Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Ryan Postlethwaite

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Ryan Postlethwaite

[edit]
For all those who don't know me, I'm Ryan. I've been a member here since October 2006 and an administrator since March 2007. For me, arbitration is an unfortunate process - as a community, we should be able to sort all of our problems ourselves. Normal dispute resolution channels should fix all problems we have without anyone having to make rulings. Currently however, this isn't the case and the committee has to step in when all other methods have failed.
I would see myself as a community arbitrator, I think I'm quite in touch with how we operate and I actually prefer to try and sort issues out before they reach the levels of arbitration. Taking things out of the community's hands is something I couldn't support if at all possible. If I was part of the committee I would like to see the arbitrators take a more active role within the community, appearing on noticeboards in an attempt to avoid arbitration, but I'm not naive and do understand that sometimes a case is inevitable, even if it's simply to hash out the community's core values. As an arbitrator, I would examine all requests that were made, and wherever possible, attempt to make suggestions as to how the community could handle the dispute - if that wasn't possible, then I'd accept the case.
I have experience with arbitration, I've proposed a number of principles, findings of fact and remedies that have been adapted by the arbitrators in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
Finally, I believe it's important that an arbitrator must put the community's underlying principles into their mind when studying a case. Whatever their personal opinion, it should be put aside and they should look for a solution that would benefit the project - I feel I am a good candidate to do this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a Secret account 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Damn! I'm third!—trey(wiki) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Qst 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Icestorm815 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Woodym555 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. AniMate 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. BLACKKITE 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Keilana 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As an observer of your excellent work, without hesitation. Monsieurdl 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Gurch (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. From what I've seen, support. - Rjd0060 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Ariel♥Gold 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. good judgement, etc, support.—Random832 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I am concerned about the statement in Durova's RFC, but do not see this as problematic. GracenotesT § 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Good editor, will make good arbitrator Mbisanz 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Stephen 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. - auburnpilot talk 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Captain panda 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. sh¤y 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Stardust8212 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. bibliomaniac15 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Charitwo talk 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Alexfusco5 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. B 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Yes. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I strongly support this nomination: Ryan has been an excellent admin, and I believe he will do great as an arbitrator. Acalamari 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. - Jehochman Talk 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I'd built up a generally poor impression of Ryan, so was very pleasantly surprised by his cogent answers to questioning. —Cryptic 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. · AndonicO Talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Absolutely. GlassCobra 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Aboutmovies 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Húsönd 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 04:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. a very reasonable person. --Jack Merridew 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Reasonable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. - Crockspot 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Lara❤Love 08:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Jmlk17 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Bah.."Humans make mistakes" and if we don't, then we aren't humans and this elections is a farce..--Cometstyles 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. -- lucasbfr talk 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Vassyana 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Committed user. PeaceNT 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Jeffpw 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Possesses the qualities necessary to fulfil this position. Orderinchaos 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Mangojuicetalk 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. RFARB is the last step in dispute resolution, candidate has lots of dispute resolution experience which is important for this role. Decisions and opinions certainly not excessively off-track, in my opinion. GDonato (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Opposers are too quick to generalise. — Rudget contributions 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --MONGO 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Davewild 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - One of the least bad candidates. I often disagree with him, but he is generally civil and tactful and has the interests of Wikipedia at heart. WaltonOne 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support Friendly user who is qualified to run for ArbCom. NHRHS2010 talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oldelpaso 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Smokizzy (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. --Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. WjBscribe 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Corvus cornixtalk 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Nice, simple statement with several links to experience. Statement at Durova's RfC was well intended, and I'm sure the candidate lerned from the experience. — Sebastian 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. βcommand 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Greg Jones II 02:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. @pple complain 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --A. B. (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I don't always agree with Ryan, but I respect his dedication to the project. Raymond Arritt 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --DHeyward 06:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support JPG-GR 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose per his comment at Durova's RfC. His views expressed at Miskin ArbCom are similarly alarming. --Irpen 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    convenience link. —Random832 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak oppose --W.marsh 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  5. Extremely regretful oppose. Good admin, but I don't think he's quite right for ArbCom, at least not yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not yet. futurebird 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doesn't appear to understand the seriousness and gravity of Durova's recent actions and the mind-set that led to them [1]. Cla68 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose as per Durova comments. Travb (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per durova RFC comments.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, sorry. Tim Q. Wells 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ρх₥α 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ryan's a good admin but his opinions about controversial issues sometimes puzzle me. Chick Bowen 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose - IMO Ryan's pretty together - and anyone WR hates that much can't be all bad - but seems to make a few too many weird calls. — iridescent 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Not at this time. R. Baley 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. GRBerry 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Not yet, sorry. Miranda 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. SQLQuery me! 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, not yet. --Coredesat 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Hardworking and productive, but I don't believe he is ready for a leadership role. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Thatcher131 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. krimpet⟲ 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose. Maybe next year. Rebecca 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Painfully. Ryan, you have my strongest support, but that Durova thing was just appalling in my eyes. Sorry mate, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Dureo 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - too new; Durova incident; not ready for a leadership role.Frank Pais 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I don't anticipate having any qualms supporting next year, but right now I don't feel comfortable doing so. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 2 months ago I would have supported. Sorry Ryan. ViridaeTalk 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Everyking 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. JayHenry 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. not this time --Duk 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Bob Mellish 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:34, December 3, 2007
  41. —Mira 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I however would like to take a moment to praise this editor's other work on Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Insufficient experience in important areas of wiki-existence. Dragons flight 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Good admin, but not ready yet, Durova RfC was cause for concern.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. SchmuckyTheCat
  47. Inexperienced. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Needs more experience. Shem(talk) 10:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Doesn't seem able to distinguish the letter from the spirit of 'the rules'. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No thanks. Drama and process wonkery. Neil ☎ 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Although a strong admin. Eusebeus 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Per Neil. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Splash - tk 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Very good fellow, but I question his judgment on many finer points of policy. Xoloz 14:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Addhoc 14:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose (Caniago 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  57. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. KTC 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Edivorce 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose AvruchTalk 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose The badlydrawnjeff proposals were onesided and severe; the Miskin proposals far too mild. Both tended to encourage disruptive bullies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Good chap, but just a little dubious. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Ripberger 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose As the above comments show, has some weaknesses.--Bedivere 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. —Ruud 21:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I'm sorry, but not ready for ArbCom yet. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. EconomistBR 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose - Mattisse 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Merkinsmum 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose ×Meegs 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - Perhaps next year? --健次(derumi)talk 05:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Chaz Beckett 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose, sorry. Jonathunder 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak oppose I like you though. Atropos 05:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. John Vandenberg 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Ryan_Postlethwaite&oldid=1147979064"