|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
- I have raised on the discussion page for the candidate's questions a query about what appear to be tangential responses to quite a few questions. Examples are provided. Tony (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fred presided over the most ham-fisted handling of anything I have seen at Wikipedia since I joined in 2006: this arbitration case. Background is here, and two highlights of Fred's role are as follows:
- Fred is the retired American lawyer who on the Workshop page, as part of his reasoning behind his proposed FoF, equated the Canadian concept of conditional discharge with a Colorado deferred prosecution. This is not correct: a Canadian conditional discharge requires the court to have determined that the defendant is guilty of a crime, whereas a Colorado deferred prosecution involves no plea or verdict. [1] [2] In this particular case the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year's probation, but Fred said on the Workshop page that there is "no good source" for the allegations against the defendant.
- Fred's performance on this case indicates to me that he will use his position on the Arbitration Committee to influence article content based on his own opinion on the subject rather than reliable sources, and furthermore that he will do so incompetently. Fred is also the arbitrator who used his administrative tools to delete and salt a talk subpage that consisted of a list of references to reliable sources. We need much better arbitrators than this. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Publication of an assertion by an individual in a generally reliable source does not convert it into a verifiable fact. Fred Talk 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit Analysis
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Fred_Bauder. Franamax ( talk) 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| |||
- I have raised on the discussion page for the candidate's questions a query about what appear to be tangential responses to quite a few questions. Examples are provided. Tony (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fred presided over the most ham-fisted handling of anything I have seen at Wikipedia since I joined in 2006: this arbitration case. Background is here, and two highlights of Fred's role are as follows:
- Fred is the retired American lawyer who on the Workshop page, as part of his reasoning behind his proposed FoF, equated the Canadian concept of conditional discharge with a Colorado deferred prosecution. This is not correct: a Canadian conditional discharge requires the court to have determined that the defendant is guilty of a crime, whereas a Colorado deferred prosecution involves no plea or verdict. [1] [2] In this particular case the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year's probation, but Fred said on the Workshop page that there is "no good source" for the allegations against the defendant.
- Fred's performance on this case indicates to me that he will use his position on the Arbitration Committee to influence article content based on his own opinion on the subject rather than reliable sources, and furthermore that he will do so incompetently. Fred is also the arbitrator who used his administrative tools to delete and salt a talk subpage that consisted of a list of references to reliable sources. We need much better arbitrators than this. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Publication of an assertion by an individual in a generally reliable source does not convert it into a verifiable fact. Fred Talk 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit Analysis
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Fred_Bauder. Franamax ( talk) 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)