User talk:75.108.94.227/exit poll 2015 data

batch 1
Click edit, copy the wikitext, paste into a spreadsheet (e.g. Libre Office). Note that information is raw and thus not very cleansed; a bit of elbow grease is needed for numeric analysis and such.

question	User_00	User_01	User_02	User_03	User_04	User_05	User_06	User_07	User_08	User_09 edits	13066	43335	7429	81950	1913	7066	45327	17179	4623	24038 since	2007	2004	2006	2004	2009	2010	2008	2012	2014	2004 maxPerm	autopatrol	rollback	acctCreator	admin	autoconf	reviewer	rollback	rollback	autoconf	autopatrol 0_answer	Yes	Sure. Seems fine. Yes	yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes perhaps. 0_comments					I will answer to the questions so that candidates could know the standard requirements to win the next elections. Why? In order to provide an informative snapshot of the desires of regular every-day editors. 1_answer	8k	0k. 2k	4k	16k	8k	16K	16k	2k	0k 1_comments	I don't really use a firm edit count requirement, but N/A isn't an option. Edits are not what makes someone a good arbitrator. It's not numeric. All edits are not the same. I would pay more attention to participation in discussion rather than a number of edits. 16k are sufficient to face all the problems that a member would arbitrate	I'd say 10k is a more round number, but I'm generally less interested in edit count at that stage than tenure and participation in bureaucratic activity in this area. At least over 10k. The responsibility and requirements of Arbs predetermines that they need time in the trenches. They need to have experienced what its like to be a contributing editor. I think arbs need to have a lot of editing experience, and have gotten to know Wikipedia policies well, before they can be an effective arbitrator. Experience is necessary to do a useful job. No fixed threshold. One person might make a large number of gnome edits, while another might do a smaller number of more substantial content changes. Both do valuable work, but the latter is more likely to encounter counter-edits or reverts or outright conflicts and gain experience in compromise and consensus-seeking. More editing experience is a good thing, but numerical metrics or fixed thresholds don't provide an apples-to-apples comparison and aren't helpful. 2_answer	2	0	1	2	7	2		2	1	0 2_comments	It takes at least a couple of years to understand the community well enough to navigate the strong waters of ArbCom and the vortex of meta drama. Length of time editing is not something that makes a good arbitrator. One of intense interaction is enough to get anyone the experience needed. Again, it's not the number of the quality of the interaction. Arbitrators must have a long history of editing so that they have the required experience that do not let them make faults	See above. Tenure length doesn't tell a further. It is possible for an active editor to make a sufficient number of edits and gain the necessary experience in two years. Again, experience is a necessity. No fixed threshold. One person might have many years of casual off-and-on experience, while another might have a shorter timespan of more intensive participation. The latter is more likely to be well-versed on current issues. More editing experience is a good thing, but numerical metrics or fixed thresholds don't provide an apples-to-apples comparison and aren't helpful. 3_answer	F	C	C	D	F	D	C	C	C	C 3_comments	If you can be elected to ArbCom, you should be able to pass RfA. If you can't pass RfA or haven't bothered to try, then ArbCom isn't for you. Also irrelevant. Admin status is over-rated. Not everyone wants to be an admin		They should be admins so that they have the needed autority to do their function as Arbs	I think the community has pretty much said this already. Arbs should be drawn from a wide range of experiences. I think its human nature for admins to become a bit "soured" by the wailing and consternation's of those editors that constantly find themselves in front of admins...kinda like the cop in the beat car, always having to respond to people at their worst. Not sure admin experience is necessary to do this job. Arbs should have the skill set and knowledge that would qualify them to be admins, but some qualified persons might not seek to become admins. To use a real-world analogy, you don't necessarily have to run for mayor before you run for governor; you don't necessarily have to be a defense attorney or prosecutor before being becoming a judge. Admin experience is a good thing, but should not be a litmus test or a prerequisite. 4_answer	1	0	0	1	7	1	2	0	0	0 4_comments	1	They don't need to be admins. see above		Arbitrators must have a long history of editing so that they have the required experience that do not let them make faults	See above. Doesn't tell the whole story. In 2 years an individual should know his way around Wikipedia and what to expect when they poke their heads into the smoke-filled back-rooms. (See my response to the previous question.) It would take careful screening and consideration to select an editor who has not yet been an admin, but I believe there are some who would qualify. Not sure admin experience is necessary to do this job. No fixed threshold. One admin might have many years experience doing mostly routine and thankless janitorial tasks while another with fewer years might "grasp the bull by the horns" and attempt to resolve festering issues with finesse and diplomacy. Both do important work but the latter might gain more insight into the kind of issues that end up in arbitration. More admin experience is a good thing, but numerical metrics or fixed thresholds don't provide an apples-to-apples comparison and aren't helpful. 