Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Fred Bauder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Fred Bauder

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

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Haukur 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support--Sean|Black 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Certainly. Friday (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. --Ancheta Wis 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Doc ask? 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Michael Snow 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Got to love those incumbents!:).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. —Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Zora 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. BorgQueen 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support without reservations. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. DarthVader 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. One of the few dozen editors in whose judgement I have absolute confidence. Batmanand 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Agnte 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Babajobu 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I especially appreciate that Fred is tactful even when rejecting RfArs.
  28. Support ➥the Epopt 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Dmcdevit·t 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Strong Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Soltak | Talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Nunh-huh 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. TacoDeposit 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. 30 hours a week!--ragesoss 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. -- Simesa 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Raven4x4x 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support --Christopher Thomas 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support --Duk 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Despite the lack of de jure status, I believe he is the de facto "Chief Arbitrator". --TML1988 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support —Ruud 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support The only candidate whom I have both seen a good deal of and seen nothing intemperate or improper. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support -- anyone Karmafist opposes can't be all bad. in fact, he'd have to be pretty good. r b-j 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Wgfinley 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support we need a lawyer–Gnomz007(?) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support - Good - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:16, Jan. 9, 2006
  54. Support. --csloat 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Wikibofh(talk) 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. King of All the Franks 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Phil Sandifer 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. ←Hob 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Bobet 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Calton | Talk 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support FCYTravis 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. older≠wiser 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support Level-headed, has shown his dedication. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support --Jiang 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support. Rhobite 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support --Crunch 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support linas 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support, especially impressed with question answers Kit 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support --cj | talk 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support Hamster Sandwich 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support — Catherine\talk 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support --Hurricane111 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. -- Scott eiπ 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support - Has been an active and remarkable arbitrator with good leadership qualities. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support. Does yeoman's work. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support .  Grue  06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support . Jonathunder 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support. jni 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support . Drdisque 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support--nixie 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support - Has proven himself in battle --- Charles Stewart 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. siafu 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Yid613 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yid613 likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support --MONGO 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Strong Support, he is worthy...does an incredible amount of work already as arbitrator. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:31Z
  93. Support Record of good judgement. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. --Kefalonia 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. Solid arbitrator. -- SCZenz 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. --Viriditas 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support based on good track record—even-handed and engaged.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support, and support 1,000,000 times over!!!! If this editor doesn't get back onto ArbCom, I fear the worst :( Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support --Urthogie 10:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. Excellent arbcom member. Very responsive to inquiries, which not all arbcom members are. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support --kingboyk 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. support: Ombudsman 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. The edit highlighted by rspeer below was poor, but the rest of Fred's work offsets that. Dan100 (Talk) 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support Xtra 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Ironclad Support This guy is perfect for the ArbCom --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support Wizzy…☎ 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Trifon Triantafillidis 13:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 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)
  111. Support, stern but fair. Radiant_>|< 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support per current work. --Celestianpower háblame 13:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. 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. Thryduulf 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support. --DelftUser 13:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. support - current work seems good —the preceding unsigned comment is by Novacatz (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support. --Habap 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support Robert McClenon 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support. Proto t c 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. SupportCberlet 16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support--Buridan 16:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. 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)
  124. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support. --Conti|✉ 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support IZAK 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support -- Masonpatriot 18:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support -- Polaris999 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support - a cool head, keep him on! Awolf002 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support I find this candidate a very easy choice to continue on ArbCom. Unfocused 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support --pgk(talk) 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support --EMS | Talk 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support. Gamaliel 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support. Experienced incumbent, not one to 'go with the flow', independent thinker. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support. Has done well so far, as far as I can tell. Hermione1980 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support --Pjacobi 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  137. Support, though we had disagreements in the past. --Ghirla | talk 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  138. Support Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support. <KF> 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support. Avalon 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support. dedicated and impressive record thus far.--cjllw | TALK 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  142. Support. Candidate espouses a viable understanding of arbitration. Fifelfoo 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support. Salsb 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support. Appears to be dedicated and largely fair, although I don't like how he rejected the recent userbox issue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  145. Support experienced Rayc 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support Maltmomma (chat) 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  147. Support --Interiot 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  148. 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. Barno 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  149. support. --Irpen 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  150. support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support. - Vsmith 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support this Wikipedia treasure. Neutralitytalk 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  153. Support abakharev 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  154. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c)
  155. Support hes well, fair. how often is that smoething we can honestly say about anyone?Gimmiet 06:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Gimmiet likely does not have suffrage, as Gimmiet's first edit was on 2005/10/04 17:31:47. --Interiot 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    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. Arkon 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Noting comments here, I agree the vote should count. --Interiot 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support. JeremyA 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  157. Support. -- Curps 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  158. Support. Good work so far. --Carnildo 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  159. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  160. Support Delirium 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  161. 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs).
  162. Support --Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  163. Support. enochlau (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  164. Support despite some disagreements with his take on a few arbcom cases. CarbonCopy (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  165. Support; while one of the more controversial ArbCom members, he has done a lot of good work. Ral315 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  166. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  167. Support. His hard work makes the arbcom run. Should start training a successor/standin for his jobs. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  168. Support. I have not seen Fred in action; but the opposition convinces me I must vote to support. Septentrionalis 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  169. Support Magnificent arbitrator Oskar 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  170. 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)
  171. 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. 172 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  172. support, I don't think the arbcom can do very well without FB. dab (ᛏ) 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  173. Support The Literate Engineer 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  174. Support. Arm 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  175. Support KTC 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  176. Support. He has shown leadership and fairness on the ArbCom. Sunray 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  177. Support -- Karl Meier 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  178. --Bhadani 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  179. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  180. Support. – ugen64 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  181. Support. Wolfram 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  182. Support. – BCorr|Брайен 17:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  183. Support Has done a great job so far. Cormaggio @ 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Already voted above, currently at #108. —Cryptic (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  184. support William M. Connolley 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  185. SupportDr. B 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  186. Support Timrollpickering 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  187. Support pfctdayelise 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  188. Support You aren't doing your job right if you don't make any enemies. --Ignignot 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  189. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  190. Support Fad (ix) 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  191. Support Peter Isotalo 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  192. Support - probably one of the most experienced, good statement. --NorkNork 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  193. Support Jakew 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  194. Support - keith 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  195. Support - Experienced with good answers to the questions. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  196. Support -Huldra 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  197. 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. Jwrosenzweig 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  198. Support -- Ze miguel 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  199. Support Alphax 12:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  200. Support - very trustworthy in my experience -- Francs2000 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  201. Support Sciurinæ 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  202. support iMb~Meow 07:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  203. Support. bainer (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  204. Support. Chl 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  205. 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). -- Marcika 18:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  206. Support Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    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. NatusRoma 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  207. After reviewing recent statements and developments, struck oppose, now very nervous Support Why? ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  208. Support Derex 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  209. Support he saved a page once. I think he's good! --CyclePat 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  210. Support angusj 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  211. Support mav 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  212. Support --Francis Schonken 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  213. Support I support term limits, but I will not penalize a qualified candidate, since my views are not official policy. Youngamerican 15:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  214. Support - hardest-working arbitrator of 2005 - David Gerard 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  215. Support. —Lowellian (reply) 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  216. Support sannse (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  217. Support. Keeps his head on straight in the face of ridiculouslness. Fastfission 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  218. Support He ought to take valid criticisms to heart and think seriously about improving his performance. Fred Bauder 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  219. Support Useful Chap. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  220. Support Will improve from experience. BD2412 T 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  221. Support - kaal 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  222. Support - llywrch 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  223. Support - Samboy 22:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  224. Support- Homey 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  225. Support CJCurrie 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  226. Support Herostratus 08:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  227. Support -Hoekenheef 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  228. Support The only guy on the committee who can work at a reasonable pace. CJK 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  229. Support Andries 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  230. Support of course. Keeps the Arbcom on track. -- Pakaran 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  231. Support Fair-minded. --Agiantman 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  232. Support Pete.Hurd 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  233. Support. record of service --JWSchmidt 03:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  234. Support per modesty of candidate's own vote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Already voted above, currently at #68. —Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  235. Support .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  236. Support, experienced and responsible arbitrator, even if I don't always agree. Gazpacho 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  237. 'Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  238. Support, experience is key. - JustinWick 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  239. Support, Excellent Alex43223 20:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  240. Support Dedicated, sounds good. --AySz88^-^ 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  241. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  242. Support (Bjorn Tipling 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
  243. Support – Smyth\talk 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  244. Support -- Egil 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  245. Support Charles Matthews 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  246. Support. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  247. Support WLD 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  248. Support Fred Bauder is one of the most industrious members of the Arbcom and has done a great job in the past. Onefortyone 17:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  249. Support --Spondoolicks 21:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  250. Support. +sj + 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  251. Support CDThieme 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Guettarda 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) withdrawn
