Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bellhalla

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Bellhalla

Final tally: (117/0/1) Closed Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:18:42 (UTC) by Avi

Nomination

Bellhalla (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Bellhalla for adminship. This is my first nomination at RfA, and indeed, I suspect many of the regulars here are wondering who I am. I have been an administrator myself for almost 3 years, and have thousands of admin actions, but most of those are "under the hood" work instead of the more visible administrative work at XfD, AIV, ANI, etc.

And that is precisely why I am making this nomination. Trusted editors should be able to use admin tools where necessary to be more effective with their work. Not every admin has to be involved in the usual places. I believe Bellhalla would be another "under the hood" administrator. He has been here for almost 5 years, has about 80,000 edits (!), and has never been blocked. He clearly has the respect of his peers; he was an elected coordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history earlier this year. One look at his contribution history (including a significant amount of featured content and DYK contributions) and his talk page interactions (including many messages of thanks and barnstars) will tell you that he is a valuable contributor to this encyclopedia.

A few weeks ago when I first started doing some work with Bellhalla, I had noticed that he had written on his user page (since then removed): I am not an administrator and don't really see a need to be one at the present; between family, work, school, and writing for Wikipedia, my time is pretty well occupied (and I certainly don't need the stress or drama). That gave me reason to pause, as I really don't think that adminship ought to equate to "stress or drama". Certainly, there are many admins whose main contributions to this project are the difficult, thankless tasks, but there is room for other types of admins as well, so I decided to approach Bellhalla about RfA anyway.

I believe there is a large amount of "gnomish" work that is much easier to take care of when you have the bit yourself: maintenance of protected (high-use) templates, speedy deletion of empty catgories, page moves to existing targets (with history merges or deletions as appropriate), etc. Yes, a lot of those activities can be done by using {{

editprotected}}, {{db}}, etc. to attract an administrator's attention, but it is certainly more efficient to do those things yourself if you can. I believe that Bellhalla has demonstrated the need for some of the admin tools in his areas of editing interest, and has earned the trust to use them properly. And that alone should be the focus of discussion about this candidacy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If so granted access, I intend to use the tools to allow me to continue effectively improving the encyclopedia without having to resort to {{
editprotected}} or bugging ever-so-patient admins. As examples of work I've done recently that would be eased with access to the tools, a minor change recently in Template:USN flag (which makes the border around the displayed flag optional). One can also look at User:Andrwsc's talk page for nine different appeals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
) for edits to protected flag templates since mid-September.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I haven't had as much time to do so recently with family and school commitments, I feel article-writing has been my best contribution to Wikipedia. I enjoy writing articles, and feel a sense of satisfaction when I have been able to successfully shepherd one through
Good Article, and American Palestine Line
, an A-Class article.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: One situation that caused me stress was a dispute with an editor over the use of automated tools for what was effectively subst'ing a particular type of unit conversion performed with Template:Convert. I was, perhaps, a little heated in a posing a question (diff) on that user's talk page as to why they had continued to make the same change even though asked to stop. In this situation, fortunately, the user in question stopped making those types of changes. As for handling future situations, I'll continue to do what I currently do: when a stressful situation arises, I step away from the computer long enough to ensure that I'm approaching the situation with a level head, be mindful of the other person's point of view, and attempt to address the situation in a constructive manner.
Additional optional questions from
Bwilkins
4. Would you be willing to advise
alternate account
that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A: I have no alternate account at present, nor do I have any current plans for one. Should the need arise, however, I would, depending on the circumstances, either publicly link an alternate account (most likely) or notify bureaucrats of such an account. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from AtheWeatherman
5: What is your opinion on page protection, given that you mention how would use the tools in this area?
A: It would be ideal if page protection were not needed at all, but given that vandalism and other disruptive edits do occur, it is necessary to have some way of stopping those types of edits. When considering protection, I think it's important to weigh the real potential for harm if a page is unprotected versus the harm of excluding constructive edits. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Valley2city‽
6: What is your opinion on the
BLP
policy as it stands today?
A: I haven't had any direct involvement with any BLP cases, but I think that the current, conservative policy is just about right. Although legal issues are certainly a concern with BLP violations, I completely endorse the premise of
WP:BLP that we must "get the article right" (italics as in original) to avoid harm to living subjects. With the increasing prominence of online media—a category in which I include Wikipedia—the potential for harm, even if unintended, calls for greater vigilance on the part of all of us. One only need look at the example of Richard Jewell for an example of how an individual's life can be harmed by the media. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
7:
WP:OTHERSTUFF
says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist.... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument...." Do you think that the second sentence is a sensible one? And would you would expect that you would be willing to rely upon such comparisons as part of your reason for rendering a decision in a deletion discussion?
A: It's always hard to answer questions like this in a vacuum; a deletion decision would really depend on all of the reasons put forward at such a discussion. If WP:OTHERSTUFF were the sole argument for an article's exclusion or inclusion, it would be hard for me to render a decision based solely on that reason. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from  Btilm 
8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is a technical feature of the software, while a ban is a community censure of an editor. A block is the means by which a ban is enforced. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Only in the case of a cool down ban, which is to say never (since cool down bans don't exist). Blocks are intended to prevent harm to Wikipedia and are not intended as punitive measures. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: One could write quite a lengthy essay endeavoring to fully answer these questions. To be concise, I'll try to answer what I see as the three essential questions you asked:
  1. What would an ideal Wikipedia look like? — I think an ideal Wikipedia would a resource for readers of all kinds to be able to find information on topics that impact or have impacted the lives of people in some way. I don't think we are there, given factors like
    systemic biases
    , but that should in no way stop us for striving for such an ideal.
  2. Should topics that meet notability guidelines and have multiple secondary sources be excluded? — It would be hard for me to justify omitting a topic that meets those requirements, provided that they are not contrary to policies like
    WP:NPOV
    .
  3. Do you believe in the inherent notability of topics? — I can see this from both sides. On the one hand, it would be hard to say that something without coverage in secondary sources is truly notable. But on the other hand, I think there are some topics that are notable that may not necessarily have in depth coverage. As an example, take the article I mentioned above, USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290). When working on that article, I did not find, for example, a book written about the ship, as one might find when writing an article on, say, Isaac Newton (who, I am sure, has had many biographers); in the case of Princess Matoika, I did find many mentions of the ship in many secondary sources, which demonstrated the ship's notability to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Coffee
11. If you were to close an AFD, on a
BLP
, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A: Again, it's hard to answer such hypotheticals in a vacuum; without knowing the specifics of such a discussion, I can't really say what I would do. But because of the potential for harm, I do know that BLP cases require a much more conservative approach, and that knowledge would inform any decision. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Obvious support as nominator. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongest support - amazing work with content and categories, from a guy who is one of the most polite editors I have ever met. If Bellhalla doesn't deserve the mop, then I don't know who else does. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per Ed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Elected as a coordinator of WPMilHist is pretty much all the nominator needed to say. Still, Bellhalla's contributions show a deep, deep commitment and understanding. I for one don't believe that nonsense about "not having the time" so I see no reason not to push this through. My words of praise are failing me atm, but... hot damn! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per Ed.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I really can identify with you in a lot of aspects and I can see you being a good administrator.
    talk) 18:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Support
    Why not? Regards SoWhy 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A very helpful and productive editor who could provide even more help with the tools, and doesn't give any indication that the tools would be misused. -- Atama頭 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Excellent editor, very helpful. See absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be an admin. Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Looks very good on the first read. Here's hoping your Rfa goes smoothly. Jusdafax 18:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, great nom statement that makes the case very well - and I've had plenty of cause to agree with it after a review of contribs. Low-drama, high-work-ethic editor who would make competent use of the tools. ~ mazca talk 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I like what I see if the candidate's edits, and election to Milhist's Coordinator seat is high praise indeed. This looks like an easy call. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have worked closely with Bellhalla and have nothing but high regard for his devotion, common sense, and integrity. He will make an outstanding administrator.  Roger Davies talk 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - First, Bellhalla's contributions to Wikipedia are by any measure very impressive. Second, I too have been poked by Bellhalla on occasion for admin help; clearly he could make use of the tools, and I see no reason why we shouldn't trust him with them. Also, per several comments above on his politeness and helpfulness. Good luck! Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. A very hardworking, helpful MILHIST member. Hey, that project seems to turn out good editors. ;) Competent for the admin tools. JamieS93 20:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Holy cow yes. ceranthor 20:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support - an extremely safe "vote" considering Bellhalla's longevity, edit count, and productivity in creating articles. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. But of course.
    talk | 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. Support Per Ceranthor :) AtheWeatherman 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Belhalla demonstrates all that is good about Wikipedia. Give him the mop and he'll be a more able janitor administrator. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Despite my deep-seated concerns over the number of cats.... Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support- easy call.--SPhilbrickT 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - this editor who has family and school commitments makes more edits in the last 3 months than I have in total! He has created more than 100 articles, with good work on them. I feel that this candidate is an ideal one for the mop -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - throughout all of my interactions with the editor, there has never been any doubt in my mind of how phenomenal an admin they would be. Their content contributions speak for themselves, notwithstanding being the first editor to be awarded multiple tiers of the MILHIST A-Class medals and being elected as a coordinator of the project. The longevity, dedication, alone are enough but everything else is just icing on the proverbial cake! -MBK004 21:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Bellhalla is an outstanding, friendly and highly responsible editor who has played an important role in both the military history and ships wikiprojects. In doing so he's demonstrated a great deal of policy knowledge and a clear understanding of consensus-based approaches to instituting reforms. In regards to his answer to question 1, Bellhalla has contacted me on a number of occasions asking that I do something admin-related, and all of these requests were fully justified so I have no doubt that he'll use the admin tools wisely and productively. In short, I can't think of a better candidate for administrator status. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. NW (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Seems to be an extraordinary editor. Good luck! GlassCobra 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good to me, too.
    talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support. Why not? -FASTILYsock (TALK) 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Seems like a reliable and dedicated person to me. - Nimbusania talk 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Super Strong Support. Why not? We always accept another guy with the mop.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Dedicated, motivated, mature, and productive editor who will benefit the project as an administrator. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support nothing wrong here... good luck. ~ Arjun 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Great choice! Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Absolutely Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support 81k and 2004 says a lot...Modernist (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've always enjoyed working with this editor when reviewing his GA nominations, and think that he is more than worthy to be trusted with the admin tools. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: Seems like a good candidate. South Bay (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support
    Kablammo (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Strong support per work at MILHIST, all those A-class articles, etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: "Impressive" is an understatement. Surprised he already isn't an admin though. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Excellent editor who has lots of clue, a cool head and a thorough grasp of policy and guidelines. Also supprised that he isn't an admin already. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. clear net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. If only there were five more editors like this user. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support. Bellhalla is an excellent editor, and I think he would make an excellent admin. I have no reservations at all with this user's admin bit being twiddled. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Excellent user Dr.Szlachedzki (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Always happy to welcome another drama-free admin into the fold. The Anonymous Administrator Cabal gains a new member! Kidding aside, great article work and he has good head on his shoulders. He's been around forever and I had never seen him around - that alone suggests he'll be fine. faithless (speak) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support - Excellent article work and appears to have a good grasp of policy and guidelines. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. miranda 07:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  51. Weak support. Diff. in q. 3 is bit too heated IMO. Bwrs (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Per nom. Sole Soul (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. A fine editor and will make a quality addition to the admin corps. EyeSerenetalk 12:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Excellent editor. - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. An excellent contributor in all meanings of the term and will make a fine administrator.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support without question. Cannot believe Bellhalla wasn't made an admin ages ago. I'm not put off by the diff in Q3 either, that was over a year ago and the points raised were valid, even it the manner was a tad curt. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support. Massively huge portfolio of contributions. Great answers. My only concern is this: Why did you wait this long for RfA
    ‽ Valley2city‽ 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. talktome⁄ ididit] 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. Support All of my experiences with Bellhalla working in the ships project have been positive. He is the only editor in recent memory that has had enough nerve to tackle the ships category tree! I just hope he doesn't regret becoming an admin. --Brad (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support It is a good sign that Bellhalla has made notable contributions to 13 FAs, 34 A-Class articles, and 137 Good articles, as well as started so many quality articles. Also, I don't see a reason to oppose allowing Bellhalla to edit protected articles and templates, as he seems to make reasonable requests. Good candidate for adminship. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support per the amazing contributions for
    Expert 23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Support Of course, a no-brainer. I thought Bellhalla was an admin a long time ago. It's about time! Royalbroil 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- Great stuff.
    talk) 01:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  65. Of course! Belhalla's one of MilHist's most outstanding editors (in a credential sense; this is not undervaluing the achievements of the other MilHist editors, all of whom are awesome). I was considering whether or not to participate in this yesterday on account of promising myself to focus what little activity I have on more important areas of Wikipedia (i.e. article work, vandal fighting), but I guess one more RfA wouldn't hurt, now will it?
    Talk) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  66. Support Nothing wrong that I can see. The Arbiter★★★ 02:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. - Great contributor who will only be better with the extra bit. Gatoclass (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support. Wizardman 06:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - No problems here. The diff above about the unit converting thing was a bit over the top, in my opinion. Undoubtedly a net gain here though. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support No brainer really. Abecedare (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support the lack of article work concerns me (like to see at least 250 good articles and 50,000 edits), but not enough to move from support. :) Illegitimi non carborundum and use it well. Gigs (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support--
    WP:CFL) 04:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  75. Support Looks alright. BejinhanTalk 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Bellhalla. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Looks great.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Sure. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose: not enough edits. (Just kidding.) Support. Jonathunder (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You had me there for a second, Jon! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Not exactly the type of answer I was looking for, but your answer regarding BLPs further up leads me to support. And per
    ark // 18:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  81. Support as per nom, this editor will make a good admin RP459 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Per long time article work and lack of drama. Seems very levelheaded and calm. —mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Looks good. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Has good experience in XfD processes and shows clear dedication to the project. I'm particularly impressed by the willingness to actively participate in one of the less glamorous/visible tasks on Wikipedia: Categories for discussion. Seems to be a top notch candidate. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - an excellent contributor who'll make a fine admin. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, clearly a valuable addition to the corps. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong Support: A great candidate on all levels of Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Belhalla has an excellent grasp of content policies and in all our interactions I've never found him anything but polite and cooperative. I have full confidence in his judgement. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - seems trustworthy and reliable; no reason to oppose. Robofish (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support – Looks really good. The answers to the questions are solid, the mainspace contribs are great, and a good grasp of the XFD process. Lots of clue. MuZemike 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, per nom and answers to the first three questions. Also, content work is most impressive. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Content work is pretty impressive, I agree, I obviously find no problems in Bellhalla's adminship. ♠The Ace of Spades(talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Impressive candidate with matching contributions.
    Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  95. Support. Absolutely. A8UDI 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Looks good! Airplaneman talk 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per above Mr.Snoppy (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    — Mr.Snoppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, ninety-seven other Wikipedians can't be wrong. Probably. If you go rouge, I'll be blaming them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  99. Support "a level head,..mindful of the other person's POV, and attempt to address the situation in a constructive manner". Sounds like a plan.--Buster7 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, great user! --Aqwis (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Truly a fantastic candidate for adminship. A very hard worker with lots of experience in many areas, including excellent, substantive article contributions. I agree with others that Bellhalla could be an even more productive, helpful user with access to these tools, particularly in areas which could always use more administrator attention. By the way, I very much enjoyed reading some of your featured content, especially USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290). Keep up the good work! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support My support at this point doesn't really matter =). America69 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as after 100 editors commented in this RfA, not one has said to oppose; candidate is a veteran editor with 84 DYK, 137 Good, 34 A, and 13 Featured credits across over 75,000 eidts; and has never been even accidentally blocked. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong support without any reservations or hesitations, as based on past interactions with this excellent editor. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Though I'm basically pile-on at this point. — ξxplicit 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Strong Support I have been very much impressed with the body of work of this editor, and hard work should be rightfully rewarded. No oppose votes is extremely telling here! Monsieurdl mon talk 03:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong Support I like this user and the user's answers to my questions!  Btilm  04:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong Support Of course! Way overdue. — JoJo • Talk • 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - I was going to put "Industrial Strength Support" but that seems to be a bit much. I've had good dealings with Bellhalla and think he'll make a good admin. Shinerunner (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Per neutral section and answers to questions.
    talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  111. Support, must be good if the neutral section is the worst that can be found at this stage! :) --
    •wicke 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  112. Support Andrea105 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support I had to do some research here, as I wasn't that familiar with the candidate - that's a good thing! Full support. —
     ?  22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  114. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Strong Support. Seriously glad to support such an outstanding candidate.--
    talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  116. Clear support absolutely no concerns. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Acalamari 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Some points. What angle they are going for is another question.
If there is no point, we're going round in circles
There are alot of points here
poin(t)settias

# I'm just violating

WP:POINT by putting in this vote so that I'll be the only one to not support. I'll change to support if any other person votes neutral or oppose. :) Jonathan321 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Deliberately violating
talk) 17:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm glad you made a point of pointing out that point to Jonathan321, Beeblebrox. I was considering doing so, but now that would be pointless. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not getting this joke either. —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The joke is pretty pointless really, if you get my point. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, actually, that the point is, there's no point. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No points? That makes it a circle then. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this !vote here to avoid a division by zero error? --StaniStani  18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. More like trying to make a
point when no point can be made. Understand the point? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is all in good fun of a type that I usually encourage at RfA, so I don't mean to point blame at anyone; but since this is admittedly not a seriously intended !vote, I have stricken it from the tally. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all the
Seurat painting to break out at any time… — Bellhalla (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually Mjroots, a
talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You know your RFA is going to pass when the oppose and neutral sections are dominated by joking :) Doc Quintana (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you pointing fingers? Monsieurdl mon talk 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think he's trying to point something out. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - I have no clue who Bellhalla is, and, although (s)he appears that they will make a good admin, I cannot truthfully cast a support or an oppose vote. Good luck Bellhalla, however your RfA goes.Hamtechperson Repeater 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bellhalla&oldid=1144596833"