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

1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Haukur 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Strong Support-- Sean| Bla ck 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Certainly. Friday (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. -- Ancheta Wis 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support -- Doc ^ask? 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Michael Snow 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Got to love those incumbents!:). Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Zora 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. BorgQueen 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support without reservations. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. DarthVader 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support. One of the few dozen editors in whose judgement I have absolute confidence. Batmanand 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support. Agnte 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Babajobu 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) I especially appreciate that Fred is tactful even when rejecting RfArs. reply
28. Support ➥the Epopt 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Dmcdevit· t 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Strong Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support Soltak | Talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Nunh-huh 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. TacoDeposit 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support. 30 hours a week!-- ragesoss 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. -- Simesa 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Raven4x4x 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support -- Christopher Thomas 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support -- Duk 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
46. Support — Ruud 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
48. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
50. Support -- Wgfinley 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support we need a lawyer– Gnomz ⁰⁰⁷( ?) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support -- Arwel ( talk) 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support - Good - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:16, Jan. 9, 2006

54. Support. -- csloat 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support Wikibofh_{( talk)} 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. -- ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. King of All the Franks 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Phil Sandifer 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support. ← Hob 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Bobet 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support Calton | Talk 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support FCYTravis 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. older≠ wiser 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support Level-headed, has shown his dedication. - Greg Asche (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support -- Jiang 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support. Rhobite 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support -- Crunch 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support linas 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support. -- maru (talk) Contribs 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support, especially impressed with question answers Kit 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support -- cj | talk 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support Hamster Sandwich 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support — Catherine\ ^talk 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support -- Hurricane111 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support. -- Scott e^iπ 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support - Has been an active and remarkable arbitrator with good leadership qualities. -- LBMixPro ^{<Sp e ak|on|it!>} 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support. Does yeoman's work. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ mrp 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support .  Grue  06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support . Jonathunder 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support. jni 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support . Drdisque 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Support-- nixie 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support - Has proven himself in battle --- Charles Stewart 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Support. siafu 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Yid613 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • 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) reply

90. Support -- MONGO 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Strong Support, he is worthy...does an incredible amount of work already as arbitrator. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 08:31 Z
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) reply
95. Support ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support. Solid arbitrator. -- SCZenz 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Support. -- Viriditas 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Support based on good track record—even-handed and engaged.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
100. Support -- Urthogie 10:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Support. Excellent arbcom member. Very responsive to inquiries, which not all arbcom members are. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Support -- kingboyk 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. support: Ombudsman 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
105. Support. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Support Xtra 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
107. Support -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
109. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Support Wizzy… ☎ 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Support Trifon Triantafillidis 13:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • 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) reply

111. Support, stern but fair. R adiant _>|< 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Support per current work. -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 13:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
114. Support. -- DelftUser 13:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
117. Support Robert McClenon 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Support.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Support. Proto  t  c 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Support Cberlet 16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Support-- Buridan 16:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
124. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Support. -- Conti| ✉ 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Support IZAK 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Support -- Masonpatriot 18:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Support -- Polaris999 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Support - a cool head, keep him on! Awolf002 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Support I find this candidate a very easy choice to continue on ArbCom. Un focused 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Support -- pgk^{( talk)} 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Support -- EMS | Talk 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
133. Support. Gamaliel 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Support. Experienced incumbent, not one to 'go with the flow', independent thinker. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Support. Has done well so far, as far as I can tell. H e rmione 1980 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Support -- Pjacobi 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Support, though we had disagreements in the past. -- Ghirla | talk 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
138. Support Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Support. <K F> 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
140. Support. Avalon 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
141. Support. dedicated and impressive record thus far.-- cjllw | TALK 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
142. Support. Candidate espouses a viable understanding of arbitration. Fifelfoo 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
143. Support. Salsb 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
145. Support experienced Rayc 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
146. Support Maltmomma ^(chat) 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
147. Support -- Interiot 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
149. support. -- Irpen 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
150. support. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
151. Support. - Vsmith 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
152. Support this Wikipedia treasure. Neutrality ^talk 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
153. Support abakharev 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

     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) reply

     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) reply

     Noting comments here, I agree the vote should count. -- Interiot 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

156. Support. JeremyA 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
157. Support. -- Curps 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
158. Support. Good work so far. -- Carnildo 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
159. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
160. Support Delirium 10:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat ( talk • contribs)
162. Support -- Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
163. Support. enochlau ( talk) 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
164. Support despite some disagreements with his take on a few arbcom cases. CarbonCopy (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
166. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
169. Support Magnificent arbitrator Oskar 20:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
172. support, I don't think the arbcom can do very well without FB. dab (ᛏ) 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
173. Support The Literate Engineer 01:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
174. Support. Arm 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
175. Support KTC 05:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
176. Support. He has shown leadership and fairness on the ArbCom. Sunray 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
177. Support -- Karl Meier 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
178. -- Bhadani 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
179. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
180. Support. – ugen64 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
181. Support. Wolfram 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
182. Support. – BCorr| Брайен 17:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
183. Support Has done a great job so far. Cormaggio ^@ 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Already voted above, currently at #108. — Cryptic (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

184. support William M. Connolley 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
185. Support Dr. B 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
186. Support Timrollpickering 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
187. Support pfctdayelise 07:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
188. Support You aren't doing your job right if you don't make any enemies. -- Ignignot 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
189. Support – AB C D ^e ✉ 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
190. Support Fad (ix) 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
191. Support Peter ^Isotalo 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
192. Support - probably one of the most experienced, good statement. -- NorkNork 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
193. Support Jakew 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
194. Support - keith 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
195. Support - Experienced with good answers to the questions. — Laura Scudder ☎ 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
196. Support - Huldra 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
198. Support -- Ze miguel 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
199. Support Alphax 12:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
200. Support - very trustworthy in my experience -- Francs 2000 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
201. Support Sciurinæ 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
202. support iMb~ Meow 07:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
203. Support. bainer ( talk) 10:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
204. Support. Chl 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
206. Support Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     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) reply

