Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman

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

Ron Ritzman

Final (141/21/4); Closed by Rlevse at 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) – User has been working extensively in the area of AFD, particularly non-admin closures and would appear to benefit the project from having a mop. Looking at his other contributions, he has a heavy focus on maintenance tasks and a history of contributions going all the way back to 2005, with high levels of activity since mid 2008. I think that he'd be a good housekeeper for Wikipedia and I hope that the community will agree. Triona (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Slightly belated co-nom: Ron has been closing AfDs before I started seriously editing - and I mean that literally. We have frequently collaborated in closing AfDs since before I became an admin, and I have always find his closes well thought out and correct, and his advice extremely helpful. He is careful with the limits of non-admins closing AfDs, yet not mechanical in applying them. The project would greatly benefit from granting the mop to our most prolific NACer and remove the annoying "(non-admin closure)" from his closes. It is long overdue. T. Canens (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, I plan to stay in areas where I have the most experience. I'll continue my work at AFD where I have been working the past few years. I also plan to participate more at DRV and start working at requests for undeletion. Eventually I would like to become more involved in areas where I have some previous experience such as new page patrol and CSD.

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

A: This is the question that I have dreaded answering because it's the reason I've declined a previous nomination and have been reluctant to accept this one. This is an encyclopedia and the main part of building it is writing and improving articles and the number of pages I have created in article space aside from redirects is zero. Most of my article space work has been reverting vandalism and some spell checking. As an administrator I will have a button that I can push to make somebody else's hard work go away. Of course I'm only suppose to use it when the community tells me to but there are those who believe that someone who has never wrote an article should not have that button. Therefore, I expect some opposes for that reason.

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: Since most of my article space contributions have been gnomish, I've never been involved in any major edit wars. However, what happened when I nominated Muir Skate Longboard Shop for deletion (AFD1, AFD2) did cause me some stress. I tend to lean slightly to the "inclusionist" side of the "inclusionist/deletionists" divide, therefore I don't nominate articles for deletion very often. When I do, nothing would make me happier then for someone to find some sources that I missed so I can withdraw my nomination. I did continue to look for sources for the article in question but what I found instead was a web forum where "keep" !votes were being canvassed. When I pointed this out in the AFD, I was raked over the coals. This was the only time I regretted signing up with my real name back in 2005. As for how I handled it, I think pretty well. Even with all that going on I realized that the editor who initiated the canvassing had a point in that there was a contradiction between WP:GNG and WP:CORP over whether or not some of the sources used to establish notability have to be non-local. That's one of the reasons I struck my nomination in the first AFD and recommended incubation. I was willing to give those who wanted to keep the article a shot at finding sources and clarifying our notability guidelines.

As for the future, I think it's important to keep a cool head when others are being uncivil and I will continue to do so. This is especially important for an administrator because he is bound to upset some people even when he's using his tools properly.

Optional question from Uncle G

4. RFAR regulars will know that my optional question is usually two to four current AFD discussions, asking the candidate how xe would act when coming upon them. I usually pick them to be non-trivial to answer, sometimes with unstated subtleties that I'm looking for, and to form a range of scenarios.

The problem here is that we're here in the first place because M. Ritzman has been nagged, incessantly, over past year or so, to become an administrator, based upon the number of non-administrator closures, and re-listings, that xe does at AFD. So it's quite hard to find an AFD discussion where we don't already know the answer to what my question would be. We know what M. Ritzman would do when encountering many discussions, because xe's already been there, encountered the discussion, and shown what xe would do, by having done it. I couldn't have picked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebasing, for example.

Therefore, and as promised upon User talk:Ron Ritzman before this nomination was accepted, I am hereby presenting the Advanced Certificate version of my usual question, especially for M. Ritzman. (There's a Bachelor's Degree version of this question, too.) You don't get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nephew and niece, M. Ritzman. That would be too easy for you. ☺

Assume that you had administrator tools, and that any relevant discussion period(s) had expired. What would you do upon encountering the following requests/discussions, as they stand now, and why?

• Q: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 7#Siblings (Transformers)
  • A: Looks like an easy delete close but I know that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of an editor using socks to !votestack XFDs. (sole delete !vote is in good faith) Relisting isn't done that often at RFD but in this case I think a relist is warranted.
• Q: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Vietnam War
  • A: AFAIK we have no guidelines covering book quality so I'm not sure how I would !vote in this one. At this point it has been suggested that the histories of the 2 books be merged into the one title "The Vietnam War" and there's another suggestion to add the dates to the various titles if they cover different periods of the war. Perhaps the best thing to do is to close this MFD as "no consensus" so those two options can be discussed on the talk page.
• Q: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 13#Template:Infobox French parliamentarian
  • A: In WP:TFD, nominations are normally closed as "delete" if the nominator is advocating deletion with a sound rationale. In this case I would close it delete and then take the extra step of replacing the infoboxes in the 10 article they are used on with the one recommended by the nom.
• Q: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Telfair Family
  • A:
• Q: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Regelbau
  • A:
• Q: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Spiny lobster culture in Vietnam
  • A:
• Q: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lord Rumney
  • A:
• Q: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BioAsia
  • A:
• Q: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Shore, Jacksonville, Florida
  • A: At the time you posted this question there were no !votes and pretending that 7 days had past this would be a relist. As for the article itself, it looks more like a travel brochure then a wikipedia article. (my first thought was "copyvio" but no dupe text turned up on google). However, this alone would not be a reason to delete. It seems that a neighborhood by this name does exist but I can't find any sources for any of the puffed up claims in the article so after the relist I would !vote for a selective "smerge" to Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida or "delete".
    • Addendum I know that this may be viewed as "cheating" but it was just pointed out in the AFD that the neighborhood was previously modestly mentioned in Neighborhoods of Jacksonville, Florida, was then "puffed up" by one editor and then split out into a standalone article by another. As well as converting the article to a redirect it might be best to also restore the original text in the "neighborhoods" article. It's unsourced (so I would not recommend this for a BLP) but it is the previous status quo. This demonstrates why it's important to at least look at the article in question and its history before closing delete (though I still might have missed the changed text in the "neighborhoods" article, it also demonstrates why I should have permalinked all the discussions in uncle G's questions). Another example why it's helpful to view an article and its history in an AFD is to avoid what happened a few years ago in this AFD where an article on a notable 70s era rock band was "hijacked" and turned into an article on a non-notable rapper.
• Q: Talk:Bing (search engine)#Move?
  • A: The first time I typed "bing" into the box on the left and clicked the "go" button, I expected to be taken to the article on the search engine but in this particular discussion I don't see a consensus to move Bing (search engine) to Bing at this time. However, I wouldn't close it because I have an opinion on the issue.
• Q: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Baseball Bugs/hidden (2nd nomination)
  • A: When it comes to the whole "myspacery" issue, we have been cutting some slack to established editors. The consensus in this MFD is "keep" and that's how I'd close it.
• Q: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13#August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba
  • A: In the AFD in question, opinions were split on whether or not the incident had "enduring notability". Sometimes only time will tell. IMHO the AFD should have been closed "no consensus". If the event turns out to be only a flash in the pan then the article can be renominated later. However, this question is about the DRV on the close. A common phrase heard at DRV is "DRV is not AFD round 2" (though that seems to be going out the window lately). However, the instructions also say Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly and in any close AFD such as this one, some who disagree with the outcome will make that claim and that's the case here. The consensus now, (and also at the time Uncle G posted this question) is that the delete close should be overturned. I would close it "overturn to no consensus"
    • Addendum. I might have just screwed up answering this question. First giving an opinion on the AFD technically makes me ineligible to close the DRV since I'm no longer neutral. However, that's how it should be closed but I would have no business closing it.

Additional optional question from Lambanog

5. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news

A: Unfortunately, I would have to close that DRV the same way X! did though it did bother me that nobody addressed your argument concerning Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases. If this happened to me I would be peeved too. However, with the exception of extremely close cases, admins have to go with the consensus of the community.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: First time I ran into this is was a year or so ago when I noticed an admin unilaterally issuing a "topic ban" to an editor from nominating articles for deletion. Even though it was probably warranted (I probably would have !voted "support" in a discussion on the issue) my first thought was "WTF". The role of an an administrator is to implement the consensus of the community and it's the community who decides who gets banned from what. At the minimum I would like to see some centralized discussion on the issue before someone is booted from an article, talk page, or process. As an admin I might suggest to someone that they go do something else for a while (but a non admin can do that too) but I wouldn't tell someone that they can't do "X" unless I was enforcing an arbcom decision or there was a clear consensus from his fellow editors that they shouldn't do "X". The admin bit is not a "bully bit".

Followup Q from Franamax: do you find a conundrum in the apparent fact that an admin can block an editor for doing something (which prevents them from editing anything at all) but on current notions may not instruct the editor to cease only the aspects of their behaviour which are disruptive (in which case they can keep on editing other areas)? Franamax (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A: You make an interesting point and I had to think about this one for a while. Ideally, admins should not just drop out of the sky and block someone because they are doing something they don't like unless it is something extremely serious and a block without warning is needed to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. Users are blocked for violating specific guidelines and policies already agreed to by the community like reverting more then 3 times in a 24 hour period. (or edit warring in general) If someone is being disruptive, vandalizing, etc. after multiple warnings then they should be blocked because that's what policy says. However, before telling someone they can't do something that would normally be permitted, I would like to see a discussion on the matter first.

Additional questions from Protector of Wiki

7. If you were a mod, how would you deal with this type of comment (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a mod? Would your opinion change if this comment were made by a "commoner"?

A: See below

8. If you were a mod, how would you deal with a and b (block, warn, stand by passively, etc.) from a "commoner"? Would your opinion change if this were made by a mod?

A: I would prefer not to comment directly on any real incident involving a current active editor in this discussion. However, as I said in my reply to Geo Swan, our policy on civility applies to all editors, admins or not. How I would respond (warn or block and for how long) is determined by the editor's past history. If someone, admin or not, who is usually civil has a one off blowup then they would most likely get a warning. For someone with a history of incivility, a block would be called for. However, I would take it into consideration if said editor is being baited for stalked.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan

9 While it has been my experience that the corps of administrators includes some wise, patient individuals, it also includes an unfortunate minority who seem to think being given the mop means they are no longer bound by our civility policies and conventions. Personally, I think it is even more important for administrators to always do their best to be civil, because we should be counting on them to set an example for less experienced contributors, and because when they are interacting with non-administrators it is not a fair fight if they get down in the gutter. If you are entrusted with administrator authority will you do your best to always be civil, and to call in another administrator, when you feel tempted to respond in kind to incivility? How would you react if you came across a fellow administrator who seemed to be lapsing from the level of civility, collegiality and AGF you think we should all observe?

A. Administrators are bound by the same rules of civility as everyone else and WP:AGF applies to everybody. However, I understand that anybody can blow their top, administrator or otherwise. My normal reaction to being upset by something happening on-wiki is to back away from my computer for a while and then deal with the issue when I have calmed down. However, I know that others have a hard time doing that. If I notice an administrator being "uncharacteristically" uncivil, I would ask them to tone it down and investigate what prompted him to pull a Jeckle/Hyde. If an administrator is showing a consistent pattern of incivility then it's time for a discussion about it with his fellow admins. He could also face a block just like any other editor. However, if I was the target of incivility then, admin or not, I wouldn't be the one doing the blocking.

10 This is (was?) a category administrators could list themselves in, if they were willing to be open to a review of their performance. Do you support this idea, and would you consider listing yourself there?

A. IMO one of the reasons that RFA is so tough is that, barring an admin going shat-bit crazy and requiring an emergency desysop, it all but takes an Auto de fé from Arbcom to de-mop someone. A better system is needed. However, some of the recall systems used in the past are too open to gaming. Therefore, I'll keep it simple. If enough good faith editors become convinced that the project no longer benefits from me having the mop, I'll resign.

11 Personally I think it is important to approach each question posed to me with an open mind as to whether I made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to openly acknowledge when I have made a mistake. I think it is important to be willing to try to fix my mistakes. I see these as corolaries of WP:AGF -- as efforts to prove we deserve WP:AGF. As above, although our corps of administrators includes some wise and patient individuals, it has been my experience that it also includes an unfortunate minority who follow the meme "never explain, never apologize", who are unwilling or unable to consider the possibility they made a mistake. If you were entrusted with administrator authority would you do your best to approach each question with an open mind? Would you do your best to own up to making mistakes, and be prepared to reverse yourself, and take other measures to clean up after your mistakes?

A. I've always done that and will continue to do that even if this RFA fails.

Additional optional question from UncleDouggie

12. I have found public evidence that three Wikipedia articles were seriously vandalized a few years ago by an IP user closely associated with you, very possibly from your own computer. It doesn't seem to be a shared IP as there is no other edit history. I will not publicly disclose the IP address since it seems that it could be used to identify you and I don't think there is anything to be gained from the resulting embarrassment. Even though the information is readily accessible, it's not easy to find and I stumbled across it by accident. I know that you aware of this incident due to a comment made a few minutes later from your account. I highly doubt that you personally performed this vandalism and I am relieved that it was not performed under your login. However, having a mop could make your account a more attractive target in the future. What assurances can you provide that this won't be a problem? If I knew that this was the only case, I may have not even raised the issue, but I can't be sure.

A. It couldn't have been from my own computer (only I use it) and I currently don't have a wired or wireless network but I do recall seeing the "you have new messages" orange bar once and a vandalism warning when logged out. Since I already have revealed this with a userbox, I don't mind saying that I live in the Atlanta area, use a major DSL provider there,(I have also logged in a few times when visiting my brother who uses a cable modem service and a few times from a public library before I knew better) and my ip address is assigned dynamically and occasionally changes. This is also not the first time this has happened. Back in 2005 when I first started editing I was using a dialup service and found I couldn't edit because my entire ISP was range blocked thanks to this user.

I also realize that admin accounts have been compromised in the past. I currently use a non guessable password and regularly scan my computer for viruses and spyware. As an admin I'll also login using the secure server

Follow-up: I found the cause. It was an unrelated user who went after you personally in a rather unusual way. There was an admin in the loop as well who claimed to have non-public information associating you with the IP, but I have since found public proof that this was incorrect. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Bongomatic

13. Could you please comment on DGG's grounds for opposition—whether you agree with any of the sentiment and whether you intend to change your future conduct (whether or not you become an administrator).

A. DGG is correct that many of my user_talk space edits are automated due to prior use of huggle and twinkle and I'm ashamed to say that I never took part at the help desk or the reference desk. However, in my defense I will say that in most cases where someone has come to me for help with something and it was something I felt I could help with, I was responsive. Also, on the subject of help, the part of Uncle G's RFA questions concerning WP:AFC made me realize that I completely missed a golden opportunity to help add content to the encyclopedia by evaluating content that others wish to add. If I had done that then perhaps there would have been a few less opposes for "lack of content creation". This is a situation I intend to rectify even if this RFA fails. (and yes it can still fail)

Editors who close AfD discussions as "delete" and then go on to delete articles are inundated with (often angry) queries, requests (demands) for undeletion, userfication, and help. Can you give an idea (a) how your work at AfD to date prepares you for this; and (b) how you would approach these requests? ^Bongo_matic 00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A I'm not completely unprepared for that. I have been doing non-admin closures for a few years and occasionally a nominator or other editor who wanted an article deleted would come to my talk page to protest, some more civil then others. Usually, I would tell them that they were the only editors arguing for deletion but if they still disagree that they could go to "deletion review". In some cases I would ask an administrator to review the close. There were others cases where I reverted the close on my own. When closing AFDs as "delete" I expect that to happen a lot more and some of the editors to be more angry. (I know this from watching the talk pages of other admins) It's hard not to be angry when an article you worked on or otherwise had an interest in is deleted. I'll handle it more or less the same way. If it's a "slam dunk delete" I'll inform them that I was carrying out the consensus of those who participated, suggest "deletion review" if they still disagree and offer to userfy/incubate the article if it would be appropriate to do so. For more ambiguous cases I would re-evaluate my close to see if there was something I missed as even a "pissed off" editor might have a point. I would also not be above asking a fellow admin for a second opinion.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 02:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 

  The fat lady is going to sing soon. Instead of spamming 160+ talk pages as is the usual custom when these are closed, I'll post here. I would like to thank everybody, support oppose or neutral, who participated here for doing so and for a civil and more or less drama free discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I've seen you around a lot and have been waiting for this RfA to happen. I'm glad you finally decided to run. —Soap— 01:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Sopapiglobo. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
3. edit conflicted Support as nominator. Triona (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
4. As co-nom. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
5. About time! Fences&Windows 01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
6. I'm very concerned about not having any content creation, but his experience in AFD counteracts that. To participate in AFD you need to know a shitload of different policies and guidelines, and I'm sure Ron knows it all being on AFD for years. He reminds me of John Vandenberg who mainly used to sort out the AFDs, and I nominated him for adminship for that special skill. Now he's a former arbitrator and a high-ranking member of the community. Secret ^account 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
7. In a past life I actually nominated Ritzman for adminship, but he declined. I, of course, have no problem supporting him now. He has thorough experience in Wikipedia's bureaucracy. harej 01:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Support I would really like to see some article work. Just a little. One article. Great work everywhere else, though.--E♴ (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
   • If M. Ritzman answers all of my question above, you'll gain some insight into his approach to content creation work. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Ok --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Strong support True story, I was just looking at a non-admin close by Ron and thought "it's a shame he's never going to put himself up for admin" and then jumped to my talk page to see who was at RfA. Let's face it, the guy is a janitor's janitor. He's great, makes good calls and generally is one of the best 2 or 3 people closing AfDs. I trust his judgment. That's enough. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I am grateful that this editor has decided to run. I have previously suggested (as have several other editors) that this editor apply for the mop. His long, consistent work at AfD is valuable and would be significantly more valuable with the tools. Good grasp of policy (including BLP policy) and consensus, and deals with the inevitable conflict that comes with closing thousands of AfDs with humility and humor. (Also: As per Hobit.) --j⚛e decker^talk 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Totally. I was closing AfDs a few minutes ago and saw that he had relisted all of those needing relisting already... and was dropping by to offer a nom... and I saw this... and I was even dreading him declining a nom from me. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. —fetch·comms 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
14. An experienced user who knows what he is doing. Not everyone focuses on building articles. Airplaneman ✈ 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
15. For a long time now he has demonstrated good judgment with his AfD closures—he knows policy and knows how to assess consensus, at least as well as most admins. He's one of those unusual admin candidates whose extensive experience at maintenance work more than makes up for the lack of article writing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
16. Support: <insert standard "I thought he was an admin" statement here> Will be a good admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
17. Support Ron is one of those editors who will greatly benefit from the tools because he is always asking for help with simple requests. I am so glad to see him running now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
18. Support – Definitely fit for the admin tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
19. Weak support The candidate is very light on content building; however, his superb work as an AfD specialist is a compelling reason for a vote in favor--Hokeman (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Support Everything I've seen him do at AfD pages, and it's a lot, is exemplary. I also appreciate the candor and self-honesty in response to Q2—in spite of the lack of content creation he shows a great deal of clue regarding AfDs. He can certainly be trusted with a few extra buttons. First Light (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
21. Support I think this is my first !vote here, be nice. Article building is hard, AfD closing can be harder, I think. Bigger digger (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
22. Support for the most famous non-admin closer at AfD. – B.hotep •talk• 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - no concerns from me, his work at AfD is invaluable :). Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
24. Support - should be "AC", not "NAC". tedder (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
25. Support User would definitely benefit from the mop. ForeverDusk (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
26. Support, I only !vote here when I am already familiar with the candidate. I find Ron Ritzman to be very clueful and careful in what he does and takes the responsibility of closing discussions seriously. I'm glad that he accepted the nomination and I have every confidence that he will use the tools appropriately. J04n(talk page) 07:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - trustworthy and reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
28. Support In the light of the candidate's experience and history, I can't imagine that giving them admin tools could be anything other than a positive move, both for them, and for the project.  Begoon&#149;talk 08:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
29. Support not everyone is a writer, but it takes all sorts to make an encyclopaedia and with his record the project would benefit from the additional functionality given Ron.--ClubOranje^T 09:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
30. Support - likely net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
31. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
32. This editor makes far too many non-admin closures. It is completely inappropriate for him/her to continue to do so. He/she must be made an admin to rectify the situation. Good luck. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
33. Support. I'd thought I might wait and check the answers to Uncle G's AfD questions, but I really don't need to - Ron has so much experience of AfD, and clearly knows so much more about it than I do, that even if I should disagree with any of his answers, it would be far more likely that I was wrong and not him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
34. Support.User has been around since Jan 2005 and has over 35000 edits and this is his/her first RFA.Great track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
35. Already acts like one. Usual concerns about content creation waived as Ron has shown thoughtful understanding of the related issues through participation at AfD and elsewhere. No doubt he will make a fine administrator; good luck Ron. Skomorokh 12:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
36. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
37. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
38. Support -- No concerns as well. --High Contrast (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
39. Support Clean block log, longterm clueful editor. I think your answer to q2 didn't do justice to the article improvement you've done by spell checking, but perhaps I place more value on such work than others :) ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
40. Support - I also thought he already owned a mop. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
41. Support. No red flags, overall record appears to be well within my acceptable parameters for an admin. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
42. Support - certainly a clueful contributor. His calmness and common sense when working in an area that can be contentious (namely AfD) certainly bodes well with regard to his wielding the mop. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
43. Strong support to counteract the torrent of opposes that state that he needs to, in essence, (and this is probably a poor analogy, but it's the best that I can come up with having just woken up) write Over 9000 essays before he can mop the puke off the floor. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
44. Non-admin support :) Not overly worried about the lack of content, as Q2 to me indicates he understands the gravity of the delete button. "They also serve..." as Mr Milton says... Arakunem^Talk 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
45. Strong support. I see lots of hard work without ever getting tired of the treadmill. I don't expect every admin to be an all-rounder with ten FAs, a hundred new articles, and a thousand edits to template talk; I just want to be reassured that the mop will be put to good use. bobrayner (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
46. Support. You've already proven that you know how to close AfDs, so why not be efficient about it? — Gavia immer (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Experince is whats necessary for support here. Though i still think some content creation would be beneficial as an editor. Still plus one all the way. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
49. Support No concerns from me. Not at all concerned about Q2, in fact, in some cases I find admins can be too focused on content creation, neglecting much-needed admin work.. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
50. Support Had this one pre-watchlisted. Good way to allow a good user work more efficiently. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
51. Support He already handles more AFDs than most admins. Ray^Talk 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
53. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Will do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
55. Support Seems appropriate to entrust this user. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
56. The right stuff. Overqualified if anything, should have been an admin months ago already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
57. Support. Another one for the Ritz man! -- œ^™ 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
58. Support - I often oppose editors asking for adminship who have little-to-no article edits (the article you've contributed most to, Shakira, seems to be solely vandalism reverts). But you have demonstrated so much competence in admin-related areas (especially AfD) that I'm forced to make an exception in your case. Regardless of your lack of content experience I think you'll be a great administrator. -- Atama頭 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
59. Support I keep seeing Ron around at AfD, and I can't recall a NAC which I'd disagree with! At the end of the day, the question is "Do I trust this user with the admin tools?" - for Ron, the answer is "Yes!" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
60. Support Small backlogs are good. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
61. Stephen 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
62. Support User would make a great admin. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
63. Support About time :) Jujutacular ^talk 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
64. Strong Confused (insert cliché "I thought he was already an administrator" here) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
65. Support Haven't had any dealings with this editor, but seems fine to me. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
66. Support I'm convinced it's possible to grasp the experience of the article creator even without creating articles yourself; this candidate is a case in point. His lucid, professional approach removes any concerns. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
67. I recall seeing your name around. I also recall having disagreements with you. Which you took with a placid demeanour and a generous understanding of opposing positions. I see nothing here to alarm me. → ROUX ₪ 08:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
68. Support - obviously experienced, obviously trustworthy. I can't use the cliché ("I thought he already was...") because I've encountered Ron Ritzman's NACs before, but this is one editor for whom that cliché applies with bells on. My only concern is... who'll do NACs now? TFOWR 08:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
69. Support enthusiastically. The main concerns people should have at RfA is does the candidate have the judgment and temperament to do the job, and has he/she earned the trust of the community. Experience is, by definition, learned via On the Job Training (OJT). However, in this case we already know how Ron will close deletion discussions; Correctly and rationally, since the only thing he couldn't do was to actually delete an article. The support of many respected others is also a sign. Unqualified support, and about time. — Becksguy (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
70. Support does excellent work in AfDs, even when i don't agree with outcome, he is even-handed and follows policy and common sense. Contentious AfD discussions should not be left hanging through day 8 and day 9, and I think Ron can help with that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
71. Support Bejinhan talks 14:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
72. Support long-standing, active, and dedicated user who is very obviously competent in the areas in which he chooses to work. Definitely good admin material. ~ mazca ^talk 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
73. --Tommy! 17:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
74. Long overdue. Obviously knows what he enjoys and would make a solid AfD admin. ceranthor 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
75. Every one needs a chance... Ron seems to be a solid candidate, with a solid head on his shoulder. Not as many "marks" on his record as others I have seen, So why not?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfnix (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 September 2010
76. Weak Support Despite his nearly non-existent article work, I think he deserves it, and there is no good reason not to give it to him. Nolelover 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
77. Support I've been a bit reticent to opine recently, as I like the opportunity to flip the bits, but in this case, I'd rather voice my support for Ron. I've seen him around enough to have originally thought he was an admin, and my impressions were always favorable. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
78. Support Although my exposure to him has been maximum at the AfD closing log pages, I believe that he qualifies as someone who will be extremely trustworthy, and will work towards the betterment of Wikipedia to a considerable extent. Best wishes Ron. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - While candidate does it have much article work which is desired, but it is not strictly necessary in my opinion. The user shows good understanding in closing AFD and understanding in policy which qualifies him for the mop. Derild4921☼ 20:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
80. Support Yet another excellent candidate being beaten about the head and neck over content creation crap again. He's experienced, well-meaning, very unlikely to break anything, and let's remember that adminship is no big deal. Trusilver 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
81. Support Content creation is very very important. I mean, we are an encyclopedia after all. However, the admin buttons don't require you to write an article. It helps very much if you know the relevant policy and have experience in this area, and I know that some people who don't write a lot of content don't have these characteristics. I believe however that this candidate does, so I have no reason not to support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
82. Support Very good work, even though it does not all fall under content. Buggie111 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
83. Support Great work, Ron. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
84. Support In much the same way that an editor at a paper-publisher may add little content, focus on culling out "unacceptable material," and yet still be considered a high-quality editor, I think there's nothing wrong with us having an admin who focuses more (or even exclusively) on the "back-end" of the encyclopedia than the front-end. In a certain sense, his lack of content creation work can be seen as a benefit, as it will allow him to participate in more administrative activities without worrying about the problem of being "involved." Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
85. Support He seems to be a solid editor who knows what he's doing. :) Clementina talk 00:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
86. Appears to be a good candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
87. Support Great candidate for the mop, especially with deletion debates. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
88. Support A good choice. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
89. Support IQinn (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
90. Support. I do not see a problem. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
91. Uber Support Basically already an admin, will obviously be able to handle the extra buttons. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
92. Support. Definitely seen Ron around deletion discussions, don't have any complaints, and we especially need admins who will be able to handle the often backlogged task of Closing XfDs. Valley2city^‽ 05:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
93. I just really can't follow the argument in oppose that seems to be, generally, "You can't be trusted to delete articles if you've never written one". In this particular case we have ample evidence that the candidate understands the deletion policy (from his NAC's at AFD). I also note that the majority of opposition are qualifying their opposes or otherwise saying that Ron would be fine with the tools but for the lack of content creaion. In general I agree with Mazca (talk · contribs) above. Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC) 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Ironically, I do understand the arguments put forth in the oppose section and like I said when answering Q2, I completely expected them. In theory, it's the "community" that decides what gets deleted, not admins. Admins just push the button. This is even true for "speedy deletions" which is why we are, may I use the word "anal", about making sure that the CSD tags placed on articles strictly follow the guidelines set forth at WP:CSD. However, in a close AFD that can go either way, an admin might be called upon to use his own judgment. Therefore I understand those who take the position that the editors entrusted to make that call should have some experience creating content before deciding if content should "go away". My answer to this is that I believe "deletion" is a "necessary evil" and should only be done when there is no possibility that the subject is appropriate for Wikipedia. I'll keep this in mind when I'm evaluating AFDs for closure that are "on the fence". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

94. Easy support. Fully qualified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
95. Support Heck, I thought he was an admin - very sound on AfD area, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
96. Support Obvious support per NAC mountain Jebus989^✰ 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
97. If we're electing a single admin of Wikipedia, maybe I'd agree that he would need to be a jack of all trades. Until then, I can rest knowing that we have more than one to cover for each other. Juliancolton (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    "Jack of all trades" implies that developing neutral+verifiable+NPOV content is a competence that's no more valuable than any other type of contribution. Given the torrent of great content that you've midwifed, I'm a bit surprised so see you place content so low. Is that really what you think or am I maybe reading too much into it? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    I've long been a proponent of ditching superfluous editing in favor of creating high-quality article content, but I recognize that admins need not worry about trudging around areas they're incompetent in to please everyone. Sysops are by definition system operators, not authors. I happen to enjoy (or did) working in both article creation and administrative areas of Wikipedia, but very few people can say the same. Juliancolton (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

98. Support - I hope that the 20 'optional' questions are exceptionally related to the candidate's lopsided pie chart, otherwise we have a perfect example here of why fewer and fewer editors are prepared to run for office. Whatever the candidate's reasons are for such narrow specialization, we need dedicated plodders like this. If he were to create an article, I'm sure it's quality would put a lot of us to shame.--Kudpung (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Support - although I have seen some AfD closes that I'm a little bit unsure about (too "safe" - seriously, you must ignore !votes that are not based in policy) I can't oppose on that one, and I would be hypocritical if I opposed on content creation since 90% of my creations are stubs, so .... I'm a bit less convinced now, but not enough to oppose at the moment Black Kite (t) (c) 10:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

99. Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Ron Ritzman. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
100. WP:100  YesNice work in AFD!! :)--intelati^(Call) 04:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
101. Support. Long overdue. Reyk _YO! 04:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
102. Support – The lack of content creation doesn't bother me. Many editors can create non-controversial content and yet be wholly unqualified for a mop. I see plenty of effective interaction between Ron and other editors geared towards improving the project. The most important criteria is trust, as stated at the top of this very page, and I cannot find a single instance that makes me question Ron on this point. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
103. Support As noted below. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
104. Support I wouldn't normally support someone with such a lack of article work, but I will make an exception here as I believe the candidate would be a net-positive as an admin. Aiken (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
105. Support It takes many different kinds of people to create and sustain a project as complex as this one. It's true that we primarily need content creators, but they are not the only type of contributors we need. Ron has found his niche, he does it well, and we need such people who are happy to volunteer to take care of the more mundane, administrative, maintenance functions. SnottyWong ^chatter 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
106. Support RFA really needs to get rid of the notion that editors MUST write a bunch of articles to be acceptable admins. There's a lot fewer missing articles we need than in the old days, so that's becoming an increasingly unreasonable rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
107. Support will make a competent admin. MtD (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
108. Support Why not? Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
109. Support Definitely.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
110. Support will be a good mod. Shiva (Visnu) 03:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
111. Support I trust Ron to make the right decisions and will make a fine admin. Calmer Waters 11:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
112. Support! ∙∙∙Pepper 12:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
113. Hopeful Support Hopeful in the sense that hopefully when you have the tools you will feel less need to relist discussions unnecessarily although I applaud you for relisting poor discussions of BLPs against the numbers when sourcing hasn't been forthcoming. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
114. Support - this editor has gained the community's trust. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
115. Support - I don't recall ever working with this editor before, probably because he buries himself in AFD and I rarely go there. However, I have no problems with the lack of mainspace work; you need to understand mainspace to admin but this editor seems to have a good handle on that. The idea that admins need to have a lot of substantive article work under their belts is not supported by any evidence. The candidate's participation and initiation of discussions of policy are insightful and I look forward to seeing first hand what he considers a delete, based on what I see here and have seen in the history, it will not be a problem. I am troubled more by the exceptionally high standards the opposers set for admins. Very little that admins do can not be easily undone and we need more maintenance workers. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
116. Support. I've wavered about this one, because I don't have much personal experience with the candidate, and I see many valid arguments from among both the supports and the opposes. What has tipped me into the support column is the way that Ron has conducted himself during the RfA so far, in a process where the "optional" questions seem to me to have gotten particularly, ahem, proctological. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
117. After reading the opposes, I have to support.  f o x  23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
118. Strong support per excellent AfD work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
119. Support. The opposition due to lack of content work is predicted, and those concerns have a great deal of merit. However, the candidate has in my experience always held content creators in high regard, and his demeanor is not in any way arrogant. His work in other fields more than make up for the deficiency he himself noted in Q2. The candidate has demonstrated good judgement, and I think the candidate and the project will benefit from granting him adminship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
120. Support, a good candidate. ---Taelus (Talk) 11:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
121. Support, very promising candidate. Awesome work at WP:AFD. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
122. Support I have seen you making lots of constructive edits to Wikipedia and think you will make an excellent administrator. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
123. Support User knows his stuff I have interacted with him at AFD and believe that they will not misuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
124. Support Communicates well, and appears to know more about XfD policy than most admins do. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
125. 'Support Jmlk17 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
126. Support Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
127. Weak support The concerns of those opposing over lack of content creation are valid but I don't really see a problem with letting you get more involved in closing AfDs. You already serve as a sort of "admin light" in your NAC closures at AfD and all of your recent ones show good judgment. ThemFromSpace 22:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
128. Support: A net positive, but an admin really should be an editor first. You spend 70 % of your time in AfD which is a not a good thing. Remember, the main goal at Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia. Having got that off my chest, I think you will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
129. Support changed to support on the basis of the response to Q13. I think Ron now understands the problem, and on the basis of very good sense in general, I assume he will gradually increase the extent of his responsiveness. My appreciation to Bongomatic for helping him elucidate it. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
130. Courcelles 01:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
131. Support because of decent rationales given in closings and overall continued good works supporting the project itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
132. Support despite the lack of content creation--which I find odd for someone who is so involved, so dedicated to service, and so knowledgeable. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I have seen Ritzman's contributions many a time when I was very active at AfD, and I think a mop will be a very useful tool for them--and that their having a mop will be a very useful tool for us. Uncle G's questions and the responses given clinched it for me. Good luck, Ritzman, and thank you for your contributions. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
133. Support -- wiooiw (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
134. Though Ron Ritzman lacks substantial content creation, I believe that he is well-versed with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as evinced by his responses to Uncle G's questions. He always gives good rationales for his non-admin closures, and I see no reason that this will not persist after he is granted the tools. The extra tools will allow him to close more AfDs which will lessen the load on other admins. His being granted the tools is a net positive. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
135. Support - Another good editor who isn't a "Content" person. We need more Admin's that can help, guide and manage all those content people. Mlpearc powwow 15:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
136. Support Having seem Ron's work at AFD closures I am confident in his administrator capabilities.--PinkBull 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
137. Support. Candidate has demonstrated an impressive amount of clue, before and during this RFA. — ξ^xplicit 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
138. Support - also surprised he wasn't already an admin. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
139. Support - He is doing a great job on AFD closures. I see no reason why he should be a admin. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
140. Support. Opposes on the basis of no content creation are misguided. Content creation is not necessary to establish a track record of making contributions and decisions that benefit the project. ^Bongo_matic 23:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
141. Support before I forget and the RFA closes. As I said before, different admin candidates (and different editors and admins) bring something unique to the table, and Ritzman is no exception. No more closing AFDs with "non-admin closure" for you. –MuZemike 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Q2. This vote cast, I applaud your candor, and I sincerely thank you for all your other contributions to the project. Townlake (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Although I've never seen a non-admin close I didn't agree with. I am reluctant to trust an editor with the mop whose never created or had to defend content in the encyclopedia.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

   I entirely endorse that principle but are you sure it applies to this editor? - Pointillist (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

   I looked through his contributions for a month and the lack of any added-value was quite depressing. It reminds me of the common criticism of professional politicians - that they never held down a real job. This candidate doesn't seem at all power-hungry but such lack of willingness to get involved should not be encouraged. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for that. What a shame! - Pointillist (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I've seen Ron around for quite a while, and never had a problem, but I've also had times that I haven't agreed with relisting discussions that should have been decided by an admin. In the best these are gnome tasks; at worst they're ideological edits that prolong debate. Given that, I'm amazed at the lack of actual opinion in the discussion on both sides. There's an arbitrary nature to the "no contribution" kind of comments... where we butcher RfA candidates for their lack of content contributions. I don't support that approach, but I find the analysis here particularly lacking. I'm not sure how to judge an editor that has no controversy, particularly when the professed area is deletion, and the user has overwhelming support prior to answering most of the initial questions. No problems with any of that. But I think it's worthwhile to look towards other criteria, and for the people that usually crow about content contributions to at least speak up here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   RFA is a vote; votes are allowed to be arbitrary. It is perfectly legitimate to vote with your gut instinct, either in support or opposition. Townlake (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   I stumbled on this insight to his relisting rationale. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose – I was planning on waiting for an answer to my question before voting but, upon reflecting on Shadowjams' comments, I've decided stating my current leaning would be okay. I have concerns that are the same as those articulated by Mike Cline. If the candidate was going to administer other areas I might not oppose but for AfDs I think content creation experience is important to have. AfD admins are more likely to make decisions involving experienced editors and decisions from an admin with a solid record of content creation experience to point to is in a better position to give adverse decisions that go down easier. Still I have a question outstanding so this vote is not yet final. Question answered, but not in a way that would make me revise my initial impression. The question has several aspects to it and the answer given is too perfunctory addressing as it does maybe 30% of the issues and does not answer either the technical or philosophical points addressed in a manner I would agree with. Candidate does not seem to know how to determine consensus. Lambanog (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose that will carry zero weight The bureaucrats have made it clear that they don't give a damn about content building from any candidate, nor editors that oppose for this reason, but I again agree with the few above that have expressed the same concerns that will be once again ignored. Vodello (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   When/where did bureaucrats make this clear? I was not aware of this.

   If you're concerned about the system in general, as opposed to this candidate, maybe some other place would better to raise these concerns, rather than complaining here (whilst insisting that your !vote carries no weight and will be ignored). bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Comment I said that I oppose this candidate for lack of content building. Just because bureaucrats do not recognize this opinion does not mean I should not oppose. My vote and the ones above will be ignored, but I will not automatically support a candidate that I think is not worthy just because top brass no longer think content building is worth anything. In this past month alone, candidates with numerous opposes for a total lack of content building were passed, with discussion on the talk page discounting the concerns as worthless. Prominent examples are Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70% support), Wifione (79%), and finally Bsadowski1 (72%), where beureaucrat User:WJBscribe made closing comments that made it clear that concerns regarding a lack of article writing carries no weight anymore. I know that we don't have enough admins on duty, but that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates for IMO unqualified candidates out of sheer desperation. I will not support any administrator candidate, regardless of popularity, if they don't create content on this encyclopedia. Vodello (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   Erm, Wifione was on the highest end of the discretionary range... I don't see how 79% support in an RfA should prevent someone from passing unless everybody and their mother in the oppose section cited reasons that he would be actively harmful as an administrator. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with Vodello's sentiment. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with Vodello, especially concerning GorillaWarfare. However, I have supported Ron for other, very different reasons which make n exception to my rule. Only two hours ago I came across an editor who became an admin in 2003, has made over a quarter of a million edits, and still does not know how to format and reference a new page s/he has created this morning.--Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose Johnny One Note. It may be a good note but it's still only one and an admin should have a wider range of experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC) ... < later> ... I'm going to trust that the candidate will mainly stick to his current role and admin status will materially assist him in hoeing this row. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Is doing great work at AfD already and clearly has tons of clue in that area, but candidates for admin powers need to show a reasonable minimum of content experience. This doesn't mean creating new articles btw, but it does mean demonstrating the ability to add or copy-edit content, use references properly and collaborate with other editors. Sorry - Pointillist (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
   • Do you mean like this, this, this, this, and this? Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
     • Those are tiny edits, except for the last one which seems to be adding a reference from an unreliable source that's now a dead link anyway. I'm not expecting candidates to have moved mountains—I just want to see some substantial edits, some real references and some collaborative discussions on article talk pages that result in article improvement. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
       • That's a very weak counterargument, and seems to be one based on the notion that the conclusion is by definition true, therefore evidence countering it is must be dismissed: a reliable source is not a "real reference", adding context to a blank article is a "tiny edit" and therefore does not qualify as "adding content". Melissa Hank doing an interview in TV Guide Canada is hardly an "unreliable source" for a statement about which actor plays which character in a TV show and where the inspiration for that character came from. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
         • With all due respect, Pointillist asked for "a reasonable minimum of content experience". If you'd demonstrated a level of content experience which satisfied Pointillist's expectations there then one would expect Pointillist to change his mind. If that hasn't happened, a good faith explanation is that Pointillist still isn't satisfied, which is his prerogative. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
           • No. Pointillist specified in as many words that that meant "demonstrating the ability to add or copy-edit content, use references properly and collaborate with other editors". Well there are diffs demonstrating that Ron Ritzman indeed has those abilities. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
             • That's a straw man argument. I don't believe that Pointillist was implying that Ron was physically incapable of carrying out the tasks at hand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
               • No. Yours, alas, is the straw man argument, re-framing this now to be about physical capabilities, when heretofore we have been talking about Ron Ritzman demonstrating things; which xe clearly has. The diffs are right there. And Melissa Hank doesn't become an unreliable source just so that we can discount diffs citing her that contradict a position in an RFA discussion. That's clearly backwards. Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
                 • *sigh*. First you parse "ability", then "some", and now "physically capable". If you have better things to do than play word games then you could try explaining why you feel that the candidate is qualified to make deletions (the only part of AfD closure requiring the mop). There is an irony in a candidate whose primary contributions are in AfD having very little evident experience with the actual deletion of articles from what I can see. Feel free to follow up at my own oppose comment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
                   • There's no "parsing" or "word games", except in your repeated re-framing. I'm going by what Pointillist wrote, no more and no less, and your silly "*sigh*" doesn't constitute a valid counterargument any more than trying to make Melissa Hank into an "unreliable source" does. Try framing an actual counterargument to the evidence presented instead of trying to make this about me and avoiding the point at hand. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
                     • This is exactly the sort of reference debate that admin candidates need to have been involved in. AFAICS Ed Quinn was the source and, because he has a vested interest in promoting his role, he's not reliable for Nathan Stark ⊆ Tony Stark. I've found a working link to the interview, archived it at WebCite and re-cast the sentence to make it clear that this is Ed Quinn's opinion (Quinn as reported by Hank is a reliable source for his opinion). Of course, I'm not suggesting that Ron is a bad person because he used a source more broadly than it deserved, it just wasn't an example that made me feel Ron has sufficient experience of content issues. - Pointillist (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC), updated 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
         • Well, I'll happily take a fresh look at Ron's contributions in the hope that I can find the reasonable minimum that would change my mind. But I wonder whether we are all using the same model here? My logic is like this: (1) The purpose of this project is to build encyclopaedic content. (2) Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it. (3) Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence. (4) Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence. Am I wrong about this? - Pointillist (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
           • I think that there's a reason you are opposing. But it isn't the reason that you are actually stating. Unlike Vodello and thumperward, I'm not putting words into your mouth or inventing your arguments for you. You really do need to state what you mean, because what you've stated so far is contradicted by diffs. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
             • Well, I'm not conscious of having an ulterior motive, but the mind works in mysterious ways and perhaps you've seen something oozing out of my pores that I need to know about. If so, please don't hesitate to call me on it—so long as you're reasonably civil you can be as direct as you like! I don't have anything personal against Ron, though: he seems an admirable person and I thought the off-wiki harassment he experienced during the first Muir Skate Longboard Shop AfD was disgraceful. Anyway, Ron didn't nominate himself, he seems to have been sorta-hustled into it despite his reservations. - Pointillist (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
     • Uncle G, Citing tiny edits as substantial content creation, then shoving words in Pointillist's mouth, then finally countering the valid argument that you were blatantly posting a straw man argument with the equivalent of, "Oh yeah, well, NO YOU!" does not help your case or your candidate. If those are the examples of substantial content building from the candidate, it should only lead more voters to oppose. Vodello (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
       • There's no shoving. Pointillist wrote the words quoted. You can see them right there in front of you. And they're only quoted because thumperward is trying to re-frame what Pointillist in fact wrote, with a clear explanation of what xe meant by it, into something different. This isn't "my candidate", by the way.

         In contrast, you are putting words into Pointillist's mouth, notice. Pointillist did not ask for "substantial" content building, even in the restatement above. Xe asked for "evidence of" and "demonstration of" the ability to do such things. Well, you have diffs providing such evidence. If Pointillist wants something else then xe should make a clear statement of what else is wanted, but what xe has specifically stated — twice now — that xe wants already exists and we have diffs for it. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   • The diffs provided by Uncle G do not at all demonstrate competence in content creation and copyediting. The first diff is the addition of an unreferenced, unwikified sentence — this does not show ability to copyedit. The second diff is pure addition of internal links. The third diff is a removal of one word. The fourth diff is fixing an internal link. No content creation is involved. The final diff is an addition of a reference — this does not demonstrate content creation. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Don't really expect you to f-up, especially if you stick with AfD, but your lack of content creation makes me oppose. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
8. I've no opinion about the candidate's other merits, of which I am sure there are many, but administrators should have substantial content writing experience.  Sandstein  22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Vodello. I really am not comfortable letting him delete articles when he does not have that much experience writing one firsthand.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Regrettable oppose. I really feel bad for writing this oppose. I really do. Ron seems like a wonderful person and judging by the support he's earned here, I hope that he'll go on to being a more than satisfactory administrator. But per Q2, I cannot support. If someone's going to be deleting articles, I'd rather them have at least minimal experience with content building, but he has none. I wish him luck in his endeavors, I appreciate his candor in answering the question, and hope that he considers writing an article one day– I'd enjoy reading it. Nomader ^(Talk) 03:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    These opposes are classic. Almost all of you say that you don't think Ron would do a bad job as an admin but you oppose anyway because he doesn't write articles. I will never understand the position (completely unsupported by any quantifiable evidence) that if you have never written an article or have only written stubs you are automatically too stupid/ignorant/unsympathetic to correctly interpret our deletion policies. It's basically akin to suggesting that only convicts are qualified to be judges because they understand what the criminals have been through better. I've never run a marathon, does that mean it is impossible for me to stand at the finish line and determine who won? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Those are some poor analogies. Townlake (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    The analogy I usually use is a referee who has never played the game that he is judging. I've already supported as seen above but I don't see opposing for lack of content creation as an unreasonable thing to do. -- Atama頭 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Those are awful analogies, Beeblebrox. Normally article creation isn't a big deal to me and I'd happily support such a good candidate, but the only page he's created, the disambig page Battlestations, he originally created as a re-direct ([1]). If I'm going to give someone the power to speedy delete articles that users create, I think that it's not too much to ask that they've at least edited one or two articles in a large way so they can understand the effort that goes into content contribution and how it can be difficult to properly format an article. Ron seems to be a great guy, which is why I'm so disappointed that I'm opposing his RfA, but I don't think it's too much to ask for him to edit one or two articles while he's taking a break one day from vandalism. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Why? Can anyone cite one single piece of of quantifiable evidence that an admin who does not create content is more likely to delete an article than an admin who does? Most of these opposers admit straight out that they do not believe that Ron would be a bad admin, but they oppose him anyway because of this vague suspicion related to content creation. I don't like or respect those kind of blanket characterizations, whatever happened to WP:IAR? It's even easier to do if you are ignoring a rule that doesn't actually exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Usually I'd totally be with you on the ridiculousness on objecting based on a lack of editing contributions, but Ron's literally had zero articles created and hasn't really had any major contributions to any major article. To use an analogy: I'd much rather have a football coach who's played at least one game of football in his entire life than someone who's never played before. The latter might be able to come up with interesting plays and plan a good strategy, but he won't be able to sympathize with his players if some problems arise. I have no doubt that Ron will be for the most part, a smart and intelligent administrator– but when he's on the fence for a CSD nomination, will he have the experience to understand what work an editor has put into an article? I can't be certain. To be honest though, this is an extremely weak and regretful oppose, per Ron's AfD experience and what seems to be an extremely sensible and intelligent demeanor. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose Changing to support on the basis of the response to Q13. What concerns me even more than the absence of content work is the absence of any attempt to assist editors. In the 2+ years here, the only postings on user talk pages have been semi-automated notices of AfD nominations/relists, or templated warnings. This is in my opinion unacceptable for an administrator. Editors need help as much as articles need deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    • I was going to follow DGG since I agree that interaction with users is critical. However, I think that the real interaction is just getting burried under the weight of his high number of edits. I see lots of interaction throughout here. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Including a discussion with you on your own talk page, DGG and a discussion involving you, Ron Ritzman, and others at AN/I. ☺ I didn't get a templated notice on my talk page, either. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
        • • the one with me was merely a note that we had apparently both closed at AfD & nobody noticed; the ANI discussion was about AfD relistings in general--I agree Ron's extremely good with AfDs. The July discussions were 95% templated notices and warnings, though there are a few real discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • He helped me, too. [2] Sarah 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose. No content creation. Little collaboration with other editors to improve content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    Comment: Opposing Ron for lack of content creation seems rather artificial when Elena Kagan can be nominated, confirmed, and sworn in as a US Supreme Court justice without having ever sat as a judge anywhere. And that is a position with overarching potential impact on society and people's real lives. Issues in Wikipedia can, I believe, be divided in two major functional divisions, editorial and behavioral. Admins primarily deal with enforcing policy and user behavior. If there were elections for rollbacker, reviewer, article assessor, featured article reviewers, or other editorial only user rights and functions, then a history of content creation would be a reasonable requirement for those functions. However, rollbacker—an editorial only user right—was split off from admin rights, reviewer was added in addition to admin rights, making the editorial only functions of an admin somewhat less important relative to policy enforcement, deciding on user trustworthiness for the editorial rights, consensus judging, and behavior policing issues. The only really important characteristics for a prospective admin are: judgment, temperament, and trustworthiness, IMO. Experience comes with the job. I agree with Beeblebrox's analogy on criminals as judges, and marathon judging as legitimate and relevant arguments in this case. Ron has experience with closing AfDs. This promotion would also give him the ability to delete as well. So I really don't understand the problem with giving him the sysop bit. So the question I ask is why should a candidate have a substantial content creation history? What is it relative to judgment, temperament, and trustworthiness? — Becksguy (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    The problem is that NAC is, by and large, limited to trivial clerk actions. AfD requires one to put one's reputation on the line in making the right close. There isn't, IMO, sufficient evidence to suggest that a wikicareer of almost exclusive NAC work prepares one for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    In Ron's defense, he also puts his reputation in deciding when & when not to close--had he a long history of dubious closes I doubt anyone would have suggest he become an admin--it is precisely the reputation from his excellent record there that led to this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Which close? I'm not seeing the link. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

12. I really don't like the company I'm keeping down here (we're talking "reflexive support" here), but there are pretty big problems here. Content creation is not a deal-breaker for me, but a complete lack of articlespace work other than the most trivial wikignoming would make me hesitate no matter what an editor's projectspace work amounted to. But then we get to the actual substance of Ron's work, NACs, and this is also problematic: many of the ones I've looked at are wishy-washy (as are the replies to the questions above), which would be fine if Ron were not a regular participant in AFD but not for an editor who operates almost exclusively in that domain. I am more than happy to be convinced that I'm missing something here. For now, I see an editor who is very active in clerk work but who hasn't demonstrated the experience to handle, well, basically anything that he isn't currently handling well enough without the bit. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    That's a bit harsh about the rest of us "down here", Chris! What have I ever done to offend you? - Pointillist (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

    My apologies. It was intended to reference the various nasty, weak, and bad faith opposes this RfA has attracted, rather than being a blanket comment on all of them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose While I like your non-admin closes, and don't recall one I've ever disagreed with, the other opposes are pretty compelling. PLEASE go spend the time to get your content creation up-to-snuff and reapply. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose Apologies for the double-negative, but I cannot not oppose someone with so much interest in a content-related process yet so little experience in content, particularly when there are multiple concerns about non-admin closures. --WFC-- 01:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose I thought this was going to be a slam-dunk !support, but I'm seeing some red flags. Primary is the unanswered questions. It is now three days in, maybe I'm too harsh but I think if you're going to commit to this process you should be willing to accept you might not be sleeping much for the next week. If you're going to be taking actions as an admin, you better be ready to stay up late explaining them. Secondary is the number of !supports put in before the candidate started answering Q's. That makes me rather suspicious that someone may be hoping to just skate to the goal line. Article creation count as a problem, nah, leaves me cold. No audited content, same thing, whatever. What I do look for though (in an admin or any editor) is substantive participation in discussions - so article talk, user talk, and project (WP) spaces. That is where you resolve content, behaviour and governance issues. I've seen no evidence led that the candidate has made notable contributions in this area. My uContribs thingydoo is 'asploding on me, so I can't get the detailed analysis, so I'm open to being convinced on that. I would even ask a few Q's, but why bother if they are going to be ignored? Just not a good feeling here, seems like a one-dimensional candidate, though apparently good enough in that one dimension. I'm not happy to be making an edit in a space I normally don't go, with a candidate who I'd previously thought was pretty OK - but there you go... Franamax (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Hi, Franamax. The questions are optional :) -- Avi (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Heh, good one, tell another knee-slapper. ;) Part of being an admin is being willing to explain your thinking in detail, whether it turns out to be right or wrong. !oppose - too many uncommucative admins already. :) Franamax (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • My question was certainly optional. It always is. And I did use the Advanced Certificate version, since people who want to know what Ron Ritzman does with the Ordinary Certificate cases can look to where xe does it day after day. If you are looking for discussion contributions, you're looking in the wrong namespaces, above. The namespace that you want is Wikipedia talk:. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose This is the first Rfa I am voting in and I really wanted to support, but can't on principle. While Ron's contributions to AfD are great, the lack of contributions to article-space is troublesome: A mere 15% of edits are to articles and the most edits made to one single article is 14? Has the nominee ever said, "Gee, this article is really bad, but I bet I could make it a good article with a little work." or "This subject really interests me and it would be cool to make it a featured article." My guess would be probably not. I'm not asking for a couple dozen featured articles or even one... I think it's reasonable to ask for a decent contribution to one article and this user hasn't even done that.VictorianMutant (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Moving to neutral.

16. Oppose Avraham's concerns resonate with me. For myself, I will also say that I'd like some level of decent content contributions. Not everyone is geared to FAs, but in this case, the lack of content contributions is glaring. Without that, you have an admin who has been raised in an ivory tower.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    For the record, I think you mean Franamax. I supported (#77 :) ) -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose. As White Shadows says, and others have suggested, nobody who hasn't built an article should have the power to delete one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
18. OPPOSE: limited CONTENT CREATION. The WISHY-WASHY answers by this candidate for modship leads me to be UNCERTAIN about whether he would treat commoners differently than mods in deciding if he should block for alleged violations of CIVILITY. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

    Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE? aka, shouting is unnecessary NW (Talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

    I am ABSOLUTELY SURE. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    BTW, Protector, your use of the word "commoner" CONCERNS me. It really does; I'm afraid it will create a greater divide between those with extra buttons and those without. In the end, we're all just editors. Please consider that. Airplaneman ✈ 04:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

    My use of "commoner" is not a reflection of what I think. It's what the community has shown throughout the couple months I've been here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    But there is a divide. Simply because most admins are afraid to block other admins, but not other users. In other news, admins aren't really "mods", but janitors. Thinking of sysops as moderators is not wholly accurate. But all this can just be ignored. —fetch·comms 00:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you, Fetchcomms, for explaining my sentiments. Mods hesitate to block other mods because they fear backlash. Mods are more likely to block commoners than their brethren. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    For a self-styled "protector of the wiki" you really are going all out to piss people off rather than "protect" the work.... Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    It appears that a couple mods are GANGING UP on me because I hold views that conflict with theirs. That I protect the wiki by being HONEST and by speaking the TRUTH and that that "pisses people off" is of no concern to me. I suggest that you try to "protect" the wiki by being as honest as I am and NOT by DISTORTING your beliefs to please the community. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose While I don't think he's going to break anything, an admin really should be an editor first. One part of it is empathy, I don't feel comfortable having someone "at the helm" of AfD that doesn't have any real chance of his own hard work going to AfD. But also, your perspective is colored by where you spend your time and if 70+ percent of your time is spent in AfD you really don't have a good idea of what goes on on the Wiki, you don't have experience collaborating and compromising outside of the "crisis situation". Finally, the main goal at Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia, I don't want to see people getting the tools that don't appear have that same goal. _{One could argue that the Wikipedia space supports that goal and helps build the encyclopedia, but strictly speaking that isn't actually contributing to content.} --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose due to lack of significant content work. We already have too many admins who are disengaged from content. More here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    Your link embodies my feelings. "Or more bluntly: if you're being a useless prat, stop. If you haven't touched an article in the past hundred edits, what in the world are you doing here?" Very applicable here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

    The "useless prat" bit doesn't quite apply here, but the view that admins should be content contributors does. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

21. Oppose Per reasons already discussed in detail by many users above.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Huh? All this time I thought Ron was an administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
   • The non-admin closure part didn't give it away :-) Hobit (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe he thought Ron was only being modest Regards SoWhy 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral Still seems trusted, but an administrator who only wants to take part in deletion or restoration of pages makes me wonder, will he eventually move over to other parts of the administrative project? Also my reply to Q2 is that you can't think of one good contribution? Not even those unrelated to the encyclopaedia? I could say that your judgement of deletions is one of them. Well, I see from your answer that you have been dreading Q2, so I won't oppose for the sake of not being too harsh. Minimac (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

   Maybe I was mistaken in viewing the word "contributions" in Q2 as solely "article work". Here is a non article essay I have been working on. (I'm thinking that perhaps I should rename "rule 6") --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting page, I think it is worth putting up on the Simple English Wikipedia too. Minimac (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please could Ron speak to his rule #1: Be certain that you are here to build an encyclopedia. For example, his most common contribution seems to be relisting AFD discussions. In what way is this building an encyclopedia? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

   He's facilitating discussion on this encyclopedia's content. "Building an encyclopedia" doesn't just involve adding sourced text to articles (although that is a part of it). Airplaneman ✈ 03:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   It is our policy that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum" and so the merits of facilitating discussion are debatable. I would like to hear the candidate explain himself why he does what he does in such a narrow way. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   You're asking him to discuss the merits of discussion having posited that we aren't here to discuss things? Er? GedUK  15:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not wanting a discussion - I am wanting a statement from the candidate so that we may understand him better. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   All due respect to Colonel Warden, I think that it would be helpful to re-read the policy he linked. It encourages discussion about Wikipedia itself. It only discourages off-topic discussion. -- Atama頭 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   With no respect to Colonel Warden I'm afraid. This reminds me of the people that link to WP:LEGAL when others are discussing a legal matter or WP:POINT when people are simply making a point. Kindly do the rest of us a favour by reading - and more importantly understanding what you link to Colonel Warden. Otherwise you may end up looking rather foolish. Pedro :  Chat  19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

   Let's consider an example — the aptly named No More Drama. In this case, we appear to have a result: the nominator contends that the topic is not notable and another editor produces sources to show that it is. The candidate relists this for further discussion but this does not advance the building of the encyclopedia one whit. This seems to be just bureaucratic busywork but, doing some more digging, I now have the impression that the candidate would be more bold in such cases if he were an admin and so we would have less idle discussion rather than more. It is the lack of admin status which is holding the candidate back from doing the right thing in such cases and so I'm changing to support. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, there were quite a few that I could have closed but feared getting yelled at due to my non-admin status. I tried it a few times when I started out doing NACs before I had one close with two "keep" !votes reversed by an admin. (if I recall correctly, it was closed "keep" after a relist) However, the question that should be asked about No More Drama World Tour is "why was it relisted a second time"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Ron's answer to Q13 was very poignant and after some thought, I decided my feeling was not to oppose. Still can't find it in myself to support a user with almost no content contribution to articles, but holding him at his word that he will in the future. VictorianMutant (talk)
4. Ron, You're great and all, but I can't bring myself to support an editor that written zero articles for an admin. Sorry,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 20 September 2010 (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.