 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
I've been asked by a some people for my opinion on the candidates, and rather than answer individually, I've written this informal note about the 7 I would select for.the 7 positions; there are more than 7 very good candidates, and nobody this year is really unsuitable. I'm giving only a word or two about my principal reason. Beyond that, I don't think its right to analyze or present in detail my personal views about my colleagues at WP. .
This is based on the aspects I find important: general reliability, agreement with my views on: the importance of reform or elimination of discretionary sanctions; dealing with bias as shown by editors and administrators; visible fairness; maintenance of NPOV by restricting or eliminating paid editing, and the need to protect minority positions. I don't think any of the candidates are perfect--I'm just indicated what I think are the highlights.
The reason I decided not to run for re-election is that by the end of the nomination period I was glad to see sufficient strong candidates with whom I would be in general agreement. I think I've done my part over the last six years in helping call these issues to attention; that's been my usual role in WP, and the role in which I seem to be the most effective. it's time for others to continue the work.
- Barkeep -- good understanding of admin bias in sanctions.
- Bradv -- his statements both last year and this year align very closely with my priorities
- BDD -- good approach to NPOV
- CaptainEEK -- understands both bias and DS
- L235 -- most fully expressed views on DS
- SMcCandlish -- fully expressed views, showing deep understanding.
- Tony Balloni --overall competence ''although he has withdrawn, I am not removing him from the guide, to reiterate my support for his candidacy''