User:Hamster Sandwich/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yo![edit]

Hey, there, Hamster-on-a-bun. Long time no see!  :) Just doing some late night new page patrolling and bumped into "Skor bar." - Lucky 6.9 07:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I hear ya. In fact, I've been doing some new articles over at the new "radio control" Wikicities site. Dragged a few from here to there; might be time to reciprocate. Hobby subjects are really, really lacking here. Enjoy the snack! - Lucky 6.9 07:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Hey Hamster, Just wanted to say thanks for the vote. A couple of those guys are just going crazy on me and opposing for ridiculous reasons. By the way, GREAT picture on your user page...i've got a similar one of a friends Dachshund puppy (as in Hot Dog). Ok...thanks again and if you ever need anything drop me a line. --ScottyBoy900Q 02:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

I've just made an edit to your user page and with it passed the 5,000th edit! Excellent work on the snake articles, the Barnstar of Life is well and truly deserved, oh "sucker for awards"! : ) Alf melmac 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Celestianpower is an admin[edit]

Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! It would seem that I've improved since your oppose vote in my first run and that can only be good! --Celestianpower hablamé 12:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

CBW RfA[edit]

Just a quick word of thanks for you vote. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

the wub's RfA[edit]

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

: )[edit]

I saw this and thought of you! : ) Alf melmac 02:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I am planning on nominating you for adminship, but had a question. You haven't been too active recently, i.e. ~50 edits in the last two months. Can I ask you why you haven't been active (if it's personal, you can just say it's personal) and more importantly if you are going to become more active in the near future? Dmcdevit·t

Sorry it took so long, was basically out of commission for Thanksgiving and the day before it. But, you are nominated, and I have no doubts you'll be promoted. Your answer was perfectly fine, by the way, (I bet my edits have been down over the school year too), but I just wondered because it is not unlikely someone will ask in the RFA. All you have to do now is accept and answer the questions right :). Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I thank thee, O Rodent-and-Bread, for the much-needed chuckle. One lousy sentence and look what happened.  :) Some fun, this admin thing. - Lucky 6.9 04:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Before I Forget[edit]

Hamster Storage For Future Sandwiches

You deserve this, so far you're kicking ass at the rfa. Keep up the good work! karmafist 00:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hamsters for everyone! Huzz-ah! Hamster Sandwich 01:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, dude, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw your nom and then I had to vote way down the list. Alf melmac 09:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry you are a good editor and I had no reservations supporting you. Also nice name. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A question...[edit]

Before I comment on your RfA—I've disagreed with you in the past about consensus, but I'm not sure I know what you currently think. Could you summarize what you think and how you'd apply your ideas in practice as an admin? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Lenny Kilmister award[edit]

Many thanks for the token of appreciation! If this award is meant to be music-oriented, then my nominees are User:FuriousFreddy User:Antandrus and User:Hyacinth. If it's not meant to be strictly music, then... well, I guess the same three are still my nominees. Thanks again! Tuf-Kat 05:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dropped your name...[edit]

Hi. Thought I should give you fair notice that I have dropped your name at my RFA, in my response to question 1 (I noted the spoofing of your name as a reason why I'd like the power to block a vandal). I won't formally accept the nom until December 1, so please let me know if you have any objection to this reference. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, you're more than welcome, Hamster, and thank you for the kind words. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome![edit]

Glad to support ya! And, I never think it's too early to say thanks ;] It's also nice to get a personalised message, or any message, that isn't a complaint about a slight mistake somewhere ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 00:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

I have promoted you to admin. Congradulations. Please familiarize yourself with the relavant policies before applying your new powers, and good luck. Raul654 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. I think all of your opposition was based on experience so I recommend you use the tools conservatively at first. Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at some AFDs? As always, don't hesitate to ask me if you need any assistance, technical or otherwise. I didn't think it would happen at first, but becoming an admin really does increase your potential for conflicts. Again, congrats. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, well done. Tread lightly, and don't be surprised when someone tells you that you are an incompetent, biased cabalist, even though they mean it. Congratulations! -Splashtalk 23:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me be the first to say that you're an incompetent, biased cabalist! Thought I'd get in there first before we have a messy argument about you actually doing anything! By the way, what's a cabalist? :P (humour) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hrm?[edit]

As you can probably tell, I am interested in philosophy. Hence my tags and such. One of my little projects at the moment is to try to definitively work out why deletions happen in the way that they do. I am going with a lot of theories at the moment, which are based on statistics as well as individual examples, but it is far from complete. I am trying to find the appropriate place to discuss this with people but can't find the right place, so am putting in little bits everywhere! One thing is this: it is a statistical fact that the more that a person votes on AFDs, the more likely that they are to vote "delete", and this is by quite a large margin: people who vote for delete less than 25 times in a month vote delete around 56%, while people who vote for delete more than 250 times in a month vote for delete around 80% of the time. This is a statistically significant amount of difference, and there is a definite pattern towards this. Furthermore, the top 3 voters vote on average delete 96% of the time. Again, this is statistically significant. The question then is why?

The most obvious explanation, which I put forward, is that people who participate in deletions regularly by the very nature of the process become Deletionists. This theory is backed up by experience with other online communities, and indeed with the structure of an office. A manager is more likely to become corrupt the more power that they have. Ergo the theory "power corrupts". It is not always true of course. And this can be countered by getting people with power to regularly engage in positive things. For example, on Wikipedia they can welcome newbies, help people out and be nice to each other. Such strategies work wonders to stop corruption, power tripping and trigger happy people taking part.

The reality is that the votes for deletion process are not votes, they are discussions. There is a lot of inherent unfairness about it, a lot of argument, and a lot of animosity. To avoid the animosity, most people who participate either act as sheep or else say nothing. Henceforth, in order to participate and keep your sanity, you must move yourself towards a Deletionist approach. Otherwise, you are just going to feel depressed about the whole thing, especially when you get nasty messages on your talk page, and other people are supporting them in their right to do this.

There is an awful lot of manipulation of the AFD process, in a number of different ways. I have gone over some of the most common methods on my User:Zordrac/deletions page. In recent times, falsely accusing people of sock puppetry has proven to be a very reliable way to push through a deletion, but false accusations of vandalism are another common method that is used.

From my personal point of view, I am at the stage where I don't want to participate anymore, because people are just so nasty to you. It is an unfair process, and I am just getting to the stage where I have stopped caring. When people are encouraged to misuse rules and do the wrong thing, then I think that we have got to a point where it isn't working. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There are some interesting points there. I think the reason there is such a disparity in voting patterns/voting numbers is due to selection effects and the nature of the best- that is, one who votes infrequently is likely voting because an article they are watching or are interested in is up for deletion. Generally, they would vote keep, because they didn't want to put it up for AFD themselves, no? And the very process, in seeing so many bad articles come through, and so many contributors and anonymouses and generally naughty persons try to game or abuse or denigrate the process (which is fast-moving and overloaded anyway) that their standards harshen. IMO. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Sorry, I thought I'd put in the other main argument that is put forward. Sorry for not doing it. Fact 1: Nobody other than vandals like to see their articles deleted. Fact 2: If you can, you will vote to "keep" all articles that you create that are nominated for deletion. Fact 3: Less than 1% of people vote regularly on AFDs (I am user number 600,000, and the average number of votes is under 6 - you do the maths). This leads to the conclusion that people who create their own articles are likely to vote only once, and never vote again, thus skewing the votes. The second factor that you suggest supports mine. It is possible that this is overall true. For the record, I vote delete about 60% of the time (including speedy delete votes and BJAODN votes), yet I have been widely criticised and abused for being too lenient! Yet I am in fact voting for delete more often than the average user would. What does this mean? Can one be considered to be an inclusionist when they vote delete regularly on articles that end up being kept? I think that I am just voting fairly. But it is very hard to be fair in the climate that exists. I am finding it very tempting to just vote "delete" on everything if for no other reason than to stop other voters from harassing me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And just as maru and Zordrac were posting the last two comments, I was posting at Zordrac's page! I think we are all in agreement that the reason so many articles are put up for deletion at AfD is that they are in some way lacking, or do not meet established standards. Thats the nature of the beast. We as editors must look at each article on an individual basis. Does it meet the standards? Will it ever? What can I do to help it conform? If nothing, I must vote to delete it. Thats the long and the short of it, but better to keep it simple, than to overcomplicate the issue of AfD debates, at least as they pertain to my involvement. Hamster Sandwich 03:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC).
Ah, the Wishy Washy philosophy! Congratulations! You have now agreed with 2 of my 3 fundamental Wikiphilosophies! See how you go with the the third - M:Eventualism. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

==Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace==[edit]

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go. My accusation was a joke. This is your first genuine one! :) You should keep a list of them. Some people keep notes of how many times their page has been vandalised. Others, how many times they've been accused of things. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

eh, I was making pipelined edits, and I hit edit before waiting for it to flip from discussion to user. It was misposted, I'm sorry. Thanks for moving it. --Gmaxwell 07:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD 100 days[edit]

I didn't realise that you were on this list: Wikipedia:AFD_100_days, but here is my analysis with regards to you, in comparison with others:

  • You are ranked 16th, with 470 votes. This means that you are the 16th most regular contributor to AFD votes. You vote on average 15-16 articles per day. Given that there are about 100 articles (sic) nominated per day, it means that you are skipping quite a lot, but are a regular contributor.
  • You are 66.0% delete, 10.2% keep, which resolves to 84.4% delete/15.6% delete on an absolute analysis.
  • The average vote is 70.6% delete, which makes your 66.0% delete slightly below average.
  • Of users with over 250 votes, the average is 76.0% delete, which makes your 66.0% even more below average.
  • The overall user average is just under 60% (per all users), making your 66.0% slightly more than average.
  • This makes you a roughly average voter.
  • You have already made comments consistent with the M:Darwikinism philosophy and the M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD philosophy. Maybe you should look at these and the other links to see which most suits you?Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Wiki-thanks.png Thank you for your note, HS! It's okay, I'm sticking around. Notes of support from good editors like you make all the difference. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

what a lovely warm welcome![edit]

cheers Hamster Sandwich. actually, do you mind if i call you hams or hamwich or sandster or anything short? i do have a question. i've added to the 'pin-up girl' discussion (bit mindless i know, but it's an easy start) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pin-up_girl what happens to that article now? will an administrator get round to editing the bits i've requested? or am i to do that myself? this is probably a stupid question but i feel awkward just editing other people's work willy nilly. i need conformation. anyway, i'm from london, uk & i'm studying engineering. oh, one more question, i added myself to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest_A-B but what happens to that information? thanks again for your charming greeting. Veej 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hammy, you're an absolute star. A goldmine of information. cheers mate. Veej 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mindmatrix scam adminship[edit]

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. (By the way, I was going to add my support vote to your RfA, but by the time I got around to it, the RfA had already been closed.) Mindmatrix 20:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

anon user pages[edit]

I have already "joined" you. I just like the way I'm identified this way. It limits my abilities a little (can't move pages; can't create pages), but otherwise it works fine. If anything, I expect it gets me a little more attention from admins trawling the recent changes list... 216.237.179.238 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s... you could create my talk page... 216.237.179.238 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
p.p.s. Woops... Titoxd already did. Thanks anyway. 216.237.179.238 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your Rfa[edit]

Hey Hamster, I'm sorry about the dustup at RfA/talk that involved your promotion. Although I didn't vote for your promotion (nor against it), now having reviewed your contributions I would have had no problem with your candidacy. My problem with the process had nothing to do with you or your nomination but with my own perception of the process gone astray. You did nothing but stand for promotion, a daring effort in and of itself. I count myself among many other users who wouldn't, for whatever reason, subject ourselves to the RfA process. My (and Heidi's) best wishes are with you as you flex your newly ordained muscles, mop and bucket. :-) --hydnjo talk 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(copied from hydnjo's)
== It's all good ==
Thanks for your comments, my apologies in advance if you wanted to leave this page blank. I would not be adverse if you wish to blank this comment. I myself have been somewhat confused as to the issue of the closing of my RfA. I distinctly stayed away from any campaigning, only thanking the editors who had offered their support to my nomination. Please let me attempt to assure you that all I really want to do is help the WP. I love encyclopedias, and I sincerely appreciate the experimental nature of Wikipedia (The most important online information resource). I've been lashing away at the Wikipedia:Administrators reading list trying to absorb some of the extensive information in there. I have no idea whether my administrative standing is now permanent or not, but it never hurts to gain some useful knowledge. Thanks again for your kind words. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey HS. Thank you for your gracious thoughts and comments. As I reorganize and archive my talk page I'll keep you out of the archive and in view for your gracious response about a dustup that really had nothing to do with your qualifications to be an admin. I endorse the outcome even though I question the process. Your new powers will benefit us all. --hydnjo talk 03:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

As usual, I seemed to have pissed some people off, but the facts are: 1. Even if they reopened your RfA, they would need about 4 oppose votes to overturn it. 2. There may be more supports, in which case they would need more than 4 oppose votes. 3. I'm not going to condemen someone that may have or may not have made a mistake on another person's RfA several months ago. 4. If someone is really interested in voting on RfA' then 6 days is ample time to chime in...as I mentioned, mine was close, but even over the last 4 days, the percentage oscillated but a few percentage points. 5. There is no guarantee that those that had opposed the RfA of several months ago would have come back to change their vote to supprt. I respect Kim Bruning for sure, but thought that his complaint should have centered around the early closing of your RfA, not a rehashing what I see to have been either a simple mistake or misunderstanding made on your part from months ago, which you did not do in malice anyway. If he didn't have time to chime in in six days, then that's the way it goes. Let me know if I can be of any help...and congrats on your promotion!--MONGO 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey MONGO, I checked if Hamster Sandwich still holds the same beliefs as he did then, and indeed he does, so while that action was several months ago, nothing has changed since then (an essential part of time healing all wounds) Kim Bruning 04:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Xanadu House[edit]

I see you have just become an admin here at Wikipedia, congrats! I read on your user page that you pursue an interest in architecture, so you may want to read Xanadu House, an interesting part of architectural history, an article I created and got to featured article standard. Thanks — Wackymacs 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The main reasons for the demolition were that the house was basically ripping itself apart - It was flooded, moldy and was probably going to get blown away someday. The tax on the land was also a lot of money, so the owners of the land decided to rip it down. They are going to build something they can use on it, probably offices I guess. I'm glad you liked the article and subject! — Wackymacs 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA[edit]

"A good egg" (blatently stolen from User:Mysekurity).

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. Thank you for supporting my RfA, HS - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one have no doubts at all. Nor do I doubt that I am now appropriating this picture for my user page. Thank you! :) Hamster Sandwich 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Hamster Sandwich, thank you for the b'day greetings, :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ham[edit]

What's up, man? I'm looking forward to getting back into some serious editing soon. My mouse finger is itchin'. Fernando Rizo 21:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RFAr[edit]

I think you are an excellent editor. Even so, I have requested that you be de-adminned and rerun, based on procedural errors made during your RFA. Request made here: [1]

Kim Bruning 03:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to extend the olive branch[edit]

Hey Ham, I think we've met once or twice, if not I apologize, but my understanding is that you're a really nice person. So, I just wanted to let you know that Kim Bruning is very upset right now on the Wikipedia IRC Channel for what he had to do, so I definately don't think it was personal. However, just to let you know, I'll definately vote for you on your rfa, and I think Kim will too. karmafist 05:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hammy! Thanks for the good wishes. Don't you have finals as well? Good luck to you too. Thanks also for always being nice and cheerful and not just to me. I realize you're probably stressed right now, and I'm more than a little ticked off at what's going on, but you stick around here no matter what. Looks like some people forgot about the encyclopedia to me. But rest assured, you are welcomed and appreciated and you deserve it. And I'll even say it again if I have to. Regards, Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Er, about the Von Erich thing, I'm afraid it was all a sham [2]. Now, if you haven't seen this conversation, you may want to read it: User_talk:Kim_Bruning#What.27s_going_on.3F. I think this thig was taken way out of proportion. Why don't the three of us have a real discussion sometime, where we're open, and wiling to let the other disagree, but also open-minded enough to give a little if what the other says makes sense? I think we can resolve iit amicable and Kim did eventually indicate willingness. Dmcdevit·t 19:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey dude[edit]

Let's have another chat! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on outcome of recent dust-up[edit]

Congratulations on the outcome of the recent dispute regarding your adminship with Kim Bruning. As I read it, the arbitrator has ruled that your admin stands and the challenge is over, right? I was on IRC last night enjoying the show. After you left they started gunning for me! Sometimes there's no sense of humour in there! Barry Wells 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The way I read it is that the ArbCom is still considering the merits of Kim Brunings (IMO, spurious) proceedings against me. As for the IRC incident, I left because I felt bullied and harrased and badgered by two people in particular. Sorry to hear they started to harrass you after I left. Happily, IRC is not Wikipedia, so they can't continue this vexatious behaviour in these pages, unless they wish to risk sanction from the community. Always good to see you there though Barry! We'll have to get together for a pint or two some time soon? Peace! Hamster Sandwich 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"We'll have to get together for a pint or two some time soon?" Hamster, I rarely head out to bars for drinks these days, largely due to the drinking- and-driving thing. I usually confine any imbibing to my own residence or those of fellow dipsomaniacs within walking distance. Come spring and summertime, however, I frequently take in baseball games at Labatt Park (I'm not a baseball nut, more of a heritage nut) if you'd ever care to take one in. Barry Wells 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Absofickinglutly! (I like the seats between Home and 1st, right down front. Pull some strings!). Hamster Sandwich 06:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Slap[edit]

Well, of course, don't lose your cool. At this point, I think writing a response anywhere, unless you have something truly novel to say, is probably pointless and just an indulgence and invitation to continue what's been going on. Here's an idea that might sound odd. I think what you should be doing right now is being an admin. Close some AFDs and demonstrate that you know what consensus is. I mean your a newbie admin and all, so start out with the easy ones, but I think it's a good idea to get involved. Perhaps even get involved in policy discussions, like the centralized discussions like WP:WEB and stuff. Just let this thing blow over, really. I didn't even think it'd last this long. But there's no possible way it could, or should result in your deadminship. Don't let it get to you. I don't really know what else to say, but this thing is not really worth the time it has wasted for us. There's supposed to be an encyclopedia somewhere around here I think... Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to Kim Bruning Pt. 1[edit]

