The Signpost

Arbitration report

The community elects eight arbitrators

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tony1 and Skomorokh
Dwindling participation: voter and candidate numbers since 2008.

ArbCom elections come to a close, with eight successful candidates elected

At 20:20 UTC Sunday, almost eight days after the close of voting, the stewards Bencmq, Trijnstel, and Vituzzu announced the results of the ninth annual election for the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Of the 17 candidates, 10 achieved a support percentage-ranking of more than the required 50%, and thus all eight vacancies were filled—seven for two-year terms, and one for a single year to fill the vacancy created by a late resignation.

What made this election notable was the continuation of the downward trend in voter numbers, to just 729, down from 854 in 2010 and from nearly a thousand in 2009 and 2008. The number of candidates too has fallen steadily, from 28 in 2008 to just 17 this year. Opinions varied on why the voter participation rate is so low, from the overall sagging in editor retention to the decision not to run a site banner advertising the election.

The pie graphs to the right show the aggregate proportions of the support, oppose, and no vote/neutral votes by all voters. They indicate the marked effect of SecurePoll in increasing "voting intensity". Before the use of SecurePoll, which made expressing an opinion on each candidate mandatory, more than three-quarters of voters' potential to support or oppose went unused.[1] In 2009, the first year of software-assisted voting, this fell to less than 45%, then 38% last year, settling on 35% this year. Because of this increase in voting intensity, the actual number of supports this year was 4,312 (an average of almost 6 supports per voter), whereas in 2008 that number was only 3550 (3.6 supports per voter). We do, in fact, have much more voter engagement than we used to, in this respect.

In 2011, Courcelles was the most popular candidate: 59% of voters clicked Support for him, while the seven other successful candidates achieved 55, 51, 51, 48, 42, 47, and 43% support respectively. Again, voters appeared to favour editors who have already had experience on the Committee: five of the eight new arbitrators have already served in that capacity.

The eight successful candidates are:

Footnote
  1. ^ These abstentions are counted as "Neutral" for purposes of these graphs, while the default option of "Neutral" in 2009 and 2010 was renamed after objections to "No vote" in 2011.

Cases and motions

A case was requested this week concerning Muhammad Images, after long-festering discord over which depictions if any of the prophet Muhammad are appropriate to showcase appeared to be beyond the community's ability to resolve. Fourteen parties were named and at the time of writing no arbitrators have voted to reject the case, while 7 have indicated their wish to see it opened, and a binding RfC has been mooted as a potential solution to the underlying dispute.

TimidGuy ban appeal and Betacommand 3 remained in the evidence phase, while requests for clarification were sought regarding Fringe theories, the Eastern European mailing list case and the Abortion motion.

The Signpost is seeking a regular writer for the Arbitration Report. If you have an interest in the Arbitration Committee and its proceedings and would like to see the report continue, consider applying either by emailing wikipediasignpost@gmail.com or by leaving a message in the newsroom.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I wonder if the increasing intensity of ArbCom cases and onsite disputes are what contributed to the reduction in interest... Stifle (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crappy job that tends toward burnout. The job is actually to deal with the thorniest and stupidest issues on the entire encyclopedia. Think of it as taking one's turn in the barrel - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They could make things a lot easier for themselves by insisting on succinctness, getting rid of the so-called workshop page, and conflating the "principles" section of each judgement down to one or two votes. WRT the text, which has been altered, SecurePoll did not make "expressing an opinion on each candidate mandatory": SecurePoll has always provided for default "neutral" and (this year) "no vote" buttons. The instructions explicitly say that this default will have no effect on the voting tally. Tony (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. They've got these enormous processes and then they slow those down and drag those out. Muhammed Images is about a one week case, exactly three well-placed topic bans and a little menacing growling and it's resolved. Now watch them take four months to fail to fix the problem. WAAAAAAY too much personal politics... Carrite (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, half of the elected candidates got under 50% support, and the other half were not much above that watermark. How's that for consensus? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news article should have clarified what it meant by 'percent of support' . The eight successful candidates all individually got more supports than opposes, so in common sense terms they all got above 50% support. The pie charts seem to be using 'all votes cast' as the denominator (i.e. total number of boxes checked by all voters combined), and to use that to compute 'percent of support' seems unusual. For a more understandable summary, see the 'percentage' column in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011#Results. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: ArbCom needs reformation. ResMar 05:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0