Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maddy from Celeste (talk | contribs) at 19:00, 28 October 2024 (→Discussion: reply to JPxG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision .Revision as of 19:00, 28 October 2024 by Maddy from Celeste (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: reply to JPxG)

Graham87

Graham87 (talk · contribs · he/him)


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

Signatures
  1. I’m reluctant to do this, but due to two recent ANI threads (1 and 2), I’m starting this petition to desysop Graham87. This is a long-running issue as demonstrated by this ANI thread from 2022. It is unacceptable that of their 64 blocks in September, 12 had to be modified. Since the most recent ANI thread, he’s continued to act BITEy and unwelcoming: Sincerely, Dilettante 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I specifically refrained from commenting on admin actions since I am not an admin and have never blocked a user. He's only placed a dozen blocks since the second ANI thread. However:
    Sincerely, Dilettante 19:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Agreed on that block, but that's a judgement call not the kind of egregious tool misuse I feel deserves a desysop. On the contrary I think you've proved the 2024 ANI worked as he significantly decreased his rate of blocks. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    If you decrease your rate (with thr caveat that the sample size is small and the error bars large) yet still have a 12.5% error rate, there's an issue. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    One last comment from me for now: we see no issue in judging a potential admin's character by their non-tooled behaviour, but not a current admin who's using the tools less than before. Why? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Because when we judge potential admins we're using that to predict how they will use the tools. For currently admins we know exactly how they used the tools and hence that's a better predictor. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Exactly! We know Graham87's used the tools poorly for years, and has continued to do so--merely at a reduced rate. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    @Dilettante: Just an fyi (I see nothing in the policy against me posting this, which is perhaps an oversight) -> there's this edit from 2 years ago by an IP that shares a /56 range with this recent IP which is almost identical... I mean sure IP blocks are case-by-case basis, but that's clearly the same person, and in that 2022 instance their /64 was also blocked for 1 month by a different admin (who is also a checkuser).
    It's good not to consider things in a vacuum. – 2804:F1...E4:60B (::/32) (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  2. I'm not sure why responses to the petition are primarily limited to a few instances. An ANI discussion took place last month at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Overzealous blocking by Graham87, which was apparently resolved. A second one was opened a few days later at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Inappropriate blocks and WP:BITE by Graham87 when it became apparent that this was a much bigger issue than suggested by the previous one. As I said there, The fact that he's still blocking editors while the ANI discussion is ongoing is the end of the WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. I was surprised that it didn't go to Arbcom at the time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    The reason is that I see doing a recall now based on events that we're already discussed at ANI (and didn't get sent to ArbCom then) as impermissible double jeopardy. That, and I'm willing to assume that Graham87 took the 2024 ANI as a wake-up call and has changed his practices since. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I can see where you're coming from. I disagree because I see adminship more akin to elected office than "not being charged with a crime", and it should be based on community faith in the administrator rather than due process. To the latter part, I can't share that assumption per my self-quote above. I would expect at the bare minimum that an admin would know not to keep blocking people while their previous blocks were being discussed. To me, WP:BITE is the most important guideline by a wide margin and violations of WP:BITE should be given less leeway than violations of other guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  3. Per the several instances noted by the OP and the several more above as minimum. SerialNumber 54129 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  4. Signed in support. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  5. Long overdue. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  6. The numerous examples spread over time show that the community needs to re-evaluate Graham. For those opposing below, if 25 supports happen, then support Graham in the re-rfa. Otherwise this recall will die and we move on. spryde | talk 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  7. Seems pretty quick with the block button, as evidenced by the prior thread at ANI. A quick look finds other problematic blocks like [1] where the user was given zero prior warning (to be fair, the block was quickly overturned by Graham). While I understand Graham was taken to ANI, I don't believe the resolution was satisfactory and also feel that, if given additional time, more problematic blocks will come to light. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

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

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

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

Warning a user for adding a piped wikilink - if you think Template:uw-notbroken shouldn't exist then nominate it for TfD - don't use using a standard warning in a case where it applied as a desysop offence. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
I don't have any objection to the template. It was incorrectly applied. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
A level 4 warning for two edits - that IP address is a blatant bad-faith spammer who quite possibly should have been blocked. There was nothing wrong with level-4-warning them. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
I concur on this one. That kind of link spam is always paid-for black-hat SEO, often from the kind of firms we've community banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
And oh look, there have been spam links added from Special:Contribs/122.180.242.0/24 since 2016! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Completely justified. This warning should not be a factor in a recall. And frankly, this is a warning, not an admin action. I am not a fan of recall, but if we must have it, this sort of thing creates a very low bar and if accepted as a contributory element to a desysop, it would enable poor faith nominations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Peacemaker67 I agree completely. This is the sort of thing I was worried about when the system was agreed. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Jumping from a level 1 to a level 4 vandalism warning - correction: that's a level 3 warning, not a level 4 warning. While I would probably have used {{uw-unsourced3 }} there rather than {{uw-vandalism3 }} I think you're reading way too much into this. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
this curt message against a clearly good faith editor - I personally don't see the problem with that message at all. But then I nearly failed RfA for a curt communication style, so maybe it's just me. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
A level 2 warning for an uncited statement - I'll grant this is a mistake, but desysopping someone over a series of minor mistakes that don't even involve use of admin tools is a ridiculous overreaction. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
On the contrary, I'd say desysoping someone over a series of individually non-desysopable mistakes is exactly what recall is for: the situation where an admin never does anything major enough to count as tool abuse that would result in an arbcom desysop (aka a "major mistake"), but consistently uses the tools in a way that is contrary to community consensus (aka a series of "minor mistakes," or at least less-than-major mistakes--it'll be up to the community to decide how minor the mistakes are). No comment on this particular admin and their tool use, but "consistently makes blocks/gives warnings they shouldn't" is exactly the kind of situation recall was made for. I think we'll see many more recall petitions based on these types of complaints. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
And I'll likely oppose most of them - I'm not convinced these people should even be desysopped in the first place. And even harder to convince that desysopping for conduct not even involving admin tools is appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
You're welcome to that opinion (and to vote support at RRfAs), but recall is now here. Recall petitions shouldn't be used as an opportunity to express disagreement with the entire idea of having recall, which is to permit the community to desysop for things other than serious tool abuse (which arbcom would desysop for). Levivich (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Pppery, this kind of feels to me like the folks who oppose at an RfA because 'we have too many admins' or 'it's too hard to get rid of bad admins'. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

  • Seems extremely premature. not seeing significant issues worth desysopping personally. Note that a level 4 warning after 2 edits isn't necessary problematic, depending on what's being warned about. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I agree that the post-ANI part of this looks like a nothing-burger. No comment on everything before that. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • As presented above, the conduct post-most recent ANI discussion does not meet the threshold (by some margin) for me to support an administrator recall petition. Daniel (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This seems entirely unnecessary, per what people have written above. Do we really need to drag Graham through this for a whole month? Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Since this is the first admin recall petition, I think it's a good idea to lay down a more general philosophy for why I'm signing. It meets three criteria: 1. It's a long-term issue that goes well beyond one mistake or a small handful of mistakes. 2. It specifically involves the use of admin tools in a way that's harmful. 3. It has been discussed several times without resolution despite general agreement that it's a serious problem. Obviously there's no one-size-fits-all way to consider these things, but this is generally what I'd look for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    fwiw, I think these are a good set of criteria but that there's a missing piece here: evidence that the discussed issues continue to be problems. I suppose you've got that rolled into #1 in a way, so maybe this is just a difference of opinion, but I don't see how the evidence raised in this petition is evidence that Graham87 is doing the same thing he's been warned for (inappropriate and bitey blocks). There are no blocks in the evidence at all. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    This is my view as well. The actions that led to the previous ANI thread were bad... but he hasn't repeated them. The evidence raised here is not anywhere near the level to indicate he hasn't taken that feedback on-board. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oppose petition. Does that cancel out a Support? First, the user warnings evidence is far from compelling. Second, starting a petition when the latest ANI thread has yet to be closed is poor form; it feels like kicking someone when they're down. Third, the nomination statement doesn't explain how the administrator has "lost the trust of the community" as described at WP:Administrator recall. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    @SuperMarioMan Petitions can't be formally opposed, but the Re-RFA's successful petitions lead to can. Mach61 20:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Good thing RFAs aren't a hell most editors want to avoid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Thanks, Mach61. It was more to express my disagreement with the opening statement than anything else. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I'm with you Pppery. I don't like this discussion section at all. Possibly thirty days of this? Possibly followed by seven more days of this? That's extremely brutal for Graham. A process like this, of course, is going to be rough regardless of its configuration, but trying to minimize the roughness would be nice. I wish the process was simply like a guestbook - just sign your name - and if enough signatures show up in the time frame, then have the nitty-gritty discussion during the RRFA proper. Useight (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    That's exactly how I thought it was going to work. This is turning into a shitshow. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I don't believe there is a need for recall, and I would support a reconfirmation RFA. I see no evidence that Graham87 is failing to take on board feedback, and the examples provided above I do not see as problematic. Here, Graham apologized for misreading a diff; what more do you expect from him? This is a bit sharp, but the user admitted they weren't a new account. This is making a mountain of a molehill. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I want to add that the warnings for unsourced content were Twinkle's default warnings for unsourced content. If we as a community find them bitey, we need to change them, because that's what everyone is going to default to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I also want to express my disagreement with this petition. Admins should not be expected to be perfect, and the faults claimed here do not rise to the level where this admin loses my trust. Admins should not have to worry about being made to go through a process like this. I fought hard to prevent this process from becoming policy, but I accept that consensus was against me. That this would be the first attempt to use the process convinces me more than ever that it is a net negative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • If the opposition to the recall were based on the work that an admin has done, I wouldn't think that a good reason, but on the evidence presented, I do not see a breach of ADMINACCT, or anything approaching that. I haven't done RCP in a while now even if I still use rollback every so often, but in my opinion a 4im was perfectly reasonable conduct for what could have been a block, even by the higher standards of ADMINCOND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Neutral on the recall, but procedural question: what happens to Graham's importer rights if he loses adminship? Would there have to be a separate discussion to remove importer? (you ask for importer at VPR, will the discussion to remove it be there?) Would a steward remove them? Would Graham keep being a non-admin importer? Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Importer is such a rare right that I don't think anything would happen to it by default (no procedure is set for granting or revoking it). And while most import work also needs admin I don't see any reason it would need to be revoked. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
@Pppery: what is an importer? I have not heard of it before, and it is not on the list of permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Wikipedia:User access levels#Importers and transwiki importers * Pppery * it has begun... 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
(edit conflict) WP:IMPORTER. They can import XML files from other places (as opposed to just other WM wikis for admins) and Graham and Xaosflux are the only ones. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
I've thought about this and had surmised that, since it's an extension of my admin tools, I'd lose importer rights along with adminship. It would be more than a little disconcerting to be able to import edits but not be able to fix any mistakes I'd made during this process (and I've made many). I'm the main reason the import process exists here, which I've largely used for importing edits from old Wikipedia databases (see my old explanation of my import work and my list of page history observations). Graham87 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Dillettante, I picked a diff to check at random, and a short conversation included Graham apologizing for a misunderstanding after a very short conversation with the other editor. I kind of feel like when there are five diffs and the first diff I pick looks like a nothingburger...? Valereee (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    (Since you tried to ping) 5 pages of the ~60 I checked (all the User talk edits that happen to fall in his last 500 total edits) is a signifciant percent. The editor stated right now my blood pressure is through the roof, and at my age that is not a good thing. Even if most would have a milder reaction, that is exactly the kind of thing that makes people reluctant to edit Wikipedia. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I get it, we all should be kind all the time, and this was a newish editor, under 1000 edits. But are we really going to use as evidence the fact that the other editor is upset? I don't know. I just feel like if one of the worst of the last 60 includes an apology, is it really even a thing? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Then that's a difference in our fundamental opinions. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    May I please remind you that last time I said smth like this it had serious consequences for me and zero consequences for the user whose actions made my blood pressure rise. When later I went to the talk page of the user hoping to fix the issue, I was told to fuck off, in these very words, again without any consequences for that user. This kind of sets the level of expectations of the community I now have. Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Personally opposed to the recall. While the issues brought up at ANI were more serious, the post-ANI evidence shown here doesn't seem to be that far out of the bounds of acceptable conduct. The only real mistake (the piped link thing) was followed by Graham apologizing to the editor in a respectful way. Without more serious issues for now, I prefer to assume good faith that Graham understood the lesson from the last ANI. However, I disagree with the characterization of this recall as "double jeopardy". If we want the recall process to make adminship truly "no big deal" once again, then removing adminship when the community stops giving their support should also be a regular process, rather than exclusively a sentencing (that could leave the community vulnerable to the Super Mario effect). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Yeah I'm gonna have to oppose this. I'm a consequentialist, and as such can't support desysoping based on communications not directly related to use of tools, since there's no clear marginal benefit to doing so (Graham could well behave exactly the same in that regard after desysoping). Adminship is not a noble title, so desysoping shouldn't be a punishment for unrelated conduct Mach61 20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
A textbook example of the point I made at User:Pppery/The iceberg ... * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
Thought-provoking essay. I need to document the bots in case something happens to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

