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 Lok s hin 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. Support Dlyons493 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. android 79 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. Tom e r ^talk 14:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support, sensible, good view of the spirit of rules as opposed to the letter. R adiant _>|< 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 22:34 Z
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  ^{τ ε χ} 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 -- Francs 2000 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support. Lord ViD 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. – Clockwork Soul 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