Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-17/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

One quick takeaway from the election results: If you're not an administrator, you're unlikely to be elected. Nine of the twelve who were elected were admins (sysops), and two admins finished tenth and eleventh. By contrast, all eight non-admins were not elected. And that makes sense - the administrator selection process is the most common way that the entire Wikipedia community has the opportunity to evaluate an editor in some depth. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect the community to place any trust in an editor who hasn't already formally earned the community's trust via RfA. Typically, the election guides either outright disqualify non-admins from recommendation or mention non-admins as cranks running on perennial "reform the system" platforms. High voter apathy also prevents rabble-rouser candidates. Wikipedia is an insider's game. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At RfA where in spite of the in-your-face warning at transclusion we still get plenty of totally snow noms, but at RfA the candidates are not competing for open seats. This year's Arbcom election demonstrates a staggering drop in the number of voters while the number of participants on RfA has been increasing steadily since around 2009. This needs investigating. For example, was there something different in the publicity for this year's election? I am not suggesting for a moment that I am dissatisfied by the results, but I would like to see a much larger number of suitably qualified candidates to choose from - such as, for example, ones who are at least already admins or who can demonstrate truly significant experience in other sensitive areas (OTRS, CU, Oversight, etc).

year	candidates	voters
2014	20	593
2013	23	923
2912	21	824
2011	17	729
2010	21	850
2009	22	996

It would be nice if the Signpost could provide us with a report as comprehensive as the one it made here.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or here. Tony (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh (to the top comment)? Only 9 were elected, and all seem to be admins (as usual). I agree with Kudpung that the fall in turn-out was the most notable & rather alarming aspect of this years elections. But then they were rather drama-free, and by and large the expected candidates came through, which may have reduced motivation to vote. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he meant "Nine of the twelve admins who ran were elected". This is true, though it's not terribly meaningful: last year a whole slew of candidates who were admins were resoundingly rejected. The lack of an admin reconfirmation procedure means that someone who passed at RfA in 2004 might not actually enjoy much support in 2014. I also think that the community would be perfectly willing to support a strong non-admin candidate if one appeared. To Chris Troutman's point, this year I see only one guide that reflexively dismisses non-admin candidates, and several that explicitly state a willingness to consider them. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I wouldn't be so sure that RFA votes were rising. Remember the number of candidates has been falling, apart from a minor rally in 2013. So while !votes per successful candidate are up on 2009, I'm pretty sure total people casting one or more RFA !votes are down on a monthly or annual basis. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF NOTES

Voter numbers (line-graph on the right): way down from last year, and the lowest ever. Why did they surge last year, interrupting the steep downward trend since 2008?
Support–abstain–oppose ratios (bar-graph): on average, voters supported 30.0% of candidates (up slightly from last year, but still lower than for most previous years), abstained for 35.2% (down significantly from last year's spike), and opposed 34.8% (much higher than ever). I can't for the moment explain last year's spike of absentions—it's not as though there was a huge wash of candidates last year (22 vs 20 this year). In 2014, the high average oppose may have been associated with the large tail of six candidates who attracted supports from fewer than 12% of voters, and correspondingly high levels of opposition. Interestingly, one of the two withdrawn candidates in the 2014 election did not attract relatively high numbers of oppose votes; (last year's tail was smaller and not so low-scoring in terms of supports (I've not checked their oppose rates). Tony (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote this year because while the election is rather drama-free, the overall organization structure of ArbCom and their decision-making leaves a lot to be desired. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ArbCom election? This is the first I heard about it. While I'm nowhere as active as I once was, I would have expected to see an announcement in at least one of the places I lurk: WP:AN, WP:AN/I, the Village Pump, or the Signpost. Maybe next year I'll hear of it in time to evaluate the candidates & maybe vote. -- llywrch (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The small turnout doomed non-administrative candidates, no doubt about it. The general lack of participation was largely a product of poor advertisement of the election, I feel. We should do better next time. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of clarification, the election administrators had access to the SecurePoll data as well. (This is the checkuser-like data, not the votes.) Mike V • Talk 04:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]