Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/AGK

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Use third-level headers for new sections.
- Example: === Heading title ===.
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

AGK

Endorse - AGK is a candidate I am personally endorsing. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the clerking ranks and hold him in the highest regard. He will, in my opinion, make an excellent arbitrator. (Naturally I don't regard my opinion as particularly special, but there it is anyway). Manning (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure why the inflammatory threads initiated by AGK (see below), the peer ARBCom clerk were not deleted by EE secret emailing-list clerk, Manning Bartlett while he deleted and even warned, the former ArbCom clerk Thatcher who expressed in a less dramatic degree than AGK's.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_5#"Community encouraged"

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_4#Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies

As looking into current ArbCom cases, we can judge how aspired arbitrators would judge or make drafts for ArbCom cases in future. I think AGK's such view toward admins' abuse are problematic and too generous and make me wonder "Is Adminship a divine privilege? As well as his answers on community-based on desysopping suggestion, I feel he does not trust the community's ability of handing big issues. "Trust" is a basic element for becoming arbitrators. I can not agree that AGK could be an excellent arbitrator. --Caspian blue 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation in Caspian's comment above regarding the clerking actions I took. Thatcher's comments were directed at another editor (not permitted) whereas AGK was criticising an aspect of ArbCom's proposed decision (permitted). I would also note that my actions against Thatcher were (by my own admission) excessive and I subsequently deleted the warning and apologised. You are of course entitled to make the remainder of your points. Manning (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inflammatory comments made by AGK are directed and opposed to the specific arbitrator(s) who suggested the proposal and I don't believe the threads did help the situation (rather inviting more dramas after that). Thatcher rather complained about what is missing in the proposals in general. I do appreciate your diligent work for the case, but I don't think I mispresent your clerking actions.--Caspian blue 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. As much as I didn't care for the tone of AGK's remarks in that specific instance, I had no authority to remove them (at least as I understand the rules) as they were not directed at another editor in the dispute. And as noted above, my action against Thatcher was unjustified so I'm not attempting to defend it. Manning (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Caspian

I'm sorry that you feel I acted poorly in those threads. Strong rhetoric is quite unlike me, but I guess that, upon reading the "Community encouraged" remedy, I just got so frustrated that we were being faced with yet another weak remedy. When I said "spineless", I meant that the remedy carried no weight.( "Encouraged" is simply advice, and therefore is not a remedy in that it fixes no problems.) I was not attacking the arbitrator who proposed it, and indeed I was attacking nobody. I therefore think it's unfair to say that my comment was inflammatory (I don't think I've ever made an inflammatory comment.) Sometimes, speaking up in a blunt manner is just what's needed on an arbitration page. If you'd like to criticise me for speaking out against the committee, then you do of course have that right. But would it not be more wise to elect a candidate who has shown himself to be willing to think independently?

Regarding points on desysopping: I made it quite clear that I think Piotrus should be desysopped. What I disagreed with was banning him. I am strongly in favour of liberal use by the committee of desysopping remedies where administrators are found to be unfit for office.

Regarding your points on community desysopping: I actually state in my answers to the general questions that the community should be able to desysop users without committee intervention: see answer two (A2) to Avaraham's first question. As a candidate, I am broadly of the view that ideally the arbitration committee's role would be less prominent than it currently is: see answer two (A2) to Majorly. So to say that I "do not trust the community's ability of handing big issues" is not a fair representation of my candidacy.

Final point: of course, if I was elected, I would never have to resort to such strong rhetoric as I did in the two links you gave. People usually pay heed to an arbitrator's comments without them having to shout.

Are my responses to your concerns adequate, Caspian? That I appear to you in the way you describe alarms me, and I'm eager to set the record straight. AGK 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your platform and your answers and I'm very satisfied. I'm interested in the second question of Heimstern about nationalist and ethnic edit wars, and I'm looking forward to your answer. Good luck. Sole Soul (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'm glad you liked my answers. I've answered Heimstern's first question, but not his second and third yet. I should have within three days (I don't want to rush things when there's no real benefit from doing so, and a lot to lose). Regards, AGK 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit analysis

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/AGK. Franamax (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past interview with WP:Wikivoices

In my opinion, listening to a real voice recording of what candidates say is really nice, but only 4 candidates so far presented their interviews via Skype. However, I'm just adding this files as a reference since the issue discussed in the interview is somewhat related to questions to the candidate although it happened one and 8 months ago. See Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode_08 for further information.

Streaming from 4:14 to 7:00, and 11:53 to 15:20

AGK's view on roles of the MedCom and ArbCom as well as those of Ethnic dispute working group on 2008-04-13

Streaming from 0:00 to 2:35, and 6:00 to 7:28

Same as above

--Caspian blue 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not interviews. They were informal discussions on topics with a few of my fellow contributors. Are you going to reply to my comment above, btw? AGK 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounded to me as a kind of interview since the regulars of the WikiVoices said that they invited you, "one of Wiki celebrities" (they said so). As for your above responses, I have little to say about them since we clearly disagree with each other's view.--Caspian blue 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am less esteemed than most of the WikiVoices participants. I assure you, I was not a celebrity there; and if they referred to me so, it probably was in jest. :-)
Can you see no merits to what I say, at all? AGK 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still disagree with your view, your response to me in the above thread was calm, which might be your usual self. However, your "Unacceptable severity" comment and the following drama made me very disappointed at your judgment not only on the EE case but also on the role of administrators and arbitrators. Moreover, if you are elected as an arbitrators, you could face many things including such the emergency case. Due to the case, I doubt you can effectively "de-dramatize" submitted "drama cases" when you find you're in disagreement with other arbitrators and the community. Many of discussions between ARbCom members seem to occur off-wiki, so I want to be very careful.--Caspian blue 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have my way, much of that discussion will be moved on-wiki (cf User:AGK/Platform, second item). But I don't think it's fair to say that I handle drama-filled cases badly. In fact, I'd say I handle them well. I doubt I've have lasted as long as I have on the arbitration enforcement page if I wasn't able to keep things calm. I think you've got the wrong impression of what type of a user I am. My comments are always courteous and respectful. That wouldn't change if I was appointed as an arbitrator. AGK 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I as one of the community members. My comments are always courteous and respectful. -> clearly not for the inflammatory threads that you initiated. You admitted that you used "strong languages" to object to some of the proposed remedies. The self-evaluation is rather far from being modest. You can not be objective to yourself, even when you do things that people disagree with you.--Caspian blue 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, your accent suggests to me you are a Glaswegian, AGK. Would never have had a clue (Yeah, I know you're probably from Ardrossan or Lanark or something). 07:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

Discussion of Badger Drink's comment

Surely some concessions must be made where an answer is one of many tens being answered at once? And are you basing this general condemnation of my writing abilities on just one of my edits? AGK 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the first two I found - in fact, they were the first two questions I happened to check. I'm sure I could find more if need be. I understand that there were many questions asked, and unlike certain candidates, you did field an answer to all questions - which is commendable. I'm hardly perfect with my prose, either, as a quick scour through my edit history will reveal - but then again, I am not running for a seat. ArbCom cases aren't always stress-free (understatement of the _____), and I worry that imprecise communication can quickly snowball. I'm aware that my priorities and personal weights are somewhat "individualistic" (read: "kooky"), and apologize if I came across as unnecessarily harsh. Badger Drink (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Mpdelbuono's comment

Your support and kind comments are appreciated. Best, AGK 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]