This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 18 November 2009 (→AGK: r to caspian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:51, 18 November 2009 by Manning Bartlett (talk | contribs) (→AGK: r to caspian)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)