Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 23 November 2006

Doug Bell

Voice your opinion (73/7/5) Ending 21:05, 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Esperanza and heavily participated in the deletion debateMisplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, making helpful comments . 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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  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  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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages should assist any threatened user in contacting authorities.
3. Misplaced Pages should cooperate fully with law enforcement in identifying the culprit.
4. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  04:33, 22 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. --Elaragirl 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Valued article contributor, and an active participant in Misplaced Pages-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. - jackpot! You win a mop. (Radiant) 23:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support per above... ! --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 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  20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

31. Support seems alright to me.-- danntm _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. --Siva1979 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) 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. --Robth 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - Good user. –- kungming·2 | · 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 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
53. KillerChihuahua 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
54. Support per above. -- DS1953 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  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 Misplaced Pages policies. Will make a great admin. Royalbroil 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 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 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
74. El_C 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)