resigning adminship, perhaps with some attempt to justify what he did - then what?

    I find it highly dubious that every single admin monitoring the unblock queue would decline on the basis that you said something in 2008 and now you're blocked from editing indefinitely because of it - instead there would be a quagmire from which the only way out is one of the processes for involuntary loss of adminship. And the same is the case with Graham87, regardless of what exactly he formally agrees to since we've chosen to build a community in which due process cannot be waived. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Perhaps as an editing restriction on blocking, broadly construed, for which the sanction would be desysoping. WP:Editing restrictions lists one administrative restriction already, though the remedy is not desysoping. In theory, if the admin is willing to be bound and the community agrees that it is a valid sanction, I think it should be possible. In any case, I'm not going to spend too much time brainstorming possibilities, since the burden is on the candidate and/or their nominators to propose an acceptable sanction/enforcement mechanism for community approval. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    The problem is that you're asking for the impossible. We don't have any means of desysoping admins other than resignations, admin recall, and ArbCom. Given that the current consensus is against the recall period delay being waived, you have to truth ArbCom to desysop Graham87 should he block someone and refuse to resign. And I at least have no doubt they will do so even with the current wording of the promise, and any stronger wording is just presenting a false veneer while actually agreeing to nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

    Comment Here Graham872 writes that they pledge to avoid blocking, but they then write here that when they do block someone, the community of editors should Strongly encourage me to resign. (Personal attack removed) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @JoJo Anthrax: That answer was responding to a hypothetical question. I don't think it means that Graham intends to block someone. jlwoodwa (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

    You know, if the reason you're opposing someone amounts to failure to assume sufficient good faith, then accusing them of naked doublespeak is kind of hipocritical. I think it's just poor wording, not some attempt to subvert the very premise of this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

45. No confidence, per Levivich's examples czar 03:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Attitudes not appropriate for an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC).
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)
48. Oppose per Aoidh. FifthFive (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
50. Oppose, Per Levivich. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 05:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
56. Oppose per what Levivich has said, and the response to question 13.  novov talk edits 07:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
58. Oppose too many bad blocks and broken promises to improve. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
64. Oppose Nobody (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
67. Oppose: Per SerialNumber and others. GrabUp - Talk 12:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
68. Oppose per SerialNumber, Thebiguglyalien and Levivich. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 a core part of the admin toolset. If we can't trust them to use the block button correctly, they shouldn't be an admin. If somebody can't behave themselves while everybody is watching, I don't see how we can trust them to behave themselves when nobody is watching. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    As I've implied above in question 3 and elsewhere, it wasn't just failure to read the room; I was so fixated on what the user was doing (and dealing with their edits), the room may as well have not existed. A no-block pledge would be much easier for me to follow. Graham87 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

73. Oppose User appears to have a pattern of promising to do one thing and then actually doing something else, which is especially problematic with blocks involving new editors. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
74. Oppose, Per Levivich, who I thank for their comprehensive review. Jusdafax (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
75. Oppose - Largely per Levivich, this isn't the first, second, or even third incident. If an admin needs a topic ban from the most important admin tool, then they shouldn't be an admin. The other issue is the biting behavior and warnings which the topic ban would not address. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
76. Oppose per JSS, Lev, SchroCat et al. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
77. Oppose, which I hate doing. However, there are too many bad blocks. Let him keep importer. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
78. Oppose per Levivich. TheWikiToby (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
79. Oppose with regret. I was initially unpersuaded by the recall petition but, frankly, I was astonished by the block of Mariewan. Levivich has collected a series of direct quotations that show that this is a chronic problem. It is not just the bad blocks but also the biting. Graham87 has lost my confidence. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
80. Oppose per just about everyone, especially Levivich. I'm honestly concerned by the amount of support this behavior has garnered. This was a long pattern of broken promises. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
81. Oppose – I had originally voted to support this RFA; but especially given new information brought up by EF5 and a couple others. I have removed that vote and I’m replacing it with this. I originally supported the RFA until I found out how many chances Graham87 had. While I’m in strong support of second chances; I ain’t in support of sixth chances. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    And to be perfectly honest; based on some of the ANI discussions (which I haven’t read and don’t plan on doing so); I’m not even entirely convinced that Graham87 would even be suitable for something like Rollback; given how he’s abused his blocks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    Can’t support a person making ridiculous ten-year blocks. If you’re going to block someone for ten years; just indef them! Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    One may not indef IPs and IP ranges, this is strictly against the policies. Even open proxys are blocked for a number of years, not indefinitely. Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

    Still though @Ymblanter, ten years is excessive. If you’re going to block someone for ten years; you’d be better off indeffing them (referring to registered accounts). And as for IPs, like you brought up; if I were an admin, I probably wouldn’t be comfortable blocking for any longer than about two to maybe three years at most; and that’s only for static IPs (eg: 1.2.3.4); for IPv6s; probably not any longer than a year. That’s my opinion on it anyways. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

82. Oppose per Levivich's examples. A repeated refusal to learn the problems with his blocking style doesn't leave me in good confidence as to his abilities as an administrator. I can respect him doing good editing work and would not be opposed to re-nomination in the future if Graham can prove he can use the tools effectively, but as of right now, his usage of the tools seems to be actively damaging if it's warranting ANI incidents three times in the span of only a few months. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
83. Oppose Looking back at Graham's original RfA, he indicates he "likes to thoroughly explain himself when doing something potentially controversial" (his words). I think the problem I'm having is the lack of understanding that comes with the explaining. He was engaging in the same kind of WP:BITEey blocks while the discussion/vote leading up to this was ongoing. I don't think he is malicious, but he doesn't "get it" and may not be capable of "getting it". We have the ability to restrict editors from certain editing activities so why we can't do that with admin tools makes no sense to me. If he was prevented from issuing blocks by the software and only did technical stuff then this would be a support for me. As it is, I don't think he can stop himself from getting involved in blocking people, so I must oppose this RRfA. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
84. Oppose Levivich sums it up perfectly. There have been numerous discussions and promises over the last two years. We're here because they have all failed. Fool me once.... If tools were totally unbundled I could support a more limited scope; however, they are not so I cannot. spryde | talk 18:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
85. Oppose, sorry. Similar to Schwede66. Your work improving things for readability and accessibility is unmatched and I'm sure incredibly appreciated by the visually-impaired, etc. You once even fixed one of my subpages. Thank you for that. WP:CIVILITY is the number one most important thing to me on Wikipedia (let alone for adminship). Show me six months of pleasant and kind interactions with others and I'd love to support you in the future. Also, your daily editing streak is mind-bogglingly impressive! Useight (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
86. I’ve been thinking hard about this. The multiple actions over time which make Wikipedia a hostile place for newbies. In particular, Levivich and Aoidh have had really persuasive arguments. And I am not claiming to be perfect in this regard—but admins (whether we like it or not) have a lot of soft power. Your words matter, even if you cannot block. I don’t think that admins under sanction necessarily need to be desysopped, and WP:BANDESYSOP implies that the community agrees (by expressly stating that non-indefinite non-site bans are not considered).
    Graham, I am really sorry to be casting this !vote. Truly. After you have a track record of interacting positively with newbies, I would be happy to support (or even nominate!) a future RFA. Given the support on this one, even with raw and recent mistakes, I think you have a good chance in ~12 months. If you ever mess up an import, I would be happy to help fix it. But with deep regret, oppose. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 18:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
87. Oppose Levivich summed it up pretty well. "64 blocks in September, 12 had to be modified" isn't an insurmountable problem. His work on things like preserving the history of our oldest articles; tracking administrator activity etc are I'm sure positive contributions. But the repeated promises to do better blocking, followed by more bad blocks, are too much. They've had ample time and opportunity to adjust their blocking strategy. The conclusion of any one of the recent ANI threads would've been a great time to do so. But the bad blocking persisted, so here we are at recall. I wish this admin would've ceased blocking altogether, and focused instead on those areas that they and their nominators say they are beneficial using the tools at. It's a shame they couldn't get to this conclusion themselves earlier. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
88. Oppose Based on detailed review by levivich and reasons of aiodh, Astonishing Tunes Admirer, Cullen and Ritchie. (As an aside, this episode illustrates the fundamental flaw with Jimbo’s familiar statement that being an admin is "no big deal". The power to block another editor from editing is a big deal. The entire discussion here leads me to think that we should consider separating the block function from the other admin tools, which are necessary to keep the project running and do not have such a potential impact as the block power.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
89. Oppose. I want to explain very precisely why I'm opposing, as well as the reasons that do not contribute to my oppose. I start at this as someone who has been, and remains now, very strongly opposed to the recall process. I think that it is too prone to sloppy evaluation of evidence, and can put good admins through a waste-of-time abusive process just because they make difficult decisions. And I think the procees of ArbCom handling desysops has come to work well, and does not need fixing. Also, I think Graham has done a lot of good work as an admin, and I very much respect the nominators. Most of the issues brought up in the recall petition were things that, for me, do not rise to the level of a desysop. But I have to oppose, ultimately, because of the Mariewan block. This was a good-faith editor who made some mistakes, but not blockworthy mistakes. Worse yet, the block was made too rapidly, not giving Mariewan enough time to turn things around. As I see it, if there had been no such thing as a recall petition, and this problem had instead been brought to ArbCom, I would have urged ArbCom to accept the case request, deal with it by motion, and pass a motion to desysop. So given that I feel that way, I have to oppose here. I also find fault with the self-imposed refrain from blocking because, as other editors have noted, we cannot unbundle the tools. So I want to be very clear about why, and why not, I'm opposing here. Sadly, I am. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
90. (ECx2)I came here to put down support , but after reading Levivich's comments (99% of the time, Levivich's analyses are well reasoned logic and the 1% that are not are mostly rooted in simple, reasonable disagreement on an conclusion...reasonable people can disagree), I cannot in good conscience concur. I agree with what MANY others have said that G87's contributions are substantial, but that does not excuse violations of civility. When under the microscope, these behaviors not only didn't change, but became MORE pronounced. Bad blocks following bad blocks with no remorse...I think that deserves at least some negative reaction from the community. I regretfully must oppose. However, I would strongly advise to do a little soul searching. I would not oppose another nomination in the future if he can credibly show better interpersonal interactions. Buffs (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
91. Oppose per aforementioned concerns regarding edit warring and hostile tone toward other editors. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
92. Graham87 has done a lot of good work over the years, but the chronic, repeated issues with their use of the block button leads me to oppose this RfA. If an administrator requires a topic ban to prevent them from using a core part of the toolset, that is also deeply concerning. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
93. Unfortunately, after having read the comments in the oppose section, I have to add an oppose as well. I can see Graham is a good editor, he has some great intentions to help the community, but after reading these oppose comments and seeing the repeated use of the block button, I just can't support anytime. I really don't want to make things more complicated and disappointing, but I agree with what everyone else said, especially with Levivich. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
94. Oppose; I am greatly impressed by the less public-facing work that Graham has done, but admins - all of them - do need to interact with the public, and I just can't condone the type of incivility that's been shown. If I'd met with that kind of attitude early in my editing days, odds are good I would have left and never returned. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
95. Oppose per Levivich. BITE issues aside, Graham has done great work for the community, particularly regarding accessibility, and I hope he continues to contribute in other areas. Sdkb ^talk 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
96. Oppose I was initially "neutral", but after the context provided by Levivich, it seems that Graham has failed to reflect and change more than once. His technical work is highly appreciated, but just a promise to not block does not suffice to erase the issues of not reflecting in time, communication issues etc. After a year the admin tools can be returned if Graham demonstrates to the community that he has reflected on the broader issues, which can't be addressed just by promising to not block again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
97. Oppose per Levivich's analysis. I've said for years that my RfA criteria is, in its entirety, "can they be trusted to use the tools?" Not trusted to use some of the tools, but to have the awareness not to use tools inappropriately or that they do not understand. Mistakes are compatible with adminship; repeated reckless use of a tool and begging forgiveness later is not. Graham87 has demonstrated a pattern of tool misuse over an extended period, as well as disdain for new users. They've repeatedly promised to do better, but continue to make the same mistakes, even while their use of a particular tool is already being discussed. Banning an administrator from use of particular tools within the toolset is a poor solution: it is practically impossible to enforce, and is a back-door unbundling of the tools which the community has repeatedly rejected. Graham87 simply should not be an administrator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
98. Oppose per Levivich's analysis and the fact that admin tools are one package, if someone can't be trusted with the block tool, they shouldn't be an admin. Graham can regain community trust in a non-admin role. Abzeronow (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
99. Oppose moved from neutral. (Re)reviewing how this has evolved, the responses and reconsidering the comments by all, both for and against, I find myself here. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
100. Oppose RoySmith already said what I was going to say. @RoySmith: If it was a non-admin user at that ANI discussion, then they would have gotten a block per CIR, and IDHT. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

     I just realised my comment above would look bursque, or unapprecitive of Graham, or ignorant about their work. I have seen them a lot, and appreciate their work. In various scenarios, I have supported their rationale(s). But this is a larger issue than mere blocking. If they are apparently forcing their own opinion/views, and blocking editors, this is more than just "inappropriate use of block button". It is about overall judgement, and collegial editing. I can not support this RfA. Maybe next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

101. i've seen kind, competent & trustworthy editors fail at RfA (or recently, AELECT) for far far far less. per tbua & Levivich - it's pretty heartbreaking to think how many editors we've lost because of those bad blocks and harsh comments ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

     i also just want to say, i hope Graham can return to his wikiarchaeology work at some point, or someone else with the mop will feel compelled to take it up. it's very valuable and i think unbundling those tools may be a good idea. if in a year or two we've seen some real reflection and change in attitude (towards new editors in particular) from Graham, i'd probably support him at a new RfA. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

102. Oppose An overzealous administrator can leave an editor feeling totally powerless. Blocks are a crucial part of combatting vandalism and disruptive editing, so we need admins who can use this privilege proportionately and with discretion. SpookiePuppy (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
103. Oppose -- The administrator position is not applied piecemeal -- it is the entire toolbox or none of it. And Administrators must be trusted by the community not to abuse their position. It is clear from the comments here and at the ANI reports that the trust in Graham has eroded over recent years. Even with their pledge not to use the block button, the answers to Questions 14 and 15 suggest the possibility they might go back on their pledge, which will then require more rounds of discussion. My feeling is that it is better to let this discussion be the end of it. However, I hope Graham will continue on Wikipedia in their capacity as an experienced and admired contributor. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
104. Oppose reluctantly, noting Graham's extensive contributions. I do not believe Graham87 retains the trust of the community, and the Mariewan block was one of the worst I've ever seen anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich's oppose unforunately leaves me reluctant to trust assurances that this behavior will not continue. At this point I believe Graham87 needs to regain the community's trust before continuing as an admin, and that will likely take at least a year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
105. Oppose (moved from neutral) in the most reluctant way. I have been swayed by the demonstration of by the pattern of returning to making bad blocks. While Graham87 might not make a good admin, they are a good editor and should know that the community is appreciative of their service. Thank you for your work here in all the forms it has taken. Looking forward to more of it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
106. Oppose I don't like being here, but I don't understand many supports after Levivich's analysis. For example there is a support saying "block issues are in the past". How? A bad block occurred during the recall process immediately proceeding this RFA. Many supports speak as if this RFA is the wake up call that will turn things around, but we've been at ANI so many times already. It's difficult to take the varying responses to Q10-Q15 as concrete pledges, as they differ on what would or could happen if violated. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
107. Oppose I don't ever come to RfA, but the Mariewan block is incredibly troubling. From my understanding, Graham87 is a great editor, but a great editor does not inherently a good administrator make. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
108. Opppose The evidence presented here and in other forums and noticeboards is absolutely overwhelming against this editor. They don't make a good administrator but can continue as a excellent editor. Unfortunately, the pledge described above has no merit, since there is no control mechanism to check on it. Instead what would happen is that we would be back here in six months doing the exact same thing again. The time has long past. This is a good thing. You will have a period of reflection to go and do other stuff, a period of growth in other areas will follow. You've done you bit for aussie dude. Time to retire and relax. It will be a weight of your shoulders. I can assure you. scope_creep^Talk 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
109. Oppose.As the evidence that has been stated about shows, he cannot be trusted with the admin tookit.feickus (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
110. Oppose. Graham is a good member of the community and a good editor, to be sure. But I probably would have opposed even ignoring the recent bad block. I think one of the systemic, deep dangers to Wikipedia - a danger that is getting worse - is driving off future Wikipedia contributors. Laying down rules is fine, but there's a reason we try to treat newcomers with good faith. The past history of overly aggressive blocks is concerning, and a reason to oppose. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
111. Oppose. Per the evidence and rationale provided by Levivich, Isaidnoway, and many others. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
112. Oppose. In light of the record of misconduct and unkept assurances, as Levivich references, I think the only sufficient and conclusive action is the removal of permissions. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
113. Oppose. I am extremely sorry to be posting in this section but the continuing bitey blocks on & nasty comments to new editors are a deal-breaker for me. Just in case my first sentence isn't enough (after reading the talk page) I think I'll also state "per whomever"...so Per Levivich. Per SchroCat. Per SD0001. Per Patar knight. Plus...as an aside to this discussion, I can remember very well when I started editing here how terrified I was of breaking any of the many rules, and how grateful I was that experienced editors were patient and gave me advice and helped me. How I was treated and greeted then is in the back of my mind now - I don't know what else can be done in this particular situation other than my Oppose. - Shearonink (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
114. Oppose. Unfortunately biting and prematurely blocking new editors is one of the main ways admins can be a net negative to the project. Not giving new good faith editors an opportunity to explain their edits or a second chance if they made a mistake, not attempting to guide them to our policies first and letting them gradually improve is one reason (of many) why Wikipedia hasn't grown to where it should've been as an encyclopedia and editing community by this time. Gizza (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
115. Oppose per Levivich. There are simply too many adverse anecdotes and instances to believe that the candidate retains the confidence of the community. Establishing that an admin who has so regularly failed to live up to the standards expected of the role can ultimately be held accountable is an important step in the right direction for WP. MapReader (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
116. Technical oppose. I have a lot of respect for Graham and for the backroom work they do on here. On a technical level, I don't think it's realistic to grant the admin tools with a topic ban against some portion of those tools. The nomination says, "I'll do no blocking at all whatsoever from now on" in response to some recent blocks that were objected to, especially towards newer editors. I see alternatives mentioned in the nomination to "report users" or "warn" them. That may not be a realistic distinction. It relies on a newer editor (who may not even understand exactly what role an admin plays on Wikipedia) to understand that a particular admin warning or reporting them is not threatening to block them because that specifc admin is the only one not allowed to block other editors. It would be entirely plausible for a new editor hearing an admin say, "Wikipedia needs protection from people with your editing style"^[5] as a threat to block. I appreciate the work that Graham has done, including the merging and importing that few other editors are involved in, and wish him luck in continuing his editing streak, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
117. Oppose They say they're not going to block anymore, but there's really not a good way to enforce that. Ask for another RRFA or an Arb request when they do it again? Just seems like a waste of community time. You can get desysoped for inappropriate use of WP:rollback, let alone blocking (arguably the most powerful and devastating tool an admin has). Their blocks were unjustified (a warning for adding a Discord friend request?) and it seems like the community lost trust for this user. I thank the user for their other works, but the use of tools in such way warrants censure.--Takipoint123 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
118. Oppose per Tbua and Levivich. I very much appreciate the work that he does, but he has continued to repeat his adverse actions again and again, including during the petition itself. A topic ban from blocking (something I don't think an admin should have to do) is not sufficient to provide confidence. Most candidates fail RfAs for far, far less. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
119. Oppose The proposed alternative to removal as an admin, not being able to block, has no precedent and cannot be enforced. Given that it would be a fiasco if he decided he did not care for continuing to follow the honor system, I'd be more inclined to take the safer route of just... letting the decision stand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
120. Oppose per Levivich. His excessive blocking and intolerance have continued despite multiple warnings, and despite his statements that he'll desist. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
121. Oppose Basically per Zxcvbnm, the admin toolset comes as a bundle and WP:ADMIN is pretty clear the expectation that an admin is expected to use any/all of the advanced tools in line with community standards. Someone who could not be trusted to use the block tool would never pass RFA. Previous requests to have access to specific parts of the advanced toolsets (even with a promise not to use the others) have been rejected until they are unbundled. So all the suggestions in the supports above that we should have an admin running around who cant be trusted to block people, but still has the ability to, are way out of line with both our admin policy and the technical setup of tools. If they cant be trusted to block, they certainly cant be trusted to not block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
122. Oppose per EF5, Serial Number and Levivich. Has proven to be too impulsive for adminship thanks to his track record of recent blocks. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
123. Oppose per several other editors' convincingly good reasons, and because Graham87's words do not inspire confidence. If he does not trust himself with admin powers, how can I? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
124. Oppose Great nominations and reasonings but I don't think it's enough to have the entire admin toolset when they have proved over and over (even during the recall) they are unable to use it correctly. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
125. Oppose for actions unbecoming of an admin. Graham's warnings and threats are extremely bitey; even if he sticks to his promise to not block, we have no guarantee that he'll moderate his tone to new users. Toughpigs (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
126. Oppose. While I recognize the candidate's contributions to Wikipedia, I have concerns regarding their interactions with new editors. There appears to be a pattern of behavior that could be as very hostile for new contributors. I believe this behavior can be fixed, but I recommend postponing adminship until the candidate demonstrates a more collaborative and supportive approach toward all members of the community. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
127. Oppose. I had planned to Support as I believe in second chances but it seems that Graham had been given many chances citing ANI cases and promises that Graham87 had made (and broke) in the past. His way to belittle others because of their English is a very bad look to the admin corps as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
128. Oppose. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
129. Oppose too many mistakes and too many second chances, unfortunately. Noah, BSBA^Talk 18:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
130. Oppose the issues brought up with blocking are too glaring to let slide, and being bite-y makes things even worse. Same goes for breaking past promises on self-improvement. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
131. Oppose per Levivich's analysis. I take no joy from putting myself here as imho Graham's a fantastic admin but I can't ignore Levivich's analysis nor can I ignore the fact Graham has had 3-4 chances to stop but yet still continued to make bad blocks. I also don't see a point in having an admin who won't block anyone .... kinda pointless being an admin really?..., I firmly believe in second and third chances and had they not made the bad blocks between their 2nd ANI report and the recall then this would've been a easy Support. Shame as I consider Graham an asset to this place but like I said I can't simply ignore the evidence presented. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
132. Oppose. Not cut out. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
133. Oppose. In addition to the many examples of BITEy behaviour and admin abuse referenced on this page, there's this: Lazborn (talk · contribs), a mobile editor with over 700 edits, blocked without warning, talk page access removed when they asked for an explanation, and then email revoked when they tried that route. I understand that Graham87 promises to not use the block button – even the nominators agree that would be a bad idea – but I need to see some examples of Graham87 interacting positively with new editors before I'd ever support him for advanced permissions. No one on this project, in any role, should be treating new contributors like this. – bradv 02:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     Speaking as an adminstrator who has made close to 100,000 edits on my various smartphones over the years, I am stunned and shocked by the vindictive and dismissive cruelty that Graham87 engaged in at User talk:Lazborn, very recently. I recommend that supporters ponder that discussion where the candidate humiliated a new editor. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     I hadn't seen this one. After reading it, I'm convinced that Graham should have been blocked from editing some time ago. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     Going beyond the problematic block and post-block interactions, it looks like Graham likely misused rollback to unilaterally revert all of Lazborn's most recent edits. [6] Many appear to have been done without adequate review, for example, just looking at the rollbacks of the last eight pages edited by Lazborn, they were all done in the same minute with the same canned edit summary trying to justify the rollback. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

     However, most if not all of the added links are either helpful, helpful with minimal adjustment, or at least within the acceptable range of MOS:OVERLINK and related guidelines. Some of the edits have nothing to do with links. One of these rollbacks also reintroduced blatant spelling mistakes and factual errors by restoring future tense for elections that took place in 2023. [15] I stopped after the first eight since it was already egregious, but I would not be surprised if the pattern continued. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     I mistook the timestamp of a later edit by Graham at one of Lazborn's last edited pages as a sign that the one-minute rollback streak ended at eight. Unfortunately, there were four more rollbacks of good or at least partially acceptable edits done in the same minute: [16] with two probably good links with two overlinks, [17] with two bad capitalizations and three good links, [18] with 3 likely good links; [19] with two grammar corrections and a good link, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     "If you were actually doing all those edits manually, it means you must be far too incompetent to edit here" was pretty bad. And the mass rollback of Lazborn's edits, including removing useful wikilinks as "disruptive overlinking" (e.g. 1, 2, 3) and, worse, restoring mistakes because they were "semi-automatic grammar changes" (e.g. 4, 5, 6, 7). Levivich (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

134. Oppose. There's been much talk of warnings and second chances here, but I'm struck by how few warnings and second chances Graham has offered others on this project. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
135. After reviewing bradv's comment above, I feel that what happened to Lazborn (talk · contribs) is incredibly depressing. Sorry, but I believe a break from adminship is needed to regain perspective at this point. DanCherek (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
136. Failure to meet standards to an unacceptable degree. Failure of pledges meant specifically to correct that also to an unacceptable degree. El_C 04:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
137. Oppose. The evidence brought forward by bradv and the analysis by Levivich show that Graham is not suited for this role. --Count Count (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
138. Oppose. A person who cannot be trusted with a core part of the admin tools cannot be trusted with the rest, as multiple people here have already pointed out. Ciridae (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
139. Oppose - Egregious biting and bad blocks. Yikes. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Taking cuts in front of the essay, which is breaking the count due to formatting problems.
140. Oppose I was originally going to go with "minimal support" because I felt that, despite Graham's troubling history, he had not previously offered to refrain from making blocks in the future and so should be given at least a chance to keep to that.

     But, before !voting, I felt I should at least look over the record. I recalled, once, having some years ago having been involved on some pages, perhaps when reviewing unblock requests, I don't remember exactly, where some of Graham's blocks were questioned and the general tenor of his responses seemed to me to be "Wow ... I did that?", which I found a little surprising in a fellow admin. My thought at the time was that this was someone new to the tools and getting used to them. As Aeschylus says, and I think many other admins will agree, the man whose authority is recent is always stern.

     In these exchanges, Graham was generally apologetic and cooperative, as he has been throughout all these processes, which may well be a reason why it has gone this far (one thinks, years ago, of the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case, where even those bringing it acknowledged that it had taken so long because he was all around such a nice guy and easy otherwise to work with). But that may be, as I'll get into later, exactly part of the problem.

     I bring to this discussion two relevant experiences:

     • I have been an admin for about the same length of time as Graham. During that period I have done a lot of this kind of patrol work out on the frontiers of the encyclopedia, so to speak. I took a six-year hiatus from it to focus on article work, and returned to it in 2020 as the pandemic was beginning and I had decided to surrender the oversight flag as I hadn't been using it much and with the advent and broader use of RevDel it was less necessary. Since then my wikiday has typically begun, when I am able to do it (which is most of the time, even when attending Wikimania, WCNA and other events) with a review of WP:AIV, WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP.

       Those pages will take you deep into a lot of the situations where adverse user actions are taken. At all three, blocks are part of the solutions at least some of the time. I have also at times regularly reviewed unblock requests. Thus I have a deep appreciation of the line that we call "discretion", between use and abuse of the tools, and from that of the fact that with great power comes great responsibility. I know from their actions that the other admins who do this regularly have the same understanding, and on that foundation is built the respect and trust that we have, that we must have, for each other if this aspect of the project is to work.

     • Likewise, for the past seven years I have officiated high school and youth boys' lacrosse games in my area. You think it's dicey being an admin wading into some online editing dispute? When I have the stripes on, I'm out in the field with just my partner on the other side (and sometimes not even that) amid 20 high-testosterone young boys wearing helmets, pads and carrying sticks, playing a game that involves throwing a hard rubber ball around, sometimes at near-MLB-fastball speeds, a game invented by the Haudenosaunee centuries ago as a way of training their young men for war, something still evident in its modern DNA.

       And imagine if your feuding editors could bring in, say, their online followings to cheer them on and make whatever comments about the admins and the other side they felt like making. Yup, just off the field are the coaches these kids are mostly trying to impress with that big hit, that big stick check, or that daring run into three or four defenders while their teammates are wide open so they can watch and be impressed. The same coaches who are not shy about working the ref themselves even as they may be internally facepalming over what their player(s) did/are doing. And then there's the parents, sometimes loudly exhorting their sons to do things that might lead to a felony charge off the field.

       I do have the game's pause button on my fingers and/or around my neck, as well as two block buttons tucked into my belt with which I can impose a term of between 30 seconds and three minutes depending on the offense (sometimes without the possibility of unblock. And we can make it a game ban if it's bad enough, but outside of the few situations specified in the rules that usually requires the consensus of both admins .

       In that situation, too, your discretion and the need to trust your partner to make similarly prudent enforcement decisions are absolutely essential to making things work. Power, there, goes hand in hand with responsibility. I see inherently the connection between this and my admin work here (I know there are some other admins who also officiate sports).

     In an attempt to find the above-mentioned interactions, I put my name and his into the Editor Interaction Analyzer, and later limited it to just user talk namespace. I did not find what I thought I remembered, although I did find some other instances of possibly problematic blocks: one later blocked as a sockmaster who complained that after two weeks of apparently acceptable editing, he blocked them indefinitely with no wanring, another where I declined the user's unblock for attacking Graham although their complaint looks more on point now (and note here that Graham blocked the IP for a full year despite no previous block history—I am tempted to just go and unblock the IP myself) and lastly one where Graham blocks a user for a "highly suspicious" editing pattern, doesn't explain when asked, and I sustain the block on the (defensible) grounds that he had ignored some non-templated advice several weeks earlier (again, I am tempted to unblock on my own initiative since I think indef was too much for this, and it's been enough time since).

     With this in mind, I looked over the ANIs linked in Levivich's oppose !vote above. If there was anything there that put me firmly into oppose, it was some of the explanations Graham made for his blocks. There are more red flags there than Tiananmen Square.

     • In the 2022 discussion:
       • "I for one think consistently poor editorial judgement over many years with no redeeming features can become almost indistinguishable in effect from vandalism, but maybe that's just me." This clearly foreshadows what's gotten us where we are now. Why was this missed at the time?
       • As also noted there by Srijanx22, even this wasn't the first rodeo for Graham. Two years before he had revoked talk page access from someone who questioned his impartiality in making the block. His explanation for this? "I thought subjecting the people who monitor Category:Requests for unblock to more of that would be cruel and unusual punishment."

         No, he did not say that at the time, in the heat of the moment. That was two years later. The mental comfort of the people who review unblock requests should never be a consideration in revoking talk page access.

     • The AN/I from September of this year brought up Graham's incomprehensible decision several months earlier to review the unblock request for a block he himself had made, something that everyone else involved in the block-unblock process knows you just don't do. Needless to say it was declined, out of the same concern (unique to Graham, it seems) for the admins who review unblock requests. Graham, who is hardly new to making blocks, subsequently admitted he was acting against his better judgement "but by then their general evasiveness was getting to me". Oh, and let's note, he cites this edit, a one-byte addition of an SSL to a URL, an edit made at least a few hundred times on Wikipedia every 24 hours as one that got his admin Spidey-sense tingling. In the wake of being called out on this, he went and unblocked the user ... after four months, so we could "see what happens". As other people on the thread admit, by then it was too late.

       This came after the 2020 and 2022 debacles, both of at which more than one editor expressed the hope that Graham would learn from his mistakes but that there was a limit to how patient and forgiving the community could and would be.

     Lastly I looked over the supports. Surely, I thought, with this many, some signed by editors whom I have long respected and will continue to, there will be at least one who offers, or attempts to offer, a detailed rebuttal of the previous AN/I's Levivich linked to and explicated.

     To my dismay, none did. Perhaps it's because they didn't read them. Or because they did and knew they couldn't. The predominant themes are:

     • This new process sucks, so I'm not going to legitimize it.
     • Graham's a great guy.
     • Graham does valuable work in an area few admins concentrate on.
     • We all make mistakes.

     I consider the first to be the only real reason that counts, which is why so few !voters have chosen it, I think. The third is—well, I'll deal with that later. The second and fourth are ... naïve, at best, really. This is not one thing that just happened. This is a pattern of chronic, repeated and ever more serious mistakes that have been made over the past four years at least.

     But back to the personal charm thing. I was struck, going over the previous AN/I's, by how much they read like interventions. At least in the way Graham responds: politely and calmly admitting he did wrong, and then promising to do better but at the same time using language so nebulous and vague as to render it difficult if not impossible to say he's broken his word. Indeed, back in 2022 Jayron32 said that he'd like to see "concrete assurances ... indicating how they intend to avoid these problems in the future". We have yet to get them, and now we cannot wait any longer. As another user noted back then: "I would also like to add that we all screw up, but at least some of us try to learn from it and move on. I am not fond of any three strikes you're out rule in these sort of disputes but they do add up.

     Maybe some of you have been through this experience (I have, thankfully, not): you have a friend or relative with an alcohol or drug problem that's clearly adversely affecting their life, so you plan an occasion where you can all get together and make it clear that while you love them, their continued addiction is tearing you apart and leading to their likely early death, so they have to choose between you and rehab. That, to me, seems like what we've done here ...

     ... except we haven't followed through. It's like we've done our part, laid out all our cards, told Graham he can't wreck the car, get arrested or throw up all over the bride again, and just let him off with his promise that he'll try to be more careful and avoid situations where he might be tempted to drink in the future.

     And unfortunately that does happen in real life. Because people put on the spot like that are often charming and likeable because they desperately want to get off that hot seat and go back to their normal, however much they might privately admit that everyone has a point but that they'll stop when they damn well want to, not when everybody else does. And we often want to believe they're sincere, because they do too, and for that moment in the room they are.

     If we let Graham go again and he does the same thing, as he has so readily in the past, we are enablers. Solving the problem beyond this point might well require more serious measures. If ArbCom weren't to act fast enough, I can easily imagine someone taking it upon themselves to do the only thing that could stop this: blocking Graham. And that would be flinging a chamberpot or two into an industrial fan.

     There's more at stake.

     As so many recent and not-so-recent political outcomes around the world have demonstrated, we live in a time when trust in social institutions is at historic lows. And this distrust has been hard-earned. After all, imagine what would happen if a police department let an officer stay on the job after several disciplinary hearings following excessive use of force where other officers were witnesses and all that happened was that the offending officer promised to do better next time—

     —Oh, wait, that happened.

     Or if a large religious organization kept responding to reports that its most important employees were regularly molesting small children by quietly sending those employees to counseling and moving them to different locations—

     —Oh, wait, that happened.

     Or if a large social-media company just let most abusive behavior on its platforms go unpunished or even uninvestigated in the name of increasing ad revenue—

     —Oh, wait, that happened.

     Paradoxically, Wikipedia has gained public trust during this period. This doesn't make the news much, but I like to think it's partly because we have been willing to hold prestigious longstanding members of our community responsible and accountable, to the point of banning them if need be, when they have engaged in long-term conduct toward others detrimental to the interests of that community. In fact, as has been noted, a regular user who had caused this much trouble would likely not have been given this many chances to backslide. We have not hesitated to ban, block or desysop indefinitely long-term members in good standing of our community when they are found to have serially or routinely violated its norms and values. Maybe we haven't done as much as we should, but no one can say we don't try to police ourselves. If even the Archbishop of Canterbury can be forced into resignation over something like this, a Graham87 can lose his toolbox.

     In this light Graham's demonstrated prejudice against newer and unregistered users becomes, for me, the most egregious aspect of this affair. In the last two months, the same period in which Graham got hauled to AN/I twice for bad blocks only to make another one while one was under discussion, I wound up through my patrol work having to confront not just one but two veteran users over this attitude towards IP users. In both cases they were in the wrong while the IP user (whom one belittled at every opportunity in terms similar to Graham's) was right, and threw a fit over not only my refusal to take action against the IP but my having to sternly remind them that they should know better with their tenure. One of them responded to this by up and deciding to retire, which I said was probably a good thing for Wikipedia if that was the attitude they were going to have.

     Lastly before I end this very long !vote, I address the objection to this desysopping that Graham's work as a revision importer is too valuable to the site for him to lose access to that tool for one single second. To me, that is rather a reason why we should do this. As Charles de Gaulle probably didn't say but likely wouldn't have minded being attributed to him, "the graveyards are full of indispensable men". As that link reminds us, we ought not to let any member of the community harbor this illusion that Wikipedia needs them more than they need Wikipedia. And based on Graham's editing, he can still contribute mightily to the community in the meantime (I hope for his sake that if this problem is an online manifestation of an offline problem, that reducing his time on Wikipedia if that is what is necessary to properly address it is a step he should not hesitate to take). Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

     Per Brandolini's law I'm not going to address all the falsehoods & shoddy thinking in this vote as it would take like 30,000 words. Just picking out two. Officiating in lacrosse isn't generally more demanding than moderating online conflict - for many it's way easier. You said it yourself, it's in a mans DNA to be at home with physical conflict. Some of us find it helps us get in the zone of perfect inner serenity, while as Graham's fellow Aussie, the leading WWI poet Frederic Manning noted, the "ecstasy of battle" is more poignant even than the "the physical ecstasy of love". Many of us who are ice cool in the face of physical conflict find our blood boiling in cyberspace. It's not in our DNA to read online character assassination & other nonsense against those not in a position to defend themselves.

     As for his "incomprehensible" review of his own block which everyone else involved in the block-unblock process knows you just don't do - that's just plain nonsense. You yourself have the same thing. The original username block was of course reasonable, but how you responded to his unblock request was subpar on many levels. That newbie you effectively perma'd was Olivier De Schutter- one of the world's top operators in combatting hardship & injustice for the disadvantaged - his knowledge of how the world works from mulilateral power plays down to dyadic colab is second to almost none. Don't worry, at the time I took care of your mistake quiet by contacting Oliver off wiki - it took some years, but he did return and has improved many of our globally most impactful articles with his expert knowledge. After reading your "analyses" that seemingly compares consideration for an admin who's made mistakes to enabling child abuse, perhaps you appreciate this public badgering? FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

141. Oppose despite the fact that my first significant interaction with Graham87 was recently where he gave me the distinct impression he was a very reasonable editor with high integrity. However, unfortunately for him my past experience getting harsh and lengthy blocks has left me with some strong and passionate views on this subject that after reading comments by @Serial Number 54129, Levivich, and Patar knight: have cemented my convictions about why I detest editing restrictions due to how disgustingly easy it is to game them on both sides. These restrictions are not fair or even realistic for Graham nor for the community. Do we really honestly think we should have an admin who is never allowed to block for any reason? It is unreasonable, unrealistic, unenforceable, and those who would oppose him could game it against him later even if he did something innocent. Plus, there are those who would also view it as being an unfair advantage that he essentially got to choose his own restrictions. There are a host of issues that can't even be decided upon in this very thread and I would agree with the supporters that this process is a total trainwreck where even the basic restrictions can't be clearly defined and agreed upon so I must oppose and I would urge any supporters that care anything about Graham to save him from himself and allow him to let go of the tools on his own terms while he still has some dignity left. I would gladly support him on a new RFA with NO restrictions once he has proven he knows the difference between making editing mistakes and being civil. Thanks. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 06:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
142. Oppose User talk:Lazborn is permanently disqualifying. No one admin should block, remove TPA, and remove email access. Ever. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
143. Oppose User:Lazborn's blocking should be lesson. I usually voted support on this but this block is definately a WP:BITE/bitey one. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
144. Oppose per bradv Leijurv (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
145. My journey on this is that, as with the Giant Snowman case, I prefer that we work with admins who have behaved inappropriately to new users, and get them to change their behaviour, so I was pleased to see that Graham87 recognised the issues, and committed to not repeating the errors. I was warmed by the nominators statements, and impressed by Graham87's answers to questions. I was ready to support. I then read through the oppose comments, and was particularly struck by Levivich's research into how many times Graham87 said he recognised the problem, and would stop doing it, but would then continue doing it. Noting the references to User:Lazborn being blocked and gagged, and then looking into Lazborn's contributions and seeing that Graham87 had reverted all his recent edits, I checked one of the reverts: [20]. Graham87 had reverted useful edits, including a cite to a reliable source. This is not the sort of behaviour I want to see in any user, particularly an admin. It would be useful if Graham87 stayed away from doing reverts if they are unable to correctly assess what is vandalism, and what is a constructive edit. SilkTork (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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)
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 may change, but this is where I'm sitting right now. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
   • While I am sure Graham is a good faith editor and would use the admin tools only for the benefit of the community, I am not entirely comfortable with the idea that someone has a tool with which they made controversial blocks in the past. And questionable blocks are a serious thing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC) moved to "Oppose"
   • I must concur with Star Mississippi and ThaddeusOfNazareth. I don't see myself voting oppose, but I am concerned that the precedent of biting here is too severe. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

     Regrettably moved to oppose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

   • As with all above. I'm not in the oppose column because there's a clear committment to change, but equally, I'm not in the support column because of the seeming inability to read the room during the recall. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Striking, some answers since my contribution, giving me pause. Need to further reflect. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

     Moved to opposed. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

3. While Graham has demonstrated technical prowess, his history of blocking worries me. If this RfA is successful, I recommend that he should get another admin to perform a quick sanity check before using blocks (if he does utilise them in the future). MiasmaEternal☎ 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   Gonna ride this one out here until I see a bit more response/have time to read the ANI listings. Leaning to Oppose, and I don't do that likely, because I do firmly believe that adminship is no big deal. Unfortunately, this user has caused significant problems, and I don't know how to balance that with long tenure and important work.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

4. I, too, cannot make up my mind. I really appreciate Graham's promise to not block anyone ever again. I haven't seen anyone doubt that he would keep this promise. That resolves the main point of contention. Graham's important work in other administrative areas and the confidence of several co-noms I respect convince me that he will be a net positive to the project as an admin. However, the opposers make the valid point that if this is what it takes for him to understand his errors, this may signal an attitude of disregarding accountability and feedback in a way unsuitable to adminship. (I completely disagree with the logic that since an editor like Graham would fail at a normal RfA, we should oppose him here too – our standards at RfA are way too high and two wrongs do not make a right.) If this comes down to a 'crat chat, I guess you can count me as a reluctant support – so reluctant that I cannot put my name in the support column. Toadspike [Talk] 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   I greatly respect Graham for following through with the recall process and taking the feedback that the community has given him. I was afraid that the new recall petitions would be met with stonewalling or, worse, resignation in protest from admins subjected to it. I am very happy that this hasn't happened here. The positive and constructive response cannot have been an easy choice for Graham to make. Toadspike [Talk] 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

