Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mjroots

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

Mjroots

Final (98/5/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mjroots (talk · contribs) – I am happy to present Mjroots as a candidate for adminship. I first came into contact with Mjroots in June when I granted him the Autoreviewer user right. While reviewing his contributions then, I was extremely impressed with his content contributions. When I saw that he was listed as one of the editors to consider for adminship on the RfA talk page, I decided to review his contributions. What I found was adminship material. Mjroots can be credited for over 100 did you knows, two good articles, and a handful of in the news items. He has created nearly 370 articles in total (listed here), and he is an active contributor to several Wikiprojects, most notably Wikiproject Mills. Over 50 percent of his 40,000 edits are to the namespace, and it is obvious that this is his forté.

Mjroots has not been silent in the projectspace, however. He has made 100 contributions to AIV and would be useful helping there as an administrator. Another important area of Mjroots projectspace contributions come from his work in policy discussion and noticeboards. He has put in time at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, and at the Village Pump Proposals page. So although Mjroots is primarily a content contributor, he is also valuable in the projectspace. The other thing I noticed when reviewing his talk page is his professional demeanor and overall kind and patient manner he uses to conduct business. I now submit him for inspection from the community. Thank you.Malinaccier (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 19 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 start slowly, probably mostly dealing with vandals to start with, while I find my feet and learn how to use the mop. I may get more involved with DYK too. I've given others plenty of work in the past so I may put something back in while working towards the 200 DYK medal.

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

A: Thelnetham Windmill, the 300th new article I wrote, which I got to GA status. The various Lists of windmills per country and major sub-divisions thereof, and the 22 Lists of Empire ships, ensuring that every one of 1,300+ "Empire" ships has a mention of Wikipedia. Another article I'm quite pleased about is Alaska Coastal Airlines, which User:Blofeld of SPECTRE asked me to create. All I knew about them becore creating the article was that they had sold an aircraft to Reeve Aleutian Airways.

Outside of the English language Wikipedia I'm quite pleased with the 9 Lists of windmills in Germany on the German language Wikipedia which I originally created on en Wiki and had assistance in translating as I'm de-½ (understand a little bit as it's similar to Dutch) and my first article on the Dutch Wikipedia. I learnt quite a bit there - it's easier to translate from Dutch to English than it is to translate from English to Dutch.

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: In four years of editing one is bound to get into the odd conflict here and there. I remember wading into a dispute on the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 article after seeing a request for fresh eyes at WP:UKRAIL. The article was protected for a short period while the issues were thrashed out. The discussion is available on the talk page.

Another article which has been the subject of a couple of disputes is the Montefiore Windmill article. "What's controversial about a windmill?" you may ask. Well, it's all there on the talk page for your perusal.

The way I dealt with these was by discussing the issue at hand, not who the opposing view was held by. I see no reason to change that in the future.

Additional optional questions from Tznkai

4. A hypothetical: A post on ANI catches your attention. An IP editor (IP 555.555.555.1) claims that he is part of Sarah Palin's family, and that redlinked user:neutral editor is a democratic staffer vandalizing the article. A check of the history shows these two were edit warring over whether or not to include the line "Sarah Palin quit from the position of governor, giving her a world wide reputation as a quitter"(several cites to blogs and op eds) in the lede of the article. 555.555.555.1 has been reverting with the edit summary "rv:trolling vandal libeler" and user:neutral editor has not used edit summaries at all. In addition, three other users have commented on the ANI thread like so:

• Alaskan's can't write, ignore him.--User:A
  • Block 555.555.555.1, WP:COI. --User:B
    • Block both of the fuckers. --User:C

No one else has responded to the thread in 48 hours. What do you do?

A: AGF that the IP is who they claim to be, I'd remind the IP of WP:COI and inform them of the OTRS system for contacting Wikipedia. I'd also remind the IP to use appropriate edit summaries such as "rmv info that fails WP:BLP due to no WP:RS" instead of "rv:trolling vandal libeler". With regard to the edit warring I'd issue a warning to both parties, or a block if it was warranted. I'd remind "neutral editor" of WP:BLP and inform them that blogs fail WP:RS. I'd warn them not to reinsert the text without such a WP:RS. I'd also warn "neutral editor" to use appropriate edit summaries at all times. I'd also warn "User:C" to be civil with their comments - there is no need to use such language and typing "Block both of them" is shorter anyway.

