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
editUser:Bjweeks
editWeakSupport: Technically adept,however previously rather not involved in relevant areas. Neverthelessqualified by experience in relevant areas, evidently trustworthy.
User:Hersfold
edit- Weak Support: Previously not very active in this area and thus rather inexperienced, however no obvious impediment existing.
User:J.delanoy
edit- Support: Already equipped with Global Rollback, Checkuser could help to reduce cross-wiki vandalism.
User:Tiptoety
edit- Support: Very familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Is, based on my experiences, trustworthy.
User:VirtualSteve
edit- Support: Sufficient experience and detailed as well as convincing answers. No negative element recognisable.
Oversight
editUser:Avraham
edit- Support: With trustworthiness already proven, Oversight would enhance actions taken as Bureaucrat and Checkuser.
User:Dweller
edit- Support: Style of writing takes getting used to. Bureaucrat and therefore trustworthy as well as experienced. No problem so far.
User:Happy-melon
edit- Support: Experience with the technical aspect of Oversight. Answers are confidence inspiring and show comprehension of the applicable policy. No objection.
User:Howcheng
edit- Weak Support: Despite deficient motive for candidacy, I acknowledge his sense of tact and think he is capable to handle Oversight appropriately.
User:hmwith
edit- 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
editOppose: 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
edit- Weak Support: Unfortunate talkpage with unmarked irony. Written essays show reflection on user rights. Familiar with Oversight.
User:Mr.Z-man
edit- Support: Mediawiki developer with insight into extension's structure. Trustworthy. No doubts.
User:Nishkid
edit- Support: As most active Checkuser, additional permission for Oversight would clearly simplify processes.
User:Stifle
edit- Support: however candidacy withdrawn.
User:SoWhy
edit- Weak Support: Rather minor motive to request Oversight and rather wrong understanding of its functionality. Answers however imply good judgement and caution.
User:Thatcher
edit- 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.