Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jafeluv

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

Jafeluv

Final (80/2/1); Ended Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:07:02 (UTC)

Nomination

Jafeluv (talk · contribs) – Jafeluv is a fantastic Wikipedia editor. Having been with us since March 2008, he does largely maintenance work; namely, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion and Wikipedia:Requested moves, where I know him best. I have always found him to be an insightful and helpful person who is capable of maintaining a level head and determining consensus. He knows the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia, and would serve Wikipedia well as an administrator. @harej 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and thank harej for his kind words. Jafeluv (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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: I intend to continue helping out with move discussions at WP:RM. I'd also like to work in CfD and RfD and, to a lesser extent, speedy deletion. I'm also interested in doing page history merges (I understand that there's quite a lot of backlog there), but I won't know exactly how much I'll be involved until I get to try it out in practice.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are probably the lists of jazz standards: List of pre-1920 jazz standards, List of 1920s jazz standards, and List of 1930s jazz standards are the ones that I've been working on the most. I have also created quite a few song articles; my favourite one is Livery Stable Blues.

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: I don't tend to have a lot of stress about Wikipedia. It's a hobby for me, and I don't consider it The Most Important Thing Possible. There have been some conflicts, of course – one I was involved in concerned an editor writing an article about themself and being positive that they warranted inclusion in the encyclopedia, and ending up requesting speedy deletion because they were concerned about people questioning their artistic integrity because of the deletion tag. (Quite a stressful situation for that person, I would think.) Assuming good faith and being ready to discuss things can solve the vast majority of problems one is likely to encounter here. In really heated situations it's often better to take a break and do something else for a while, and return to the problem with a clear head.

Additional optional questions from SarekOfVulcan

4. While scanning the CSD queue, you come across the following article tagged as CSD-G1:

Navah Perlman was in my music theory class and she plays piano really great and I wish I had gotten to know her better but It's too late because she's married with four kids...

What do you do?

A: That is a valid speedy deletion candidate, but definitely not under G1. G1 should only be used when the text in question is incomprehensible in any language, like "atwegafdcvk", or "horse leftovers pistol running euphemism". The article can (and should) be deleted under A7, because it's about a real person and doesn't indicate why that person is important or significant. In this case, the article can be deleted on sight, since it's pretty unlikely that the subject will meet the inclusion criteria. In some A7 cases, the subject may in fact be notable, but nobody has got around to adding the information to the article. In those cases it's a good idea to do a search before deleting to see if the article could be saved. This is especially true if the A7 tag was added within minutes of creation. In our case, though, this is clearly unnecessary.

You would have deleted Navah Perlman on sight if you saw that content? Looie496 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this was a trickier question than I thought! Yes, I probably would have just deleted the article, if there was no better version in the history (forgot to mention that, d'oh). In retrospect, though, I think the lesson to be learned here is that it's always a good idea to look for sources in cases like this, even if it does look like a waste of time looking at the article. After all, the speedy deletion criteria describe cases which may be deleted, not cases that must be deleted straight away. (Of course, vandalism, copyright violations and attack pages should be deleted on sight, though.)

Additional question from Looie496

5. Most people thinking seriously about RfA set up archiving of their talk pages, but you haven't; instead you quickly delete new messages, which makes your talk page style hard to evaluate. Will you set up archiving if you become an admin?

A: Hmm, someone actually suggested the archiving thing to me two months ago, but I didn't find it necessary then. I guess it is easier to get a grasp of how a user communicates with people when you can look at everything without going through the history for every edit. I don't want you to think that I don't take RfA seriously, however, so I've set up archives on my talk page (everything from back when I began editing is there, except a few talkback notices). I plan to keep them up now that they're there, since they do make finding previous messages easier.

Additional optional question from Ceranthor (already supported)

6. What do you think constitutes the difference between a major and minor edit?

A: Minor edits are uncontroversial edits which don't change the "meaningful content" of the article and which are unlikely to be challenged by anyone. Examples of minor edits are fixing typos, tweaking markup, and correcting wikilinks. This sounds suspiciously like a lead in to a follow-up question, though; what did you have in mind? :)

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

7. Please indicate how you would have closed this AfD and explain your reasoning.

A: Well, this is a pretty straightforward delete. There is clearly a consensus to delete the page, and there are enough participants to make the decision without needing to relist the debate. (I took a pretty long while to see if this was a trick question, but if it is I'm not seeing the trick here.)

7a. Do you agree with the consensus in that instance?

A: Looking at the earlier no-consensus AfD, it looks like everyone agrees that the person fails to meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline, because he hasn't played at a fully professional level yet. Meeting the general notability guideline would be sufficient to avoid deletion regardless of meeting WP:ATHLETE, but that would require "significant" in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The sources that have been brought up that discusses the subject in detail are this five-paragraph article on SkySports.com, and a mention in this article in The Times. It can be argued whether or not this is sufficient coverage for creating a detailed article. Both parties make reasonable points, but if I had !voted there it would probably have been for deletion based on the limited coverage.

7b. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should exhaust alternatives to deletion before bringing an article to AfD. Do you think merges to Bolivia national under-20 football team, 2009 South American Youth Championship squads, 2009 South American Under-17 Football Championship, or 2009 in Ecuadorian football, should have been considered?

A: As a general rule, if there's a logical merge target, merging should always be considered before deletion. I'll go through the articles you listed one by one and explain whether each of them is a possible merge target for Samuel Galindo. I obviously can't see what content the article had, but let's try anyway.

• Bolivia national under-20 football team already contains Galindo's name, number, position, date of birth, and the club he plays in. What more information is there to merge? Obviously I can't see the article, but if we assume that it only contained information to Galindo himself, that information has little to do with the national team. Also, none of the other players have prose about them, so it would be giving Galindo undue weight if there was a section dedicated to him. Also, if the information about Samuel Galindo is to be included in this article, it would have to be removed or moved elsewhere when he stops playing for the under-20 national team, anyway. The article only lists the current players.
• 2009 South American Youth Championship squads contains only the rosters of the teams, and no prose. Galindo's information (number, position, date of birth, club) is already there, so there's really nothing to merge. This would not be the best place to insert personal information about a single player.
• 2009 South American Under-17 Football Championship contains no personal information about the players. Merging the content here would be giving undue weight to that particular player, especially since there's not a word about any of the other players. If the Galindo article contained information specifically about the tournament, however, then a merge could be considered.
• 2009 in Ecuadorian football is a similar case – mostly tables, no prose at all. If the Galindo article contained a notable fact about the fooball year in Ecuador that wasn't already in the article, then yes, a merge could be possible. But I don't think information about Galindo belongs here either.

As you see, I don't think either of the articles you listed would be a potential merge target for information about Galindo himself in my opinion. Furthermore, I think a redirect to any of these pages would be worse for the reader than ending up on a search page where they can see every article that mentions that person.

Additional optional questions from Juliancolton

8. Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you don't have a userpage? I think it's a good idea for admins to write something about themselves on their userpage, but of course I won't oppose over this.

A: No particular reason, I just never got around to creating it. It's not like I'm on some sort of a crusade against userpages... I might create one in the future, once I figure out what exactly to put there.

Additional optional questions from Abce2

9. What do you know about conflicts and what to do? Not vandal to editor conflicts, but editor to editor conflicts.

A: Good question. I'll answer by presenting a few editor-to-editor conflicts that I've been involved in. Feel free to ask for clarification if you want to know more.

• This closure of a pretty big move discussion was quickly contested by an editor, who said that the closure was improper. The debate was about whether or not "digital subscriber line" is a proper noun. I explained my reasoning, and encouraged them to start another discussion, which they did. I continued to defend my closure, which I felt was correct, but other than that I didn't participate and left it for other people to decide what the correct solution was. The editor didn't get what they wanted, but at least it was made sure that there was consensus for the rather massive move.
• The second example is also move-related, and a little more heated. An editor requested a move in the "uncontroversial requests" section at WP:RM, saying that the name of the United States National Health Insurance Act had been changed, and cited a source from the Library of Congress. I performed the move, believing that it was indeed uncontroversial. Shortly thereafter, however, another editor strongly disputed the change, and demanded an immediate move back (see my newly created archive for their comments; my responses can be seen here). I didn't move it back, because it was disputed in both ways and chances were it would still have to be moved back, but started a move discussion and offered to move the article back if there was no consensus to keep the current title. The discussion can be seen here, and it resulted in the article staying at the new title, after the disagreeing editor apparently "calmed down" (their wording) and sort of quietly accepted the new title.
• There was recently a difficult situation where I proposed the deletion of an article (now deleted) that was written by the subject. The subject removed the prod tag, and I took the article to AfD (here) and tried to explain to the editor why it's a bad idea to write an article about oneself (see the editor's post on my talk page and my responses). I think it must have been a stressful situation for that person, and they ended up requesting speedy deletion. You see, they were concerned that people might question their credibility as an artist when they saw the article with a deletion tag on it. I try to be as welcoming as possible in cases like this when the editor is clearly acting in good faith. I don't know if they will continue contributing or not, but I hope so.

Additional optional question from Sky Attacker

10. Consider the following situation. You visit an accounts talk page and notice that it has an unblock request. Their contributions are to vandalize the Barack Obama article five times by replacing every appearance of "Barack Obama" with "Obama Bin Laden". Their unblock request is "I was just being silly and I won't do it again. Instead, I will contribute constructively to Wikipedia." Do you take their word and unblock them, decline the request as they have shown no evidence that they can make constructive edits to articles or leave the unblock request for another admin to review?

A: To be honest I don't intend to do a lot of blocking or unblocking at all, so I think I would find the admin who originally blocked that editor and let them know about the unblock request. However, let's assume here that for some reason I had to make the decision of blocking or unblocking by myself. If the editor had not been blocked/unblocked before, I would tend to assume good faith and unblock the editor, because there's no reason to doubt their sincerity. I would keep an eye on their contributions for evidence of further "silliness", though. If the editor had already been given a second chance, however, it would take more than that to convince me of their sincerity and unblock.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

11. Why is history merging important?

A: History merging is important because the GFDL requires us to preserve the edit history of our articles. When a page is moved by cutting and pasting to another title, the edit history stays at the former title, and there's no obvious connection between the edit history and the new title (although in many cases it can be worked out where the content is from). In these cases, merging the page history of the old title to the new title ensures that our articles preserve the edit history to comply with the license.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

12. 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:

13. What do you view as the single greatest threat to Wikipedia's long term future? What, if anything, do you think should be done about this?

A:

Additional optional question from Mm40

14. A technical question here: what is the purpose of the template on the top of your talk page? If someone's looking at your talk page, they would have to be on Wikipedia, right (I know the answer, but it took me a while. Wondering if you've picked up.)

A: Well, they wouldn't necessarily have to be on Wikipedia. They could be looking at this, this, this, or any other mirror site. I think it's good to notify the reader in case the mirror site doesn't show where the content is originally from.

General comments

• Links for Jafeluv: Jafeluv (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jafeluv can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I dispute the premise of Looie496's question, btw. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have a problem with Looie496's comment about question 4. The hypothetical article in question would qualify for A7, the current article with that name both asserts notability and establishes it with sources. -- Atama頭 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not all that bothered by Looie496's comments - it shows his stupidity more than anyone else. I would like to make a note about Q7 though. I just don't see what he hopes to accomplish. The man in question in the AFD is no more notable than me, and a search on Google reveals that AFD as one of the top 5 searches with the other four being somebody else. Alan16 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  In self-defense, I made that comment because I saw that Jafeluv had missed the trick, and I thought it would be good to give him a chance to catch it before opposes started showing up -- I know how twitchy people get over CSD issues. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Apologies for the comment - I didn't get what you were trying to say, but I do now. I think, though, that the question is misleading - it makes a thing about the specific tag, and I am confident that were the scenario to be realised Jafeluv would do the necessary research. Alan16 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  Also, you didn't actually write the question so the name could have just been drawn at random because the pianist in question isn't particularly well known. Alan16 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't drawn at random. I really _was_ in the same music theory class as Navah, though I didn't know her -- I was friendlier with the concert band crowd. :-) The question wasn't a trick -- it was a two parter. A, would he recognize that G1 was incorrect (I had declined a similar G1 tag earlier the evening I first used that question): he correctly identified that A7 was the tag to use, since there was enough context to figure out whom I was talking about. B, would he use that information to find that Navah wasn't just good, she was internationally-known, before speedying. On that, he slipped up, imho. Given this Gnews search, it's clear that there should be an article on her, though obviously not the one proposed in the question. :-) My minimal response here would be to decline the speedy, if not actually expand the article (in which case I'd probably drop the link for the Gnews search on the talk page).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  Here's the response from the first time I used the question, which I think hit all the right points: clicky--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  This is one of those cases where it's not indefensible to delete an article on a notable topic, given that none of the content Article 1.0 (the segment quoted in the question) would be appropriate in Article 2.0 (the ideal stub on the topic). So even as someone who gets twitchy over CSD, I don't see this as a slip-up on the candidates part.  Skomorokh  10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Has good motivations and good reasons for running. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Demonstrated expertise in CfD/RfD, and extensive participation in discussions shows Jafeluv knows what they's doing, and I trust him with the tools. Aditya (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Seen him around, seems capable. ceranthor 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support, on the condition that they begin archiving their talk page (waiting for question five). User has plenty of clue, and will make a fine administrator. –blurpeace ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, definitely. I've seen Jafeluv around Wikipedia, and he seems to have a good grasp on consensus in the areas that he's active in (RM, CfD), is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. Everything I'd like to see in an admin candidate. And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus (see here). It'd be nice if Jafeluv started archiving his talk page, but otherwise judging his editing, I think he'd be a great admin. JamieS93 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, everything I've seen has revealed a sensible and dedicated editor who knows what they're doing and interacts well with others. Jafeluv does good work in various backwaters of the project that could greatly benefit from another active admin, and as a result I support this request with enthusiasm. ~ mazca ^talk 17:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Seems trustworthy and I can't see any problems or why jafeluv should not be an admin. I agree with Mazca and Jamie. AtheWeatherman 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
8. I support as the nominator. (Jafeluv accepted after I went to bed). @harej 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Looks good--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Seems fine to me. LittleMountain5 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support No need for me to ask questions of this candidate since I can find ZERO autobot edits to his credit, which is a credit to him since it makes him look like he knows WP inside and out - which I have no doubt he does. ArcAngel (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, excellent user. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Spotcheck looks good. Ray^Talk 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support per Ironholds ;-) Seriously though, this is a great candidate and with my eye on speedy deletion questions, I have to say that I am truly impressed with the accuracy of their taggings and I like it that they have already been removing incorrect speedy tags from other articles. Will be a good addition to the "corps". Regards SoWhy 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per above. — Ktr101 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Support – I had a very nice and civil discussion with him on a page move where we completely disagreed. He is an excellent role model as to how to handle yourself as a Wikipedia editor, and is also a very good contributor in general. Excellent candidate. Alan16 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Yes yes yes yes yes. Jafeluv's edits are top-notch, and there is plenty of evidence for a lot of thought behind each one. Been waiting for this since seeing Jafeluv at RfD. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
19. No problem. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support A good breadth of contributions combined with a clear focus in what they would do with the tools. I also like the answers to the questions given so far. -- Atama頭 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak support Candidate's contributions look good. My last recent experience w/ them was very positive. I haven't (yet) looked through their CSD tagging or XfD participation. The answer to Q5 is not as good as I would have hoped. An RfA is a chance to present yourself to the community, explain your methods and motivations, and take feedback onboard. It is not the best time to accept immediate changes in how you do business simply because someone says that your current methods belie a lack of seriousness. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a guy offering an opinion about how you should immediately change your methods because they belie a lack of seriousness. :P Protonk (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    I will immediately stop accepting immediate changes in how I do business to demonstrate my seriousness. Do you think this demonstrates my seriousness? Oh, wait... Jafeluv (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

    It just leads us down the rabbit hole, doesn't it? :) Protonk (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

22. Good CSD work, and per SoWhy, it's great that you remove inappropriate CSD tags. The easiest way to spot a future good admin is someone who's already doing the work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Pile on support I've only seen good things from this editor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. —Matheuler 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - I like what I see. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Support; seems trustworthy. I'll revisit once my question is answered, but it is highly unlikely to influence my decision. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. I've run into Jafeluv a number of times on RM discussions. Always reasonable, always calm, always cordial, usually right. Should be a good addition. Station1 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I see no reason to not trust this user with the tools. Everything looks good. hmwitht 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Maintenance work.. My kinda editor. -- œ^™ 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I'm all for maintenance admins, we need more and it's surprising what you find out and about when merely adding categories and such like that could benefit from some G6 work to make the place more presentable. I'm impressed with Jafeluv's commitment to the project in that respect (doing that sort of thing a lot myself when doing the rounds for WP:ALBUM). Also has a good handle on other areas. However, my sticking point is the answer to question 4: I was, only the other day, considering creating an article with the text "horse leftovers pistol running euphemism" – those plans will now be scuppered if Jafeluv becomes an admin, but I suppose I will have to put my personal POV aside for the good of the project. – B.hotep •talk• 10:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Something of an unknown quantity, but I have encountered this editor on CSD patrol and been impressed at their willingness to engage patiently and non-condescendingly with inexperienced contributors. Slightly concerned at the (apparent) lack of high-end peer-reviewed work that often indicates a less than full understanding of difficult content policies, but this is mitigated by the clue and conscientiousness of the candidate. No reason to think that Jafeluv would be anything other than a fine asset as an administrator.  Skomorokh  10:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Clearly this user could use the tools to the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Francium12  13:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I haven't encountered this editor much, but I'm liking what I see here. Answers are clueful, communication on user talk pages is clueful and helpful. I don't have any worries about the mop in this case.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Looks good to me. Meets my criteria. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support (from Neutral) with one word of advice (which was why I waited until the questions were answered): try not to judge the content of an article when closing an AFD as an admin; closing admins are just supposed to determine whether a rough consensus for deletion has occurred given the circumstances. If you start judging the content, then you might as well !vote in the AFD. Good luck, MuZemike 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Support per demonstrating seriousness by demonstrating seriousness by demo.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - I was contemplating nominating the other day. He beat me to it!--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Oops... I meant to put this comment at TenPoundHammer's RfA... lol. Still support. Would still make good admin--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail}
41. Support Seen the editor around on RM and find that he/she seems well able to figure out which side of the stick has the fuse. Would obviously help keep that move backlog in check and the lack of a user page is an unexpected bonus! No worries here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
42. iMatthew ^talk at 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Support satisfied with the answer to my question.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
45. SupportI'll gladly support a RFA in which the admin won't break under the pressure of a conflict. Abce2|From the top now!Arggggg! 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. No worries here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. This candidate presents an intelligent point of view and defends it well when challenged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support handles questions OK, I could find no upload problems, or lack of experience in the use of non admin buttons. Though I still think a user page is very desirable, even if all it says is the users id. If Jafeluv becomes an admin then it should at least announce that fact. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Zaxem (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I can't see any problems. Good luck. Timmeh (review me) 11:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - No concerns raised here. Good luck! Airplaneman ^talk 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
56.  Works for me The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 02:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Support per SoWhy ϢereSpielChequers 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
58.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jafeluv. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Trustworthy user. Seen him around, and always had a positive impression. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Looks good. BejinhanTalk 12:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support: Constructive Edits (He does not spend all his time reverting or deleting edits and he takes the time to improve poor edits) And taking time to help and clearly communicate with editors is a big plus He is kind and considerate towards others, acts reasonable, doesn't cause drama, and has sufficient experience. A sensible and dedicated editor who interacts well with others. Good Luck and Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. No concerns here although the banter in the neutral section was amusing. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Good contributions. Theleftorium 19:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I know this editor's work from CfD and s/he will make a fine admin. As for the answer to question #4, there was nothing wrong IMO. The example offered was a clear case of A7 ("I wish I had gotten to know her better but It's too late because she's married with four kids..."). Admins cannot be expected to rewrite all the crap they'll find on Wikipedia. If one wishes to replace this with a stub, fine. Most admins won't, nor should we expect them to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Don't know much about the user but seems alright. Wizardman 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Support Has clue and seems trustworthy. hmwitht 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    Seems you voted twice. GlassCobra 05:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

66. Support Looks fine. GlassCobra 05:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support would be a good addition, IMO. Kanonkas :  Talk  16:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Better-than-even chance of net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Good user - no issues. — Salmonilla (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
71. AGF--Caspian blue 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Support like nom say. — JoJo • Talk • 16:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
73. Support unequivocally. I hadn't realized that Jafeluv was in the middle of an RfA! Anyway, I completely agree with harej's assessment. In my dealings with him he's always been levelheaded and very even tempered, which is precicely what I think we all expect from an admin. Good luck, Jafe!
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Pile-on, can't find any issues.--Res2216firestar 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Doesnt seem to be any serious issues here, By all means my support is here Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Support No reasons why not.--David | ^Talk 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support, appears to be a good candidate, no indication they will abuse or misuse the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Support, seems perfectly fine to me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
80. I would have done this earlier but I was lazy, plus I have a lot of my plate right now in meat space. Still, better late than never. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - meets some of my standards, but not others. I'd like to know more about the candidate before supporting. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

   (Note: Comments have been moved to the talk page.) Thanks for participating, Bearian. If there's something specific you'd like to know about me to help you decide, feel free to ask a question in the appropriate section, or on my talk page if you prefer. Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Unfortunate Oppose for now. Communication is vital. Lack of archiving makes it almost impossible to know the types of interactions. Yes, I could follow thousands of diff's, but that just shows the difficulties. Most work looks good, but I'd like to know simple things like interaction styles, the types of "disagreements", the good, the bad and the ugly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   If you're talking about his talk page, he already added archives. Dekimasuよ! 16:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

NeutralJafeluv's answer to Q4 had a noted lack of "Google to see if they're notable" before deleting, but did correctly state that G1 wasn't valid. I'll have to watch answers for a while before deciding which way to move. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you perhaps work for Google? Why I ask is, Jafeluv said "do a search", which amounts to the same thing does it not. Alan16 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you work for google, where's MAH emailz?! :) Protonk (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In Soviet Wikipedia, Google works for YOU! MuZemike 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Point taken, but note that he wound up with "this is clearly unnecessary." (And no, I don't work for Google, but not through lack of dropping resumes with them a couple of years back....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Switching to support as per obvious cluefulness. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral – waiting on answers to the other questions before making my decision as I really haven't seen this user much before. Also 7-10 are IMO more important questions. MuZemike 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Jafeluv all that well so I'm not sure why I'm pointing all this out. Oh well... Questions 7 - 10... Q7 is pointless in my opinion - there are probably very few AFDs which are easier to decide. Q8 is asked out of curiosity so isn't really all that important. Q9 is no different from Q3 apart from the wording. Q10 is in fact the only of those questions which is moderately interesting... Alan16 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What Alan means to say is that he really appreciates your interest in the RfA process and your thorough investigation of candidates including a careful review of their answers and opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, as we used to say on the Key West, "thanks for the forceful backup". :P Protonk (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that Q8 is rather pointless (I was a tad lazy to say 7, 9-10). Q7 is pointless right now because S Marshall has not placed any AFD situations yet. MuZemike 03:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, Marshall, don't hide the links by piping them. MuZemike 03:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Same as MuZemike. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing to support when I get the time.Abce2|From the top!Arg! 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What?! I mean seriously, what?! Alan16 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit hassling the neutrals, please. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll stop making comments when they stop saying pointless things. Alan16 (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'they'. It's all us. And there is no end to the cycle unless you bring it to an end. Please. For the sake of the candidate, just let stuff fly. Protonk (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that letting stuff fly is exactly what's going on, just remember to duck now and again. Apropos of nothing: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they do, Child of Midnight. I'm not saying pointless things, just waiting for the canidate to answer before I decide. Also, I'm not blind. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad vote BejinhanTalk 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Jafeluv has chosen not to answer my Qs (as his his right), and thus I am unable to evaluate his clue level as thoroughly as I'd like. I see no major issues in his record so I have nothing to oppose over. Thus, I land in neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.