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

• Rule was created unilaterally and immediately enforced. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-9 16:06

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) reply

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) reply

1. 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) reply

   Comment. Looks like I see a lot of sour grapes here, as I knew would happen. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 19:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Neutral. Lacks backbone. - Xed 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Vigorous Oppose. See Bauder's unseemly actions, blatant abuse of administrative authority here. [1] [2], [3], [4], [5] 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) reply

• 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

• • He did this with me too, my RfA was very thin on content until he came in and added a dozen random allegations without evidence. Nathan J. Yoder 17:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I restored my comment and warned the editor who removed it to not do so, as my comment was shorter than others that remained and full coversations above had remained. My comment was not that lengthy and, from other comments later, it is clear that it was exactly that information that made other voters look up his previous history and find him breaking policy on multiple occasions, leading directly to an oppose vote. Removing the example makes it look like I am griping without any knowledge. All other ArbCom members involved in the case said there was asbolutely nothing there to rule on, yet Fred was trying to find findings of "fact" that even the people who filed the RfA didn't even claim. When the RfA was closed, he also lashed out at the other ArbCom members involved and claimed that they just were being lazy. He may have done a lot of good in the past, but he's clearly just making things up on his own at this point. It's sad that he has so many supporters, but perhaps it just because they aren;t paying attention. Removing my comment appeared to be a calculated attempt to keep others in the dark. DreamGuy 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Gee, I wonder why? :p My comments were shortened -- even my "vigorous oppose" changed to simply "oppose" on this page. So, I simply added what I deemed to be necessary verbiage. DreamGuy and others who feel their comments have been unjustifiably Bowdlerized, should do the same. deeceevoice 15:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What lengthy supports? I don't see any support votes longer than two lines. NatusRoma 06:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

If I am not mistaken, Fred is disbarred, but he portrays himself as "retired". This is something that makes me mistrust him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.204 ( talk • contribs) 17:40, January 15, 2006

Please, he retired after being suspended for 30 days for failing to answer a complaint relating to solicitation of prostitution. He was never disbarred, as I understand it. Man, I've got worse "skeletons" in my closet than that. I don't support his re-election, but if you're going to argue to oppose, try to come up with something that's A. actually true and B. interesting. Sarah Ewart 07:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

There have been official procedings on this wiki where the claimants against Fred have explicity stated "disbarred" and Fred did not dispute this. Something involving Fred's refusal to respond to a displinary inquiry stemming from an allegation by a female law client that he solicited her in a manner which could rightly be categorized as a "moral terpitude" violation. If Fred was never disbarred, would he be willing to so state that here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.76.188 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, January 15, 2006

Do some research [6]. I did and I cannot find anything which says he was disbarred. I'm sure if he was disbarred there'd be a ton of court documents proving it. The document people keep referring to as "proof" only says he was suspended for 30 days. Further, you claim if he wasn't disbarred, wouldn't he say so; he has. Several times, one of which was here. He has confirmed he was suspended and that he chose to retire rather than seek reinstatement. How many times do you expect the man to repeat himself? If this 30 day suspension is the worst people can come up with to smear him, he's actually lived a pretty decent life. Everyone makes mistakes. And as a person who has made plenty of my own, I don't think subjecting the man to a smear campaign based on one incident is very fair. You don't know the circumstances or any real life issues that may have caused him to respond in the way he did. Again, I have not supported the guy, but it's for entirely different reasons. I would never condemn someone because they once made a mistake. His record here on wiki is significant enough on its own for people to make an informed decision about him. Also, please sign your comments. Sarah Ewart 00:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Even if the hysterical allegations against Fred were true, which they're not, it wouldn't matter to me. If half our arbitrators were editing Wikipedia from prison, they'd still be doing a great job serving our community. The only things that matter to me are how the arbitrators conduct themselves on the wiki, and how well they do their jobs as arbitrators. Calling Fred's 30-day suspension a "disbarment" is like saying a student who received detention was "expelled". Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 21:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This statement: Calling Fred's 30-day suspension a "disbarment" is like saying a student who received detention was "expelled" (see above) make no sense to me. After reading the link to the findlaw article, here's what I know about Fred's 30-day suspension:

1. It was a "lawyer discipline case"
2. [Fred] "failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him."
3. Bauder was "publicly censured... for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client"
4. "his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation)."
5. "It is hereby ordered that Fred Bauder is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, effective thirty days after the issuance of this opinion."
6. "Bauder shall not be reinstated until after he has complied with C.R.C.P. 251.29."

Sounds to me like Fred showed blatant disregard for both process and authority. Fred doesn't sound like a trustworthy candidate to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.159 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, January 17, 2006

What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? I'm appalled at this digging up of someone's non-WP history and using that to smear him in an election here, and all of this material should be deleted from the history, or at the very least removed from the page. Gamaliel 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree completely, Szyslak and Gamaliel. The fact people are digging into Fred's background to discredit him says a hell of a lot more about them than it does about him.

To the anonymous IP, at least when Fred came to Wiki he had the guts to use his real name, stated his true occupation and state of residence, despite the fact he knew the document was a matter of public record and all anyone would need to do is Google his name to find out about his "dirty little secret." At least he was open and honest about who he is and didn't feel the need to hide behind a nick or indeed, -cough, cough- an anonymous IP. He deserves respect for that alone. Furthermore, all that matters here is Fred's conduct on Wikipedia. What he may or may not have done in real life makes no difference. And by the way, the sentences and phrases your quoted out of context above only proved (yet again) that he was suspended for 30 days and chose not to seek reinstatement. Which is exactly what Fred himself has been claiming all along. They do not support your allegations one iota. Also, I don't care if he did once show "disregard for both process and authority." Despite what you apparently would like to think, most people are not perfect and have some "moments" in their past. Most people just happen to be fortunate enough not to have those moments play out in the public eye and forever remain a matter of public record.

And again, please sign your comments, otherwise it makes it hard to follow who said what. I know you know how to do it as I have seen you sign on other pages; I don't understand why you refuse to do so on this one. Sarah Ewart 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It has everything to do with it. Someone who got suspended as a lawyer is too immature to be an arbitrator. Being a competent and mature lawyer is directl related to one's ability to _arbitrate_ cases. If you don't want to consider maturity, feel free, but it doesn't bode welll for you. "People make mistakes" is not a valid defense when it comes to a BIG mistake and he is trying to become someone very powerful in Wikipedia. You'd be jumping all over any politician you disliked if they were running for office with this history, so don't be hypocritical about it. Nathan J. Yoder 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

LOL if we used your criteria for voting, there'd be no ArbCom since I'm sure all of the people running have made their own mistakes in life, they just aren't on public record or the candidate just isn't using their real name. Also, what you consider to be a "BIG mistake" is obviously not what most people consider to be a "BIG mistake." LOL Thanks for the laugh. Sarah Ewart 06:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply