Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

Re: Oppose by Isaidnoway

Some of the given escalation figures about my blocks don't take into account the full picture. Yes, re 204.145.108.0/22, if you look at the block log of that range, it appears that I escalated the block from one month to 10 years. But a subrange of that range, 204.145.108.0/23 was previously blocked for three years. I've replied on the talk page because this sort of conversation would be moved here anyway in due course, but I thought this was worth noting. I haven't evaluated my other escalations less than a year but there was probably a similar pattern behind them. (Edited later because I can't do IP range maths today ... and I've probably already said too much). Graham87 (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In my view, ten years is way too long, and your reply here just reinforces my view that you still don't get it that you exercised poor judgement over the last couple of years when issuing blocks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding that, while 10 years is already too long for a single IP (as they can easily be reallocated), range blocks should take into account the possibility of collateral damage. A /22 IPv4 range block affects 1024 potential devices, making long blocks on wide ranges something that should be used with even more precaution. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The other thing is that a /22 (1,024 IPs) is twice the size of a /23 (512 IPs), so twice as much collateral damage; it doesn't make sense to me that one would block a /22 for 10 years because half of that range (the /23) was blocked for 3 years. Levivich (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Recalls at CENT?

Is there a reason recall proposals aren't listed at CENT? I had no idea the recall process had been initiated. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus against this at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Notifications for petitions. You can always watchlist Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current to see new petitions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the links ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Supports on basis of opposing recall

Moved from RfA page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How should support votes be treated whose rationale is an objection to the recall process entirely rather then any comment on the user? From my perspective, that behavior seems rather WP:POINTY. If that issue isn't considered in this Re-RFA, I think it would be important to discuss it in the inevitable workshop on this process. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Or those who don't give any textual reasoning at all and just vote, without even referencing anyone else's vote reasoning to at least show support for that explanation. A terrible look for any editor that does that, IMHO. Silverseren^C 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume that if this reaches the discretionary range, bureaucrats would discard those votes. If it doesn't, I don't see a mechanism. This is an RfA, and like normal RfAs, you can support or oppose for basically whatever reason you want. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, can we do the same with users who signed the recall without giving a reason? How about ones that did that and that haven't done anything else in months besides signing both open recalls? —Cryptic 19:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Any extended-confirmed user can sign a recall, no matter when they last edited. On the recall, I counted exactly 25 eligible users who voted with reason, so it would’ve passed either way. E_F⁵ 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

And Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall exists if you want to propose changing that (which may well be reasonable). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose a minimum activity requirement to prevent sock& meatpuppetry at WP:REWORK . Sincerely, Dilettante 20:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I do tend to agree that such votes should be discounted. I mean, clearly, there are issues with the recall process that need fixing, and that process is underway as we speak, but that doesn't excuse Graham's terrible record of bad blocks. This feels like shooting the messenger. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I opposed discounting those votes. Given that recall is a new procedure, an !vote responding to those procedures plays an important part in the community evaluating both this recall and the process more generally. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The porocess is already being thoroughly evaluated and fixes proposed. The petition was looking like it was going to stall out until Graham made another abusive block right in the middle of the process. That's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in an admin. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Mildly, this whole recall and RRFA process has had a disturbing number of proposals to ban comments, discount votes, denigrate entire classes of voters etc. Happening in both directions so this is not intende as a specific criticism of anyone. However: RRFA a new and evolving mechanism endeavour, but perhaps lets let it play out for a while without more attempts to remove/reduce the inputs of either "side." There'll be time for more discussion once a few petitions/RRFA's have run the course. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's a flaw in the process. It would've been the easiest thing in the world to not do anything remotely controversial while a recall petition was already open. If he hadn't, and then blocked Mariewan immediately after it closed, everybody who'd signed would be screaming about how he was immune from being recalled for six months. And it'd be a flaw that opening a recall prevented admins from doing much of anything for a month until it closed. And it'd also be a flaw because it wouldn't have stalled out; the process does Nothing. At. All to discourage any but the most brazenly incompetent sockpuppeteer from filling it out to 25 sigs on the last day. —Cryptic 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen oppose votes removed for not providing a reason even when the RfA was easily going to pass. I don't see why people should be able to support based on the fact they dislike the process. It is pointy and disruptive and I'm certain if I opposed with the rationale 'I don't support admins, I believe in anarchy!' my comment would be struck. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever noticed an oppose vote removed due to "not providing a reason" in a RFA (excluding editors ineligible to !vote or blocked etc). Do you have any examples? Skynxnex (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained "support" votes at RfA have always been treated as implicit "per nominator". There are four co-nomination statements, so it's not as if the case for Graham has not been made; whether or not you agree with their conclusions I don't think it's fair to call for the dismissal of bare support votes in this case when that has not been RfA practice historically. Support votes explicitly on the basis of opposing the process entirely are a different matter, and I would hope that in a cratchat the crats would consider not giving those as much weight as a vote which is actually about Graham. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say we should ban them and tell them they're not welcome here, but I guess we save that for people who put citations in the lead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean the rules/guidelines whatever need to be written from scratch. There may need to be a few tweaks to the process, as in any process, but this is still ultimately a form of RfA, and therefore the ground rules of RfA apply. Specifically, that it is a discussion on a candidate, not anything else. So if I voted to oppose because "I don't like the nominators", that would (rightfully) be discounted because I am judging the candidate for something that is out of their control and not addressing their suitability. I assume it would also be so with support !votes based on not agreeing with WP:ADMINRECALL. There are, after all, plenty of places to discuiss the process, and indeed, plenty of discussions ongoing. SerialNumber54129 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Old hands like myself will also remember when some users used to just comment something like "too many admins already" at every single RFA. We didn't count that against the candidate either as it is not a comment on the candidate. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose these questions are even more relevant with the current state of the RRFA and its current percentage. Silverseren^C 04:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologize in advance for placing this here and only indenting it for one level since I'm intending it to be a response to the OP that started this discussion. I've seen !votes stricken from XFD discussion for reasons such as sock puppetry, but for the most part POINTY !votes, SPA !votes or PPOV !votes seem to be allowed to stand. Others may respond to them and try to point out their flaws, but they don't seem to be being removed from the discussion. For the most part, it's assumed (expected?) that whoever closes the discussion will either ignore them or give them less weight, isn't it? Moreover, it seems that !votes can be changed or otherwise modified while the discussion is ongoing by those who cast them, right? So, some could !vote a particular way and then provide clarification later on, or even do a 180 and jump to the other side of the fence. It was pointed out to me during discussions about the recent petitions that people should be able to sign a petition without feeling the need to defend themselves against others questioning why. It seems to me that the same should apply here to !votes cast in one of these RRFA and a !vote should only be struck/removed when it's clearly in violation of a major policy like WP:NPA or WP:EVADE; otherwise, it should be left as is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of the monitor policy is that a vote that is only "Support to oppose WP:RECALL." lacks a rational basis (gives no reason related to the candidate and there is no reason to think it's the default 'per nom' support), but lacking rational basis isn't sufficient grounds for striking a vote. If I were a 'crat, though, I probably would give little to no weight to the vote. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Are you allowed in your capacity as a monitor to mark a !vote (support or oppose) as such? Is there, for example, a {{spa}} like template for RFA/RRFA that you could use to mark such a !vote or can you comment beneath the !vote asking the !voter to further clarify their reasoning? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: No, I think that's more 'crat territory. A monitor's job is mainly to make sure people are being civil. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Given how this is a first-time trial, we should be very cautious about removing or striking supports (or opposes) that are based on the process. If editors feel that the recall was unfair, and want to support on that basis, we should let them. We should allow the crats to determine the consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it matters at this point and deciding validity of supports and opposes is no longer an issue. Since yesterday, we've gone from consensus determining to be potentially relevant to it not being all that relevant with the current numbers. Silverseren^C 20:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Still very relevant; this is an WP:RRFA, so 50-60% means crat chat; if it stays in that range, the crats will have to weigh votes, which means they'll have to decide how to weigh these "protest votes." Levivich (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of what a recall petition means

Does this !vote indicate that it might not be clear to some that an administrator recalled by petition is still considered to be an administrator and is seeking reconfirmation based on the results of the petition? In other words, the administrator wasn't desyoped by the petition and is requesting reinstatement, but rather they're following the recall process and opting for an RRFA within 30 days of the petition being closed. Is this something the monitors might need to consider briefly clarifying at the top of the RRFA page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, @Marchjuly. I'd like to think clarification would have helped other extended confirmed editors, too given the four responses so far under my !vote (courtesy link to the fourth). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

Assuming that Graham87 is monitoring the RRFA and this talk page, and also (if I remember correctly) that Graham87 uses a screen reader or some other assistive technology when reading/editing Wikipedia, perhaps it's more important than usual to try and keep the formatting of both pages as clean as possible, and avoid things like MOS:LISTGAP or MOS:INDENTMIX as much as possible. I realize these pages aren't articles per se, but I'm wondering whether the monitors are aware of this and are trying to keep on top of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm often monitoring it by checking diffs. Yes I'm using a screen reader; on the one I'm using, LISTGAP etc. using only colons doesn't matter but with *'s or #'s it does (and the latter is the same for everyone). Graham87 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on oppose #5

Posting the discussion for convenience:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Triangle inequality, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Graham87 15:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87:I did not add any external link except in the URL feild of cite tag and as per Wikipedia:External links these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 04:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources, they are refspamming and refbombing. You have already been banned from editing articles about your own country/region; this is just another example of your staggering incompetence. For this reason, I have blocked you indefinitely. You are not welcome here. Graham87 04:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87: I think this was a content dispute and had to be resolved here. I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED. User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 08:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how things work here and your response is just another example of your continued pattern of just not getting it. I have disabled your access to this talk page. Graham87 08:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is typical of how Graham has approached these discussions and blocked countless new editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I went to check the edit history on Triangle inequality to see what could be so egregious of an edit to have such a response from Graham. It was this edit, just that. Adding a reference (also, not an external link, I have no idea what Graham is going on about there). Yes, to a Youtube video, but it is a video by professor Joydeep Dutta on the exact subject of the article. Now, one can have a discussion on whether such a video is DUE or important enough to include, sure, but I see nothing objectionable at all in the adding of it. And I also notice that श्रीमान २००२ was never unbanned for that clearly inappropriate block. I guess no other admin saw it and Graham got away with his abuse. Silverseren^C 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend this one (which I didn't see at the time), but would like to challenge your assertion that this is typical of Graham's responses, because it has not been the case in my interactions with him. I've only seen discussions on talk pages, warnings, and mostly short temporary blocks of editors who were being disruptive and causing problems for other editors. Sometimes new editors are doing nothing more than disruptive editing and refuse to act on advice, and blocking is appropriate to stop wasting other editors' time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have the above block as one example and, very recently, you have Mariewan's block as another example, at minimum. Seems to be setting up a pattern of behavior that continues to this day. Silverseren^C 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW re the first-mentioned block, as I said in the linked ANI discussion in oppose #5, the Wikipediocracy thread about it defends it better than I ever could. Thinking about it now (and with all the feedback I've gotten), maybe a noticeboard thread saying "This user's been topic-banned from editing about their own country or region; now they've turned to adding Youtube refspam/refbombing" might have been a more proportionate response, but honestly, with that editor's trajectory ... they were heading for an indefblock eventually anyway. Graham87 (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You have proven that you lack accountability contrary to WP:ADMINACCT. You have to misrepresent an external forum page instead of providing any explanation yourself. The fact that you are still justifying your horrible admin action by relying on a baseless imagination further proves that you have broader behavioral issues. It would be better for you to first become a responsible editor who can accept his mistakes, until then you need to forget about any RfAs. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: question #18

@Just Step Sideways: I'm reluctant to say anything, but I don't feel like your optional question #18 is appropriate. It doesn't seem intended to learn anything and it's worded in a way that leaves few, if any, "good" options for answering. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I have opposed the RfA, I will agree that it’s pretty one-sided and doesn’t seem like there’s any good answer, logically speaking. E_F⁵ 23:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just pressuring the candidate to withdraw, in the form of a question, and should be removed as inappropriate. cc monitors @Theleekycauldron and @Fathoms Below. Levivich (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

He's free to not answer it at all, or to just say no, or to say "I've considered it but I'd like to keep going" or anything else he cares to say. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with taking a monitor action here, given that JSS and I are currently contesting ACE2024. But if Fathoms or any other admin feels the question is inappropriate, they can remove it. I would say from the peanut gallery that the question seems irrelevant to Graham's fitness for the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards striking the question as inappropriate, I'm not sure it would be alright for leek to strike said question since both she and JSS are running in the Arbcom election. But from my own perspective I suggest that Just Step Sideways strike their own question as an inappropriate amount of pressure. Fathoms Below (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's entirely nessecary to strike this. I think it's reasonable to ask why someone hasn't withdrawn when their RfA is tanking... it's pretty normal for people to suggest or comment about that whenever an RfA is becoming controversial. I understand why you're considering striking it because people have expressed concerns here, but my personal inclination is to not. Graham doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't want to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Clovermoss, people are entitled to ask civil questions and the candidate can answer or not as they choose. Re fitness for the mop: the question is essentially asking how the canddiate views community commentary and how they intend to handle a current challenge. This seems a reasonable thing to ask (and note I support this RfA). In general let's please avoid a default of striking questions, striking votes, banning comments whenever they're perceived as mildly difficult. It's not helpful in evaluating candidates (or recall petitions for that matter), and it adds to the impression of governance via unwritten rules. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that allowing people to publicly pressure candidates to withdraw is not helpful to evaluating candidates (or recall petitions) and constitutes governance via unwritten rules. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to start removing any and all questions that a few people think are not helpful, starting right now, I'll happily remove my question and begin analyzing who else may have asked a question I would not personally have asked and which I don't personally find helpful. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fathoms Below If you believe the question is inappropriate, just strike it yourself. That's what the monitor role means. If you do not believe it's inappropriate, there's no reason to strike the question. It feels particularly un-decisive to go "I think this should be struck" and still pass the buck onto the person asking the inappropriate question.

It's an admin action. You do not block someone by asking someone to self-remove themselves from the Wiki. Either you use your admin action, or you do not. (Completely sympathise with @Theleekycauldron feeling COI/involved, but I personally believe even Leek has the same authority to remove the question, elections or not.) Soni (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair to FB. I think it's wise for an admin to err on the side of caution when they're unsure if something is actually the right call to make. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're unsure, then they should not be asking JSS to strike the question.

This kind of informal pressuring, in my eyes, is ironically, exactly the concern people have with JSS's Q18. People do not want someone to ask "Hey could you resign" as a formal RFA question, because it's pressuring the candidate. I see the comment above as similar pressuring, just putting the onus on JSS as opposed to the people who actually have the authority to moderate this RFA (the monitors). Soni (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and don't see this as a comparable situation. I've seen people ask someone to self-redact before as an escalating step, even if it's not a path I've personally taken yet. It can also be an opportunity to establish a dialogue to understand their perspective on why they might not want to do so. The thing about situations like this is that they are more ambiguous by design and people are going to disagree with you no matter what you do. They haven't said something so egregiously horrible for there to be a clear right answer. Do you really want admins to be quick to make judgements and take action instead of waiting a bit and seeing what happens? Striking a former arb's and current admin's question is a pretty intimidating thing to do. Anyways, I'm off to sleep. We might just have to agree to disagree on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The point of the monitor role is to reduce drama, and I feel like striking a comment from another admin outright without some discussion could easily spiral into more drama, thus making it harder on the candidate. Judging by the responses from Euryalus and Clovermoss above, me striking it outright at the start would probably create controversy. I was trying to be cautious and make a suggestion, not to pressure him. JSS might be like "Oh, I see your point, and the points of the other users who commented here, I'll remove the question" or "I see your point and this is why I disagree". Blocking isn't a black or white situation either. You warn, discuss, and consider the evidence, you don't just block or not block. And for most of the time, you just wait.

I doubt JSS would feel any significant pressure from me since they're a former arb who has experience making their own judgments. Jumping to strike someone else's comment seems like the nuclear option, and in these weird cases you should be cautious, at least from my perspective. There feels like no obvious answer.

Anyway, when I volunteered to be a monitor I was looking moreso to watch and potentially assist leek, and I'm still learning the nuances of de-escalation myself. This situation where leek had a COI was somewhat unexpected. So if this doesn't feel like the right approach people are free to reach out and offer their feedback, even with the possibility that we might have to agree to disagree on the value of that feedback. Fathoms Below (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a real question and should be struck. CapitalSasha ~ talk 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see in any point of asking something like that at all on a public page. If you want to email Graham87 and ask that, then fine. Such a question seems inappropriate regardless of how politely worded it might be. It should be assumed that Graham87 is monitoring the RRFA and fully understands what's happening; I don't think he needs to be given any options at this point. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's distasteful to say something like that but I also believe that striking it would be a controversial admin action that would prove divisive. Anyways, that's my two cents. People are free to disagree with me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The wording should surely be changed as it seems to be putting a judgemental thumb on the scale. There is no overwhelming "side" winning or losing the vote, all Graham needs is 50% to move the decision to the next level. The vote is running close to 50%. The wording of question 18 seems quite premature. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I answered the question before noticing this discussion. I just thought it was on-brand considering the questioner's ' Wikipediocracy comments sorta to this effect (and maybe some on-wiki comments too). Graham87 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to people on the receiving end of such questions. It's not the best time to be had. Questions 6, 7, and 8 in my RfA were stressful, and the first two were actually brought up at BN. I'm glad that we have official RfA monitors now. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that this RfA is doomed right now. Random variations could easily push this into the discretionary range, and who knows how the crats will interpret the first ever re-RFA cratchat. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I was actually contemplating re-writing ti to stress that very point, this could turn around if he chooses to leave it open, there's still five days to go. In any event the matter seems moot as Graham has now made a reply that answers my question satisfactorally, as I had expected when asking it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If this was a normal RfA with a tally below the discretionary range, even a candidate's nominators would be (strongly) advising withdrawal. I suppose they are reluctant to do so because they know that, whereas with a usual RfA there's generally going to be another chance later (assuming that the issues are resolved), whereas of course that's impossible in this case. Even so, leaving it open doesn't seem to be achieving much at this juncture. As Harry says on the page, ~250 have commented and that's the high end of our expectations for RfA (the average for a non elect, successful candidacy this year is 217). Of course, the downside to that is that there is a ever decreasing number of editors likely to comment. SerialNumber54129 18:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about Question #19, which reads as a comment disguised as a question. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah maybe, I answered it anyway (this time after noticing the talk page message). Graham87 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, Ahecht, that was not my intention. It above all else was me being curious based on observations of what others had previously said. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)