Login
Login

User:Phoe/August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections#User:Keegan

I think it's only fair towards the candidates to reason my respective voting briefly - although I'm not convinced that somebody will read it actually :-) If new facts should come to my eyes, I reserve me the right to change my assessments in both ways. By the way, I should add that my votes reflect no personal opinion about one candidate's character and that they neither shall disparage one candidate's work nor their efforts. At last, I want to express my admiration for all candidates on their courage to deliver oneself up to this vote and to thank them for their willingness to take on a new area of responsibility.

Checkuser

=User:Bjweeks=

  • Weak Support: Technically adept, however previously rather not involved in relevant areas. Nevertheless qualified by experience in relevant areas, evidently trustworthy.

=User:Hersfold=

  • Weak Support: Previously not very active in this area and thus rather inexperienced, however no obvious impediment existing.

=User:J.delanoy=

  • Support: Already equipped with Global Rollback, Checkuser could help to reduce cross-wiki vandalism.

=User:Tiptoety=

  • Support: Very familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Is, based on my experiences, trustworthy.

=User:VirtualSteve=

  • Support: Sufficient experience and detailed as well as convincing answers. No negative element recognisable.

Oversight

=User:Avraham=

  • Support: With trustworthiness already proven, Oversight would enhance actions taken as Bureaucrat and Checkuser.

=User:Dweller=

  • Support: Style of writing takes getting used to. Bureaucrat and therefore trustworthy as well as experienced. No problem so far.

=User:Happy-melon=

  • Support: Experience with the technical aspect of Oversight. Answers are confidence inspiring and show comprehension of the applicable policy. No objection.

=User:Howcheng=

  • Weak Support: Despite deficient motive for candidacy, I acknowledge his sense of tact and think he is capable to handle Oversight appropriately.

=User:hmwith=

  • Weak Support: Gender should play no role in judgement of suitability. Motive to request Oversight is rather weak. Unobtrusive - perhaps just a advantage. All in all no contradictions.

=User:Jennavecia=

  • Oppose: While obviously dedicated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I'm concerned that personal feelings could affect the neutrality, I consider required for Oversight.

:*Neutral: While I still can't support this candidacy with good reason, I also believe that the election regarding especially this user has become rather a campaign, I don't want to be part of, than a unbiased vote, so I have decided to keep myself neural.

=User:Keegan=

  • Weak Support: Unfortunate talkpage with unmarked irony. Written essays show reflection on user rights. Familiar with Oversight.

=User:Mr.Z-man=

  • Support: Mediawiki developer with insight into extension's structure. Trustworthy. No doubts.

=User:Nishkid=

  • Support: As most active Checkuser, additional permission for Oversight would clearly simplify processes.

=User:Stifle=

  • Support: however candidacy withdrawn.

=User:SoWhy=

  • Weak Support: Rather minor motive to request Oversight and rather wrong understanding of its functionality. Answers however imply good judgement and caution.

=User:Thatcher=

  • Support: Has had Oversight already during his time with the Audit Subcommittee. So far, I can see nothing that indicates an unjustifiable use, hence there is also nothing what would speak against a renewal of its permission.