User talk:Graham87

Bajaria

Figure it's worth noting with your new block - on top of the generally problematic edits, they appeared to still not understand ARBPIA ECR, despite being blocked twice for it in the past month after being warned twice. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: Just wow ... I didn't even want to wade in to that quagmire. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

What do you think of my short version of the life of Alexander Goehr? I was happy to include a link to an article by Brian Boulton, - we sang the Monteverdi Vespers on 1 September 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Awwww BWV 78 ... the soprano/alto duet is one of the first pieces I fell in love with when I really started getting in to classical music. This year I heard the cantata in full for the first time; what an amazing first movement! It was performed at Bachfest while I was there, but unfortunately I couldn't make it to that concert because it was on the same day as the organ excursion ... oh to be in two places at once! (Hearing a historical baroque organ was one of my top priorities, but that cantata would've been good to hear live too). Re Goehr: indeed nice summary; I hadn't heard of them before. Wonderful re Monteverdi articles and the Vespers anniversary yesterday. Graham87 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

How lovely, your meeting of the duet! I therefore included it in my DYK proposal ;) - Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Awwww ... and not because it was in Graham County ... :-) Graham87 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! - I am happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. - I accept your reservation about the Main page, but for articles that are not automatically interesting, it's a place to be noticed. In the two sections "Recent deaths" and "More anniversaries", the simple mentioning of a name creates a 4–5-digit number of views that can't be achieved otherwise, certainly not by DYK ;) - She was on RD and DYK last year, by me, and on the other anniversaries last year and today, not by me, so a nice surprise that I noticed only now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

ps: the last edit summary was a misclick - I meant: "another foreign woman musician"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Happier about Bach's cantata on the Main page on its 300th birthday (per calendar), my story (again)! Smiles for the duet please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Three stories related to today in memory, 11 September, 20 July and 20 June, the latter piece of art also pictured on the Main page. - The first also has a theme with variations for keyboard, like the Goldberg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think I forgot to describe this image: at a glance you see a large sunflower against a clear blue sky, yellow petals looking transparent for the sun shining though them. At a closer look you see a "baby flower" hidden behind the other at the top, and at the bottom the outline of our village and fields and woods around it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a man who played jazz when it was banned by the Nazis, - you can listen to how they played it later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost, BWV 114, is one of the pieces in my topic of this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

My story today features a pic I took from my position in the choir, I can also offer varied delightful music, some from Venice, also with pics I took, - note the rose in the clarinet ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Inufan socks

Hi – you recently blocked Winedrunk, so I'd like to ask for your advice on a related matter, if that's okay. Winedrunk is, as you remarked in the block notice, a sock (one of 155!) of Inufan, who is an LTA on it.wiki but hasn't ever edited here. Now another sock from the same farm, Pippet12 (already blocked on it.wiki), has just gamed autoconfirmed here with a series of dummy edits. I don't want to take them to ANI when they haven't done anything wrong (not yet, at least), and I can't open an SPI as the master isn't blocked here on en.wiki. And I get that blocks aren't applied pre-emptively. What would you suggest? Shall I continue watching to see what their next move is? Or should I just mind my own business and move on? :) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Blocked. Well they're technically block evasion of Winedrunk, who was obviously going for more than autoconfirmed, so SPI would be OK (but it's heavily backlogged ... but these are WP:DUCK situations). Hmmm maybe it's time to request global locks? Graham87 (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay. I thought the master would first need to be blocked, but now that you mention it, makes sense – it's the one and the same user, after all.

With another 153 to go, I might come back to you for more...

Thanks for dealing with this so swiftly! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Well there's always these RelatedChanges on it.wiki (I assume you know how to set your interface language to English if need be) ... I might just request a global lock of the lot. Graham87 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha, every day is a school day, even for an old git! No, I didn't know you could change the interface language. I do now. Thanks for that, it'll come in very handy – suddenly navigating ja.wiki will be so much easier! :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: No worries. I myself forgot that there are now global preferences too ... Graham87 (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

So this user appears to have been a problem here for a while now too ... pinging Dekimasu who tagged Winedrunk's user page. Graham87 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I would rather avoid WP:BEANS here, but as the one who has taken care of almost all of this on EN so far, global locks would certainly be helpful (especially given disruption on Commons that takes a lot longer to deal with), I doubt there are any other active socks here at this precise moment, there are somewhat more socks on other Wikis than the number that's listed above, and there is also long-term IP socking. Dekimasuよ! 10:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, in my opinion it is fine to treat Trottapiano as the master on EN. The only other options are Souta (very inactive) and GMatteotti (sometimes treated as the master on Commons). Dekimasuよ! 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Cool, I started the ball rolling on Meta before seeing your reply. Graham87 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Block of Rager7

Regarding this, blocking based on "vibes" is unacceptable. "Testing the waters" is perfectly acceptable behaviour for an inexperienced editor. How else are they supposed to learn? All of their edits outside the redirect seem to be productive. The redirect itself was created in good faith and is not so blatantly bad as to constitute a CIR issue given that another editor !voted to retain it.

I request that Rager7 be unblocked. Un assiolo (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No. This was a second-chance unblock made after much reluctance on a very short rope. Graham87 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Overzealous blocking by Graham87. Un assiolo (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Graham,

I was just deleting a draft by User:MarcArchives00 when I saw you had given them an indefinite block but, looking at their contributions (and deleted contributions), I can't figure out why. I look at a lot of drafts every day and many of them involve editors who have a COI but that is not a reason for an indefinite block unless their content is heavily promotional and it wasn't in this case. Most of their edits were unproblematic, at least the ones I checked. I just wanted to ask you what you saw in this new editor that called for such a severe sanction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Disruptive edits with misleading edit summaries like this one and this one, that were obviously made to pad their edit count. I don't tend to block editors like that these days unless their edit-count-padding edits are disruptive. Graham87 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That was an exceptionally poor block, and I've undone it. They were not obviously made to pad their edit count, they were part of the tutorial we show to new editors as shown in the tags. Some of the edits didn't result in an actual improvement in grammar, but you made zero attempt to communicate with the user to let them know they were doing something wrong. Now they'll probably never return, and they might have ended up being a productive editor if they hadn't been bitten. I know this block was a while ago, but in light of the recent ANI please take some time to re-read WP:BLOCKPOL. Specifically WP:BEFOREBLOCKING as well as WP:WHYBLOCK, which contains Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've also reviewed the rest of your blocks from September, and I'm taking the following actions:

• Unblocked Jamiroquai sundae - The block was fine because they weren't communicating, but they seem sincere in trying to learn how to edit. It may ultimately need to be a CIR but that shouldn't be the first resort.
• Unblock GuevaraViquez1979 - This was borderline, but warning them first is definitely preferred. They seem to have read our COI guidelines and expressed interest in following them.
• Unblock Flight709 - The deleted draft is questionable, but I did a spot check of the edits and they seem constructive. There was no reason to indef for "abuse of editing privileges" when you could have dropped a note asking them to combine several changes into one edit instead of the rapid-fire editing. It doesn't look like they did anything wrong.
• 70.163.96.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 1 year is too long for an IP with a single edit
• 96.57.100.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - IP only has edits spanning just over a week
• 103.176.217.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Shorten to 1 year
• 2600:100C:A209:D108:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - 1 year is overkill, edits only span 2 days
• 108.21.67.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Do I even need to explain why 5 years is overkill for an IP barring exceptional circumstances?
• 2600:1702:1E20:F40:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - 6 months for a single edit
• 2607:FEA8:E927:6800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - 1 year block for vandalism spanning 1 month
• 216.213.192.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) - 10 year block for a /18???

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: OK, I can live with the results of almost all of these for now (though I'll be monitoring their edits ... and I'd be happy for others to join in with the monitoring). To respond to each one in-line:

• The fact that MarcArchives00 had made exactly ten edits and *then* created their draft might or might not have been a coincidence. Either way, I saw it as pretty damning at the time. I couldn't exactly tell them that they'd crossed the threshold to move their draft in to the article namespace, but either way, it wouldn't have been accepted in the form it was in when I blocked them ... so I should have probably let them be with a warning.
• Jamiroquai sundae: Yeah let's see what happens ... it's sad that Wikipedia isn't set up well for that sort of situation but ... it really isn't.
• GuevaraViquez1979: Yeah OK; I didn't know about their talk page message. Maybe a partial block on the article might have been better.
• Flight709: It wasn't their making several edits to each article that was the main probblem ... it was just their sloppy way of editing and yes, the deleted draft. I still stand by this edit summary on the edit that brought them to my attention ... it's like they were told to add random references everywhere to boost their cred. In the edit I linked, among other things, they changed the correct text "Farley has also written custom songs, generating $2,000 or more in revenue per month, but stopped doing this in 2021" to "Farley has also written over 24,000 songs, generating $2,000 or more in revenue per month, but stopped doing this in 2021", which is nonsense (and the part of the new text after "24,000 songs" is patently untrue).
• 70.163.96.153: This is a long-term pattern of vandalism going back to 2008 (!) Yeah, the IP might be reassigned to another user soon; I'll live with that one.
• 96.57.100.74: Let's see what happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just go back to editing again in a month as if nothing has happened. Some IP's can be pretty persistent. I think the integrity of our content is more important than inconveniencing a couple of users. And especially the changes to semi-obfuscate IP's that will happen real soon now will make it a bit harder to track down IP editors.
• 103.176.217.7: Same as above, for different reasons; school editors IP's are a blight on Wikipedia.
• 2600:100C:A209:D108:0:0:0:0/64: Often /64's are assigned to one customer for a while; I wanted to make sure they wouldn't come back. /64's are harder to communicate with too; ironically the upcoming IP semi-obfuscation might help with that. Let's see what happens with this one.
• 108.21.67.83: Probably fair enough. I raised it to five years because they complained that three years was too long; I shouldn't have gone down to their level to make a point.
• The next two /64's: The first one was probably an overreaction; I hold a dim view of editors who add non-notable people to articles like that. The fact that they knew to add a mayor parameter raised my suspicions, I think. Also see my above remarks about /64 ranges.
• 216.213.192.0/18: I'd feel safer with the block at 3 years, like it almost was before, but whatever. It's been a school range for a very long time and will probably continue as such; I'm not the only one to do blocks like this, as desperate circumstances (where almost every edit by an IP is revert) often require desperate measures ; see Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually long IP blocks, which I think is sorted by expiry.

I've re-read the parts of the blocking policy you've cited; I see a lot of "shoulds" there, giving admins a lot of wiggle room for common sense. I've probably overused it. I've been well aware of this Wikipediocracy thread about my blocking for a few days. Graham87 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Query 2

I'm going to bring up StattoSteven. Although I recently just declined their unblock appeal, coming back to it I don't think there was enough justification for blocking them in the first place. As a new editor, they added themselves to WikiProjects and created a user page for themselves with their first edits. While you are right that those early edits are suspicious, it is never a valid reason to block someone. People who already know how Wikipedia works won't make suspicious edits on day one (cc Special:Diff/693434393), and if they are returning, they won't try to attract attention by clearly violating MOS:OVERLINK across many articles.

So I think someone should have actually told them to stop adding unuseful internal links. Before they get blocked. What do you think? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: Indeed re people who know how Wikipedia works not attracting suspicion, but people who *think* they know how Wikipedia works can do all sorts of things to appear legitimate ... I've encountered so much that I can't describe here. And re their user page: I'm sure there are far fewer people born and raised in Hollywood than those who wish they were. Having said all that, the only way to find out their true intentions is to give 'em some rope, so I've done that. Graham87 (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making that call. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This block was just absolutely beyond ridiculous. You clearly have zero idea what the intention or purpose of an indefinite block is or when it should be applied and that's quite frightening. Indefinitely blocking an editor for adding themselves to Wikiprojects and adding a few internal links? Are you for real? AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Graham. Up past my bedtime but can't sleep, so forgive me if any of this is unpolished.

I hope you know that I've always admired you as a person, as an editor, and as an admin, through our many dealings over the years. I've also made a rule, ever since one time I got this wrong as a newer editor, against letting my friendship with someone prevent me from seeing where they've screwed up, especially as regards admin tools. Relatedly, I recall Zero0000 coming to my usertalk at a time when I'd screwed up and giving me advice that stood out from others' comments for being entirely calm, and not having the aura of politicking, while still being clear that I had indeed screwed up.

I know that you share my interest in desysops, being the main maintainer of WP:FORMER. For me, that interest has extended to reading every ArbCom desysop since around 2012, and to playing a role in 5 desysops myself. Now I'm not saying you are or aren't in that territory yet, but it's the vantage point from which I tend to view all admin conduct issues, given that background. Now, what I've found across all of these cases is something of a paradox: Getting desysopped is very easy, and avoiding it is even easier. No one has ever been desysopped after fully allocuting to their mistakes; and yet, many people have been desysopped when that was all they had to do. Maybe that says something good about Wikipedians' honesty. Maybe it says something bad about ArbCom's gullibility. The "Lourdes" case was fixing to be our first case that broke this rule, the first time that ArbCom would say "sorry" isn't enough... but then that one went rather differently so we'll never know for sure.

Assessing the exact situation you're in, to your credit you have acknowledged fault in several regards. However, reading the ANI thread today, even with some level of underlying bias in your favor, things look bad. There appears to be a fundamental disconnect between you and your critics, and your responses so far haven't yet captured that.

Something happens to editors sometimes that I've always found very unfortunate: They start doing something that they think is right, and no one tells them otherwise, so they do it more and more, and then suddenly one day they're dragged to ANI as "User X has made 5,000 horrible edits". A similar thing can happen to admins who spend a lot of time adminning in areas with limited peer review, such as antivandalism. It seems to me that your sense of an admin's role with respect to new users and IPs is very different than the community's sense. In a lot of ways I think that is a structural failure on the part of a community that demands results of antivandal admins without showing much interest in seeing how the sausage gets made, a community that has never seemed too interested when I've brought up bad antivandalism blocks I encountered. But in other ways, dear friend, it is a failure on your part—a failure to listen to feedback in past threads, and a failure to grasp the breadth of the disconnect now.

Where do we go from here? Well one option, favored by many admins, is to disregard feedback like this and eventually have your name added to the list you've maintained all these years. Another option is to accept that this kind of adminning might not be, in HR terms, a "strength area" of yours. After the aforementioned incident in which Zero intervened, that's what I did, quietly recusing myself from complex edit wars for the duration of my admin career. A third option is to really, deeply meditate on what the disconnect is. Principally it's that your error tolerance is a couple orders of magnitude removed from the community's. We may all accept, by sheer mathematical necessity, that over the course of enough blocks every admin will eventually block someone who didn't deserve it. But this is expected to be a freak occurrence, not something where an audit of your recent blocks could turn up quite a few that are questionable or outright incorrect. Clearly, if you wish to keep blocking users, you need to realign yourself with the community's sense of how blocks should work.

And I can't help you with that bit. That's something that comes from reflection, and understanding, and then writing earnestly. All things I know you are capable of. But then again, I think most of the admins whose names you and I have added to FORMER were capable of it too.

It feels wrong to lecture someone I've learned a lot from over the years. But that's why I'm doing this. You are an asset to Wikipedia, and a lot of the best work you do involves having the mop. I hope these slightly delirious 3AM thoughts are of some use. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks very much for your honest feedback. It's a lot to take in and there's a lot to think about. I think the third option (or some combination of the second and third) would be best for me, naturally, but getting there will take some work. I never really set out to be an anti-vandalism admin (and I'm still not one in the traditional sense ... that would be madness for me,especially now!) Most of my watchlist consists of articles that aren't being actively or sufficiently watched but even articles I created aren't immune to drive-by unusual editing ... this particular episode started with this edit to John Kestel, one of my Paralympic articles. That's probably enough for now. Graham87 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and on rereading it, I learnt a new word: allocution! Graham87 (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Why have you blocked me from editing?

I'm just wondering. What was the article I edited that caused you to permanently (not even with a warning or temporarily) ban me? 2.84.222.156 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To try to answer those questions, I'd need to know your account name first. Your post is technically block evasion but since you asked civilly and constructively, I'll let that slide. Graham87 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's just occurred to me that if your account is no longer blocked, the last sentence of my above message wouldn't apply. Graham87 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an account name. This is the automatic account number I was given when I tried to edit an article on my phone 2.84.222.156 2.84.222.156 (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not an account number, it's an IP address (i.e. a number that identifies your phone/computer over the Internet ... I'm simplifying, but that's a good enough explanation for now). What you were affected by is probably a rangeblock (i.e. a block of many IP addresses at once, to try to catch very disruptive users whose IP addresses often change). The problem with them is that they can catch out innocent users, like what happened in your case. You can edit anything now (if you couldn't you wouldn't be able to edit my talk page), but I'd strongly advise that you create an account (though it's not mandatory), because it has several advantages, including better communication, the ability to use a watchlist to track changes that you're interested in, and immunity from blocks that affect users with accounts. For better or worse, editors with accounts are often treated better here because most vandals don't have one; a famous quote goes "... Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose". The reason I thought you had an account is that you said that I'd blocked you indefinitely and IP addresses aren't blocked indefintely; to know the exact answer to your question, I'd need to know the IP address that was in your initial block message ... but I appreciate that would be hard to figure out at this point. Graham87 (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks! 2.84.222.156 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Skatevortex "block"

You posted a block message to their talk page, and seemed to imply some sort of UPE/sock issue, but their [Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASkatevortex block log] is empty, and they edited in mainspace after you issued the message. You should either actually block them or remove the message. Cheers, Mach61 01:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61: Blocked, oops! Thanks for the note. Another reason to add pages of blocked users to my watchlist, as mentioned in the ANI; I also accidentally sent a block notice without blocking at 108.21.67.83. Graham87 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Expert opinion required

Thank you for helping to get The Saint added to our Townsville page. I think it works great at that location. Can I get your opinion on how to deal with an editor that has an agenda to keep the Bitcoin Cash page from being updated to accurately reflect Bitcoin Cash progress? Nlovisa (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nlovisa: No worries. Nope, I don't want to get involved in that. Graham87 (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.Nlovisa (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

today Rohan de Saram - unbelievable story --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - combined on top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: So today I went with my mother to a Bach in Busselton concert, featuring an organist showing off the new electronic organ at our local church along with a cellist. As well as the listed program there was an organ/cello arrangement of the Sinfonia from Ich steh mit einem Fuß im Grabe, BWV 156, the famous Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, and an encore of Fauré's Élégie (to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of his death). I got to meet the organist afterwards and played a little on the organ. In all a lovely afternoon! Graham87 (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That sounds lovely! Bach also in my story today: a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

rich day, and now also the "petition" withdrawn! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You spoke too soon, unfortunately ... Graham87 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, sad about that. I was told "chin up" in 2013, and pass it on. - Today a caricature, for a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi admin @Graham87 I would like to ask you about to unblock this IP address 158.62.50.158 because this belongs to me when I first don't know the policy and how Wikipedia works at that time because as I've visited this IP it has the expiration of 2 years. Thank you 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rc ramz: That particular IP address isn't blocked, though some in your area probably are. please log in to edit. Graham87 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

But when I'm not logged in and try to edit anonymously using my IP address, I can't edit because it says the IP is blocked by you, with the block set to expire in 2 years. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

This is what I saw;

The IP address or range ‪2001:FD8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32‬ has been blocked by ‪Graham87‬ for the following reason(s): and

This block will expire on 03:33, 28 August 2027. Your current IP address is 2001:fd8:1a65:475a:720a:d5ff:b485:be8e. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That block is anon-only and does not affect you, provided you are signed in to your account. Unfortunately, given rampant abuse, it's unlikely we'll be allowing logged-out editing from that IP address range. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

but my point is that when I'm not using my account and try to edit anonymously, I can't, and it says that...🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Aw, okay, thank you :-) but it's sad.🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll want to check WP:LOUTSOCK. It's not necessarily a problem to perform anonymous editing, but you need to be really careful. --Yamla (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. It helped me a lot with this case and these matters.🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

IP address targetting

Hey mate, just had a squiz at your contribs. You seem to only revert IP address edits. Why is that? 2001:8003:E49D:8501:3C79:23AF:9F39:9499 (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I revert any unhelpful edits; most but not all vandalism is done by IP editors. Graham87 (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Dror Paley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dror Paley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dror Paley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Curry

Graham87, over at Talk:Curry we have a brand-new editor `mkund launching multiple threads accusing me of malpractice (also on their talk page); yesterday an IP editor from India did much the same, and actually wrote a statement on `mkund's talk page, so it seems they're the same person. I've added over 20 new sources to curry, extending the article with history to show how multicultural it is with Persian, Portuguese, Dutch, Anglo-Indian, and finally British influences. `mkund is, confusingly, quoting bits of the article which actually contradict his claim that it's all Indian to prove his case. It's rather difficult to argue against someone who seems to ignore logic and reliable sources. Would you mind taking a look? Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: No, thanks, I don't want to deal with this ... nor do I really know the best thing to do from a qucik check. Graham87 (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, we'll just have to do our best. Is there another admin you can think of who could help? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Nope, I can't think of anyone. Maybe try the dispute resolution nonticeboard? Or something else listed at the dispute resolution page? Graham87 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

We may end up there, indeed. I'm standing back from the discussions to let other folks say their piece. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Carter G. Woodson Middle School

Why is it irrelevant if u go back to the exit history your statement was that there are no Middle School pages though there's a few so why is it irrelevant im curious Paytonisboss (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Paytonisboss: As described in the essay I linked, we don't run on precedent like that. I already linked you to Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Graham87 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright thank you Paytonisboss (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Notification of Administrator Recall Petition

There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 for you to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). Should the petition reach 25 extended confirmed signatories within 30 days, a bureaucrat will start an RRfA with a threshold of 60% for an automatic reconfirmation and 50% for a bureaucrat discussion. Before a bureaucrat begins the RRfA, you may request a delay of up to 30 days for the start of the RRFA or opt to run in an administrator election if one is occurring within 30 days. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

You are welcome to create a subsection under discussion and write a response. If the page doesn't work with your screen reader for whatever reason, please let me know and I'll try to make the formatting simpler. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, the template above didn't provide the following information: You can provide a statement by editing the page's code and removing the comment markup around the Response section above the Discussion section. I have now added this information to the template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Appalled to see this. Hang in there Graham. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Graham, my honest suggestion is to not bother to look at it. Easier said than done, I know. But from what I understand, there is no mechanism to disagree with the people voting to force a new RFA. It’s already kind of an ugly discussion, like ANI except for 30 days. Just wait it out, and if there’s a new RFA, there’s a new RFA. —Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks, means a lot coming from you. @Floquenbeam: Oops, unfortunately I was reading it while your message came in. There had been rumblings about me being used as a test case on Wikipediocracy, so I was kinda quarter-expecting this ... but let's see what happens. Graham87 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not alone here. And we'll see who ends up on the wrong end of this. Might turn right around. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth I didn't know about the second paragraph of the original post in this section until now. Graham87 (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the petition because it's quite clear you won't be recalled. I apologize for any inconvenience. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Matticusmadness has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Well, that was a whole lotta not-much-burger, Eh? Have some tea and cookies to help warm up after the SNOW helped you. Heh. :) MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reopened, because I don't think that IAR should have happened with other signatures still live. Still, I won't be signing it myself, and I hope it expires unused in a month. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is, unfortunately a case of Graham87 going first through the door. Thank goodness no lasting harm is done. I think we can find a number of ways to utilize this example case to examine and temper the tool, which I believe is an important backstop. BusterD (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah as I said someone had to be first ... Graham87 (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

    I think it is well that you responded as you did. You cleared up misconceptions and were accountable for legitimate concerns. If this does go to RRFA, I expect to support you -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Rather than suffering through this for another three weeks (and the inevitable slew of just-barely-extendedconfirmed signatures at the very end of the period - seriously, this process doesn't even attempt to correct for anything but the most incompetent sockpuppetry), would you rather folks just sign on to get it overwith? —Cryptic 09:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Yeah I would ideally like it over as soon as possible, but the policy does say: "A petition is closed after thirty days." With no wiggle room. So there is that ... Graham87 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Wait, it has to stay open the whole month even if it crosses the threshold? I'd already thought that the cruelty was most of the point, but that really cements it. —Cryptic 09:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cryptic: A policy designed by committee ... Graham87 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

So what even happened at the admin recall notice? The whole thing has me confused as heck. Sirocco745 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirocco745: Some people have signed a petition, hoping to get twenty-five signatures to force me to undergo a re-request for adminship. As I've said there, it's like choosing between chinese water torture and stoning ... Graham87 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What's their reasoning for it? I've not been able to make heads nor tails of the whole situation. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sirocco745: They don't have confidence in me after the two recent ANI discussions concerning my over-eagerness to block users (which I've greatly reduced after the feedback there) and some of them think I'm still to BITEy to new users. A lot of others are either against the petition or the process, or both. Graham87 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Welp, I haven't really interacted with you before, so my opinions and knowledge of what you do and how you do it are a blank slate. I hope that due process is done correctly and that the right decisions are made by all parties, regardless of personal opinions on the matter. I've been too busy doing anti-vandalism work and stalking talk pages to provide assistance where needed lol Sirocco745 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I had originally assumed that it was a few newbies that weren't aware of Graham's real behind-the-scenes work over 20 years. The filing party was registered just over two years ago in September 2022, but only one of the other signatories is newer - some go back a long way, and three have more tenure than myself, right back to September 2005 in one case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did dig into Graham87's history and other areas of admin work before I started the petition. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an error with the wording. The petition may be closed as soon as it reaches 25 signatures. See Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#When_can_petitions_be_closed? and the original phrasing. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #95809

Is closed--- courtesy notification.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I've responded there and turned on account creation as you suggested. Graham87 (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

About the school block

Regarding the block on 168.102.128.0/20 (without comment on the school issue, the length issue, or the question of whether this warrants a petition signature somewhere), it appears about 95% of the damage could be prevented by a much narrower range; even 168.102.132.44/26 would work. Actually, all of the other damage I could find is already covered by a preexisting block on 168.102.135.9 (which was also for a decade and performed by another admin). Sorry to bring this up at an unfortunate time, but narrowing the range might be another way to improve the situation. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Thanks, narrowing rangeblocks is always good when possible. I've had a poke around myself and yes, your /26 suggestion sounds like it will work well enough. so I've reduced it to that. Graham87 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

memories -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - An open letter open to be signed (more info on the talk), - I haven't checked if you did, please ignore then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded more pics, on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - Madeleine Riffaud - remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of Mariewan's edits

Hello, I also noticed Mariewan, a new editor, adding sources in several Philippine-related articles; his edits also caught my attention since many sources are added in a single edit session. I have checked a few of his cited sources and some (at least those I have checked) are indeed valid and correct. For example, this reverted edit of his is completely valid since the sources he added indeed support the text in the article. The changes in the section names are also valid as those titles are written in the law itself. If I may suggest, please double-check the sources of those edits of his that you have reverted, since I believe some are actually valid. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: Feel free to check/revert yourself, etc. There are way too many edits for one person to check and many of them are dubious. Graham87 (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

RRFA

As Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 has now reached 25 signatures, per WP:RECALL you will either need to go through the RfA process or step down as an administrator. You do not have to make this decision right away – at current the language does not require a firm statement until the poll has "closed" – but I wanted to inform you and get your thoughts on the matter and how you plan on proceeding. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll go for the RRFA as soon as possible and was just about to scout for noms. Some talk page watchers/hangers-on might get an email soon. If anyone wants to contact me about this privately, feel free. Graham87 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, your last edit to the RRFA removed all 3 default questions from the page. Based on the edit summary, it might be an accident, so just letting you know.

I don't believe we have precedent yet on if the default questions should exist in RRFAs, so I reckon it's more of your choice if you'd like them in or not. (For reference, discussion on the general case is happening at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Technical_implementation_of_RRfAs, but it's not clearly a consensus in either direction yet) Soni (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Graham87. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Noelmci (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Replied. Graham87 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)