Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/AGK

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of AGK or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * Supported due to very strong answers to questions and a good history. This candidate convinces me that he possesses the stamina, integrity, and neutrality demanded by an arbitrator. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  06:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Good statement, and appropriate history of experience in dispute resolution. I was ready to support, but Elonka's comments have given me reason to pause. Be good to have an explanation of why candidate is claiming improvements to that article (the edits were very minor, and many were not helpful and have been reverted) in a manner that suggests he contributed to the article gaining GA status. Without an adequate explanation it is possible that people may view that "boast" as deceitful. SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Language issues abound here, such that I would feel immensely uncomfortable having this candidate attempt to decide a case involving English communication. The two most flagrant examples that come to mind are the rambling answer to Davewild's first question, which takes its blessed time to deliver its final conclusion of something between a "meh" and a "dunno". Assuming good faith, I suppose this is an attempt to "auto-pilot" his way to an answer for a question which triggered no particular reaction in him - all the tell-tale signs are there: 1) rephrase the question, 2) speculate in each direction, 3) come down squarely in the middle... 4) ...while allowing that bad things are wrong and good things are right. The other, much worse, example, is "to not re-ban Law would be to send out the message that ban evasion in cases where the initial sanction was of questionable merit would be very unwise" - while it parses grammatically, it's logically slipshod ("To not re-ban Law would be to send out the message that what he did was unwise", or, to simplify things further, "to not punish X would be to say that what X did was wrong"). It is as if AGK originally wrote "to not re-ban Law would be very unwise", then tried to make the whole thing seem more scholarly, and ended up with nonsensical drivel as a result. The bottom line is that I do not feel confident that the candidate's expressed opinions would reflect written reality (neither that of the participants, nor that of AGK himself). Badger Drink (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I was very pleased with AGK's thorough response in terms of improving transparency and responsiveness as well as in their approach to conflict resolution. High marks.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I admire his well-thought-out answers. In particular, he is one of the few candidates who thought things through enough to recognize that "no consensus = delete" is a bad idea that flips the entire purpose of consensus on its head. rspεεr (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I like his platform and question answers, also trustworthy, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)