User talk:Doug Bell

Archives
January 2006 – February 24, 2006
February 25, 2006 – April 1, 2006
April 2, 2006 – July 31, 2006

As a younger version of myself, I purchased Sundog for my Atari ST. After putting in many hours and eagerly anticipating further progress in the game, it began crashing, especially to a red screen.

Unsure of the cause of the problem or how to remedy it, I gave up on my dreams of finishing the game.

A couple of years later, I saw a new copy of Sundog on sale for a very reasonable price and picked it up. Again, after putting in many hours the same issue emerged.

A couple of years ago I got an ST emulator and grabbed a Sundog ROM from somewhere (this all took place in international waters by the way during my stint as ambassador of The Moon so I enjoyed full diplomatic immunity from Earth's copyright laws, etc. blah blah click I Agree to proceed) but it was also unplayable (most likely entirely unrelated to the original code). (The point being that I *STILL* can't finish Sundog.)

Do you know anything about this Crash-To-Red problem? Were any reports about it ever received? Our ST seemed pretty stable otherwise. (Operating System on ROM FTW.) -- 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The red screen indicates a copy protection failure. You probably purchased a pirated copy. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug Bell, I am working on an article about Edgewood Country Club which features a [[Donald Ross] designed private course. I saw how you formatted the scorecard for Pinehurst No.2 using color and was wondering if you could do the same for the scorecard in the said article. I already have yardages, handicaps and other info posted, but wish to use your format to improve the article's quality. Thanks, Jeeps2009

You can look at the instructions on the Template:Golf18 template and at how the template is used on the Pinehurst scorecard. I think it's fairly straight-forward to modify that for any other golf course. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, You're the sole author... I have a couple questions. Does this format.. superscripted text in parentheses such as ^(Author), that links to a note indexed as ^(Author) .. does it exist in the real world? Can you go to the library and pick up a major journal referenced in this way?

I am working on developing my philosophy regarding citation templates. At this point, my position is this:

1. The guiding principle should be to help new users know which format is best to use, and why.
2. only formatting systems which are verifiably in common usage (by some discipline, in some country) should be offered in Template space.
3. As a long-term goal, every citation template should have some sort of note regarding where it is used, and by whom, and thus giving an idea how and where it should be used in Wikipedia.

I have never seen the format you used in Template:Ref harv in any journal etc. By my current (in progress, under development) ideas regarding citation temples, this one should probably be deleted (unless it is in common use in journals that I have never seen, which is extremely possible).

I would appreciate your feedback on these thoughts.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thanks for your reply. I replied to your reply, placing it on my talk page as well...--Ling.Nut 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		I, Sirex98, hereby award the EMC² Barnstar to Doug Bell for work in mathematical probabilities in poker related articles, Specifically, Omaha and Texas hold 'em. Very impressive work!

Hi Doug! I have responded to your message about alphabetization of a section on the Java (programming language)]] page. Thanks! // Brick Thrower 08:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a bureaucrat. It's quite common for admins to close RfAs which are clearly not going to pass. -- Steel 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to reply on the other user's talk page because it gets to them quicker. Anyway, I'm glad you're happy with the way that AfD turned out. One of the reasons I closed it myself when I saw it (as opposed to going to bed, it's 1:30am) was to prevent someone else coming along and simply vote counting. -- Steel 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will notice the change on your talk page almost as quickly as I will see the "You have a new message" banner, and I greatly prefer having the entire context of the conversation in one place. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine Doug. To me the whole process looks ad hoc. You might want to standardize this thing. Leotolstoy 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doug Bell. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbie^talk 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i was bored, thanks for being a substitute for my mother. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.77.178 (talk • contribs)

The merge between the two already has me stumped due to two things: should the multiplatform IDE's be placed by what they are used most for, and should more tables be added for HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc.? Gimmekat 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain having spent about half an hour trying to fix the list and running into the same issues. Ideally, it would be a table that could be sorted according to what the user is interested in, but I guess that's not doable. Really, all the IDEs could go into a single table with check-box columns for what the IDE supported. If the IDE's we're simply listed alphabetically, it might be workable (or it might be an ungodly mess). I don't have a definitive answer. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

highly trivial I realize, but formatting the way you have it messes up various RfA parser scripts, like User:Dragons flight/RFA summary causing them to count more opposes than there actually are. I dunno how to fix this and preserve formatted numbering for your points though. Just thought I'd explain why I was messing with your comment. --W.marsh 02:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I would have figured that out soon myself since I have Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report on my user page. Thanks for letting me know. I've tried another format, if that still doesn't work, feel free to change it however you see fit. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UT

