Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.O.X (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 15 September 2010 (→‎Support: - modifying vote.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ron Ritzman

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (63/2/2); Scheduled to end 01:05, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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?

Additional optional question from Lambanog
5. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close: T:cite_news
A:
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)[reply]
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:
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:
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.


General comments

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

Discussion

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)[reply]
  2. Per Sopapiglobo. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. edit conflicted Support as nominator. Triona (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As co-nom. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. About time! Fences&Windows 01:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  9. Support Ok --Inka888 02:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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 deckertalk 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. An experienced user who knows what he is doing. Not everyone focuses on building articles. Airplaneman ✈ 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  18. Support – Definitely fit for the admin tools. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  22. Support for the most famous non-admin closer at AfD. – B.hotep •talk• 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - no concerns from me, his work at AfD is invaluable :). Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 05:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - should be "AC", not "NAC". tedder (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support User would definitely benefit from the mop. ForeverDusk (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  27. Support - trustworthy and reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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.--ClubOranjeT 09:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - likely net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  36. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- No concerns as well. --High Contrast (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  40. Support - I also thought he already owned a mop. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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'sPonyobons mots 13:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Non-admin closure... er, I mean, support The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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... ArakunemTalk 13:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  47. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  51. Support He already handles more AFDs than most admins. RayTalk 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Will do just fine. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Seems appropriate to entrust this user. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. The right stuff. Overqualified if anything, should have been an admin months ago already. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Another one for the Ritz man! -- Ϫ 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  60. Support Small backlogs are good. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Stephen 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support User would make a great admin. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support About time :) Jujutacular talk 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
I entirely endorse that principle but are you sure it applies to this editor? - Pointillist (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Huh? All this time I thought Ron was an administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-admin closure part didn't give it away :-) Hobit (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ron_Ritzman&oldid=384936044"