5_answer		All the women. Rich Farmbrough, Casliber		I largely followed User The_owner_of_all/ACE2015 voting guide this year. Don't remember. 5_comments	No thanks	There are too many men on arbcomm. Don't remember			I have largely stopped editing Wikipedia as of late but still find the service of value. Far too many candidates are too focused on things not related to building an encyclopedia (like the GGTF bloc) or have shown such spectacularly terrible judgement in administrative activity or interpersonal discussion to not be acceptable or even competent arbitrators. I followed the recommendations of an editor I like and whose opinions I value. It is important to me that an Arb be able to reduce drama, lower tensions, get along well with other Arbs, express themselves clearly and concisely, and make carefully considered and nuanced decisions. Would prefer not to answer. In general, candidates should have a broad and balanced outlook. u_answer	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized) u_comments	I imagine the object of this poll is to verify the fears that mass-messaging people tipped the scales on the results in some negative way. I personally find it distasteful that some advocate a strategy of limiting participation in order to avoid outcomes they don't like. Mass-messaging for ArbCom elections should become the standard every year; broader participation by the community supports the legitimacy of the committee and offers the opportunity of a much stronger mandate for particularly appealing platforms and individuals. Sadly, numbers and rules are such a "guy" thing. They replace judgment made on quality. WP really is based on quality of work, not on numbers. We should de-emphasize the numbers and give more flexibility to the humans who are the intelligence behind WP. I think if the Talk page technology were easier we'd have better discussions and it would be easier for newcomers to begin to engage. Thank you very much. It was an honour for me to answer your questions. I don't think numerical metrics and thresholds are helpful. 6_answer		All the men				I largely followed User The_owner_of_all/ACE2015 voting guide this year. 6_comments		Your vote counts for more if you oppose everyone you don't vote for. don't remember			As above, my opposition came from the bad blocs or worse individuals. Many of the people up for this role shouldn't even be administrators, never mind arbs. 7_answer		It would be nice to see a slate of candidates who are not currently Wikipedians. Moumou82, Gemini1980	n/a 7_comments			I think it's best if people volunteer for this, not get volunteered		They are old users of Wikimedia that were included in proposing consensus several times in French Wikipedia	I'm not involved enough to know at this point. I fear the leadership in this project may be too broken at this point to find arbitration solutions valuable. 8_answer		I voted to make my 1/2500 of a voice heard. I vote, as a rule		I voted because I saw candidates that merit to be arbs. I voted because, unlike others who take a "burn it to the ground" point of view, I still see value in what this project offers, and we need to protect it still. Hopefully enough voters agreed with me. 8_comments					I learnt about the ArbCom elections from a message in my talk page 9_answer		O Showing evidence of being able to mediate disputes and handle the sensitive issues associated with running a website based in part on social interactions. This need not have anything to do with Wikipedia. Additionally, it would be nice to have people who were academically inclined. A, B, C, D, E, F, L, M		All of them are important	All of the above. 9_comments					An arb must try many types of contributions so that he can know how they work. Arbs should be well-rounded, and all of these should be taken into consideration. 10_answer		None of the above			A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, P, 5	All of the above, again. 10_comments		Arbitrators need to be involved in discussions to be good arbitrators. Arbs must have an experience in doing actions related to their future function before accessing to it	Arbs should be well-rounded, and all of these should be taken into consideration. 11_answer		None of the above			J, M	All of the above. 11_comments		Neither does it disqualify them. A user who can solve problems and fight to prove that his opinion is accurate merit Arb Position	Inability to understand other users, a constant battleground mentality, misstating evidence, misunderstanding evidence, outright deception. A number of the candidates engaged directly with activities like this. 12_answer					Will you be a candidate for the next election of 2016. 12_comments					No v_answer	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized) v_comments					Thank you very much. It was an honour for me to answer your questions.

batch 2
Click edit, copy the wikitext, paste into a spreadsheet (e.g. Libre Office). Note that information is raw and thus not very cleansed; a bit of elbow grease is needed for numeric analysis and such.

question	User_10	User_11	User_12	User_13	User_14	User_15	User_16	User_17	User_18	User_19 edits	14558	20952	1169	3253	23560	10456	91870	61072	7217	5107 since	2005	2011	2015	2007	2005	2007	2005	2007	2003	2006 maxPerm	rollback	reviewer	autoconf	autoconf	autopatrol	autopatrol	admin	admin	admin	rollback 0_answer	Yes! Yes. Yes.}}	Sure. Yes. Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes 0_comments	Well, you asked nicely	Somebody asked. I would be interested in reading what other editors' thought processes were, so it's only fair that I offer up my own as well.}}	Eh, otherwise you'll have low answer rate in your statistics, which messes it up. That's mostly why really. I'd like ARB com members to me more active against bullying mostly. Per AGF	Feedback is important. Happy to see structured investigation in to community opinion and ideas about the projects. Why not. 1_answer	16k	8k	0k}}	0k	More than a few	16k	2k	8k	2k	8k 1_comments		Needs experience. I don't view edit count as a particularly useful metric, especially in this case. It would be difficult to come up with any numerically measurable way of judging commitment to the project, temperament, or competence, and edit count certainly isn't it. It's also not particularly revealing without a great deal of context. Taking my own account as an example, the namespace that I've put the most time and best work into isn't the one that I have the most edits in. If I don't believe that my own edit count paints an accurate portrait of who I am as an editor, I can't rightfully use it as a metric when judging others.}}	It helps but I wouldn't set a specific limit. Personality is key. Wasn't really a factor. Edit count doesn't weigh as much as the quality of edits. Members should -have accumulated enough editing hours, -taken at least one article from stub to FA status to know what kind of hurdles serious wikipedians face. Not a hard requirement	An Arb shouldn't need anything more than an admin, and 8k seems around the minimum level for RFA these days. Bar should be low. Fresh blood is good. However, too low will result in process abuse. I don't really mean that. Arbitrators should have significant experience. I like to see real activity in at least two aspects of creating the encyclopedia, and, sorry gnomes, I really insist that at least one of those be content creation. 2_answer	5	3	2	0	5	5	1	2	1	3 2_comments	more-or-less contiguous including being currently active	Needs experience. It's implied by my answers questions 3 and 4 I want all Arbs to be admins in good standing (Q3) for at least a year (Q4), and no editor is going to become an admin without at least a year's tenure before their run.}}	It helps but I wouldn't set a specific limit. Personality is key. Necessary to demonstrate commitment and familiarity. Idle months should not be counted. Not a hard requirement	Again, about the same as I'd generally want to see for RFA. Bar should be low. Fresh blood is good. However, too low will result in process abuse. I think the right answer is "significant." Less than 3 won't do. But for some, even 5 or 6 years may not be significant experience. 3_answer	D	D	F}}	C, I suppose. D	D	C	C	B	D 3_comments	if not an admin, why not? why arbcom if not admin? Needs admin experience. If Wikipedia is an office and all editors are colleagues, admins are supervisors and arbs are senior management. It's not a perfect analogy, but for the purpose of answering this question, it'll do. Before I'm comfortable electing someone into senior management, I want to see how they manage being a supervisor. People, even good meaning and levelheaded people, change in supervisory roles. This doesn't have to be a negative change, and in my experience it often isn't, but there are different stressors and different expectations, and that leads to different parts of people's personalities coming to the forefront. I want to see if and how they approach admin-only tasks, and I want to see how they relate to non-admins, especially users that aren't veterans of the Wikipedia namespace.}}	Wether they are admin or not is irrelevant to me. Arbs should have a breadth of experience, which includes admin experiences. I'd actually like to see some non-admins on Arb to provide a better balance. Diversity is good. Usually goes with the necessary experience - though I think it is good if there is a non-admin on the committee 4_answer	3	1	1	0	0.5	1	0	0	0	0 4_comments		Needs experience. This is the bare minimum, as some time is needed to judge candidates' time as admins, and per question 3 I would only be comfortable with Arbs that are already admins. That said, I don't really feel comfortable giving a numerical answer to this question; in these elections, as in most other things, I lean much more towards qualitative than quantitative analysis.}}		see Q#3. Arbs should not need to be admins at all. As above. Most should be admins. Varying levels of time using tools is ok 5_answer	Opabinia Regalis, Casliber, Timtrent, Gamaliel, Kelapstik, Callanecc, Kudpung, Drmies, Keilana		- - -}}	None. Keilana, Kirill Lokshin, Hawkeye7, Opabinia regalis, GorillaWarfare, Rich Farmbrough, Casliber, Drmies, and either Gamaliel or Callanecc(?). Callanecc, Casliber, Drmies, Gorilla Warfare, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kudpung, NE Ent, Opabinia regalis 5_comments			I won't list who I voted for, except to say that I only supported three candidates and only opposed four. There are different approaches to voting, and with tactical voting in vogue what I did will be viewed by some as risky or a waste. I chose only to cast up or down votes in cases where I was completely confident in my decision, and there were (and always will be) many candidates that I simply don't know well enough about to be sure in my decision.}}	I didn't recognize any name, so I voted abstain for everyone. Yep. I looked for mature and level-headed candidates who are not drama-mongers and who have the ability to empathise with others. All the women, and the subset of men who displayed the qualities of empathy, spirit-of-the-word priority, and were not dangerously rule-thumping or sociopathic in their personal statements. u_answer	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized) u_comments			Four minutes was a terrible, terrible estimate. ) }}					Nothing more just now - will answer the extended survey later.			6_answer			- - -}}	None.	Wildthing61476, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MarkBernstein, Kevin Gorman, Mahensingha			Gamaliel, Hawkeye7, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Kevin Gorman, Kirill Lokshin, MarkBernstein, Mahensingha, Rich Farmbrough, Thryduulf, Wildthing61476			6_comments	I will just say that I opposed every incumbent candidate because I am utterly dissatisfied with the performance of the current committee although I have no problem trusting them as individuals, the committee was dysfunctional, so the more change the better.		I won't list who I voted for, except to say that I only supported three candidates and only opposed four. There are different approaches to voting, and with tactical voting in vogue what I did will be viewed by some as risky or a waste. I chose only to cast up or down votes in cases where I was completely confident in my decision, and there were (and always will be) many candidates that I simply don't know well enough about to be sure in my decision.}}	There weren't anyone I had met/seen frequently in the past and had a negative view of. Rest were neutral. The reasons are varied (see User Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2015) but generally I opposed people who are too keen on drama, are too autocratic, are too political, can not handle critical feedback, do not have the ability to empathise, or do not have sufficient experience (not all reasons apply to all candidates, obviously) 7_answer	Dennis Brown		- - -}}		No. see comments 7_comments	cool and trustworthy		I decline to answer this question.}}	He's no longer as active, otherwise I would've supported Basement12. There definitely are, yes, but ArbCom is a nasty job and I don't want to put any pressure on anyone. 8_answer	I wanted to influence a change of the current membership. Many of the most productive content creators are either happily ignorant of, or willfully ignore, the vast majority of the Wikipedia namespace. For that matter, many of them spend almost the entirety of their time in the mainspace, not even venturing to talk or user talk pages; they're off writing about 18th century Bulgaria or the economy of Vanuatu and have no reason to get involved in dispute resolution or the back end of the project. It is critically important to the project's health though that good people are in place to do all of that dispute resolution and back end work, so that those that wish to contribute only in the mainspace can do so. Arbcom, as the final step in dispute resolution, is an important part of that back end, and of protecting the (voluntary, permeable) barrier between mainspace and back end. Even though I try to be one of those that willfully ignores most of the Wikipedia namespace, I still feel a responsibility towards ensuring that the custodianship of the back end is in the best possible hands.