Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hamster Sandwich

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

Hamster Sandwich[edit]

Final (39/9/6) ended 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs) – Hammy Sammy is a great guy. I feel like I know him rather well, having been one of the ones that welcomed him, and interacted with him a bit along the way since then. He exercises good judgment and is a friendly, helpful, sometimes funny, editor. He has plently of article space edits, but also Wikipedia namespace edits as well, having participated in AFD and the like. He has also been here for about six months. I think he'd make a great addition to our admin team. (Oh, and he's in my cabal...) Dmcdevit·t 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, with thanks to my nominator. Hamster Sandwich 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Coolest name ever, by the way. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Trust the nominator. Good work by editor so far, but please increase edit activity a little. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support! I have had good interactions with this editor - he was once spoofed twice by a vandal over two weeks (by Hamster Sandwich. and Hamster-Sandwich), and I helped him sort that problem out to the extent that I was able. I have observed his contributions since then, and have no fear that he will misuse or abuse the admin tools. BD2412 T 23:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good editor, good sense of humour, sensible voter. CanadianCaesar 23:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, plenty of activity accross the board (with the exception of Image talk ;))and all of it good. Thryduulf 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, looks very solid. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC) – changed to neutral[reply]
  6. Support Ditto with DmcDevit. karmafist 00:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm female afterall Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no reason to oppose. NSLE (讨论+extra) 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, Besides from the fact that I like Hamsters and I don't want to eat them ;-), I think you'd be a great choice from what I've seen of you I Am Ri¢h 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Bon appetit!--MONGO 07:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Contribs look good, User looks solid. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 07:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. El_C 12:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - solid user. Where might I know you from? --Celestianpower hablamé 13:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'd want a hamster sandwich. — JIP | Talk 15:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support.  Grue  16:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've worked with this editor and know for a fact that he is safe pair of hands. His judgements in AfD have been uniformly good, and balanced. It's unfortunate for Wiki that real-life has been a distraction recently, but that doesn't diminish the quality of the potential admin. -Splashtalk 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Энциклопедия* (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I trust the Hamster Sandwich to use the mop wisely and well. Alf melmac 23:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: I thought about the concerns voiced below for a while, as I was surprised at the lack of talk and project edits, but then I thought about it some more and came to the conclusion that not having much to say to other users isn't necessarily a bad thing. From HamsterSandwich's edits and behavior (including stepping right in the middle of some of the fractiousness right off the bat), I believe him to have the poise and calm necessary for the added buttons. Geogre 02:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Geogre said it for me. -- DS1953
  25. Support Izehar 16:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Why, it's Hamster Sandwich! Flowerparty■ 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. In agreement with User:Geogre.--Dakota t e 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. With my complete confidence. -- Essjay · Talk 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. the wub "?!" 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - His contributions merit promotion. I had 1,300 edits when promoted, which means his time-to-edit ratio is better than mine. FCYTravis 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - After extensive review, I have concluded that this Ham Sammich will make an outstanding addition to the Jewish Cabal that runs Wikipedia. (Or whatever pet theory the detractors subscribe to...) TomerTALK 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. A little slim on the edits, but what I've seen has been very good work, so... Grutness...wha? 08:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Keep. For a hamster, he's doing very well. The Land 10:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I remember when he was just a little hamsterling... has shown positive interest in helping Wikipedia work well from the start. FreplySpang (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Make me a sammich! And damn the editcountitis. Ral315 (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. support with pleasure Tedernst | Talk 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Need more admins. We are an encyclopedia first, a community second. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 15:11 (I removed your first vote since you accidentally voted twice --Martin Osterman 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  39. Support. I see no reason to oppose. --Martin Osterman 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts. Quentin Pierce 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to neutral. Quentin Pierce 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Lack of experience in Wikispace (10 edits to Wikipedia talk, 50 in Wikipedia in the past three months; in the further past, lots of AFD and RFA voting but next to nothing elsewhere in Wikispace). Please involve yourself with process more before taking up adminship. Radiant_>|< 00:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. 3 months experience. Please stay here for a little bit longer before running again for adminship. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too short --Ryan Delaney talk 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to lack of experience; needs more time. Silensor 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'm sure would make a fine admin, but admins need experience. The JPS 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically July 15th '05 was the date I established a user account on WP. Thus 4.5 months... Hamster Sandwich 02:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, great editor... but needs more experience.Gateman1997 20:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose needs a tad bit more expeirience. Jobe6 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose great person, just too inexperienced at the moment. Come back in a couple months and you'll have my support.  ALKIVAR™ 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Editcountitis 4 life! Proto t c 13:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral been here for 3 months, right? And doesn't even have 1,500 edits. Say editcountitis or whatever you want, but I just don't think this user has had enough activity around these here parts. Quentin Pierce 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. On second thought... Sorry, don't want to oppose, what you do contribute is alright, but I'd suggest you get some more experience first and then try again in a few months' time. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 00:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Merovingian 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I whould normally oppose in this situation but he is too good of a user so I wont do that. He havent been editing much lately so thats why im in neutral --Jaranda(watz sup) 22:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Shall certainly support when the user has a few more months of experience, and probably a thousand more edits. Seems he'll make a great admin with more experience. deeptrivia (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I'm Jaranda here. Normally, I'd oppose, but this user's record, disposition (and, yes, his choice of name) are just too good. If not now, Hamster Sandwich in '06! Xoloz 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Around 1500 edits.

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I look forward to gaining the rollback button to help combat vandalism is its many forms here. Usually when I find a page that has been vandalized, by the time I can make the revision in the old fashioned "cut and paste" method, by the time I save, an admin has already beat me to the punch (so to speak) and reverted the damage. I am also interested in becoming engaged in dispute resolution, and mediation tasks. That is one area that has held my attention since I registered my account this past summer. In short, I am willing to do anything that needs doing, if I am capable, whenever and wherever I can.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I get alot of pleasure from editing WP and adding new articles gives me a real feeling of accomplishment. So far, none of my new article additions have been put up for deletion, and most of the subsequent editing by other editors has been uniformly excellent. For a good example of this, please see George Byng, 1st Viscount Torrington. I initially wrote that page because there was a request for it at Most Wanted Articles. It was a pleasure to research and write about such an illustrious figure, and subsequent editing by others has really polished it into a nice biography (I think). For an example of an article which I helped to save from deletion by please see Margo. The original draft here[1]was kind of "rough". Seeing this article at AfD (VfD back then) I thought I could improve it. Since then other editors notably (Eugene van der Pijll) have made more and more improvements, and now its a pretty decent article IMHO. It survived a VfD process and is a useful addition to the knowledge base here.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Thankfully, the vast majority of interaction here on WP have been positive for me. I must admit that the first time my user page was vandalised, I was in a bit of a panic. The vandal was called Hamster Sandwich. and I didn't notice the period at the end of the name. So initially I thought someone had been able to hijack my account and they were going around vandalizing WP. Stressful for a few minutes, until Slim Virgin blocked the impersonator. Its happened a couple times since then (there was even a Hamster Sandwich On Wheels). Conflicts? Well the Bill Brady Bandit was rather vexatious. Briefly, an anon user kept removing Brady's name from the Notable Londoners section at London, Ontario, against all proofs provided concerning Brady's notability and against a constantly growing consensus that Brady should remain included [2]. I ended up writing a full article, Bill Brady to show that person's importance and notability in the context of London Ont. Other editors (several admins) included became involved and the London article page was even protected for a time. Unfortunate, but ultimately necessary. The Brady Bandit seems to have moved on, but I still monitor that page for changes, just in case. A further conflict, but one which taught me an important lesson in the context of WP had to do with Gabrielsimon, whom at one point I described as a "nut-job" here [3]. My rather callous, cavalier and unfortunate assessment, I feel was hasty and I still feel really bad that I had responded in this way to another editor. I remain contrite. I did follow that user and his interaction with the administration here at WP and I am impressed at the way they conducted themselves. I remain in hope that particular editor will become a valued contributor. Live and learn, is my motto, and what a person says here in these pages sticks around for a long, long time. These are all the incidents that come to mind. If I've had any other conflicts, they must have been minor ones, and I hope that my answer shows that I am willing to learn from my past mistakes but that on the whole, I'd rather not make any to start with.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hamster_Sandwich&oldid=1082477343"