User:Ealdgyth/2015 Arb Election votes

Plan to get to the candidates in the next few days.

Note that I'm looking for folks who have their eye on the main point of this whole enterprise - writing an encyclopedia. With that in mind, I want content contributions, or at least the concept that they support content contributors. If you're an admin or not really doesn't matter to me at all. In fact, NOT being an admin should be a requirement for at least one of the seats, quite honestly. I'm also looking for folks who don't get so wrapped up in enforcing civility or rules that they forget that first goal above, the writing of the encyclopedia. I don't want to have my work interrupted by idiots who don't know the first thing about subject matter but who seem to think that their opinion on some tangental matter should trump the folks in the trenches writing the content and dealing with the vandals.

To that end - I expect folks to have at least 45-50% of their contributions to article space, unless they show a LOT of clue in supporting content creation. Stupid ruleslawyering or spending ages at ANI will not get you much support here. Well, that's a great goal, but no way can I just judge candidates on that ... because very few candidates meet that standard. And a few of the ones that do, are not otherwise qualified, at least in my eyes.

In line with the last few years, I'm much less likely to approve of folks who are hardline on civility, for example. This years ArbCom has been ... atrocious. I'd say it can't get worse but... As evidence this diff is submitted as well as diff.

Also note that I do not consider myself suited for ArbCom, I do not deal well with high stress situations nor do I have the tact required. Whether I think someone is suited for ArbCom has nothing to do with whether I think they are good contributors to the project in other means.

As a side note, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to discuss any of these.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision - on this case - I note that the topic ban from gender gap items for EC was originally conceived as just the actual task force pages, which probably would have eliminated a lot of dramah this year if it hadn't been amended in early 2015.

9 slots. Ugh. 9 slots. How the heck can I possibly find 9 folks to vote for???

Past votes

In the spirit of fairness

- Edit tools 88300 edits total, 200 automated (not sure where these come from, since I've never installed Twinkle or Huggle or the like), 88100 manual edits. Account started editing 2007. 64.9% to articles, 11.5% to article talk, 6.1% to user pages, 6.9% to user talk pages, 9.3% to wikipedia space, 0.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 99 articles with over 100 edits. 8 edits to ANI, less than 7 edits to AN. 1168 pages created, 367 were redirects, so 801 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. 1 FT, 2 FLs, 56 FAs, 105 GAs.

Handy!

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Guide

Of concern

This series of concerns makes me very concerned about the turn the Signpost is taking. Really? Asking a question "We saw ArbCom at its worst in the way it handled the Gamergate case." is NOT so freaking blatantly biased that it passed muster? If this is the way the Signpost is heading, it's a big concern.

Also useful for "touching base" and "seeing other sides of issues" Iri's thoughts.

Candidates

Solid Support

- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Casliber/Questions 150,500 edits total, 200 automated, 150,300 manual edits. Account started editing 2006. 50.4% to articles, 13.8% to article talk, 3.3% to user pages, 8.5% to user talk pages, 14.6% to wikipedia space, 4.1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 7 days. Over 100 articles with over 100 edits. 301 edits to ANI, 224 edits to AN. 2099 pages created, 538 were redirects, so 1561 "real" pages created. Is an admin and former arb. 123 FAs and 19 GAs claimed on talk page.
Supported in 2010. Have never had issues with their behavior on or off the committee. Easy support.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Drmies/Questions 182,600 edits total, 37,800 automated, 144,800 manual edits. Account started editing 2007 but major editing didn't happen until 2008. 51.5% to articles, 3.5% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 32.1% to user talk pages, 9.9% to wikipedia space, 0.4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 10 days. 8 articles with over 100 edits. 4280 edits to ANI, 579 edits to AN. 2110 pages created, 1001 were redirects, so 1109 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page. One quickly overturned block in 2012 and one mistaken block in 2014 can be ignored.
Good, not great content contributions. Good answers to the questions. YIKES, WAY too much time on ANI/AN. That's just about the only red flag, though, so I'm supporting but ... really, Drmies, you should stick away from the dramah boards. They rot your teeth, freeze your face into whatever bad expression you've made, and all those other things your mother warned you about as a kid.

Slight Support

- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kelapstick/Questions 41,000 edits total, 5300 automated, 35,700 manual edits. Account started editing 2007. 36.0% to articles, 4.9% to article talk, 3.4% to user pages, 24.3% to user talk pages, 10.3% to wikipedia space, 1.3% to wikipedia talk pages, 17.3% to file namespace. Last 500 edits go back 22 days. 2 articles with over 100 edits. 65 edits to ANI, 35 edits to AN. 416 pages created, 279 were redirects, so 137 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 1 GA on user page. One block in 2007 can safely be ignored.
Alternate account: - Edit tools Only 230 edits.
Resounding "uh, who?" when saw this nomination. Needs investigating. Answers to questions seem good. Nothing turns up nasty in my searches or other places for bad things I should be aware of. This is a very tenative support, however. If something nasty turns up, I reserve the right to change my mind. (Who am I kidding, I reserve the right to change my mind all the time... it's either a function of getting old or getting grouchy...) Bonus points for apparantly not answering a fishing expedition.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/NE Ent/Questions 18,500 edits total, 1100 automated, 17,400 manual edits. Account started editing 2006, serious editing started 2009. 8.5% to articles, 4.5% to article talk, 6.2% to user pages, 23.9% to user talk pages, 42.9% to wikipedia space, 12.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 30 days. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 2727 edits to ANI, 1006 edits to AN. 20% of their edits are to either AN or ANI. 33 pages created, 17 were redirects, so 16 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. The non-listed alternate account is a bot. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 214 edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 28 total edits
Seriously concerned about WAY too much time on ANI/AN without actually resolving anything. Would love to see where they actually improved a situation rather than just jumped into dramah. Okay ... User:NE Ent/Notes on civility is a major major plus. I'm so tired of "respect others diversity" really meaning "respect others diversity as long as they align with my own beliefs". I'm not sure I need to read the answers to the questions, that essay may be enough to get past the whole "too much time on ANI" problem I had with this candidate. I really do think that more engagement with content would help the candidate understand at a gut level just WHY some things drive content editors nuts. Until you've been on the receiving end of constant low-grade civil-POV pushing, you cannot understand exactly how it saps your will to do anything with wikipedia. It takes away motivation and that's a bad thing. In the end, the other positives outweigh the lack of content engagement (much as Newyorkbrad's positives outweighed his negatives. Bonus points for avoiding answering the questions from the signpost which struck me as stirring the pot unnecessarily.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Opabinia regalis/Questions 10,300 edits total, 200 automated, 10,100 manual edits. Account started editing 2007, edited a lot 2006 and 2007, few edits 2008 and 2009, nothing 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, resumed editing 2015. 39.6% to articles, 7.3% to article talk, 4.2% to user pages, 14.1% to user talk pages, 25.4% to wikipedia space, 5.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 40 days. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 59 edits to ANI, 42 edits to AN. 504 pages created, 341 were redirects, so 163 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 15 total edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 18 total edits
Seems good enough but concerns over editing breaks. Not sure has been back long enough to really have a good idea what is going on. Probably come down to the answers to the questions. INteresting (thanks Kiefer) and here (also thanks Kiefer). In the end, the positives probably outweigh the concerns about editing frequency and the one or two answers that concern me a bit. I'm still not convinced that just because LB had some serious harrassment that the decision to site ban her was wrong - her behavior onwiki was highly disruptive and draining, and I had little to do with her.

Neutral

- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Callanecc/Questions 50,400 edits total, 8600 automated, 41,800 manual edits. Account started editing 2009, but major edits only began in 2012. 22.6% to articles, 3.9% to article talk, 9.8% to user pages, 29.4% to user talk pages, 25.3% to wikipedia space, 2.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 31 days. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 167 edits to ANI, 120 edits to AN. 170 pages created, 151 were redirects, so 19 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools Only a bit over 100 edits.

Alternate account: - Edit tools No edits.

Alternate account: - Edit tools No edits.
Thanks to Peter Damian for the diff of Callanecc's block here for "have you stopped beating your wife?". That's a ... very special kind of special right there. I'm not seeing anything the screams "support" in the questions, nor am I seeing anything that screams "oppose". Classic case of "neutral". I know several other folks are supporting him based on his clerking experience but that doesn't really help me much. I'm tired of the "become admin, become arbcom clerk, become arbcom member" career path that is developing and want to see something beyond just following those steps.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Questions 71,500 edits total, 0 automated, 71,500 manual edits. Account started editing 2006 but serious editing didn't start until 2009. 82.3% to articles, 1.3% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 5.1% to user talk pages, 8.7% to wikipedia space, 0.4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 10 days. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 485 edits to ANI, 43 edits to AN. 196 pages created, 118 were redirects, so 78 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. Three blocks, including one in 2014, all short. No GAs or FAs claimed on user page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 23 total edits.
I have this niggling feeling of "uh-oh" when I hear their name. Pretty sure it's not the similarity between their name and Keifer's either... need to dig. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and for the latest block [1] where some of our "finest" get a bee up their butts and block someone because the someone annoys them somehow. Heh. I don't see this edit or this edit (warning, not safe for work) to be the work of a bad BLP zealot (We have an essay on this? That condemns the behavior? We SHOULD be zealots here - bad articles can cause real harm). My feeling is that the whole slew of porn articles needs to be burned out with fire because most of them are completely useless and without encyclopedic merit. On the other hand [[2]] is not encouraging. While there is a place for grumpy old men, it's not a good spot on ArbCom. Neutral, mainly because of the porn stance.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Keilana/Questions 55,900 edits total, 11,800 automated, 44,100 manual edits. Account started editing 2007, but few edits in 2010 and none in 2011. 45.8% to articles, 4% to article talk, 3% to user pages, 36.7% to user talk pages, 8.5% to wikipedia space, 0.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to late September. 10 articles with over 100 edits. 112 edits to ANI, 67 edits to AN. 549 pages created, 251 were redirects, so 298 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 9 FAs, 2 FLs, 4 GAs claimed on user page.
Voted "neutral" in 2012 mainly due to concerns about investigating situations before deciding. Will need to investigate further to see if things have improved. Per Peter's Guide there are a number of concerning comments about power users and other concerns from an interview from a few years ago (2013?). I have concerns about the lack of answering some of hte questions. And some of the answers given are not helpful to me in showing what K would bring to the arbCom that would be helpful. The answers seem glib and without much thought put into them. I will probably support but ... it's a very very grudging support. And I'd forgotten [[3]] which knocks out the grudging support to neutral. Also concerns with terse/lack of answers to questions asked during the elections. 20 hours before the polls opened (and 8 days after declaring they were running) their questions looked like this, with questions from three different editors not answered at all.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Wildthing61476/Questions 24,900 edits total, 7900 automated, 17,000 manual edits. Account started editing 2006, but there were no edits in 2010 or 2013 and there were few edits in 2012 and 2014. 16.2% to articles, 1.5% to article talk, 2.4% to user pages, 55.1% to user talk pages, 24.5% to wikipedia space, 0.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 33 days. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 427 edits to ANI, 41 edits to AN. 33 pages created, 19 were redirects, so 14 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
There isn't a strong reason to go "no" but ... neither is there a strong reason to go "yes". Some concerns are the sporadic editing pattern, lack of strong content contributions (no audited content, no articles with over 100 edits, and only 16% of edits to article space. On the plus side, hasn't gotten into any serious trouble either and doesn't appear to haunt the dramah pages either.

Slight Oppose

- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hawkeye7/Questions 60,900 edits total, 70 automated. Account started editing 2005, but serious editing started 2007. 58.1% to articles, 10.6% to article talk, 6.4% to user pages, 2.9% to user talk pages, 10.4% to wikipedia space, 2.1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 17 days. 81 articles with over 100 edits. 57 edits to ANI, 27 edits to AN. 348 pages created, 181 were redirects, so 167 "real" pages created. De-admin'd by ArbCom - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. Only alternate account is a bot. 46 FAs, 81 A-class, 215 GAs claimed on user talk page.
Love his article and behind the scenes (as far as content) contributions. Serious serious concerns about his de-admining. The fact that he couldn't see he was involved and shouldn't have done those admin actions is very concerning. Very happy that he's managed to somewhat learn from it and continue editing. Not sure he's learned enough to be on arbCom. Will need to think on this one. Concerns with the de-admining are just too much to overcome.
- Mahensingha&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Mahensingha/Questions 4500 edits total, 1400 automated, 3100 manual edits. Account started editing 2011, but few edits until 2015. 59% to articles, 7.1% to article talk, 13% to user pages, 11.4% to user talk pages, 4.6% to wikipedia space, 0.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back until early July. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 12 edits to ANI, 0 edits to AN. 10 pages created, 4 were redirects, so 6 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page.
Too little experience and low participation rate.

Oppose

- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Gamaliel/Questions 73,200 edits total, 6000 automated, 67,200 manual edits. Account started editing 2004. 57.6% to articles, 9.9% to article talk, 2.1% to user pages, 13.8% to user talk pages, 13.7% to wikipedia space, 0.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 20 days. 22 articles with over 100 edits (all are political figures or controversies except Skull and Bones). 491 edits to ANI, 76 edits to AN. 2584 pages created, 1538 were redirects, so 1046 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 GA claimed on user page.
Voted neutral in 2013, mainly because of concerns of their views on "vested contributors" and too much "community" and too little "encyclopedia" in terms of editor support. Concerns with their conduct in GamerGate case, they are a bit too close to the subject to really be uninvolved. Do like the article edits but have concerns that are a bit too focused on political battlegrounds. (And the concentration on Skull and Bones is a bit ... weird, if I'm remembering that he's done a lot of categorizing folks by membership in that organization?) Need to parse the questions well. Also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-28/From the editor, especially the comments, concern me that the political concerns are paramount with the candidate. Again, this is ArbCom, not GovCom, and it does not rule this wikipedia. And ... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-21/Editorial is the last straw, too much political battlegrounding for the position.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/GorillaWarfare/Questions 29,100 edits total, 16,000 automated, 13,100 manual edits. Account started editing 2007, but no major editing until 2009. 42.2% to articles, 2.3% to article talk, 2.7% to user pages, 42.5% to user talk pages, 8.1% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to mid July. 1 articles with over 100 edits. 44 edits to ANI, 34 edits to AN. 141 pages created, 118 were redirects, so 23 "real" pages created. Is an admin and a sitting arb. Claims 2 GAs on their user page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 9 total edits.
Recused with the emergency de-admin of Yngvadottir at least. Voted for her in 2013 mainly due to answers to questions, it appears. Have not been impressed with their work on the committee so far, and find that they often approach things with too much preconceived attitudes. Need to further investigate their work on the committee but leaning oppose at the moment. Did vote to desysop Kww, which is good. Lightbreather is a difficult case. In the end, despite the abuse LB took offwiki, their behavior onwiki was way sub-optimal and they needed to be dealt with, which GW did not see. LB's approach to wikipedia was just plain toxic to those around them and I'm afraid that GW's own preconceptions played a role in not seeing other concerns. I do appreciate that they went to a good deal of effort to explain their position, which helps. In Sockpuppets was willing to change their minds on a situation, which was good. Was willing to ban disruptive editors, it's not their fault that the review went no where. In GGTF was not willing to ban CMDC nor explain why they were opposed to banning a clear Battleground editor - which leaves the feeling that their own personal concerns about feminism and gender politics played a part. (They may not have, but the lack of explanation leaves that impression). Oh. Gees. I totally forgot their behavior at AE1. Ugh. That's enough to push me over to oppose.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kevin Gorman/Questions 11,600 edits total, 2800 automated, 8800 manual edits. Account started editing 2011. 35.3% to articles, 9.7% to article talk, 6.4% to user pages, 28.4% to user talk pages, 17.1% to wikipedia space, 2.4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to late June. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 276 edits to ANI, 145 edits to AN. 96 pages created, 34 were redirects, so 62 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
I'm going to force myself to look at Kevin dispasionately but the general impression I've always had of him is a dramah hound who spends too much time on politics and dramah and not enough on being in the trenches creating and dealing with content. The whole gendergap thing leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop is not Kevin's finest hour. And the questions do not help. None of the answers are exactly helpful to thinking that Kevin is capable of leaving his pet hobbyhorse's behind and thinking through things. Must oppose. This series of edits shows the whole drama stirring bit well.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kirill Lokshin/Questions 74,900 edits total, 3 automated. Account started editing 2005, but little editing in the last few years. 12.6% to articles, 12.9% to article talk, 1.2% to user pages, 9.2% to user talk pages, 29% to wikipedia space, 17% to wikipedia talk pages, 10.2 to template space. Last 500 edits go back to July. 6 articles with over 100 edits. 109 edits to ANI, 66 edits to AN. 459 pages created, 376 were redirects, so 83 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 5 FAs on user page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 1 total edit.
Just too little engagement with the project. Very little editing in the last few years, and appears out of touch with the community. The comment This statement just seems totally out of touch and this statement saying the rest of the admin corps is too frightened to do anything displays a feeling that they are better/smarter/braver than everyone else and that any objections to their actions are from peons. Voted "oppose" in 2011 due to lack of participation, don't see that this has improved since then. Voted "neutral" in 2009. Does get bonus points for not answering Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-18/Special report.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kudpung/Questions 73,800 edits total, 12,500 automated, 61,300 manual edits. Account started editing 2006, but serious editing only started 2008. 26% to articles, 6.1% to article talk, 4.6% to user pages, 41.4% to user talk pages, 15.4% to wikipedia space, 5.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to late September. 5 articles with over 100 edits. 436 edits to ANI, 160 edits to AN. 184 pages created, 119 were redirects, so 65 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 6 GAs on user page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 7 total edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 59 total edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 3 total edits.
I have an impression of this editor constantly harping on some anti-admin cabal. Need to investigate. Answers to questions are not at all level-headed or thoughtful. They give me no assurance that K has the right temperment for arbcom. Going to have to oppose. Does get bonus points for not answering Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-18/Special report.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/LFaraone/Questions 16,500 edits total, 2300 automated, 14,200 manual edits. Account started editing 2004 but few edits 2004-2005, surge of editing in 2006-2008, few edits from 2009-2012. 30% to articles, 10.3% to article talk, 3.5% to user pages, 19.5% to user talk pages, 34.4% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to the end of May. 1 article with over 100 edits. 31 edits to ANI, 20 edits to AN. 162 pages created, 147 were redirects, so 15 "real" pages created. Is an admin and a sitting arb. Other accounts have no edits. 1 GA claimed on user page. Only block appears to have been an error.
Voted for the emergency de-admin of [4]. Voted "oppose" in 2013 due to concerns about editor's concerns that civility was too laxly enforced. Need to look at their work on the committee but leaning oppose. E-cigs voted against topic banning Quack Guru, which is a concern. Kww did vote to desysop Kww, which is good. Lightbreather is a difficult case. In the end, despite the abuse LB took offwiki, their behavior onwiki was way sub-optimal and they needed to be dealt with, which LF could not see and unlike GW, could not bother to explain why they took the stance they did. Was willing to ban disruptive editors, it's not their fault that the review went no where. I find the voting for sanctions on Giano here when Giano wasn't added to the case until right before the decision was made to look like railroading Giano for whatever they think they can get away with.

