Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Fred Bauder

I notice you are very focused on Communism in your edits. Do you support communism, and if so, how does it affect your views of the way wikipedia should be run? PS this is not some mcarthyist b.s., i respect you very much and plan to support.--Urthogie 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sort of natural communist in the sense that I am comfortable working in that environment. I certainly don't support imposition of communism on anyone. I guess I have a preconception that everyone should pitch in and make Wikipedia a success, an excellent reverence source we can all be proud of. This is a voluntary cooperative enterprise. Fred Bauder 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you make sure that a dictatorship theoretically "in favor of the users" doesn't occur?--Urthogie 14:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, being an arbitrator takes so much time and effort that I am not able to participate effectively in Wikipedia politics. So the short answer is that there is nothing effective I could do from the position of an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 14:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: 63, retired attorney

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: About 30 hours a week, yes, that is how much I put in.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I think the articles which have involved the most successful collaboration have been Communist Party USA, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, China and People's Republic of China. Although these are controversial articles the breakdowns which occurred have, with the help of others, been successfully resolved. It should be noted that several years of service as an arbitrator has somewhat limited my editing recently.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: Fredbauder (talk · contribs) Toots (talk · contribs)

1. As a current arbitrator, you're particularly well-suited to know the current problems with the arbcom. In your mind, what is the biggest problem with the arbcom, and what what will you do differently if reelected to help fix it?

Our biggest problem is folks who struggle hard to get elected, do a lot of work for a few days, then either quit completely or slow way down, limiting themselves to voting on conclusions, not doing the hard work of investigating problems and proposing solutions. It is hard to predict who might do this, other than in the case of arbitrators who have previously served. Fred Bauder 13:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. You write the lion's share of the proposals for the arbcom at present. Do you see this as a potentially negative thing? Do you think it would be beneficial for other arbitrators to take on a larger share of the proposed decisions? Snowspinner 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have so much work that those with the time and energy to investigate and make proposals need to do it. The problem with overdoing it is somewhat allayed by the /Workshop page which makes propositions more tentative, allowing feedback before propositions are advanced for actual voting. Recusing from a few cases helps too. Fred Bauder 13:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note here and on your User page you state you are a retired lawyer (attorney) and on your Talk page other Wikipedians have referred to you in your capacity as a lawyer. For myself and others, assessing someone's legal training and experience is an important factor for consideration in electing them to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, would you kindly advise from which university you received your law degree and which State Bar, past or present, you have been admitted to. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

University of Denver I practiced in Colorado. Fred Bauder 18:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the partial answer, but could you please tell us if you are now or have ever been a member of the State Bar?. - Ted Wilkes 19:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fred Bauder 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were disbarred by the Supreme Court of Colorado in 1999 as per the record here. Could you please tell us if you were reinstated? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was suspended for 30 days, but was never reinstated. I retired. Fred Bauder 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When Jimmy Wales asked if you would be interested in serving on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee did you advise him that you were under disbarment by the Colorado Supreme Court? - Ted Wilkes 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, such a statement would not be factually correct and is irrelevant anyway, If I had actually done something serious it would be a different matter. Fred Bauder 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When the Supreme Court of Colorado declares a lawyer unfit to practise law and a danger to the public and forbids them to practise law until they prove otherwise, that is not serious? - Ted Wilkes 20:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your honesty here, and the fact that you didn't lose your temper with this line of questioning. Jacqui^★ 15:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a preposterous line of questioning!! Fred has the patience of a saint! Babajobu 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on that, as well on the completely inappropriate comment below by Carnildo. karmafist 03:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, you don't recognize a question with no correct answers when you see one? It's always interesting to know how people deal with such a question. --Carnildo 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On November 16th, Ted Wilkes requested arbitration against you. That same day, you voted to "reject" Wilkes case against you. Do you find a conflict of interest to exist when a case is brought against yourself?

On November 17th, Redwolf24 requested arbitration to be reopened against Ted Wilkes regarding the case involving user Onefortyone. That same day, you voted to "accept" the case against Wilkes. Do you find it to be a conflict of interest to vote on a case involving Wilkes, when just the day before, Wilkes had requested arbitration against you?

Most editors are not privy to the inside goings on of arbitration committee. Most editors are outsiders who can only look at diffs and histories of edits made by members of arbcom. From an editors point of view, how would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misusing their power when they vote against a case critical of their behaviour? How would someone objectively know that a member of arbcom is not misuing their power by accepting a case against an editor who had criticized them the day before?

I am upset, but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted. If I recuse myself it opens the door for a user to pick a fight with an arbitrator so they are forced to recuse. If after a case is started you pick a fight with an arbitrator you just have to live with the consequences. Besides I think I can do right by Ted Wilkes and Wyss anyway. They have a good point regarding Onefortyone's edits, they just went a little too far. Fred Bauder 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fred Bauder states: "but all of the accusations by Ted Wilkes came after the case was accepted. - What kind of total fabrication is this? Please explain. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "all of the accusations ... came after the case was accepted". The Wilkes request arbitration here and it clearly lists you as the main defendant, and the opening statement of his request states: Fred Bauder said on his Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements. It seems clear to me that you had an immediate conflict of interest in Wilkes RfA against you, and that you should have recused yourself there. And given the dispute with Wilkes there, you should ahve recused yourself from the RfA against Wilkes made the next day by Redwolf24. Don't you see a conflict of interest when you are specificially named as the defendent in an RfA regardless of whatever accusations come out of the RfA? FuelWagon 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is real simple and applies to you too. You can't pick a fight with an arbitrator and force recusal. Fred Bauder 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, at what point could an outside editor bring an arbiter to an RFA and expect that the arbiter recuse himself? Wilkes RfA against you seemed more focused on you being a member of arbcom and whetehr or not you purposefully hid your disbarment or whatever. You tried to say that it was an attempt by wilkes to appeal a prior decision. Do you see it a good rule of thumb to simply let a member to decide if he should recuse or not, even if to an outside observer it seems there is an obvious conflict of interest? FuelWagon 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's very simple: you cannot bring an arbitration case against an arbitrator, as the ArbCom has decided they don't have jurisdiction over themselves. All such complaints must go to Jimbo or the Board. --Carnildo 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot bring an arbitration case against an arbitrator, as the ArbCom has decided they don't have jurisdiction over themselves" OK, then this raises some more questions. FuelWagon 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is there a URL that points to this decision or a URL that points to a policy page that shows this is official arbcom policy?

If (1)==no, then we're talking about a subjective interpretation previous rulings and recusal for Fred would still be the appropriate response.

if (1)==yes, then please provide the URL. and continue with question 1.1

(1.1) Was this URL provided to Wilkes at any time during his RFA re. Fred Bauder or on that talk page?

If (1.1)==yes, then please provide a diff because I cannot find it here.

If (1.1)==no, then how exactly would an uninvolved editor know that some objective policy was the basis for the decision, rather than subjective interpretation on the part of the arbiters?

(2) There is a conversational thread on the RFA talk page regarding this case, excerpted below

Ted Wilkes' request for an RfA is not an appeal of a prior arbcom decision and therefore any votes to reject it which are based on that reason should be disqualified. Wyss 22:11, 16 November 200 (UTC)

It looks like an appeal to me Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken, it's an RfA about your behaviour. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(2) The thread ends at this point. If this RfA is so "very simply" as Carnildo states, then why wasn't Wyss informed that an RfA about a member of arbcom's behaviour is not within arbcom's "jurisdiction", ending this whole debate immediately rather than allow the talk page to explode?

(3) If it is clearly a case that arbcom is outside of arbcom's jurisdiction, then what harm could come of Fred Bauder recusing himself from the vote? Fred could have voted "recuse", knowing "very simply" that it was such a straightforward case that the other arbiters would reject as "out of jurisdiction".

(3.1) Wouldn't a vote to "recuse" on Fred's part have maintained a separation of any possible conflict of interests, still knowing that the rest of the members of arbcom would reject it as out of jurisdiction?

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that looking at the concrete cases we consider, most involve violation of a core Wikipedia policy or guideline on which there is agreement, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, etc. When difficult situations arise you must consider whether the behavior helps or hinders the building of an encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

I recuse myself from cases regarding users I have had serious trouble with and subjects on which I hold extreme opinions Fred Bauder 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell us what those subjects are, so that we can examine your record to see how extreme a case must be before you recuse it? --Victim of signature fascism

A list would be rather misleading Fred Bauder 19:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In what manner? Sam Spade, for example, has a whole page filled with a list of all the biases he thinks he exhibits. Maybe you could give some more general themes? Or are you unwilling to be open about some? And if so, why? --Victim of signature fascism 19:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

To the death Fred Bauder 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No, full consideration is given to such requests Fred Bauder 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

I was the one who did that in Yuber (proposed remedies regarding Guy Montag) and fully support that practice. If there is a dispute it is rare that only one is causing all of it. Fred Bauder 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for asking you this question, when the answer is so obvious, but that is a side effect of stock questions.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In many ArbCom workshops, I've seen other members wait for days until you start the ball rolling. More than 90% of the ArbCom opinions given after yours seem to be in agreement with you, even on some very controversial issues. To address possible influencing of other members in a case, secret balloting of Arbcom members has been suggested. If the results of each vote were shown after the case is closed, would you support such a measure? --Peter McConaughey 06:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather disappointed with my "leading" role. I would much rather have colleagues with the kind of time I have to work the cases up. I'd like to sit back and say yes or no too. I've been set on my ear a few times though. I don't think anyone is intimidated but I sometimes wonder if they had time to dig into the evidence extensively they might come to different conclusions. As to a secret ballot there are problems as the community needs to know how people vote. We do a lot of talking about cases on irc and the arbcom mailing list anyway. Anyone needs feedback so when they make a mistake it can be corrected. That's the wiki way. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to find other arbitrators who have the time and energy to work cases up and propose decisions. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support the procedure you suggest as one of the things we do is discuss with the arbitrators who are voting why they are voting the way they do. We then discuss their reasons. Sometimes votes, including mine, change as the result of these conversations. Fred Bauder 14:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion allows for unrestricted communication during the process, the ability to change votes at any time, and complete transparency of the votes after the case is closed. The only difference would be that Arbcom members could vote their conscience without other members singling them out as a problem. I hope that clarifies the suggestion. Given this information, are your feelings on the subject any different? --Peter McConaughey 15:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No you need to know who has an opinion in order to discuss it with them. And they need to reply. There needs to be a dialogue Fred Bauder 07:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are communicating in an open forum, why would you need to know who is voting which way? --Peter McConaughey 18:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you can ask them about the reason for their votes then discuss it. Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have proposed that User:Nobs01 be banned for a minimum of one year. A review of this editor's contributions suggests that he may be considered by many to be a "controversial expert". How do you propose to deal with the problem of expert exodus?Bdell555 09:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If he were an expert he would not make the gross errors he does. He lists one man as having been convicted of a crime and being dead when I sometimes chat with the same man at our local library. Nobs copied it from a book, but on notice of the error, did not bother to check out the facts. Nobs is engaged in serious personal attacks. That is the issue. If Cberlet, or any expert, did the same thing, the same remedy would be proposed. Fred Bauder 14:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Personal attacks which place users in danger policy, "Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others." If actions by User:Cberlet with respect to a certain Catholic clergyman were to directly or indirectly result in that clergyman's dismissal, would that not constitute grounds for a ban? Also, do you agree with the application of that endangerment policy to the case of User:Amalekite?Bdell555 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the story about the Catholic clergyman is well sourced, it might be included in the article Chip Berlet as criticism. The block of User:Amalekite is justified, although I doubt any one on Stormfront cares who is Jewish here. I would base it more on troublemaking than on endangerment. Fred Bauder 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really try to get the "trains to run on time", perhaps prevent repeated head on collisions is more like it. Most disputes need to be worked out in the wiki way through consensus and negotiation. Basically we don't get involved unless more communitarian solutions have broken down. There is far too much eagerness to take things to arbitration. Some folks think we will crack down by enforcing the "rules"; they are often disappointed. Fred Bauder 19:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are often asked to recuse yourself from cases on the ArbCom (and are probably the Arbitrator most often asked to do so). Before deciding whether or not you have a conflict of interest requiring recusal do you consider it appropriate to discuss the matter with your fellow Arbitrators? I'd also be grateful if you'd explain your answer, jguk 19:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not, but the general question of whether we should recuse in the case of an editor who has attacked us has been considered, especially those, such as yourself, who are dissatisfied with the result of an arbitration. It has been decided that is not a basis for recusal. Fred Bauder 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to attribute a Verifiable citation to nobs which was the genesis of your decision to take up the "acting in concert" case. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. (a) Why do you consider what reputable and verifiable published sources say about a Wikipedia editor to be a "personal attack", by a user citing the source. (b) What evidence do you have that nobs did not attempt to discern the facts, which then may be original reseach? nobs 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This question does not make a lot of sense. You might try supplying some diffs to what you are talking about? The material you placed on Talk:Chip Berlet may or may not be accurate, there is one major error involving Francisco Kiko Martinez [1] who is alive, has never been convicted of a felony and is an attorney in good standing in Colorado, but placed where they are, are clearly a personal attack unrelated to the content of the article except by virtue of Guilt by association. Fred Bauder 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should you when informed that Francisco Kiko Martinez is alive and well, contrary to the information in your source, then investigate? After all, you can claim the falsehood is in your quoted source. Perhaps you should call and ask him at 1-719-589-6543. Fred Bauder 21:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the citation was made to Arleigh McCree, A Case For Self-Defense, Military Police (Summer 1981), quoted in Laird Wilcox, Political Research Associates: A Study in "Links & ties", subchapter Chip Berlet and the National Lawyers Guild, (Editorial Research Service, 1999). You made an assertion the man was alive here [2]; nobs supplied the complete cited entry here [3]. How does a verifiable citation to a reputable published source constitute a "personal attack". The standard is verifability, not truth. And what evidence can you cite that nobs did not act to verify your assertion the man was alive? nobs 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would help clear up a number of matters for everyone. Fred Bauder 19:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Do you believe that users have the right to criticize ArbCom and its decisions?

rspeer 05:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although if it extends to a general condemnation of the entire site and all its works all focus is lost. Likewise a general condemnation of me and everything I have ever done in life. Criticism to be useful needs to focus on practical alternatives to what was done. Fred Bauder 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't users view your proposal to chastize Sam Spade [4] [5] as reminiscent of Vladimir Putin throwing his opponent, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison just before an election? nobs 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

I spend about about 4 hours a day. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

Wikinfo, WaterWiki at Wikicities and my bookselling business Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Quite a bit. I'll continue to work hard on WaterWiki, but not get the kind of work I would like done. Fred Bauder 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

Yes, by consensus. That was more or less what we responded to in the case of Ed Poor. Fred Bauder 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

I think that would be an example of consensus Fred Bauder 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

I had occasionally written entire articles from an opposing political point of view, Jack Shulman is an example Fred Bauder 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism 01:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Code you are referring to was made up by disaffected users who had committed serious violations of Wikipedia policies such as Ted_Wilkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone), Nobs01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others), Rangerdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude), and Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2). There has been minimum participation by the community at large, especially by those who support our policies. It is long, extremely detailed and is not policy. That said, I will recuse in any instance I cannot be fair with any user. I don't have time to go through the proposed policy in detail, much of it is wrong-headed. Increasing the number of arbitrators is not an answer in itself. What we need is a few, more active arbitrators. That may involve trying out quite a few users, problem is, once an arbitrator, always an arbitrator so folks who think they could do it, but turn out not to be able to often continue in the position but don't do too much. I did not vote regarding alternatives to arbitration selection. Fred Bauder 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have proudly stated the following: "I have innovated with respect to Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a /Workshop". According to my experience, nothing or nearly nothing of what was discussed on the Workshop page was used in the Proposed decision. Morover, a great part of the Proposed decision have not been discussed on the Workshop page. So I had no chance to comment on what you were going to vote. What is the purpose of your innovation then?--AndriyK 16:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they are but remember anything on the proposed decision page can be discussed on the talk page of /Proposed decision. However you make a good point about the expectations raised that there will be discussion before a proposal to be voted on is made. Fred Bauder 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to discuss on the talk page, but my message was ignored as well.--AndriyK 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Fred won't mind if I speak up in advocacy here. Please look at some other workshops, Andriyk. In the Webcomics decision, most of the final decision (or the pending final decision; last time I looked it had passed a motion to close but still hadn't yet been closed) came directly from the workshop. Principles, findings of fact, and remedies, mostly word-for-word. The committee was highly selective in its use of workshop material, choosing that which it felt was appropriate, but the concept has been an overwhelming success and I'm sure it has cut clerical work by the committee down immensely. It has also provided editors with a substantial stake in the arbitration process, and experience of the kind of material and considerations that are useful to the committee in producing its final decision, although the deliberation itself remains largely opaque. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, /Workshop surely a good idea. Still I wonder why it was completely ignored in my case. Was there any particular reason?--AndriyK 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain your view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--AndriyK 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of all rational remedies is to further the project. If sanctioning a user will result in a change of behavior, that is useful. If banning or blocking them prevents disruption or damage that also helps. Like all people we occasionally lapse into punishment, but that does not advance the project. Fred Bauder 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just written:

The purpose of all rational remedies is to further the project. If sanctioning a user will result in a change of behavior, that is useful. If banning or blocking them prevents disruption or damage that also helps.

On the other hand, you voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Wikipedia, I promised do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent disruption or damage"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between your statement and your vote? If ArbCom would like to change my behavior, why not just tell me clearly, what exactly should be changed?--AndriyK 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Fred Bauder 14:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [6]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cause for concern on many levels. Not only is it a problem in itself, but the dispute over it is a problem with a vote on Templates for deletion to keep, followed by its deletion by those opposed to it. The more extreme of these templates violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. In those cases deletion is justified, but as they become less offensive it becomes harder to make a determination. Just saying you oppose superstition would seem OK. Putting a specific label on it that singles out a group that may participate here can cross the line. Fred Bauder 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question of userboxes as a whole is a policy dispute that needs to be fully discussed. Fred Bauder 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]