User:SilkTork/ArbNotes2015

Preamble
ArbCom is a committee with limited scope for doing harm to the project, so voting is less stringent than for becoming an admin, steward or bureaucrat; however, being part of the Committee is seen as a Big Deal, and it generates a lot of interest from hard-core and career-level Wikipedians. The reasons for this are historic. Arbitration of difficult disputes was originally handled by the founder, Jimbo Wales. As time went on, Jimbo decided to delegate responsibility for arbitration to a committee of experienced and trusted users. As such, the Committee were seen as regents for Jimbo, and this role and responsibility is reinforced by the close relationship the Committee has with the Foundation.

The main role of the Committee in resolving difficult disputes is the most public and obvious function, and the one on which the Committee is judged, however the Committee has other functions: hearing unblock appeals, appointing and overseeing CheckUser and OverSight, dealing with certain private issues, such as those related to child abuse, and being the unofficial interface between the community and the Foundation. What is required to deal with these varying aspects is a good understanding of the project, tact and diplomacy, a collaborative mindset, discretion, decisiveness, patience, moral courage, communication skills, and organisational skills. It may come as no surprise that Committee members tend to have important roles in Real Life, are generally graduates and professionals, and may already have committee experience. Such people know how to manage their time, deal with other people, and handle complex public facing matters with some measure of tact and skill.

It is up to each person as to who they vote for. For the project as a whole it doesn't really matter who gets in; the Committee has little involvement in the day to day running of the encyclopaedia, don't create or amend policy, and for 99.9% of the community the Committee will be as relevant as WikiProject Stub sorting; but for those who do get drawn into an ArbCom case, and for the other Committee members, it is helpful to appoint people who are experienced Wikipedians, have some experience and skill in dispute resolution, and are able to work collaboratively as part of a committee. Being an admin is indicative that an individual is already experienced and respected with some dispute resolution experience, but it is not essential to be an admin, and that an individual has decided not to go through the trial of an RfA should not necessarily be held against them, but may be borne in mind.

Conclusion
There really weren't any big surprises in the election. On the whole those who looked likely to gain enough support, did so, and those who looked unlikely to get the support, didn't. The order of the percentage tally was also pretty much as expected.

The elements that are surprising and/or interesting are:

1) Keilana getting equal 2nd highest support. She nominated herself in 2012 but failed to get elected, she divides opinion, her answers to the questions were unremarkable (though her reposes to the civility questions were good), and her admin and editing contributions are fairly low, so there's little there to show why so many people voted for her. Except, she blocked Eric Corbett this year for violation of his incivility restriction. It's possible that the community want folks on the Committee who have the confidence to deal with controversial users like Eric, and who are clearly making a stand against incivility. There is, of course, also the issue that she is female - and that may have inclined some to favour Keilana for various individual reasons: to help fill the gender gap, to give a different perspective on the Committee, to raise the profile of women on Wikipedia, etc.

2) Rich Farmbrough only getting 53% of the vote, though he got 66% in his RfA. If he got the same percentage in this vote, he'd now be on the Committee. There are a number of differences between that RfA and this ArbCom election. Less than 150 users voted for/against Rich in the RFA; over 1,500 users voted for/against him in this election. The ArbCom election is done using a secret ballot. People are voting for different things. That he wasn't an admin may have also told against him, as non of the non-admins did as well as expected.

3) None of the non-admin candidates did well. There was a feeling that this year might be the first in which a non-admin was voted onto the Committee. Perhaps none of the non-admin candidates were good enough. Perhaps the other candidates were stronger and would have finished higher even if the non-admin candidates were admins. Or perhaps the community are comfortable with a non-admin serving on the Committee.