User:GregJackP/ACE2013

First, I shamelessly copied, stole, or appropriated the format for this guide from Boing! said Zebedee.

Second, I didn't ask any questions. There have been plenty of questions asked of the candidates. GregJackP  Boomer!   05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A question was raised on how I evaluated a couple of issues, so it is probably best to be transparent about my thought process.

GregJackP  Boomer!   02:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Allegations of admin's misusing the bit or other misconduct needs to be looked at.  Currently, AN/ANI is powerless, and RfC/U can't take any action.  The only place you can go is ArbCom, which is made up (at present) of all admins.  Guys, this is no different from complaining to the cops about misconduct by the cops.  It doesn't work well, unless there is community oversight and transparency.
 * 2) Outing editors, particularly due to a content dispute is unacceptable, reprehensible conduct that should not be tolerated under any circumstances.  Editors or admins that do so should be handled quickly and firmly.
 * 3) The goal of the project is to build an encyclopedia, not to please activist groups (which is broader than the Manning/transgender issue).  We need to be neutral and follow the sources.
 * 4) Transphobia and other types of bigotry have no place on Wikipedia and should not be tolerated.  By the same token, labeling anyone that disagrees with a position a bigot is not acceptable either.
 * 5) Someone under current sanctions should not be on ArbCom.  I made an exception to this below for TDA.  The exception was based on a number of factors.  First, TDA is not an admin.  Admins being under sanction is worse than an editor under sanction.  The other reasons are listed below.
 * 6) Candidates must be responsive to the questions asked.  If they won't be open and answer questions during a campaign, what makes you think they'll explain their actions later?
 * 7) Cojones.  Better to have them than not, and no, that doesn't mean that they need to be male.  Straight talk and honesty go with that.

At the actual voting I changed one position, on GorillaWarfare, from support to neutral. This means that I voted to support the 7 candidates with a "support" recommendation and the 2 candidates with a neutral, lean support recommendation. Since strategic voting is expected in this election, all others received oppose votes. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I screwed up. I thought I had watchlisted Bwilkins' question page and apparently had not. He had a valid reason for not getting to it earlier and he came back and answered most of the questions. Anyway, I've changed my evaluation to neutral, leans support. It could have been support, but I did not see the position on allegations of admin abuse that I needed to see, nor enough information on the Sandifer/Sceptre questions. Should this change, I'll re-evaluate. GregJackP  Boomer!   02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)