User talk:Talrias/Arbitration Committee vote rationale

Heh, I think it's neat that someone has actually outlined why they vote a certain way. Good on you. Conradrock 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you like the concept of the page. A few other editors have done a similar thing, such as Dbiv. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it's good and all that you have listed why you're voting one way or the other, some of your criteria bothers me. I compleatly understand that you have every right to vote whatever way you want, and I don't want to sound like I'm trying to tell you how to vote. However, I'm wondering why you must list so many candidates as 'inexperienced'. There is more to being experienced than having a large Wikipedia history, and as Wikipedia is a very large place, chances are that you have not heard of most of the people here. You might compare it to not thinking Beethoven is a wonderful musician because you've never heard of him before, or not voting for a particular presidential candidate becuase he's a new face as far as you're concerned. So I'm asking you to reconcider some of your votes.Dr. B 17:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted "inexperience" for anyone with a significant number of edits. You are right in that I have done it because I have not heard of them but I have also done it because they simply have not made a large contribution to Wikipedia yet. I'm sure that all of the new Wikipedians who put their name forwards will go on to be excellent contributors, but you have to understand that there are other candidates who I am more familiar with and already have the reputation and beliefs I believe are necessary in an arbitrator. Given the choice of a new face or someone I know and trust, I think it is fair to choose the "old hand". I hope you understand. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]