  1. Everyking 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, other. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just curious: would you be willing to clarify and expand on this "other" reason, per your guidelines? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    I would be happy to give Fred more information on why I voted this way if he asks for it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  3. Shanes 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. brenneman(t)(c) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Ambi 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --Angelo 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose karmafist 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I believe that no user should be penalized for criticizing ArbCom decisions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Record of bad judgment. Xoloz 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Biased. Grace Note 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Guanaco 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Has a soft spot in his heart for trolls; unconcerned about everyone else. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose as per Rspeer. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Arkon 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign in)
    • Arkon does not have suffrage; he had only 137 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose--Robert Harrisontalk contrib 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Kaldari 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose --Tabor 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. android79 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Unqualified based on past performance. zen master T 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. oppose. Kingturtle 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, due to use of terms like wikilawyering to dismiss concerns. Sam Spade 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per rspeer. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Cmouse 08:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose With extreme regret. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) changed to Support. Why? ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. 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. DreamGuy 10:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose, as Rspear. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Per rspeer and others. —Nightstallion (?) 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. 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)
  34. 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. Tomertalk 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. 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)
  36. Oppose Recent activity has left a bad taste in my mouth. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose per Alkivar. Mark1 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Baiting another user (which he admits) is hardly behavior befitting an arbiter, especially one currently hearing an RFArb against the user. — BrianSmithson 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per ArbCom record. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    On reflection, I'd rather abstain. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Vertigo700 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. — Dunc|☺ 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Though I think he's a great wikipedian and a good arbitror, I think new blood is necessary for an evolving arbcom. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Reluctant oppose per Alkivar and Asbestos. --Muchness 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose--MichaelSirks 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Jim62sch 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose -readding removed vote due to only have 138 edits at the time. I still oppose. Arkon 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Arkon does not have suffrage; he had only 137 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Weak Oppose - Good user, but I feel that new blood is needed Brian | (Talk) 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. A flagrant abuser of ArbCom powers. --HK 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. per alkivar. Avriette 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose per BrianSmithson and new blood argument. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. per ArbCom record and personal experience. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. Not an honest broker. Wally 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. He recuses himself too often, and with no explanation. For example, the DotSix case. --Nate Ladd 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Leads without reason, violating policies including Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. SEWilco 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Although he's not the worst offender, we need an ideologically neutral ArbCom. Ruy Lopez 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose per SEWilco. WikiFanatic 05:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose I think we can do better. --Dschor 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. Makes up policy as he goes along. Blocking of user:deeceevoice wholly inappropriate. He admitted they were WP:POINT. Blocking to make a point?! No thank you! Jim Apple 18:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. —David Wahler (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Cavalier. - Xed 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Corax 07:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. 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. deeceevoice 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  65. Oppose As far as I care made at least one ill-judged sugestion on an arbitration case (my case against my stalkers) --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose--Gozar 17:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. —David Levy 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose Biased. Zeq 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose Different enough to suggest that ArbComm is not completely run by the cabal, but in too peculiar ways. --Audiovideo 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. 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. --Loopy e 04:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. 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.--AndriyK 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. After researching, I share the concerns voiced here. Velvetsmog 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose Share concerns. Insufficiently judicious. Kevin baas 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. 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. ObsidianOrder 09:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. 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. Yoder 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    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. Derex 17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose. Preaky 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. 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 biblecruft 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. oppose. Unable to tell fact from fiction. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda. The Witch 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose Per rspeer, alikvar, and somewhat per obsidian order. --Durin 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose -- Hoary 09:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. 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. Wyss 16:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose --Carl Hewitt 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Have some significant concerns about behavior during term. Ingoolemo talk 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Overly hasty. Neutrality. Served too long. Metta Bubble 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) withdrawn
  87. Oppose his statement makes him sound like a policy-fascist, also concerns per Ingoolemo Cynical 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose Acetic Acid 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Oppose Gentgeen 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_Fred_Bauder_0e73.html"