User:Talrias/Arbitration Committee vote rationale



If you're here, it's because you're interested in my Arbitration Committee vote rationale. This page overviews my reasons for my vote. Because this is an overview, it contains generalisations - if you'd like clarification based on your circumstances, I am happy to discuss it with you - please leave me a message on my talk page or send me an email. I am also happy to hear feedback on my rationale for voting - please leave a message on this page's talk page.

Last updated: 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support votes


 * I will vote support for someone if I like what I read in their candidate statement, their answers to their questions and I believe they are a responsible Wikipedian.


 * Neutral votes


 * If I have not cast a vote, or I have voted neutral, it is because I disagree with some of your candidate statement or answers to questions, or because I am not familiar enough with your actions as a Wikipedian to know whether you would be a suitable arbitrator, or because I think your actions on Wikipedia are significantly different to what I would have done.


 * Oppose votes

Lack of experience


 * This is simply because I do not feel you have been here for a long enough period of time to be knowledgable enough about Wikipedia policy and the community. I do not have any strict definitions for falling into this category, but broadly, if I have not heard of you or you've only just "popped onto my radar", I will oppose for this reason.

Questions


 * I will use this wonderfully terse phrase if I feel your answers to the questions asked are insufficient or are significantly different from my views on the issues presented.

Other


 * I am opposing you for another reason, I will have normally left a sentence about this, I will clarify and expand this on request.