Like Kim Bruning, I am interested in aiding the functions of our hard-worked Arbitration Committee. Also like him, I am wary to fully enter this "race" until the process is clarified. I hate unnecessary and premature self-aggrandisement, so I shall delay writing any more until the appropriate juncture. [[Sam Korn]] 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now could be the appropriate juncture. I don't intend to be long writing this. Points I believe would make me a good Arbitrator

1. Complete and obsessive dedication to Wikipedia
2. A belief in reconciliation before confrontation and rehabilitation before sanctions
3. I am fair in always looking at both sides' faults
4. My strongest belief is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this should be reflected in the Committee's decisions
5. I have been around well over a year now, and understand every policy – I have also served as a mediator recently; although I haven't done much work, I have acted as a mediator, and have learnt a lot from looking at others' cases and also from on-going arbitration cases
6. This is the key one: I consider myself absolutely approachable and always helpful in my dealings with others.

The Arbitration Committee is very important to Wikipedia. It isn't as important as articles, but keeping the community moving is important. As I feel capable of doing so, I consider it necessary that I should offer what I can to help. ==

[[Sam Korn]] 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Ancheta Wis 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tentative support. Don't know this user too well, but answers to questions are thoughtful and sensible. Ambi 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Good judgment. Dmcdevit·t 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Shanes 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Answers to questions were outstanding, showing insight and enthusiasm for ArbCom process and potential improvement. Batmanand 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. JYolkowski // talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support excellent, bright, useful fellow. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support what Nicholas said. --Wgfinley 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. SupportDlyons493 Talk 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support--Arwel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Guettarda 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Fred Bauder 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support--ragesoss 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Bobet 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per Ambi He has the right approach to the job: "My strongest belief is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this should be reflected in the Committee's decisions." 172 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - novacatz 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support per questions. --Aaron 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. gren グレン 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --Crunch 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. android79 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. — Catherine\^talk 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. --Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Martin 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Thought I already had.[reply]
39. Support - This candidate is reasonable, level-headed, and willing to re-examine his conclusions rather than entrenching and refusing to admit further viewpoints. I trust his judgement. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support everytime i've seen Sam Korn involved in a heated debate, he seems to remain cool and levelheaded and quite pithy on the subject. I think he's probably the best candidate running for arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ 13:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Sparkly glittery support per Chris. Tomer^talk 14:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, sensible, good view of the spirit of rules as opposed to the letter. Radiant_>|< 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support per WP:IS an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, marginally. I have reconsidered and I do think that even though only 16, he has the life experience required. David | Talk 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Shocked when I realized Sam is only 16. Sam is very insightful and thoughtful. I would be slightly hesitant about teenagers not realizing the volume of work, but then I looked at Sam's edits. He's a machine. --Habap 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Ganeshk 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Robert McClenon 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Phil Sandifer 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support --kingboyk 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support . Drdisque 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support -- Polaris999 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support hopeful in providing a balanced arbcom. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 22:34Z
57. Support. Wally 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Raven4x4x 01:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. AnnH ^(talk) 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. older≠wiser 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support −−It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - seems a level headed commited user --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Seems like a good candidate foir getting some new blood in the system. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. A perfect candidate for ArbCom. Committed, well-versed and thoughtful. It should perhaps be noted that I know him from the real world though, where I assure you he is much the same. Dan 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. Jacoplane 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Very good statement and answers, I think he will be an effective arbitrator. Rje 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support. Sensible. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Points 2 & 5 indicate candidate can arbitrate. Fifelfoo 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Szvest 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}[reply]
72. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. --Bhadani 09:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support--JK the unwise 12:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Andre (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support Cormaggio ^@ 18:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
78. Support, user's statement has overcome any doubts I may have had about their experience. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support, impressive answers to the questions. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
80. Support Fad (ix) 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong Support --Gmaxwell 20:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - I like "Complete and obsessive dedication to Wikipedia". --NorkNork 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support per Ambi. ～J.K. 23:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - Only candidate I have felt a need to vote on (for or against) thus far. Exemplar Wikipedian and Admin. Views and answers to questions strongly suggest he would make an appropriate addition to ArbCom. --Naha|^(talk) 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Candidate wins it on the questions. Velvetsmog 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Alphax ^τεχ 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Dr. B 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Krash 18:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Excellent candidate all around. Bahn Mi 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Yes. Palmiro | Talk 23:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Weak support - has thought about statement and appears trustworthy, I just don't know them that well -- Francs2000 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. LordViD 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support--Doc ^ask? 14:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. I'm generally scared of people obsessed with Wikipedia, but seems otherwise reasonable. --William Pietri 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Although this candidate refused to answer a VITAL question, I still Support why? ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. Interesting answers. (SEWilco 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
99. 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 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support - David Gerard 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support per comments on IAR. Youngamerican 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Always keeps his wits about him in my experience, always in favor of honest deliberation. Fastfission 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support --Randolph 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Change-of-heart support; I must have been in a bad mood when I voted oppose. =/ Matt Yeager 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. support William M. Connolley 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. Seems fair. ntennis 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support --Loopy ^e 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support --Hurricane111 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support jnothman ^talk 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support SoLando (Talk) 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support. Kolokol 02:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

117. Support — seems thoughtful and fair. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support KTC 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Sam Vimes 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support FreplySpang (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support --Angr (tɔk) 16:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support -- Michalis Famelis 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support CDThieme 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (vote changed)[reply]

1. Oppose. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose --Angelo 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Reluctant Oppose Editor's conduct at K. Martin RfC was intemperate. Xoloz 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Unilateralists are one of the problems, not the solution. Grace Note 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Candidate statement. Ronline ✉ 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak oppose, seemed to dance around questions. --AySz88^-^ 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose on grounds of his support for unilateralism. – ClockworkSoul 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose --Tabor 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose. Really an excellent admin, but his IAR views are a bit too liberal for an arbitrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose, policy. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose.  Grue  14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. Per ClockworkSoul. Adrian Buehlmann 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Tedernst | talk 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Splash^talk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. --HK 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose. This isn't about seeing faults. Avriette 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose, a little vague and wishy washy. HGB 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. siafu 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose for vague answers to my questions. Arbitrators have to be able to address concerns over their rulings cogently and succinctly. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose. Not enough edit summaries and a couple of bad deletions. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. oppose Kingturtle 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. "Allowing people to present evidence in private is not odious backroom dealing. Transparency comes after justice". I couldn't disagree more. Superm401 | Talk 00:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. Preaky 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose. Not sure if it's good to be obsessive about most things, especially if you're judging the temperment of a potential arbiter -- Masonpatriot 06:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose'. Arbritration is nowhere NEAR as important as articles... anyone who puts them within worlds of each other is liable to be too arbcom-absorbed (self-absorbed) for the committee. Matt Yeager 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (vote changed after re-consideration)[reply]

    Oppose Quote from candidate: "I am fair in always looking at both sides' faults[.]" Faults? Judgmental, negative bias detected. Author782 11:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

34. Oppose, wrongheaded views. Everyking 09:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Somewhere Between Support and Neutral, but Not Weak Support Like Mindspillage, Sam is an exemplary human being. However, also like Mindspillage, his attitude towards user space in the past few weeks is opposed to my beliefs, and that one issue prevents what appears to be a not needed support vote, which would be strong otherwise. karmafist 18:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sam was a bit too supportive of Kelly Martin in the usersboxes debacle in my view. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]