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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Strong Support Friendly user who is qualified to run for ArbCom.
NHRHS2010 talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
Strong oppose as per Durova comments.
Travb (
talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per durova RFC comments.
ALKIVAR™☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Ryan's a good admin but his opinions about controversial issues sometimes puzzle me.
Chick Bowen 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Not at this time.
R. Baley 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Oppose - too new; Durova incident; not ready for a leadership role.
Frank Pais 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Oppose The badlydrawnjeff proposals were onesided and severe; the Miskin proposals far too mild. Both tended to encourage disruptive bullies.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:18, 3 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Strong Support Friendly user who is qualified to run for ArbCom.
NHRHS2010 talk 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
Strong oppose as per Durova comments.
Travb (
talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per durova RFC comments.
ALKIVAR™☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Ryan's a good admin but his opinions about controversial issues sometimes puzzle me.
Chick Bowen 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Not at this time.
R. Baley 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Oppose - too new; Durova incident; not ready for a leadership role.
Frank Pais 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
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
Oppose The badlydrawnjeff proposals were onesided and severe; the Miskin proposals far too mild. Both tended to encourage disruptive bullies.
SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 18:18, 3 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.