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.