Additional optional questions from Kww

5. When creating an article like the Dutch version of Union Mill, Cranbrook, which is very close to being a sentence by sentence translation of Union Mill, Cranbrook, what needs to be done to provide sufficient attribution to the creators of the original article in the English Wikipedia? Would the answer be different if you had created it on August 28th?

A: The Dutch article was not translated directly from the English article. I did not create the English article but I did largely rewrite it into its current form. It may look much the same because the same sources have been used, but there are quite a few omissions from the Dutch language article which appear in the English article (although the open times section was removed by a Dutch editor as being against their article policy). I created the Dutch language article in my nl sandbox before releasing it into mainspace. For articles that are directly translated there is the {{Translated page}} template, an equivalent of which would presumably exist on other language wikipedias - I realise that none of the German language lists I created have such a template either. I'll ask one of the editors who assisted with translation about that. Re Aug 28th, the answer would still be the same because as I stated, I wrote the Dutch article from new. The photo used is the same because IMHO it is the best available on Commons.

Re the German language lists, I've been in contact with my collaborator there and he has imported the article history from en Wikipedia where necessary, which is apparently how they do it over there. See this discussion in English for details.

I should also say that the articles I've been writing on Dutch windmills are not direct translations of the Dutch article. These have been written using the Molendatabase and De Hollandsche Molen websites, (and the Friese Molens book in the case of Friesland windmills).

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

6. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?

A: I'd explain to the user why the article was deleted and inform them that the next step is WP:DRV. If there was a possibility that the article could be rewritten inline with core policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V then I would offer to userfy the article so that the editor could work on improving it to a standard acceptable to Wikipedia.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

7. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?

A: I'd remind the IP to use appropriate edit summaries. On the face of it, the action taken was correct (removing unsourced, and possibly negative, info from a BLP) but they need to tell the rest of us what was done and why they did it. I would also watchlist the article so that I could keep an eye on it in case an edit war was developing.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

8. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?

A: I'd delete the article a second time. I'd issue the creator a uw-spam and remind them of the WP:NPA policy.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

9. You're patrolling new pages (again) and you notice that someone created a new article about a current minor celebrity (again). The article is clearly not a stub: it's is long, detailed, wikified to a reasonable extent, properly formatted. There is no sign that it is a copyvio. The article also asserts that the person is notable. The article is distinctly unflattering, but still descriptive, so it does not qualify as an attack page. The article is completely new, not a recreation of anything that was previously deleted, or a fork of an existing article. You conclude that none of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion apply. (a) Under what conditions, if any, would you speedy delete the article? (b) Another admin speedy deletes the article. What do you do?

A: I'm assuming that the article has been tagged for CSD here. If I found that the article didn't meet any of the criteria for CSD I'd decline the CSD and give reasons in the edit summary. If another admin deleted the article and I thought they were wrong I'd discuss the matter with them via their talk page, setting out the reasons I thought that the deletion was incorrect and pointing the admin so sources that verified the notability of the article. I may request that they restore the article and then put it to AfD for the community to decide.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

10. When an administrator closes an AfD they have voted in, what additional criteria apply to the closure to ensure that the Conflict of Interests policy is not violated?

A: Not sure I can answer this one. My opinion is that if I, as an admin, had voted in an AfD then I would not close the AfD. There are plenty of other Admins about. I can't see a situation arising where every Admin had voted in the same AfD debate so there should be someone available to close the debate.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

11(a). If you could change one policy on Wikipedia, what would it be?

A: I think the one policy that creates a lot of friction is the Image Use Policy, particularly the allowing of "fair use" images. I can see both sides of the arguement here. There is a lot of friction created when fair use images are nominated for deletion, on the other hand, Wikipedia would probably be poorer if a policy of "No non-free images at all" was followed, as it is on the German language Wikipedia.

Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif

11(b). Will you enforce this policy anyway?

A: Yes, all images should comply with WP:IUP. Fair use images must have valid fair use rationales but as long as policy allows their use then I will support their use.

Additional optional question from User:Black Kite

11(c).In respect to question 11(a), how would you change WP:NFCC, given the Foundation's commitment to free content?

A I wouldn't. The question asked was "If you could change one policy on Wikipedia, what would it be?" It doesn't necessarily mean that the policy would be one which there was a realistic chance of changing. As I said, I can see both sides of the argument in relation to fair use images. Other language Wikipedias, such as the German language wikipedia do not allow their use. That is probably best left as a matter between the Foundation and the German language Wikipedia rather than being a concern of the English language wikipedia. Their policy does leave everyone clear as to the use of images in articles though. As stated above, images shold comply with the image use policy. For non-free images, a separate rationale is required for each article if the image is used in more than one article.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

12. What do you view as the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future and why? What, if anything, can be done to address this issue?

A:I think generally that Wikipedia is big enough to survive now. It's the fourth biggest website globally. One threat is not keeping up the ratio of admins to editors. For every 10,000 editors, there will be a certain amount of work created for admins, whether through deliberate vandalism, honest mistakes which require Admin intervention to correct, or content disputes etc. As Wikipedia is a 24/7/365 operation, it is important that admins are proportionately spread across the time zones too. The way to combat this threat is to recruit new admins via either personal recommendation or a recruitment campaign. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

13. Which CSD criteria would you delete the following page under?

Your momma is fat and ugly.

(a) Assuming the article title was "Your momma"

(b) Assuming the article was "Jane Smith"

(c) Assuming it wasn't an article at all, but located at User:Newuser/Test

A: (a) G10, (b) G10, (c) G10. An attack page is an attack page is an attack page, per the duck test.

13a. What actions would you direct towards the user who created the page assuming creating this page was their first & only edit so far? If it would vary based on the page name, please specify. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A Assuming it was a first edit, a uw-create2 would suffice, with a welcome message and suggestion that the editor reads the linked pages.

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

14. There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the practice of putting speedy deletion tags on newly created articles that are just minutes old. How long do you think that users on new page patrol ought to wait before putting an A7 tag on a (technically eligible) newly created article?

