Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft

Hammersoft

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (9/0/0); 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.

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:

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:

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)