The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (45/7/0); Withdrawn by candidate at 05:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - Well, I’d also like to ask the community for the bureaucrat flag. For all those that don’t know me, I’m Ryan – I joined in October 2006 (seems like yesterday!) and became an admin in March 2007. Since I join the project, I’ve really joined getting involved with everyone in community (even at times which some might perceive as stressful). So why do I want to be a bureaucrat? I’ve got a lot of experience at RfA – I’ve nominated (or co-nominated) 27 users for adminship, 23 of those being successful which means I’ve nominated just over 1.5% of the current administrators! Over time, I’ve had to change the attributes I look for when offering a nomination as the community evolves with different qualities that they expect from an administrator, it’s help me gain a perspective about overall standards that users expect from their bureaucrats. If you’d like to have a look, the people I’ve nominated can be found at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Adminship. I’ve spent a long time looking over the RfA process and really do care about it – I’d love to help out in a greater capacity by determining the consensus, which I’ll elaborate on below.

I’ve also got a lot of experience with the username policy – I’m a frequent poster to both WT:U and WP:RFCN and it’s something which I probably understand more than any other policy. I was also the creator of WP:UAA and still remain very active on that page. I also work at WP:ACC where we create accounts for new users who are unable to using the normal interface. It’s very similar to the work done at WP:CHU, although there are obviously some clear differences and other considerations must be made when renaming a user. I think in this area of work, the bureaucrats should respect the community consensus – and that means respect the username policy, if something is allowed per it then that should be the major factor when considering whether or not a rename is to be performed.

With respect to bot flagging, I think bureaucrats should be cautious – WJBscribe just last week discovered that a bot request had been speedily approved for a controversial bot without adequate discussion. The problem with bot requests is that you are expected to act on the decision of one user closing a discussion and may not necessarily be acting with the consensus of the community – that’s why I feel it’s really important to look at all requests properly before flagging a bot, and decide whether or not it’s got consensus.

I think a key attribute of a bureaucrat is communication, if there’s concerns, all users should strive to answer them and accept the mistakes that they’ve made. I believe I’ve shown an ability to discuss concerns whenever anyone has approached me and would continue to do that as if given the bureaucrat flag. An unresponsive bureaucrat is not something that the project really needs.

I will obviously answer the questions below, but I’m more than happy to elaborate on any of them, and will happily answer concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. When deciding to promote, or not to, a bureaucrat should respect the community consensus. I’m not a huge fan of the numbers if I’m being honest, but it’s my belief that the community has decided to grant bureaucrats discretion to determine the consensus if the discussion lies between 70-80%. To do this, they should evaluate all the arguments, and from that, determine whether or not there is consensus to promote a candidate. If the result is very much borderline, then an extension would often help clarify the consensus. If a bureaucrat is thinking of promoting a candidate below the considered acceptable community limits, they should open up a discussion so a consensus between arguments can be formed, rather than a unilateral decision. One of the reasons I’m running is actually because in controversial decisions, I believe we need more bureaucrats who are active on the process when these contentious discussion arise. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. As I’ve said above, in controversial or contentious discussions, I would look to my colleagues in order to come to a consensus between bureaucrats. It’s important that any decision made is the right determination of consensus and also respected by the community. “Crat chats” have the potential to work if there are enough bureaucrats comments to come to a clear consensus. It’s important however that when determining consensus in these discussions, a bureaucrat scrutinises all comments, both support, oppose and neutral in order to come to a conclusion. I’ve also mentioned above in my statement that I believe that communication is important, and any action taken should be fully explained – preferably before any concerns arise. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A.I think I’m knowledgeable of policy, especially of those related to the functions of a bureaucrat. When making a decision as a bureaucrat, I believe it’s important to respect all sides of an argument and act in a neutral manner – This is something that hopefully I’ve demonstrated whilst working with the mediation committee and with work on OTRS. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. As many of the bureaucrat tasks are in many way forks of some of the activities I currently participate in, I’m sure I’ve got time and motivation to participate in all relevant bureaucrat tasks for the foreseeable future. One thing I don’t want to be is another inactive bureaucrat – that isn’t what the project needs. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from VanTucky

5. What is your assessment on the recent resysopping of ^demon, despite the reconfirmation RFA closing with less than 65% support? How would you have closed it and why?

A.Excellent question. I'm sorry to say to ^demon, but if i was acting alone, I would have closed it as no consensus. Both sides made very good points, and I really didn't see a consensus to promote. There were obviously certain considerations with this RfA, given it was a reconfirmation, but even so, I think the opposes were too strong to promote. That said, I still support WJB's close based on his rationale and discussion that he participated in afterwards - even though I disagreed (I did actually support the RfA and still believe ^demon will make a fine admin). If I was considering closing this myself, I would have asked for a wider consensus from the wider bueaucrat community as I believe whatever the result, there would have been wider implications given the fact that this would have been the first RfA that did not succeed from a user that could have asked for their tools back. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Ryan Postlethwaite's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

1. Yep. Majorly (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. An excellent choice: Ryan will make a great bureaucrat. Acalamari 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Of course. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Holy shiz-nit! bibliomaniac15 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. D'uh. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Add mine. Avruch ^T 02:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongest possible support Ryan's helped me out since day one. He also brings a much needed light-heartedness to the project. This one's a no-brainer. нмŵוτнτ 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. (ECx2)I think you'd make a great crat. SQL^{Query me!} 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Of course. He will make a wonderful bureaucrat, and has plenty of experience under his belt. seicer | talk | contribs 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. An excellent candidate. Good judgement, plenty of experience. Warofdreams talk 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support exceptional enough to be a certain support. Prodego ^talk 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support VanTucky 03:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per Prodego. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Definitely No need for elaboration. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Gets my vote. Ronnotel (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Suppport Will ^(talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Yep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - obviously.   jj137 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Of course. Lara❤Love 03:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Even bad haikus
    On Ryan P's RFB
    Can't stop his success. east.718 at 03:17, February 28, 2008
21. Support - Ryan is a good administrator and will make a good bureaucrat. His detailed answers to the questions above ceraintly confirm this for me. Astral (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Without doubt. Captain panda 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. yes. - Philippe | Talk 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. How could I not support? You've been such a help to me and many others. Have fun with the oxymoronic title. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. I thought about bringing it up to him after I did so and was rejected by Pedro, but figured it was coming anyway with no encouragement. And so it has. And so goes my support. SorryGuy  Talk  03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Even though I don't like this "open season", I agree that Ryan is a good candidate, and just two weeks for his year as admin requirement of mine suits the "don't be a dick" and "use common sense" concepts. The way I see it, he is not an editor (Only 3218 in the main space? 69 edits to a single page is his record? I have edited over 15 pages with at least that count, including one which I edited over 1000 times ;-)), not even an administrator (he doesn't really uses his admin tools as much as others), but instead he behaves as a bureaucrat, spending most of his time in the Wikipedia namespace, examining users, commenting on them, searching for good admin candidates, etc. He seems to enjoy all that stuff! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Ryan has extremely fair judgment and possessing the experience to be a successful Bureaucrat. I do not see any faults in granting him crat tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose-Only an admin for 11 months, not the standard 1 year. z0mg so little time. Strong Support Ryan is a great admin and will make a great crat. He's helped out in many different areas. Simple enough? -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 03:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - more than qualified. Will make a superb 'crat. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - experience, good judgement, unusually civil and positively communicating, etc. Good choice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - (double editconflict) Like all of these recently RFB nominees, I think they should have done this much earlier.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. No-brainer support. Clearheaded, rational, openminded, patience of saint. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - All systems go. VegaDark (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support: Oh yeah! Ryan has proved himself in many areas of this project, and I'm happy to support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. (Edit conflicted) support. Seen Ryan around RfA all the time, and think he will make excellent judgments as a 'crat. Kakofonous (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, one of the good guys, who has the good of project always at the core of his actions. Bellwether ^B_C 04:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - I have learned to associate the name "Ryan Postlethwaite‎" with good decisionmaking. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Great responsible admin. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I wasn't sure but looking at who RP has nominated for adminship was a positive. Go for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong unconditional support - Hell yea! :P Ryan has a clear understanding of WP policy, have not had a negative interaction with him. Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I have seen him around, and he does not make me nervous. I've noticed him offering some candidates for admin and they seemed to be reasonable choices. We need more bureaucrats, since the newly-created ones tend to be much more active than the old. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yes! --jonny-mt 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Spebi 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk
45. Support, absolutely. Glad you decided to run. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Per your support of wbjscribe's confirmation of ^demon against community consensus--Cube lurker (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   See his answer to #5. нмŵוτнτ 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It wasn't a support per se, I support his personal interpretation - as i said in the optional question, I'd have done things differently, and closed the discussion as no consensus if I acted by myself. That said, I would have asked for greater discussion between bureaucrats so all sides could have been thoroughly analysed. With respect to support of Will, I simply support his explanation, even though I didn't agree. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yet you're quoted in the signpost as a support. Will you repudiate the decision? Not just say you would have waited longer? If so i'll move to neutral.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, as I said, I supported ^demons nomination (even though I accepted that there were serious concerns that the opposition had brought up) - It looks like that's what's quoted in the signpost. That doesn't mean I'd have closed it as successful, it would have been a very different decision actually. Just because I supported doesn't mean I would have closed it the same. I'd have closed it as no consensus (aka a fail) if I'd have done it by myself. If I'd have been in a 'crat chat, I would have suggested doing the same. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I thought RFA's were only confirm or reject? May be my bad, but isn't a NC a reject? if so why won't you say it?--Cube lurker (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry I didn't understand your question. A close of no consensus in an RfA means the user does not get the tools, so in effect, the user fails the RfA. It's just a better way to put it - "there was no consensus to promote the candidate". Ryan Postlethwaite 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to expand who i am. I'm a disenfranchesised !voter who decided not to pile on because the numbers were in the automatic reject range. There are more of me.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, RfA isn't a vote, but the opposes were strong, so hopefully you can understand why I wouldn't have promoted him. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand what you're saying but it seems like you're playing both sides. Saying you wouldn't have done it but won't say it'w wrong. i'm staying as oppose, but disengaging. Best wishes either way,--Cube lurker (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose — User is way too quick to assume bad faith. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you mind providing evidence to back up this claim? Tiptoety ^talk 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. This is difficult because I like Ryan personally, but his judgment goes too often awry. When he changed his signature to a giant flashing monstrosity and was politely asked about it he was rude, told everyone to get a sense of humor, and even once the guideline was pointed out and the reasons for it he still acted rudely in my opinion. User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/archive15#Just a word about your sig. I tried to bring it up civilly and was told to chill out. It's was just such a pointlessly immature episode. And, though I don't know if it was deliberate, his poorly timed comments at the RFAR/IRC had the effect (if not the intent) of precipitating Giano and Bishonen's departure. You were, in fact, the one who proposed banning Giano from project space and prohibiting him from commenting elsewhere to boot[1]. Other reasons cited in his recent ArbCom candidacy were concerning as well. --JayHenry (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   With respect to my signature - I did it to bring a little fun to the wiki - I hope I wasn't rude to you, hence why I said "chill out sir" - when I say sir, I'm having a laugh with you, certainly not trying to have a dig. If you see the thread, you'll notice everyone was having a good time. I still think we had a laugh and most people took it with the intent that I had hoped. With respect to the ArbCom suggestions, I'm not sure it has any role with me as a crat - it would not affect how I closed RfA's, but I do agree in retrospect, there could have been better proposals. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, I'm deeply disturbed that you supported the indefinite blocking of Kmweber after an RFC told him it was okay to express his opinion at RFA (I strongly disagree with Kurt as well, but it's not WP:POINT to express an opinion using Latin). --JayHenry (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose I don't think he'd be as bad a 'crat as he would be an 'arb; I don't believe he should be a crat. Additionally, his attitude towards Kurt Weber's participation in RFA demonstrates that he should not be evaluating or closing RFAs; thinking that behavior is block worthy after an RFC said it was acceptable is just bad judgment. GRBerry 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. I guess it's a judgment thing, his proposal re:Giano, wanting to ban Kmweber from RFA's unless he stopped expressing an unpopular opinion. I think the bureaucrat position should be a fairly conservative thing, hewing pretty closely to community consensus...and while these 2 examples don't fall within a bureaucrat role, like I say, it's a judgment thing. But this is a close thing...and perhaps the number of RFB's right now mean we can pick and choose a little more carefully. I think the Giano proposal is pretty much of a deal breaker for me. Reluctant oppose. RxS (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Sorry; I know I tend to do this to you. However, I didn't think you adequately handled the objections to your RfA last year, which started off 54-1 and ended up 80-8 (I was number 8). I was under the impression that you didn't think it necessary to reply to such objections because your RfA was trending green. This leads me to question whether you would promote people despite valid objections raised late in the nomination process. On the other hand, I applaud you for your many successful nominations. Dekimasuよ! 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It actually wasn't because of that at all - I didn't comment because I didn't want to skew the consensus - I agreed that there were serious contributions, and didn't feel it was right to comment to the opposers. I offered an explanation on my RfA talk page, and agreed all the the opposes were legitimate. If my RfA was going towards unsuccessful, I would have done the same - people who have legitimate concerns really don't need me to starting trying to dig myself out of a hole - I felt it was best for everyone to evaluate me after solely having a negative side rather than offering a rebuttual. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose per above. Not mature enough to handle situations. miranda 05:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.