5. This is very difficult for me. On one hand I quite believe in a admins ability to improve themselves or avoid an area they know themselves to not be the best at. OTOH, if I don't trust someone entirely to handle the mop, can I in good conscience support them having it?^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
6. As an arbitrator, I have an oversight role of administrators. Recalls and admin behaviour might be submitted to ArbCom, so I will not be commenting on or publically evaluating RRfAs during my ArbCom tenure. This is a personal decision and not representative of ArbCom as a whole. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   An appropriate and wise choice of action! Buffs (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

7. To my understanding, Graham87 isn't asking for the core b/p/d rights for their core purpose of handling disruptive editing but primarily for specialist/technical use. I reflect on this essay, specifically considering whether the following argument holds up in this situation: The principal impediment to further unbundling is the failure to recognize that behavioral constraints, rather than technical limitations, are what make the power to move or delete something not particularly dangerous. After spending a few hours contemplating, I can't make up my mind on this. One of the main arguments that Graham87 cites for RRFA as opposed to just the importer right is that I could theoretically do page imports (but not history merges) with or without adminship, but imports are much easier with admin tools. In the general comments, Graham87 mentions that it is out of preference due to a longstanding bug and not a hard requirement for imports. There are only two users in the importer group, the other one being Xaosflux. I am not sure how to view if there has been history of any other users being granted or even requesting the role. The valuable skills, while not having currently been replaced, are replaceable, and I think a good argument for why they haven't is specifically because the role is highly restricted and is only available for assignment to a limited number of very trusted users. To me it seems there are two not-mutually-exclusive alternatives to this RRFA worth considering: either hold Graham87 to the standard that they are "very trusted" only with using technical privileged tools for imports, not considering adminship in that determination, and adding the necessary permissions to the importer role (potentially including history merge tools) -- or change the importer role to not be so highly restrictive so as to encourage/allow/enable others to contribute in that area and ask other administrators for help if they make a mistake they can't undo (if context-specific undo rights are technically impractical to implement). Darcyisverycute (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   Even though we !voted differently, this closely matches my view that this is fundamentally a request for a non-admin role we don't currently have. Given how few importers we have I'm definitely open to expanding what that role entails, but I have no idea what the technical challenges would be. (Or maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat too, I dunno.) RevelationDirect (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   Graham87 mentions that it is out of preference due to a longstanding bug and not a hard requirement for imports. I think this misunderstands what Graham said. He was discussing the distinction between the specialized mechanism for performing history merges and an older technique where you move a page over a deleted page and then undelete the deleted version (thus merging the two pages). Neither of these can be done by non-admins. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

   Imports made using importupload (which I have) generally do not require history merges but sometimes do - that is in addition to the history merge phab task they mentioned. I do understand that currently only admins can do history merges, hence my argument that history merges and page imports should not be provided separately and only by two different roles since they have overlapping use cases. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

   I may very well have misunderstood the technical details since this is not a type of work I do; maybe fixing the longstanding bug would be the straightest route. But my desire remains the same: give Graham87 the access needed to do the unique work they perform without providing the ability to block users. (Also, since we have a support, neutral, and oppose in this side conversation, I suspect such a middleground would have broader appeal.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

   I would support automatically giving anyone labeled an Importer the ability to do history merges. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

   As would I. It would allow Graham to continue their valuable work without needing the whole range of admin tools. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

8. I really am on the fence with this one. On one hand, Graham says that he will no longer place blocks for the foreseeable future and instead focus on other technical stuff not related to user conduct issues, which I definitely don't have a problem with per se. But on the other hand is the concern of the user's behaviour in general, how they will acknowledge mistakes when using the other parts of the admin toolkit. Overall, I'm quite sad to see this is where we ended up, although some time ago I did have this slight feeling that maybe something like this is what would end up happening. One important thing I'd like to add is that due to the highly technical nature of IP addresses, it's no surprise only a rather small percentage of admins know what an IP range is, how to identify an IP range and more importantly, how to place an IP range block. And then of those small portion of admins, an even smaller proportion seem to be willing to place blocks (especially long-term ones) for IP ranges considered "large" that have a long and persistent history of disruption. Graham87 not only was in the former category, but also the latter. Part of what I do here on Wikipedia on the regular is to deal with such nuisance/LTA/whatever-you-want-to-call-them disruptive / sockpuppeting editors, and it's really just a pain whenever someone behind a rather large IP range gets away making at least a dozen unconstructive or guideline-breaking edits every day all because many admins either don't understand an IP range or don't feel like wanting to place a block on that IP range. That said, I can definitely agree that Graham's attitude in recent blocks especially towards new(er) editors have been disappointing. Though I wouldn't also feel discontented with an idea where Graham87 can make blocks again except not for newish editors (say, ones that have started editing 28 days ago or less), due to the short supply of admins that know rangeblocks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

   I would contest that Graham understands CIDR ranges. He casually talks about upgrading a /23 block to a /22 block (and for a longer time period) but seems to have no understanding that's an additional five hundred potential editors being blocked for ten years. We may as well just let him block the /8 at this rate. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

9. I don't seem to know Graham87, so I don't feel able to judge whether the apparent long-term problems can be made up for. So for now I feel unable to choose, one way or another. Deb (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Much like others here, I've had good interactions with Graham87 whose work I have relied on a couple of times. However, I encountered the Mariewan block before it was brought up at RECALL ( after seeing this diff on my watchlist) and was troubled by it. I didn't find words to say something before it was separately brought up on RECALL, and, well, it wasn't surprising where this led. I wouldn't support an editor I didn't know who talked to new editors as in the examples given, which makes it hard to support this. It also seems per the answers that Graham87 has made significant strides to try and manage the problems raised, but it seems they happened an ANI or two late. As a procedural aside, it put me a bit on guard to see four separate Co-nomination statements. I would suggest RRFAs stick to the normal two. CMD (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    I agree. And when three of the four are admins, there’s a whiff of closing ranks to protect your own. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

11. Reading through this, I do not think Graham87 should be making blocks, but I do think there's a demonstrated showing they need the tools and are otherwise an effective administrator. I don't like the idea that an admin shouldn't be able to use part of the tools and I do think being an admin is a "big deal" as you have the trust of the community to act, and the trust isn't really there at the moment. Still, I am neutral here because it's clear the best outcome for the community would be for Graham87 to stay an admin but not block anyone, and perhaps this could be the start of discussions for a partially unbundled admin tool set. I would also likely support in a future RfA after a certain time period. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Hi, my name's leeky and I'll be your server monitor for this week. As a reminder, this is a reconfirmation RfA as set out by WP:RECALL. The threshold for success is 60%, not 70% 75%. Between 50%–60% is at bureaucrat discretion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not 75%, you mean? :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Self-trout! you'd think after running two RfAs and nominating three more, I'd know that bamboozled from recently updating this module, i think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm Fathoms Below and I'll be the assistant monitor, helping and consulting with theleekycauldron should the need arise (thanks leek for your permission to help, I'll see what I can do) Fathoms Below (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• If, at some point in the future, they'd want to use the block button again, should they do another RFA? That seems reasonable to me. Polygnotus (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think that will be a waste of everyone's time. If we do not trust Graham, we should just oppose them and be done with it.

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

  There is no provision for admins to be "forced" to RFA again, other than exactly the conditions listed at WP:RECALL. In fact, the policy was proposed (partially) out of a desire to remove "informal pressuring" such as this. Soni (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly don't want to pressure anyone, formally or informally. I am just curious how things like that work and I haven't seen that situation before IIRC. Polygnotus (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• A question about future actions. We've received assurances in this RRFA about the editor avoiding blocking entirely in the foreseeable future. Alright then, not exactly a statement of one's capability to do the right thing, but I guess it will work in this instance. But what happens if that promise is not held to? How does the Recall rules work for a successful petition and subsequent successful RRFA? Is another petition banned from being formed for six months/a year even if similar actions occur again after this, leading to only Arbcom as an option? Silverseren^C 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, Arbcom is the only option based on the policies as they stand.

  I believe there's no easy way for the community as a whole to distinguish between "Same problems happening again" and "Improvement but not universally agreed on". So the net benefit from bringing the admin for recall again is lesser, and the net downsides from potential triple jeopardy is higher. So if the community as a whole has already affirmed the candidate in RRFA, and also issues continue to exist; in my opinion, Arbcom is best suited for that anyway. Soni (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, in this particular case, it is quite easy to tell. Since they've agreed to not issue blocks whatsoever, then any issuing of blocks would be a direct violation of that pledge. Is that something that really needs to go to Arbcom? I feel like the community should be capable of dealing with it. Silverseren^C 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but to play devil's advocate: suppose five months from now, Graham makes a block that's utterly obvious, and any other admin would have made it too. (Let's say it's vandalism after a final warning.) Is that cause to start another recall petition? Probably some will say yes, because he broke confidence and should have reported it to AIV, and some will probably say no, that no harm has been done and there are multiple ban carveouts for obvious vandalism anyway to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy. Now imagine him making a block that's a little less obvious than that, or another that's a little less obvious still. Do you see where this is going? Most likely, in practical terms, how a violation of his pledge is handled will depend on the circumstances and the community's mood, and who can judge that but the community? And now we're back to the original problem. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

  (*) I'm having difficulty, though, in conceiving of a suitable editing restriction that would also be compatible with the community exhibiting trust in the admin's judgement. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

  Desysop would not prevent Graham from being aggressive to new users. There are many ways to BITE that don't involve blocks. You're not suggesting any further restrictions, or? Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

  If this seems like exaggeration, I think it's fair after The only conceivable way to enforce this promise is to oppose this RRFA. Toadspike [Talk] 14:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not going to !vote, but I don't see an issue with giving someone the tools so long as they promise not to use one or a group of them. We already have precedent for it, as noted in Q10. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  One RFA from nearly sixteen years ago, where the closer explicitly cited the long abandoned idea that "adminship is no big deal" is hardly a precedent we should be expected to follow today. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to go on record and say that while the “decade blocks” are certainly concerning; Graham87 did vow to focus on a different administrative area (eg: permission requests); and particularly because of that. I support giving Graham87 here a second chance.

  And also, we need more admins; our RFA process is already highly dysfunctional the way it is, and more admins are quitting or being desysopped faster than new admin-hopefuls can be successfully RFA’d. I’m a strong supporter of second chances; especially when there is a years long chronic shortage of sysops. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  ANI #1 was the second chance. Since then we've had a third (ANI #2), fourth (ANI #3), and fifth (recall); in each case, failed. This would be a sixth chance. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see your point @Levivich, @EF5; but I don’t even know if I’m allowed to change my !vote #1, and #2; I don’t entirely know that it would be all that polite to change it to oppose. Maybe to neutral? Someone fill me in on whether or not that’s even allowed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone can change their vote before the RfA closes. E_F⁵ 01:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well then @EF5, you’re looking at one who just has. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Clearly I didn’t know that he had six chances. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  As stated in my oppose, when is another chance too many? As levi stated, this is the sixth chance at a behavior change, which is quite frankly absurd. I do not have faith or trust that Graham will actually do better, they’ve had five chances to do so and only promised to do better after they realized it came with consequences. A wise person also said “No admin is better than a bad admin”, although I can’t remember what user said that.E_F⁵ 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’m going to cross out my original statement here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  And also, complete PS: I remember reading about the Framgate scandal; and I don’t particularly want to see something like that happen with Graham87; I don’t think any of us do. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Recalls are quite prevelant, another one was carried out a few days ago, although that was unrelated to this. E_F⁵ 13:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  And so far it hasn’t gotten to RfA yet. Haven’t fully read that recall; but I plan to before that person’s RfA. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also, ps: @EF5, I’ve changed my !vote again to oppose; after continued thinking. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think the more relevant precedent is the half-dozen instances where ARBCOM or the community has seen fit to restrict an administrator's editing in some way, but decided not to levy further sanction or not to escalate to ARBCOM, respectively. These instances are considerably more recent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Don't we expect admins to solve problems as opposed to causing them? Is an admin who needs to make an eleventh-hour promise not to use one of the bedrock tools in the kit to save their status really fit to be an admin? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  To answer your question @Just Step Sideways, no they don’t. And to be honest; I don’t know if I’d trust Graham87 with Rollback, let alone adminship. I’m quite surprised it’s ended with this; and not an on-the-spot desysopping. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

---

• If you are supporting Graham if he agrees not to perform blocks because you don't trust him to exhibit good judgement, could you elaborate on why you think this lack of good judgement is isolated from his other editingadminning activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollinginhisgrave (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary and, from I saw reviewing his other admin activities, he’s as accurate as one can reasonably expect. If someone were to find evidence of serious misuse of other admin tools, I’d change my vote—but I’d be willing to bet no-one will. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The core admin tools, in desceding order of the harm they can cause, are block, delete, and protect.These three tools are far and away the most important abilities admins have, they form a set where we expect an admin to know which tool is best to use in a given suituation and we expect them to use them responsibly. If they can't do that, they should not be an admin.

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

  I'd repeat again that Graham is not promising to do better, to finally learn what is expected of an admin when dealing with new users, he is making a campaign promise to stop using one of the tools. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quite frankly, if he were promising to do better, to finally learn what is expected of an admin when dealing with new users instead of promising not to block, I would oppose this RRfA. To echo Ppperry above, a no-block promise is easy to follow and nearly as easy for the community to enforce. If the end result is the same—no more bad blocks—I'll support. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's the issue that many of us have echoed, however. Someone who needs to be physically held back from having certain administrator privileges because of abuse shouldn't be an administrator. I do respect your opinion on the matter, however. It's sort of like me (hypothetically) reviewing new pages while being (hypothetically) blocked from mainspace, it just doesn't feel right, because it isn't. E_F⁵ 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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

---

• Just adding some stats to quantity work at history merges (for those who might not have time to dig through the log), from the log [21], Graham has performed 5 of the the last 500 history merges. (1%) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Of the last 1000, they have performed 7. (0.7%).

