Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Fred Bauder

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Fred Bauder or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

• The ArbCom has made a lot of progress the last two years, and it would run counter to that to reinstate one of the "old guard" like Fred in his position. Wikipedia needs to move forwards, not backwards, and therefore it is time for the new generation to take up the job. >Radiant< 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is the ArbCom member who proposed redirecting BLPs to clown as a means of retaliation against the subject [1]. His response on the question page ("It was only a proposal"), along with a justification for making said proposal, does nothing to calm me. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and a proposal like is something which can clearly bring Wikipedia into disrepute. There are some former ArbCom members who I would support, but Bauder is definitely not one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Sadly oppose.

His proposal to redirect some blp to 'clown' in retaliation for criticizing Wikipedia was comical, but disconcerting.

And despite his insistence at the time that he was serious, I do believe him when he now says that it was, in fact, a joke.

I think we, the project, asked Fred to help decide a case he had very very strong feelings about. When his deeply-held view didn't carry the day, I suspect he got frustrated like we all do, and so he did a single edit of semi-humorous pseudo-vandalism.

His words have weight, his insights are welcome... but he burnt out last time, and I worry that during the long road between now and New Year's 2012, similar problems might crop up. Arbcom has improved since those days, and I think this would be step a back --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments made before the election started are here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Fred Bauder. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have voted to Strongly Oppose this candidate due to incredibly significant involvement in creating and prolonging drama on the Wikipedia project. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that has a very, very high potential to devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members, or in this particular case, a contract renewal. As a certain user once said, and I am paraphrasing as the edit is magically hard to find now, it'd be like putting a wimpy bull in a china shop.Vodello (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Though I did not agree with all of Mr. Bauder's extensive past arbcom decisions, I nevertheless feel that he is an outstanding choice and I am glad to see he has decided to seek reelection to this post after what was a well deserved rest.--MONGO 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 19:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fred was instrumental to the original setting up of Arbcom, and his contributions are much appreciated. However, his commentary and actions towards the end of his last Arbcom tenure showed he was increasingly out of touch with how community attitudes - for better or worse - were evolving. Since then he has been largely out of the public eye on wikipedia, leaving me with far too much concern that he would be a "back to the past" Arbcom candidate. I'm not fully comfortable with how we have evolved, but I'm also sure I don't want to go back. Martinp (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support An uncomplicated answer to my questions on handling conflicts, the clearest ans only one to focus on positive means to address behavioral issues, that is, prevention versus excision. For that alone, good marks.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, for his repeated irresponsible practice of unilaterally unblocking banned sockpuppeters, and his very unsatisfactory answer to my related question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Radiant here, would make ArbCom run backwords, along with some awful answers towards questions Strongest Possible Oppose Secret ^account 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disappointed by question answers, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Obviously oppose in the strongest possible terms. A deficit. Grace Note (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)