This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caspian blue (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 18 November 2009 (→AGK: well). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:08, 18 November 2009 by Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (→AGK: well)(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)
- Comment I'm not sure why this inflammatory threads initiated by AGK, the peer ARBCom clerk were not deleted by you, Manning Bartlett while you 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. 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 way of handing big issues. So I can not agree that AGK could be an excellent arbitrator. --Caspian blue 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)