207. After reviewing recent statements and developments, struck oppose, now very nervous Support Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
208. Support Derex 03:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
209. Support he saved a page once. I think he's good! -- CyclePat 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
210. Support angusj 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
211. Support mav 06:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
212. Support -- Francis Schonken 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
214. Support - hardest-working arbitrator of 2005 - David Gerard 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
215. Support. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
216. Support sannse (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
217. Support. Keeps his head on straight in the face of ridiculouslness. Fastfission 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
219. Support Useful Chap. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
220. Support Will improve from experience. BD2412 T 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
221. Support - kaal 16:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
222. Support - llywrch 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
223. Support - Samboy 22:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
224. Support- Homey 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
225. Support CJCurrie 04:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
226. Support Herostratus 08:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
227. Support - Hoekenheef 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
228. Support The only guy on the committee who can work at a reasonable pace. CJK 15:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
229. Support Andries 21:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
230. Support of course. Keeps the Arbcom on track. -- Pak aran 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
231. Support Fair-minded. -- Agiantman 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
232. Support Pete.Hurd 01:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
233. Support. record of service -- JWSchmidt 03:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
234. Support per modesty of candidate's own vote. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Support. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 04:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Already voted above, currently at #68. — Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

235. Support .:. Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
236. Support, experienced and responsible arbitrator, even if I don't always agree. Gazpacho 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
237. 'Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
238. Support, experience is key. - JustinWick 06:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
239. Support, Excellent Alex43223 20:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
240. Support Dedicated, sounds good. -- AySz88^ - ^ 00:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
241. Support Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
242. Support ( Bjorn Tipling 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
243. Support – Smyth\ ^talk 12:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
244. Support -- Egil 14:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
245. Support Charles Matthews 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
246. Support. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 16:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
247. Support WLD 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
249. Support -- Spondoolicks 21:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
250. Support. +sj + 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
251. Support CDThieme 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Guettarda 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) withdrawn reply

1. Everyking 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, other. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   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) reply

   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) reply

   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) reply

3. Shanes 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Ambi 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose -- Angelo 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose karmafist 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. I believe that no user should be penalized for criticizing ArbCom decisions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Record of bad judgment. Xoloz 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. Biased. Grace Note 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. — Guan aco 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Rob Church ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose Has a soft spot in his heart for trolls; unconcerned about everyone else. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose as per Rspeer. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Arkon 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign in) reply

    • 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) reply

18. Oppose-- Robert Harrison ^{talk contrib} 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. Kaldari 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose -- Tabor 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. android 79 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. Unqualified based on past performance. zen master T 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. oppose. Kingturtle 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose, due to use of terms like wikilawyering to dismiss concerns. Sam Spade 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. -- Angr ( tɔk) 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose per rspeer. — Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose Cmouse 08:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

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) reply
30. Oppose, as Rspear. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Per rspeer and others. — Nightstallion (?) 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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. Tom e r ^talk 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
36. Oppose Recent activity has left a bad taste in my mouth. Ξxtreme Unction| _{yakkity yak} 14:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose per Alkivar. Mark ¹ 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

    Oppose per ArbCom record. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    On reflection, I'd rather abstain. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 23:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

39. Oppose Vertigo700 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. — Dunc| ☺ 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
42. Oppose. Reluctant oppose per Alkivar and Asbestos. -- Muchness 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose-- MichaelSirks 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose Jim62sch 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • 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) reply
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose -readding removed vote due to only have 138 edits at the time. I still oppose. Arkon 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • 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) reply

46. Weak Oppose - Good user, but I feel that new blood is needed Brian | (Talk) 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. A flagrant abuser of ArbCom powers. -- HK 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. per alkivar. Avriette 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose per BrianSmithson and new blood argument. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. per ArbCom record and personal experience. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Not an honest broker. Wally 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. He recuses himself too often, and with no explanation. For example, the DotSix case. -- Nate Ladd 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose. Leads without reason, violating policies including Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. SEWilco 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Although he's not the worst offender, we need an ideologically neutral ArbCom. Ruy Lopez 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose per SEWilco. WikiFanatic 05:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose I think we can do better. -- Dschor 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
60. Oppose. — David Wahler (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. Cavalier. - Xed 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. Corax 07:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
64. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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 Cat ^{Talk| @} 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind. I wouldnt want this person to be an arbitrator. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

65. Oppose As far as I care made at least one ill-judged sugestion on an arbitration case (my case against my stalkers) -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose-- Gozar 17:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. — David Levy 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose Biased. Zeq 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
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) reply
73. Oppose. After researching, I share the concerns voiced here. Velvetsmog 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose Share concerns. Insufficiently judicious. Kevin baas 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
76. Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

    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) reply

78. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose. Preaky 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
81. oppose. Unable to tell fact from fiction. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose, an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda. The Witch 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • The Witch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

82. Oppose Per rspeer, alikvar, and somewhat per obsidian order. -- Durin 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose -- Hoary 09:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
85. Oppose -- Carl Hewitt 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Have some significant concerns about behavior during term. Ingoolemo  ^talk 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Overly hasty. Neutrality. Served too long. Metta Bubble 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC) withdrawn reply

87. Oppose his statement makes him sound like a policy-fascist, also concerns per Ingoolemo Cynical 22:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose Acetic Acid 23:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose Gentgeen 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply