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

StephenBuxton[edit]

Final (56/3/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StephenBuxton (talk · contribs) - I would be lying if I told you that StephenBuxton was my strongest candidate, but I am not lying when I tell you that I have not be prouder to nominate any other candidate. I met Stephen back in February when I was looking for an admin coachee. Stephen caught my eye despite the fact that he was a pure vandal fighter (I don't like pure vandal fighters!) When I offered to be his admin coach, I was brutally honest. I told him, Right now, if you ran for RfA, your candidacy would go down in flames because his edits failed to demonstrate an understanding of policies. In short, while his anti-vandalism activities were top notch, he needed a lot of work elsewhere. I felt as if he didn't understand what Wikipedia was about and wanted him to have a better appreciation for the project as a whole.

His coaching page, a monstrous 150KB page, shows how he strongly embraced coaching! After accepting my coaching, his edit count dropped significantly because (at his own initiative) he stopped using tools and started focusing on other aspects of the community. In fact, to see his anti-vandalism efforts, you have to look at his pre-coaching days. I encouraged him to read some policies/guidelines, he went above and beyond any of my expectations! He probably learned more about Wikipedia in February than most have learned all year! With his newfound expertise, I ran him through some typical coaching exercises: Speedy Deletions, AfD/DvR, Policies and Guidelines, and 3rr/Naming.

But his ability to impress me didn't stop there. Stephen exposed himself to AfD's, embraced article writing, and became active at the helpdesk. The reason I don't generally like pure vandal fighters is because they don't know what it means to build the encyclopedia and can do as much damage as good. I look at mainspace edits in part because it is the easiest way to gauge if the candidate might have given his heart and soul to contribute to the project. But there are other ways. For example, Stephen was involved in a significant discussion concerning the role of "the secret" in magic tricks with TenOfAllTrades. Because of this experience, his perceptions of the project have been reshaped. While I expected this change to result from "content" building, his involvement with the Magic Project accomplished my wishes in a better/more complete manner than I hoped for. Stephen now has a different understanding of what it means to work on this project. He is no longer just an anti-vandal fighter, but a committed to the project.

The candidate that I present to you today is a significantly more qualified than the one I took as a coachee just 3 months ago. He not only understands policies and guidelines better but Wikipedia itself. To me, Stephen is the poster child of what Admin coaching should be. I encourage you to evaluate his coaching page, I think you'll be impressed. Again, while his first love is vandal fighting, you will have to go back a few months to find evidence of that. While Stephen plans on returning to his roots, I believe his experiences these past few months will help him be a better admin. While some of us have reservations about vandal specialist admins (see my history and you'll know I do.) I am not worried about Stephen.Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your coaching and kind words, Balloonman. I accept your nomination. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from the candididate

You will see from the date Balloonman wrote my nom that I am accepting this just over a month later. The reason for the delay was down to real-life dramas coming into play just as I was to originally transclude, coupled with computer problems at home preventing me from accessing the internet. This is also why my edit count has been down a lot this last month. When I've been about, I've done what I could to help the project, rl prevented me from doing all what I wanted to do for Wikipedia. Anyway, access is now happening at home, so I'm finally ready to go! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Vandal fighting, definitely. This was the original reason why I wanted the admin buttons - to aid me in my Recent Patrol work. Along with that, I would also help out with Page Protection and Username Violation. Those three are areas what need to be watched in conjunction with each other. When I revert vandals, I will always look at their contributions, the page history of where they have edited in case of other vandalism (say due to a recent news story). As I also periodically hang around in the Newly Registered Users page, I can be there to watch for a new user's first edit. I will then see if it is a sensible edit, in which case they get a Welcome message, and maybe a bit of advice if they have had problems. Vandalism will be met with a quick and polite level 1 warning. New users with dubious names get dealt with appropriately. New articles can be dealt with appropriately if it is spam, an attack page, or a bit of help if it is a nice new article.
I haven't done much vandalism fighting or welcoming of newbies of late, as my coach has got me busy in other areas too!
These other areas I have been looking at have given me further incentive to get my mop, as I have found other areas that I would like to help out in. The main one has to be AFDs, and I would like to expand the assistance I have been giving to help with the closing of AFDs.
I would also like to do more work at the Help Desk. I know you don't need to be an admin to work there, but I think it would help. Questions such as "Why was my page deleted" can only get limited responses from me, as I can only hazard a guess as to why it was deleted, or at the very least let them work it out for themselves by directing them to WP:WWMPD. By being able to view these deleted pages, I can give a more tailored response. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Helping to keep Wikipedia free from vandalised articles is possibly my best contribution here. People who think it is hilariously funny to replace entire articles with "I woz ere!" (or worse) need to be dealt with in an appropriate and prompt manner. I believe my thorough vandal-fighting manner of seek-warn-then-report has probably been my best contribution to Wikipedia.
As far as article content writing, I will admit that I have not done as much as a lot of other RfA candidates. I have worked on Magic (illusion), removing a lot of the POV and heavy bias that was there. The Harry Houdini article had a messed-up chronology surrounding the events leading up to and following his death, so I tidied that up too. An article(Bradley D. Simon) that I had originally voted to delete as non-notable (but changed to keep when suitable sources were found), needed a lot of work. After the AFD, I volunteered my services to the main editor of the page to help clean it up. I knew nothing about the subject (I still don't, other than the available source information linked from the article), but I figured it would be good for me and the article if I could help with the tidy-up work. I did a fair amount of tidy-up work for a while. Unfortunately, the other editor stopped contributing, so I was unable to do much more. As I haven't found any other sources for this subject, so my work on it has stopped for now.
I realise that my lack of main article edits will probably count against me at RfA with some people. The reason is that I do not believe that I am a particularly strong creator of encyclopedic prose. Wikipedia is wonderful resource, and has many fantastic writers working very hard at creating top-class articles. I want these people to carry on editing in a stress free environment. Editing articles isn't as much fun for me as helping others. I would much rather spend an hour or two vandal fighting - removing those nasty bits of prose that these people litter the place with - than spend five minutes trying to compose an opening sentence to an article. My time spent on tasks like vandal-fighting is much more worthwhile, I believe. If I can do that, then hopefully the ones who can actually write articles will be able to spend more time doing that than cleaning up the vandals' mess. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Edit conflicts are very rare occurances for me, not just because I don't do much article editing. I am a firm believer in assuming good faith and taking the stance that the other person also wants what they think is best for the article. I can only think of 2 instances where I have been directly involved in an edit conflict. I've listed the most recent below.
This was regarding the posting of secrets on magic-related article talk pages. First, a bit of background: Initially, I didn't go to any magic articles because I did not want to get caught up in any edit wars. Being a magician, I have strong views about magic exposure, which aren't necessarily in line with Wikipedia policies. So rather than get drawn into conflict, I stayed away.
In the end I did go to the Magic (illusion) page, and did some cleaning up. Whilst there, I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic, and decided to check it out. The page included guidance on magic secrets. In summary - unsourced secrets to be removed straight away with a note on the talk page, sourced secrets to remain in the article. This appeared to be a good compromise stance to take. So taking the WP:BOLD approach, I went out and started removing secrets like this one, and posting notes on the talk page like so.
As I often do a couple of days or so after editing articles, I revisited the articles to see if anything was going on as a result of my edits. I saw on the talk pages of the articles I had cleaned up the removed secrets being added by User:TenOfAllTrades, with posts like this. Rather than deleting his posts (as editing others comments in talk pages is very wrong), I posted a question on his talk page. The conversation went as follows (apologies - this happened over two talk pages, so I'll just post the links): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The post on the project talk page mentioned in the last post can be found here, and User:TenOfAllTrades' responded thus.
As there was never a huge amount of activity on the talk page, and I wanted to make sure that any consensus reached would be agreed upon by as many magicians as possible (thus limiting the chance of future edit wars), I decided to drop a post to all the other members of the magic project. There are less than 30 registered participants, not so many that I would run the risk of violating WP:CANVAS. One such example may be read here. To ensure that I did not violate the canvassing policy, I dropped a post on TenOfAllTrade's talk page letting him know. I received this reply, which did come as a bit of a surprise. I responded thus. Coincidentally, just as I posted my apology, my coach (unprompted by me) was posting a response to TenOfAllTrades on my talk page.
Anyway, I decided not to pursue the note dropping, and instead see how the debate would progress. The full debate may be viewed here. I did raise it at the Village Pump for further input (and informed TenOfAllTrades about it), but got no input at all from them at the pump. At that point, I decided to take it to RFC. The RFC may be viewed here. Throughout the RFC (which did take a while to get momentum) I kept TenOfAllTrades informed of the progress. The main reason for dropping him notes all the way through was because so long was taking between stages, I was worried that he might not realise that anything was happening! These posts may be viewed here.
The RFC has now closed, and the result was an expansion of the guidelines. You can see the change here. I took the bold step of updating the guidelines myself before everyone had commented, as the draft guidelines had been posted for a long while with only one comment. Mindful of this change, I did drop a note on all RFC participants' talk pages letting them know that the RFC was closed, but that they could still comment.
As my answer to question 3 is rather long, I have created a page where you can see how I dealt with the other edit conflict I was involved with, along with an edit war I attempted to bring peace to, and how I dealt with the only user to have ever caused me to step away from my keyboard before I typed something I would regret. You can read these at User:StephenBuxton/RFA Q3. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Optional questions from User:Filll
4. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. Not come across the Polling Pledge before - I'll have to look deeper at it before I make any firm judgement on it. As for calmer environments - that is a hard one. All Wikipedians (be they sysops, crats, experienced editors or newbies) should follow the words written down in WP:AGF. If everyone did that, then there would be no need to bring in all these pledges and what-nots to get people to stay calm.
The problem as I see it is that people can get very passionate about a certain stance - there is nothing wrong about that - if there were no passion here, the Wiki would dry up very quickly. Rather than stepping away from the keyboard for a short period of time, people feel the need to defend themselves immediately. Had they waited a short while, then they might have realised that what they were responding to was not an attack, but a comment. They defended themselves as if it were, and unintentially gave the other the impression of retaliatory bitching. And so the debate/RFA/poll/whatever decends into a mud slinging match, and an otherwise potentially decent admin fails to get the mop.StephenBuxton (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a think about this Polling Pledge. The way I see it is that it is an unnecessary nicety, and whilst I applaud your sentiments behind it, I won't be adding my name to it, as I feel it is not needed. The reason is that when we all joined up to Wikipedia, we all agreed to abide by the rules and guidelines. So general wikki-ettiquete, AGF, and CIVIL apply to us all. What has been written in the polling pledge is essentially the same, just tailor made to RFAs. If you join a football team and play in a match, you wouldn't wear a badge to say "I agree not to abuse the referee" as that is already covered by the rules. I won't be signing up, but I appreciate your efforts in trying to make the place more civil. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A.User:StephenBuxton/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:TaborL
6. When should you use a cool down block?
A. Slightly less than never, and even then, only if the thermometer in Hades registers below zero.
Seriously though, I would never issue a cool down block. If someone is angry, then the cool down block will have an opposite effect. I would encourage the editor to write out their response on a word editor on their computer, go and have lunch, a break, or even a sleep (24 hours would be ideal, but not always practical), and come back later and re-read their response. Edit it to reflect how they feel now, and then post that. The chances are that it will now be a cooled down response.
So I see. I had a read through of the debate, and I have not changed my stance. If someone is tempted to issue cool down blocks (however they are labelled) in an edit war, then what they should be doing is considering page protecting the article that is the subject of the war, and (depending on how people have been behaving with their comments) reminding people to be civil. If things still don't improve, then the mediation process should be worked through. StephenBuxton (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:xDanielx
7. On your admin coaching page, Balloonman commented that "[t]he thing about AfD's is that you are looking at consensus via strength of argument via policy/guidelines.". Can there be a consensus do take some action that is antithetical to policies and/or guidelines?
A. The good thing about Wikipedia is that (bar the wikidramas) people are prepared to revise and review guidelines and policies. I haven't been active here as long as some of you good people, but the general impression is that if people aren't happy about something, then things will change. So, if a situation were to occur where the consensus is based on well thought out argument, then the policy or guideline can change accordingly. And there's always WP:BOLD and WP:IAR to use to justify your actions against policy or guidelines if the net result is going to be improvement to Wikipedia.
One just has to be careful that the consensus that is against policy or guidelines that you are trying to satisfy is not the result of puppetry or canvassing. In instances where your heart is trying to please others, but your gut is making horrible sounds, there is always the admin noticeboard, which can be counted upon for the sanity check - I would hate to be sol bold that I end up on the village stocks... StephenBuxton (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:NuclearWarfare
8. How would you explain "Notability" in your OWN words?
A. By secretly sneaking a peek in the dictionary?
The rule of thumb with notability is that if a person/organistation/film/etc has 3 independent secondary sources that are published/broadcast/shouted-from-the-rooftops-loudly-enough/etc over a national/international/galactic area, then the article can be included. The definition is deliberatly wooly enough to allow marginal cases to have an article.
In areas where there are common XFD discussions, people have refined the notability guidelines so you have specifics such as WEB, PEOPLE, MUSIC and so on. However, it is not exhaustive, so you end up having to make your best judgement as to whether or not something is notable or not. Take software for example - try as I might, I have not been able to find anything here that defines software's notability (if there is one, please let me know!). I'm not a software engineer, so I have to rely on my instinct which tells me that if someone independant has published a manual (such as The Dummies Guide) on the software, then it is notable. Beyond that, I cannot say, which is why I tend not to get involved with software debates other than commenting on where I've seen references. StephenBuxton (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from User:Davidwr/(talk)
9. If your RfA fails, how long will you wait before re-applying and what will you do on Wikipedia in the meantime, besides addressing the issues raised in this RfA?
A From what I've seen elsewhere, the recommended minimum waiting period is 6 months. As I cannot see any reason why an exception would be made for me, I would follow that advice. As to what I would do, it would be a mixture of vandal fighting, along with hanging around the Help desk and the XFDs - the last two have taught me quite a lot about Wiki policy and guidelines, and aside from the fact that I have enjoyed helping out in those places, it is learning through experience, and that would be useful at RFA2. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional (well, not really) question from User:Wizardman.
10. I can't say I've ever seen that much admin coaching done ever, so here's my question. As a critic of admin coaching, how would you be able to alleviate my concerns regarding your judgment? Since all your decisions (the hypothetical ones in the coaching) went through Balloonman, and you will not have that luxury of reviewing a situation with another admin when you're out in the field, would I be able to trust you to think for yourself and make the correct decision? I'm starting to talk in circles, but basically I'm just asking the first question above, which is purposely open-ended, since I'm never thought to ask this question myself, and am not even positive of the answer I want yet.
AThe exercises I undertook were all based on real life situations, and I answered them as best I could by following the advice in the guidelines and the rules in the policies. Where I had misinterpreted these, Balloonman guided me to where I was going wrong, and asked me to think again (for example, my understanding of IAR, which is question 11 of the policy and guidelines exercise). I’m not sure well that will convince you that I will respond with my own mind in the future – I suspect that if I am granted the mop, how I act will be influenced greatly by how Balloonman taught me. So whilst the editing and comments style will be my own, and my own opinions will also come to play, it is inevitable that you will see Balloonman’s actions in what I do. This is inevitable in any teacher/pupil relationship – how many of your own actions even today are a direct result of what you learned when you were younger? There was one thing that happened in the coaching sessions that might let you see that I am not blindly following Balloonman, nor (heaven forbid) using a cheat-sheet. Hopefully it will show you that I did go and research answers; this is in the exercise on dubious names. If you have a look at my response in question 13 of the d3rr/name exercise, you will see that my answer surprised Balloonman and educated him!
While I am on the topic of coaching, if I may, I would like to make a brief(ish) comment on the topic of coaching/training to pass RFA. There is a saying that magicians use: ‘’For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no explanation will suffice’’. We use that to remind ourselves not to go overboard trying to convince spectators that what they have just seen was magic. I am using it here, because I would like to say that I am not going to attempt to convince you that my coaching was or wasn’t valid admin coaching. Balloonman set me exercises that tested my knowledge of policies and the like, and I went out and learned how to do it. If you believe that is valid admin training, then great; if you don’t then fair enough.
I suppose you could say that I have been coached how to pass an RFA – if I hadn’t had the training, I would only have met the criteria for vandal fighting, nothing else. And yes, Balloonman did ask me to read User:Balloonman/How to pass an RfA. So you could argue correctly that I have been trained in passing the RFA. However, I don’t see anything wrong in being clued up. I went to University for three years, and got an upper second class honours degree in Aerospace Systems Engineering. 9 months later, and still no job. Why? I was rubbish at interviews, and couldn’t write a decent CV. So the nice people at the Job Centre sent me to a job club, where I was able to learn what to do to be successful at interviews. The next interview I went to was successful. So whilst I knew enough to be an engineer, I needed help in letting people know that I was any good. Balloonman taught me what I needed to know to be an admin, and as an added bonus, he has shown me what I should be aware of at the RFA.
I am happy to answer further questions on this topic if you like; all I ask is that it relates to me, and not to the general discussion of the pros and cons of admin coaching. Looking at some of the comments below, it looks like there is the very real potential for that debate to start, and I would rather that be saved for another day and another place. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from your coach.
10. I don't think I asked you this during your coaching. In my nom, I wrote that you now perceive the project differently as a result of your discussion concerning "the Secret" in magic. While I see a difference in your attitude/demeanor, I was wondering if you could elaborate on how this experience will shape your vandal fighting in the future?
A. Ummm... that is a really good question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. I know you said in my nom that you had noticed a change in my demeanor and all that, but to be honest, I haven't noticed anything myself. This leads me to think that one of these possibilities is true: (1)There has been a noticable change in my attitude as a result of the "magic secrets" debate, but I've not noticed it; (2) My attitude has not changed, but it wasn't visible to you as I hadn't had a chance to show it; or (3) I'm a huge faker, and I managed to pull the wool over your eyes.
Ok, possibility number 3 isn't to be taken seriously (other than I'm an overweight magician, but that's as close as I'll ever be to being a huge faker), so has my attitude actually changed? I honestly don't know. I don't feel like anything has changed - I know a lot more about policies than I did before, that I can say. But attitude changes? You may well be right.
The only thing that I can say has changed between February and now is those few instances recently when I did a spot of vandal patrolling was I was less likely to give a first level warning of vandalism, and more likely to give a first level test edit notice. I guess I was assuming good faith a bit more than I used to. By this I mean that whereas in past, an article being replaced by "Hi Mum!" would get a level 1 vandalism warning from me (if it were a first offence). Nowadays, I'm prepared to believe that this is a potential Wikipedian who is just trying out the edit button and seeing what happens. I do always watch to see what their subsequent edits are like, and take appropriate action.
Another possible change in attitude was the CSD notices to new users. Provided the page being created wasn't a blatant attack page, I used to just post the template notice. Nowadays, if their talk page is blank, I'll post a welcome template as well as the CSD template.
Having doubted you that there has been a change in attitude, I'm beginning to think where there may be other changes. In the past, I didn't take part in debates on things here, mainly because I didn't really know what's what. However, with my increase in knowledge of policies and guidelines, I am able to converse easier about such matters. I guess it is like the difference in talking to people you meet with for the first time, and chatting with people you know well, or have a shared interest. The debates in the latter will be far more lively.
Thinking further, I can think of something where my attitude has changed - my attitudes to AFDs. When you first got me to have a go at them, I must confess that I really did not want to take part in them. Later, I realised that they were a lot of fun, and I thoroughly enjoyed the debates. I should explain here for those who haven't waded through my coaching page: I love puzzles, almost as much as I love magic. I see AFDs now as a form of investigative puzzle - searching for that scrap of notability that makes it a saver, or looking to see if the nom was indeed correct. I would always try to get my !vote in first, and visit the AFD later to see if the result matched what I suggested. More often than not, it did.
So has my attitude changed? Possibly. How has it changed? hard to say. Will it effect how I do vandal fighting? Not too sure - I intend to be just as thorough, though possibly with a little bit more AGF than my early vandalism fights. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stephen, I definitely saw differences. If you compare the the way you answered the questions at the start of coaching with the way you answered the same questions three months later there is a significant difference. I also believe that your experience with ten will shape your anti-vandal fighting because you have a better appreciation for the building the 'pedia.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Strong edit count, plenty of Wikipedia edits, mainspace looks good. Has my support. Beat the nom support as well! America69 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Looks very good. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. After looking through this editor's contribs, I find an editor that is concise, civil, and seems to know what policies apply in different situations. Also, meets my criteria easily, especially, the clue part. Easy support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - clueful, civil, and level headed. Looks good to me. –xenocidic (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good user, solid contribs, and I concur with Keeper's assesment of his "clue"-fulness. S. Dean Jameson 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Was on my watchlist. Rudget (logs) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I believe this user will do good for the project. tabor-drop me a line 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support looks wonderful. No civility issues = ). Per Balloonman. --Cameron* 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per WP:WTHN and evident high amount of clue. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Should be a strong asset. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I looked through your contributions and the only minor thing I could find was a COI edit to Puzzle Panel. Apart from that little thing all looked good. RMHED (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we talked about it under question 2.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support - I'll be frank first. I'm not overly pleased with your work at WP:UAA. It's not convention to report vandalism only accounts and confusing usernames there, however, you are an awesome editor so you have my support. Striking my previous comments per candidate's response on my talk page. Shows more clue than I originally though. Good luck dude. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support based on the fact that you bothered to answer the AGF challenge. I'm not going to read it, but that leans me to support nonetheless. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Probably the most impressed that I've been with a candidate in awhile. Excellent nom statement told me pretty much everything that I needed to know. I have every confidence candidate will effectively use the tools. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. He knows enough about Wikipedia to be an admin. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. A strong trustworthy candidate, and always prepared to listen to Balloonman. Dean B (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A great, trustworthy editor. LittleMountain5 00:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Trustworthy, competent. We need better admins. —Giggy 01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'm very glad to see Balloonman back in action on RfA. Very glad. :-) :-) —Giggy 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per survival of 160kB of admin coaching. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Emphatic Support You have many qualities and I notice the diligance of your vandal fighting work. The 160kb page is impressing. You and I seem similar, and you seem very worthy of completing what you wanted. Yamakiri TC § 07-6-2008 • 06:31:42
  21. Suppport as I could not find any evidence to suggest I shouldn't trust this user and thus hope he'll work some nice wikimagic as an admin!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support competent, i ve study his rollback :) --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Has excellent broom potential. Good luck! gidonb (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -Meisterkoch (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: It looks like this user takes care and consideration with his work. Also looks like they really have their heart and mind set in this project. Has plenty of experience and looks like the user will do an excellent job as an admin. Also, I like the users answers to the questions and editing style.  Orfen  T • C 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Yabba Dabba Doo! Just to take a break from "Support" Ecoleetage (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I see Kurt opposing as res ipsum loqitor evidence of a good candidate. BigHairRef | Talk 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also checked his edits, his tagging and vandal fighting seem second to none. Apart from the usual mistakes I have no hesitation in supporting. BigHairRef | Talk 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per pretty poem and WTHN? Qb | your 2 cents 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - As Kurt and Wizardman says, this candidate looks rather too "prepared" for this, and I am no fan of admin coaching at all. But what they produce can't really be that bad, can it? Lradrama 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - A admin who went to admin school is bad? What's the purpose of it then? NuclearWarfare (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that the purpose of an education after all? To prepare somebody for future challenges? Default opposition for improving oneself is right up there with some of the other lame default opposes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support No trust issues. Preparation is a plus, for me, not a minus. Supporting this candidate, for me, is not a difficult choice. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No issues here, looks like he would make a good admin. --Mifter (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Seems like a dedicated editor to me. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support User is a magician, the admin tools will add to his already impressive repertoire Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Edit count is a bit low for me, but I trust Balloonman's judgment on an otherwise excellent candidate. MBisanz talk 08:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, it's a bit low for me too... and is an area I constantly nagged him about... but I don't believe in cookie cutter criteria. Mainspace edits are a way to guage experience, but they aren't the only one, and having watched him grow over the past four months, I felt that he got the exposure elsewhere---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Calm, cool-headed, well qualified. No reason to oppose. `SWik78 (talk • contribs)
  39. Support When considering whether or not to support someone we must ask ourselves whether or not we trust them. We must trust them not to misuse the tools, to act in an appropriate way, etc. Nothing has been brought up that indicates this user will misuse the tools, cause unneeded drama, be very rude, etc, so I trust this user. Good luck!--SJP Chat 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Hell yeah. Tan | 39 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per weburiedoursecretsinthegarden. Seems like a good guy, fit for the job, blah blah.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support and Oppose simultaneously, with support exceeding oppose so I guess that makes this Neutral weak support. Support for good editing, good attitude, good answers to questions posted here, and general attitude during the course of this RfA, in particular his insistence that this RfA not get derailed, etc. Oppose due to short period of time between late February, when even the current nominator agrees he was terribly unsuited, and now. I still believe StephenBuxton will be a better editor and an better administrator if he withdraws his request and waits at least another couple of months to give what he learned in admin coaching a chance to sink in and/or defers doing serious admin work for that period of time at least a couple of months. Right now, he's like a hotshot Ph.D. student with a good professor getting ready to defend his dissertation a year early then immediately applying for a tenure-track position at a University. Like the student, he should either "postpone his defense a year"/withdraw his AfC, take a vacation/defer using the admin tools for a few months if you get them this week, or do a postdoc/have another administrator review your administrative decisions, particularly those which actually required making a decision such as a near-consensus AfD or semi-disruptive editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC). Additions and deletions and move from neutral by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) at 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Thank you for your change to support - completly unexpected, but I won't complain! Just to allay your fears - I had already planned on taking it easy with regards to the admin buttons, and certainly no use of the buttons except for SNOW admin enforcements (such as vandal-only account blocking, deletion of attack pages, that sort of thing) until I gain more experience. As it happens, it is something I had discussed on my coaching page: my answer to example 10 of the 3rr/name exercise. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - meets my standards. I understand the concern about "over-coaching", but that's better than being under-prepared. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Switching to support as per WTHN and the candidate's own post in the Discussion section. — Athaenara ✉ 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. (changed from neutral per demonstration of natural cluefulness) user:Everyme 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Though I continue to strongly question Balloonman's judgment after a still-recent debacle that I won't deign to name, I am impressed by this candidate's demeanor and handling of the RfA to this point. After a little digging through his contribs, I'm comfortable enough to support. GlassCobra 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't blame ya... perhaps that's why I have a thinner skin this RFA/N than usual?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I wasn't sure whether to support or not, but I went ahead and read the coaching page. 160kb over a 4 month period? There's getting a person ready for adminship, and there's basically telling him in every possible situation what to do, and it almost feels like.. I'm not sure what the right word is, but this all feels very odd to me. You're a great editor from what I gather away from the coaching, so I may have a change of heart and support. I'm not a fan of coaching to begin with, but for once Kurt does have a point, this is too groomed and pre-packaged for my liking. This is a hard non-support for me, but alas. Wizardman 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Granted, RFA is about whether or not I trust the candidate. Do I trust admin coaching, and the way Balloonman did it? No. But do I trust Stephen? Yes. So while I hate the way everything done, I feel like a jackass not supporting. Support Wizardman 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I see no reason to do otherwise. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Checked your edits, count and interactions. Impressive answers to the questions asked. I dont see you will abuse the tools. and Balloonman , I trust your nomination too -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 10:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: Nominator was fair, honest, and compelling. Candidate is impressive; his response to Question #3 was particularly outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As an aside, while not a magician myself, I completely agree with Mr. Buxton's support of magic secrecy. The world needs some enchantment. And if he would someday like to propose an exception for magic tricks in the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, I'd be more than happy to lend my support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support from me and the otters, no reason to oppose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Excellent editor. Acalamari 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per nom---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! The nominator supporting only now ? :) -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 05:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I !vote per this philosophy---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect ! I agree with you -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Support - Editor appears capable, but Kurt got me thinking. It seems he's answered the questions with much thought, but possibly not with complete honesty. It all seems a little doctored to me. This however is no reason to not show support, but it makes me trust the user a little less. Metagraph comment 09:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - not a vandal and wants to improve the encyclopedia - so there is no reason to object. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — Yet another product of the "Play-the-RFA-Game School" process. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain? I'm not sure I quite understand this. tabor-drop me a line 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a common aversion to admin coaching. The phrase sometimes used is "factory made" RfA candidates. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay I think I understand now. Thank you. tabor-drop me a line 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's right up there with the "I can't stand those lawyers who went to law school" line. BigHairRef | Talk 03:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, attending and successfully completing law school is a prerequisite to take the bar exam in most US jurisdictions (though some exemptions may be made), last I heard, completing admin coaching was not a requirement to become a syop.--Finalnight (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt is free to hold whatever position he'd like! He's entrenched in his opinions(sadly), and his oppose won't convince many(if any) people to oppose this user, so it's a total waste to try to convince him to support this user, or withdraw his "vote".--SJP Chat 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
    I never suggested that Kurt withdraw his !vote, nor that I expected I would change his mind, I simply thought that pointing out what I saw as a contradiction may dissuade others from agreeing with his reasons if they were borderline. BigHairRef | Talk 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay:-) I understand what you were doing. However, I honestly don't think a reasonable person would oppose per Kurt's reasoning. Have a nice day:-)--SJP Chat 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several of us who think along these lines. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so I see from various people's responses here. Anyway, let's not dwell on it too much - we are all entitled to our opinions. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I gather, Kurt has a curious tendency to be obstinant for the sake of being obstinant. Just keeping us on our toes, I guess. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I agree with Wizardman, Naerii, and Davidwr, who posted in the Neutral section, but I'm not neutral about intensive grooming for "the keys to passing an RfA" (see coaching page). The candidate is excellent at tracking and reporting vandals and should continue to do that—it's a real service to the encyclopedia and he should probably get more barnstars for it. — Athaenara ✉ 22:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing my oppose after reading StephenBuxton's 11:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC) comment in the Discussion section above. Note to Balloonman: I am persuaded by the candidate himself and WTHN, not by your defense of your coaching scheme. This isn't an RfC on that. — Athaenara ✉ 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and while we differ on the value of Coaching, I appreciate your judging him on his merits, not on your perceptions of Coaching. I don't expect people to agree on coaching, but it shouldn't be the reason to oppose. It SHOULD be a reason to be more critical of candidates (I am--I have higher expectations for people who go through coaching.) So again, thanks for an honest appraisal of him.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this is a little ridiculous. You are pointing to where I asked him to answer the standard questions from an RfA and then insinuating that by asking them that I am providing the "keys to passing an RfA". Did you look at the entirety of my comments related to his answers? They amounted to a total of 3 sentences---primarily in response to his handling of a situation, not on how to answer the questions. Do you have any idea as to why it might be a good idea to ask these questions for coaching? It's not to give the "keys to passing an RfA" but rather to get an understanding of where the candidate currently is and what his/her expectations are. It's helpful to know where people are so that you can better cater the training to the individual. It's kind of like an aptitude test to assess your starting product. Perhaps you missed it later on, I asked the same questions, three months later where the entirety of my comments were along the lines of "quality of these answers is SO much better than what you gave me three months ago" And to cut them down.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't call my opposition "ridiculous" and please don't attribute implications which I neither meant nor posted. The actual quote (diff) is this one: "One of the keys to passing an RfA is to be seen as an Admin. If others think you are an already admin when you run for admin, you have a better chance of passing." — Athaenara ✉ 09:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Athaenara, please don't badger Balloonman's badgering of your oppose. He's normally known to vigorously defend people who oppose RfAs for whatever reason... Funny coincidences all over. user:Everyme 10:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, as you are alleging that I vigorously defend people who oppose, I am going to ask you to defend your accusation on your talk page. I think I'm more known for being one of the main opposers to weak candidates---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Athaernara, I do apologize, I did miss that paragraph when I reviewed your link. But the truth is that an admin has no more real authority than a non-admin, and that if one wants to be an admin, then start acting like one. Being an Admin, IMHO, has nothing to do with having a few extra keys or going throught he RfA process, it has to do with having the proper respect for the project. If you've looked at my votes in the past, there are people who I support not because "I thought you already were an admin" but rather "you have an attribute missing in most candidates----you act like an administrator. I think this is a key that many candidates are missing---you don't have to be an administrator to act like one. If you act like one, then people will see you as one, and handing over the mop becomes no big deal. You already are an administrator, now we just have to make it official. IMHO this is probably the easiest support I've ever made for somebody I don't personally know!"---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Given the nature of the difficulties here, I would suggest this to be re-examined in a month or two. Admins are expected to be independent, and in the general atmosphere, I can not feel any assurance of the actual proper use of the tools. DGG (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too inexperienced, not enough article edits. A third of edits in User Talk? Come on... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. As Wizardman, although I don't think it's your fault. Naerii 12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    moving to weak support Support and Oppose simultaneously, so I guess that makes this Neutral. Support for good editing, good attitude, good answers to questions posted here, etc. Oppose due to short period of time between late February, when even the current nominator agrees he was terribly unsuited, and now. I believe StephenBuxton will be a better editor and an better administrator if he withdraws his request and waits at least another couple of months to give what he learned in admin coaching a chance to sink in and/or defers doing serious admin work for that period of time. Right now, he's like a hotshot Ph.D. student with a good professor getting ready to defend his dissertation a year early then immediately applying for a tenure-track position at a University. Like the student, he should either "postpone his defense a year"/withdraw his AfC, take a vacation/defer using the admin tools for a few months if you get them this week, or do a postdoc/have another administrator review your administrative decisions, particularly those which actually required making a decision such as a near-consensus AfD or semi-disruptive editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er February, when I thought he was terribly unsuited was about 4 months ago. He had a solid track record as a Vandal Fighter (which I typically despise, but was still active then.) We've had a lot of admins succeed after being on Wikipedia a total of four months---let alone four months of intense guidance to gain a better understanding of wikipedia.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I actually agree with Kurt in the first opposition, as well as Wizardman. StephenBuxton, I appreciate your contributions and I'm sure you'll make an excellent administrator. I do feel that changing your editing habits to fit coaching is inappropriate. I don't care if you're a vandal fighter, content builder, or mediator; if you're familiar with policy and trustworthy I favor promotion. Coaching will not make a better or worse administrator. Keegantalk 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Kurt. (changed to support) user:Everyme 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes me currently reconsider though. Maybe I'll change to support later. user:Everyme 12:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like I wasn't the only one impressed by that statement. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (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