Hi from a fellow poker player (occasional). I've opened an Arbcom Complaint against Steele359. He's out of control, feel free to contribute if you've had problems with him in the past Thanks. Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.165.103 (talk • contribs)

Hi Doug. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I regret that I was unable to earn your support at this time, but I respect that you gave due consideration to your comments. You can be assured I have taken your ethical concerns seriously and will bear them in mind in future. Though I can't promise I'll change my moral perspective, I can assure you I'll continue to provide full reasoning for any decisions I make here at WP, with the sole aim of bettering the project. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean you. However, it's just something that bothers me. It's one reason , no matter how much I contribute or want to help out Wikipedia, that I don't ever want to be an admin. I could make a big point of going to some RfA and finding some old diff where someone got a 70/2/0 vote and pointing out something that would make him 'unadminlike', but that would be childish.

I guess, when it comes down to it, the reason I said that was is that's what an RfA feels like sometime. Not aimed at you, or at anyone in particular. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you objected to the suggested deletion which is entirely OK. I have made a proposal on the talk page you might want to look at. Basically my point here is that dispute tags are not meant to be permanent. They are meant to encourage the editors to improve the article. When that doesn't happen something needs to be done. AfD is the last resort but it may be end that way. However, an AfD does not always result in a simple keep of delete. Sometimes it results in a decision to merge the article with other articles and that may in fact very well be the best idea in this case. Happy editing, MartinDK 10:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you feel that way. I just spent 10 + minutes reverting unchecked vandalism to Wikipedia! It was unchecked for 8 minutes would you believe! Just thoguht I had to tell someone incase nobody noticed. Keep in touch! I always like to make a new friend. Spawn Man 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't received any complaints about my own sig but I had spotted some hints that some people don't apperciate longer signatures since they make editing harder, so I figured I'd shorten mine. But now I've gotten several complaints that my previous sig was much prettier :) (Radiant) 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that my style is grounded in common sense, or at least I hope it is. The problem is that for a long time I enjoyed just reading Wikipedia -- watching the comedy and the drama of the AfD, RfA, edit warring and all of that. But when I decided to get involved I realized that all of that was by people who wanted to make an improvement.

I tend to watch you, UncleG, and GlenS as the people I'd like to emulate. (Does it help that I think Sundog & Dungeon master are some of the best games ever?) I probably waste waayy too much time on my user pages and yes, the sig is horrific -- but sadly, I'm the kind of girl who likes flashy things. (If it is a serious problem, I'd be happy to remove the black background, but I'm rather attached to the LGBT Flag). --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, really. I would never have guessed that anyone wanted to emulate me—the going assumption for me most of the time is that nobody really notices. Now in regards to DM and SunDog, you're dating yourself by admitting you've played them. :-P —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Played? I spent months refurbishing an old Atari ST just to play Sundog. As for flattery, it's not. It's just the truth. The three of you are about as balanced, open to ideas, civil, and authoritative as can be. Still...I'd never want to be a WP Admin. My head would explode dealing with some of the crap you guys put up with. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 17:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm not an admin, I wouldn't know. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could be an admin. I'd nom you in a heartbeat if I thought you'd accept -- would you accept a nom? I wonder. And I changed my sig, just for you. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 20:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to ask, and probably I'm headed that way at some point since I do run into stuff I'd do if I could often enough. I'm just turned off by the whole status thing associated with it, so I do have some reluctance. And I intend to remain primarily an editor instead of an admin or policy wonk, so maybe that's not what people want in an admin. So I guess I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no...it's really no big deal to me either way. And I give you thumbs up on the new sig. WAY better IMHO. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sig thing is fixed...I just thought it might be a little cleaner than my big coded sig is. Anyway, no hard feelings regarding WP:COUCH...I know you're just doing your job. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug,

I've seen your work around the encyclopedia, and have a great deal of respect for the work you do. However, when I read your comment on the Esperanza MFD, the part about Admin coaching: bad idea. My problem with admin coaching is it ultimately is just a formalized approach to gaming the system in order to get through RfA—and that's just silly., it was a little disapointing.

Doug, I certainly respect your opinions and all the work you've done on the 'pedia. But I've worked as an admin coach for a while, and went through admin coaching myself, before I became an admin. The lessons my admin coach taught me were valuable; they were things I use every day in administration duties. I didn't look at it as a way of "gaming the system", and am a little horrified at the idea that people ever thought I was doing that. Also: it's not "formalized", as you call it above; it was, and is, just an informal way of learning stuff about admin duties, how to prepare oneself, etc.

Now that I'm an admin coach, I try to instill a little about what I learned thru the coaching program. We go thru CSD practices, we talk about how to establish when a consensus has been reached, we talk about the importance of always keeping a level head... Doug, I value your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree, and it makes me wonder which admin coaching sessions you were looking in on.

Respectfully, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will admit that my comments on Admin coaching were as much if not more based on perusing Wikipedia:Editor review instead of going through the admin coaching sessions. In looking at some of the admin coaching sessions in more depth, they are generally not as superficial and edit-count-grooming oriented as what's on editor review. Editor review really is mostly silly as a lot of the advice is stuff like "more edits to the XXX namespace", "better balance to edit counts", "need to be more consistent with contributions [per month]", etc.

This is gaming the system, IMO. Just contribute, do what you like to do, and stop "grooming" your Wikipedia resumé—I am wary of anyone who wants to be an admin, and particularly so if they are spending this level of time and effort to convince others to make them one. So I'd prefer an admin coaching program that worked with new admins after RfA instead of a program that tries to groom them for RfA. For goodness sake, RfA is not about knowing which button to press, but community trust that you will figure out what you should do before you do it and not abuse the tools—if I support a nominee for RfA it's because I trust them, not because they graduated from admin school. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some excellent points, Doug. I do not deny that the editor review process has some flaws. However, I will point out that on my own RFA, back in July, someone actually opposed me for not having 7/24ths of my edits in X space. If there is an unhealthy attention to amounts of edits in X space in Editor Review, it is because RFA became silly long before Editor Review even existed. People can oppose for any reason, whether it makes any sense or not.

Back to the topic of Admin Coaching. Admin Coaching was never supposed to be Admin School. I objected strongly when someone recently opened an "Admin school", and we got it shut down very quickly. RFA is definitely about trust. But once a user becomes an admin, s/he needs to know how to use those tools, and, preferably, this should come before s/he has access to those tools. Anyway, thanks at least for your response, Doug. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see that the 7/24ths oppose withdrew the oppose, and even if they hadn't, you'd have been made an admin, so nothing broken there. While I see that you went through admin coaching, it looks more like it was a case where you would have cruised through RfA before the coaching and were just getting some advice about being an admin. That I'm fine with as I don't consider that gaming the system. I'm guessing most users going through admin coaching have significantly less than 7,000 edits at the time, and are going through the coaching to spruce up their resumés, and that's what I object to in the program. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the 7/24ths oppose hadn't been withdrawn that there wouldn't have been other oppose comments. One can never tell how an RFA will go; sometimes I think an existing oppose !vote emboldens people who otherwise wouldn't oppose. So it is difficult for me to say for certain if I'd be an admin right now if it hadn't been for that objection's withdrawal. And without my Admin Coach's encouragement and helpful advice, I firmly believe I would never have requested adminship in the first place. Whether my Adminship is good or bad for Wikipedia remains to be seen, but I have personally seen several good coachees become great admins directly because of Admin Coaching. As far as the number of edits people have while going thru admin coaching, user:Siva1979 has over 15,000 edits and is currently undergoing coaching, so I don't think my 7k was so significant. I do agree that "sprucing up" for the sake of pursuing an adminship strikes a false note, but people could do that even without Admin Coaching (and are doing it on Editor Review, as you noted), so it's not a problem directly related to the program. OK, I promise I won't choke up your talk page further with my comments. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you made me spurt Pepsi out my nose laughing so hard when I saw that message. Ah, damn me, but that was hilarious. --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again! This time, I was at work! Time to find a new keyboard... --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... Can we elliptically approach what we both think is this "method", without alerting others? The method I came up with, after not much thought, involves, um, a combination of an obscure page (so probably not on a watchlist), high edit count and hence a general lack of motivation for the 'guards' to check through an editor's contributions, the luck to slip unnoticed past Recent Changes Patrol, immediate reversion, and diff linking. Does that make sense? As I say, not accessible to anyone else, but there if you know where to look. Carcharoth 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, but I figured to just use my talk page. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, we'll see what happens. Thank you for keeping cool and backing me up. hugs --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No fewer than three admins took concrete actions to shut the Esperanza MfD discussion down, although of course Kim took the lead. One of them was me, and I can assure that we did it based on experience with previous huge *fD discussions and a good reading of the arguments on both sides. There wasn't going to be consensus—and it seemed that the good things that could come out of the MfD discussion would benefit from being discussed in other venues. We were trying to do the best thing for Wikipedia, not to take sides either way. -- SCZenz 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe I missed it, but why couldn't what you just told me here have been included in the closing comments? Especially the part (and identificaion) of the three admins, since that had been discussed on the talk page already. It certainly would have been appropriate. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand a bit. There wasn't an official committee, because that's simply not how we usually do things; any admin has authority to make judgement calls about consensus, and even to make early decisions. Kim made the call on his own. When his decision was challanged (in fact, reverted), I restored it and put in my own note of concurrence. Then Jaranda protected the page. So three admins did, after the fact, concur that the call was a good one and take actions to support it. If we all were pushing our own opinions, if we indeed had the same opinions, I could certainly see grounds for complaint about the decision. But that's not the case—Kim thought, without invoking any personal prejudice as far as I can tell, that the best thing for Wikipedia was to close at that point, and he explained his reasons. An impartial admin making a reasonably-explained and logical call on his/her judgement of consensus is all it ever takes to close a discussion. -- SCZenz 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that it only takes one. I had made an earlier suggestion though, that to avoid post-closing chaos it might be better to do it differently in this case. Anyway, it was the appearance of impropriety I was concerned with, not the existence of such.

To tell you the truth, although I started by giving Esperanza the benefit of doubt, there were so many immature knee-jerk "keeps" that it makes me think that the membership is considerably younger than the rest of the 'pedia. I'm not sure they will be able to fix the worst issues they have which are the separtist attitude and block voting. Even though they weren't the most often mentioned issues, those issues engender real mistrust and resentment that will eventually get them shut down if they don't change. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst. If it does aggregate 'younger' editors, is that not a good thing? :-) Actually, on second thoughts, given WP:CHILD (currently at ArbCom), that might not be such a good thing. I am, however, going to remember, the next time I see cries of stress and frustrated and tearful drama queen exits, that age (or lack of) might be a contributing factor. I shudder to think what I would have been like as a 12-year-old on Wikipedia... <shudder> Carcharoth 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just think that in the end we handled it ok; nobody seems to be claiming there was any impropriety, just that they think it should've been done a different way. And there's very little chaos so far. To be honest, this was a textbook example of how a less-bureaucratic Wikipedia can work. An admin steps in and does something sane, if slightly unorthodox. A few other admins support that admin enough to keep their edits from being reverted by knee-jerk reactions. And then there isn't much more fuss, because most people actually think that they can live with what the admin did, and many even agree that it was sane. The shitstorm is far less than I was expecting when I backed Kim up, to be honest, but I did it anyway, because (even taking the shitstorm into account) it was the right thing to do.

I agree with your comments on Esperanza, although I'm still on an earlier stage of "giving them a chance." They must be cured of the separatism and block-voting, and I am now starting to try to work on their pages with them to a) help them identify the programs that most encourage people to miss the point, b) encourage Esperanza members who get it to explain things better to those who don't, and c) provide an example of the fact that non-Esperanza members can be involved in their internal affairs, as an illustration of the fact that Esperanza is (or should be) a set of users interested in encyclopedia-focused community building and not a secret club. I hope the MfD has given them a wake-up call that there are things that need fixing, and that the community is prepared to take action if things get too far out of hand. -- SCZenz 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was scanning your userpage and saw the paegs you needed moved/deleted; you can have user subpages deleted pretty painlessly by replacing the redirect with {{db-owner}}. The other two can probably be put in Requested Moves in the uncontested section, although the CRTP may need a discussion first to show support for it being lowercased. -- nae'blis 00:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't know about {{db-owner}}. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It's such a common admin election thing, I never thought anyone would object. I can't think of any way to put a spamfilter in WP off the top of my head, but I am starting to work in the MediaWiki code. Who knows.