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

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

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

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

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

  Also please feel free to correct me (just edit my comment) if my stats are wrong! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  @MolecularPilot: Thanks, but I don't use the merge history special page unless absolutely necessary because I don't like the way it logs merges (see this Phabricator task). My history-merging method of choice is this one, which relies on moves and page deletions. Having said all that, it's true that I haven't done as many history merges lately as I used to (but I still like looking for them from time to time, sometimes inspired by an essay a friend of mine wrote about ppages whose talk pages were created before their articles). Imports made using importupload (which I have) generally do not require history merges but sometimes do; admin tools are required to undo any mistakes though. Graham87 (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay! Sorry for the misunderstanding, thank you for sharing your (very vast) technical expertise in this area. :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think that's reflective either of the normal RFA process (which is adopted wholesale nisi threshold) for the reasons above or of a requirement for consensus to desysop which was rejected in the RFC that set up the recall process. I think all reconfirmation RFAs have either been blowout successes or withdrawn, without any going to crat chats that I recall, so that's no help. Since you've raised this at the Admin Recall Reworkshop (which I encourage everyone here to visit), I'll probably leave some further thoughts there later. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

---

• For those arguing that Arbcom can desysop with a simple motion, is that guaranteed? How do you know? I can think of at least one admin that was bitey, promised to get better, and continued to be borderline abusive for two more years despite pledges to be better. And that admin was open to recall. spryde | talk 18:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Can" being the operative word. "Will" is a whole other animal. It's entirely dependent on the makeup of the committee and its collective willingness to make difficult decisions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  And that's the rub. Let this RFA be the first stone cast in the unbundling of the tools. There are a ton of people I would trust with lesser rights, including Graham87, that would have no connection to the block/unblock buttons. spryde | talk 12:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  What's Arbcom going to say: "Graham87 is reminded not to break a pledge to resign when breaching his topic ban stemming from community dissatisfaction with an aspect of his admin work in the future." Or: "Graham87 is admonished for breaking his pledge to resign..." These are absurd things, of course they will desysop him. —Alalch E. 14:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The absolute worst case scenario, if everything else fails and Graham goes completely off the rails and refuses to listen to anyone's advice, is that another recall petition can be started in a year's time (which feels like an eternity on Wikipedia but actually isn't that long in the scheme of things). But I don't think Graham would let things get that far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  ive been curious about what exactly the various outcomes of this RFA would entail. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Worm That Turned

Final (275/5/9); closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 11:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) – A little over 13 years ago, three years after I began editing, I nominated myself for adminship, and was successful. Since that time, I have filled a number of roles on the encyclopaedia, largely behind the scenes, most prominently as a member of the Arbitration Committee for 8 of those 13 years, but also oversight, checkuser & bureaucrat. I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here.

Wikipedia is a volunteer role, and real life should always come first. So, regarding my current circumstances - I recognised that my time for Wikipedia was significantly limited by my work. My role has unexpectedly changed this year, and I now have time again. As such, I have decided to stand for re-election to the Arbitration Committee, and fulfil my commitment that I would reconfirm my adminship if I wanted the tools back, despite being within WP:RESYSOP limits. However you choose to !vote on this reconfirmation RfA, I would appreciate any comments you would like to make, which I will take on board and refer back to in the future.

Now that that's covered, I'd like to talk about some of my highlights on Wikipedia. From a content perspective, I have written 2 Featured and 30 Good articles, slightly over half were about women in history, a group of people who are underrepresented on Wikipedia. From a community perspective, I spent years running the historic adopt a user program, personally adopting 35 users. From a meta perspective, I have strong opinions on adminship and have spent years helping reform the process of becoming and leaving being an administrator. On the Arbitration Committee, I've made tough decisions, drafted cases, managed community crises and pushed for major, essential reform. Throughout, I've tried to keep Wikipedians at the heart of everything I do.

I'm not, by any means, perfect. I'd love to hear your questions, here, on my talk page or by email if you'd like a protracted conversation. I have never edited for pay, though I have received swag as part of my volunteering over the past 15 years. I have a few alternate accounts, all currently dormant, all easy to identify as me and all declared on my user page. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: As much as I believe that non-administrators should be able to join the Arbitration Committee, I am also pragmatically aware how useful the administrator toolset is when sitting on the committee, not least by being able to see deleted edits in particular. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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

A: I've covered some of my highlights above, and I talk about what I'm proud of on my user page, but for this question, I'd like to dive into my two featured articles. Doom Bar, a topic which I was inspired to write about based on a beer mat (I was drinking Doom Bar before it was a national beer!) - I really learned about research and investigation in creating the article. Sabrina Sidney on the other hand, was a topic that simply didn't seem real, and was fascinating to read about. I encourage everyone to read the article. I am not a talented writer, my background is mathematics, so I have found the featured article process very stressful - but worth it.
The edit I am most proud of, however, is this one. It was a time that our WMF relationship was significantly different, budgets were king and pressure needed to be applied. Although most of the work was done behind the scenes, and I was only a part of it - I believe that edit was important in moving WP:Child Protection from community to WMF responsibility. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

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: I have. I've had to make tough decision on the committee, been the face of those tough decision. I've taken issue with the behaviour of administrators on and off the committee and dealt with it directly. I've managed the stress by taking regular breaks, identifying my personal signs of burn out and stepping back before then, and encouraging feedback from other community members to see if I'm acting out of line. Worm^TT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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 an IP user

4. Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Do you recall ever procedurally declining a stale unblock request?

A: I have not, and would not procedurally declined a stale unblock request simply based time, unless other factors were involved. Personally, I do not believe unblock requests should be procedurally declined unless the request no longer has relevance, e.g. the block is no longer in force, or a subsequent community discussion has required the block to stay in place.
On the flip side, however, if an unblock request has been hanging around a while and has not persuaded any administrator to unblock - it is likely that the request does not meet the requirements for unblocking. I can therefore understand the logic of administrators who do follow the "procedural" or "light touch" closure of these requests. The problem is that without giving feedback to the request, the blocked individual has less chance to be properly unblocked and therefore re-integrate with the community. Those few helpful words in declining an unblock request could make a big difference long term. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from GTrang

5. Why are you doing a full reconfirmation RfA instead of making a resysop request at WP:BN?

A: Thank you for asking this GTrang, as I do appreciate I'm taking the community's time up with this request. I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and spent a lot of time working around WP:RfA. Many years ago, two administrators decided to run through a reconfirmation RfA, HJ Mitchell and SarekOfVulcan. To this day, I wish more administrators did that, and always intended to do so around my 10 year adminship anniversary - however I found myself "busy" with duties that I didn't want to risk.
In January, when I stood down as an admin, I committed to a reconfirmation. I genuinely expected to be unavailable for 2-5 years at the time so I would either come back sooner and run a reconfirmation RfA, or later and need to run an RfA anyway. I'm not one to back down on a commitment, so here I am.
My strongest hope for this RfA is to be given feedback, be it areas I can improve or things I'm doing well. Unfortunately, the anonymous voting at SecurePoll during an election doesn't offer that. Worm^TT(talk) 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from GreenMeansGo

6. Mayo or Miracle Whip? This will decide my !vote.

A: To the best of my knowledge, I have never tasted Miracle Whip. I did not know of Miracle Whip until this question. Mayonnaise has its place, especially in some sandwiches - it pairs very well with Bacon in a BLT (one of my most controversial Good Articles), and is essential in egg mayonnaise, but I'm not an autocondimentor, and it's rare that mayonnaise would be my condiment of choice. Therefore, I believe my answer is "neither". Worm^TT(talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Martinp

7. Welcome back. While technically you resigned as admin 10 months ago, you've been generally less active (as admin and editor) for 1-2 years. Nothing at all wrong with that, but as you become more active again, what are some of the biggest changes you see in norms, processes, or culture at EN:WP that have occurred during your "break"? These may be changes you will adapt to, or ones you will strive to change, that's up to you.

A: This question, and Dianaa's below, are excellent and exactly what we should be asking in this sort of scenario. The biggest changes I've seen is around Admin Elections and Recall - less about what they mean for the community, as we've had ideas like them mooted for years, but more that these long term perennial proposals have actually happened. That shows a marked shift in the community in the past year - is it numbers of people watching, apathy or willingness to try something new? I'm trying work that out myself at the moment.
I've seen that conflict that has been apparent in the wider world has reflected itself on Wikipedia - there's no surprise there, but it's happening, and does need to be watched - interestingly it does mean that previous battlegrounds are being re-visited. I see that there's technical changes that I'm happy about, things like a simple new Speedy category for C4, or the Global vanish button, something that is very important to me because vanishing was the reason I became a 'crat.
There are outside factors that are worrying, such as the Asian News International fiasco. Indeed, the encyclopedia is always changing - and I will endeavour to change with it. Worm^TT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Diannaa

8. I see you haven't edited much in the last couple years. Could you please describe what efforts you have made to make sure your knowledge of admin work is up to date? Thanks.

A: Up until September 2023, I was about as active as I ever was, maybe not making edits, but I was responding to emails and reading my watchlist on a day to day basis. I stepped down from Arbcom because I couldn't keep up at that pace. It's difficult to evidence that, of course. I quickly realised that without the information coming to me, I needed to go looking for it, and that's where I didn't have time - leading to me stepping down from all administrative roles.
To get back to the swing of things, I've been reading. A lot. The Administrators Newsletter is my go-to starting point, but also the Signpost, noticeboard archives. I've discussed "what I've missed" with a few colleagues, finding out key points. Some I knew about beforehand, some I didn't. Some I could have predicted, some not. No matter what, I've been reading - bringing myself up to speed on topics is something I got pretty good at on Arbcom over the years. Worm^TT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Andrew D.

9. The article Even a worm will turn gives some history of the phrase, which goes back to Shakespeare and beyond. Please explain or elaborate on your reasons for choosing it as your account name. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A:Back before the turn of the millenium, I took Latin at school - our teacher was, shall we say, of a different era. He delighted in using phrases such as "My dog is a wonderful beast" and "Right you little worms!", which my fellow students and I found very amusing. When it came to me choosing my first free email address, not wanting digits at the end, I chose "worm that turned", a moniker I've kept to this day. In the years since, I've found the references to The Worm That Turned (never watched Two Ronnies in my childhood - and it certainly feels wrong in today's society) and Shakespeare (Henry VI wasn't among my repertoire) as well as others. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Hawkeye7

10. Do you intend to seek reconfirmation as a bureaucrat?

A: I do not. I am not certain whether I will pick up the 'crat hat again, as I do understand that many in the community feel the need for separation of powers and there are scenerios where I must choose between the roles. Equally, the amount of work I've done at RfA meant that I do feel drawn to the role, and happy to help out there, attending crat chats and technical measures as and when. In truth, I was far more active as a crat (relative to the amount of crat work) than I ever was as an administrator. Were I to decide to pick the 'crat hat back up though, I would not like to spend more of the community's good will on another one of these reconfirmations this decade. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Fathoms Below

11. We have lost five bureaucrats this year, including yourself and your RfB nominee SilkTork. Although we have not had a 'crat chat for over a year, and are experimenting with the new Administrator Elections procedure that does not require 'crat chats, we still had a close call at my RfA early in the year. Have you considered involving yourself in the vetting of potential candidates for RfB? Why or why not?

A: As you mention, I've nominated for 'crat in the past, and I would do so again - if anyone is interested and wants to discuss, do contact me. Unfortuantely, the 'crat role has rather become defunct on Wikipedia, flicking a switch for adminship or bot (yes, I'm trivialising it, there's a lot of weighing of consensus too, but the userright is limited), yet has one of the highest bars to access. That makes candidates few and far between. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

12. Do you intend to involve yourself in some form of content creation (article creation, DYK, GA, FAC) if you pass RfA? Or would it detract from your limited time that can be spent on Wikipedia?

A: I do hope to do a little content creation on the side. I'm unlikely to go through FAC, simply because I feel like a fraud there as I don't believe my contributions are up to that standard, however article creation / expansion and maybe even GA is not beyond the realms of possibility, during my free time. I've spotted a few interesting topics over the past year that I do want to expand.

Optional question from McYeee

13. Would you be willing to change your signature from Worm^TT(talk) to Worm^TT(talk) so that it renders legibly in dark mode without changing how it looks in light mode?

A: I used to have a border around my username for contrast, but dropped it due to the length of my signature. I've added a blurred background for dark mode, which may help. I would have gone straight for your suggestion @McYeee but for the discussion I spotted below. Happy to discuss my signature further on my userpage, I'm definitely happy with technical changes to it, but would prefer to keep the length to a minimum Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from BarntToust

14. Usually Admins I've seen around involve themselves in keeping watch over at least one contentious topic, whether it be Politics of the United States, or Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Grand Theft Auto, or whatever else. Do you plan to focus your prospective Sysop powers onto the subject of any of these, or any other contentious topic?

A: I've generally stayed away from admining contentious topics as I have spent so much time sitting on the committee, implementing and updating them. As such, I'd rather not risk WP:INVOLVEment in the areas - plus, in addition, the topics don't particularly interest me. I'm afraid I can't say I expect to spend my time at any contentious topics. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Very, very, very optional question from Tryptofish

15. Please confirm that you are not now, nor ever have been, inside of RFK Jr's brain.

A: Not only have I never been in there, I can confidently say I have no idea what goes on in there. Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Bobby Cohn

16. You mention in response to the first oppose that your use of the tools would only extend to your need during the arbitration committee. Should you not be elected, or after your term at Arb Com, would you maintain the tools or give up the mop again?

A: Should I not be elected, I have every intention of carrying on as a normal Wikipedia editor, and expect I'd hold on to the tools - picking up new areas where they may be useful. Similarly at the end of my term - if I'm not burned out. If I expect to step away from Wikipedia, I will freely give up the tools - I do not like having additional user-rights on a site where I am not actively using them. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Martinevans123

17. Topical and somewhat urgent question: what's your view on the Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation and the RfC here? Many thanks.

A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned
• Requests for adminship/Worm That Turned 2

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

---

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

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

Support

1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Obvs. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Yep. Benison (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Support Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
6. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Support. no-brainer. Nobody (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Support - I am familiar with this editor and great work both as an editor and an admin.. - tucoxn\^talk 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Support No concerns Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    The opposition is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you don't like the process, ignore it. If you have reasons why WTT should not be an admin, say those. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

11. I don't think that Vermes is obsolete. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
12. Support - absolute no brainer. GiantSnowman 10:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
13. Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
14. Ratekreel (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
15. Support. Sam Sailor 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
16. Support, per nom. - Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
17. Support Leijurv (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
18. Support – 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
19. Obviously. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
20. This is a pretty easy one :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
21. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
22. Support. The candidate has my trust. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
23. Support. Coeusin (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
24. Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'll just add, this was no waste of time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

25. Support checking recent admin actions, they all appear to be warranted. Though I would put a question mark over the upload of File:Camel Estuary 1825 and 2010.png which had to have its size reduced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for that feedback @Graeme Bartlett. It was actually worse than that - I had originally uploaded to commons, and moved it to WP after the violation there was pointed out. I will certainly endeavour to be more vigilant of the same in future - especially as I used to teach it to others!! Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Graeme Bartlett: At first glance I thought that this was an issue over Worm putting an incorrect licensing, but we have bots to tag and reduce file sizes so this doesn't seem like a big deal to me as Worm marked it as non-free. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

26. Easy. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
27. Support, no brainer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
28. To ArbCom you go, good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
29. Support WTT is, without exaggeration, the single biggest reason I am still around on any of the Wikimedia spaces. I have thought about the WP:ADOPTion pages he created often, both as a 'gold standard' of "This is what we should aim for" as well as looking up info for my own benefit. He's consistently been the voice of reason, and sometimes the sole voice of reason. I'm glad to see The Worm That Returned and hope to see him in Arbcom. Oh and I guess we have WTT to thank for WP:AELECT. Soni (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
30. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
31. Happy to have you back! Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
32. Support - another no brainer. 13 new admins this month, wow. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    That was the norm once upon a time. From the 2010s onward, standards for candidates became much higher, and those who were willing to go through the rigamarole of RfA numbered far fewer. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

33. Support, precious. That would be enough, but you also made my #1 edit, in 2015. (The #2 edit followed in 2023, by Maddy from Celeste.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
34. Support - Donald Albury 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
35. Support --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
36. Strongly charlotte ^👸♥📱 12:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
37. i think it's safe to say this is a trustworthy user lol ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
38. Support DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
39. Support: No questions from me. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
40. Good to have you back. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
41. Support Wham2001 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
42. Support. Should probably have used the BN reappointment process Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure reappointment process to save some community time here. More efficient. Anyway, welcome back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Just noting that this RFA was technically optional for WTT as he simply could have asked (and received) the bits back. I suspect if he wants the 'crat bits back he'll just ask. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Oh he was a crat too? I didn't know that. Edited my original comment for clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, misunderstood. Just noting that at resignation he did say he would go this route (though I suspect he thought it would be a couple of years before!). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

43. Support obviously, but always great to see that extra bit of community accountability rather than a simple reappointment! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
44. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
45. Has not lost community trust since last time. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
46. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
47. Support. To quote Cullen328, "whenever I have seen your signature, it was preceded by wise words". That's a high compliment, and one I very much agree with. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
48. Support: Absolute no brainer. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
49. Yeah ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
50. Support. JPG-GR (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
51. Support. AKAF (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
52. Support. Skynxnex (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
53. Support. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
54. Support. Duh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
55. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
56. Support. Calm voice of reason. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
57. Support Glad to see you're willing to serve again. Wikipedia needs adults to be in the room. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
58. Support - Dave is a good spud. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
59. Easy support. This is not a necessary RfA, of course, but the question here is "would this editor having the administrative toolkit be a net positive?" and the answer, based on over a decade of evidence of hard work, cluefulness, and decency, is "absolutely." Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
60. Support Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
61. Support, obviously — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
62. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
63. Support, absolutely. Goodnightmush^Talk 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
64. Support Duh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
65. Support trusted user. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
66. Support instant yes. Blythwood (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
67. Support. No other comments needed, really; I trust the candidate, especially given that he is a longstanding former admin and bureaucrat. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
68. Support (ec X2) Really not necessary, but happy to support anyway. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
69. Support. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
70. support^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
71. Support. No issues. Llwyld (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
72. Support. Most of my experience seeing WTT around has been in their capacity as an Arb, and in my opinion they did an exemplary job in that role; I'm pleased to see that they're looking to pick up the mop again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
73. Support. Not sure why this is here instead of the standard request at BN, but sure. WTT is excellent. Folly Mox (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
74. Support —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
75. Yes, please! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
76. Support --v/r - TP 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    Regarding the comments about "total waste of time" - no one was obligated to !vote here. Anyone who viewed it as a waste of time could've optimized their time by not participating.--v/r - TP 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

77. Support - Not necessary, no big deal. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
78. Support for sure. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
79. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
80. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
81. Support - strongest possible based on editing and admin history. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
82. Support. Consummate professional who I would trust with my life. — GhostRiver 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
83. Support of course. Wikipedia was the poorer when WTT left and their return can only improve things. Neiltonks (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
84. Can't very well criticize a voluntary reconfirmation RFA, can I? Although this one is pretty much a 100% foregone conclusion, so maybe not quite as ... interesting. Anyway, zero concerns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
85. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
86. Support, especially for the well-written and objectively correct answer to Q6. ;) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
87. Welcome back. – bradv 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
88. Happy he's back. My biggest question mark about Worm is why he made the "binding" statement he did when he turned in the tools - feels in real contrast to his statement at ACE of being a voice of reason. But I do know he's a voice of reason and I do have immense respect for him as an arb, an admin, and a person. We're lucky to have him return to our community and despite that knit I've picked, am very happy to have him back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I don't believe my statement was "binding" on the community, but rather a "commitment" to myself and my beliefs - I believe in reconfirmation, I believe in feedback and I believe in self improvement. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I'm going to disagree with you there @Barkeep49. I'm not the best use case, as this RfA is showing, however - one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia is editor retention, and that's the reason that the time is such a precious commodity. The most important factor in volunteer retention is motivation. We as a community are not good at encouraging motivation. If administrators felt welcomed to do reconfirmation RfAs, then not only would they get feedback for areas that they may be failing, but also they would get positive feedback on areas that they are not. No one is "required" to participate in this RfA, so I struggle to agree that it is "expensive". Worm^TT(talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    ArbCom is the closest anything comes to a requirement and even that still have WP:VOLUNTEER elements. However, of the ways you could get feedback this casts by far the widest net - appear as a watchlist notice and as a central notice. And so you are, by asking for feedback this way, asking for lots of editors to spend time giving you feedback. I love your concept of admins getting feedback and will think about my own method because I agree with you that it would be good to a have a culture that encouraged admins to seek this kind of feedback before we get ot ARBCOM/RECALL territory. But yes this remains a way to ask a lot of editors to spend time - many of whom aren't offering any meaningful feedback other than they're happy to see you (which, as you know, I am) and so I continue to question if this practice became (as you want) normal whether editors spending time here as opposed to other wiki pursuits helps make us the best encyclopedia we can. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    +1 Sdkb ^talk 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

89. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
90. Easy confirmation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
91. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
92. Support - Happy to see you around again! ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 17:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
93. Support. Yes! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
94. Support. Always viewed WTT as a sensible voice of reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
95. Can't think of any rationale befitting the occasion, honestly. Not even for a joke oppose. JavaHurricane 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
96. Support - nbd Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
97. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
98. Hi, I don't think we've met. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
99. Support An admin only keeping the tools if they have the support of the community—this is almost a foreign concept on Wikipedia. I wish more admins had this integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
100. Support, I've always had a great respect for WTT, although very little if any interaction between us.-Gadfium (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
101. It's only a waste of time if we all spend our time arguing about how it's a waste of time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
102. Support Never had a significant problem with WTT, which I cannot say for several others with the Admin bit. If someone is on ArbCom, it seems to me that a) Adminship should be automatically granted or b) All such information should be made public. I for one do not like decisions made with secret evidence. I'm ok with a LITTLE redacted info to protect PII or other sensitive data, but everyone should be able to look at the evidence presented and draw a similar, reasoned conclusion. I'm ok with a or b, but not c) keep things status quo. Buffs (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
103. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
104. With deep respect for WTT, and while echoing Barkeep's sentiment that In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
105. Must support the Wyrm, of course, even though I've always believed in the idea of having at least one non-admin on ArbCom. At least I will be exercising my other RFA hobbyhorse: I love a self-nom! Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC).
106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
107. Support, seems good. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
108. Support – Kudos for the decision to go through RfA rather than a simple WP:RESYSOP. I've always had a lot of respect for Worm, and the decision to request community consensus to regain the mop only heightens that respect. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
109. Fantastic to see you back. If you want feedback, my only suggestion would be that you spend some time in the mainspace and in the trenches as an admin. It's been a while since you did either and things change. Arbs sometimes have to sit in judgement of their fellow editors and admins so it is beneficial for them to understand those people's realities. Also, thanks for reminding me about my reconfirmation, now 13 years ago! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

     Thank you @HJ Mitchell. You're right, I do need to get back to the front line. I've been quietly getting back into researching and editing since coming back, reminding myself of cite templates and general principles there. I'll be checking out the noticeboards and participating there a bit in the near future too. Worm^TT(talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

110. Support. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
111. Arguments from the neutral or oppose section do not convince me. Obvious support.--A09|(talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
112. Thought you were an admon TBH, ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
113. support. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
114. Support. Station1 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
115. Frostly (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
116. Support: The community got it right the first time. Glad you're back. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
117. Support Welcome back Worm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
118. Support SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
119. Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
120. Support No apparent issues, welcome back. EPIC (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
121. Support What 28bytes said. Perfect4th (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
122. Support Nothing I could say that hasn't already been said - per nom. Reconrabbit 20:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
123. Support yeah, sure. Not "a waste of time" (no one is obliged to spend time on this RFA); I, for one, appreciate requests for reconfirmation). I know that WTT knows that there's a 99.9% chance of getting reconfirmed, but that's neither here nor there, though perhaps their own fault (for being WTT). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
124. The equivalent of Michael Jordan’s return. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
125. Worm is thoughtful, empathetic, and ethical and I am very pleased to see him returning. arcticocean ■ 20:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
126. Support nobody is perfect, but WTT comes closer to that than most. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
127. Support. Insert joke about I thought he already was one. Yeah, I've seen him around, and he does good work. But seriously, he has always been one of our most clueful administrators, and was one of the most clueful Arbs. I was saddened when he stepped down, and I'm delighted to welcome him back. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
128. Can't say that I know you, but choosing reconfirmation RfA instead of a much simpler route is commendable. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
129. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
130. Support good to have an old-timer back along with so many new faces. Mccapra (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
131. Of course Girth Summit _(blether) 22:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
132. Support: Knowledgeable, experienced candidate. Thank you for offering to serve.--Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
133. Support Thank you for offering to re-RFA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
134. Support - welcome back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
135. Support I nit-picked Worm's signature, but I can't think of an answer to my question that would change my !vote to oppose. McYeee (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
136. Support Welcome back Josey Wales ^Parley 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
137. Support. I haven't always agreed with the candidate either as an editor (the Beethoven edit is a reminder of an unpleasant reality on Wikipedia) or as an administrator and arb, but overall, one of the good 'uns: thoughtful, and mindful both of the purpose of Wikipedia and of the humans behind the nicks and the IPs. This time I get to support. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

     Thank you @Yngvadottir. I do not expect everyone to agree with me all the time, but I do hope I'm approachable enough that you, and others, would be willing to talk to me if you disagree. The Beethoven edit was me implementing consensus from an RfC - if I recall correctly, I subsequently implemented a "no infobox" consensus elsewhere around the same sort of time - I may add infoboxen to my articles, but never agreed they should appear on all. Honestly, I don't know why "infobox invisible" didn't become a thing so that it visually didn't change the flow of an article, but could output the microdata needed. But I digress Worm^TT(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

138. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
139. Support --Enos733 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
140. Support for culinary reasons. GMG^talk 23:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
141. Support Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
142. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
143. Support of course. Thanks for volunteering again. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
144. Support of course. Welcome back, my friend. :-) Katie^talk 23:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
145. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
146. Naturally. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
147. – robertsky (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
148. Support. Stedil (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
149. Support Pinguinn 🐧 00:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
150. Support without reservations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
151. Support resysop. JuniperChill (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
152. Support Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
153. SilverLocust 💬 01:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
154. Support: a lot of respect for going through a reconfirmation RfA. --Yodin^T 01:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
155. Support. Trustworthy track record. Altamel (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
156. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
157. Support now that Q8 has been satisfactorily answered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
158. Support unneeded but happy to have you back. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
159. Support. Best news I've heard all week. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
160. Support. I do understand the concern raised by the lone "oppose" vote, but I don't particularly see that as a reason to deny the mop to a seasoned editor. BD2412 T 03:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
161. Support – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
162. Support of course. I'd forgotten he wasn't. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
163. Support – Has done lots of great work as a bureaucrat in the past, and has plentiful experience to be an admin again. Welcome back. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 05:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
164. Support And good on you for commiting to the process! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
165. Support committed to the process and rules they set out for themselves. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
166. Support I supported the last RfA, and here I am again. I am confident he'll be able to adapt to updated policies and bring his legacy over to a new generation of editors. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 06:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
167. Support. I do not consider this discussion a waste of time, and am amused that an editor would spend a lot of time writing 13 sentences arguing that it is. Welcome back, WTT. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
168. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
169. Support, welcome back. Graham87 (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
170. Support great contributor —Surturz (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
171. Support and thank you for volunteering. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
172. Support. Fully qualified candidate (obviously). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
173. Support — I believe WTT would be a valuable addition to the sysops team and would use the tools responsibly once again. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
174. Support of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
175. Support obviously, despite the advocacy for egg mayonnaise. All I ask is that you sit downwind of me please. Cabayi (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
176. Support -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
177. Support - Welcome back. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
178. Support - easily Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
179. Support. The name is familiar. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
180. Support ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
181. Support ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
182. Support Commendable move; no concerns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
183. Support Great contributor, great admin, and a person of their word. spryde | talk 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
184. No problemo. All the best. Volten001 ^☎ 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
185. Support We've awaited your return. Flibirigit (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
186. Support - this is the most "I thought you were already an admin!" RFA ever. Are you just going for some kind of record? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
187. I have no concerns. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
188. Support for their skillful understanding of sandwiches and their contributions in said areas. Panini! • 🥪 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
189. Support. No doubts at all. We're not here to assess this candidate, he's here to assess the RfA process. Maproom (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
190. Support Yes, please.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
191. Support — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
192. Support. Obvious choice and no issues when they had the bit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
193. Support TheWikiToby (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
194. Support I'm not sure I like the reason a second RfA is being held, but at the same time they are a good editor and were a good admin, so no reason not to give them the bit back. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
195. Hell, yeah Miniapolis 23:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
196. Support Andre🚐 01:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
197. Happy for the occasion to thank you for all your service to the project. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
198. Support trustworthy pillar of the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
199. Support Per all of the above! Johnson524 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
200. Mute gesture of approval. DS (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
201. Support. A ways back Worm mentions that our biggest problem on Wikipedia is editor retention. His voice on the subject has been impactful since July 2012 as he helped create WikiProject:Editor Retention and has been supportive of the project ever since. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 05:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
202. Support - Obviously. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
203. See, I always figured that "even a worm will turn" meant that he was some sort of were-worm. Only under the light of a full moon does he reveal his true annelid nature! But seriously, he's one of the greats, and braver than I to run the gauntlet at RfA even when he didn't have to. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
204. Support ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
205. I'm very happy to Support the admin/editor who nominated me in my own RFA. Plus, you didn't have to have this RFA do-over, I think it's admirable that you chose to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
206. Support – proven excellent admin with valid reasons for pausing and resuming duties. Certes (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
207. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 10:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

