Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK

A Reform Candidate
I very much like the proposal to bring non-sensitive ArbCom discussions off of email and into public space. The current cast of ArbCom is not only extremely slow and timid about taking and expeditiously settling basic disputes (Muhammed pictures, etc.), they are secretive in their process. I also like the declaration that POV-Warrior disrupters will be whacked. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that almost all candidates almost all the time promise these things. There's always talk of "more transparency" blah blah blah and it never happens. And just wait till you get labeled a "POV-Warrior disrupter" and whacked yourself. Long term, the only people who don't get labeled as such at some point or another are only those who... don't actually contribute any content to the encyclopedia but instead use it as facebook or for other forms of fucking around. Banning obviously disruptive users isn't a problem, and is already done on regular basis. It's the hard cases where two people/groups mutually accuse each other of POV pushing that are hard to figure out - usually because they require substantial knowledge of the subject or at least a lot of work in becoming familiar with it; and Arbitrators aren't equipped for that (and maybe they shouldn't be), least of all those who don't actually edit articles themselves.  Volunteer Marek   09:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @VM: I struggled to find any point in that comment that I don't find ridiculous, or exhaustingly cynical. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I might give you cynical (as in "distrustful of human nature and motives" and "reflecting a belief that human behavior is motivated primarily by self-interest (even more so of Wikipedians' nature and motives, and Wikipedians' self interest)) but any person who cares to look around the Wikipedia and has been around long enough to know how it works will probably come to the same conclusions. But ridiculous? Sorry, there's nothing ridiculous in what I said. I can point you to a dozen former candidates, many successfully elected who promised "transparency" and "more communication" and "completing cases in a timely manner" over the past four years and ... one would have to be daft to argue that any of these things have actually happened. Your reply says more about the nature of your candidacy than about my statement.  Volunteer Marek   19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * On reflection, it seems to me you make a good point about the failure of candidates to effect meaningful reform. However, given that a few other candidates have also suggested making a public space for ArbCom discussion and that the committee tried to do this with its public mailing list motion (that failed for reasons other than general opposition to the concept of a public discussion venue), perhaps you may be disappointed this year! AGK  [&bull; ] 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I already am. But it's okay, the thing about being a pessimist (not a cynic) is that disappointment is "no big deal".  Volunteer Marek   22:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea in theory, but in practice, nobody will want to dedicate their time to defining what's "non-sensitive" or parsing the archives for it. The only way we can achieve some transparency is if ALL of arbcom's discussions would be made public after X years (5? 10?). I doubt it will happen anytime soon, as with all organizations (governments, etc.), nobody wants such things public till they are dead. Officially, it's to protect one's privacy, unofficially - too much embarrassing material for one's enemies to pour through for out of context quotations and other tasty morsels. I doubt ArbCom is any different. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 00:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No faith
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679&st=120&p=290211&mode=linear#entry290211 – I don't have any any faith in AGK's ability to settle behavioral disputes. He or she carelessly accused me of being a banned user and an abuser of anonymous accounts. AGK also fails to understand what that thread was discussing ("I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts"). AGK has deleted several revisions related to the Fae dispute, yet he or she admits to not knowing the full story. Should we elect a candidate who deletes revisions without question? Without knowing the full picture? Without understanding the concerns of the other side of the dispute? Should we really elect a candidate who doesn't do any research and who jumps to conclusions so quickly? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I also agree with Elonka's assessment of AGK:

"I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose."

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Yes, that's a WR link. AGK   [• ]  10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a reason to not click on the link in order to examine the posts there? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I have to agree with this. I'd had a past encounter with AGK and his behaviour related to an Israel/Palestine issue, and I was also aware of what seemed to me to be a concerningly determined tendency for hat-collecting. I'd pretty much disregarded all of that, on the assumption that everyone makes mistakes and Arbitration Enforcement is not the easiest of things to be involved with. But, his stoking the dispute on Pesky's talk page after another administrator had already issued the stark warning "What's going to happen here eventually is that the constant hounding of Pesky will cause the loss of a truly industrious contributor", rang huge alarm bells for me - especially after that is exactly what happened following AGK's involvement. That's what prompted my questions.


 * AGK's reply to those two questions on his candidacy page here really confirms that there is a problem; seemingly the discussion "may not be so important if she's stopped editing" (is this really how easily content contributors are trampled underfoot and thrown aside, in AGK's world?!?), and he "can't really remember the background" to his less-than-civil remark to me earlier this year. The picture that emerges is of an arbcom candidate that is very good at writing answers and explanations that work as sound-bites (for example criticising "administrators who enforce civility for civility's sake" in his reply to Rich Farmbrough), but at the same time likes to throw his weight around and doesn't care who gets squashed in the process.


 * Where does "I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but" fit into any claim to be able to deal equitably with the most difficult of conduct disputes on Wikipedia, where it can be expected that people whose social backgrounds vary wildly might need equal treatment? Was this a hasty turn of phrase that was later regretted? No, I left allowance for that in my question, and seemingly AGK had no concerns with his original comment.


 * "I have the stomach to speak up and not be a yes-man" is very telling. There's little doubt that AGK will speak up, and will act against all manner of perceived problems, or perceived problem people. The question is, who will speak up for those people? How many of us actually read every single arbcom case all the way through, and make objections at an early stage that are read with care by those who might curb this sort of impetuosity? Any credible arbcom candidate must have better social skills than this, must have the maturity to deal with people properly, must not be the sort of person who joins in harassing behaviour without reading properly before they type their comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While you are entitled to restate your concerns at your leisure, it might be more constructive to address my rebuttal to your question on my Q&A. AGK   [• ]  10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've addressed your replies here; and in particular, what I find most concerning about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have either misunderstood or misrepresented my response to your question. For instance, much of the start of your comment here focusses on my comments, but when I said may not be so important if she's stopped editing, I meant that I place far more importance on the issue of retaining Pesky as a contributor and ensuring she is not distressed or angry at her treatment by BD, than on asking her not to refer to angry young men. Did you actually read my answer, or just cherry-pick some of my sentences for your follow-up here? AGK   [• ]  10:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, what I focus on is your behaviour, on two separate occasions, several months apart. You've said you don't think there was anything wrong with what you said on either occasion (my question also asked if you could've handled either situation differently). I happen to disagree, but that's my personal opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)