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

message: As per election rules/procedure, neutral votes/comments moved from vote page by E Pluribus Anthony 14:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I believe Voice of All's comment about "sour grapes" should not be on the voting page. The comment is a veiled attack on oppose voters, implying that they are all problem users who have been punished by Fred, which is clearly not true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially since the reference is not clear. Does it refer to my comment? If yes, is there any substance to it? For my history with ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2.--Stephan Schulz 20:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sour grapes? 

message: #Neutral. I appreciate the work Fred has put into the arbitration system. However, I also have the impression that he is sometimes dealing more with process than with substance, and that he occasionally forms opinion to quickly.--Stephan Schulz 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral (moved from main page) 

message: I have shortened User:deeceevoice's vote, because the general idea is that we keep things short. Here's the vote and comment in full. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vigorous Oppose.  See Bauder's unseemly actions, blatant abuse of administrative authority here.,, , He posted a comment to my user page -- ironically, counseling me against "provocation" (because I defended my user page), then blocked me for 24 hours in a retaliatory move, and threatened to do so indefinitely after I removed his comments and firmly (but civilly) informed him he should know that user pages are not the place for personal commentary by other users.  He advanced a weak rationalization for his actions, then finally admitted, after being criticized by other users and admins, that he was "guilty of giving [me] a good poke" to see how I would respond -- in other words, deliberately engaging in provocation himself. He's refused to own up to the retaliatory nature of his blocking and then threatening me with further action, yet has involved another editor in an RfAr involving me, accusing her of "harassment," for doing far less than he -- and has refused to recuse himself from the ongoing case.  Regardless of whatever the issues of my RfAr case may be, Bauder's actions are highly improper.  He willfully baited then spitefully blocked and threatened someone whose case he is currently presiding over as a member of the very body to which he is now up for reelection. Bauder's hypocrisy; administrative malfeasance and misfeasance; IMO, arrogance/egotism; extremely poor judgment; and complete intransigence have absolutely no place on the ArbCom. And insofar as the reasons I oppose his reelection are grounded in an action taken as an administrator, IMO, he shouldn't be an administrator -- let alone a member of a body which rules on the conduct of others!  (I note that others who are aware of this incident, as well as others who likely are not, herein have raised ethical concerns about Bauder's conduct and cited what they feel is Bauder's tendency to 'make up the rules as he goes along' and to abuse his authority.  Not good!)deeceevoice 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeceevoice vote and comment 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Dreamguy vote and comment 

message: Why are lengthy oppose votes being moved to the talk page while lengthy supports get to stay? DreamGuy's note in particular is four lines on my browser, while many of the supports are three lines. — BrianSmithson 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What lengthy supports? I don't see any support votes longer than two lines. NatusRoma 06:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance?