I am one of the original arbitrators appointed by Jimbo and have participated in most of the cases that have been decided. I have sometimes recused myself from cases where I had strong feelings about another user or the subject matter. You can see what I do by looking at the
open and
closed arbitration cases. I have innovated with respect to
Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a
/Workshop page for discussion of cases before things are firmed up for actual voting. The workshop page, if used by arbitrators, parties and others, offers a broadbased public venue for discussion of the details of arbitration cases and evidence. I expect to be able to serve out any term I am elected to at my present level of activity. I expect to be able to work with anyone who is elected, regardless of any prior differences, as we work together to solve problems which affect the whole community.
I do not feel we should be bound by precedent, but learn by experience, applying that experience to the matter at hand. Although I participate in the ArbCom IRC channel and mailing list I generally support open, on the record, discussion of our cases.
talk
Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk)15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The arbitration committee needs members that will propose harsh remedies and members that will propose mild ones so that consensus can be seen to formed on the most apropriate option in each case, not just on the prefered flavour of similar ones proposed everytime.
Thryduulf13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everybody knows you can trust Fred. Fred was the first link I clicked "support" on, although since I clicked "save page" for two others, first, he didn't get my first vote. Should have, though.
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. May have made some rash statements or actions on occasions, but who wouldn't, every once in a while, given the way people behave in WP conflicts? Most of the reasons for opposition were either unverifiable or from people who I'd seen ranting on RfC or Arb pages in the 16 months I've been here.
Barno03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
He has had multiple accounts. He qualifies if you count any of them but this one, and possibly this one I don't know when it was created. But it will take a rather strict reading of the rules to disregard this vote.
Arkon06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Sometimes I think Fred's decisions are incomplete both in review and substance, but still he's the one doing most of the ArbCom work, the process would fall apart without him.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk •
contribs)
Strong support Disagreed strongly with Fred over edits prior his joining the arbcom. Have found him to be a neutral trustworthy arbritrator. Even when I disagreed with his decisions I respected his judgment and neutrality.
FearÉIREANN\
(caint)21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I also disagreed strongly with Fred over edits prior his joining the arbcom and found him often quite uncivil as an editor. But, as Jtdirl states, he is neutral trustworthy arbritrator who always recuses himself when needed.
17223:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Working with Fred on the AC convinced me of his tireless fair-mindedness and his seemingly endless energy. He and I did not always agree, but I always respected where he was coming from and the care with which he reached a conclusion.
Jwrosenzweig06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. His time commitment for the arb-com is laudable; decisions generally good. Still, I'd like to see generic term limits instituted for arbitrators(after these elections). --
Marcika18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Fred Bauder hasn't done a perfect job, but he's done well enough to merit another term.
NatusRoma 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) After looking further into Fred Bauder's actions in the matter of Deeceevoice, I cannot support him in this election.
NatusRoma06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
No problem. I quite respect your right to keep such information confidential. I was just curious if you were willing to put it out in the open. :)
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs)
20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Seems too willing to make things up on the fly and do whatever he wants, which I've seen in more than one place, but most notability on interaction with me when all other ArbCom members said that the accusations against me were wholly without merit and yet he was running around trying to find strange non-policy things to complain about as if he was looking for something, anything to complain about. Simply does not show good faith ability to follow policies or act fairly.
DreamGuy10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose upon review of his more recent decisions on arbcom, I am not truely convinced he remains neutral anymore. While I think Fred has made great contributions to Wiki. I feel that he is a perfect example of why Term Limits should be imposed on arbitrators.
ALKIVAR™12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose -- I think Fred has done a great job on ArbCom in the past, but some recent proposals and statements lead me to believe that perhaps he needs a break.
Tomertalk13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose makes inappropriate comments before making decsisions, thereby revealing his bias...very unprofessional...have ethcical concerns as well, it's time to make room for someone else.
Gator(talk)13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Vigorous Oppose. Blatant abuse of administrative authority, misconduct, hypocrisy, double standard for others and himself (see discussion)
[2] His refusal to recuse himself in this matter or own up to his actions seems to indicate he feels his ArbCom position is an entitlement -- no matter what he does. Perhaps it's time for him to move on.
deeceevoice07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, I wont be voting oppose but I am less than satisfied with the arbcom hearing I had when he was around. I would have voted oppose if this user was not among the arbitrators hearing my case. I am just too personaly involved to vote for what is better for wikipedia. --
Cool CatTalk|
@ 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind. I wouldnt want this person to be an arbitrator. --
Cool CatTalk|
@13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it's nothing personal and is not related to this nominee's history, but I see the ArbCom as a sluggish and somewhat antiquated system, shuddering towards a horrible trainwreck. I want to see it shaken up and I think new blood is the only way to do that. Viva la revolucion? No, but similar. --
Loopye04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Fred's Communist view influencies strongly, I would even say determines his activity as an arbitrator. The "defendant" feels himself as at a Soviet trial of Stalin times. No hope for justice.--
AndriyK18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Extreme oppose Reason: his
Troika proposal which is completely counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Anyone who would think even for a millisecond that such a proposal is a good idea probably does not belong in any position of authority on Wikipedia, certainly not as an admin, and absolutely-hell-no-way not on ArbCom.
ObsidianOrder09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Lied on my RfA to get action taken against me. I asked him for evidence for certain specific accusations, but he has ALWAYS blow them off, refusing to provide so much as a diff link.
Nathan J. Yoder17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
term limit oppose changing to support. in principle, i want to limit time, but in practice i have to support. he's done a fine job overall, but xed2 compels me to abandon principle for practice on this one.
Derex17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, absolutely. Based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section), seems strongly biased, unwilling to recuse himself from conflicts of interest about those biases, and is too willing to inflict long punitive bans, rather than seek to calm a conflict. In addition, having been disbarred, even if only for a short time, demonstrates complete contempt for the rule of law, and hence for following wikipedia policy. However, Fred Bauder would be welcome as an editor. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, although he has made positive contrbutions to Wikipedia Mr Bauder has at times demonstrated an unencyclopedic agenda in his decisions, seems unbothered now and then by conflicts of interest and is not sufficiently academic in his outlook.
Wyss16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I am one of the original arbitrators appointed by Jimbo and have participated in most of the cases that have been decided. I have sometimes recused myself from cases where I had strong feelings about another user or the subject matter. You can see what I do by looking at the
open and
closed arbitration cases. I have innovated with respect to
Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a
/Workshop page for discussion of cases before things are firmed up for actual voting. The workshop page, if used by arbitrators, parties and others, offers a broadbased public venue for discussion of the details of arbitration cases and evidence. I expect to be able to serve out any term I am elected to at my present level of activity. I expect to be able to work with anyone who is elected, regardless of any prior differences, as we work together to solve problems which affect the whole community.
I do not feel we should be bound by precedent, but learn by experience, applying that experience to the matter at hand. Although I participate in the ArbCom IRC channel and mailing list I generally support open, on the record, discussion of our cases.
talk
Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk)15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The arbitration committee needs members that will propose harsh remedies and members that will propose mild ones so that consensus can be seen to formed on the most apropriate option in each case, not just on the prefered flavour of similar ones proposed everytime.
Thryduulf13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everybody knows you can trust Fred. Fred was the first link I clicked "support" on, although since I clicked "save page" for two others, first, he didn't get my first vote. Should have, though.
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs)
16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. May have made some rash statements or actions on occasions, but who wouldn't, every once in a while, given the way people behave in WP conflicts? Most of the reasons for opposition were either unverifiable or from people who I'd seen ranting on RfC or Arb pages in the 16 months I've been here.
Barno03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
He has had multiple accounts. He qualifies if you count any of them but this one, and possibly this one I don't know when it was created. But it will take a rather strict reading of the rules to disregard this vote.
Arkon06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Sometimes I think Fred's decisions are incomplete both in review and substance, but still he's the one doing most of the ArbCom work, the process would fall apart without him.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk •
contribs)
Strong support Disagreed strongly with Fred over edits prior his joining the arbcom. Have found him to be a neutral trustworthy arbritrator. Even when I disagreed with his decisions I respected his judgment and neutrality.
FearÉIREANN\
(caint)21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I also disagreed strongly with Fred over edits prior his joining the arbcom and found him often quite uncivil as an editor. But, as Jtdirl states, he is neutral trustworthy arbritrator who always recuses himself when needed.
17223:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Working with Fred on the AC convinced me of his tireless fair-mindedness and his seemingly endless energy. He and I did not always agree, but I always respected where he was coming from and the care with which he reached a conclusion.
Jwrosenzweig06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. His time commitment for the arb-com is laudable; decisions generally good. Still, I'd like to see generic term limits instituted for arbitrators(after these elections). --
Marcika18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Fred Bauder hasn't done a perfect job, but he's done well enough to merit another term.
NatusRoma 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) After looking further into Fred Bauder's actions in the matter of Deeceevoice, I cannot support him in this election.
NatusRoma06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
No problem. I quite respect your right to keep such information confidential. I was just curious if you were willing to put it out in the open. :)
Jdavidb (
talk •
contribs)
20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Seems too willing to make things up on the fly and do whatever he wants, which I've seen in more than one place, but most notability on interaction with me when all other ArbCom members said that the accusations against me were wholly without merit and yet he was running around trying to find strange non-policy things to complain about as if he was looking for something, anything to complain about. Simply does not show good faith ability to follow policies or act fairly.
DreamGuy10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose upon review of his more recent decisions on arbcom, I am not truely convinced he remains neutral anymore. While I think Fred has made great contributions to Wiki. I feel that he is a perfect example of why Term Limits should be imposed on arbitrators.
ALKIVAR™12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose -- I think Fred has done a great job on ArbCom in the past, but some recent proposals and statements lead me to believe that perhaps he needs a break.
Tomertalk13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose makes inappropriate comments before making decsisions, thereby revealing his bias...very unprofessional...have ethcical concerns as well, it's time to make room for someone else.
Gator(talk)13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Vigorous Oppose. Blatant abuse of administrative authority, misconduct, hypocrisy, double standard for others and himself (see discussion)
[2] His refusal to recuse himself in this matter or own up to his actions seems to indicate he feels his ArbCom position is an entitlement -- no matter what he does. Perhaps it's time for him to move on.
deeceevoice07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, I wont be voting oppose but I am less than satisfied with the arbcom hearing I had when he was around. I would have voted oppose if this user was not among the arbitrators hearing my case. I am just too personaly involved to vote for what is better for wikipedia. --
Cool CatTalk|
@ 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind. I wouldnt want this person to be an arbitrator. --
Cool CatTalk|
@13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - it's nothing personal and is not related to this nominee's history, but I see the ArbCom as a sluggish and somewhat antiquated system, shuddering towards a horrible trainwreck. I want to see it shaken up and I think new blood is the only way to do that. Viva la revolucion? No, but similar. --
Loopye04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Fred's Communist view influencies strongly, I would even say determines his activity as an arbitrator. The "defendant" feels himself as at a Soviet trial of Stalin times. No hope for justice.--
AndriyK18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Extreme oppose Reason: his
Troika proposal which is completely counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Anyone who would think even for a millisecond that such a proposal is a good idea probably does not belong in any position of authority on Wikipedia, certainly not as an admin, and absolutely-hell-no-way not on ArbCom.
ObsidianOrder09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose Lied on my RfA to get action taken against me. I asked him for evidence for certain specific accusations, but he has ALWAYS blow them off, refusing to provide so much as a diff link.
Nathan J. Yoder17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
term limit oppose changing to support. in principle, i want to limit time, but in practice i have to support. he's done a fine job overall, but xed2 compels me to abandon principle for practice on this one.
Derex17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, absolutely. Based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section), seems strongly biased, unwilling to recuse himself from conflicts of interest about those biases, and is too willing to inflict long punitive bans, rather than seek to calm a conflict. In addition, having been disbarred, even if only for a short time, demonstrates complete contempt for the rule of law, and hence for following wikipedia policy. However, Fred Bauder would be welcome as an editor. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, although he has made positive contrbutions to Wikipedia Mr Bauder has at times demonstrated an unencyclopedic agenda in his decisions, seems unbothered now and then by conflicts of interest and is not sufficiently academic in his outlook.
Wyss16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply