Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doug Bell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Doug Bell

Final (78/7/5) Ended 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Doug Bell (talk · contribs) – Doug has been with us since January 2006 and has over 6,300 edits spread throughout all namespaces. Doug has contributed to articles, categories and templates related to Java programming language, has over 1000 edits to wikinamespace and was instrumental in contributing to Retreat of glaciers since 1850 [1] a featured article. Doug has mentioned that he was away for over three months recently, but is now back and hopes to contribute at a high level for the foreseeable future. Doug is always civil and stands his ground on issues he feels important about. Doug was active in helping to clarify the purpose of Wikipedia:Esperanza and heavily participated in the deletion debateWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, making helpful comments [2]. I can't see any reason to not support Doug for adminship and have faith he will do an excellent job.--MONGO 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement from Doug Bell:

I appreciate this nomination, although I accept somewhat reluctantly. If the community decides I can be trusted with the mop then I will do my best to use it well and put it away where it belongs after using it. I think I can be trusted—in my time here I've never violated the one-revert rule I follow in editing and I would apply similar discretion in wielding the mop. My reluctance has only to do with the fact that I intend to keep my focus on editing the encyclopedia and not get too attached to the mop. If your view is that an admin should marry the mop, then I respectfully request that you oppose this nomination. Here's another reason you might want to oppose this nomination: I don't spend much dedicated time fighting vandals and almost never participate in RC patrol. If you think that an admin needs to be a dedicated vandal fighter (and we sure do need admins that are!), then you should probably oppose.

I'd also like to mention that I don't intend to send out mass thank you notes following the closing of this RfA. While I think this practice has the admirable intention of promoting good wikietiquette, I'm not sure it's that useful and there is an, albeit mild, conflict of interest in somebody getting something in return for their support or opposition. So if you came here to support in order to get a thank you, then paraphrasing the immortal words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, this isn't the RfA you're looking for.

My user page is mostly dedicated to chronicling the work I've done here, what I'm working on, and what I plan to work on in the future. So if you want look beyond editcountitis you might want to start there.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this nomination.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I primarily anticipate helping with content-oriented tasks such as closing AfD, TfD and CfD discussions and less frequently closing MfD and RfD discussions. I like to keep things tidy, so I suspect I'd check the related speedy-deletion/renaming lists regularly. I also think that most of the time I am pretty level-headed and sometimes even insightful in helping resolve disputes. I prefer to mediate, but while I would be reluctant to impose blocks and page protections, I would not hesitate to do so if I thought it was warranted and the best way to cool down a situation. I will never use admin privileges in a dispute I'm involved in unless there is a legal issue (copy vio, libel, etc.) at stake or rampant destruction (vandalism, a rogue admin, etc.) in progress that demands immediate action, and even then I would probably try to find an uninvolved admin if I could; outside those narrow exceptions, I would always request an uninvolved admin if I thought a block or protection was needed in a dispute I was personally involved in. I don't really anticipate at this time increasing my participation in the never-ending battle to protect Wikipedia from the forces that assail it daily, but you never know. Right now that seems tangential to my preference to participate in creation and improvement instead of security.
There are a couple other reason I'd like to have admin privileges.
  • I would like to be able to speedy-delete the nonsense. I would be quite conservative in labeling nonsense, preferring to use WP:PROD and XfD for other routine deletions.
  • On a number of occasions I've needed to edit one of the many project templates that are essentially permanently protected. I fully understand the technical reasons behind protecting templates that are transcluded into a large number of other pages—changing these templates forces a large number of pages to be purged from the server page cache, which in turn can cause a significant short-term increase in server load as it repopulates the cache. Since creating, maintaining and categorizing these templates is one of the areas I work on, it would certainly help if I had the ability to both edit protected pages, and to protect templates where there are technical reasons to do so.
  • I'd like to be able to perform page moves even when the redirect has a history. There are a lot of pages here that don't conform with WP:NAME, and I occasionally run into this when fixing these.
  • I'd like to be able to perform non-controversial speedy-renaming of categories. Anything I thought was even remotely controversial or subject to a different opinion, I'd list at WP:CFD#Speedy_renaming first to give an opportunity for comment before renaming.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, the first thing I did here that I was particularly pleased with was create a set of templates ({{Javadoc:SE}}, {{Javadoc:EE}} and {{Javadoc:SE-guide}}) for formatting references and linking to the Javadoc documentation pages. I created these after I'd been here about two weeks when I discovered conditional templates (at the time using {{qif}} and now using ParserFunctions). I'm also quite pleased to have helped get Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to featured article status, even though my contribution was as a reviewer, copy editor, and formatter without any real contribution to the actual content. There was a very collegial atmosphere in that effort that was quite pleasing with several different contributors providing their various levels of expertese—definitely the best collaborative experience I've had here. I'm also particulary pleased with Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) which I've improved from how I found it to it's current state. I also recently started Poker probability (Omaha), which still needs work. I hope to get both of these articles to good article status in the near future. As mentioned above, my user page lists the things of note I've done here if you want to see more.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Well, in general I do assume good faith and don't personalize comments from others, so I don't tend to get stressed easily. I think it is rarely the case that immediacy takes precedence over deliberation, and when it comes to content disputes, I think it is almost never the case. The one-revert rule that I've followed tends to keep edit conflicts from becoming too stressful, so despite being involved in content disputes, they've never caused any undue stress.
I have been involved, however, in a couple of situations that did cause me stress.
  1. The first was after having been here a few weeks when an edit I made was reworded and characterized as WP:POV and original research by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I partially reverted it and then a dispute started on my talk page which I continued on Lulu's talk page. In retrospect, I should not have reacted so strongly to the characterizations of my edits. Lulu and I subsequently had other clashes, but we also ended up later collaborating on getting Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to featured article status. Since these earlier conflicts I've tried to be less reactive when other people characterize my actions as POV or bad faith, although I'm unlikely to completely ignore these if they come from respected sources. (This type of accusation means nothing to me when it comes from a vandal, troll or other malcontent, and rarely merits any response in these circumstances.)