Kim, You have consistantly singled me out for harassment in the past two weeks, and if you don't know what harassment is, it is embarking on a course of action, or comment that is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome. Now you know what it is. So Let's back way, way up now, to the day you posted your intial message to the RfA talk page. Lets see...here [3]. Now I read that and I thought...who the hell is Kim Bruning? I had never noticed you, had never responded to any of your comments directly, nor had you to mine. So there you were, a complete stranger, saying something about "evidence". I waited and read as the discussion unfolded, but there was no polite way of saying "God, what a maroon..." And it went on, here and there, until ultimately, in a fit of what I see as pique, mixed with a generous helping of caprice (I am a chef Kim, bear with me), you filed a ludicrous, spurious, bogus, laughable RfAr, against me. I must admit, I havn't been able to find the text of that closing, I want to see what the opinions of the Arbitrators was. I would bet you my paycheque that none of them agreed with your claims against me. We'll set that aside for a moment shall we? During our initial contact, (my second post directed to you in any regard), I pointed to a dif here [4] that very clearly indicates a numeric standard as a guideline, as a touchstone, if you will, for administrators to base their closures on. I agreed with that standard as a guideline. I still do in fact, now from a personal and deeply felt (almost religious) perspective. Do you want to convert me Kim? Has this really been just you knocking on my door and me just turning up The Price Is Right, because I don't want to buy what you are trying to sell? Kim, bubbie, there are people, editors, who are not you, Kim and they have supported this notion, this guideline of a two thirds majority (excludung sock, meats, new accounts with 3 edits, etc etc) as a fair and equitable way to close a AfD. And thats all we're really talking about here Kim, AfD closures! Rl left, my advice if he ever comes back, grow a thick skin buddy, you never know when someone is going to come sideways at you. And personally, I will be thinking, with some justification, "Come sideways at you...like Kim Bruning". Hamster Sandwich 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm pleasantly surprised to find a response to me here. Great!

Note that I'm not too worried about people coming at me sideways; it's the standard mode on usenet, where I started out. In your case it's not so much me coming at you sideways, as it is your very own history at wikipedia.

I've basically been chasing down GMaxwell, and sort of toning down his words in several places. But still, he does have a bit of a point.

Did you notice that I did not actually single you out? In fact I tried to talk with you on irc the other day, but you basically just stonewalled, and I was left to figure out what to do about things on my own.

So where am I coming from? Well, I'm currently working on tidying out some inconsistencies in wikipedia guidelines together with a couple of dedicated old hands. One thing that creeps in occaisionally is numerics for consensus. There's been some rather odd goings on with that. Fortunately, now there's only one person left who would like to see numerics in that guideline. I believe he's going to have to do some thinking on how that could be: if you'll review WP:NOT you'll see that wikipedia is not actually being run by majority.

This is why for example it's possible to renegotiate a deletion even as it is running, (see [5] for a recent example. (note that the article was undeleted, unprotected and edited before the deletion review period was over) )

I'm not on any crusade. I'm not doing any attempts to convert you to some strange new wikifaith. I do question your interpretation of policy, and would have enjoyed grilling you on it at your RFA (what better opportunity? ;-) ). That's why I tried to delay closure at several different venues.

Ah well. That opportunity has passed.

I admit that I'm somewhat suspicious of your motives at this point. You have -after all- driven off an editor and refused to explain your actions so far. Even now.

However, I very much wish to communicate with you, to discover if my opinion of you is in error. Kim Bruning 09:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We might have to agree to disagree. Hamster Sandwich 09:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not know, we have not discussed anything yet. I would have no idea what to agree to disagree on. Maybe we might not have to. Kim Bruning 09:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Quit being so coy, Kim. I have stated time and again my position regarding your complaints. That there hasn't been discussion is mostly a matter of the course of action you have chosen to take the past ten or so days. I am not discounting for one second any of the harassment you have subjected me too, lately. And I submit to you now, and I paraphrase you, "Ah well. That opportunity has passed." I think the only thing that you could possibly do at this point that could assuage the wound you have caused, is to apologise, for every comment you have made that impugns my ability, intent and suitability for duty as a Wikipedia Administrator. Further, as a show of good faith on your part, I would demand that you visit every page that you have used my name on, or alluded to me in some way, shape or form, and post retractions and apologies therein. Until this is done, we have very little or nothing to discuss. I will point out at this juncture, that although I am loathe at this point to take any further action to have your harrassments curtailed, I do have limits. If you continue to use my name to push your point, I will strenuously defend not only myself, my good name in Wikipedia, but also my opinions. Good day to you, sir! Hamster Sandwich 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)