     While I will remain in support, I do find myself strongly endorsing Buidhe's point in the oppose section. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 10:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

208. Support I view self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Nick (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
209. Support - demonstrably a good person to have as an admin. LukeSurl ^t c 10:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
210. Support. Obviously qualified and with a clear need for the tools as evidenced by the applicant's comment below. Also, the more competent administrators, the better. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
211. Without question and given issues around legacy admins, choosing this step reflects well on Worm. Star Mississippi 14:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
212. Support- Without reservation.   Aloha27  talk  14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
213. Support a candidate who has created many articles, with none deleted (the one shown is erroneous, couldn't find it in contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous1261 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
214. Support per above.Kablammo (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
215. Support a rarity, excellent admin and actual reasonable Arb. The Rambling Man (Been a while, I know......) 16:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
216. Support - we need more admins, although perhaps my pattern of making this blanket statement at RfA will be changed with the advent of WP:ADMINELECT. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
217. Support - I'm not convinced this was particularly necessary, given that WTT could have (a) just asked to be given the bit back, and (b) would have been given it by default I think if elected as an Arb (is that correct?). But anyway, no need to be POINTy about this: if the question is "should WTT be an admin?" then the answer is certainly "yes", so I'm an easy support. Good luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

     I'm not aware of any "automatic sysop upon being elected arb" rule. Although I'm sure someone will speak up if I'm misrembering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

218. Support I expect WTT will once again use this toolkit, and do so appropriately. Don't see this RFA as a waste at all, would rather see this route used over a controversial BN request any time. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
219. Support Already thoroughly proven out. And this is a good process. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
220. Support Welcome back. Schwede66 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
221. Support I trust the user implicitly. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
222. support ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
223. Support WP:NONEED states: RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential. [...] If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose. As such, I think it's more productive if RFAs were an evaluation the candidate's trustworthiness and level of accountability. As WTT has previously served as an admin and an Arb, and as they resigned for personal reasons rather than under a cloud, I don't see an issue with reconfirming their adminship. Not to mention, we don't exactly have a process for reconfirming adminship other than the same firewalking ceremony that new admins need to go through. If we're to change this, that should be a separate discussion, not unfairly hashed out at WTT. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
224. Support Really just piling on here just for heck of it to be honest. But according to most of these voters and the answers to the question, this editor would be a fine (re)addition to our current admins fanfanboy (block_talk) 00:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
225. Though I don't know you, but looking at the discussions above, I'm giving this an Obvious support. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
226. Support without hesitation - I think WTT has been an exemplary admin and arbitrator. I will put on record my usual concern about concentration of power, however, and say that while I will vote for you for ARBCOM regardless, I will be happier if you are not a crat and an arb at the same time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
227. Support without reservations. Go forth and do good things again. Loopy30 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
228. Support. It's snowing! But in all seriousness, though, I think this could just be resolved at BN, but it looks like if a reconfirmation RfA is necessary, by all means. Prior experience as an administrator coupled with no glaring problems to me equals automatic support. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 01:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
229. Support - I am One of Many (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
230. Support This may be the most straightforward RFA I've ever seen. Tamwin (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
231. Support. Nothing more to add. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
232. Maliner (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
233. Support—I don't think this reconfirmation RfA is strictly necessary. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any indication that Worm That Turned has lost the confidence of the community. Nevertheless—and I'm speaking as someone who has been a registered editor for over sixteen years, and have seen countless editors come and go throughout that time—Worm That Turned is one of the most competent, even-handed, and judicious volunteers we have ever had on Wikipedia. If he feels that this RfA is prudent, so be it. He continues to have my unequivocal support. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
234. Support - Always reliable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
235. Support No concerns at all. Acroterion (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
236. Support. Not necessary, but a nice gesture. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
237. Support. Glad that the worm can Sysop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarntToust (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

     [22] Spencer^T•C 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

238. Support Yes please, and cut them apart and let the pieces regrow into clones so we can get more admins of this caliber. Ravensfire (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
239. Support WTT still has my confidence. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
240. Support We need as many admins as possible, providing they are suitable - and this has been demonstrated previously. SpookiePuppy (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
241. Support WTT is a very thoughtful person, knowledgeable and supportive, and would make an outstanding admin. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
242. Support No concerns. Spencer^T•C 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
243. Support Consistently impressive. Almost never find myself disagreeing with their rationale, which is always clearly articulated. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
244. Support No concerns over WTT (past/future) conduct as an admin. -- KTC (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
245. Having greatly respected Worm for well over a decade, I've nothing of substance to add. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
246. Support. Always level-headed. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 01:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
247. Support. Sure, why not? Good luck with the mop. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
248. Support Hands Down. -- Amanda (she/her) 05:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
249. Support - Nicely qualified.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
250. Support welcome back :) never had issues with you when you were a sysop so supporting. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 11:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
251. Support sure, no issues, always liked their attitude. KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
252. Support, running up the score a nudge. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
253. Please and thank you. No issues with the reconf decision, former crat anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
254. —Alalch E. 18:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
255. Support Very honorable to force yourself to get reconfirmed! Good luck! Avishai11 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
256. Support, no issues with history of this editor's contributions. On the other hand, I am unconvinced that it is necessary to ask the community to do this, when there was no issue in having the tools returned without asking hundreds of people if it's okay. Risker (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
257. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
258. Support. Having observed WTT as an admin before, am amply confident of returning tools to them. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
259. Support Why not? -Fastily 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
260. Support Welcome back and don't forget to try Miracle Whip. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
261. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. And good choice to hold a RFA, participating in these has a high community building to effort ratio. Time spent thinking how to vote on one of these isn't really fungible with the time & energy needed for article building in my view, at least not when its a no brainer candidate like WTT. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
262. Support. Obvs. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
263. Why not? — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 00:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
264. Without hesitation. SQL^{Query Me!} 05:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
265. Support. No doubt about it. Welcome back as admin. Donner60 (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
266. Support. Seems fine. No problems here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 08:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
267. Support: glad to see this wise editor back on the scene. PamD 09:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
268. Support – The nominee is a former administrator who wants the mop back. From what I know, correct me if I’m wrong; but the nominee was in good standing when they resigned. The nominee even ran the Adopt a User program. No reason to think that we can’t trust them with the mop now. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 11:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

     Not to mention the fact that the nominee was formerly an ArbCom member; and formerly a CheckUser and oversight. These are positions that take a lot, a whole lot of trust. And if Worm was trustworthy enough to be on Arbcom for crying out loud, and resigned in good standing; they can probably be trusted with admin tools again. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 12:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

269. Support - the candidate is more than qualified for the mop, was an administrator before and was highly regarded as a great administrator. Moreover, as Hey man im josh noted in his comment, the candidate intended his resignation to be permanent and pledged to submit himself to RfA should he wish to receive the mop again. That does not appear frivolous, it's just staying true to one's words. I highly value this consistency. Brat Forelli🦊 15:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
270. Support. Nominee has a proven record of using the tools to improve the project. Wikipedialuva (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
271. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL, but with a caveat - I think this is a waste of community time. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
272. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
273. Support proven record, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
274. SUPPORT. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
275. the candidate has low edit count than I generally expect. Following is the yearly edit count since 2017: 122+456+1076+1168+638+693+237+112 — giving an average of 562 per year. Also most of the edits are in user talk space. The candidate lacks experience in admin areas. But admisnship is not a big deal, so I'm supporting. end humour. I never had any doubts/reservations about WTT. They have been a fine admin/bureaucrat in past, and I believe they will be in the future. I didn't want to pile on, but now that the tally is at 98, I hope my vote makes it 99. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Agreed with the Neutral commenter: this is a waste of community time. Worse, I'm especially put off by the Q1 answer: the tools are sought to make ArbCom re-election easier and to make presumed resumption of ArbCom activities easier, but this is not in any way a rationale pertaining to how this user having administrative tools would be an administrative benefit to the community, just a rationale for why they'd be of benefit to the candidate. If anyone who had not already been an admin and Arb came here and asked for admin tools specifically so they could run more easily for ArbCom and have an easier time as an Arb if elected, they'd be laughed right out of the room. Me posting this as an oppose is perhaps somewhat symbolic, since the WP:RESYSOP time limit at WP:BN has not expired. I started drafting it as another Neutral. But the more I think about it, the worse this seems – both as to personal-benefit focus and as to firing up a community-time-consumptive process for no sensible reason. So I'm going with Oppose on general principles. This is just too weird to me. How much attention and showing of approval does one person need? If WTT thinks their ArbCom re-election chances are high, then just run for re-election and get the tools back by RESYSOP request if successful. Being elected would already be a demonstration of community trust, making the point of this RfA entirely moot. If WTT doesn't think their re-election chances are high, then the rationale for this RfA is again moot, since no other rationale has been offered but ArbCom. There is no scenario in which this RfA served a useful function.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   I've addressed my opinion of the "waste of time", the point of reconfirmation and the benefits of feedback, so won't cover that further, but your second "worse" point, I do agree with. I don't believe I need the tools - my use cases for them are few and far between, reading deleted content while on the committee is the most significant, my next most common use was history merges on a complete article re-write away from mainspace. I've made a few blocks and protections, but they're few and far between, not more than one or two a year. Simply, if I were not standing for Arbcom, I wouldn't be asking for the tools - hence my answer to question 1.

   Regarding an "easier" time at the election, I hadn't considered that. I ran successfully without an admin hat on in 2017, similar to this year, and only one term history. The userright may sway a few voters, but I would hope my track record of ~8 years on arbcom would sway more. Worm^TT(talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks for getting back to me. The user-right will definitely sway voters. In my own two candidacies for ArbCom (in which I was the never-an-admin who got closest to being elected) a consistent sticking point for commenters making it clear they would oppose was that I lacked the admin bit, and I was repeatedly pressured to run for RfA despite having no other particular interest in admin tools and activities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

2. This is a highly trustworthy candidate, and I don't think this is a "waste of time" either as I highly respect those submitting to reconfirmation. However, I find the candidate has not sufficiently demonstrate an actual need of the tools, which is the first thing we tend to look at during RfAs. The candidate states at WP:ACE2024/C that their primary aim on the Arbitration Committee is to "strive to be a voice of reason on there" and that they've "never been a high-volume workload arb" and don't "expect to be one this time either". To me, although I think that would be a real asset to the Arbitration Committee, this means that the candidate will rarely need to read deleted content themselves. Of course, the tools will still be a bit handy, so I would welcome them reclaiming the tools at WP:BN. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   One of the interesting things about WP is how Users seemingly say contrary things concerning 'the way things are', at any rate, see WP:NONEED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Perhaps that is an argument to avoid, but I am unsure if someone who has never had the bits would be able to WP:PASSRFA without demonstrating a need. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Sir Kenneth Kho: If you write {{Total admin actions|Worm That Turned}} it shows the number 1145. Of course basically no one truly needs those extra buttons, because everyone can just ask another admin to do something, but since they've performed 1145 admin actions, and people are happy with their work, it seems likely that they will use these extra buttons again in the future, which kinda sorta implies a need. Polygnotus (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   I don't think that matters, I am looking into what they intend to do as an admin, not what they did as an admin. This means, if they had 0 admin actions, but intend to do xyz, it is passing to me, while if they had 10000 admin actions, but not intend to do much anymore, it is the opposite.

   I don't think it is fair to examine admin statistics in a fresh RfA, and it does not influence me in any way so I am using a strikethrough, but admin statistics don't help. Between 5 January 2022 (ArbCom entry) [23] and 4 January 2024 (admin resignation) [24], they had 4 pages deleted, 3 revisions deleted, 1 page protected, 1 protection modified, 4 users blocked, 1 user reblocked, 1 user unblocked, 3 user rights modified. 18 admin actions would be at most slightly probative if the trend is presumed to continue. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   Just to be clear, I agree with @Sir Kenneth Kho in general, as I have said to SMcCandlish above. I would not be requesting these tools if I were not standing for Arbcom, my use cases are few and far between, and I believe there are significantly better administrators than I. I will note that I did use and intend to use the tool significantly for reading deleted edits, it's not logged, so it's hard to show, but both cases and private emails regularly require that ability to gain a full picture.

   I absolutely appreciate the feedback from Sir Kho, and feel it should be represented on this RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 11:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   When the recall process passed, I digged through admins who stand for recall, I recognize your name as an admin in good standing. Then, I found bureaucrats who stand for recall, there are very few of them. I read through User:Worm That Turned/Recall process and found that yours is among the simplest and easiest, really similar to the process we have now, even though you had bureaucratship to lose. This was really admirable to me, and the ultimate sign of good judgment, but part of SMcCandlish's concerns brought me here, as you've said you're looking for candid feedback and to me there's no real chance of this RfA failing. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

3. Moral oppose this is a pointless waste of community time, our most precious resource. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm not going to oppose someone I think should be an admin, but this is basically where I sit as well - we're looking at (WAG) 10+ hours of community time: enough to write one or more really in-depth and high-quality articles, spent giving someone something they already had. This re-confirmation makes a pretty strong case as to why this should not be done in future. FOARP (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Most of the 200+ support voters have left a short, if any, rationale, and have then left the thread. Presumably, they went back to editing articles or wherever else they want to volunteer their time. The only possible avenue for meaningful time-wasting here is in protracted discussions - the only one of which I see is about whether or not this is a waste of time.

