Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) reply

Questions

Support

  1. Haukur 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. – ugen64 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Support. Would make a great arbitrator. Ambi 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Antandrus (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. Evil Eye 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support. Questions were answered well, IMO. Batmanand 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support -- Angelo 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Support. I believe that this man can be trusted to make fair decisions. Staffelde 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Support-- Duk 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Support.-- ragesoss 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Support Fred Bauder 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. Rhobite 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support freestylefrappe 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. — Dan | talk 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Bobet 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Support A longtime, strong content editor. 172 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Support FCYTravis 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support. From what I've seen of him, he is both trustworthy and responsible. - Mark 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Support SoLando ( Talk) 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. support Chick Bowen 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support. android 79 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. — Catherine\ talk 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support Donar Reiskoffer 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Support. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Tony Sidaway| Talk 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Support, low-key, common-sense, two years w/good history. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Support questions --- Charles Stewart 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Nick Boalch ?!? 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support Morwen - Talk 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. — Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  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) reply
  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) reply
  43. Support.  Grue  13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Support per Alkivar.  :-D Tom e r talk 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Support Mark 1 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. — Dunc| ☺ 14:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Gryffindor 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Guettarda 16:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Support -- kingboyk 16:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Absolutely.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. -- Conti| ✉ 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Support. Carbonite | Talk 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Support -- Vamp: Willow 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Support - Xed 20:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Support. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 20:55 Z
  58. Support - ℬastique▼ parℓer♥ voir♑ 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Support Jim62sch 21:43, 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) 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. 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) reply
  62. Support. siafu 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Support. Wally 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. OnceBitten 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • 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) — Cryptic (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Support. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Support-- Doc ask? 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. older≠ wiser 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Support. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Support.-- cjllw | TALK 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Mindspillage sockpuppet support! Johnleemk | Talk 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/10:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Support Delirium 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Support Geogre 13:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Support. He has answered the questions well and has long shown himself to be responsible and restrained. Rje 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Support; good policy on banning. Ral315 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. 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) reply
  77. Mild support. Not sure I completely agree with his platform, but good enough. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Support -- Spot87 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. 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) reply
  80. Support. enochlau ( talk) 05:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Sunray 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. -- Bhadani 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Support Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  85. Support KTC 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 21:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. Support, experienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Support. Seems a sound candidate. Rhion 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Support. Sensible and sound enough. Sjc 05:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Support. Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Support. -- Viriditas 11:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Support Warofdreams talk 13:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Support - good views. -- NorkNork 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Support. Solid opinions and an approach I find refreshing. Velvetsmog 23:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Support -- Loopy e 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Support "not the typical Wikipedia 'policy wonk'". -- Gmaxwell 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Support. Role of admin and "simple rules" plan proves this candidate worthy of a slot in the Arbitration Committee. Sycthos Talk 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. Thorough, conscientious, and open-minded. Jwrosenzweig 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Support. Sensible and trustworthy. Mark Dingemanse 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Support. Jmabel | Talk 08:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Support Alphax 14:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Support Dr. B 17:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Support. Bahn Mi 19:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Yes. Palmiro | Talk 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. support. -- Irpen 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Support, trustworthy -- Francs 2000 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Support Rohirok 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Support, I agree that everything should be seen in terms of what is good for the project. Thryduulf 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Support, nice statement. Matt Yeager 20:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Enthusiastic Support. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 00:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. Support. Lot's of article edits is a good sign for me.-- Stephan Schulz 02:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. Well-reasoned answers. ( SEWilco 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  114. Support. I agree with his philosophy, his ideas about banning seem right on. Sounds like a great candidate.-- Max ( ✒ | ☏ ) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. 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) reply
  116. Support. -- Adrian Buehlmann 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. support Kingturtle 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  118. Support WilliamKF 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Support. Superm401 | Talk 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. Support-- Wikityke 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Support -- Masonpatriot 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Support - David Gerard 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. Would be a good choice. Youngamerican 18:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Support. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. Support — Phil | Talk 10:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Support - kaal 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support- He is a level-headed, seemingly unbiased person. Avogadro 17:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Avogadro94 does not have suffrage. Here long enough, but only 62 total edits. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. support William M. Connolley 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. support -- Astrokey44| talk 05:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Support. Neutrality talk 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Support -- Pastricide 00:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  133. Support — candidate appears thoughtful, reasonable and even-tempered, all excellent qualities in an arbitrator. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. Support. Huldra 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  136. Support -- Angr ( tɔk) 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Support Sandpiper 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Support -- DS1953 talk 19:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Support Alex43223 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Support and good luck. Ashibaka tock 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Support. +sj + 23:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Support. Alai 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Support. Monicasdude 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. JYolkowski // talk 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  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) reply
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose -- Crunch 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose It seems we disagree about banning and policy, on that grounds I'm sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose as Alkivar. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose. -- HK 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Splash talk 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. The "b" word. Avriette 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Weak Oppose, not a lot of community involvement. HGB 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. 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) reply
  15. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose -- Ben 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose. Preaky 23:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Morven&oldid=1087298219"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE