I notice you are very focused on Communism in your edits. Do you support communism, and if so, how does it affect your views of the way wikipedia should be run? PS this is not some mcarthyist b.s., i respect you very much and plan to support.-- Urthogie 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: 63, retired attorney
Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
A: About 30 hours a week, yes, that is how much I put in.
Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.
A: I think the articles which have involved the most successful collaboration have been Communist Party USA, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, China and People's Republic of China. Although these are controversial articles the breakdowns which occurred have, with the help of others, been successfully resolved. It should be noted that several years of service as an arbitrator has somewhat limited my editing recently.
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: Fredbauder ( talk · contribs) Toots ( talk · contribs)
I note here and on your User page you state you are a retired lawyer (attorney) and on your Talk page other Wikipedians have referred to you in your capacity as a lawyer. For myself and others, assessing someone's legal training and experience is an important factor for consideration in electing them to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, would you kindly advise from which university you received your law degree and which State Bar, past or present, you have been admitted to. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the partial answer, but could you please tell us if you are now or have ever been a member of the State Bar?. - Ted Wilkes 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes Fred Bauder 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. You were disbarred by the Supreme Court of Colorado in 1999 as per the record here. Could you please tell us if you were reinstated? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I was suspended for 30 days, but was never reinstated. I retired. Fred Bauder 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
When Jimmy Wales asked if you would be interested in serving on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee did you advise him that you were under disbarment by the Colorado Supreme Court? - Ted Wilkes 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No, such a statement would not be factually correct and is irrelevant anyway, If I had actually done something serious it would be a different matter. Fred Bauder 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
When the Supreme Court of Colorado declares a lawyer unfit to practise law and a danger to the public and forbids them to practise law until they prove otherwise, that is not serious? - Ted Wilkes 20:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto on that, as well on the completely inappropriate comment below by Carnildo. karmafist 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
On November 16th, Ted Wilkes requested arbitration against you. That same day, you voted to "reject" Wilkes case against you. Do you find a conflict of interest to exist when a case is brought against yourself?
On November 17th, Redwolf24 requested arbitration to be reopened against Ted Wilkes regarding the case involving user Onefortyone. That same day, you voted to "accept" the case against Wilkes. Do you find it to be a conflict of interest to vote on a case involving Wilkes, when just the day before, Wilkes had requested arbitration against you?
Most editors are not privy to the inside goings on of arbitration committee. Most editors are outsiders who can only look at diffs and histories of edits made by members of arbcom. From an editors point of view, how would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misusing their power when they vote against a case critical of their behaviour? How would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misuing their power by accepting a case against an editor who had criticized them the day before?
User:Fred Bauder states: "but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted. - What kind of total fabrication is this? Please explain. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
"you cannot bring an arbitration case against an arbitrator, as the ArbCom has decided they don't have jurisdiction over themselves" OK, then this raises some more questions. FuelWagon 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
(1) is there a URL that points to this decision or a URL that points to a policy page that shows this is official arbcom policy?
(2) There is a conversational thread on the RFA talk page regarding this case, excerpted below
(2) The thread ends at this point. If this RfA is so "very simply" as Carnildo states, then why wasn't Wyss informed that an RfA about a member of arbcom's behaviour is not within arbcom's "jurisdiction", ending this whole debate immediately rather than allow the talk page to explode?
(3) If it is clearly a case that arbcom is outside of arbcom's jurisdiction, then what harm could come of Fred Bauder recusing himself from the vote? Fred could have voted "recuse", knowing "very simply" that it was such a straightforward case that the other arbiters would reject as "out of jurisdiction".
(3.1) Wouldn't a vote to "recuse" on Fred's part have maintained a separation of any possible conflict of interests, still knowing that the rest of the members of arbcom would reject it as out of jurisdiction?
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
My experience is that looking at the concrete cases we consider, most involve violation of a core Wikipedia policy or guideline on which there is agreement, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, etc. When difficult situations arise you must consider whether the behavior helps or hinders the building of an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?
--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
In many ArbCom workshops, I've seen other members wait for days until you start the ball rolling. More than 90% of the ArbCom opinions given after yours seem to be in agreement with you, even on some very controversial issues. To address possible influencing of other members in a case, secret balloting of Arbcom members has been suggested. If the results of each vote were shown after the case is closed, would you support such a measure? -- Peter McConaughey 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the solution is to find other arbitrators who have the time and energy to work cases up and propose decisions. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't support the procedure you suggest as one of the things we do is discuss with the arbitrators who are voting why they are voting the way they do. We then discuss their reasons. Sometimes votes, including mine, change as the result of these conversations. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
So you can ask them about the reason for their votes then discuss it. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You have proposed that User:Nobs01 be banned for a minimum of one year. A review of this editor's contributions suggests that he may be considered by many to be a "controversial expert". How do you propose to deal with the problem of expert exodus? Bdell555 09:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the story about the Catholic clergyman is well sourced, it might be included in the article Chip Berlet as criticism. The block of User:Amalekite is justified, although I doubt any one on Stormfront cares who is Jewish here. I would base it more on troublemaking than on endangerment. Fred Bauder 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You are often asked to recuse yourself from cases on the ArbCom (and are probably the Arbitrator most often asked to do so). Before deciding whether or not you have a conflict of interest requiring recusal do you consider it appropriate to discuss the matter with your fellow Arbitrators? I'd also be grateful if you'd explain your answer, jguk 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You appear to attribute a Verifiable citation to nobs which was the genesis of your decision to take up the "acting in concert" case. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. (a) Why do you consider what reputable and verifiable published sources say about a Wikipedia editor to be a "personal attack", by a user citing the source. (b) What evidence do you have that nobs did not attempt to discern the facts, which then may be original reseach? nobs 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Should you when informed that Francisco Kiko Martinez is alive and well, contrary to the information in your source, then investigate? After all, you can claim the falsehood is in your quoted source. Perhaps you should call and ask him at 1-719-589-6543. Fred Bauder 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support the creation of a
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at
User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? -
Ted Wilkes
18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
Do you believe that users have the right to criticize ArbCom and its decisions?
r speer 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I spend about about 4 hours a day. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikinfo, WaterWiki at Wikicities and my bookselling business Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite a bit. I'll continue to work hard on WaterWiki, but not get the kind of work I would like done. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(Being asked of all candidates)
Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?
As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?
-- Victim of signature fascism 01:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?
2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You have proudly stated the following: "I have innovated with respect to Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a /Workshop". According to my experience, nothing or nearly nothing of what was discussed on the Workshop page was used in the Proposed decision. Morover, a great part of the Proposed decision have not been discussed on the Workshop page. So I had no chance to comment on what you were going to vote. What is the purpose of your innovation then?-- AndriyK 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope Fred won't mind if I speak up in advocacy here. Please look at some other workshops, Andriyk. In the Webcomics decision, most of the final decision (or the pending final decision; last time I looked it had passed a motion to close but still hadn't yet been closed) came directly from the workshop. Principles, findings of fact, and remedies, mostly word-for-word. The committee was highly selective in its use of workshop material, choosing that which it felt was appropriate, but the concept has been an overwhelming success and I'm sure it has cut clerical work by the committee down immensely. It has also provided editors with a substantial stake in the arbitration process, and experience of the kind of material and considerations that are useful to the committee in producing its final decision, although the deliberation itself remains largely opaque. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
James F. have written in his statement the following:
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain your view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You've just written:
On the other hand, you voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Wikipedia, I promised do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent disruption or damage"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between your statement and your vote? If ArbCom would like to change my behavior, why not just tell me clearly, what exactly should be changed?-- AndriyK 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice you are very focused on Communism in your edits. Do you support communism, and if so, how does it affect your views of the way wikipedia should be run? PS this is not some mcarthyist b.s., i respect you very much and plan to support.-- Urthogie 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: 63, retired attorney
Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
A: About 30 hours a week, yes, that is how much I put in.
Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.
A: I think the articles which have involved the most successful collaboration have been Communist Party USA, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, China and People's Republic of China. Although these are controversial articles the breakdowns which occurred have, with the help of others, been successfully resolved. It should be noted that several years of service as an arbitrator has somewhat limited my editing recently.
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: Fredbauder ( talk · contribs) Toots ( talk · contribs)
I note here and on your User page you state you are a retired lawyer (attorney) and on your Talk page other Wikipedians have referred to you in your capacity as a lawyer. For myself and others, assessing someone's legal training and experience is an important factor for consideration in electing them to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, would you kindly advise from which university you received your law degree and which State Bar, past or present, you have been admitted to. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the partial answer, but could you please tell us if you are now or have ever been a member of the State Bar?. - Ted Wilkes 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes Fred Bauder 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. You were disbarred by the Supreme Court of Colorado in 1999 as per the record here. Could you please tell us if you were reinstated? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I was suspended for 30 days, but was never reinstated. I retired. Fred Bauder 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
When Jimmy Wales asked if you would be interested in serving on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee did you advise him that you were under disbarment by the Colorado Supreme Court? - Ted Wilkes 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No, such a statement would not be factually correct and is irrelevant anyway, If I had actually done something serious it would be a different matter. Fred Bauder 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
When the Supreme Court of Colorado declares a lawyer unfit to practise law and a danger to the public and forbids them to practise law until they prove otherwise, that is not serious? - Ted Wilkes 20:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto on that, as well on the completely inappropriate comment below by Carnildo. karmafist 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
On November 16th, Ted Wilkes requested arbitration against you. That same day, you voted to "reject" Wilkes case against you. Do you find a conflict of interest to exist when a case is brought against yourself?
On November 17th, Redwolf24 requested arbitration to be reopened against Ted Wilkes regarding the case involving user Onefortyone. That same day, you voted to "accept" the case against Wilkes. Do you find it to be a conflict of interest to vote on a case involving Wilkes, when just the day before, Wilkes had requested arbitration against you?
Most editors are not privy to the inside goings on of arbitration committee. Most editors are outsiders who can only look at diffs and histories of edits made by members of arbcom. From an editors point of view, how would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misusing their power when they vote against a case critical of their behaviour? How would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misuing their power by accepting a case against an editor who had criticized them the day before?
User:Fred Bauder states: "but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted. - What kind of total fabrication is this? Please explain. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
"you cannot bring an arbitration case against an arbitrator, as the ArbCom has decided they don't have jurisdiction over themselves" OK, then this raises some more questions. FuelWagon 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
(1) is there a URL that points to this decision or a URL that points to a policy page that shows this is official arbcom policy?
(2) There is a conversational thread on the RFA talk page regarding this case, excerpted below
(2) The thread ends at this point. If this RfA is so "very simply" as Carnildo states, then why wasn't Wyss informed that an RfA about a member of arbcom's behaviour is not within arbcom's "jurisdiction", ending this whole debate immediately rather than allow the talk page to explode?
(3) If it is clearly a case that arbcom is outside of arbcom's jurisdiction, then what harm could come of Fred Bauder recusing himself from the vote? Fred could have voted "recuse", knowing "very simply" that it was such a straightforward case that the other arbiters would reject as "out of jurisdiction".
(3.1) Wouldn't a vote to "recuse" on Fred's part have maintained a separation of any possible conflict of interests, still knowing that the rest of the members of arbcom would reject it as out of jurisdiction?
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
My experience is that looking at the concrete cases we consider, most involve violation of a core Wikipedia policy or guideline on which there is agreement, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, etc. When difficult situations arise you must consider whether the behavior helps or hinders the building of an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?
--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
In many ArbCom workshops, I've seen other members wait for days until you start the ball rolling. More than 90% of the ArbCom opinions given after yours seem to be in agreement with you, even on some very controversial issues. To address possible influencing of other members in a case, secret balloting of Arbcom members has been suggested. If the results of each vote were shown after the case is closed, would you support such a measure? -- Peter McConaughey 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the solution is to find other arbitrators who have the time and energy to work cases up and propose decisions. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't support the procedure you suggest as one of the things we do is discuss with the arbitrators who are voting why they are voting the way they do. We then discuss their reasons. Sometimes votes, including mine, change as the result of these conversations. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
So you can ask them about the reason for their votes then discuss it. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You have proposed that User:Nobs01 be banned for a minimum of one year. A review of this editor's contributions suggests that he may be considered by many to be a "controversial expert". How do you propose to deal with the problem of expert exodus? Bdell555 09:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the story about the Catholic clergyman is well sourced, it might be included in the article Chip Berlet as criticism. The block of User:Amalekite is justified, although I doubt any one on Stormfront cares who is Jewish here. I would base it more on troublemaking than on endangerment. Fred Bauder 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You are often asked to recuse yourself from cases on the ArbCom (and are probably the Arbitrator most often asked to do so). Before deciding whether or not you have a conflict of interest requiring recusal do you consider it appropriate to discuss the matter with your fellow Arbitrators? I'd also be grateful if you'd explain your answer, jguk 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You appear to attribute a Verifiable citation to nobs which was the genesis of your decision to take up the "acting in concert" case. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. (a) Why do you consider what reputable and verifiable published sources say about a Wikipedia editor to be a "personal attack", by a user citing the source. (b) What evidence do you have that nobs did not attempt to discern the facts, which then may be original reseach? nobs 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Should you when informed that Francisco Kiko Martinez is alive and well, contrary to the information in your source, then investigate? After all, you can claim the falsehood is in your quoted source. Perhaps you should call and ask him at 1-719-589-6543. Fred Bauder 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support the creation of a
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at
User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? -
Ted Wilkes
18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
Do you believe that users have the right to criticize ArbCom and its decisions?
r speer 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I spend about about 4 hours a day. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikinfo, WaterWiki at Wikicities and my bookselling business Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Quite a bit. I'll continue to work hard on WaterWiki, but not get the kind of work I would like done. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(Being asked of all candidates)
Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?
As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?
-- Victim of signature fascism 01:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?
2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You have proudly stated the following: "I have innovated with respect to Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a /Workshop". According to my experience, nothing or nearly nothing of what was discussed on the Workshop page was used in the Proposed decision. Morover, a great part of the Proposed decision have not been discussed on the Workshop page. So I had no chance to comment on what you were going to vote. What is the purpose of your innovation then?-- AndriyK 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope Fred won't mind if I speak up in advocacy here. Please look at some other workshops, Andriyk. In the Webcomics decision, most of the final decision (or the pending final decision; last time I looked it had passed a motion to close but still hadn't yet been closed) came directly from the workshop. Principles, findings of fact, and remedies, mostly word-for-word. The committee was highly selective in its use of workshop material, choosing that which it felt was appropriate, but the concept has been an overwhelming success and I'm sure it has cut clerical work by the committee down immensely. It has also provided editors with a substantial stake in the arbitration process, and experience of the kind of material and considerations that are useful to the committee in producing its final decision, although the deliberation itself remains largely opaque. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
James F. have written in his statement the following:
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain your view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You've just written:
On the other hand, you voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Wikipedia, I promised do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent disruption or damage"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between your statement and your vote? If ArbCom would like to change my behavior, why not just tell me clearly, what exactly should be changed?-- AndriyK 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)