Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft

Hammersoft

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (29/0/0); Scheduled to end 18:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination

Hammersoft (talk · contribs) – I've known Hammersoft for some time, have talked about a potential admin run for them more than once in recent years, and think that Hammersoft has the temperament and wisdom to make a good administrator. I have looked at their deleted edits, and their deletion tags include a bunch of attack pages that the pedia would have been better off if Hammersoft could have simply deleted them rather than tag them for others to delete. When it comes to reporting usernames for admin attention, going through a bunch they have tagged reminds me that the rest of the Internet contains some people who merit a block simply for the username that they choose. Judging by their tagging for UAA, Hammersoft is a useful protector of the wiki and would make good use of the mop. Hammersoft has also created content - I enjoyed reading both the Great Potosi Mint Fraud of 1649 and Lake Atna. Though Hammersoft has had an edit warring block, I hope we can all agree that 2008 is such a long time ago that we can treat their block log as effectively clean. I commend Hammersoft to the community, and hope you will support this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very honored to be nominated, and thank you to WereSpielChequers for doing so. I accept the nomination. This is my only account. I did have a prior account, very long since abandoned and to which I no longer have access. This account is fully in compliance with WP:CLEANSTART, which ArbCom member Newyorkbrad can confirm. I was never blocked under my prior account, and my only block on this account was more than ten years ago. I have not and will never edit for pay.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am a frequent contributor to WP:UAA, WP:AIV, and speedy deletion tagging. On a number of occasions I have also contributed to WP:RFPP. I would like to continue work in these areas from the administrative side. I have had to deal with vandals continuing their vandalism after final warnings or IP/account hopping and finding myself incapable of being able to stop the vandal due to not having admin privileges.

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

A: From an article standpoint, it has been Lake Atna. I spent considerable effort developing this article, even communicating with two of the scientists involved in authoring an article on the subject. Despite the lake's significance in history and even modern day effects, there is not much that is written on it in available sources. I searched long and hard to find what sources exist, and worked to craft text that was supported with those limited sources. The subject is fascinating to me; a large lake which may have been responsible for some of the largest freshwater floods in history. I don't create a lot of articles, but when I do I try very hard to be as thorough as possible. A log of articles I have created is available at User:Hammersoft/log#Articles_created.

In other areas; I have contributed significantly to upholding the WP:NFCC policy over the years I have been here, though I do less of that of late. I have been significantly involved in speedy deletion tagging; since 2012, I have tagged over 800 items for speedy deletion, with 99%+ of them being subsequently speedy deleted. A log of these is available at User:Hammersoft/log#Speedy_deletions. Among other things, I have also been involved in vandal fighting and reporting (User:Hammersoft/log#WP:AIV), and identifying potential conflict of interest/paid editors (User:Hammersoft/log#Corporate_/_organization).

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

A: Yes. If you're here long enough, you're bound to get into conflict with someone. I won't say that I've handled everything perfectly; I am human. I do think that in the vast majority of cases, I have acquitted myself appropriately. As TRM once said, I don't "descend into personal affront" when working with a dispute. I have logged some significant disputes at User:Hammersoft/log#Mistakes,_failures_and_shortcomings. There isn't anything on Wikipedia so important that you have to lose your composure over it. I have a list of principles that I wrote on my userpage. Points 3, 4, and 9 address conflict. In short; take a breath, listen, be civil, and disengage where appropriate. I hold by those principles.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Andrew D.

4. It's my impression that a word like "hammer" in an account name is a warning sign that the user is inclined to be aggressive. As you are active at WP:UAA, please explain your own choice.

A: It's an intentional oxymoron. Imagine lightly tapping with a hammer, rather than wailing away with all my might. That's what I try to uphold.