In the end, underwhelmed with their participation and explanations. Little participation or visible engagement with the project or their role. Little discussion of their reasoning for decisions. Must oppose.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/MarkBernstein/Questions 3300 edits total, 13 automated. Account started editing 2006 but has never edited more than 310 times in a month. Only 12 months have they managed over 100 edits. 23.3% to articles, 35.3% to article talk, 0.7% to user pages, 20.4% to user talk pages, 15.3% to wikipedia space, 4.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to August. 1 article with over 100 edits (Gamergate). 83 edits to ANI, 29 edits to AN. 0 pages created. Is NOT an admin. No alternate accounts. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page. Lots of blocks just this year are a concern.
Too few edits, low participation rate would be enough, but the editor's theory of gamergate gangs and such as revealed in the answers to David Bradley reveal a tendency towards battleground thinking which is at odds with the concept of arbitration. ArbCom is not GovCom, and it doesn't rule this wikipedia. Heh, "Here for Mark Bernstein" perfectly sums up the vibe I get from him, although I'd probably add something to point out his habit of rhetorical flourishes and verbiage.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Rich Farmbrough/Questions 997,200 edits total, 615,400 automated, 381,800 manual edits. Account started editing 2004. 78.3% to articles, 8.4% to article talk, 1.8% to user pages, 2.5% to user talk pages, 1.6% to wikipedia space, 0.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 5 days. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 514 edits to ANI, 220 edits to AN. 14,113 pages created, 12,094 were redirects, so 2019 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. De-admined by ArbCom - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough. Other alternate accounts appear to be bots. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page. Rather extensive block log which causes some concerns.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 1800 edits total, 2 automated. Account started editing 2010, last edited 2013. 6.2% to articles, 91.9% to article talk, 1.6% to user pages, 0.3% to user talk pages, 0% to wikipedia space, 0% to wikipedia talk pages. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 0 edits to ANI, 0 edits to AN. 0 pages created. NOT an admin.

Alternate account: - Edit tools 1 edit total.

Alternate account: - Edit tools 4 edits total.

Alternate account: - Edit tools 5 edits total.

Alternate account: - Edit tools 11 edits total.
Rich seems like a nice guy, but the inability to see his own editing problems (and the constant lawyering about them) is concerning enough to make me think he's unsuited to the arbitrator role.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Thryduulf/Questions 54,300 edits total, 40 automated, 54,300 manual edits. Account started editing 2004, but major editing only started 2005. 23.6% to articles, 6.4% to article talk, 2% to user pages, 4.6% to user talk pages, 56.3% to wikipedia space, 5.4% to wikipedia talk pages. 11,500+ edits are to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Last 500 edits go back to the start of September. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 245 edits to ANI, 101 edits to AN. 896 pages created, 755 were redirects, so 141 "real" pages created. Is an admin and a sitting arb. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 10 total edits.

Alternate account: - Edit tools 11 total edits.

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits.

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits.
Voted for the emergency de-admin of Yngvadottir. Voted neutral in 2014, mainly due to answers to questions and concerns over civility enforcement. Need to look into how their votes went on the committee but gotta say I'm leaning oppose right now. E-cigs voted to not topic ban QuackGuru, which is a concern. Kww did vote to desysop Kww, which is good. Lightbreather is a difficult case. In the end, despite the abuse LB took offwiki, their behavior onwiki was way sub-optimal and they needed to be dealt with, which Thry did vote for. I find the voting for sanctions on Giano here when Giano wasn't added to the case until right before the decision was made to look like railroading Giano for whatever they think they can get away with. In the end, too much negative to allow me to support.

Withdrawn

- Edit tools. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/AKS.9955/Questions 18,300 edits total, 6600 automated however, 11700 manual edits. Account started editing 2014, but only did a few edits at the start of the year and then nothing until this year. 64.3% of edits to articles, 3.7% to article talk, 5.5% to user pages, 20.2% to user talk pages, 3.7% to wikipedia space, .2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 4 days. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 17 edits to ANI, 16 to AN. 1097 pages created, 714 were redirects, so 383 "real pages" created. Also of note - Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Arunsingh16 for their previous account. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on either user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 10,100 edits total, 6900 automated, 3200 manual edits. Account started editing 2011. 53.4% to articles, 1.7% to article talk, 3.2% to user pages, 36.9% to user talk pages, 4.4% to wikipedia space, 0% to wikipedia talk pages. Last edited Jan 2014. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 33 edits to ANI, less than 4 edits to AN. 250 pages created, 100 were redirects, so 150 "real" pages created. NOT an admin. Pattern of few edits for many months and then a month or two of large edits before returning to the low editing pattern.
Cannot support an editor who has active CCI against them.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Salvidrim!/Questions 18,500 edits total, 348 automated. Account started editing 2010, but few edits that year, with large numbers of edits not happening until 2011. 22.3% to articles, 12% to article talk, 7.5% to user pages, 20.2% to user talk pages, 27.3% to wikipedia space, 6.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 22 days. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 156 edits to ANI, 544 edits to AN. 254 pages created, 232 were redirects, so 22 "real" pages created. Is an admin.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 12 total edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 5 total edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools 4 edits total

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits

Alternate account: - Edit tools no edits
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Samtar/Questions 4300 edits total, 1900 automated, 2400 manual edits. Account started editing 2008, but few edits until Aug 2015. 23% to articles, 3.9% to article talk, 11.6% to user pages, 45.4% to user talk pages, 11.7% to wikipedia space, 0.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 12 days. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 41 edits to ANI, less than 4 edits to AN. 4 pages created, 2 were redirects, so 2 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. The other alternate account is a bot. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 2 edits total

Alternate account: - Edit tools 3 edits total
Too few edits and not enough participation.
- Edit tools Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Timtrent/Questions 70,600 edits total, 24,400 automated, 46,200 manual edits. Account started editing 2006. 27% to articles, 6.9% to article talk, 6.2% to user pages, 38.5% to user talk pages, 13.3% to wikipedia space, 1.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 8 days. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 192 edits to ANI, 37 edits to AN. 417 pages created, 261 were redirects, so 156 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user or user talk page.
Alternate account: - Edit tools 5 total edits.
Seems solid enough. Seems to have managed to weigh in on the child protection issues without being an idiot, which is a plus. Content edits are so-so - no audited content but does have 3 articles over 100 edits. LOTS of automated edits. Need to read questions. Not horrid answers but not incredible either.