Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Request for CU on a voter [moved here from RFA][edit]

Could someone CU User:Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 and indef them for the usual. ——Serial 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
erm... but why? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, are you sure this is the right spot for such a request? I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, you must remember, I hope, that checks of this nature are part of what got someone's cu bit revoked some months ago. —DoRD (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DoRD: I suppose responding to these kinds of comments is marginally a better use of my time than watching the Texas case in the US Supreme Court. I don't even have a name anymore, DoRD? "Someone"? Does your comment mean that a user like Death should not be checked (for all I know, the account has been checked, only a CU would know)? Or simply that if a CU were to check without a specific master in mind, they might get into trouble like "someone"? I, of course, agree, Serial Number 54129, that the account should be checked, but requesting it publicly is not the best way to go about it. I suggest you e-mail your favorite CU, if you have one, and note your concerns. Although you don't have to have someone in mind as the master for such an e-mail, it would be good to explain why the account is "obvious". In case you didn't see it before it was deleted, one of many examples of their obviousness is Talk:Arbus, Sardinia/GA1.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone? Yeah, that's must me trying to be discreet, and not unnecessarily ping you. Of course this account smells of dirty socks, but considering what was done to you, if I still had the tools, I certainly wouldn't run a check for a !vote, especially not for a public request like this. —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DoRD: Sounds like it's me being overly sensitive and misinterpreting what you said. I apologize for that and for the sarcasm. Don't worry about pinging me. I only see it when I log in, which is generally only to clear pings or in the very rare circumstances that I comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who am i exactly supposed to be sock of again? the guy who nominated that? i mean looking back on that, realize how trash my review was, but it wasn't anything other than that ---Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely the wrong spot for a request like this, and you don't even mention who and why. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont understand how im a sock puppet but ok. Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your username plays a part, as well as some of your edits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What?? jp×g 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, ALMOST WP:100 in a day[edit]

Well, I'm sure it will be more than that soon enough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good start, which will hopefully continue. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of my own 2008 nomination of my late friend valued contributor Dravecky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Signpost obituary 2016-05-02). It sailed through 66/0/1. Rest in peace my friend, rest in peace. No, Hammersoft, you are not allowed to die on us, at least not until you are old. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reached 100/0/0 in 27 hours. That's very good going. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now 200/0/0 in 120 hours. Perryprog (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 20 more supports before time's up (about 1 every 8 minutes) and no opposes or neutrals, it'll be the strongest unanimous RfA of all time. Unlikely, but possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh you'll jinx it! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations you did it, you now have the highest support in a unanimous RFA with 233/0/0. Ealdgyth, at 250/0/2, still has the largest support for an unopposed RFA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]