   On the other hand, "admins that have lost community trust" has been a common topic around here as long as I've been editing. As long as this doesn't become a fad among admins who have no obvious reason to suspect they've lost community trust, I have no issue seeing something new tried once. Heck, maybe even twice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   But this is not someone who has lost community trust, and is in fact likely to be successfully re-elected to ArbCom, so your implied "if" condition here is not met. You're also engaging in something of a "paradox of tolerance" fallacy here: it cannot be the case that we are unable to object to wastes of community time simply because the objections themselves require some time. If you're in court and about to be sanctioned for filing a string of frivolous lawsuits (which are unlawful for pointlessly wasting court time and government resources), good luck arguing that the judge isn't in a position to consider whether you've been wasting the court's time because that itself is a further court time expense. The preventative medicine of spending some limted time now discouraging this sort of thing is virtually guaranteed to save us much more, potentially unlimited, time later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Agree with User:PhotogenicScientist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

4. Apparently did not resign tools "under a cloud". Could have just requested the tools back via BN. What a total waste of community time. But hey, if the goal was to get a confidence boost by the amount of supports, rather than run an RFA that had to happen, mission accomplished. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

   I'm saddened to see such a bad-faith read of the situation from such an experienced editor I've usually had such good interactions with. I don't understand what could inspire such a response... Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   Because he was forced to come to this RFA and offer his opinion, thus wasting his and everyone else's time.

   Others, somehow, untold thousands of them, are not commenting here at all. I'm not sure how they were left out of the progrom that forced the rest of us into this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   I must be out of loop with the wiki-drama world, because this didn't alleviate any of my prior confusion... Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

   Nah, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of this line of argument. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   IDC, read my talk page. The fact that anyone still edits here is a risk anymore. Guess we all might as well get our jollies while we can. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   That explains your mindset, though still not the content of your disappointing comment. I won't press further though, as comments like yours only reflect poorly on you, not the nomination, and it doesn't appear that you even mind. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   Fair enough, as I acknowledge our amicable communication and collaboration on the past. Basically, this is collateral damage, friendly fire, etc. In other words, my initial comment may or may not reflect what I actually feel about this candidate, but IDC, even with the obvious WP:POINTiness of my initial comment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

5. Per SMcCandlish, and "I don't believe I need the tools", and "Simply, if I were not standing for Arbcom, I wouldn't be asking for the tools". I don't think being an Arbcom candidate is a valid reason for adminship. The answer to Q1 is based purely on being an arb, which they currently are not. I am aware that they could have likely gone through a resysop request and gotten the tools back that way, but seeing as they decided to go through RfA then they should face the same scrutiny of any other RfA, including whether the tools are actually needed, which they plainly are not. BugGhost🦗👻 18:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   There is no such thing as demonstrating a need for the admin toolkit. Editing the Wikipedia requires the use of the toolkit, whether you use it yourself or get an admin to use it for you. WP:NONEED: Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

   If someone opens a RFA and literally says "I don't believe I need the tools" then my view is that it's not helpful to hand them out. I don't really mind that someone has written an essay saying a different view on the scenario, I didn't find its reasoning compelling BugGhost🦗👻 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Waste of time. Please ask at WP:BN instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   From the nomination statement: I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   @MSGJ: Based on WTT's resignation statement, which states I'll note here that I intend this to be permanent, and should I wish admin / crat rights again, I will do so through the RfA / RfB processes., they waived their ability to ask at WP:BN. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   Only the crats can determine, at the time of a re-request, if it "by request" is an option. My non-crat opinion is that it is a stretch to call what happened "under a cloud". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   I agree that they certainly did not resign under a cloud, and I believe that they were in good standing at the time of their resignation. I'm now wondering whether there's precedence of someone saying "don't give me the tools back without RfA", later asking for them back, and it being granted or denied. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Hey man im josh. Potentially very recently. Over the summer when I was dealing with mental health problems, I said on my talk that I didn't expect to return for 2-5 years and probably with a reconfirmation RfA. The reason I didn't go through with it was because I was improving and I was concerned that I would waste the community's time by doing so. Like with Harrias. It's kind of moot now that my resysop request processed last week, but I really think that the whole idea of reconfirmation being a waste of time is silly. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

   If the only issue is that WTT didn't need to come to RfA, then IMO we don't have an issue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

2. Strong neutral - I believe WTT is a capable admin and should definitely have their tools restored. However, I’m opposed to the idea of this re-RFA. I would have preferred a brief discussion at WP:BN explaining the change in circumstances (like The Night Watch did), with a re-RFA iff the re-sysop request was denied. In my view, going through a re-RFA without a cloud or even a strong vote of no-confidence is a waste of the community’s time, especially considering that WTT was inactive for less than a year in this case. -- Sohom (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   "Strong neutral" is one of the sillier turns of phrase I've seen in a while. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Reminds me of the expression "militantly pragmatic"; it sort of makes sense if one twists one's mind around it. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

   Who wants the honour of !voting "Weak neutral"? Har de har har. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   "All I know is my gut says maybe." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

3. Strongest possible neutral, the only conceivable reason to ask permission to be let back in as an admin when they seemingly could have just waltzed in, is if this user is a WP:VAMPIRE.^{[Part of the RfA experience so far as I can tell is getting very confusing opposition, and I did not want you to miss out just because you've already demonstrated the ability to use admin tools, good luck!]} Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

   Rjjiii I am very disappointed in your !vote because the tally is currently 222/2/3 and you are responsible for that final digit being what it is! Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

4. I'm very glad to see you back WTT, and of course as a former admin in good standing you're welcome to ask for the tools back in any way you see fit. That said, I find myself regretting the missed opportunity to open the door to non-admin arbs: had you stood for election without the bits (and continued without them), I think you'd still sail through, and that might have made it easier for others to follow. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Joe I ran without a hat in 2017 - specifically stating I hope running as a non-admin will help pave the way for future non-admins. Nothing has changed in the following 7 years, those who acknowledged the fact that I was not an admin stated that I was "basically an admin" because I could pick the tools up at any time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

   Fair point. Still, I hope. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

5. I respect Worm and think that he should be an administrator (which is why this is neutral and not oppose), but agree with Barkeep49 above regarding use of Community time. In addition, technical access to the administrative toolset is not necessary to be a member of the Arbitration Committee given that CU/OS gives the ability to view deleted revisions (it's a lot more debatable whether you should have the administrative experience, though). The only need for the toolset is to carry out {{ArbComBlock}}s, but they're collectively carried out anyway. Given that deleted revisions is effectively the main reason for this RfA, perhaps a request for feedback at AN or random talk pages would've been better than this seven-day exercise. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
6. I agree with the general sentiment that this is not needed. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Meh. Worm, you clearly continue to be one of the most trusted community members on administrative matters (taken broadly). And I won't call this RFA useless since I respect you are following through on a promise you made is submitting to it. However, given the strength of your voice here, you missed an opportunity to drive some sort of beneficial discussion with this whole exercise. Example: you could have highlighted your strengths and wiki-accomplishments, but also reflected on any weaknesses or what you've learned to do differently during your time here (for the benefit of others). You could have taken my Q7 and replied more forcefully, what concerns you, what those shifts indicate, etc. You could have taken a position on the Asian News situation, not just mentioning it obliquely until Q17. I'm not criticizing you for not doing any one of these things specifically, just wishing you could have done something like that, harnessing your stature for this discussion to be more than a 121,000 byte affirmation of your trustworthiness. That all said, welcome back. Martinp (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you @Martinp I do appreciate that. I'll have a think to see if I can eek anything else out, but have been a little under the weather Worm^TT(talk) 22:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

8. I agree that the optics here kinda leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don't doubt that this user will use the tools properly so I know not to oppose, but the immediately jumping into a re-rfa after leaving for a while gives me pause. Also I'm familiar enough with RfA to know opposers and neutralers get badgered, so I'll say now not to bother doing so as I do not intend to follow up on this RfA. Wizardman 16:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Not voting. I wish WTT well, and he’ll again be a great arbitrator if successfully admitted back to Arbcom, but this RFA feels like an unseemly and unnecessary exercise in validation. Fish+Karate 17:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• This discussion is WP:SNOWing - time for an early close? I don't see the point in stretching it out the full 7 days, particularly with a lot of "Support - unnecessary" !votes. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  We don't (successfully) snow close normal RFAs, so I don't know why (or how) we'd do it here. At 128/0/1, I'd say anyone who finds this RFA a distraction or unnecessary can safely unwatchlist it, or not participate. I suppose the point of stretching this out is that, maybe, someone will eventually give Dave the feedback he desires, beyond the "WTT rules" he's been getting so far. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  If we start snow closing RfAs, pages like WP:RFX300 would waste away. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  There will always be at least five of us. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Rather depends on how many oppose !votes there are, no? Neither Tamzin nor Floq's RFA could have been SNOW-closed. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  No objection from me if a 'crat wishes to end this per "SNOW", I have received a few useful pieces of feedback plus a ridiculous amount of validation. That said, as far as I'm concerned, this was a real reconfirmation RfA, and I was, and still am, prepared for the possibility of failure - when I started this process, I believe I locked in to it - and I don't believe there's any precedent for "withdrawing as successful", nor should there be because we've had candidates get off to a flying start and end close to the line. Worm^TT(talk) 10:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a good idea and I don't like the idea of a precedent being set to snow close RFAs. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Unsuccessful RFAs can be SNOWed because once sunk low enough for that, there is no coming back. We never SNOW a successful RFA because some voters take a number of days to formulate their thoughts, and we shouldn't pull out the rug from under them. Also, the trajectory of RFA support % always tends downwards (if it changes at all), so a successful RFA can turn borderline or unsuccessful. Granted, that is unlikely in this case, but we still do not SNOW successful RFAs. arcticocean ■ 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Abstain. Worm That Turned is clearly qualified to be an admin, but to the extent that !voting "support" would be an endorsement of the decision to run a reconfirmation RfA, I do not wish to cast such a !vote (nor do I wish to !vote neutral, implying that his qualifications are borderline). As with recalls, a reconfirmation system only works effectively when it's in some way mandatory, not just an opt-in thing for those (like WTT) who can clearly pass. So I don't think this sets any sort of useful precedent, as anyone who might be affected by it (i.e. at risk of not passing) just won't follow it. Voluntary reconfirmations like this (I consider this voluntary even if locked in by the candidate's past promise) use up a lot of community time compared to a post at BN. At best they provide some feedback to the candidate and at worst they're an excuse to seek validation. I don't think either goal justifies the ask of the community. Promising to run a reconfirmation RfA, rather than just going with the normal rules that would have required one anyways in the situation the candidate expected, was a mistake, and I do not wish to encourage others to behave similarly, so I arrive at the decision to abstain. Sdkb ^talk 23:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  While I agree that this does not move us towards the goals of mandatory RRfA, I think the feedback is helpful not just for the RRfA admin, but also for other readers. The validation is likely good for moral, not just for the RRfA admin, but also for those who get to provide it. McYeee (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  If editors seek feedback, I wonder if there is any way we could try to facilitate that that doesn't lead us back to the failed WP:RFC/U. I don't think reconfirmation RfAs are the best approach. Sdkb ^talk 23:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I thought RFC/U was a useful process, but it failed for at least some of the same reasons as WP:MEDCOM, namely that it did not have "teeth" so one could just ignore it and face no consequences. It's probably too late to revive that idea, it has been replaced by the bloodsport at ANI. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• @McYeee: What is the difference between the two signatures you've posted in your question? I'm on dark mode and they look the exact same to me. Pinguinn 🐧 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well that's odd. On Safari on my Mac, Worm's Current signature renders in black on dark mode, while the one I proposed renders in whatever color the text is (black in Light mode, white in dark mode). I stole it from 0xDeadbeef; I wonder if they know why it doesn't work for you. Incidentally, the fact that your name is always in black text doesn't cause a readability problem because of the background glow. Whenever I touch CSS, I always walk away wishing that it was easier. McYeee (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Looks different for me (Chrome 130 on Android 13), although I question why we don't just use class="skin-invert". charlotte ^👸♥📱 07:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, my signature appears to me as white text with black glow so clearly our browsers are at odds. I'm using Chrome on Windows, so it's probably just a function of our browsers using different rndering engines. Pinguinn 🐧 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  It works fine in my Chrome on Windows. However, that's with the new dark mode. If I use the dark mode gadget, both links are white. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 10:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Your signature does not appear as white text with black glow with the new dark mode (shown as Color (beta) on the Appearance sidebar), it is shown as black text with blue glow instead.

  If you are using the dark mode gadget, that might be why. My signature was used such that it works on the new dark mode. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Has the worm really turned? How could we tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellers & Tinkers (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I can tell you it has returned, if that helps?
    • This subthread took a turn. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• It has now been suggested that WTT may be a vampire, or alternatively a were-worm. Is no one going to ask about this? I would, but I'm afraid I might get an answer. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Something something WP:ASPERSIONS! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'd have agreed an RRfA was in general a waste of time...until we developed the recall process. It's no longer a waste of time. Making sure the community still has confidence in you after an almost complete absence of a year is completely valid because someone could start up a petition about their concerns over that literally the day after you request the tools back at BN. And several editors have indeed questioned WTT about that exact issue. I think this is completely justified and probably very smart. The RfA is obviously going pass. A recall petition after requesting tools back? Maybe with a statement that "WTT has been gone for a year, fewer than 100 edits in that time. I think they should have RRfA'd." Would that too pass? At this point, who knows? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yet another reason why the recall process is bad and should be abolished. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Reworkshop#Minimum time before petition following resysopping at BN about this exact concern. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• To throw out some (very rough) statistics: it took me about 15 seconds to leave my support. I've spent maybe 15 minutes cumulatively reading the discussion about whether this is a waste of time. I've spent another 15 seconds writing this just now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  15 minutes and 30 seconds? Our coverage of Botswana is forever damaged, most likely beyond repair. Shame on WTT and the amount of time he got you to waste. Dishonour on him, dishonour on his family, dishonour on his cow... GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've also been monitoring this on and off all week as well, so it's probably chewed up a similar amount of my time, including my !vote above. The Botswana point isn't quite as powerful as it might seem at first glance, however, because I imagine most of the people spending time here wouldn't have been writing about Botswana instead. Speaking personally, my "write about Botswana" wiki-session is very different from my "read and contribute to WTT's RFA" mode. I would do the latter while sitting on the train home from work, whereas the former requires assembling sources, meticulously writing stuff out, engaging brain fully etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned - Welcome back! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

---

About RfB

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

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.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

For RfX participants

• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

History and statistics

• Wikipedia:RFA reform
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Wikipedia:RFA by month
• Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)
• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological
• Wikipedia:List of resysopped users

Removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Former administrators
• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month

Noticeboards

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Permissions

• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.