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

  • I believe that we should give Graham87 a reasonable amount of time to show that he has taken on board and learned from the criticism about various errors that he has received recently, and therefore I will not be supporting this petition. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This shit show is beneath us. 30 days more?! If this is how admin recall is going to work, I expect the community will quickly come to a new consensus to get rid of it altogether. Can I suggest people just ignore this unless we get a lot closer to 25 people? -Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Involved as ANI1 closer, but I do not see merit to this recall proposal. If consensus from ANI1 or 2 were that the conduct required deSYSOP, someone would have brought it to ArbComm. They didn't. Much of this is small fries compared to the actual issues addressed at ANI. Star Mississippi 01:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Thanks very much to everyone commenting here, especially those defending me. Someone had to be the first. as @Yngvadottir: notes, I have been trying to change my approach since the two ANI discussions. Re the level two warning for an uncited statement at Hejira (album) (which is one of my favourite albums of all time and I highly recommend it as an escape from discussions like this): well I actually found after-the-fact that an already-existing source supported the edition. I honestly believe that level one warnings should only be used for genuine newbies who are making their very first edits, not users with thousands of edits who should really know better. Graham87 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Nope. If this is the bar for bringing a petition, we'll be sysop-less in months. On the merits, this comes out of nowhere. (削除) Two (削除ここまで) Three ANI threads and the nom's subjective evaluation of applied warnings? If this goes through, I predict major changes to this process. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • The nominator should have held off open the petition immediately after the policy has passed, especially since they are highly involved at laying out the policy page (being the second editor in terms of edit counts and and top editor for bytes contributed). There are no warnings of a petition going to be opened, and those threads had closed without action or referred for a further look into by the ArbComm. It does not give a positive impression of the nominator. Not cool. At least give a heads up that a petition is going to be opened! Since the recall procedure wasn't a policy yet, it should not have been used against admins who have had ANI threads prior to the recall procedure being a policy. What next? Dig out all ANI threads and open petitions against existing/legacy admins based on those threads that were closed with no further actions to be taken against the admins, lapsed with an implicit understanding that no further actions would be taken against them unless reopened or references in a future ANI thread? – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    It also reflects poorly on the nominator that they began their rationale by saying I’m reluctant to do this. For being reluctant, they sure didn't waste any time. I'd like to see recall work; let's not sabotage it right away with petitions like this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I join others in highlighting this as a really poor example to use as first-use/test-case of the process, with appearances of over-eagerness to use it, flimsy basis, and appearances of AGF failure. It risks sinking the whole ship (I'm not sure whether the ship in this case is the admin corps who finally say 'hell with this' or the admin-recall process that so many worked hard on). DMacks (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I also oppose this petition. The conduct it alleges is very far removed from misconduct that warrants desysopping; it does not even appear to involve the use of admin tools. In my view, this discussion indicates that there is not in fact community consensus for the purported recall policy in application of which this application is made. Sandstein 07:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Strongly oppose this petition. Being grouchy once in a while does not mean you should be desysopped. This recall policy isn't fit for service and needs to be reviewed, not sure how that can be done. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oppose - Admins are not expected to be flawless; they must only be willing to take feedback on board. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oppose recall petition, which we should be able to do during this period, rather than having to wait for and remember any ensuing Rrfa (this seems to be the general vibe given the comments above; can this be taken as a community rejection of that bit of the new policy?) Folly Mox (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    I suppose if enough people oppose it might be possible to snow close it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • 'Oppose petition. There has been insufficient time since the ANI threads to know whether Graham has fully taken onboard the feedback and improved based up on it, but the initial signs indicate that they may have done. Give it another 3-4 months, if they are still acting in a way that resulted in the two ANIs then a petition could be justified but not now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    • "A level 2 warning for an uncited statement in an infobox despite a citation being present for a corresponding sentence in the article". You're missing what went on here. The corresponding sentence said "November 1976" what was added to the infobox was "22 November 1976". The exact date was not supported by the article at the time so citation was needed.©Geni (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Request I'm trying to get up to speed on prior events, but it's a struggle to find all relevant history. Could somebody who is familiar with all this please generate a bullet-list of links (sans commentary) to previous discussions? I'm not looking for every little diff, just the major threads such as those on ANI. Perhaps stick it right at the top, just above the {{RfA toolbox }}? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    @RoySmith the nominator of this petition Dilettante has links to the most recent ANI threads in her comment that opened the petition. Those would be to here and here. She also mentioned an earlier thread from 2022. Is this what you were looking for? I agree that the discussion is a bit hard to follow right now and some changes to the process will have to be made soon at the very least. 30 days is a really long time. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oppose petition I know I'm wasting my time, but I cannot see how this process helps fairly regulate Admins' behaviour - and note that Graham87 is not being accused of misuse of the tools/his position. Yes, he's been at ANI - and yes, there has been no time since those appearances to judge if they have positively impacted his work as an admin. But this? This is just a kangaroo court. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I oppose both this specific petition (which is premature) and the recall process on principle (which is poorly formulated and poorly executed). ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Oppose petition - Graham has my confidence. Consider SNOW reclose. Recall process as a whole needs some thought/tweaks, but is still workable. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Are bolded opposes actually part of the recall policy? I do not see anything mentioning them. Do these do anything, or is this just instinctive Wikipedian behavior like salmon swimming upstream and not knowing why? At any rate, I am opposed to Graham being recalled. jp ×ばつg 🗯️ 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    Opposes don't do anything at this point, you're correct. I think people are just expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and maybe trying to convince people not to sign. But the way things are intended to work is 25 signatures, then a re-RfA within 30 days if one wishes to keep the toolkit. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
    They don't do anything in the procedural sense, but boldface is not a controlled substance over here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /