Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


Final (233/0/0); Closed as successful by Primefac (talk) at 18:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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. Also answered to some extent with my answer to question 7 below.
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)Reply[reply]
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 [only] additional privileges to do things on behalf of the community. As it seems you view sysop as a janitorial role and not a higher position, do you think your ability as an editor of Wikipedia is limited by being "demoted" to a sysop?
A: To some extent, yes. I think administrators need to be cognizant of the role their mere presence in a conversation or action can have. If a non-admin does X and an admin does X, there's a fair chance that some people will view the action of the admin has having more authority. Same goes for a conversation; something an admin might say could be construed as having more authority. It doesn't in my view, but others may see it that way. I think administrators should act and converse with that in mind. Also, with WP:ADMINACCT it is expected that administrators should respond promptly about their actions. Thus, if I knew I were stepping away from the project for a few days, I wouldn't perform an action and then disappear.
Additional question from Andrew D.
13. In your AfD contributions, one stands out for me: List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights. Here in London, this is an annual occasion which usually attracts attention but there was no ceremony this year on account of the pandemic. In that AFD, you were something of a scathing deletionist. That article was deleted but I had it userfied and there was a bit more drama a few years later. Ritchie333 then revived the topic so it is now to be found at List of Oxford Street Christmas lights celebrities. This case seems similar to Potions in Harry Potter, which you comment on in your log. My impression is that you now regard such strife as an unproductive waste of time and energy. But what will you do if you are an admin and then have the power to decide such matters?
A: I hope I don't ever come across as a scathing deletionist or inclusionist, as I am certainly neither. That certainly wasn't my intent. I can't really comment more on my rationale, as it was from 10 years ago and the article is now deleted. There's a new one under a different title at List of Oxford Street Christmas lights celebrities, but this of course doesn't have the same content or, more importantly, the same references. Thus, it's hard for me to evaluate it now from the viewpoint of 10 years in the future from that AfD. If I were an admin encountering such an AfD today and wanted to close it, I would feel quite obligated to evaluate each person's position in the discussion. I would take into account the rooting of their comments in policy/guideline, their relevance to the concerns expressed, and rebuttals to those positions. If I didn't feel I could do the close justice, I would decline to close it. I don't feel that administrators have some sort of a supervote in closing AfDs. Their own opinions about an article should not play a role in their decision process, and if they feel it is they should step away from it or alternatively add their own deletion/inclusion recommendation to aid another admin in closing the AfD. I am not averse to doing difficult closes. In fact, I'm quite willing to put in the effort to do so, and have done so in other areas. Strife can be an unproductive waste of time and energy, but there are going to be AfDs that have such elements, yet need to be closed all the same.
Additional question from George Ho
14. You have participated in WP:FFD and discussions about WP:NFCC/WP:NFC. How interested are you in administering the FFD venue and enforcing NFCC?
A: As I noted in my answer to question 2, I do a lot less work in the NFCC areas these days. I'm still interested in it, just not to the same degree. I don't see the role of an administrator as one of enforcing NFCC. That's the role of any editor who is interested and capable of doing so. If this RfA is successful, I don't intend on ever using the additional privileges to focus on a particular interest area. That would almost feel like a conflict of interest. Knowing NFCC as I do would help inform me about closing FFD discussions that relate to NFCC, but as I said in my response to question 13, my own opinions on such an FFD should not color the closing decision.
15. If I nominate all active cover arts used as part of lead/top infobox (i.e. top of the article), would you declare a preference for either cover art when you vote "delete"/"keep"?
A: That's not an administrative choice, but an editorial choice. I might have an opinion depending on the nature of the cover arts. If I were closing the FFDs of all cover arts, making a choice as that closing admin about which one should be kept is using an administrative decision to make an editorial decision. I wouldn't do that. If I had an opinion about which one to keep, I'd make an editorial recommendation on the FFD, and not take action as an administrator.
Additional question from Jack Upland
16. Would you say that you are obsessed with copyright issues? If not, how would you describe your attitude?
A: Obsessed, no. Knowledgeable and focused, yes. I've nominated close to 200 pages for speedy deletion as copyright violations with almost all being subsequently deleted. With images on this project, I've nominated ~50 for copyright violations, with almost all being subsequently deleted. I feel well versed in using various tools to find such copyright violations. Given our prior work together on NFCC issues, I think your concern is my approach to NFCC issues as they relate to copyright. We have disagreed in the past, but I hope you do not hold me in contempt for it, as I do not hold you in contempt for disagreeing with me. For me, NFCC issues are less about copyright, as compliance with fair use law in the U.S. with Wikipedia being an educational resource is easy. Prior WMF general counsel Mike Godwin commented to this point some years ago. NFCC is far more restrictive than copyright law in how both apply to us. The NFCC issues go to the core of our essence as a project; are we gratis or are we libre? We're supposed to be libre. NFCC tries to uphold that. The Wikimedia Foundation has asserted it as a core principle of their mission and backed that with their resolution. In the case of the Kim Jong-un image debate, we did finally acquire some free license images of him. That doesn't make me right and you wrong (and I don't care; see principle #3), but I think it does show the wisdom of resolution point 3.
Additional question from Teratix
17. You have been extremely critical of extended-confirmed protection, describing it as "throwing a middle finger" to new editors. Indeed, you have refused the extended-confirmed permission, which is typically routinely and automatically granted to experienced editors. You have also expressed a desire to handle requests for page protection. Some of these requests will be for ECP. How will you reconcile the need to grant policy-based ECP requests with your negative views of ECP?
A: As I noted at principle #6, there will always be vandalism. We must have tools to fight it. Just with the edit filter and ClueBot NG alone, we see vandalism at a rate of 86,000 per month. It's considerably more than that; this is just what those two tools stop. Protection is one tool that helps us stop disruption to the project. There are cases where we have to use it, but it needs to be used judiciously and carefully. As WP:PROTECT says, Wikipedia is built around the idea that anyone can edit. The more things we protect, the less that is the case. We now have 32,000 things currently semi-protected. The current number of things semi-protected is growing at a rate of about 7300 per year. About 2/3rds of our top 25s are currently protected. These are conflicting needs; we need to protect the project against disruption (which is always happening), and protect the project's future by enabling new generations of good faith editors contribute in meaningful ways. There's a balance that needs to be achieved. As I noted in my answer to question 8, the use and length of protection needs to be judiciously applied, taking into account a number of factors. I'm well aware there are some things that need to be protected for extended periods. I've made requests for indefinite semi-protection before ([1]) and would do so again if the need arose.
Additional question from Teratix
17A. That's a great reflection on page protection in general, but I am looking for how you will handle extended-confirmed protection in particular, since you've come out against it quite forcefully. For instance, say there was an RFPP request for extended-confirmed protection that you disagreed with on a personal or philosophical level, but was permitted by the protection policy. Would you accept it? Reject it? Leave it for another admin? Or something else?
A: In some other answers to questions I've noted that my own personal feelings about an issue with regards to an admin action should not influence my decision. If I think it is, I need to step away from making that decision. This applies here as well. In general, if ECP is the correct course of action to defend the project against disruption, then yes I would apply it. I know you're limited to two questions here, so if I'm not fully answering your question, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
Additional question from FOARP
18. You discover that a long-standing Admin created many thousands of WP:GNG-failing stub articles and carried on doing so in bursts of activity separated by months/years. The issue was raised with the Admin but they did not stop, though their last bout of article-creation activity was now more than 12 months ago. A team of editors has now started cleaning up those articles but complains that the Admin in question is not co-operating with cleaning up the articles they created. What, if anything, would you recommend in this situation? FOARP (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I think it would depend on what the non-cooperation entails. If they've haven't engaged in creating such stubs for 12 months, obviously a block is not in order for continued disruption. It would be nice if they offered to assist in deleting the stubs, but I wouldn't expect that. I would expect other adminstrators would have to take on the task, and come up with a coordination mechanism to do so. We've done this before. So, I'd recommend putting together a Wikipedia or userspace page to coordinate such efforts, while continuing to monitor the admin for the possibility of creating more such stubs. I would recommend advising the administrator of these efforts, and ask him to please engage us in discussion if he intends to continue such creations. If he does create more, despite having knowledge of the coordination effort, despite the request that he engage in discussion, it provides a potential basis on which further steps in dispute resolution can be undertaken. If it did continue, I could see a community placed restriction on creating such stubs.
Additional question from Pahunkat
19. You've been made an admin following a successful RfA. Imagine there are two Wikipedians, both of whom you know very well to be experienced in editing and knowledgeable on Wikipedia's policies (but they're non-admins). One day you find them in a dispute on the talk page of the article, and it becomes apparent that they are starting to question the other's intentions and accusations of bad faith are flying about. The discussion is starting to deviate away from content. What would you do?
A: WP:NPA of course says we should be commenting on content, not on contributors. Both editors would be well aware of that, I'm sure. I would ask both of them to take a deep breath, relax, and use their comments to refocus on the content. I might offer to informally mediate their disagreement, and recommend both step back from editing the article directly until we can resolve the issue. If we can't resolve things that way, I would encourage them to take the disagreement to WP:DRN or start an RfC to gain input from other members of the community. In starting the RfC, I would want to work with them to craft an RfC that appropriately handled the subject. I have seen RfCs go off the rails because the nature of how they are presented fails to neutrally encompass a disagreement. If things spiraled out of control and the intervention of an administrator was needed, I would refer the issue to another admin, per WP:INVOLVED.
Additional question from Liz
20. I don't think I've ever seen an editor keep a log like User:Hammersoft/log, with its 3,135 references. Two part question: a) What led you to start keeping track of all of your editor and article reporting in 2012 and b) should you pass this RfA, do you think you will expand this to your admin duties? It's great for transparency reasons but admin actions can add up. Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Initially, I created it due to some people claiming I did nothing around here. I am not a prolific article writer, and I can understand that impression. I don't believe that the only role for people on this project is 'article writer'. Yes, it's obviously a critical core function, but there are a multitude of other roles that must be filled. It's been quite some time now since anyone has accused me of doing nothing around here. So, it just became a bit of force of habit to continue to update the log. Occasionally I find it a useful tool to see if something that I requested to be deleted has been recreated, both visually and this way. I'm aware of the CSD log that Twinkle enables people to do, yours being an example. I find that format to be hard to use. It's not structured by type of action, and it's not clear if the action was successful if the target is no longer a red link. If the target is no longer a red link, and I don't have an indication that it was not successful, then memory being what it is I would likely revisit it to see what had happened. Thus, the format for mine. I have thought about what I might do if this RfA is successful. Given that my admin actions likely will number more or less the same amount as the number of requested admin actions I have made on my current log, I don't think it will be an undue burden to continue doing it with admin actions.
Additional question from Danielyng
21. How would you deal with Conflicts of Interests while performing Admin duties? How would you know when you have a bias that could potentially affect your actions? All Admins have biases, for sure, but when, and how, do you know if this bias goes too far?
A: Objectively, it's fairly simple to evaluate if I were WP:INVOLVED; have I been editing the article or discussion in question on which I was considering an administrative action in other than an administrative capacity? If yes, there's no reason to not request an uninvolved administrator to step in. Subjectively, have I worked a fair bit with one or more of the people involved in a discussion or development? Do I sense I have an opinion about one editor over another? Do I feel I have an opinion about an article from a personal standpoint in any respect? Do I have some sort of history tied to this? Then it's time to involve another administrator. It's true that we all have biases. It's also true that sometimes we have biases that we aren't aware of. If an editor informed me that they felt I had a conflict of interest, I would very likely involve another administrator as well. Not disengaging oneself from a situation when there is such a conflict of interest can dramatically inflame a situation.
22. Say you've had a bad day at work, school, whatever. When you log onto your account, you have to deal with someone/something annoying: doesn't matter what, just something that annoys you. How do you keep your cool? Sorry if this is a weird question, I'm basically just asking how you will keep your outside emotions away from doing your hypothetical Admin duties.
A: Everyone has bad days. That's a given. What is not a given is how we respond to that. There have been times when I am writing something to another member of the community, didn't hit submit, and just let the tab stay open for a while. I'll come back to it in an hour or two when I've had a chance to mentally disengage a bit, and then close the tab without submitting, realizing that what I wrote would make things worse and not better. I've seen administrators come under enormous pressure for their actions. I hope that wouldn't happen to me if this RfA is successful, but I am a realist. If it came to that, I would seek the input of other administrators on how best to proceed. I'm willing to make tough calls, but if I'm not in the right frame of mind to do so I should step back until I am. I am ever cognizant that text based communication is very limited in expression. Things can readily be misinterpreted. I think of the chance of misinterpretation going up at the square of the amount of heat in a conversation. It's important to act with that in mind.
Additional question from Heba Aisha
23. I have seen that admins donot read the comments of editors involved at WP:ARE properly and even if an editor who is vandalising certain pages puts baseless comments to draw the discussion longer they get confused on wat to do.Also they are very slow at WP:ARE, as an admin would you like to participate there to solve the issues expeditiously? Heba Aisha (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: I don't mind venturing into new areas on the project, and would consider looking into this. I do not have familiarity with this area, other than an understanding of its existence and need for it. Given that, I would want to educate myself a fair bit before working in that area.
Additional question from Lourdes
24. Sorry for so many questions. I am curious though (and so the question despite the sorry). A few years ago, you said Arbcom operates "against the community...", violating policies, wantonly ignoring their own procedures, operating with impunity... and a "failed" system, and that the Arbcom elections are "a farce". Tell me more about this if possible.
A: I could write and have written extensively on this subject. I have long argued for a number of reforms in ArbCom. One of these areas is in defining the scope of cases. I don't know that I can take credit, but the scope of cases has become a topic of discussion in more cases of late than previously. Another area is in the cognitive anchoring bias of case naming. While some arbitrators have agreed to some extent on this issue, others have disagreed, with one some years ago claiming that arbitrators were above having such issues, even though scientific studies have shown it to be impossible. ArbCom has indeed violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy at times. I've made no attempt in recent years to observe this, but it has happened on a number of occasions in the past. The same holds true with their procedures. There are a number of problematic, systemic issues in the arbitration system. I do not blame any particular arbitrator. If you would like, I would be happy to engage you in discussion on these issues, and give you a number of example instances.
Additional question from Paradise Chronicle
25.I've understood that you believe in a flat hierarchy on Wikipedia, which I regard as an admirable neutrality. Nevertheless there exist edit disputes which are often not as neutral as hoped and Admins are usually seen as experienced (fair) editors by both sides. Therefore: Seeing the WP Policy at WP:FULL or WP:GOLDLOCK, would you regard as a consensus the amount and quality of the sources provided or the consensus of the editors?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Fully protecting an article is a rare thing. Currently, there are just 10 actual articles that are fully protected [2]. For such an extraordinary action to be taken, there must have been extraordinary circumstances. If I encounter an edit request on a fully protected article, the provided sources that support the edit would certainly play a role in ascertaining if the edit should be performed. However, that is just one part of the work that needs to be done to decide how to act. I would also look to see when the article was fully protected to help identify discussions related to the protection. I would go through the talk page and its archives to find such discussions to gain an understanding of those exceptional circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, I might raise the issue with the protecting administrator to better understand the circumstances. In doing so, I would be raising my own awareness of any preexisting consensus regarding issues on the article. Consensus is a fundamental tool to the operation of the project, so much so that it is one of the five pillars. The provided sources in the edit request may point to something new that might shift consensus. Having a discussion should help inform consensus on how to proceed. Acting only on the sources provided in the circumstance of an edit request to a fully protected article is very likely to fan the flames of a dispute rather than produce a quality outcome in the article.
Additional question from Sportzpikachu
26. I've already !voted, and this question won't change my !vote much, but I'm curious: From looking at your contributions and your stance against xcon and autoconf, it seems that you haven't used any semi-automated tools such as RedWarn or AWB. When you recieve sysop perms, which come with rollback and xcon, it will mean that you are able to use semi-automated tools. Will you use semi-automated tools like RedWarn or AWB to fight vandalism faster and more effectively, and why or why not?
A: I am not against WP:ECP or WP:SEMI. They are important tools that allow us to protect the project while keeping us as open to editing as possible. I am strongly in favor of using them only when truly necessary. On semi-automated tools; I would consider using them. To be honest, I was not aware of RedWarn until you mentioned it. It looks intriguing! Manual editing does have the benefit of finding inadvertent mistakes by prior editors or bots. For example, I've run across situations where a vandal is warned with two level-2 warnings, when it should have already gone to level-3. I've also seen situations where a vandal performs a particular sort of vandalism, gets a level-1 warning, and a week or so later does similar vandalism and still only gets a level-1 warning. I think manual editing/warning helps avoid those circumstances. Speed is great, but sometimes it is less efficient.
Additional question from Seemplez
27. Just a short question. Would you answer requests for self-blocks used to enforce a Wikibreak?
A: I think it would depend on the circumstance. There are potential issues with creating drama, as was noted in this conversation. On the flip side, there is also Internet addiction disorder, and a person may be trying to help themselves past that by requesting such a block. I've also seen editors request it because they have exams coming up and they want to remain focused on their academic goals.
Additional question from Chess
28. I would like to know your position on WP:PEND (pending changes protection). I've noticed that you haven't generally requested pending changes protection at WP:RFPP in your past 40 or so requests since PC1 was approved in 2012 [3] and I was wondering in what, if any, cases you'd impose pending changes protection as an admin.
A: I think WP:PEND is a very useful part of the protection options, providing a good means of preventing disruption while remaining as open as possible to editing. Pending changes protection is a fairly frequently requested protection level, and if the circumstances are appropriate I would apply it. Per WP:PEND, I would generally not want to apply it to frequently edited articles. Our ratio of reviewers (~7500) to pending changes protected articles (~4000) is good. I was concerned when this came out that there might be an inbalance in this such that reviews are left hanging for too long, but page review statistics shows we're doing a good job of managing this area of the project. Over the past year, we're averaging around 15 pages in queue, though we did have a rough patch back in February where the backlog was sustaining over 40 for quite a while.


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

  1. First support. Good user and good contributions. –MJLTalk 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support precious sudden revelations --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support from me too. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Strong 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)Reply[reply]
    I've moved to a strong support per the answers to their questions. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support trustworthy candidate, competent. I like the 10 principles. Vexations (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. An unexpected, but very welcome request. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support very competent and trustworthy. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support – no concerns here; trustworthy and competent, as others have written. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Stormy Chamber (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I especially love the Principles! GrammarDamner how are things? 19:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. Softness is a rare quality in a hammer. BD2412 T 19:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support based on thoughtful solid answers to the above questions.— Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support I'm reasonably certain they're not an idiot. Nick (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support Good user.Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  16. Support One of the most thoughtful and "real" candidates for adminship in a long time. I fully support. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Wow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was looking at the RfC that created the WP:TPE right (on an unrelated matter) and now noticed a comment by Hammersoft, oppose #3 (too lazy to find the diff). It's nice to see someone principled and sticking to their core beliefs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  19. Aye, go on then. ◦ Trey Maturin 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  21. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support. Good editor, will be fine as an admin. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  25. Support Answers to questions are excellent. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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)Reply[reply]
  27. Support   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Well balanced editor with clue. Moriori (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  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 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. While this is my first !vote in an RfA, this editor's approach to editing, as well as their current answers, are absolutely enough to make me confident in supporting them. Everything they've shown has only made me more optimistic about the future of Wikipedia's mop-wielding custodians :). Perryprog (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support clearly competent, experienced, has a clue. Ready & qualified. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support with pleasure. I don't know the user, but he/she is offering help that we need coupled with good understanding of our underlying principles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Stephen 22:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support I've seen the candidate around for a long time, and they'll be an excellent admin. Miniapolis 23:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support per nom and the excellent answers to the questions asked. Grandpallama (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support Sure, we need as many well trained hands on the deck as we can. Nadzik (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Enthusiastic about this candidate. Indeed, truly great answers to some tough questions. El_C 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support User has been a steady, helpful presence at UAA for years, I am confident they are more than ready to handle a mop. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support Absolutely without question Hammersoft receives my support. After years of good editing and solid answers to the questions, and plainly not a hat collector, I have no doubts they will be responsible and a positive force with the tools. Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) 00:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Support Absolutely! Hammersoft has always been someone I've thought of as a sound mind, civil, and an editor with common sense. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support I just logged in for one of my increasingly infrequent visits to the site to see an active RfA, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see that it's someone I'm not only familiar with, but someone who I know will make an excellent admin. —DoRD (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Support Soft boi Engr. Smitty Werben 02:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Suppot yes 2 Heart (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Suppot Very dedicated, years of quality work. Good nom. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support While I do not necessarily agree that a "flat hierarchy" is the best way forward for Wikipedia (I do not reject everything about it; I just tend to stay in the middle rather than drifting to extremes), I appreciate their thoughtful and rational explanation and answer to Q10. It sincerely hit the nail on the head and I wanted to shout "Exactly!" at my monitor. (I personally feel that our training material, while informative, shouldn't be used with a "RTFM or else" mindset that poisons the newbie experience, so it was refreshing to be able to see someone say "It's okay to make mistakes" in a world where mistakes seems to be treated as a blasphemous sin against the fabric of the universe) Anyways, enough rambling from me. I can give my support. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Support: Candidate has provided good, thoughtful answers and has convinced me that they would be a good admin.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Support: Their answer to Q10 is fascinating and I couldn't agree more, especially considering my slightly perilous experience joining the project. Their unique (as far as I've seen) /log page and contributions show they have remarkable diligence. And to top it all off, they have an intriguing username—made me think of the hammers of a piano. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support – Thoughtful. Thanks for volunteering. Levivich harass/hound 03:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support – I'm not sure if I've ever interacted with Hammersoft directly, but I have seen his name popping up all over the place for many years now. Based on what I've seen, I am confident that he will do good work as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. No issues from me. Lungespine (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support – read through the questions and answers & everything looks good to me! - Alison 04:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support Hammersoft has 6700+ edits on namespace Wikipedia.[4][5] This is the kind of admin we need. Someone who has the potential to be very active and helpful on WP:PNB and other related stuff/issues. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support with gratitude. Folly Mox (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support – level-headed and astute user. I haven't always agreed with them but I have no problem with this user being an admin. Graham87 06:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support. Long-standing editor, adequate content contributions, thoughtful answers to additional questions. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Support. Another "I thought he already was an admin!" candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  60. Support Very well-spoken, well-principled, and the type of admin we need here on the wiki. May their ascension to the janitorial office be blessed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Majavah (talk!) 07:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Support Great experience already in admin areas. Good temperament (very important). Willing to change or evolve views based on experience and changing circumstances. Content contributor. Good writer. Good answers to questions. Long time trusted user; trustworthiness established. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. No issues. -- CptViraj (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. Support Long term user has been around since 2007,clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Long-time helpful, productive, thoughtful user. Should have been made an admin long ago! —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  66. Support as a net positive. Keep up the good work. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  67. Support No issues. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  68. Support I'd not previously heard of the candidate, and I'm not sure I'd take all of their positions to the absolute severity they do, but their viewpoint would definitely seem to make them a low risk candidate, and their quality seems to tick the other boxes. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  69. Suppport It's Hammer time. Zarasophos (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  70. Suppport Would be more helpful with the mop — Amkgp 💬 10:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  71. Absolute support – Appreciate candidate's attention to systemic issues of adminship, and, as an admin who has faded away in recent years, I guess I'm part of that problem ... I hope the conversations can continue and move towards possible reforms / solutions. Go Phightins! 10:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  72. Support I like their views about what being an admin means. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  73. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  74. Support – no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  75. Support – Will be a useful wielder of the mop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  76. Support Never knowingly run into them myself but I like the answers and other trusted users supporting. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  77. SupportFitIndia Talk Admin on Commons 12:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  78. Support. Can be trusted to make decisions that best support the project. No issues. Loopy30 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  79. We often disagree, however it's clear Hammersoft has the best interests of the project at heart, always. Thank you for standing for demotion. –xenotalk 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  80. Support. Everything is clean, good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  81. Support – excellent nomination, exceptionally thoughtful answers to questions, long history of highly positive contributions, solitary block from 12 years ago no concern. I have seen this candidate around and have long been positively impressed. Welcome to the bin.... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  82. Support. Candidate has always left a positive impression on me; trustworthy and knowledgeable. AGK ■ 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  83. Support No issues that I can see. Deb (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  84. Support. Seems thoughtful and competent. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  85. Support Can be trusted with the admin tools. Seems worthy for adminship. Giggity (talkcontribs) 15:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  86. Support I don't think we have ever interacted but I was impressed reading through the candidate's answers to various questions. Mujinga (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  87. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  88. Support. Strong answers to questions. Hammersoft's username reports are accurate from what I have seen, and the noticeboard is indeed frequently backlogged. — Newslinger talk 16:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  89. Support clearly an experienced candidate who understands policy and has the right disposition to be an admin. I particularly liked their rational for suddenly seeking a permission (beyond the AfC pseudo-perm they have), "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.". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  90. Support Appears to get it. FOARP (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  91. Support – I am really impressed with the clarity of Hammersoft's answers. They would make trustworthy, thoughtful, level-headed admin. Netherzone (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  92. Support: Experienced, and trustworthy. ~36% mainspace edits is a bit low (my personaly expecation is ~50% or more), but over-all the nomination looks good, good wishes. --Titodutta (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  93. Support – it's a pleasure to support an RfA of somebody who believes in "a flat Wikipedia hierarchy" and considers that an editor who becomes an admin is getting a demotion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  94. Support – without counting anything else in the equation this user starts out with 2 net positives: (1) the good judgement of the nominating admin, and (2) the user's name choice; we are indeed ready for a soft hammer. How can we possibly go wrong? Add to that, experience and trustworthiness. As the auctioneer says at the horse auctions..."Think long and you think wrong." Atsme 💬 📧 19:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  95. No concerns; seen them around, like their work, like their answers, cannot find any red flags. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  96. Support – Great answers to the barrage of questions. Surprised to learn that Hammersoft was not an admin this whole time and has never even run. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  97. Support I am extremely satisfied with the answers to the questions I posted. I have rarely met a person with such strong principles, and even more rarely met a person who's fully prepared to uphold them. I strongly advise you to support him. As people above had said, why deny him the Sysop tools when hes clearly ready for it? Danielyng (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  98. Support – I have come across this user before and am confident that they will make a good Administrator. Eyebeller (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  99. Support, great answers. Maka⭐️(talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  100. Support – 100th support (and no oppose votes), congrats! Perfect candidate, answers to all the questions asked are flawless and brilliant track record. Pahunkat (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  101. Support – Great answers, particularly to Q10. I'm also quite impressed by their principles and (far more importantly) their clear intent to keep to them. With all due respect to Mr. Wales, there's a decent argument to be made for WP:NOBIGDEAL to redirect to this RFA. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  102. Support – excellent candidate YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  103. Support I'm surprised you didn't run sooner! You'll continue being a great asset to the project. -- Luk talk 22:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  104. Support Very impressive replies. SethWhales talk 22:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  105. Per nom ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  106. Happy to pile on here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  107. Support – excellent and thoughtful answers to questions. Not sure if I find that log more admirable or scary, but in any case this would be one accountable admin. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  108. I think this is the first time I've seen Hammersoft's name come up, but reading through the nomination statement, questions, and answers, I have no doubt that they will use the tools well. I'm particularly impressed by their temperament and wikiphilosophy, but those don't require the tool set. What brings me to the support column is the chance for additional hands at UAA and RFPP, and their temperament makes me believe their judgment in those venues will be valuable and appreciated. Wug·a·po·des 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  109. Support – I like your answers here, and the edits you've made to articles. I don't see a reason why I wouldn't want to hand you a mop. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  110. Support – It is very admiring of a user to run for adminship despite being blocked and being in tricky situations in the past. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  111. Support – In the past I haven't always agreed with how the NFCC policies have been applied, and I'm pretty sure Hammersoft has nominated images I'd have kept (it's been a LONG time and my mind can be like a steel trap: rusty) but not agreeing doesn't mean I can't appreciate someone's work in that nest of vipers. I see no cause for concern about the potential of Hammersoft having the tools. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  112. Support. Unusual viewpoints but has good intentions. Enjoyer of World(bother...) 02:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  113. Support. Pamzeis (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  114. Support. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  115. Support I liked his principles. Nalbarian (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  116. Support This is my first vote in a RfA. I was particularly impressed with his response to question 10. As a newer editor, he has my support. Mollifiednow (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  117. Support To me, Hammersoft fits perfectly the role. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  118. Support Already an asset to the 'pedia. That will increase with the mop and pail. MarnetteD|Talk 06:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  119. Support I don’t know much about anything, and I liked his answers in support of new editors as vital, I would like to see some more attention/help given to new editors as I think that will help Wikipedia be maintained, and I think user:Hammersoft supports that, so I support them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Theory of Knowledge (talkcontribs) 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  120. Support All in Chetsford (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  121. Support per nominator. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  122. Support accurately described adminship as jumping "into a garbage bin replete with all sorts of steaming refuse" but is prepared to do it anyway. Trust them with the mop. --Find bruce (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  123. Support after review. No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  124. Support per the persona. Em-mustapha 11:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  125. Support Thought Hammersoft was already an admin. Overdue. Gizza (talkvoy) 11:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  126. Support Trustful and principled. No such user (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  127. Support thoughtful & thought-provoking. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  128. Strong support just glad I saw this in time! Will make an excellent Admin. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  129. Support no reason for otherwise. A good user. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  130. Yup. Thanks for standing. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  131. Strong support per all of the above. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  132. Support – Great editor who will make a great admin, No red flags here, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 16:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  133. Support – trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  134. Support – excellent editor, great answers to questions especially 22, encourages people to write content. What more can one say? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  135. Support – I have seen their name around AIV/UAA/RFPP and they consistently have accurate reports. Along with the answers, I am very happy to support. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  136. Support as meeting all generally agreed upon minimum requirements and no reason to oppose found. Ifnord (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  137. Support – Excellent answers to all of the 22 questions. Hog Farm Bacon 17:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  138. Support – responsible editor who will be an excellent admin DBaK (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  139. Support per Gizza. Mathsci (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  140. Support per MJL, Gerda, Drmies, Dreamy Jazz, Vexations, TBF, Magnolia, Cordless, Stormy, Grammar, BD24, Diannaa, Nick, Death, buidhe, Thadeus, Procrastinating, Scotty, Trey, Epic, Astrophobe, Ahunt, davidwr,Clayoquot... Le Panini Talk 18:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  141. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  142. Support, good candidate. — kashmīrī TALK 18:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  143. Support Jings – that's a lot of support in a short space of time. Hammersoft's is a name I've come across many times connected to sensible comments and productive work. Competence clearly isn't an issue, and with such a long tenure I'm certain that any issues with temperament would have long-since come to light. Far exceeds any reasonable concept of 'minimum standards', clearly here for the right reasons, so enthusiastic support per numerous colleagues above. GirthSummit (blether) 19:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  144. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  145. Support- As has been stated, no reason to oppose. I wish the candidate well.   Aloha27  talk  19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  146. Support- Seems like a solid, good candidate JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  147. Support Fits the ideal for an admin.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  148. Support Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  149. Support – Extra admins working at AIV is always a good thing. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 22:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  150. Support The softest hammer in all the land. Seems super reliable. signed, SpringProof talk 00:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  151. Support. I especially like the detailed log of actions (including the "errors and what I learned from them" material at the end.). I'm having a hard time finding anything that looks like a problem, and everything I do see about what this user has been doing long-term indicates good judgement, solid understanding of policy, excellent people skills, and a thorough integration into the editing community.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  152. Support. I'm going with the herd here rather than giving any detailed scrutiny, my 5 minute attempt to find any issues 3 days ago failed and no-one seems to have found anything major since to date.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  153. Support Have seen him around and generally find his comments and contributions well-reasoned and well written. Impressed by the answers StarM 02:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  154. Support per general favorable impression (and per Djm-leighpark)--RegentsPark (comment) 02:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  155. Support per their excellent and tireless contributions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  156. Support finally! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  157. Support excellent and brilliant candidate. JavaHurricane 07:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  158. Support: very civil, reflective on temperament, has use for the tools and of course fully competent. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  159. Support — what an easy support. Bishonen | tålk 11:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  160. Support – looks like a smart, sensible, experienced, and knowledgeable editor. L293D ( • ) 14:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  161. SupportGraham Beards (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  162. Support I assume they will do it perfectly, lets see.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  163. Support Not personally familiar with the candidate but from what I can see it looks like they will make a good administrator. --IWI (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  164. Support happy with answers to the questions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  165. I very rarely vote on these, but I feel it is import to put forth strong Support for this admin, he's already doing it admirably, it's time to make it official!Jacona (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  166. Strong support: Civil, good views, admirable, patient: the sort that we should certainly see as an ideal administrator. Pleased to support in full. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  167. Support Experienced editor, can be trusted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  168. Support I had exactly the same reaction as K6ka, doubtful about flat hierarchies but impressed by the answer to Q10. I think it will be an asset to us to have such an empathetic editor in charge of the admin's harsh medicine. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  169. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  170. Support, competent user. --MrClog (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  171. Support No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  172. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  173. Support answers like the Goldsmiths hammer of WikipediaParadise Chronicle (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  174. Support I am not personally familiar with the candidate. Upon reviewing their work it seems like they will do the job well. RandomIntrigue (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  175. Support I am not familiar with the candidate, but reviewing their answers and work it seems like they would do a good job as an admin. (Timmy (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  176. Support: is someone who appreciates that this is a janitorial role. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  177. Support — Because it’s no big deal. Celestina007 (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  178. Support What prompted me to ask question #6 was a cause of initial concern, but I find the answers balanced. --Pudeo (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  179. Support I have not always agreed with everything the candidate has written over the years, but very clearly the position of the community at the centre, which accords with my belief, and there is no need to fear for it or the encyclopaedia once the mop is handed over; happy days, LindsayHello 15:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  180. Support. Keeping a list of mistakes, failures and shortcomings is commendable and a sign they will be conscientious handling the mop. ◅ Sebastian 17:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  181. Support Just piling on that I'm particularly impressed by several of the answers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  182. Support of course. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  183. Support. I don't know Hammersoft, have never encountered him/her, and don't know what s/he will be doing with his/her time, but it seems to me from the contribs and the discussion here that, whatever that is, it will be productive and helpful to the encyclopedia as a whole. – Athaenara 22:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  184. support if you'd have told me 10 years ago I'd be here, I'd have been shocked but pleased. I find them to still be more deletion-oriented than I'd prefer, but seems very very likely for this to be a net positive. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  185. Pile-on support at this point, I know. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  186. Support Looking at the questions that he asked, I do feel like all of the answers that he has given are good enough for him to hand him the mop. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  187. Weak support I have some concerns about how Hammersoft will balance their desire to work at RFPP and their strong criticism of extended-confirmed protection. Their answers to 17 and 17A were quite vague and did not completely dispel these concerns. However, given Hammersoft's otherwise exemplary record, and the overwhelmingly community support demonstrated so far, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. – Teratix 01:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  188. Support. Seems experienced and trustworthy. Has clearly spent a great amount of time thinking about their role on Wikipedia and the right direction for it to go. I like their commitment to a more flat hierarchy. All in all, happy to support. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  189. Support. Discounting the three or four who are banned or no longer aound, Hammersort is since April 2008, one of the most highly prolific contributors to WT:RfA where (I'll stand corrected) he appears to have mostly avoided agreeing with or supporting almost anything I ever said there so I'm not sure that not "...descend[ing] into personal affront" is quite accurate. There must be a reason for this preoccupation with matters adminship and now suddenly after all these years running for the bit, but as Scottywong points out, and as I'm not one for disturbing an (as yet) immaculate RfA), let Hammeroft indeed, in his own words: "JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!". They clearly have a use for the tools and I'm sure they will use them well – they will find out later soon enough whether or not they like the job, but beware of Wikipedia's Sword of Damocles . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  190. Support A very good candidate. Neovu79 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  191. Support Tough to add anything that hasn't already been said above, but great answers to the questions, and no strong concerns. Good luck! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  192. Support Acceptable answers to the questions, more active admins = less vandalism ―sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 07:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  193. Support Seems to be a hardworking and responsible editor, and has answered the questions well. Given that he has been around for a long time as well, good luck to him! HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  194. Support Miad I Mahbub BD (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  195. Support Trustworthy and has demonstrated to have the needed skills. Thank you for volunteering. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  196. Support — Good answers. — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  197. Support Easy support. Jianhui67 TC 14:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  198. The answer to Q10 is an attitude every Wikipedia editor should adopt. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 16:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  199. support he desreves it Geographicalman05 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  200. Support Have observed over the years Hammersoft's good intentions and sound judgement. I trust them to only delete the main page and block Jimbo when absolutely necessary. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  201. Support No qualms, believe they'd do well.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 18:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  202. Strong support per several others. –Cupper52Discuss! 19;21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  203. Support excellent candidate.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  204. Support -- the wub "?!" 23:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  205. Support I don't share their views on extended confirmed protection, but the overwhelming support here has convinced me it won't be an issue. P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  206. Support. As for "a hundred blows of a goldsmith are worth one blow of a blacksmith" in regard to this candidate's user name (Q4), gold is a much softer metal than those usually dealt with by blacksmiths, so gold requires the much "softer hammer", in case anyone was still confused. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Miyagi and Daniel Laruso (Karate kid) hammering a big, long nail into wood with just one blow. So softness of the hammer implies "self-control". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  207. Support An excellent editor who will also be an excellent administrator. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  208. Support, although it's not like the 208th support vote on a no-oppose RfA will make much difference. Seems like a pretty legit editor, and willing to take actions toward the furtherance of good stuff happening. Nothing sordid. jp×g 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  209. Support Tolly4bolly 09:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  210. Support Yes, no issues here. GedUK  10:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  211. Support. I'm particularly impressed by Hammersoft's answers to the questions above. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  212. Support seems like a safe candidate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  213. Support a solid editor.--Staberinde (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  214. Support seems like a good candidate. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  215. Support. Unquestionably. Useight (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  216. Support. I can remember going to this user as the go-to editor for matters of NFCC, because they had spent so much time studying the policies. I feel comfortable, especially given the answers to the questions above, that the full admin toolset will be handled with similar care. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  217. Support. Seems like they would be a good candidate. Also, we kind of need more admins (if we keep using our current structure) to avoid some of the problems I have seen that faster admin reaction time will fix. Randompointofview (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  218. Support. I guess I'll make it unanimous. As of this writing I see no opposes and no neutrals. I can see why. He has done a tremendous amount of work, has created articles, and has answered the questions well. Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  219. Support Ready to swap the hammer for a mop? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  220. Support Excellent candidate, as revealed in the community discussion above. Please attach your hammer head to a mop handle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  221. Support Might as well lend my support just before it closes. Very suitable candidate with impressive answers to the many questions. Will make a fine admin. Schwede66 01:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  222. Support The mop is a trust position and I feel fine extending that trust to Hammersoft, who I've intersected with many a time over the years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  223. Support pile on. I remember you, not sure why, but it feels like something positive. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  224. Support because he is a good candidate. I hope he will protect Wikipedia from disruption. ----Rdp060707 (Your questions?/My fight against the devil) 06:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  225. Support No major concerns here. Johnnyconnorabc(talk)07:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  226. Support Definitely. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  227. Support No qualms about giving Hammersoft the mop. Prompt and detailed answers to questions. Seemplez {{ping}} me 12:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  228. Oh, go on then, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  229. Why not? --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  230. Support per Jehochman, among others. Thank you, and good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  231. Support Able, worthy candidate. Lourdes 15:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  232. Support TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  233. Support. Looks good to me! Welcome to the corps.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • To clarify, Hammersoft has disclosed their former account to Newyorkbrad in an individual capacity, not to the Arbitration Committee. As far as I'm aware, having searched the available archives, ArbCom has no record of it, so we can't comment on whether his current account is a valid clean start. According to the clean start policy, disclosing previous accounts to ArbCom before an RfA is not mandatory, but strongly recommended. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I confirm that Hammersoft's statements above as to his long-ago prior account are accurate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uh, regarding question 22, what if you submitted what you wrote on accident? That would be especially bad if it was something consider a personal attack or the likes. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair to Hammersoft, I've done that too, where I've written up something saltier than necessary, and then read it over only to realize "Oh...yikes....shouldn't post that". So far I've yet to accidentally post something I didn't mean to. I think we've all written something we didn't like and either not published it or proofread it before posting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also agree with Hammersoft's approach. We have to accept that there will be times where our emotions get the better of us, and how we respond to it is very important. Some editors choose shamelessly to lash out in their frustration and the result of that tends to end up on WP:ANI. Typing it out, taking a step back, and deleting it is certainly a much less catastrophic way of handling frustration.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, it’s just sometimes my iPad likes to glitch about and hit random stuff despite me tapping in a completely different spot. It might happen to somebody during this process, and the whole "It was an accident, honest!" excuse is something anybody can pull off, meaning that somebody may not believe it even though it is the truth. Because of that, I do not think typing it up on Wikipedia is a good idea. Maybe on Notes or something? Foxnpichu (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Best place is Scream Into The Void. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gee. I wish I came across that a lot earlier. Thanks. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See also WP:HOTHEADS. I recommended this "write it, to get it out of your system, then take a break, and revise before posting" process myself. It works well for some people.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Do we think it would be churlish to move to neutral because of the horror of them having their talk page contents box on the right, not the left, like any upstanding citizen should? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Guess you're not one of the watchers of this page...-- P-K3 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.