Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018‎ | Candidates‎ | Fred Bauder

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 11 November 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Questions from Hhkohh

  2. I see you have not used block tool in the past 5 years, although you are busy, do you have any other reason about it? Hhkohh (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, blocking is sometimes necessary, despite nearly always being misunderstood by the blocked user.
  4. What do you think Ritchie333 comment in this page? Hhkohh (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nick

  2. You mention you wish to re-establish civility as a central policy. What role do you envisage the Arbitration Committee taking on with regards to civility enforcement - would you encourage more case requests being placed where civility issues are a concern, do you see a significant number of problems which can be traced to failures in civility and do you envisage the Arbitration Committee forming new policy with regards to civility ? Nick (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and for good reasons. Cases should be taken when incivility is being used as tactic or strategy to control content or participation in the project. Increased civility may result in more inclusion of diverse viewpoints in our content. For example, suggestions such as "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." are unlikely to make women feel welcome.

Questions from Mz7

  2. In what ways, if any, do you believe the role and responsibilities of the Arbitration Committee have changed since your previous term on it? Do you expect to do work similar to your previous term, or do you expect that it will be a different experience? Mz7 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect a much different experience. I would continue to spend significant time trying to figure out why people are doing whatever is being complained of. If people are rude, it is because it works.

Questions from wbm1058

  2. Regarding your desire to re-establish civility as a central policy – Have you seen this Request for Comment before you read my question? I'm looking forward to seeing your opinion posted to that RfC. wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this comment: "*Oppose as redundant to WP:Civility. The policy already prohibits gross profanity, rudeness, harassment and belittling other editors. Telling editors to "fuck off" falls cleanly within these prohibitions, and can be dealt with accordingly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Questions from regentspark

  2. Hi Fred. Since you're running on a civility platform, could you define what "civility" means to you? I'd prefer a philosophical answer to a specific one but please do indicate any civility "lines in the sand" you firmly believe should never be crossed. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was wrong of the Athenians to shut Socrates up by forcing to drink hemlock. Wikipedia, at its best, is dialogue. It is better to discuss matters than to engage in aggressive behavior to rid yourself of gadflys. See Apology (Plato)

Questions from ජපස

  2. What do you think about WP:Civil POV pushing as a concept? If there are two editors one of whom is polite to a fault, but rejects fundamental Wikipedia pillars such as WP:RS or WP:V, and there is another who is brusque but is clearly following best practices for writing content and vetting research, would you centralize civility to such an extent that you would marginalize the latter and allow the former wider latitude to politely continue their campaign?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The polite editor who is not following WP:RS or WP:V is sanctionable on that basis. The brusque editor who is violating civility is sanctionable on that basis.

Question from Gerda Arendt

  2. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A wall of text is always a problem. I'll try to get to it and see if I can figure out what the point being made is. Well, looked at the whole page some. Difficult. I would have to spend many hours looking though the interactions before I could say anything sensible or appropriate. I think I understand the point being made, I served in the US Navy,: The viciousness which may occur during the polite conversation of the Wardroom is not somehow more civil than the customary foul language of the crew. However, in civilian life, I have learned to not include motherfucker and cocksucker in every other sentence. We should expect similar discretion during our discussions here. Foul language puts people off, which is why it is used. Thus other editors are encouraged to leave the field. We want other editors IN the field.

Questions from Collect

  2. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
    No
  4. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
    Probably
  6. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually out of the US, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
    No, to the first question, Yes, to the second, and Yes, to the third. If I have counted the discrete questions correctly.
    Collect (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from WJBscribe

  2. Do you believe that your editing of Wikipedia in relation to Donald Trump has been compliant with key Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? WJBscribe (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of adding some material which violated the Goldwater rule, yes.

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

Extensive repetitive comments moved to Talk User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Winged Blades of Godric

Extensive repetitive comments moved to Talk User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Oshwah

  2. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshwah (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser requires considerable technical expertise. Personally, my skills are marginal. They are good enough to check results, but someone who routinely does checkuser needs better skills. With respect to oversight, a person need to be able to take responsibility when genuine harm can result from published material. An oversighter needs to be willing to take responsibility for doing that, not engage in endless arguments about how harm might not result, or get their back up because a government agency is making the request, (usually law enforcement or a court). If I understand current practice, there is an oversight committee. I'll have to see how that goes.

Questions from Eric Corbett

  2. In the light of your declared interest in civility, and apparently the treatment of women specifically, can you say something about the circumstances surrounding your retirement from the legal profession? I ask because it seems to me to be an important principle that those acting in a professional capacity - and in this context that means ArbCom - don't merely talk the talk when it comes to upholding professional standards.
    The ethics complaint that caused my legal troubles came from a woman who was upset about having to pay child support. It was made up, but she had a friend who supported her testimony, and I lost. I was not disbarred, but with a ruined reputation, there was no point in continuing to try to practice law. The exact complaint was not that I assaulted her but told her over the phone that I was interested in her. Most complaints by woman are honest, but not all.
Interested enough to offer to pay to have sex with her I understand was the allegation. But why do you single out women for special consideration? Surely not all complaints made by men are honest either. Eric Corbett 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, I don't remember the details that well. After all, I didn't participate in any such conversation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you don't remember the details that well, [1], [2] if that helps jog your memory. ‑ Iridescent 00:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

  2. Suppose you're elected. Someone files a case request asking Arbcom to rule on this RfC. Would you accept the request? If so, how would you rule? If not, why not?
    The administrative closing is appropriate, even outstanding. The theme of my campaign is sanctioning editors who attempt to use incivility in order to discourage participation by others or control content. Such situations are fact specific.
  4. Your answer doesn't answer my question I'm afraid (at least not directly). Would you accept the case request? If so, how would you rule (you said such situations are fact specific, is this what you'd rule if you're on Arbcom also)? If not, why not?
    I would accept a case where a user was using "Fuck Off," or other contemptuous language, toward other users in order to discourage others from participating in dialogue, or in order to control content.

Question from Beeblebrox

  2. The ball is pretty much in your court here as I can’t reproduce the remarks leading up to it without your permission, but in light of your stated position on civility, I’m wondering if you could comment on what led to you unsubscribing from the functionaries mailing list.
    Rehashing old quarrels is unproductive.
Okay, but given that answer, why shouldn't I a) not vote for you and b) tell every person I know they should not vote for you as I think you will be a terrible arbitrator who will do things that appear to be punishment and give slippery and evasive answers? Perhaps I'm jumpy about this sort of thing today, but right now I will be voting "oppose" - but you have the power and ability to change my views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I watched that entire press conference as it was happening. Lots of "when will you stop beating your wife" questions. And then, after some sort of "answer" was given, they would keep on talking without giving up the microphone to the next reporter that was called on. Conducting any kind of productive dialogue in such a highly charged atmosphere is nearly impossible. Here, at Wikipedia, the need to regularly engage in productive dialogue is vital. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should I read that as you declaring my vote is not important to you and my views are irrelevant? A long-standing arbitrator who is very experienced with dealing with civility expressed concerns about your off-wiki conduct, and you refused to answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this goes directly to Fred’s supposed commitment to civility, in particular towards women, so it is relevant. And personally I did not “quarrel” with him at all about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FlyingAce

  2. Please take a look at this recent case, which involves civility. Do you agree with the outcome of the case? Why or why not? What, if anything, would you have done differently if you had been an arbitrator when the case was requested? –FlyingAce✈hello 16:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would probably not considered Volvlogia postings to the talk pages of users affected by Cassianto's behavior canvassing. I would not have admonished him; I would have thanked him. Otherwise, the decision seems very good. One reason I agree with it, is that the user had a long history of incivility. The attitude of "impartiality," when one of the central purposes of having an Arbitration Committee is to deal with incivility, grates.

Questions from Softlavender

  2. Hi Fred, what consensus determination (closing complex ANI/AN threads, closing RfCs, closing complex AfDs, etc.) have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None
  4. What sanctions-enacting work have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? E.g. enacting a sanction as is your prerogative as an administrator, based either on a noticeboard discussion or your own observation of an editor's behavior? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None
  6. What dispute-resolution work have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Or if necessary, more broadly, what dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys have you engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few
  8. What has or have been the focus(es) of your administrative activity over the past 3 years? Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I occasionally looked in on noticeboards
  10. You said above that you have engaged in "very few" dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. Can you please specify which ones? This shouldn't be hard to find, via a quick scroll through your contribs.
    Free free to do that. You won't find much.
  12. You are running on a single platform, which is to "emphasize re-establishing civility as a central policy". As you know, WP:CIVIL already is a policy, and ArbCom doesn't make policy. ArbCom only tries cases it accepts, and it accepts only cases that are actually brought to it, after having previously been through several phases of dispute resolution such as ANI or AN, etc. (1) What civility-related discussions, anywhere on Wikipedia, have you engaged in over the past 3 years? Please be specific. (2) What civility reports have you filed at noticeboards on Wikipedia over the past 3 years?
    None
  14. Above, in Q5, I requested that you please specify which dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys you have engaged in on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. In your response you avoided doing so. Therefore, I am disputing your claim that you have engaged in dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. Feel free to correct me below by specifying any that you have actually engaged in.
    I don't claim any such thing. I have done a little administrative work, but not much, and generally avoided dispute-resolution debates. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but have avoided heavy-lifting. Now I'm volunteering.
  16. You have blatantly lied in your answer to Q7. You claimed in your answer to Q3 that you had engaged in a few dispute-resolution conversations or debates/polls/surveys on Wikipedia over the past 3 years. In your answer to Q7 requesting proof of this, you wrote "I don't claim any such thing." If you cannot answer questions on this ArbCom candidate Q&A accurately and honestly, why should we trust you to be an honest and fair Arbitrator?
  18. What admin actions (actions that only administrators may perform) have you performed in the past 3 years?

Questions from Rschen7754

  2. In 2012, a sitting arbitrator made a statement that a certain editor "has never been a Wikipedian". This statement was met with a lot of backlash, a block, and further drama. Without getting into specifics about either of those editors, could this be a proper statement to make about any editor? Would it have been appropriate if expressed differently? Rschen7754 06:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, although I don't remember the details about the editor so described. Simply noting a long history of sanctionable behavior and sanctioning them is what is needed.
  4. Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Rschen7754 06:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. Given the lack of attempts at dispute resolution that preceded it, what are your thoughts on the decision of ArbCom to take on the German War Effort case this last year?
    The case was handled appropriately, it was obvious that additional efforts to settle this particular dispute would have been futile.

Question from Ceoil

  2. You come across as a surly, dismissive and cranky, monosyllabic CIV warrior in your answers here; frankly I get the impression of someone who wants to rule from on high and doesn't care for explaining; borne out by my long, and often unhappy, memory of the bad old days. Why the hell should we elect you again. Sorry for the bluntness, but goose for the gander. Ceoil (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I will, fairly, carry out the program I'm running on.
I'm not seeing much evidence that your view of "fairly" is widely shared, or that you care if others see it so or not. Ironically (putting it nicely) you are coming across a caste conscious warrior. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you feel free to act as ugly as you wish here, an assessment which I believe is true. I would change that and enforce Civility. You, should you continue to engage in ugly behavior, would be subject to sanctions, and, if you are unable to control your behavior, which I suspect is true, would not be able to participate on Wikipedia. So, in a way, you are fighting for your life. I understand. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:slatersteven

  2. Whilst the above question was needlessly antagonistic I have to ask do you (the candidate) really feel that response is the measured calm response that an Admin should make?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was productive. I understand much more about why he feels as he does. He seems to fear being oppressed by a false elite. Being unable to comment freely as he interacts here, on Wikipedia.

Question from User:Bus stop

  2. Is it ever acceptable on Wikipedia to behave like a bull in a china shop? Are there any advantages whatsoever to coarse language and belligerence? Are there any circumstances under which the project can benefit from what are technically violations of our code of WP:CIVIL? I realize those are three questions but I think they are related. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose one should, once in a great while, show that you are really, really upset, if that is the case. Just to keep it real. What is wrong is to use aggressive behavior to try to control whether or not others are able to participate effectively in the project or to try to control content.
  4. Thank you for that response. Can the project limp along with abrasive editors throwing their weight around and bullying others into submission? Is "civility" really of such great importance or are you perhaps overstating its importance? What is the downside of allowing bullying to prevail? Again—three questions that I think can be addressed as though they were one question.

Question from User:Lemon_martini

  1. In your answers to User:Softlavender and User:Hhkohh,you state that in the past 3 years
you have not engaged in any consensus determination,any closing of RfCs,AfDs or ANI/AN threads
you have not engaged in any sanctions-enacting work
you have engaged in very few dispute resolution conversations and have in fact avoided them.
you have not used the blocking tool at all
that "you won't find much" in the contributions you have made to dispute resolutions
you have not engaged in any civility-related discussions or filed any civility reports

So what HAVE you done over the last 3 years? How have you improved Wikipedia to make it a better and more harmonious place? What activities and tasks have you performed here to benefit the site? Lemon martini (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I add interesting information to articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/Fred_Bauder/Questions&oldid=868337075"