The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Climie.ca[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (106/7/2); Closed by Rlevse at 23:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Roger Davies

Climie.ca ("Cam") is a thoughtful, sensible and hardworking editor with considerable clue. I have known him for nearly eighteen months. His early contributions were mostly to articles about Canada in the First World War, backed by photographs he'd taken on the Western Front during summer holidays in Europe. Since then, he has grown and developed massively as an editor, adding more and more strings to his bow and taking on more and more responsibility within Milhist. He is now a project coordinator where his work is exemplary. He's courteous and good-natured, while neither accident-prone nor headstrong: I don't think I've ever seen him make a bad call. With the sysop bit, he's unlikely to drop everything and head for CSD fulltime but the tools will of great use to him for routine maintenance tasks within the project. In summary, Cam is a devoted and enthusiastic editor: he has my complete trust and I have not the slightest doubt he will use the tools wisely. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Kirill Lokshin:

From the time Cam first joined the Military history WikiProject in early 2007, I have always known him to be a diligent and helpful editor. His contributions—which have ranged from writing featured articles to supporting many project efforts such as article reviews and assessment drives—have always been of the highest caliber; and his comments in discussions have shown him to be an insightful and understanding Wikipedian. Cam's work over the course of the past three months, during which we have both served as coordinators of the project, has confirmed my high opinion of him, and I wholeheartedly recommend Cam for adminship. Kirill 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly accept the nomination. Cam (Chat) 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Short answer: Whatever needs doing. Long answer: I'll likely end up working in areas in which I already have prior experience in similar tasks. This will likely take the form of WP:AfD, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:CSD. I was granted rollbacker rights by MBK004 in late 2008, so I already have prior experience; while the process for AfD closing and archiving is surprisingly similar to that of closing and archiving ACRs & Peer Reviews at WP:MILHIST (a process which, as a coordinator, I involved myself in frequently)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Article-wise, my best contributions are in the area of Military History, where I have contributed 3 FAs, 1 A, 3 GAs (soon to be 5, if all goes well with the current GANs), and provided technical support for numerous other articles through work with The FA-Team. On the wikignome side of things, my finest contributions have come as a coordinator of the Military History Project, in the realms of review, technical logistics support, and maintenance work for the both the project and the articles within its scope.
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: Aside from the inevitable misrepresentation/misinterpretation that comes from any non-verbal communication that spans a project as massive as Wikipedia, I have been remarkably fortunate in that I have not become involved in any disputes in which I was one of the disputing parties. That said, as a coordinator of the WP:MILHIST, I have had to act on occasion as a dispute-resolver (as the coordinators are expected to do) for arguments and disagreements between others. As for dealing with these disputes, I find that, in general, consensus works remarkably well. For example, recent disputes at MILHIST with regards to both naming conventions and flag icons were successful (or unsuccessful) because of a willingness (or lack thereof) of the editors involved to compromise. In the case of the Eastern-Front, the issue was resolved passively. With regards to the flag-icon debate, the refusal of certain editors to come to consensus means that I would not be at all surprised to see it appear at WP:ANI in the foreseeable future.
Additional question from Ironholds
4. When is it appropriate to use non free-use images of living people?
A: If an individual's notability is primarily due to earlier visual appearances, a newer image doesn't serve the purpose of asserting notability. If that situation arises, then it should be (and usually is) considered acceptable to use non-free images of living people. Cam (Chat) 23:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Protonk (talk)
5 What is your opinion of the featured content process in general? This is just a general question looking for a general response, I know it doesn't relate to the use of the tools or this candidate's values. Thanks in advance!
A: Speaking from experience, I find that certain aspects of the Featured Content process work very well. Specifically at FAC, I find that SandyGeorgia & Raul654 have done an excellent job of keeping things in order and smoothing out the process. That said, I find that other areas of the featured content process (notably Featured Pictures) tend to have their flaws. At one point or another, the criteria becomes too convoluted and complex so that there's always something to oppose. FAC kept it succint, to the point, concise, and relatively easy to interpret. Some of the other FC areas, not so much. Cam (Chat) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jon513
6. On May 20, 2007, when you were relatively new to wikipedia, you created an article Josh Key with the comment "started, I'll do more when I've got more time"; It was deleted four minutes later without a warning on your talk page. You then recreated the article with more content twenty minutes later. Do you think that the speeding was correct or incorrect? Has this experience influenced the way that you see speedy deletion?
A. At the time, to be perfectly honest, my knowledge of wikipedia policy was (for lack of a better term) pathetic. In actuality, it has had little effect on the way I view speedy deletion. In certain criteria of speedy deletion—particularly C3, C6–C12, A3 and A5—are just such no-brainers that I honestly can't see any reason to post talk-page notices. For example, several of the ((USS)) templates commonly used at MilHist were last week hacked by an IP and changed to include blatant advertising. In that case, just delete the content and give your reason in the edit summary. For some of the other criteria, particularly those dealing with context, it becomes a bit trickier. In the cases of speedy deletions relating to A1, A7 and A9; I'm of the opinion that those categories dealing with content notability shouldn't have their decisions made so hasty. one of the finest users MILHIST has ever seen left Wikipedia for 3 months because of his angst over the CSD system's not notifying him of the CSD decision. You have to ask yourself, when speedily deleting or nominating for speedy deletion, "who is this going to hurt". If it's simple maintenance pages or blatant advertising or vandalism: Delete. If it has the potential to cause misrepresentation and angst among the users of the 'Pedia, don't be so hasty in decision making. Cam (Chat) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jmundo
7 You intent to take part as an administrator in AfD, but recently you only have participated in two discussions, what is your opinion about this guideline: "When in doubt, don't delete" and what experience you have in reaching rough consensus? --Jmundo (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. When MilHist updated and revamped its A-Class Review system in fall 2008, we changed the guidelines to force the establishment of consensus, rather than the previous "after x days, if sufficient support has been garnered, it passes or fails". Those of us with the responsibility of closing and archiving the ACRs (the 13 coordinators) have to have the ability to determine whether consensus has been met, and whether a review has been kept open long enough to determine consensus. These traits pass over nicely into AfD, where you have to be able to determine 1) whether a time period sufficient to establish rough consensus has been established, and 2) what the rough consensus is. In that regard, MilHist coordinators have experience.
B. As for "when in doubt, don't delete", this guideline is put in place for those times when consensus can't be established. To quote Kirill's essay on coordinating wikiprojects, "The status quo is generally a stable position, if nothing else; maintaining it for a while longer is unlikely to be as controversial as changing it." This principle holds true in virtually all aspects of policies, guidelines, and deletion. It's easier to go back and start a new case later to see if consensus can be established during Take II; than it is to deal with the witchhunt that follows highly controversial decisions. No one's going to die because an article wasn't deleted right then and there because of lack of consensus. Cam (Chat) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Foxy Loxy Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage in the main space is at 70% for major edits and 86% for minor edits, I find that to be an O.K. number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary.

8. Why is an edit summary important when editing?
A. It tells others what you have done to a page. Although you may know very clearly what your intention was, this can often be lost on others, which can lead to misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and confusion. As a result, edit summaries should be used to indicate to others what you have done. Cam (Chat) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?
A. It's important all the time. In controversial situations, even more so. The potential for the negative side-effects of miscommunication (mentioned) becomes very high during controversial edits. Cam (Chat) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?