Sorry if it offended you. Georgewilliamherbert 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did remove the second one. It probably wouldn't have happened if I'd done it with some sort of bot, but I did it all by hand. Not exactly sure how I did get you twice, but I'm sure I was just going too fast... Also would help if I didn't have a fever right now. Anyways, have a good one. Georgewilliamherbert 06:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over your edits (slow to load), you have over 6,000 spread throughout the wiki. You have almost 3,000 unique pages you have contributed to, with lots of effort in Java program related articles, as well as your excellent contributions on getting Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA level...and of course you also have over 1,000 edits to wikinamespaces as well. I do see you were gone for some time but it appears you are back and hard at it. I would be happy to nominate you for adminship if you want me to, or if you prefer someone else to do so, that's fine too. Let me know.--MONGO 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...you're the second person to ask me this week. If someone was to nominate me, I'd be pleased to have it be you, but I'm somewhat reluctant because I'm not sure how it's going to impact my activity here as an editor. I guess I'd appreciate your input on my view of becoming an admin. My primary interest here is as an editor, although I do find myself wandering frequently into the policy pages. The things that I'd do with admin powers are probably mostly:

• closing TfD and CfD discussions; and less frequently closing AfD, MfD and RfD discussions
• edit protected pages (I run into this a lot, particularly in template space)
• perform non-controversial speedy deletes and category renamings

I'm sure there would be occassional page protections and unprotections and while I'm willing to assist in resolving disputes, I'm not too interested in being a vandal fighter or security guard. I don't use IIRC, and while I could change that, I'm not sure I want to. Tracking down and investigating sock puppets and the like also isn't that appealling.

Basically, what I'm saying is that my interest here is as an editor, and the admin activities I'm interested in are those tied to editing and content creation, and secondarily to mediation and dispute resolution, but I'm not particularly interested in fighting the neverending battle against those that assail this place daily (something I think you are quite experienced at).

So I don't know if that's what people expect from an admin. I will say that it is so much not a big deal to me that I'm not concerned about the stress some people experience going through the process. If people don't want me to be an admin, while I'm sure that would cause some pause for reflection, it would not be a big deal.

Also, in the interest of disclosure, while I don't have any embarrassing edit histories for someone to dig up, and you are already familiar with my minor disputes with Lulu which account for two of the three stressful situations I've been in here, I did manage to inadvertantly start a controversy that ended with the resignation of two bureaucrats.[1][2] I think my transgression in the whole affair was quite minor (basically one poorly-worded edit summary), but I wonder if other people are going to see it that way.

So there it is, what do you think—is adminship for me? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the B-crats issue and it hardly seems as though you are the only one questioning some Rfa closes made. I can't see that YOU are the ONE who is to blame for their departure...and that was more than 6 months ago...a lifetime on wiki. I would make it clear that when you mean editing protected pages, (something that is rarely approved of), it should be clear that your computer skills are useful in adjusting protected templates (so long as a consensus to make these adjustments is understood)...template alterations can impact hundreds of pages of course...hence the delicacy of that issue. I think, as I mentioned, the rather long break will be looked at, but I don't think you left due to stress...so you simply need to allow me to detail that and provide reassurance that you are back for good (essentially) now. Hardly anyone has had the dealings I have had with the trolls...well, the percentage of admins that have been attacked at the level I have is small. If you think the sysop bit will help you become a better editor, then I think you should go for it. Jus' so you know...most of my article starts and all my FA's were achieved after I was made an admin....so in my case, it made me more committed, and if I were to become an arbitrator (which is highly unlikely), I will probably cease doing admin work overall.--MONGO 11:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's see.

• Editing protected pages is almost always uncontroversial stuff (can't think of anything I've wanted to do so far that would have been an exception). Largely WikiGnome and WikiFairy things, and sometimes making small improvements to templates or simply fixing one that's broken. I've never had an occassion when it was to edit a controversial page that was protected because of edit warring or rampant vandalism, except to maybe fix a spelling, grammar or formatting problem. I do understand the computer issue with transclusion and causing the cache for a large number of pages to be purged—a place to tread carefully.
  • One of the places I've run into protected page is when trying to clean up and categorize templates in the project space.
• I was gone for three plus months because my real life intervened and I was simply too busy. There was no wikistress issue whatsoever. (To tell you the truth, the only two times I've ever had the kind of wikistress that caused me to take a day or so off of editing was the mis-understanding you and I had and the above issue where I was accussed of vandalism by Cecropia. Both of those were occassions where my sincere good faith efforts were characterized by somebody I respected as bad faith—that's really the only type of thing I can see causing me stress as I don't tend to internalize or personalize most things.) It may well happen again at some point that my life intervenes, and I'd come back when I was able. If I need to promise that I won't have an extended period of inactivity again, then adminship ain't for me.

And BTW, I think of you as the Dr. Laura of Wikipedia—you are quick to make judgements and don't pull any punches, but you're almost always right. I think you'd make a good arbitrator, but you might be right about your chances. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Dr. Laura is better than Dr. Mengele...allow me about a little less than a day and I'll draw up a Rfa nomination.--MONGO 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, at your convenience. Whenever is fine. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 15:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept my nom, if you like it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doug Bell, add any comments you like, answer the basic Q's, let me know so I can add it (or you can) to the Rfa pages..making sure you follow the directions at the bottom of:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate...good luck!--MONGO 07:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I assume there's no problem if I leave it until tomorrow? I was just about to call it a night. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when...so I can make sure I sign my endoresement first (something I won't do until after it is loaded onto the rfa page) But please take your time as its no biggie.--MONGO 07:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be tomorrow...how about I let you know when? I'll have to reset the timestamp also, but I'll wait to take it live until you're online. I'm just too tired to do a good job answering the questions right now...need sleep.  :-)m —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure..goodnight...also, anything you think you want me alter in my nom wording, things to add, etc...let me know.--MONGO 07:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you already noticed...well, best of luck...you should do well.--MONGO 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on that talk page. I think that hard decisions can be made, but not by this particular process. (Radiant) 09:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here, because at this point this is more just for my edification than any and not an attempt to be prescriptive.

OK then, what is the appropriate process? And hypothetically, if the best solution for Wikipedia is to disband Esperanza, not merely reform it, how would we go about doing that given the relentless barrage that would result? Could we actually do it if that was what was needed? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say the best way of getting community input on such a thing is WP:RFC. In this case, Esperanza appears to have gotten the hint that some people dislike them, and seem to now be looking for improvement. It would be possible do disband Esperanza if needed (and note that I'm NOT saying this is a good idea!!) by either taking the matter to Jimbo or the Arbcom, or by having a substantial group of admins endorsing the decision and holding the line against recreation (and blocking the relentless barragers, if any). So yes, we could do it, but it wouldn't be pretty. (Radiant) 12:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the answer, and don't worry—I don't have any agenda to disband them unless they become a much bigger problem than they are now. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 12:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For your contributions to templates and Java documentation, and your other repairs and activiteis to the Wikipedia, I award thee this da Vinci Barnstar in the hope you will do more! Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I didn't realize you'd joined the barnstar brigade.  ;-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sobs My pristine page! shakes fist I'll get you for this! I'll make you read this!!! _{Dirty inclusionists. Cabal!}

...thanks for the laugh, Doug. grins --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 18:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please don't—How about I promise I'll delete something today without even an attempt at being an exclusionist? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering just how long it would take someone to put that up for deletion. I wonder if anyone gets the irony behind your delete and salt vote, either. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the nom got it, but others did. I knew it wouldn't pass, but I figured it was an opening to get a discussion going about the secret-society-handshake signatures—I know I was on the edge of WP:POINT, but I really do think those sigs are indicative of the larger problem Esperanza needs to deal with. Besides, where better to flirt with WP:POINT than with an MfD that's trying to make a WP:POINT. Anyway, he withdrew it. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Doug, you're a reckless man. *shakes head* Just kidding, I agree to a certain extent with what you said - and have images of a certain Monty Python sketch going through my head. riana_dzasta 14:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It made the list. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on User:Tango's RfA, and was wondering if there's a link somewhere to User:Voice of All's edit analysis tool—I looked around on his userpage for a link but couldn't find one. I'd like to check out my own results. Thanks! --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I think you should ask User:Voice of All. I just looked at the analysis he provided, but have no idea how it was created. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will vote oppose on anything. Christ. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at his talk page and then read my RfA statement. I think it might be clear why. But please don't badger the oppose votes. I think it is poor form. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't. But I do when there's very clear hypocracy. I think he could have (should have) voted neutral is he has reservations, but oppose means you think a person is fundamentally unfit for administration. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but nonetheless. One unsupportable oppose because I'm not sending out thank you's isn't going to derail the RfA. If it does, so be it. Really wouldn't be a big deal. Either way, I prefer no badgering, but you are free to do as you will. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaragirl, I agree that you are free to do as you will but It's not necessarily hypocritical, somebody who holds standards regarding a nominee for an admin may loosen their standards if they see sufficient other reasons to support, It's also not best to read into why someone voted oppose, that they think someone is fundamentally unfit for administration unless they said just that, I would had said I understand your concern regarding image uploading experience, but I feel that a sysop's over all understanding of the image policy at wikipedia is more important.(which I believe Doug has). Taking that approach doesn't put a person on the defensive, pointing out but they voted for this person or that person is likely to end up in an argument rather then a discussion, and not likely to change anybody's mind.▪◦▪=Sirex98= 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You violated it! Just kidding, I was merely trying to give you a heart attack with the heading. No, what I wanted to say was that I just edited the "Examples that are not personal attacks" section of WP:NPA. It looks to me like you wrote it originally, back in March, and nobody seems to have touched it since. I hope I wasn't too rude on the talkpage... and I thought you might want to change my changes, and/or discuss on Talk. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 06:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You did give me a little start because of the last edit I'd made about 5 minutes previous—an edit I'd had some reservations about making at all, but I was shocked that it had resulted in an NPA claim. Now that my heart rate has settled back dowm, I'll take a look. :-) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy means well. I vote moral support when I feel strongly that 1)the user has good intentions in trying to be an admin but just doesn't have enough edits / experience and 2) that I would vote for him/her in 3 to 5 months provided they have 2000+ mainspace edits and 25% of their edits are in XfD, DRV, Wikiproject space, and Usertalk. As for email, I'm still stuck at work, so I'll check when I get home, hon. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup may be what you had in mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your answers to my questions. I wasn't very satified with the last one, where you completely avoided my question about whether you thought your article was deletion worthy & self promotion. That's enough for me to oppose. However, your other work on Wikipedia seems to be good, so I can't fully oppose. Therefore, I'm sticking with my neutral vote. Thanks Doug... Spawn Man 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC). P.S. Please don't think this is any personal vendetta from my RfA, because it's not. P.P.S. Also, for question 1, I got AfD mixed up with MfD. I based my question on a couple of comments made during one MfD a couple of weeks ago, but I couldn't refind the links when I looked back. Thanks again...[reply]

OK, thanks for consideration. Regarding your last question, the fact that I would recuse myself from the decision and discussion would also render my opinion in the matter a mute point. I'm sorry if you think I'm avoiding your question—if you want my views on notability, why not ask for an opinion on one that I can discuss without a conflict of interest? You are free to find one as similar to the article on me as you want, I just can't comment on the article on me. Anyway, you're free to do as you will. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wanted to see how you'd handle a COI situation. Obviously, not very well so far. For me to be able to suport, I'd need your opinion on whether or not you feel that the article is in violation of self promotion, vainity etc. Regardless of what you say, I'd need you to answer that for me to be able to support. It's a simple, yes or no I don't think it's in violation answer. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've stated my view on taking a position, and not to be rude, but as I said in my answer on my RfA, I'm not intending to go against my beliefs in order to engender support for my RfA. So you are more than welcome, with my blessing, to decide on your position on the RfA based on my answers. I will admit to being confused by your statement above not very well so far. The best way to handle a conflict of interest situation is to recuse yourself from taking a position or rendering judgement—that's what I've done and that's what I would do in a similar situation as an admin. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit different from a straight forward COI however. Good and all for removing yourself, but I feel that for me to support you need to decide one way or another. If you don't want to do so then I'm afraid I must oppose, as how am supposed to know what you'll do if another COI occurs & you must deal with it? What am I to gage it against when you wont tell me what your view is on it. Backing away also shows a lesser degree of invov\lvement & you know perfectly well that if you choose one side, you'll either have to delete the article, or admit that oyu don't know protocol. This goes against your statement saying that you don't pick out what you say to make yourself a better candidate for adminship. Well? Spawn Man 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean when you say "Backing away also shows a lesser degree of invov\lvement & you know perfectly well that if you choose one side, you'll either have to delete the article, or admit that oyu don't know protocol." This discussion doesn't seem like it's progressing. You have your view and you're entitled to it; I have mine. If you have some additional point to make I'd be happy to discuss it, but I don't see any point to continuing to go back and forth regarding my view on a conflict of interest when I think I've made my position on it as clear as I can. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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... I'll be posting this on my oppose vote. 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 01:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 since the start, but as I see you've posted your oppose vote, I doubt you are really interested. I think perhaps your motives in this are not as pure as you say, but that's neither here nor there as you are free to do as you will. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, he's following WP:COI. You are asking him two pick between two choices when there are three choices. COI means he shouldn't have anything to do with the article whatsoever. If he has a conflict of interest as an admin, he should have nothing to do with the COI article/issue, not try to identify where he stands. To me, trying to pin him down like this is about as reprehensible as people riddling you with diffs about your past edits rather than looking at current contribs, Spawn Man. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both misunderstanding me. People have been saying that he created the article when he was a new user. And he did. However, the article is clear violation of a vain article & is a COI. What I'm saying is, is why he doesn't recognise that it is indeed a vain article? In my view, he doesn't seem to recognise it & this shows a serious lack of knowledge of WP standards. However, if he is only not taking a side because he doesn't want the article to be deleted, then that is just corrupt & could show a possible future threat of abuse of powers. Also, if he takes neither side, then how am I to support him if I don't know what he'll do if a similar situation arises in the future & he does have admin powers? I have to make deadly sure that he can make the right decisions in the future before I choose to support him having those powers. All of these reasons are serous concerns & have swayed me to oppose. As I said, if he tells me his view on either side (& stuff taking the middle ground...) then I will support him. And no this is not the same as my RfA. Doug has a chance to change & state whether he thinks the article is right or wrong, however I couldn't argue with edits of my past & shgow that I'd changed any more than I already had. Spawn Man 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you an email.--MONGO 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll shut up at your RfA before I cause you problems. Badlydrawnjeff is just everything I disagree with in Wikipedia (accusations of cabalism, inclusionism without recourse to policy or notability, nitpicking, selective memory, and bohemian POV) in one package. That doesn't make him a bad person, and I don't want to ruin your RfA with my tedentinous comments. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have anything to apologize for as far as I'm concerned, although my RfA might not be the best forum to discuss other editor's behavior. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you an email, hon. Reply via same. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it might be a little while before I can get to it...is it urgent? —Doug Bell ^talk 00:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is worrisome. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at my talk page, though I did post here to begin with becuase I missed you prefrences at the top of the page :P Got me thinking, are there rules for this? I prefer to respond, you prefers to keep things together. So who's preferences come first? The one sending the message, or the one receving it? That should be sorted out somewhere ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've replied to your comment, but eh, I'm probably going to support you. You gave me what I wanted to see - a measured and well-thought out response. So thanks, and all the best (because at 74/7, you just might scrape through ;-) ). Sorry if my comment annoyed you, and enjoy your break. riana_dzasta 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the comment here, and the comment on the RfA. Please believe me when I say that not only was I not annoyed by the comment on the RfA, I welcomed it. I don't know if you saw the THANK YOU comment I added to the general comments section, but every word of that is sincere. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciated it - and that you believe me when I say that I did not mean them to be disruptive or negative. All the best with the buttons! :) riana_dzasta 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL—I don't know if you noticed, but I haven't exactly gone out of my way to discourage disruption of the RfA...in a strange sort of way, I actual appreciate a little disruption since it forces me to examine my behavior. I could hardly call your comment disruptive in that light. All the best, —Doug Bell ^talk 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, must be more exciting than a clean sweep, anyway. Nobody likes perfect people ;) riana_dzasta 09:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on passing your RfA with such a high percentage of support votes! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along in a few minutes to issue you with a shiny set of new admin tools. If you have any questions about using them then please ask, as I would love to find out what the answers are myself! Regards and happy mopping. (aeropagitica) 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congrats! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I know it may not have been completely smooth, but I'm really glad you did make it in the end. All the best with the brand new buttons! riana_dzasta 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Doug Bell! I hope you have fun with your new admin tools, and if you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oohhh! Those buttons are shiny! Congrats! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Victory for the Evil Cabal against hope! hugs --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats....go slow...block infrequently...if in doubt, don't delete....rollback only vandalism....etc., etc., etc. Never revert another admins actions without talking to that person first...you know the game...just friendly advice from a guy who rips saloon doors off, punches horses and likes candy. Way to go man!--MONGO 06:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to call you Hastings now, as the 1066th admin :). NoSeptember 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! nice going Hastings! um Doug..., learn for others mistakes rather make them youself, something I need to do <grin>, p.s. Speaking of blocking, you may want to change your java link to right:30px; it's being blocked by your Admin Icon,  ;-) ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 11:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... congrats! :) ---J.S (t|c) 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thank you note you left on my talk regarding your RfA. Thanks, :) Spawn Man 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]