Ok. By coincidence, I came across a similar Hindi proverb today – सौ सुनार की, एक लोहार की – "a hundred blows of a goldsmith are worth one blow of a blacksmith". I didn't entirely understand that, either!  :) Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional question from Barkeep49

5. You clearly believe in a flat Wikipedia hierarchy which is a stance I respect and agree with in principle. You believed so deeply about this that you requested that you have extended confirmed removed only asking for it back so you could transclude this RfA. Can you talk about what's changed enough that you're asking for sysop? Or put another way why now? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A: Yes, I've long felt that new editors here are handicapped in significant ways. It's extremely difficult for experienced editors to understand the obstacles they face. In not having rights, I felt it helped me to have some empathy for their situation. I do strongly believe in a non-hierarchical approach. It is too easy to get caught up in the idea that users with additional privileges are somehow elevated above our most valuable asset here; the editor. Over the years, I've run into a number of situations where having the additional tools of adminship would have helped me to protect the project against serious disruption. A recent example is this one. An older example is this one. There have been many in between. Starting back around 2015, I started keeping track on my log of how long it took for various requests that required administrator attention to be processed. There are many that took significant time with disruption continuing. I think I can help protect the project against such disruptions.

Additional question from Pudeo

6. What is your relationship to former admin Δ (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Betacommand? You have over 400 edits on his talkpage and have created some of his user subpages. During Betacommand's third ArbCom case, you were an active participant and compiled a list of his accomplishments in Wikipedia. Δ appealed his indefinite block just a month ago. Would you support unblocking him? --Pudeo (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A: No, not with what I see now. Several times in the past I have come across situations where an editor has come under severe criticism and found there to be significant problems with the criticism. As mentioned in my response to question 2, I have done a lot of work in the past regarding NFCC issues. Δ/Betacommand has also done significant work in that arena as well, even once running a bot that did some work (largely replaced by a current bot). Thus, we had significant overlap in our areas of interest, which is why I was aware of the criticism about him. The criticism is not unfounded. However, it is not without significant holes. I attempted to address those holes, change the opinions of some, and tried to help him navigate a way back to successfully editing. He made several catastrophic errors which heavily undermined his position, even third rails if you will. I haven't been involved in the issue for three years now. I wouldn't support his return without a careful analysis on his part of the past troubles, what he's learned from them, abject apologies for the serious problems generated, how he can contribute here, and what reasonable restrictions would help guide his progress here. I don't think there can be any coming back without a serious probationary period. It would have to include restrictions on no editing regarding NFCC issues, no bots, no automated editing, and more (all broadly construed). However, many such probationary periods with other editors have failed, for a variety of reasons, including lack of proper understand/structuring of the probation's goals. Restrictions with Δ/Betacommand have failed before.

Additional questions from Scottywong

7. Many years ago, you described adminship as a "demotion from editor", and compared it to jumping "into a garbage bin replete with all sorts of steaming refuse" . Do you still hold these views? If so, why have you decided to take a demotion, and why do you now want to jump into a garbage bin?

A: As this chart shows, we continue to lose administrators at a rather alarming rate. In 2016, I started a discussion about planning for a post-admin era. Four years on, and we're really in no better place now than we were then. It's effectively impossible to quantify how many administrators we need to keep functioning. However, without replacement processes, we will run out of sufficient administrators. Yes, I still hold those views. It is indeed a dirty job, but it has to be done barring replacement processes alleviating the situation. The "why now?" is because I see situations where having the tools would prove useful to protecting the project, more so than I used to see in years past. I see backlogs where I can contribute that often didn't exist in the past, but do now. WP:UAA for example is routinely backlogged now. WP:AIV has been tagged as backlogged more than 40 times in the past week. These are example areas where I have contributed as an editor for years now, where I believe I am qualified to help based on my track record in these areas. To continue to sit on the sidelines, see the decline in adminship, believe I have the skills to help, and not offer to help is, I believe, wrong.

8. In your answer to Q1, you mentioned that you've contributed to WP:RFPP and intend to work there as an admin. Given that WP:PROTECT provides almost no advice on the appropriate duration of page protection and leaves the duration almost entirely to the admin's discretion, how would you go about deciding how long to protect various articles requested at RFPP, and what criteria would you look at to make your decision?

A: Multiple things play into this. I feel an administrator needs to carefully analyze the situation. I've seen requests at RFPP where a block of a single user for the disruption would have likely solved the issue. I'd rather block a single, ongoing disruptive editor than deny access to the article for other editors. Other factors play in as well; has the article been protected before? How long? Did disruption ensue immediately after the last protection period? Was the disruption of the same kind (i.e., possibly the same person) or another kind? An article ultimately protected for a year for disruption of Type A shouldn't be subsequently protected for another year for disruption of Type B if there is no apparent connection between the two. This is a judgment call of course. If an article is of great interest due to being in the media (a list of possible cases), then if there is a finite element to the attention the protection length might be appropriate to that finite element. In general, as WP:PROTECT says, the protection should be as short as necessary to stop the disruption.

Additional question from Willbb234

9. Would you not suppose that the ability to gain administrative and other rights makes the project hierarchical as there is an imbalance of power and importance?

A: If there is a hierarchy, it is as this chart shows; The Community is at the top. Adminship confers additional privileges to do things on behalf of the community. It does not confer additional power or importance. Any good faith editor with an opinion on a subject has the same "power" of voice as an experienced member. That's the fundamental nature of Wikipedia; anyone can edit. It says that right at the top of the main page. If we can't respect that, if we hold to some hierarchy where users with advanced permissions are somehow more powerful or more important than those without, we might as well close up shop and turn out the lights. When a person becomes an administrator, they are granted the privilege to use that "power" by the community. But, administrators don't own that power. It's owned and given by the community, not the other way around.

10. You mention on your userpage that "The newest editor, acting in good faith, should enjoy the same privileges as the most experienced editor". The "newest editor" will always make more mistakes, misjudgements and the like than the "experienced editor", meaning that said privileges should not be the same for both. Would you not agree?

A: Think of two people, Person A (new to the project) and Person B (very experienced). We want Person A to become like Person B. How do we do that? One of the ways is by creating quality learning material from which Person A can learn. We've done that. But, as with any web based resource, most people these days do not read things in full. Rather, they drill to the nugget of information they think they need and continue on. In a complex system such as Wikipedia, this leads to mistakes. So, the learning material can't be the only way. How then do we proceed? Trial and error. We can't get a person to learn from trial and error if they aren't allowed to make mistakes. I heard a wise person once say "It's ok to make mistakes. Just make new ones." I.e., learn from mistakes. Don't repeat them. I like working with new editors who are just starting out. An example of this is here. On the flip side of this; as the project matures we need better tools to manage the project. At first, I was an opponent of preventing new editors from making articles. I am not so now. I've reviewed a huge number of drafts, and I am frequently astonished at the sheer quantity of bad faith material that comes in. Less surprising is the amount of good faith material that is terribly flawed. Allowing draft space to be the development grounds for such material is one way in which I do support restrictions on new editors, as a means to continue to produce a quality encyclopedia. What is absolutely critical is that regardless of any restrictions, we must treat new, good faith editors with respect, kindness, and support. If we don't, the project is doomed.

Additional question from Sir Joseph

11. Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?

A: Yes, I would block an admin. However, I don't currently have the experience base on which to do so and would not do so if I were an admin today. I do not believe that an administrator should be more immune to being blocked than a non-administrator. I am quite cognizant of the problems that often arise when an admin blocks another admin. Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause demonstrates many cases in which administrators were blocked for cause. There's a component of the blocking policy that notes that blocks should "reduce likely future problems". As with any editor, discussion is key to help prevent future problems to the project. If an administrator is actively causing damage to the project, and if discussion is failing to resolve the issue, a block might be appropriate to prevent further disruption, as it is with any editor. Before I ever did my first block of an admin, I would consult with other more experienced administrators about how they would proceed. This is true with any situation in which I was unfamiliar; gain experience through other means before continuing.

Additional question from Perryprog

12. In your answer to Q9, you said [a]dminship confers additional privileges to do things on behalf of the community. As it seems you view sysop as a janitorial role and not a promotion-based one, do you think your ability as an editor of Wikipedia is limited by being "demoted" to a sysop?

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. First support. Good user and good contributions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Support precious sudden revelations --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Support from me too. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
4. Support it is rare to find a user without "advanced" rights coming to RfA. I had initially thought my user highlighter script was broken. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it wasn't and that this user has requested rights be removed as they didn't want them. A user of 70,000 edits who has not held a right which is not extended confirmed because of their own choice shows that they are not here to collect hats. As such they will not see adminship as some lofty throne and instead see it as tool. This is exactly what we want in an admin, as they should ideally see themselves as servants to the community. I see no red flags, with their only block of 12 hours being active for only 16 mins in 2008. Such a good (and empty) block record shows that they have proved that they understand and also follow community policies and guidelines. If they didn't, their block log would be much longer for an editor who has been here for this long (since 2006). Usually I would question an editor who hasn't held rights such as rollback or autopatrolled, because they have not had the time to experience and learn how to use these tools, but in this case I see this as a positive. Hopefully this editor will be able to bring a new perspective to those who hold the tools. Furthermore, User:Hammersoft/log § Mistakes, failures and shortcomings shows that they can reflect and learn from issues. I will wait for a bit, but I may change my !vote to a strong support if no issues are brought up (I haven't been able to find any yet). In summary, a good candidate who I trust and has my support. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
5. Support trustworthy candidate, competent. I like the 10 principles. Vexations (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
6. An unexpected, but very welcome request. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
7. Support very competent and trustworthy. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
8. Support - no concerns here; trustworthy and competent, as others have written. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Stormy Chamber (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
10. Support I especially love the Principles! GrammarDamner how are things? 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. Softness is a rare quality in a hammer. BD2412 T 19:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
12. Support based on thoughtful solid answers to the above questions.— Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
13. Support I'm reasonably certain they're not an idiot. Nick (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
14. Support Good user.Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
15. Support I haven't seen as good answers to questions at literally any other RfA. Wish you the best! (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
16. Support One of the most thoughtful and "real" candidates for adminship in a long time. I fully support. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
17. Wow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
18. Support Satisfied with the answers to my questions. Hammersoft is an outspoken, intelligent, thoughtful, long-time editor that would excel with the tools. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
19. Aye, go on then. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
20. Support. I've thought the candidate was a net positive to the project for a while, with both content creation and a need for the tools. I'll admit I was a little doubtful at first, mainly because of the removal of extended confirmed rights that Barkeep49 mentions in question 5, but I applaud the candidate for standing up for their principles. With Hammersoft's responses to the adminship questions, I'm also fairly confident that they won't abuse the tools, due to their stance on a flat hierarchy. Otherwise, everything looks good, behavior-wise and elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
21. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
22. Support. Good editor, will be fine as an admin. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
23. Support I noticed their work around UAA and AIV, admins are always needed in these areas, they would be a positive addition in my opinion. JW 1961 Talk 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
24. Support per nomination combined with answers to the 11 questions so far show sufficient level-headedness to use the mop responsibly - can be trusted with the tools. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
25. Support Answers to questions are excellent. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
26. Support pretty much for all of the reasons given above, but also because Hammersoft's balanced approach and willingness to reach out was very helpful to me when I was just starting out as an editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
27. Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
28. Support Well balanced editor with clue. Moriori (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
29. Support - there's a few issues above. Things such as an odd about term from wanting no rights, to wanting to be a Sysop, however, clearly has a use for the tools, and a great history. As I saw you worked on Lake Atna, feel free to hit me up if you fancy taking it to GA, as it looks pretty doable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• Could someone CU User:Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 and indef them for the usual. ——Serial 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)