A. If it became a serious issue of not using edit summaries, I would activate the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option. Otherwise, I would commit to maintaining very high edit summary usage (I can't guarantee 99% or higher, but very near there) Cam (Chat) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Climie.ca before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Absolutely. Editor's varied contributions to the project indicate a deep understanding of Wikipedia's process and goals. The candidate demonstrates essential admin qualities. (on a side note: should this be untranscluded until the ?s are answered?) Lazulilasher (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it should, as has been done. My fault entirely. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Complete support As a fellow Milhist coord I have seen an awful lot of Cam and what I have seen indicates that he will do just fine with a few extra tools. He is diligent, hard-working, communicative and very willing to help where needed. I completely support Cam for the tools. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support as this user is one of the best admin candidates I have ever seen. His attitude and contributions are perfect. Perfect I tells ya! Good luck :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I do not see much experience in administrative tasks, but you appear intelligent and your Milhist work has been good. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I've seen Cam around; he's a good user, who'll make a good admin. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Darn, I should have supported while I was unarchiving it. I checked Cam out while this was stalled ; looks like no problems :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support due to awards listed on user page, as the candidate has never been blocked, and due to no memorable negative interactions. I also think it's nice that the candidate lists other admired editors on the candidate's userpage. It is nice to see editors appreciate and honor each other. This list like the awards demonstrate effectiveness in working with others, which is a helpful quality in admininistrators. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, although I would suggest using edit summaries more often. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - as a fellow MILHIST coordinator, I have only seen positive things that indicate to me that Cam will make an excellent admin. -MBK004 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Would have offered a co-nom if I had known this was going to go up so fast support. Here's to the first milhist editor to make admin in '09! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, per nom. ;-) Kirill 23:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great user and fellow miliary history buff. Will make a great admin.--Pattont/c 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Appears highly proficient with everything that matters. --JayHenry (t) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Very excellent. MBisanz talk 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support a good candidate --Stephen 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support AniMatetalk 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Great user! iMatthew // talk // 00:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No reason not to. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Looks like a good wikignomer with extensive knowledge in a few areas. Full speed ahead! FlyingToaster 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support with a number of reasons. Cam is a content beast (see the upper-right corner of his userpage for details), has VERY impressive noms (both of whom are arbitrators), and is diligent, responsible, careful; complete net positive. --Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. With respect to Sceptre's Oppose below, I see it as a good thing that this user has stayed out of the AN/I soap opera so long, and has avoided getting themselves into any controversy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support - great editor who always appears cool, calm and collected; prefect qualities when dealing with some of the peskier admin problems. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Ford Prefect was thinking of the problems of administrators when Arthur Dent saved his life! :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support All though I've never heard of the nominee, I have heard of his nominators and they are top notch editors so for them to be nominating someone it must be a top notch editor too so yes.--Iamawesome800 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Hell yes. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support; excellent work and satisfactory answers. Thanks to Sceptre for giving me an additional reason. Ironholds (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Double Edit-conflict Support. Best candidate I've seen in a while. Everything checks out. DARTH PANDAduel 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Very strong support experienced in a variety of areas, co-nomination from two editors whose judgement I highly trust (good arbcom members, what more is there to add?), has experience resolving disputes, appears to be highly civil, and the answers to the questions indicate a strong synthesis of policy knowledge and common sense that Wikipedia is seriously lacking. We need more editors like Climie.ca. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - of course. Has clue, good contributor, absolutely nothing wrong with specialisation--indeed, much to celebrate about it. Donnez le mop. // roux   02:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hello, I'm here for my Botox injections...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a trusted editor who won't be sticking any unwanted needles into the project. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support excellent work for milhist Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Cam should of been an admin a long time ago. VX!~~~ 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Thought he was one already?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. The role in Milhist, high-quality article contributions, maturity and avoidance of drama make this an easy call, despite the lack of policy knowledge demonstrated in A.4; in other words, support as worthy of trust. Skomorokh 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — Realist2 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support And shame on me for forgetting to support until after my question was answered (making it seem as though support was being held in abeyance). I haven't seen climie around too much, but where I have (some interactions with MILHIST), the 'feel' has been overwhelmingly positive. Also kudos to unpacking "processes" from my inarticulate shoehorning of FAC/FLC/FPC into "process" :) Protonk (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. miranda 04:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Sure, no issues here. :) GlassCobra 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - article contributions are excellent, and Milhist has good experience in dispute resolution via Milhist co-ordinator role. Calm, civil, hardworking and a good writer - sounds pretty good to me. Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - without question. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Cam's an excellent editor and coordinator and I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools responsibly (I actually thought that he was already an admin!). Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Surprised he is not an admin already. Excellent responses to questions to boot. -- Samir 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - abuse/negligent use unlikely. Positive use likely. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Everything looks good, see nothing that suggests will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Cam has been friendly, encouraging and extremely helpful to me since I started wikiedpai eight months ago, always being there to give me an encouraging word or helping hand. He'd make an excellent admin. Skinny87 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Good candidate. →Na·gy 11:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support Wizardman 12:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support will be fine. Clearly dedicated and clueful. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – whilst I share Sceptre's lack of familiarity with the editor and Epbr's doubts about capabilities, I understand that this user will lend a helpful and reasoned voice to discussions; whether they be about articles or history itself. Caulde 14:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Oppose.[reply]
  53. Support I had never heard of this user until a minute ago, so I can be pretty sure he hasn't been involved in any drama. Good contributors spend their time writing quality articles, not making a name for themselves in the project space. Is he back? (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak support - The moment someone mentioned Bedford I was wary, but whilst I don't know the candidate I can happily say that I have not seen anything to suggest that they will abuse the tools. — neuro(talk) 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Great editor and has done good work in Military and War related articles.Has been around since March 2007.Trust the judgement of Roger Davies.After checking track carefully see no scope for misuse of tools and with tools will only contribute to the project.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Most definitely! rootology (C)(T) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Nothing of major concern here. Andy (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Weak Support I've never heard of the user up until I saw it on the RfA status on my userpage. He looks like a good user but after reading thru Oppose #2, I think I'm going to stay at a weak support. He looks great to me... K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Not a lot of mainspace content edits, but they are of good quality. Cam appears to have a reasonable understanding of policy/guidelines. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support-Excellent user, helpful. Would make a great admin. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Good user. I have no doubt as to this user's ability! America69 (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Worked a lot together with this user and i'm sure he will make good use of the admin tools. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Per above. Mario1987 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Absolute yes. Garden. 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Positive contributor. Friendly. Good content contributor, plus personal interactions are very nice. All NPs IMO, good luck. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Reliable Forevertalk 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support--I'm impressed by his answers to my questions. I have no doubt user will be calm under stress when using the administrative tools.--Jmundo (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Pile on support Candidate seems well-adjusted and well-prepared for the role. Townlake (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - No reason to expect this user will change radically from his daily positive influence in project spaces and pagespaces. BusterD (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. —macyes: bot 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support - per my viewing of him in WP:MILHIST and Talk:World War II. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong support, excellent writer, harder worker, doesn't do "jobs for the boys", not corrupt, always punctual and polite. Intelligent, not a loose cannon and level headed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support per all of the above. LittleMountain5 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. support user has earned a reputation of having sound judgment, engaging others in a civil fashion, and will undoubtedly exercise the mop-tools judiciously. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Converting to neutral based on concerns of opposers and answer to Q6. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per much of the above. Cam has always been a helpful, polite team worker who's not afraid to roll up his sleeves and get the work done. Parsecboy (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Absolute support, and a kick for Roger (who I specifically asked to let me know when this RfA was due because I wanted to provide a co-nom ...not that I don't think a co-nom from Kirill is better :P). Anyway, I'm really glad I stumbled across this; through being involved with Cam's flagship article, the Battle of Verrières Ridge, from inception through GA to FA, I've watched Cam mature from an enthusiastic newbie to a competent, experienced and extremely clueful editor, and have complete confidence in his ability to exercise sound judgement as an administrator. EyeSerenetalk 10:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My humblest apologies ... in the excitement of the moment, I completely forgot. You may trout-thwack me if you wish (I'm adding them to my /awards page for editorial balance purposes). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, well maybe gentle tap with a minnow will suffice. No big deal - I'm just happy to see this RfA. It's about time ;) EyeSerenetalk 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - seems like a win-win situation to promote this candidate. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support ran into this by accident after coming across Climie at DYK. Great contributions, great attitude, no problems - give him the mop. Paxse (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support good answers to the questions, good rationales from fellow supporters, per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – Fine editor who would make a fine administrator. Nominators show good points about this user's work around the encyclopedia and how s/he will do as an admin. The opposes don't concern me at all. — RyanCross (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support He's trusted not to abuse the tools. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Contribs show careful diligence in coordination of a project. I have no problem with supporting admins with a particular area of editing interest, although I would encourage this candidate to slowly develop their capabilities. Although I understand the oppose rationales, I do not find them compelling enough to agree with to such a degree. This is a wiki - we are all prone to making mistakes occasionally, but are luckily able to revert them quickly. Many thanks, Gazimoff 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Adminship is overrated. You don't suck, you seem to want the extra buttons. Anything else is invented self-important jibberish. Support. Keeper ǀ 76 04:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I've come across the user many times. Definitely an asset to the project. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Anybody who has been anywhere near MILHIST would have noticed this editor. Well experienced and perfectly qualified to be an admin. Chamal talk 14:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Weak support - technically meets my standards, but I'm a bit concerned about lack of admin function experience. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - nothing more to say. (Quentin X (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  90. Support. I would have preferred a bit more experience in admin areas, but am impressed with his mainspace contributions and thoughtful involvement at MilHist. Climie is a net positive and possesses both the necessary aptitude and intelligence needed to be a good admin. Majoreditor (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Conditional Support I think the candidate would be a good admin since I can't see anything that can cause mistrust. However, I don't beleive that adminship is a "good citizen" award. I beleive that the candidate should be guided first, an obstacle which they should graduate with flying colors. This support should only be treated as such if the candidate is willing to be an apprentice to one of more experienced and wisercitation needed :) admins here. --Lenticel (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: Seems like a trustworthy user but I hope he continues to concentrate on mainspace.-- Tinu Cherian - 10:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support WP:WTHN Leujohn (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. I see no reason not to. DiverseMentality 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - I like the diversity of the the editor's contributions and I think Climie is knowledgeable in WP:MILHIST. I think this user would be a useful administrator to WP. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - good all round candidate. Smile a While (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Trustworthy established editor. Very unlikely to cause harm to the project with admin tools. --NrDg 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Good choice. SpencerT♦C 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - I've analyzed his edits; there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Excellent editor. Acalamari 01:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, per excellent quality contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support sure. abf /talk to me/ 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Very good choice for adminship. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support seems like a good candidate, capable...Modernist (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Synergy 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
I've never heard of the user until a minute ago. Respect to Roger and Kirill, who are outstanding arbitrators, but I don't trust someone I haven't heard of to use the admin tools correctly. If the user comes back in a few months and has made a name for himself outside MILHIST, I'll happily support. Co-ordinatorship of MILHIST doesn't sway me either, as I'm obliquely referring to another co-ordinator as a reason to oppose. Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Struck after answers to optional questions, and looking into the history briefly. Contemplating whether to "support" or "neutral". Sceptre (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, just not being familiar with a candidate is not a reason to oppose IMO. It can actually be a plus, as Climie could be the sort that stays out of the constant bickering at ANI and instead works on featured articles (which he certainly seems to be). Perhaps you should review the candidate before supporting or opposing. I don't understand "I'm obliquely referring to another co-ordinator as a reason to oppose"; care to explain? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford. Relatively unknown user got admin bit for DYK work, and remains to this day the only user to be personally desysopped by Jimbo. Promoting an unknown may work for Doctor Who, but it's easier to fire a Doctor than to desysop an admin. No disrespect to Climie, mind. I'm just a bit skeptical. Sceptre (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. You are correct in that I tend to operate primarily within MILHIST - mostly because that's my area of specialty - and that most of my wikignome and article work ends up being there. I will definitely make a conscious effort to get involved in more areas of the 'Pedia, regardless of how this RfA ends up swinging. Cam (Chat) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, I think desysopping an admin is a lot easier and probably a lot less stressful than firing an actor from the role of The Doctor! John Sloan (view / chat) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JNT was able to fire Colin Baker with little fuss, though he was a bit peeved about it. Sceptre (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree not being familiar with a candidate can be dangerous... I mean, the nominators are going outside of the cabal! </sarcasm> On a serious note, not being familiar with a candidate is highly likely when dealing with thousands of users. Personally, if you want people you are familiar with, then you are encouraging group think and people who join in at RfA with the hope of being recognized. I'm sorry, but working at RFA should IMO be one of the major warning signs. People who work here, actually have a harder time passing!---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just RFA; I'm active here, at ANI, on vandal patrol, on articles, and at the featured content process. If I don't see them anywhere, it's a small cause for concern. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd see not having heard of him as a big bonus, since massive screwups are normally more public than, say, an editor who quietly works away for two years. It is worth pointing out, Sceptre, that I had heard of you long before I ever interacted with you personally for precisely that reason. I'd say you can't have it both ways; by your logic, having heard of someone would suggest they are a good candidate, something that is clearly not the case. Ironholds (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, while I don't agree that perceived absence from the drama boards (loosely defined) is sufficient grounds for me to oppose, I feel that it is perfectly reasonable for some other person to oppose on those grounds. Further I think that it is also unnecessary to decide whether or not such opposes would make good 'policy' were they to be imposed on us all--we don't need to agree or disagree with the fundamental reasoning in order to show that a vote is made in relatively good faith. This is assuming that the vote is made for the stated reasons rather than the reasons presented as a pretext. Even then the structure of RfA effectively affords wide latitude in pretextual supporting claims. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've stated that I have no issues to his oppose, and will try to improve my contributions on Wikipedia to reflect his suggestions. I'm not entirely sure what everyone else is so crazy about. Cam (Chat) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bashing's a national sport around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, I missed out on the draft picks for that one lol. Cam (Chat) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, Wehwalt, it's mischaracterizing-any-discussion-in-the-oppose-section-as-"bashing" that's looong been the national pastime of RFA. --JayHenry (t) 05:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You call it football, I call it soccer, still the same sport.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not familiar with a candidate, before deciding whether to support or oppose, I would suggest becoming familiar with the candidate. Look through his/her contribution history. Especially look at talk page comments to see how they handle disagreements or other issues. After doing so you hopefully should be able to give a "support" or "oppose" vote based on a better reason than, "I don't know this guy." Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTKNOWIT? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose I'm sorry. He looks like a great user, but he has very little experience in admin-related areas. There's too high a risk of him accidentally misusing the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Insufficient percentage of edits in mainspace. On the basis of the information provided below by YellowMonkey, I withdraw my opposition.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple count of mainspace % edits can be very misleading, as it assumes something about the difficulty level of the edits in the various namespaces. The candidate has written three FAs in the modern era, which not many people have done with the rising standards, and a few GAs. Although these might only rack up 200 edits, it might take 30-40 hours to read up on the materials, whereas a person with a vandal-detecting machine, AWB, or doing mass category edits can rack up 200 in an hour without having to think much, and not doing anything that develops skills in WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V etc, which are very important when it comes to determining whether to block someone for POV-pushing or dealing with pagelocking. I would say the candidate has a better article-space record than 90%+ of successful candidates in the past year. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, one of his FAs, only registered 89 edits, about 40 minutes of reverting a mass of spam and what have you on raw editcountitis. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    25.8% of all his edits in mainspace isn't enough? :) rootology (C)(T) 20:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. It is my overriding concern that more admins understand the needs and problems of the people who do the grunt work. To this end, I consider 75% of edits in mainspace a good indication of an editor who is focused on helping the encyclopedia in the only really meaningful way, by writing and improving articles. Much too much of the activity on Wikipedia is expending on stuff that really is not supporting that work -- in military terms, Wikipedia's support "tail" is much too large for the siz e of the front line "head", where the important action is.

    However, I do recognize that it is practically impossible for an editor to become an admin without knowledge of and participation in ancillary matters, so I'm willing to accept 50% of edits in mainspace as a compromise. (Obviously, these are rough figures, not precise hard-and-fast standards.) Absent information of extreme quality of the mainspace edits, such as provided above by YellowMonkey, 25.8% of edits to mainspace would not be acceptable to me in an admin. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no. all user with less than 101% are to be banned immediately -- Gurch (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your heard it here first folks! — Realist2 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Seems too gullible.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what exactly is that stunning observation supposed to mean? That's not even a valid criticism, for crying out loud - what's your evidence? Skinny87 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm slightly confused about that one as well....if you have evidence of my supposed gullibility, by all means please provide it.Cam (Chat) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose 6000 edits over the course of a year is usually enough to know what kind of editor someone is, but I don't think there is enough information in this case. There is almost no history of any admin related tasks and I have no knowledge of how he would deal with them. Also I could find no example of his remaining calm under pressure. Avoiding conflict is not a bad thing - but it doesn't give me any information to know how he would act as an admin. Combined with his young age and limited field of interest - which in itself would not be enough for me to oppose - I do not have confidence that adminship would be used responsibly by this user. Jon513 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose – I've re-evaluated my support and must now oppose; based upon a deeper review of your contributions (I discovered you have next to nothing in respect to deleted contributions) and the fact you have practically zero editing outside MILHIST topics. Whilst admin duties can be familiarised with fairly easy, I would like to see some evidence of understanding before hand. Caulde 16:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    er... isn't having not many deleted contributions a good thing? -- Gurch (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it shows lack of CSD work (which is contra to what the user has stated in his first answer). Caulde 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, I see now. thanks -- Gurch (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I've been somewhat conflicted about this RfA. Cam is a great editor. I've seen good contributions in multiple places, nothing bad, and recently he's been working with the FA-Team to help less experienced editors improve articles. But I have been a bit surprised by this RfA. Although Cam started contributing in March 2007, this lasted a few months and was followed by a hiatus. The current pattern of contributions starts in March 2008 (about 4900 edits). Almost all of these contributions are to MILHIST articles, talk and Wikispace. Beyond WikiProject management, there is nothing to go on per adminship skills, experience with admin-related activities, and no evidence of conflict resolution, nothing to indicate how Cam handles a stressful situation. It seems to me that this RfA nomination was just a little bit premature.
    The nomination by such stalwart Wikipedians has been followed by a tranche of support (understandably) from MILHIST editors, and a pile on from regulars because Cam has done no harm. They are probably not wrong, but it seems to me somewhat early to be so sure about what will happen when Cam, as promised, contributes more extensively to WP:ANI and WP:CSD. His answers to questions are a little on the green side, and it is unclear how he will react when confronted with Wikipolitics more deeply rooted than flag icons. I believe and hope that he will rise to the occasion, but I have no way of knowing.
    Meanwhile I have been unhappy to see early opposes pressured to reconsider. I see that as a sign that the nominators share my concern that maybe this RfA was just a touch premature, and that they have to put on a robust defense to see it through. I really hope that Cam will someday join the ranks of Wikipedia's best admins (and according to the current voting that may be very soon), but I'm not convinced that this is the right moment to make that binary and rarely reversible decision. Geometry guy 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My thoughts exactly. Whilst there is no contributory evidence that he doesn't understand policy, it is due to that why I am concerned about the lack of knowledge prior to gaining the bit. Caulde 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't mind a brief response (not in any way an attempt to exert pressure!). If you recall you made a comment on my RfA where you wrote about a belief in an editor's judgement as to when/when not to act being perhaps more important than a track record of involvement in the more admin-related areas of Wikipedia. I have that belief in Cam's judgement, and he demonstrably has the trust of those editors in the places (like milhist) where he spends the bulk of his time. I agree with some of the apparent deficiencies in experience that you've highlighted, but there are few more contentious areas on Wikipedia than dealing with nationalist POV pushing on some milhist articles, and he has been doing this very well at WWI. I'd recommend he takes it slowly at WP:ANI at first, as I did, but I've worked with him longer than most and know he will continue doing what he's always done: seek advice, take it, learn, and think before acting. EyeSerenetalk 09:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    EyeSerene, you are among the editors I most respect and admire on Wikipedia (not that I have a "little list" :) so it is a pleasure to receive a response from you. Your knowledge and endorsement of Cam illustrate further what a borderline oppose this is. I do also believe that Cam has good judgment, and this is one of my main criteria for adminship. However Wikistress and the need for good judgment are not necessarily raised by contentious articles, but mainly by those where the editor concerned has a strong personal connection or viewpoint. I had personally seen the good judgment you showed in such a situation before I supported.
    I won't be unhappy if this RfA passes (indeed I would be among those adding my congratulations), but if it doesn't, I would hope to be able to support a second one in the near future. For now, I'd just like to see a little more to be sure. Geometry guy 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually quite heartened to see very few opposes to this RfA, even though I believe that opposing on the grounds I have outlined is entirely reasonable. I'm heartened because it suggests a consensus that having good judgement and being trusted by the community can trump other hesitations. Since I would agree that these are the most important qualities in an admin, I'm now striking my oppose. I would only express the hope that editors apply this principle consistently to all RfAs. Geometry guy 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Geo guy has convinced me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not enough Wikipedia experience. Good editor to one Wikiproject but I need proof and experience in other areas. Alio The Fool 21:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Agree with Geometry Guy. JPG-GR (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral converted from previous support. I agree with the concerns of some of the opposers, in that Cam has little admin-related experience. On reviewing the answer to Q6, and am certain that the user does not understand CSD criteria, and is likely to create a mess with a mop until a better grasp of this area is gotten. (We do not delete pages that have been vandalized, we simply revert them to a non-vandalized version, something any editor can and should do.) Knowing when and how to use a mop is mandatory to being given one, IMHO. This editor could probably gain the experience to easily allay these concerns if some effort in admin-related areas was made. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the candidate here, but I think it is safe to say from the context that Cam was speaking about pages with no useful history, because Cam also mentioned " simple maintenance pages." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I was referring to the criteria dealing with pages that are nothing but vandalism, such as a page with "YAAAGGGHH BLORG!" or some inaudible gibberish like that. I already know the rules for usage of rollback (having had access to that feature since November). If I was unclear in my answer with regards to that, I apologize. Cam (Chat) 23:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I read "templates commonly used at MilHist were last week hacked by an IP and changed to include blatant advertising. In that case, just delete" it sounded to me like you were saying that you would delete a used tempate if it was badly vandalized. I can see that there is a different way to interpret the sentence, and thanks for explaining it. Perhaps this is an example for folks how being really cautious about how you phrase things when talking about deletion (and policy in general) is important. I am changing my vote back to support. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely tempting to support since both of the co-noms are arbitrators, but I'll be fair by sticking to neutral until the questions are answered. --Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 18:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting; above comment indented and struck. --Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind me asking why you bothered posting if you're just going to change your opinion after the co noms are answered lol?--Pattont/c 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The nominations shouldn't really matter; the fact that they're arbitrators shouldn't give the candidate undue weight. If you want to wait before casting an opinion, there's little point in going neutral before you have the desired response! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the important thing here is not that Kirill and I are on ArbCom but that we are both in Milhist and have worked closely with Cam for around eighteen months, which is a goodly time by wiki standards :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me please your response to this[1]Mccready (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, this is the neutral opinion section. If you have a question for the candidate please use the section entitled "Questions for the candidate" towards the top of this page, or the candidate's talk page directly. Please also note that the diff you have raised is from May 2007, and may not be recent enough for reasonable discussion about the candidate's behaviour. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Oh me oh my. I don't think I've ever said Neutral before (maybe I have), because I tend to think thought doing so is pointless. With that in mind: I had looked at this nom a day or two ago, and was quite content with my firm decision to Pretend I Hadn't Seen It. You see, there's a quandary: If not for the nominators, this would very likely be an Oppose in my book. But the noms of Kirill and Roger carry a huge amount of weight— perhaps the most weight possible among potential nominators. What to do? As I said, I was gonna say nothing, 'til G-guy boldly went where no Ling had gone before and Opposed. So, I share G-guy's concerns, but cannot +O due to the weight of the noms. That's all. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all supposedly equal, so if you really want to oppose, you should feel free to.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you have already opposed, that comment comes across as trying to influence other editors into following suit. Have you got something against Cam, or a past conflict with him that we should know about Bedford? John Sloan (view / chat) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this might be better served being taken to the discussion page? "You can't here gentlemen, this is the War Room!" as it were. Skinny87 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a discussion, not a vote. So I personally think this should be left here for the wiki-world to see. John Sloan (view / chat) 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but having a vague idea where this might go if pursued, it might be a better idea. Still, perhaps it won't go that way. Good luck! Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is not true. RFA *is* a vote; extended discussion other than with the candidate should occur on the talk page, not on this vote page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Doesn't really change things, but Cam suggested indef blocking an IP address with a single edit, a personal attack.[2] Long term I might see, but I'm not entirely comfortable with someone suggesting indef blocks of IP addresses so easily. I hope Cam takes is slow at AIV. Gimmetrow 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[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.
Category