Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Calmypal

Calmypal (3/9/3);vote ends 7:00, 4 April 2004
I've been here for about 6 months and have about 500 edits. I think that's long enough to be trusted. Time here, number of edits, and trustworthiness seem to be the only consideration in sysopping, so let the voting begin! By the way, if changing my signature often will be a problem, please tell me so. I'll (unhappily) stick with signing comments "Calmypal". - Woodrow 19:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) Support:
 * Stats - circa 800 edits, been here since Nov 03. Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) A wikipedian who knows how to use the summary box - make him a sysop quick! Ludraman | Talk 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) My experience with Calmypal has been very positive. Jwrosenzweig 17:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 23:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:


 * 1) Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at Template:Uspresidents (talk).  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *Wouldn't it be better to judge users on their contributions to articles rather than what they put on their user pages? L UDRAMAN | T 20:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) While it's nice to have hyperimaginative folks such as yourself around, and I personally find your antics entertaining, I think boring people tend to make better sysops. Mkweise 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Not enough experience yet with the community. Kingturtle 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did this after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia". Jiang 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, due to controversiality reasons indicated below. Fennec 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Too eccentric and unpredictable, in my opinion, to make a reliable admin at this time. Moncrief
 * 9) Tends to get into the middle of edit wars. Not to mention the ice cream fiasco, and interesting signatures.  Pakaran. 21:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Much too green. jengod 00:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:


 * 1) I cannot support the adminship of anyone from Pennsauken that styles himself as a king. I have a weird gut feeling I know you IRL. --Hcheney 17:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Reading all the comments, I can't support yet, but I see he has worked on a goodly number of useful subjects, so I hope he'll buckle down and that we'll see him here again in a few months and will have earned a better opinion. Cecropia 22:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I am not to sure 6 months seems a little new, i need to look at his contributions--Plato 02:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

Rebuttals:

''Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at Template:Uspresidents (talk). R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)''

Ah, I knew that would come up. One argument that is now over disqualifies me forever? I'm definitely frustrated by the campaign against the Continental presidents and even the message altogether, but it's no longer a major issue. - Woodrow 19:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that I never said that it would disqualify you forever. In my mind, it disqualifies you now, however.  I watched the ongoing discussion and I still feel (although, I will say that Jiang is probably partially at fault) that no one ever worked to resolve that issue and that everyone, you included, were very antagonistic with each other about the whole matter.  That concerns me greatly as far as "admin material" goes. R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I was acting just a tad belligerent here right now, too. Sorry. Anyway, the argument is over (?) and I think it's time to move on. - Woodrow 19:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --Wik 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)''

I hope there'll be no more confusion about my country (and its language, currently in development). Anyway, I AM calling myself a king. I AM NOT making a page about my country, mainly because its "permanent population" amounts to one. - Woodrow 19:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, can we get him to "annex" the Wikimedia servers so that we don't have to worry anymore about whether we violate the laws of other jurisdictions (like copyright)? --Michael Snow 17:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly, a royal marriage would be required in order to establish diplomatic ties. Am I to understand you've got a comely virgin daughter of suitable age to spare for this purpose? Mkweise 17:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define diplomatic ties. If any of those serving on your nation's Supreme Court would happen to have an unmarried daughter of suitable age, please inform me. - His Royal Highness King Calvin of Paxania, Member of the Order of the Cheetah, Duke of Kitchen, Earl of Closylvania, Duke of Earl, Council Chairman, and Protector of Canada 21:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe that Jenna and Laura Bush have finally find their calling! Meelar 04:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, but I'd have to divorce and get married at least every four or eight years. Think of the debt! Remember to make your write-in votes for FDR this November, voting U.S. citizens! - Woodrow 22:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

''Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did this after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia". Jiang 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)''

Yes, but as I've said before, that is over. Admit you fanned the flames of hatred! ADMIT IT! Anyway, the name thing was just some random thought when I was thinking of a new name after Jwrosenzweig mentioned that signing things as "Wikipedia" might confuse newbies. Furthermore, I saw no reason not to start adding the footer after I made it. I still say you had no right to remove a comment that wasn't even a personal attack! Cheers, Woodrow 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You'll have to prove that it's over by compromising and trying to discuss things in a contructive manner. Do this over the course of a few weeks and we might support you. My argument was that your actions did not have the backing of community consensus, and by ignoring this argument, I don't see you have changed. The footer was removed once, yet you chose to ignore us and readd it. Your comment on that page produced huge horizontal expansion and was obvious trolling. --Jiang


 * All this, and you continue to come on so negatively. Talk at MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents has died down, and I will reluctantly continue to let it die. That footer was a disputed decision at worst, and I'd like to advise you to judge people for adminship based on whether they can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly. I am able to get into edit wars now, but I recognize other people's right to disagree with my decisions. By that, I mean that I won't protect pages because I think my way's the only way. With all respect perceived by myself to be due, Woodrow 21:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)