- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
StephenBuxton ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm not the most prolific of administrators here (lots of things in real life keep coming up and apparently Wikipedia work isn't an acceptable excuse), but I do try my best in the quick hit stuff. Well, I've got me flak jacket on, and my dermal layer is tough... feel free to let rip! Stephen! Coming... 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
- Having worked with and interacted with this administrator a number of times and I am pleased to say I have found him to be extremely pleasant to work with, good ethics, an outstanding amount of patience (far beyond any i could hope to have). I have seen this administrator/editor deal with one of the most troublesome and un-cooperative editors on wikipedia and yet he somehow has managed to continue to have good faith all throughout (i would have lost the plot had it been me). I take my hat off to StephenBuxton and if he ever wishes to become a crat i would give my full support, as for his actions as an admin i have a few words to sum it up. Fair, Consistant and a bloody good one. Cheers Zoo Pro 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, shucks... Stephen! Coming... 10:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've heard that his double-lift sometimes separates, and that his Elmsley count is a little 'talky' -- but his work on the Wiki all looks appropriate to me. Run Amok ( talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers, Mark! Although I will add that people only see 3 out of 4 of my edits... ;-) Stephen! Coming... 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- The one interaction that I know of that I've had with this guy shows sloppy admin work. See User_talk:Toddst1#CSD_Tags. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The above comment from Toddst1 should not be taken at face value. Toddst1 has a history of arguing with other admins when his/her point is not accepted. As for the admin under review, I see no problem with his/her admin work. 174.115.0.44 ( talk) 08:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- (Above discussion on Toddst1's talk page, should anyone wish to review it, is now archived and can be found here).
- To IP174.115.0.44 - I appreciate your support, but if you are going to make accusations about another editor, you really should back it up with evidence. Or better still, have a chat with them on their talk page about your concerns. Stephen! Coming... 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've watched Stephen dealing with a particularly nasty vandal who'd been making seriously libellous attacks against User:GSorby today - IMHO, his actions and conduct were absolutely spot-on. Definitely a competent mop-wielder. Yunshui 雲 水 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stephen makes very good choices with dealing with vandal matters. -- Miss X-Factor ( talk) 02:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my interaction with Stephen, he has failed to give substantive responses when discussing his administrative actions. -- Dogbert579 ( talk) 12:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone is interested, he is referring to my response here to the deletion of Drrty pharms. I stand by both. Stephen! Coming... 10:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the criteria for Speedy Deletion should be observed by nominators and admins. Instead, a stub article I created about the new President/COO of EdX was nominated for speedy deletion "for a variety of reasons," even though the article provided a link to a Harvard Crimson article discussing her career's past successes and the speculation about whether her hiring meant a change of direction for EdX. (Google search reveals many other sources discussing the recent hiring and her past career.) The article was nominated for speedy deletion at 3 a.m. EST (my time zone) and by 5:30 a.m. Stephen Buxton had deleted it. In my opinion this showed poor judgment, because if stating that somebody is in the news for assuming leadership of the Harvard/MIT MOOC-provider does not claim the person is important, I would be curious to know what language one would use to claim importance. Apparently, it was nominated for speedy BOTH because it did not claim importance AND because it sounded like advertising. How do you "advertise" somebody if you are failing to claim they are "important"? Also, if the person who created the article is supposed to have some opportunity to protest/improve the article, it is my opinion this was insufficient opportunity to do so. To clarify, I consider this a very small incident and do not wish to suggest on such slight basis that Stephen is not a good admin. I was trying to figure out a place to complain about/understand better what happened to a stub-article that I thought would be useful to Wikipedia. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
StephenBuxton ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I'm not the most prolific of administrators here (lots of things in real life keep coming up and apparently Wikipedia work isn't an acceptable excuse), but I do try my best in the quick hit stuff. Well, I've got me flak jacket on, and my dermal layer is tough... feel free to let rip! Stephen! Coming... 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
- Having worked with and interacted with this administrator a number of times and I am pleased to say I have found him to be extremely pleasant to work with, good ethics, an outstanding amount of patience (far beyond any i could hope to have). I have seen this administrator/editor deal with one of the most troublesome and un-cooperative editors on wikipedia and yet he somehow has managed to continue to have good faith all throughout (i would have lost the plot had it been me). I take my hat off to StephenBuxton and if he ever wishes to become a crat i would give my full support, as for his actions as an admin i have a few words to sum it up. Fair, Consistant and a bloody good one. Cheers Zoo Pro 09:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, shucks... Stephen! Coming... 10:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've heard that his double-lift sometimes separates, and that his Elmsley count is a little 'talky' -- but his work on the Wiki all looks appropriate to me. Run Amok ( talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers, Mark! Although I will add that people only see 3 out of 4 of my edits... ;-) Stephen! Coming... 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- The one interaction that I know of that I've had with this guy shows sloppy admin work. See User_talk:Toddst1#CSD_Tags. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The above comment from Toddst1 should not be taken at face value. Toddst1 has a history of arguing with other admins when his/her point is not accepted. As for the admin under review, I see no problem with his/her admin work. 174.115.0.44 ( talk) 08:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- (Above discussion on Toddst1's talk page, should anyone wish to review it, is now archived and can be found here).
- To IP174.115.0.44 - I appreciate your support, but if you are going to make accusations about another editor, you really should back it up with evidence. Or better still, have a chat with them on their talk page about your concerns. Stephen! Coming... 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've watched Stephen dealing with a particularly nasty vandal who'd been making seriously libellous attacks against User:GSorby today - IMHO, his actions and conduct were absolutely spot-on. Definitely a competent mop-wielder. Yunshui 雲 水 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stephen makes very good choices with dealing with vandal matters. -- Miss X-Factor ( talk) 02:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my interaction with Stephen, he has failed to give substantive responses when discussing his administrative actions. -- Dogbert579 ( talk) 12:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone is interested, he is referring to my response here to the deletion of Drrty pharms. I stand by both. Stephen! Coming... 10:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the criteria for Speedy Deletion should be observed by nominators and admins. Instead, a stub article I created about the new President/COO of EdX was nominated for speedy deletion "for a variety of reasons," even though the article provided a link to a Harvard Crimson article discussing her career's past successes and the speculation about whether her hiring meant a change of direction for EdX. (Google search reveals many other sources discussing the recent hiring and her past career.) The article was nominated for speedy deletion at 3 a.m. EST (my time zone) and by 5:30 a.m. Stephen Buxton had deleted it. In my opinion this showed poor judgment, because if stating that somebody is in the news for assuming leadership of the Harvard/MIT MOOC-provider does not claim the person is important, I would be curious to know what language one would use to claim importance. Apparently, it was nominated for speedy BOTH because it did not claim importance AND because it sounded like advertising. How do you "advertise" somebody if you are failing to claim they are "important"? Also, if the person who created the article is supposed to have some opportunity to protest/improve the article, it is my opinion this was insufficient opportunity to do so. To clarify, I consider this a very small incident and do not wish to suggest on such slight basis that Stephen is not a good admin. I was trying to figure out a place to complain about/understand better what happened to a stub-article that I thought would be useful to Wikipedia. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.