User talk:JBW/Suggested RfA

From User talk:Peter

A little while ago you suggested that I might consider an RfA. Shortly afterwards 3 more editors supported the suggestion (two more on my talk page, and one on her own). I wasn't considering the matter, but with four of you urging me I did stop and think about it, and I have decided "why not give it a try". Since you were the first to suggest it, you may feel like nominating me. If you do I shall be grateful. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. James has accepted an offer of a co-nom from me, so if you do nominate him and don't mind my chipping in would you let me know so I have time to finish a statement before it goes live? Olaf Davis (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James. Before I go ahead with preparing a possible nomination, I'd like you to be clear about a few things. Don't worry if it seems like I'm taking way to long responding to just one editor (i.e. you) - I intend to use this again.

You can see the previous 4 nominations I've made at the bottom of User:Peter/RfA reviews. One thing you may notice about them is that they were back in 2006. I'm aware that RfA standards have changed a lot, but I am far less familiar with what is likely to pass or fail now than I was then. Therefore I make absolutely no assurance that I think the RfA would pass.
Before agreeing to nominate you (so far I've only talked about a possible nomination) I will do pretty thorough review of your contributions. This will both help me decide if I should proceed with a nomination, and help with writing my nomination statement, which I aim to be equally thorough to match.
I also wish to have a high level of confidence that you would make a good admin. A large part of this is formed through the contributions review mentioned above, but another part is you being willing to answer a load of questions (the number and nature of which depends on what I find, and anything I may think needs clarification). These can be done either on a user subpage or by email. I will also of course aim to answer any questions you have.
I make no guarantees as to how long I will take to do the above. It depends on how many other things I have on the go both on- and off-wiki.
If you are in a hurry, lacking in patience, don't think this is all necessary, you're happy to self-nom, or accept someone else's offer (possibly from someone who already knows you better) then that's fine. I won't take the slightest bit of offence, but I will not proceed with the contributions review.
If you would like to go ahead with the above then just let me know that you do, and what form of communication would best suit you (sub-page if you want to keep it on wiki, email if you'd like to be a bit more private while discussing various situations.) Peter 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Olaf: I have no problems with a co-nomination, but as I don't have any experience of editing with you I would treat it as separate from what I've said above. Meaning I would do my nomination and then be happy to notify you, and leave it for you to add anything you wanted before adding it to the main RfA page. Peter 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here but there have been a few of us mentioned as possible co-noms, including myself. If you don't mind, would you drop me a note along with Olaf, if you do go ahead? I also need additional time and so if this goes ahead sooner than I'm able to prepare something, I'd like to know. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (to all you said). Cheers, Peter 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I asked you because you were the first to suggest it to me. However, in view of what you say above if you would prefer not to then that is fine. Shadowjams says to me on his/her talk page "I am probably more familiar with your contributions than Peter is", so he/she might be a better person to do it. I will be grateful to either of you if you will do it, but I will fully understand if you prefer to stand back. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies to Peter for cluttering up his talk) I know JBW from around AfD mostly, but also in a few vandalism patrol contexts, although we've rarely interacted directly (if at all?). From what I know I'm pretty confident in him, but I feel the need to do some due dilligence before a nomination [which would be my first too].

Peter's more experienced, an admin, and probably would be a better nominator, especially because he's coming at it tabula rosa. A nomination from him would probably mean more than one from me. That said, I'd be honored to co-nominate. So if Peter nominates, depending where I'm at in my process, I will either support or co-nominate (or oppose if I find out you've been torturing cats or something). I won't take any action without informing both Peter and JBW (of course). Again, sorry for using your talk as the central talking point Peter. If need be, I can setup email or IRC, or you can use my PGP key to communicate with me securely on my talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, that's absolutely fine thanks. Who knows, you may cover everything I have to say well enough that there's nothing for me to add. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little unhelpful that Peter's talk page has become a sort of central point for discussing this. Feel free, Peter, to move it to User talk:JamesBWatson/Suggested RfA if you like. A central point more connected to me would be more appropriate, and a page of its own would keep it out of the way of other user talk page stuff. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

A possibility that came to me while reading the above is doing a joint review, so all of us digging through your contributions and creating a list of diffs that are good example of what you have done (which of course may not be good, though I doubt there will be much of that :-) ). That would seem to fit the wiki way of doing things. Peter 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea: by all means do that. As for whether what you find is good or not, well, I am not perfect, but I hope the good predominates. If it doesn't, please don't hit me. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea... I've got a list of all the ethnic slurs you used.... oh maybe shouldn't publish those diffs. This would be a good reference too for the RfA itself, so others could examine.

One thing James that would be helpful is if you would opt-in to the edit counter by creating User:JamesBWatson/EditCounterOptIn.js. Shadowjams (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Can you give me a link to an explanation what it is? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Sure, X!'s edit counter here is the one linked off of the edit contrib page, so it's the defacto edit counter, although some simple perl/api edits will also do the same thing. X!'s counter hit some resistance lately from some people asserting German privacy laws, something I know nothing about, but I find the result absurd, which leads us to the fact that X!'s edit summary tool requires an opt-in. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have done that now. Seeing my most edited pages is quite surprising. I see some of them are pages I haven't edited for years: my pattern of editing has changed a lot since then, with far more edits but spread much more widely. Some of the talk page comments I made a couple of years ago surprise me too, and make me think "did I really know that little about how Wikipedia works?" But of course I did: we all did when we started. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been fairly busy recently off-wiki (as can be seen by my recent contribs). Peter 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no hurry. I wasn't after an RfA anyway until you suggested one, and if it doesn't get done that's OK, or if it gets done rather slowly that's OK too. But thanks for letting me know you haven't forgotten. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

Please use this section to add basic statistics.

Measure	Value
Active months (100+ edits)	2009-02 - present
Total edits	23,338
Deleted edits	3,524
Automated edits	5,695 (24.40%) / 17,643 non automated
Rights	Rollback, Autoconfirmed
Page creations	4
Pages patrolled	851
Article % to Talk %	40.26% : 34.83%
WP:AIV contributions	269

Questions

You mentioned concerns that people would oppose based on lack of article editing experience. Personally I don't think this is a big deal (though I know it is to some others), as long as you've shown understanding in how articles should be, and an idea of how to get to them. Are you able to demonstrate this?

Firstly, I have written a few new articles. I am listed as being the originator of Franco Enna, Salvator Gotta, Jenn Ashworth and Polygonum caespitosum. I rewrote the stub Polygonum caespitosum after it had been flagged as a copyvio. The others were completely new articles.

Secondly, I have written a few other articles which do not show up as having been created by me because there was already a stub or redirect. I will give a few examples. I have not kept a full list, so there may be others.

Here is the article SuperB Experiment before I edited it, and here it is when I had edited it. All of the changes apart from two very minor edits were by me. I think it is fair to say that the article is effectively just as much my creation as if I had been listed as its creator.
Another example of an article which I substantially rewrote is Near-field (mathematics). The version before my editing was not as minimal as in the case of SuperB Experiment, but it was fairly short and not, in my opinion, very well written, and the current version, though still quite short, contains significantly more information, and is substantially due to me, with several small contributions from other editors.
World Peace (computer virus) started out as a redirect, but it was mistakenly redirected to an article on a different topic. I replaced the erroneous redirect with an article. HamburgerRadio then pointed out that there was already an article on the same virus under the title MacMag (computer virus), and suggested a merge. I merged much of the article I had written into MacMag (computer virus), and turned World Peace (computer virus) back into a redirect, but this time with the correct target. In the course of this I had the experience of writing an article, I experienced the disappointment of being told that my efforts were in vain as an article already existed, and I had the experience of examining the two articles together and deciding which bits of each to put together into the final merged article. I believe that all of these stages were significant contributions to understanding the process of article writing.

In all of the cases that I have mentioned I spent a significant amount of time and effort researching to find the necessary content, as well as writing the article.

There are other articles which I have edited from time to time in a way which may give evidence of the sort of experience you refer to, and if I happen to come across any of them I will add a mention here, but I do not have a list of them, and finding them by looking back through my editing history would be likely to be tedious. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, could you answer one of the standard RfA questions: What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

My best contributions are occasions when I have been able to help new users to find their way around Wikipedia, sometimes clearing up their misunderstandings, and pointed them in the right direction. Sometimes I have put quite a bit of effort into trying to be helpful, as for example here. This is not my biggest contribution, but I really think when it does happen it is the most worthwhile. A new editor established as a Wikipedian rather than turned away frustrated is an investment for the future good of the encyclopedia. Another reason I regard this as worthwhile is that I am helping another human being who may well have been confused and frustrated, and the real purpose of working on Wikipedia is not to serve Wikipedia, but to to serve the people who come here, whether to read or to edit. It is encouraging to sometimes receive confirmation that my efforts in this respect are successful, as for example here and here. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, could you point me towards any significant conflicts you think you've had? (At this stage I'm not asking for a full answer to 'Q3', I'm not even that interested in any explanations etc., just simple links to relevant talk page archive sections is fine.)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Husein_Alicajic shows a distinct conflict, and there is a follow up to it here.

There was a conflict over Tómas Davíð which can be seen in this version of my talk page (the discussion is spread over 4 sections) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tómas Davíð.

Also the same version of my talk page shows a conflict over David Toledo (Artist). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter 22:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I see that you disagree with the established standard for WP:PROF,and you frequently vote (and even nominate) at AfD in ways inconsistent with it. The representation of academics at WP is pitiful enough without your actually making things worse. I shall certainly oppose you on this basis if you say that you have any intention of closing afds. There are some areas where i have some disagreements with the established standards in one or another direction: I dealt with it at my AfD by saying I did not intend to close in these areas, and I indeed have never done so. I think its the only way to handle this sort of disagreement in a fair way. Rather than surprise you at the afd, I think it more straightforward --and even more friendly--to say this right now. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have three comments on this. Firstly, I have no intention at all of closing AfDs, because I am aware that my own opinions are distinctly towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, and so my judgement in this area might be considered not to represent consensus. Secondly, could you give examples of where I have indicated that I "disagree with the established standard for WP:PROF"? I am not aware of having done so, though I may have done. Thirdly, I very much appreciate your giving notice of your intention in this area: thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who indicated interest in co-nom

For future reference, please add any that I've missed:

Three co-noms is a lot, and there's only really one major point I wanted to make; I may end up just supporting instead if you cover it between you. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Peter created a very comprehensive nomination, I doubt I could add anything important to it, so one or more co-noms can likely only serve the secondary purpose of nominations, i.e. influencing !voters with the person of the nominator (it's a fact after all, although not one that is admitted often, that most nominations serve this purpose more or less). That said, I'd be happy to co-nom !James but it won't be a very long one - thus I think !James should decide who, if anyone, he wants to co-nom him, since it's his RFA. Regards So Why 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. ~~Let us know what you'd prefer JBW.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Expanding] 3 co noms is unusual, so unless you'd prefer that JBW, it's probably more appropriate if those who do the nom are admins. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to accept either or neither. I think Peter has done an excellent job, capable of standing on its own without a co-nom. However, if there is to be a co-nomination then yes, it is probably better for it to be an admin, and I see SoWhy is one, whereas Shadowjams apparently isn't (yet). With or without a co-nom I am grateful for the support from each of you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion with Peter I am hoping to transclude the RfA on Monday or early on Tuesday, so if there is to be a co-nom it would be helpful to have it by then. However, if this is not convenient please let me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Why would be an excellent conom. Shadowjams (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. :-) I'll try to add it today, probably in the evening. Regards So Why 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are good to go . Regards So Why 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]