Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Morven

Morven
My beliefs about Wikipedia are simple: we are here to create a free encyclopedia, and policy, procedure and process are simply tools to enable us to do that most easily. I believe in a light touch; we should have the minimum quantity of rules necessary to function, and the enforcement of them should bear in mind the intended outcome—creating that encyclopedia—rather than in their mechanical application.

On the banning question, I believe it should be applied with my overriding principles above in mind—only if it is necessary for the functioning of the project. The purpose is not to punish, but to remove people who have proven they are not interested in helping the project, people whose intent is to disrupt and who will not reform.

I have a strong and abiding passion for the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and I've put in more time on it than I probably want to admit. I intend, if chosen, to apply myself to this task with equal passion. I am used to thankless jobs—I am a systems administrator, and know the rewards for good work are simply more work and nobody noticing.

I would love to hear your questions, comments or indeed criticisms. Thank you. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Haukur 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) – ugen64 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Would make a great arbitrator. Ambi 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Cryptic (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Evil Eye 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Questions were answered well, IMO. Batmanand 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Angelo 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. I believe that this man can be trusted to make fair decisions. Staffelde 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support--Duk 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support.--ragesoss 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Fred Bauder 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Rhobite 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support freestylefrappe 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) uh-huh Grutness...wha?  04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Bobet 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support A longtime, strong content editor. 172 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support FCYTravis 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. From what I've seen of him, he is both trustworthy and responsible. - Mark 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support SoLando (Talk) 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) support Chick Bowen 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. android  79  06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. &mdash; Catherine\talk 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Donar Reiskoffer 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support, low-key, common-sense, two years w/good history. -- M P er el ( talk 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support questions --- Charles Stewart 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support --Nick Boalch?!? 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Morwen - Talk 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support I particularly like his less aggressive approach to banning, which seems to be escalating out of reasoned control by inexperienced or plainly ignorant admins. Giano | talk 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support User is reasonable, level-headed, and possessed of sound judgement. And as someone who spent 9 years enforcing online rulesets for a living, I believe his assessment of the purpose of banning users is spot on.  Bans and blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support.  Grue   13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per Alkivar. :-D  Tom e rtalk  13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Mark1 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Gryffindor  16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Guettarda 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support --kingboyk 16:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Absolutely.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support -- Ferkelparade &pi; 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. --Conti|&#9993; 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Carbonite | Talk 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support --Vamp:Willow 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support - Xed 20:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:55Z 
 * 58) Support -  &#08492;  astique &#09660; par &#08467; er &#09829; voir &#09809;  21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support Jim62sch 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) * Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) **Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support. His statement above is exactly in line with what I hope for in a Wikipedia official of any sort.  I expect he'll live up to his word.   Un  focused  23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Support. siafu 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Support. Wally 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. OnceBitten 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OnceBitten does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 01:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 71 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Doc ask? 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) older&ne;wiser 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.--cjllw | TALK  07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Mindspillage sockpuppet support! Johnleemk | Talk 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Delirium 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Geogre 13:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. He has answered the questions well and has long shown himself to be responsible and restrained. Rje 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support; good policy on banning. Ral315 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, mildly. Appears objective and level-headed. Nothing raised to show his character or behaviour to be an ArbCom liability. Platform is very idealistic though. --Ds13 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Mild support. Not sure I completely agree with his platform, but good enough. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --Spot87 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. enochlau (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Sunray 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) --Bhadani 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 22) Support KTC 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, experienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Seems a sound candidate. Rhion 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Sensible and sound enough. Sjc 05:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. --Viriditas 11:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Warofdreams talk 13:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - good views. --NorkNork 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Solid opinions and an approach I find refreshing. Velvetsmog 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support --Loopy e 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support "not the typical Wikipedia 'policy wonk'". --Gmaxwell 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. Role of admin and "simple rules" plan proves this candidate worthy of a slot in the Arbitration Committee. SycthosTalk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Thorough, conscientious, and open-minded. Jwrosenzweig 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Sensible and trustworthy. Mark Dingemanse 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Jmabel | Talk 08:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Alphax 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) SupportDr. B 17:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Bahn Mi 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Yes. Palmiro | Talk 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) support. --Irpen 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support, trustworthy -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Rohirok 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support, I agree that everything should be seen in terms of what is good for the project. Thryduulf 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support, nice statement. Matt Yeager 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Enthusiastic Support. why? ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. Lot's of article edits is a good sign for me.--Stephan Schulz 02:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. Well-reasoned answers. (SEWilco 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 51) Support. I agree with his philosophy, his ideas about banning seem right on.  Sounds like a great candidate.--   ( ✒ | ☏ ) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) support Kingturtle 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support WilliamKF 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support--Wikityke 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support -- Masonpatriot 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support - David Gerard 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Support. Would be a good choice. Youngamerican 18:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support —Phil | Talk 10:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support - kaal 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- He is a level-headed, seemingly unbiased person. Avogadro 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Avogadro94 does not have suffrage. Here long enough, but only 62 total edits. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) support William M. Connolley 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) support -- Astrokey44 |talk 05:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bratsche talk 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Pastricide 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support — candidate appears thoughtful, reasonable and even-tempered, all excellent qualities in an arbitrator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Huldra 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support --Angr ( tɔk ) 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) SupportSandpiper 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- DS1953 talk 19:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Alex43223 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support and good luck. Ashibaka tock 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. +sj + 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Alai 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Monicasdude 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) JYolkowski // talk 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Lack of justice all too often leads to disorder. That view alone turns a support to an oppose for me. Grace Note 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Crunch 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It seems we disagree about banning and policy, on that grounds I'm sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as Alkivar. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. -- HK  23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Splash talk 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. The "b" word. Avriette 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak Oppose, not a lot of community involvement. HGB 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose.  With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter.  Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.  Fifelfoo 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- Ben 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Preaky 23:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)