A There should be no restriction on the placing of a speedy tag. The placement will be reviewed by an admin before any action it taken. If the placement is correct the article goes. It the placement is incorrect, the speedy is declined and no real harm has been done. A declined speedy is still open to PROD or AfD, although I think a couple of days should elapse before these are placed to allow creators time to correct any concerns raised with newly created articles.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. Regards, Javért ^☆ 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Seen him around. Sure. ceranthor 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Works for me. Cheers, I'^mperator 22:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Happy to see a content editor step up to plate! Best of luck. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - I've come across Mjroots contributions many times and I've had no problems with Mjroots where we've crossed paths. Shinerunner (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. An excellent long-term content contributor (100+ DYKs!) with exactly the right temperament for an administrator. I trust that he will approach the admin areas he is unfamiliar with carefully and judiciously. For instance, he has never before commented at an RfA, which is rather refreshing. But make no mistake, Mjroots is no stranger to the WP namespace, and a defining characteristic of his comments is a desire to resolve conflicts rather than escalate them. decltype (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per Decltype's well-written support. I agree. JamieS93 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support per Decltype. Excellent content contributor. MacMed^talk_stalk 00:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Intelligent, clueful, cool-headed, impressive content contributions. No reason to oppose. Should make a superb admin. -- œ^™ 01:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Support BrianY (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Support per Decltype. Razorflame 04:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - per decltype. I see no problems here. Good luck! Airplaneman ^talk 04:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Given the amount of contributions this candidate has, I feel confident he is well-versed in policy and won't harm the project. ArcAngel (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks like a good candidate, can't see anything that make me think you will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - usefully engaged with DYK, but does need to read up on the deletion policies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - Seen him around, and I've noticed that he is always willing to discuss patiently to resolve a problem. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
17. Yep, no reason to oppose. Pmlineditor^Talk 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Wide range of experience. The answers to the questions above show a good mix of AGF and a conciliatory mindset with carefully thought through responses, while edits on various areas of Wikipedia show comprehensive knowledge of policies and procedures. In short, I feel this user would do the right things with the admin tools. Davidelit (Talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Good luck. --A3RO (mailbox) 11:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
20. Support, excellent looking user. No reason to suggest he'll be anything but a benefit to the project if given the tools. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
21. Need more sysops. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Civil and useful editor who has been very active for a couple of years. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
23. Support My only issue is for him to know that admins should never use their admin tools when involved, not just him particularly. However, I don't see that becoming an issue, because he'll err on the safe side himself. hmwith☮ 13:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Excellent contributions, fine answers to most questions.--SPhilbrickT 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
25. Support I usually don't like to support "per X" but this is a prime example where "per decltype" simply sums up what I would have said :-) Regards SoWhy 14:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
26. Go for it I says. @harej 15:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
27. Strong support. Wizardman 15:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Plenty of solid and varied contributions; good answers to questions (trick questions being "not quite cricket" in my book, and hence disregarded). Esowteric+Talk 15:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per nom. Excellent content contributions, and 100 DYKs are very impressive. Theleftorium 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. No reason why not. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Very good editor. --JayHenry (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. A good, solid editor. I have no problems with the bit being twiddled in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Good user. See no trust issues. America69 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
34. Character, experience, here for the right reasons.  Skomorokh  19:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
35. + Keegan (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Although I don't like it when policies are the only method someone uses for defending the wiki (as policies can be changed), I can tell your intentions are good. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Per Irbisgreif. Outstanding contributions, fine demeanor, and a willingness to endure "tricky" RfA questions. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
38. Support I haven't run into you here, but you look alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. The candidate is a solid content builder and seems to work well with others. Majoreditor (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Excellent content contributions. --candle•wicke 02:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I really like his work on ship articles, and find his windmills interesting. An area he's almost single-handedly vastly improved over time. Impressive too that he's worked on Dutch and German Wikipedias. I trust him with the power. Manxruler (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Great contributor, reasonable answers to the questions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
43.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Mjroots. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
44. Support - a really valuable contributor to the project and one who engages positively with other editors. I see no problem with him being given the tools to clean up! Kbthompson (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - looks good to me. No reason to believe that he will misuse the tools.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, also per decltype, though Irbisgreif raises some valid points. I've seen Mjroots around, worked with them a little bit, and found them to be very pleasurable and cordial. A lot of content edits, as evidenced by the DYKs, that's good news. I have faith that Mjroots will be a careful and cautious. Their knowledge of Dutch is a bonus--one can never have too many Dutchies and Dutch sympathizers in the higher echelons. Succes ermee, Mjroots!Drmies (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

    Heel bedankt, Drmies! Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

47. Strong support - Solid contributor. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Satisfactory answers to the questions, trust the nominator. GlassCobra 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
49. Support, trusted, active, and experienced user. Nothing to suggest misuse of tools is likely from this editor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
50. Support My !vote is based primary on the user's response to my hypothetical question. For my complete views on it, see WT:RFA A good answer. Please avoid using alphabet soup when addressing these sorts of problems, if they are ever really presented to you, it really helps to spell things out. Mjroots was clearly aware of the major concerns, and dealt with them well.--Tznkai (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support -- Niteshift (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. Solid contributor whom I've seen around a lot. Appears trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
53. support for all the normal good reasons, and because they bothered to answer a fucking ridiculous quantity of questions from one editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Solid candidate in terms of contributions, in addition he seem to to have the trust of the community. Likeminas (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
55. Support On reflection, my concerns are really trivial. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Nice, solid user Triplestop x3 01:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
57. Strong support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Very good candidate. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Diligent and civil. Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
60. Support --Chris 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Why not? ƒ(Δ)² 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. Trustworthy and competent candidate. AGK 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - Good, no-nonsense answers to questions, and no reasons to oppose. -- Atama頭 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
64. Support My interactions with Mjroots, while not extensive, have been positive. My impression is of a user who has the nous to reach compromises and discusses issues cogently. Also a good article writer who I'm sure will show diligence in use of the tools. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
65. Support I don't find the NFCC bit disconcerting. Editors aren't required to hold some set of opinions about free content in order to edit here. Admins are expected to understand the NFCC and help folks get along with it (where helping requires the bit) but they don't have to agree with it. the basics of our policy: no bylines, free release and preference for free content aren't endangered by that. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
66. Support This editor has many interest overlaps with mine so I've seen them around a lot. Many good contributions, has provided useful support to me as a novice editor and seems to have a rounded and positive approach. Would happily see as admin. danno 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Looks good. Good luck. Timmeh (review me) 23:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
68. Support per nom. --John (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
69. Support - No reason for objection. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
70. Support per consensus, and congrats. Easy call. Jusdafax 09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
71. Support good steady editor with the skills to expand into admin tasks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Good answers to questions. Lots of experience.  Francium12  16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Good user and after rereading the answers they seem fine. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Clearly a hard worker, chasing windmills is a good sign...Modernist (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
75. Me too support ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Ning-ning (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
77. Support A lot of experience. Pikiwyn ^talk 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong support - - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, excellent record of creating interesting articles (over 100 DYKs), good Userboxen, and Barnstars. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Looks good, me too! Ray^Talk 16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Good contributor, quite knowledgeable in policy matters, and has a suitable personality. Pcap ping 16:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
81. Support, a tireless contributor and where knowledge of policy may be incomplete, it can equally be gained. No qualms about him having the tools. Rodhullandemu 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
82. Support a solid editor. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
83. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
84. Support: Absolutely exceptional candidate.. South Bay (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Ready for the mop, high quality editor! Royalbroil 04:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
86. Support - worked with this user in various areas, without any problems. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
87. Support: see above Ret.Prof (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Good content contributor, great to see a candidate with a decent number of edits unlike your usual "been here six months have a meagre 2,000 edits gimme those tools now" kinda person. Seems to be a bit of a perfectionist to me, which is a good thing as he is always striving for perfection and to improve things. Himalayan 11:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. Good content contributor and experienced editor. - Darwinek (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. Per all reasons above. Even a quick look at his contribs and talk page (which I didn't do, I had a very long studious look) prove he is qualified. Good balance of contribs. Will make a responsible, knowledgable, maybe even a model admin. Unless, however, he goes berserk for some reason and makes random deletions and blocks, but that is extrememly unlikely to happen, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
91. Support. (Made comments back when I was still neutral.) --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Per nom, Contributions to content such as DYK is good, and will be a great admin helping out at AIV. Answers to questions seem sound. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
93. Support To comment on different area, I was impressed by Mjroots' collegial and professional participation in administrative process towards creating what became separate wikiproject wp:MILLS. Mjroots showed polite restraint when it appeared there was possibly not enough support at the new Wikiprojects proposal page. Much later, he was patient and helpful in consideration of whether it could be a Task Force of wt:HSITES. Mjroots is a consensus-builder in support processes, in addition to making impressive direct contributions in mainspace. doncram (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
94. Support. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
95. Support Fine combination of mainspace contributions and good temperament. Abecedare (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
96. Support no reason not to. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
97. Support: very sane responses and an excellent history of commitment to the project. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
98. Support.Nothing else to say other than per above really! AtheWeatherman 18:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose per my comments in the neutral section. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem with Q10 is, though I can see how 8 might bother you. I was under the impression admins shouldn't close afds they participated in. Link to relevant page?--Patton123 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just the thing, they shouldn't. And they should know that no admin should, and that if they see someone else doing so, that there's a problem that they need to report. He's likely to pass, and I don't feel too bad about this, so I'm staying on oppose with the hopes that they'll read policy more cautiously. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Irbisgreif, you are correct in that I did not "research the correct answers". I did not, the answers that I gave were candid answers to the questions posed. As it turns out, my gut instinct was correct. An admin does not use the tools to gain an advantage over someone who does not have access to them, they are there to be used for the good of Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And you know what, I'm glad for that. I think you'll make an okay admin, and will probably pass. I'm sorry for the number of questions (I should have kept it to two or three), and I'm sorry that my gut feelings just don't go with support. If you'll look below, I think you'll see that my biggest worry is about getting misled and confused by "wikilawyers". I think that it's important for an admin to be able to smell a rat when it comes to reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose given the answer to Q11(a), and the non-answer to 11(c) yet. Answer to 11c is a non-answer. Shame, because without pre-judging the issue, the last thing the project needs is an admin with a laissez-faire attitude to non-free media. Candiate should not go anywhere near IfD or related issues. Given that, I support on other details. (Edit: retaining oppose per this, which misses the point. This is going to pass though, so good luck. Black Kite 17:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks, Black Kite. As I stated on your talk page, I'm not going to steam in anywhere when I start my adminship. I'll start slowly and work up - a bit like learning how Wikipedia works generally. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I am particularly unhappy with the answer to question 13. "Your momma" and "Jane Smith" could potentially be legitimate articles that have been vandalized. (Actually "Your momma" is a redirect to "Mother insult" and "Jane Smith" is a disambiguation page.) The first step should be to review the article's history and see if a legitimate article was previously present. I also disagree with Mjroots' characterization of the statement as "an attack page". I suppose that this description could (tenuously) be applied to the article entitled "Jane Smith". However I don't regard the phrase as "an attack" on the article named "Your momma", nor on the userspace test page. The user in question may be a genuine editor who is beginning to edit. Mjroots' CSD tag does not assume good faith. Indeed speedy deletion of the user's test page may irritate the user and discourage an otherwise potentially valuable contributor. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose, I'm not generally impressed by the answer to Q14 - while you would be within your rights to A7 speedy delete these articles within seconds of creation as far as policy goes, doing so is extremely WP:BITEy and does a lot to turn interested new contributors off of the site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
4. Oppose - love the article contributions—especially to ships!—but the answer to q14 bothers me. Per Lankiveil. —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per answers to Q13, Q14, & others. A page isn't an attack unless there is a target. As such, "Jane Smith" could be considered an attack page, but the others definitely are not. The answers to several questions, and Q14 appear to lack insight in my opinion. Sure a newly created page that says "John Smith is an actor" fits the definition of A7, but deleting (or tagging it) it 1 minute after creation doesn't give the (likely brand new) user a chance to finish the article. Most articles, especially those made by new users, don't appear in a completed state instantly. A brand new user will often "test" the system by hitting save very early in the process. If someone then comes along and tags it for deletion before the new user even writes their second sentence, there is a substantial risk of that person saying "screw it" and leaving. This is true regardless of how "correct" the tagging was, and also regardless of how polite the "warning" is worded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

I have to say I'm neutral about this, but that I'm strongly leaning towards support. I just feel that the answers to questions 8 and 10 could have been better. For example, the user doesn't seem to have noticed the "trick" nature of 10. An admin shouldn't feel that they wouldn't close an AfD they participated in, they should know that no admin should close a discussion they were involved in. Still I think it's probably nit-picky of me, and I might switch to support in the future after thinking about it for a while. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask seven more trick questions -- I'm sure you can trip him up eventually. --JayHenry (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't feel comfortable with an admin who doesn't research a question thoroughly to make sure they are answering correctly? There are a lot of editors who are happy to quote policies that have no bearing on a conversation, with hopes of "wikilawyering" a decision in their favor. I feel that an admin needs to be able to see through such trickery. Irbisgreif (talk)

I've read other RfA questions with a statement along the lines of "don't quote the policy, tell me what you think". While not stated, I inferred the questioner wanted the question answered without research. Maybe my inference was wrong, but if Mjroots got the same inference, s/he may have felt the need to answer without looking up the policy. --SPhilbrickT 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that not all of the questions I asked were "trick" questions. Some are common ones here on RfA that give people a better feel for how an admin thinks. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral for now. I have been aware of Mjroots for some time, and I have had a high opinion of the quality of content creation work, amiability in working with others, and conscientious hard work. In sampling some of the user's AfD participation, I see a lot of helpful input to discussions, but I also detect what may be an over-reliance on notability "criteria" that are in draft form or are that have been crafted by particular wikiprojects, but not widely aired. I think it likely that I will switch to "support", but I want to do read more AfDs first (and I can't finish that task right now). --Orlady (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally I'm an inclusionist. That is to say the generally the info should probably be included somewhere, but not necessarily in a stand-alone article. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability#Less-notable_accidents for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Changing to support. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 25 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.