Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Sam Korn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sam Korn

[edit]

This hasn't been an easy year for the Arbitration Committee. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the degree of mistrust in the Committee is as high as it has ever been. I am running for election to the Committee, therefore, in an attempt to increase the esteem in which the Committee is held.

I believe the first requirement for a member of the Committee is integrity. This means more than recusing when appropriate and not voting in favour of my "friends" in disputes: it means strictly following my conscience in the decisions I support. "Right" beats "expedient", in other words. For this reason, I don't promise to support a principle that has popular support but that I oppose. The Committee must be a servant of the community, but it must not become merely an instrument. I do, however, promise to listen to those who disagree (whether they are members of the Committee or not), to attempt to understand their arguments and to enter into dialogue with them.

I believe further that, for there to be community trust in the Committee, there must be openness. To be effective, the Committee must have the respect of the community; to gain this respect, the Committee must in turn respect the community. The potential for secrecy and cabalism is high; radical openness -- a central Wikipedia principle -- is necessary to combat these.

The third feature necessary in a member of the Committee is energy. It is useless to have someone with the greatest integrity and the greatest commitment to openness if they aren't going to take an active part in dealing the the Committee's business. I know I have that energy to get things done efficiently and effectively.

Finally, it is vitally important that the behaviour of a member of the Committee is exemplary. Resolving disputes is the job of the Committee; it is fatal if the behaviour of members of the Committee themselves are, by their behaviour, aggravating those very disputes. Making the process confrontational is highly counter-productive.

I think I am qualified by these tests, and that my record (over four years on-wiki, of which three-and-a-half as an administrator; I was a member of the Committee in 2006) will bear this out.

My thanks to you.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

[edit]
  1. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Maxim(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HiDrNick! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Avi (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ priyanath talk 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to oppose, due to the concerns about inactivity. --Elonka 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I was impressed with what I saw of Sam a while back. More recently, I would have liked to see more signs of coming forward to do the right thing, but having seen no signs of doing the wrong thing, I'll trust my early impressions. ElinorD (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. krimpet✽ 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. kurykh 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Avruch T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. NoCal100 (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose, per inactivity concerns. iMatthew 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Graham87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Generally clueful, and per the Sam Korn solution. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. John Reaves 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. sure. J.delanoygabsadds 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I am strongly inclined to oppose the current, or former sitting Arbs, but not in this case. I think this is what is needed. rootology (C)(T) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Captain panda 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Weak support only in that I support other candidates more, but I believe you would be an asset to the community as an arbitrator, and are approachable, clueful and level-headed. Orderinchaos 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Prodego talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. It is to my knowledge that Sam has already served on the arbitration committee, which would almost immediately lead me to oppose in preference of new perspectives. However, his reputation as an effective mediator, as well as sound judgement and level-headedness, have convinced me to make this an exception. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. He isn't exactly new blood or anything, but he knows what needs to be fixed. Mike H. Fierce! 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Carnildo (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. –Moondyne 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support لennavecia 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No problems apart from inactivity... which can be addressed. —Dark talk 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I'm for throwing all current members (other than NYB) out, but Sam was off of the committee since 2006 and not party to its recent ineptitude, so I'll support him. --B (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Agree with above comments by Master&Expert (talk · contribs) and Rootology (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose concerns are not especially serious. A good CU with fine judgment. Moreschi (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Verbal chat 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Synergy 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I like the methodologies Sam uses in the course of his ArbCom work. I am inclined to say he's unlikely to be a clone of the current Committee, also, despite his previously holding a seat. Support. AGK 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: The reason Sam has been an inactive Arb of late is because he has not been an Arb for some time! When he was and Arb he was OK. He's young and keen and knows his way about the place - so give him a chance. Giano (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose (further reasoning here) Majorly talk 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. iridescent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Steven Walling (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Pcap ping 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Inactivity Everyone complains about ArbCom being slow, I'm wondering historically why so many people can make 100 edits per month and still do well in elections. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Per YellowMonkey. I hadn't made up my mind on this candidacy, but to see a sitting arb oppose for inactivity is very worrisome. Taking heed. DurovaCharge! 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. per Majorly. Durova's concerns are also significant. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sam's (non-)answers suggest to me that he's still married to the ArbCom's unneeded and harmful culture of secrecy, as well as general concerns about incumbency, Mantanmoreland, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Inactivity is a big issue. I have seen the same inactivity on oversight-l, which concerns me more as I specifically asked for ex-arbs to help with the workload until more were appointed. i.e. checking requests were all actioned and giving second opinions on the more complicated cases. A few ex-arbs are doing this but it is rare. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. There's no reason to believe he'll be a better arbitrator now than he was in the past. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. This candidate is part of that old, entrenched, shadowy club. Represents a step backward.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose.-gadfium 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose due to inactivity, as well as other concerns raised above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Durova. A nice person though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Was going to support but I had not considered the inactivity element until now, and this is indeed an issue. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Inactivity and Mantanmoreland. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No confidence in judgement. Brilliantine (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretful oppose. My interactions with him have always shown him to be civil, insightful, and clueful. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with ArbCom is its glacial pace, and general inactivity is not a good way to redress this. // roux   editor review09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak oppose, based on concerns expressed by YellowMonkey, FatMan. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - forwards, not back. Sorry Fritzpoll (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. — neuro(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mailer Diablo 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Inactivity. SashaNein (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Switched from support, because of concerns about inactivity. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Alæxis¿question? 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to gain new members, rather than put back old members. >Radiant< 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. For this, lack of answers to both my and several other users' questions, and inactivity. Acalamari 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Due to inactivity concerns. --Kbdank71 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. strongest oppose ex-arb, we don't need ex-arbs, but change. Was under eighteen when he served on arbcom (this now isn't allowed.) Is still only nineteen years old. No offense but he won't be as able to empathize with some older editors due to having been through less life circumstances and having a smaller range of experiences. Sticky Parkin 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weakly; I've definitely been impressed with Sam's work since his return to Wikipedia. Still, Wikipedia has changed a lot, and I'd like to see a little more current work in the trenches before supporting - anything that lowers the already dismal in-touchness of the Committee is bad. I can see supporting next year, but not this year, for that reason. Keep up the good work, and best of luck. MastCell Talk 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Per inactivity concerns. iMatthew 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per Sticky Parkin GTD 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Davewild (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. If a sitting arb isn't supporting because of inactivity issues... ViridaeTalk 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Agree with Fritzpoll, forward, not backward. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Sam Korn has badly misunderstood policy and engaged in uncivil conduct to a startling extent (including during his run as an arbitrator). —David Levy 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. We need new blood, not a re-tread. Sorry. Tex (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Sam_Korn&oldid=1090460238"