  2. The only point of major stress I've experienced here came after I'd been here almost three months when I inadvertently started a controversy that ended with the resignation of two bureaucrats.[3][4] I think my transgression in the whole affair was quite minor (basically one poorly-worded edit summary), but it was nonetheless a quite stressful situation in which to find myself. Truthfully, I'm not sure what I would do differently—I think I handled it about as well as I could have at the time. Certainly I did realize that I need to take the same care to be neutral and civil with my edit summary comments as I am with my edits, and I've tried to heed that ever since. If I was faced with a similar situation now where a good faith edit of mine was labeled vandalism by a respected Wikipedian, with the perspective I've gained I'm sure it wouldn't stress me as much as it did then. However, I'm not sure I would do too much differently than what I did then, which was to solicit the opinions of others regarding whether my action had been appropriately labeled and then pursue an apology.

Additional question from Jasper toll (talk · contribs): (note that this is the first and only edit made by this user, made 5 minutes after the creation of this account)

4. link Can you explain your edit and how did you reply to Cecropia's revert?
A: Well, I don't want to rehash the entire rather lengthy set of events involving several editors over the course of a couple days in the previously referenced controversy (answer 3.2 above), so this is a Reader's Digest version.
My edit was in regards to the closing of an RfA by Francis2000. The unsuccessful RfA was accidentally closed early, and in the ensuing discussion following that, Francis made two separate incorrect statements regarding the percent who had voted to support the closed RfA—mistakes that would have resulted from using an incorrect formula to calculate the percentages, and that produced a percentage significantly lower than the actual percentage. My edit to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats was to add the correct formula for calculating the percentages that were discussed on the page as the thresholds for a successful RfA nominations. (The page and policy were changed following this incident.) The part of my edit summary to help math-impaired b'crats get this part right was in reference to Francis' math errors—I regret having added that summary comment to my otherwise neutral addition to the page. My response was the controversy link above made after the edit was not only reverted by Cecropia, but after he left a message on my talk page calling my edit vandalism. You can view the contents of my response and the ensuing discussion at that link. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 12:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from geni (talk · contribs):

5. How well do you think you understand US and international copyright law?
A: Probably not that well—certainly I'm no lawyer. I will say that in my previous occupation as a computer game developer I have had to deal with these issues in regards to other products that infringed on the copyrights, trademarks and intellectual property rights of the games we created, as well as having to be careful of not infringing on others rights. Because of that I certainly have strong feelings about the need to protect copyrighted material—I suspect there was a point in time where computer software, and computer games in particular, were suffering the greatest proportional economic losses due to piracy of any industry. However my knowledge of the finer points of copyright law is limited at best, and possibly somewhat out of date. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Spawn Man (talk · contribs):

6. There have been comments made on AfD pages by other users stating that you have a harsh policy against user subpages and tend to vote for them to be deleted. How do you react to these comments, are they true & what exactly is you stance on freedom on user subpages?
A: I can't imagine what AfD comments you could be referring to since articles rarely have any connection to user subpages. Since you haven't provided any diffs for these comments, I can't very well respond to them or address them. So I'll just address the part of your question that I'm able to, which is my stance on freedom on user subpages.
It is of course difficult to write a policy that covers every contingency, and for that reason, Wikipedia policies are largely based on stating guidelines and principles rather than attempting to be overly prescriptive. My view starts with the foundation stated at WP:USER: Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. That being said, a moderate amount of personal information not directly related to the encyclopedia is to be tolerated on userpages. When exactly this exceeds a "moderate amount" is a matter of judgement, and not everyone is going to agree on where to draw this line. Personally, I'm conservative on defining this and have very little personalization or non-Wikipedia related material on my userpage and subpages. I don't expect everyone to share my view, but I think that it is important that userpages not turn into MySpace pages. Fortunately, there is a process for the community to decide when the line has been crossed—pages that may not be compatible with the Wikipedia project can be discussed with the user directly or with the community at MfD.
7. Above the nominator states you made useful suggestions to the mass Esperanza MfD debates. what exactly is you view point/stance on this subject?
A: Well, in that discussion I tried to remain neutral, because I think there are good intentions on the part of the members of Esperanza. I tried to act more in the role of a mediator and was interested in keeping the discussion focused on what I see as the relevant issues and to try to reach a resolution without alienating either side. Although I refrained from choosing a side, I do think that there are serious issues with Esperanza that need to be addressed, and I'm glad to see that the MfD appears to have served as a stimulous for its members to try and address those issues. My biggest concern regarding Esperanza is the separtist attitude I see, which I think is divisive and bad for the project. I think a lot of the other things that were discussed in the MfD are more symptoms of this than they are necessarily the primary concerns, but by addressing those symptoms, I think progress is made on fixing the core concerns I have with Esperanza. I hope that this can all be resolved without creating bitterness or bad feelings on either side of the issue, but it does need to be addressed.
8. The Doug Bell article is a big problem for me. What is your view point on the article and if this person was not yourself, would you vote keep or delete if it was on AfD? Would you want to nominate the article for deletion if it hindered you administration chances?
A: Unfortunately, I can't answer your hypothetical question because I think it is a conflict of interest for me to express an opinion on it. Making it hypothetically not about me still doesn't allow me to avoid that conflict of interest. The same goes for nominating it for AfD. I prefer not to take a position on the article at all and don't think it appropriate for me to do so here. As to linking an AfD of the article to my RfA, I think I've stated my case below and anyone is free to make their own assessment. If you want a more in-depth statement of my views on the issue regarding my creation of the page, please see my response to trialsanderrors on his talk page.
I can say this about it if it helps in determining the issue of my fitness for adminship. I would never close an XfD discussion where I had a personal stake in the outcome. That would be an extreme conflict of interest and I would strive to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I will also say that I would not take some action that is contrary to my beliefs simply to enhance my chances to become an administrator. You get me as I am, not as I want you to perceive me—I have not groomed my edit counts nor curtailed my opinions to appear more suitable. As I state above in my acceptance comments, I have some reluctance here because being an editor here is good enough for me. Being an admin is truly no big deal to me, and if the community decides I'm not fit, I will happily continue here as an editor.

For tonight's performance, the optional questions of Malber (talk · contribs) will be performed by Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs).

9. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ignore all rules is an important, but slippery policy. It is important because it balances the needs to have rules and processes to avoid anarchy and the flexibility needed so as not to become a bureaucracy. These are two extremes that Wikipedia attempts to navigate between in order to be effective in its mission of being an encyclopedia—both rules AND flexibility are required. It is slippery because citing this policy in a very loose interpretation can be used to provide cover for any action that goes against established procedures and precedent, and that is not the purpose of this policy. The purpose is to allow action to adapt to circumstance instead of forcing adherence to prescription. So my application of WP:IAR would be to only apply this in cases where following "the rules" isn't in the best interest of the project. While I think the circumstances where this applies are numerous, I also think that it pays to be conservative when ignoring rules—if the case is not clear for the need to ignore established rules and precedent, it is better to err on the side of not ignoring the rules.
WP:SNOW has less nuance than WP:IAR, and thus its application is less likely to cause controversy. It simply means that a process does not have to be followed to conclusion when the outcome of the process is clear. This allows, for example, discussions at XfD that are overwhelmingly in favor of keep or delete to be closed early based on the fact that the outcome is nearly assured. WP:SNOW is something that admins need to apply frequently to keep Wikipedia functioning efficiently by limiting the time spent unproductively discussing issues that have essentially been decided. I would apply this in that spirit. However, where I would exercise restraint in applying WP:SNOW is in any issue that I have taken a position on the issue at stake. In these cases, I would prefer to request that another admin short-circuit a discussion that had a snowball's chance of more than one outcome. Despite the apparent conflict of interest that such a case might present, if the outcome is truly obvious and there appears to be little or no value in continuing the discussion, I still might apply the WP:SNOW clause in closing a discussion I had taken a position in.
10. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No, I don't believe so. Blocks are to prevent damage and disruption, and I think the policy is fairly clear on this point. Chronically disruptive users can be banned, but this is not used for punitive reasons.
11. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: Well, I think the key word in G11 is blatant, which to me means that any reasonable person would agree that the article is simply advertising. I would also apply WP:CORP to determine whether there was some hope of an article being edited into an encyclopedic piece on the company. If after either following the links and references in the article or performing a search I can't determine if the company meets WP:CORP or not, then I would likely just label it with {{advert}} and/or {{Company-stub}}, put it on my watch list, and leave it for another admin with perhaps more relevant knowledge to make the call. If nobody did anything with it for a week or so, I might try to rewrite it. I would tend to err on the side of not speedy deleting in borderline cases, preferring to put the article up at AfD.

Question from Carcharoth (talk · contribs):

Copied from discussion on neutral comment from ChironX below.
12. Have a look at the discussion generated at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Death_threats (the proposal has since been subsumed under WP:NPA). If you had the admin tools to block someone, and person A came to you and complained that person B had issued a death threat to poison their coffee, and person A asked you to block them, what would you do? How would you distinguish jokes from the real (rather intimidating) thing? Carcharoth 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A: Well, this is a very difficult question to answer in a purely abstract context. How I would react and how I would go about distinguishing a joke from a real threat would depend greatly on the situation and the users involved. First, I would take any such request and accusation very seriously and make it a top priority to investigate. A death threat is unlikely to come out of the blue, and would almost certainly be preceded by a history of antagonistic interchange between the two users. Investigating the history between the users would be critical in assessing the situation. I would have to be equally wary of an unfounded claim of a death threat, a situation that is nearly as serious as an actual death threat. I think that ultimately, the separation between a joke and a legitimate death threat is not difficult to ascertain. Once I believed a death threat may have occurred, I would immediatiately bring it to the attention of a wider audience.
The discussion you pointed me was interesting. While I won't claim to have read every word of it, I do have some base principles on how the project should handle this.
  1. Wikipedia should identify any cases where a death threat is made within the project. Perhaps there should be a fast-track ArbCom process to determine the validity of a claim of a death threat from the perspective of the project. (This does not replace the role of law enforcement, which has the ultimate responsibility for this.)
  2. Wikipedia should assist any threatened user in contacting authorities.
  3. Wikipedia should cooperate fully with law enforcement in identifying the culprit.
  4. Wikipedia should make every attempt to create a safe and hassle-free environment, which would mean aggressive action to ban any user who issues an actual threat.
What I don't think the project should attempt to do is to assume the role that rightfully falls to law enforcement authorities. I would not support any policy that put Wikipedia in a role of responsibility for the actions of its users or for protection of its users. I think this creates a potential liability for the project and I think it is technically beyond the capabilities of the project to enforce.
Anyway, this is big subject, and it would take more than an hour of reading and thought to really establish concrete views on this, so don't take anything here as set in stone, but rather as a rough first draft of how I would approach such a situation. —Doug Bell talk 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
General comments
  • See Doug Bell's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • NOTICE: I may not be able to respond quickly for the next day or two as my access to a computer will be intermittent. —Doug Bell talk 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • THANK YOU! (Hopefully this isn't inappropriate to include here at this time.)
    I don't know if I'll have a chance to comment or reply again before this RfA closes, so in lieu of thank you notices on talk pages (which I promised not to send in my acceptance comments above), I would just like to thank everybody who has commented or registered their view on this nomination. I had no idea that the actual process of an RfA would be so thoroughly enjoyable as this has been. It has been to my great delight that people have obviously spent some of their valuable time to go beyond just plunking down a support/oppose/neutral !vote (well, maybe I exempt evrik from this), and have provided me both with valuable feedback and with the opportunity to discuss my views. I would particularly like to thank the people that posed all of the great questions—each one was thoughtful and thought provoking. I so much prefer that, instead of rubber stamp, this was a thorough vetting of my participation here and my views on being an admin. If I can, I will check in again before this closes, if not, thanks again to everyone! —Doug Bell talk 08:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Support He was super helpful with Retreat of glaciers since 1850, and I've seen him around elsewhere. Always civil and helpful, would make a great admin. --Aude (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support With confidence.--MONGO 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support good admin candidate, very unlikely to abuse the bit --rogerd 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Good users make good admins. Seems unlikly to abuse the power and has demostrated the knowledge of how to use it in the above responces. ---J.S (t|c) 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (You should to send out thank-yous anyway... :p)
  5. Mike | Talk 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support (edit conflict) - Excellent canidate who particpiates in all aspects of Wikipedia, from maintenence, to article creation, to vandal fighting, to XfD, to wikignoming. Highly unlikely to abuse the bit, tries to maintain civility and neutrality and is conciencious about avoiding COI. Very helpful all around. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Valued article contributor, and an active participant in Wikipedia-namespace discussions. Nishkid64 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Very unlikely to abuse the admin tools. Good contributions in all relevant areas, would be very useful in assisting with the backlog. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good user. Best of luck! --Majorly (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - this guy knows what he's doing. I have no reason to think he'll misuse the tools. Good editor who I've seen around quite a lot recently being eminently reasonable. And talkpage spam often cheeses me off as well. Moreschi 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - Good, level-headed editor with a prolific contribution history. -- Renesis (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. [Bell] [Bell] [Bell] - jackpot! You win a mop. (Radiant) 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support per above... [Mop] [Mop] [Mop]! --Deenoe 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - pass go, collect mop ST47Talk 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Reasonable, trustworthy, and could use the buttons. Agent 86 00:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - After reading the user's statement, his answers to the questions, his user page, and his contributions to recent discussions, I believe this user can be trusted with admin tools. Carcharoth 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support solid contributor and a voice of reason in contentious discussions like the Esperanza MfD. Opabinia regalis 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support Sound judgment, great demeanor, absolutely trustworthy -- should have been an admin months ago! Xoloz 02:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support John254 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Looks like they'd make a good admin. Nephron  T|C 04:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - Oh, good. Great candidate. Has been helpful all over. Georgewilliamherbert 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support good candidate. Tbeatty 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Level headed and is intelligent, has a good grip on wikipedia policies and procedures looks to be an excellent candidate for admin ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 06:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support, Doug Bell made his article when he was new. Any hint of vanity has surely been eliminated by now. I think he would make a good admin. James086 Talk | Contribs 07:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, good contributor and even if his bio was a newbie mistake I don't think infallability is a requirement for adminship. --tjstrf talk 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support looks good. Rama's arrow 12:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Looks like a solid candidate. I don't have a problem with giving him a mop. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Ligulem 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Would definetly be a great admin, good luck! ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - Good vandal fighting, a lot of back end work fixing templates, and a regular at XfD discussions, but not a lot of recent article space work. I still support this one. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, up until Nov. 8th, just about all I've done for the last month was work on article creation (mostly Poker probability and the new article Poker probability (Omaha)). I started working to refactor these articles and Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) by extracting some of the more complex probability aspects into a common article (see User:Doug Bell/Poker probability (rank and suit sets)), but ran into problems finding sources—I'm sure they exist, but it's a little more esoteric than basic poker probability, on which a lot has been written. I'll probably have to refactor it somewhat because of this, but I wanted to let it sit for a while to see if a good idea came to me. So for the last 10 days or so I've been doing other, non-article stuff. Don't worry, I intend to get back to it soon.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support seems alright to me.-- danntm T C 18:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Responsible.--Ling.Nut 02:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support No major concerns here. It is time to give him the mop. An excellent user. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Good Wikipedian. He deserves the mop. Sharkface217 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support -- Tawker 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Khoikhoi 06:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, thoughtful, intelligent and works well with others. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support: Nice. --Bhadani 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per above. Addhoc 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Michael 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  42. Yes. bd2412 T 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support for qualified, experienced user with both mainspace and wikispace issues, who can use the tools well. As ever, this doesn't mean I necessarily agree with every word he's ever written anywhere on the site. With regard to the Oppose and Neutral comments below, no candidate should have to have (or is likely to have had) experience with every process on the site, and I think his conduct on the Doug Bell mainspace article was perfectly understandable. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support looks great Andrew4010 04:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. DarthVader 05:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Good egg. --RobthTalk 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - Good user. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  50. Kusma (討論) 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support This user seems to be a valuable asset, technical know-how, conflict resolution skills, neutral in controversial topics, give him the mop. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  53. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support per above. -- DS1953 talk 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support as a good editor --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Support despite the lack of image experiance. :) ---J.S (t|c) 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate the confidence, but only one vote per customer.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Per above. 1ne 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. 1ne 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. I love his answer about not commenting and non-involvement on the article about him. It demonstrates his high level understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will make a great admin. Royalbroil Talk  Contrib 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  57. Pile-on Support Great editor and approach to the community! Kukini 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support *Spark* 03:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Calm and intelligent, from all I've seen around. Good stuff :) --Quiddity 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support The recent healthy exchange on Lulu's talk page is a plus, the concerns raised by Trials&Errors below are a minus. The apparent tendency to be around when arguments start (albeit in a minor way, and raised by the editor in his answers to #3 above) is also negative. I'm voting support because when I've run across him on AfD he's been remarkablyy well reasoned and constructive. He's not perfect, but I trust him with the mop. Pete.Hurd 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support - I honestly don't know him very well, but I can't fault him for turning a few red links about himself into a minimalist stub, which seems to be the primary objection to his candidacy. As Pete.Hurd said above, no one is perfect, includiing admin candidates, but there is no reason to think that he would misuse the tools given him, and he has done a good job of being fair and reasonable in those instances I have encountered him. The comment about poisoning the coffee is one I also can't hold against him, unless, as a computer expert, he can figure out a way to poison coffee over the internet. Then I really wouldn't want to be on his bad side. (That was a joke, too. Not a good one, but a joke.) Badbilltucker 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support - I would support this editor as an administrator. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. The edit to WP:BUR was useful, though the edit summary was unfortunate. Since it's not possible to undo an edit summary after pressing "save", we shouldn't blame someone too much for a once-off lapse in sensitivity, and he behaved with dignity during the World War that followed. Also, I am convinced that this editor, as an administrator, will be helpful to and sympathetic towards victims of stalking. AnnH ♫ 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. This is a case where the merit of the candidate shows up in the very limited reasons that have been found to oppose. So he made a vanity article about himself when he was a new user—he didn't know about the guideline WP:AUTO, and tried to handle both the article and the AfD discussion in a neutral manner. He has been uncivil or made other mistakes at times, and then reflected on these mistakes and apologized where appropriate—this is, if anything, a good sign, because it proves he is a human being who gives a shit and not a very clever robot. -- SCZenz 01:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Appears to be, with some exceptions both apologised for and acknowledged by him, an exceptionally polite user, which is something I'm very fond of. I'm especially fond of him making mistakes and apologising for them (yes! apologies are good for an admin!). His edits/comments to the BCrat's NB and to badlydrawnjeff (which were not a Good Thing©, especially the BCrat's NB one) and subsequent apologies even to the point of notifying Cecropia fof this RfA (who might very well oppose) shows maturity. We need more mature admins. Keep it up, nicely done. Snoutwood (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support Good luck! Jam01 06:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  67. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  68.  Jorcogα  Supports 07:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support After reviewing badlydrawnjeff objection, I think Doug's apology shows his maturity. Good editor, will make a good admin even if he decides not to use the tools that much. Delta Tango • Talk 08:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 10:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Thought about this one for awhile, and I think that candidate will do a good job with the tools. Best of luck :) Thε Halo Θ 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support Makes good contributions, a good editor, even has the decency to apologise for his actions if he makes a mistake (as mentioned above). Will make an excellent admin. --SunStar Net 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  73. Jaranda wat's sup 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  74. El_C 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  75. Per my neutral vote :) riana_dzasta 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support per MONGO. Morton DevonshireYo 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support per SCZenz, AnnH above. Tom Harrison Talk 15:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support simply because of some of the utterly ridiculous opposes. Nothing in my (albeit limited) experience with Doug suggests he can't be trusted. -- Steel 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose - limited experience with images --T-rex 02:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    OH RLY. You voted support on this person with just as much experience. Care to explain why you're voting oppose based on experience with images? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    First of all I make no guarantees in voting consistantly. Secondly Jusjih actually does have more image experience, besides a wealth of experience on other language wikipedias. Also pointing out other peoples flaws doesn't make this canidate more qualified, so even if Jusjih had zero image experience I wouldn't be changing my opinion, (and 26-1, what are you worried about?) --T-rex 16:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not participating in this AfD, so I feel safe mentioning that your credibility may have taken a hit with your rationale above. Is there any way you can clarify the criteria you used so that this is resolved? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    AfD? If you want to delete me, you need to use MfD.  :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't have any hard numerical criteria, I just like to see that admin canidates have some experience with images, either showing that they properly tag their uploads or that they go fix this for other users. For further detail I've been asked about this on my talk page before. --T-rex 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    To you lack of image experiance evidence that the user is likely to abuse the admin mop? ---J.S (t|c) 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Not quite, to me it shows that the user isn't experienced enough to handle some of the situations that they may find themselves in as an admin. The other thing though is that I do believe in wikipedia's processes, and it looks as if most wikipedian trust this user, and as such I take that to mean that the project as a whole trusts him and as such I'm not going to be spending time looking over his shoulder. Yea this may be that odd vote, but if nobody else is worried then I guess it doen't really matter --T-rex 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to strong oppose due to inablity to assume good faith --T-rex 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I'm opposing because he either does not understand the simple basics of WP:COI, WP:NOT & others in relation to his Doug Bell article. Many articles along those lines have been deleted, yet Doug Bell is reluctant to take a stand on which view he thinks is right, probably to avoid the real issue. Below is my post which I placed on his talk page after he continued to take the easy ground on the issue...
    Post - Well, what I'm trying to say is, is that you're being fake. You're not giving your opinion because:
    1)You say you think the article should be left. This will make some people say that you don't really understand WP:NN, WP:NOT, WP:COI etc etc. This will lead to vote losses.
    2)You say you think the article is in violation. This will cause people to ask why you haven't deleted it. This will lead to vote losses as you certainly (assuming from your defensive stance here) don't want the article to be deleted.
    Now say in the future, how am I supposed to know what you'll do if this situtation or another similar one, arises? Also, you said that you would never garnish you words or change embelish your edit counts to try & be a better adminship candidate? Yet, why are you refraining from answering a particularly damaging question if you are not afraid of being put in a bad light? That is why I'm saying you are being fake. Taking no stacne is the only way you can get through without getting targetted on one side. This alone is enough for me to think, "Well, he's having trouble dealing with a simple question on COI, could he abuse his powers as an admin in this area?" The answer is yes, he could very possibly do so. Either you aren't learned in the COI area etc, or you are misleading everyone... Please don't take this personally, as I would say this to anyone who tried to shy away from taking a stand & took the easy ground to get ahead. Spawn Man 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I have no quarrel with you opposing this RfA. All I will offer here is that you read what I said on the original AfD: I'd rather this is decided on its own merits without regard to the fact that I happen to be active on Wikipedia. I've been consistent on the conflict of interest point from the beginning. —Doug Bell talk 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per this wildly inaccurate and possibly incivil comment. Completely unnecessary, and we don't need more admins like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    So he disagrees with you on some minor issue, wikipedia's editors are allowed to disagree, I'm not seeing anything wrong with that diff --T-rex 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Of course it's wrong, since obviously making asserations about why someone does something is something badlydrawnjeff would never do. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    The difference, of course, being that I had never encountered DB before, while Mr Spunky Toffee, and likely the AfDing user, were sockpuppets of the banned user Brian G. Crawford and Improv, the user in place here, had a rather distressing history of poor deletions. You may want to be a little more careful when attempting jabs with little basis in fact in the future, especially when making statements about your other editors. It's not exactly encouraged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    You'll note that my opposition has nothing to do with his position on the DRV, but rather the way he categorized me personally, a categorization he has since apologised for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    But his apology doesn't satisfy you that he has the maturity to correct his mistakes? -- SCZenz 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm still weighing it. I have a while to mull it over if I feel it's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per badlydrawnjeff.  Grue  18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per badlydrawnjeff. 1ne 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, mostly because you started an article about yourself? Or is that incorrect? It seems almost unbelievable that I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding it. Anyway, I'm a haggard deletionist I guess when it comes to wikis and I don't like vanity much. I'm not even really "into" Wikipedia that much and I still, when lacking anything better to do, go around and tag new stuff for deletion because I just don't like vanity. The article itself still seems unspectacular, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between you and any other cubicle worker for a game. If I cared more I'd nominate it for deletion, it looks like a resume! Seems you'd be unlikely to make a good judge for what needs deletion. Probably won't make much of a difference with all the support votes, but... --Miltopia 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Miltopia is an encyclopedia dramatica editor. He edits that site under the same username, adding the most offensive edits he can there on articles about Wikipedians. In light of the fact that he misrepresents himself "around and tag new stuff for deletion because I just don't like vanity" which is not demostrated in his editing history, this can be assumed to be a bad faith vote. There is subtle trolling going on by this editor that only myself and a few other editors may understand. Notice not one other vote in a single other Rfa...offline for a day and suddenly shows up here, a nominee I have for admin.--MONGO 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    If others care to check Miltopia's contributions, rather than take MONGO's word for it, you'll find that he has tagged artcles for deletion, reverted vandalism, made one personal attack and then removed it, agreeing that it "wasn't cool", made constructive edits... I'm not seeing the trolling. I think we're dealing with someone who's trying to be a good-faith Wikipedian, whatever other websites he may participate in. He seems to "wear his Wikipedia hat" here, as ArbCom reminded those who edit multiple wikis to do. I really don't see the point in trying to find bad faith in one of 7 oppose !votes in an RfA that's clearly going to succeed. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly the response I would expect to see from an ED partisan. Happy Thanksgiving!--MONGO 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, MONGO. Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 10:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please take into account that the creation of this article was done by this user during his first edits, before he was familiar with the rules. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    That is exactly my point above! Sure he created the article when he was a newbie. However, he is now a much experienced editor & should very clearly be able to see that is a vain article!! He had an excuse then, but he has no excuse now from not asking the article be deleted or at least recognise that it a COI or vain article. Spawn Man 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    It would show good judgement in my opinion if he would nom it for deletion. Then again,he hardly seems to need my support, so... Miltopia 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. Why don't you nominate the article for deletion Doug & that will fill me with enough hope of your good faith for me to supoort. But as Miltopia said, you hardly need our support. However, declining based solely on that would be a big headed thing to do in my opinion... Spawn Man 00:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    I disagree with this suggestion. If there were once redlinks to Doug Bell from other articles, then it's reasonable to believe that whoever put the links there expected that someday there an article would grow. Therefore, it's also reasonable to infer that another user would have created the article sooner or later even if User:Doug Bell had not. If there is a concern (which I consider a little overblown) that Doug Bell would have a conflict of interest in editing an article about himself, then the remedy is for him to stay away from the article as much as possible. I don't see how now nominating it for deletion (especially after it's been kept once) would violate the "don't edit or interfere with an article about yourself" norm any less than any other change he might make to it. In any event, I don't think a dispute about any one article says much about a potential admin's qualifications. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you Newyorkbrad for stating, perhaps clearer than I was able to, why I think it is a conflict of interest for me to have anything to do with the page. —Doug Bell talk 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Doug about COI here, it is not his place to decide if the article should be there or not, that is the communities place. Bias goes both ways and not involving one's self in it at all is very neutral. Just my way of looking at it though. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Very weak oppose I've hesitated to comment on this RFA, especially since I rarely comment on RFAs at all and have had little or no interaction with Doug Bell. However, ever since I first saw this RFA I've had an odd gut feeling that it's not the world's greatest idea. I can't put my finger on why I feel that way, but the fact that others have found reasons to oppose pushes me from being neutral on it (I don't comment when I'm neutral) to going with my gut and opposing it. However, my lack of a specific reason combined with the fact that I can see Doug Bell's side on every issue anyone else has opposed him on, pushes this back into a very weak oppose. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Just wanting to clarify: are you saying that you're opposing, not with any actual reason, but without knowing anything about him you feel like he'd be a bad admin? I don't quite understand why you wouldn't abtain and be neutral, since it seems that you're open about not knowing anything about this user. Snoutwood (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not saying I don't know anything about him. I'm saying I've had little or no interaction with him. I followed the Esperanza MFD, and he did stand out as a major voice there. He helped a lot with refactoring the discussion to make it easier to read and edit (that was him that put in the random section breaks, wasn't it?), and a lot of what he said was sensible and good, but I thought he let himself get a little... I don't know... too involved maybe? I don't know what I'm trying to say with that. Someone had to do it. I thought it was odd though, when this RFA appeared right after that MFD was closed, citing that MFD as a reason for admining him. That in itself didn't make me feel uneasy, I just thought it was strange, but when I looked at his user page and started digging through his edits I just began to get a bad feeling. Part of it was that he created his own article, but he was new and trying to help out by fixing a red link, I understand that. We all make mistakes when we are new, and the article is as far from "vanity" as you can get while still writing about yourself. Part of it was that he had only just registered in January and then had a three month gap in editing, meaning that he'd only been editing roughly as long as I have and I didn't think that was enough experience (I certianly don't yet know everything there is to know about Wikipedia), but then again there are a great many capable admins who have been registered even less time and I'm sure that no one knows everything there is to know. Part of it had to do with a conversation between him and another user that I followed around on their respective talk pages. The tone of that conversation might be the thing that disturbed me most. In it he expressed opinions on deletion that I thought were a little too strong. Yes, there is stuff that needs to be deleted; lots of stuff. I don't think Doug Bell will act outside policy to delete stuff, but I think he'll want to. Is that a reason to oppose him? I don't know. Combined with the other odds and ends that I've mentioned here, it was enough to worry me. Followed by the other 5 oppose votes here, it was enough to push me into a very weak oppose. I almost didn't oppose. I'm almost willing to turn it to neutral now. Almost. Did that clarify things any? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, good, thank you for that. Yes, it did, and I'm glad I was mistaken. :) Snoutwood (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Don't know this user. --evrik (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - is there a reason you vote neutral to all of the admin noms? Addhoc 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    This user has already been asked more than once about his !voting. --Majorly (Talk) 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Looks good other than the vanity article on himself and the subsequent claim that he's notable. This would usually be grounds for outright oppose, but since it was written in January I'll go with neutral. ~ trialsanderrors 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    To explain, I created a neutral stub for Doug Bell after I encountered red links to it in a couple of related articles. I did this four days after creating an account, before I was aware of any Wikipedia policies, let alone WP:AUTO. The article was subsequently put up for deletion which ended with no consensus. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah I took that into account. Under other circumstances it would be the third rail for any RFA. But as W.marsh points out, it's still an article that neither asserts notability nor offers much in terms of sources. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not making a claim of notability—Category:Notable Wikipedians was added by someone else. As I said above, I was a new user, I saw a red link, I had some knowledge of the subject, but did not want to create a vanity piece so I added only the minimum relevant information. It was put up for deletion, so I suppose if there was no notability whatsoever it would have been deleted. I'm not badgering your choice to be neutral or oppose based on the fact that I created the article, just questioning your reasoning for your attribution of my motivation in creating it. You state that it was a vanity article, and then complain that I didn't go and spruce it up with claims of notability and sources. I would never have thought to create it if it wasn't already linked from articles that I didn't have anything to do with creating, and I deliberately only created a stub. I'm not sure what I could have done differently after creating the article for the red link that would have been satisfactory to you because it seems you've created a contradiction that is impossible to satisfy. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Providing reliable outside sources, even on yourself, is never vanity. I don't know where you get that idea from, certainly not from WP:COI or WP:AUTO. I'm also not trying to derail your RFA, which seems to be going just fine, hence my Neutral. ~ trialsanderrors 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Trialsanderrors. That article is pretty much just his resume and doesn't assert meeting WP:BIO at all... but it seems kind of dick-ish to AfD it during his RfA. However, it was one of his first contributions and he hasn't editted it in 7 months. --W.marsh 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Even Jimbo Wales has edited his own article, and since Doug created the article when he was very new here, and all the subsequent edits were just mainly formatting a little more info, I don't see it as any real embellishment, actually...He may not be notable to have bio here though, but it's almost a borderline case. At least no one has deleted my bio yet!--MONGO 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Lecter, you really need to work on spelling your own name properly in that case. ;) --tjstrf talk 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral↑ Changed to Oppose - Will support once answers above have been sufficiantly answered. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Doug for answering my questions, even if they were in a somewhat avoided way. However, I feel that the self article, which you say you created whilst you were a new user, is enough for me to oppose. However, your other efforts on Wikpedia are good, so I have enough reason to support. In the end, I feel I should stick with my neutral vote. Thanks Doug... Spawn Man 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Changed vote to oppose... Spawn Man 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - I don't know much about this candidate, though most of his contributions seen quite nice, but this one comment about poisoning the coffee has left me with a bad aftertaste, so to speak. Thus I have to remain neutral on this one. CharonX/talk 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sheesh, it was a joke. That's why I then followed it with "Seriously...", to underscore the fact that the poison the coffee part was a joke. —Doug Bell talk 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, it was a joke. But was a joke appropriate in that context? It was predicatable that your comment would upset someone. I like a joke as much as the next person, but I surprise myself sometimes when I find myself deleting a really good joke because I realise that it is not the right time or place. Well, actually, I often joke in the wrong times and places (see my other comment below), but I'm working on that... Jokes and humour often work best in small gatherings on user pages, not in deletion discussions, where you can be sure someone will take things the wrong way. Carcharoth 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    But was a joke appropriate in that context? This is of course an appropriate question to ask, and one that I did consider. I had been following the discussion at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge and saw that the decision was already strongly in favor of deleting at that point. I had also already expressed my strong opinion on the matter there, and the previous two comments on the MfD were from Esperanza members who said "Strong delete..." and "Just delete the damn thing". So it was in that context that I made the joke—I really don't think it was out of place or out of context, and I made sure to word it so that it was clear it was a joke. So while I appreciate the need for discretion in making jokes, I still don't think it was out of place in this case. Of course when it comes to humor, everyone has their own take on this, and if I offended anyone, that was certainly not the intent. —Doug Bell talk 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    OK. That all sounds fine, and my support will stay the same (it wasn't really going to change based on this or your little run-in with Jeff), but just one more comment here, in the form of a question, with a bit of reading thrown in. Have a look at the discussion generated at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Death_threats (the proposal has since been subsumed under WP:NPA). If you had the admin tools to block someone, and person A came to you and complained that person B had issued a death threat to poison their coffee, and person A asked you to block them, what would you do? How would you distinguish jokes from the real (rather intimidating) thing? Carcharoth 01:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Answered above as question #12. —Doug Bell talk 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral My knowledge of this Wikipedian is limited to the interaction I witnessed between him and badlydrawnjeff at DRV, referenced in BDJ's oppose vote above. Doug showed character in retracting and apologizing for his personal statement about BDJ, while maintaining his stance regarding the deletion in question. Still, I don't know enough to support his adminship; I would just pass on something that I've learned in my year as an admin. Maintaining civility at all times is the single most important part of an administrator's work, and the #1 key to a happy and productive career with the mop is to always err on the side of extra civility, extra respect, and treating every contributor, even blatant trolls and vandals, with a level of dignity that raises the bar, rather than ever lowering it. Treating each person as though they might be a visiting god doesn't get in the way of efficiency, it turns out; quite the contrary. I realize how much free advice tends to be worth, but I wanted to put the idea out there at least. Thanks for reading, Doug, thanks for caring about Wikipedia, and good luck with you adminship. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    We have a badly drawn visiting god?? Process is doomed! Doomed, I tell you!! :-) Carcharoth 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Process-ness is next to Godliness, or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments—I completely agree with them. I would like to think that my lapse in assuming good faith on the part of BDJ is an exception to how I normally conduct myself, and I'm not above apologizing when I make a mistake. —Doug Bell talk 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    In that case, I'm sure you'll be a fine admin. =) I'll see you around. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    My experience with Doug is limited, but I didn't particularly like his behaviour at an MfD we took part in (here). At 74 supports, I know my voice in this doesn't affect matters, but I'd just like to let Doug know that this is preventing me from giving him my full support, and it's actually held me back from participating in this RfA for so long. I realise that the comments were made at an MfD which was really a bit of a joke, and that they were made in the light of recent events involving Esperanza and its members, but... I don't know. It made me uncomfortable. If you could set my mind at rest about this, I wouldn't mind changing my opinion, as I don't think holding back a support on the basis of one single interaction is very fair. riana_dzasta 04:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your response, Doug - the nature of it tells me that you should do a good job. I'm gonna support this one. riana_dzasta 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I have no idea how my response here will affect your decision to support/oppose/remain neutral on this nomination—I'm not providing it here to influence a particular outcome, but simply to answer the question. First, I was a little surprised you didn't include this related discussion on my talk page that you commented on. There are two parts to explaining my comments on the MfD you reference. The first is that this MfD was of dubious merit and most likely nominated to make a WP:POINT (you yourself made this observation on the MfD, so I am mentioning it here for the benefit of others reading this, not to explain to you something you already know). It was a nomination to delete a user subpage of Elaragirl that is a parody of the green "e" subpages linked from the signatures of many members of Esperanza. The second part of the explanation is what I referred to on my talk page. I think that the specially formatted signatures that identify users as members of Esperanza are both a symptom and enabler of what I view as the major problem Esperanza needs to address, which is the cliquish and separatist attitude that pervades much of what they do. The purpose of these signatures seems to be to place identity as a member of Esperanza above identity as a Wikipedian, and I don't think this is helpful to the project nor to Esperanza as a part of the project. —Doug Bell talk 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    My apologies, perhaps I should have made myself clearer both on your talkpage, and at the MfD. I don't disagree with your views on signatures - I removed the green 'a' from my signature quite some time ago, with opinions like yours in mind; also because I do some RCP, and it seemed absurd to be telling people off with a link to an organisation about hugs and community in my signature. I do disagree with using an MfD to set a precedent on deleting all subpages linked from signatures (link). I also did not state at the MfD that it was violating WP:POINT (link); I cited WP:POINT in reference to your comments. Forgive me for not being more explicit on that point. Once again, I understand why you did it. I just didn't like seeing the way it happened (hence the 'reckless' comment). However, if you think I am overreacting, please tell me so - there's absolutely nothing else that tells me you shouldn't do a great job. riana_dzasta 07:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't mean to recharacterize your comments on the MfD regarding WP:POINT, and rereading my comments above I can see that I unintentionally did, although I think, in a harmless manner. I was trying to be succinct where I should have been explicit.
    As to using the MfD to set a precedent, I guess I should also have explained that. I was being (or trying to be) humorous—the MfD wasn't going anywhere, and wasn't going to serve as a precedent for anything. I was simply pointing out its absurdity by example—and since I basically agree with you, I wouldn't try to dissuade you if you think that wasn't appropriate to do at an MfD. It's just that I didn't figure this particular MfD was going to be remembered for anything, and thus my comments there were going to go into the oblivion of forgotten and forgettable MfD's as well. Ah well, given the comment above regarding another attempt of mine at humor maybe humor isn't my forté. —Doug Bell talk 08:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Heh, oh dear, I didn't mean it like that. I understand why you did what you did. Perhaps I was taking it too seriously. Misunderstandings all around. Never mind, it's all clear now. riana_dzasta 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    The MfD nomination was indeed an egregious violation of WP:POINT. The nominator deserves a retroactive punitive block for disruption. Such behavior is unacceptable, inexcusable, and unforgivable. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    Blocks are not to punish people, but to prevent abuse. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
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.