}}	I was notified on my userpage. I voted because I generally think elections are good. So show of support. Watchlist notice. Important positions of trust. Talk page notification		I thought it was a critical year and things could have gone very badly, but thankfully they didn't 8_comments						Motivated by frustration from defensive editors who take ownership of articles and get away with anything. ACE2015 brought me out of semi-retirement because I saw (and am still seeing) a critical juncture for Wikipedia, with the simple drive to build a great encyclopedia of knowledge increasingly coming up against political and social activism. The latter is not necessarily wrong in itself, but when it is at the expense of the former then it is very wrong. 9_answer			- - -}}	Especially A, B, C, D	G, K	A, B,C,D,G,H,I,K,N		A, B, D, K, L, M, N, O 9_comments	Just as I am not keen on candidates with an obvious bee in their bonnet, I would not want to see too much emphasis on any of the above we need people who have a solid track record of content work for its own sake and the time, patience and attention to detail needed to deal with our most difficult disputes. I would like to see in a candidate for admin someone that has a diversity of experience in both content creation and back-end tasks, such as maintenance, administrative, or dispute resolution work. I would like to see in a candidate for arb someone who has had an effective tenure as an admin, who is an effective communicator towards all types of user, and who has maintained activity in both the content creation and back-end sides of the project since becoming an admin. How any one candidate achieves this is up to them; all of these are good options.}}	I think all activity helps, but especially the kinds that are more in line with discussion, negotation and diplomacy, so especially the discussion type ones. Formality can sometimes stand in the way of communicating efficiently. Arbs should understand content contribution. That is the purpose of the project. Elections are inherently political so if I recognize your name from these other interactions, you may get my vote based on a name recognition with a positive association, but I specifically look for candidates who have good a understanding of what it takes to contribute. O = generally showing the ability to empathise with others, especially those one disagrees with, as that is a skill that many people do not have but which is essential for Arb. 10_answer			- - -}}		A, B, M	a,b,c,e,f,h,i,k,m,o,p,r,s,t,w,1,4,5		N/A 10_comments	Not really interested which, contributions spread over several administrative areas will enable us to assess character and temperament. All of these are perfectly decent places to make important contributions; as with my answer to the question above, the venue is far less important than that they are doing good work, are effective communicators while doing so.}}	I'm not familiar with either noteboard really and am not about to read up on them first. I wouldn't specifically pick targets based on where they discuss as much as how they discuss. Some people try to "win" discussions, those kind of people are not good negotiators. Of course, experience with the arbitration process is positive. I also look for experience in dispute resolution (mediation). However, regardless of the forum, I want to see candidates who take initiative to resolve open items, not just chirp from the sidelines and fly away. I really don't think Arb suitability can be ascertained from which noticeboards one contributes on. 11_answer	Y		None.}}					N/A 11_comments	Happy for deletions (for or against) to be part of someone's activities, but if that becomes what they enjoy most, they are not a suitable candidate, for anything. My answer to question 10 precludes me from being able to provide any other answer to this question.}}	See above. It is more about how they interact that leads to an oppose. Escalating situations, rage quitting are worrisome. Same answer as above. 12_answer								Nothing I can think of. 12_comments					I find the voter guides useful. In particular this year, I read Worm That Turned, Boing! said Zebedee, Tryptofish, SilkTork and Ealdgyth. There were a few others that I browsed. v_answer	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized)	(anonymized) v_comments			For all of the categorization and quantitative measurement that this survey attempts to frame the voting process through, to me it ultimately comes down to qualitative judgement, messy and subjective as that is. Every editor is different, with different skills and different interests, which leads them to work in different areas and make different decisions about both content and conduct. To judge candidates through the lens of your own values is necessary, as humans cannot make decisions without framing them in their own personal contexts, but to decide that only what you value is important is improper. Good work can be done in any venue; the project does away with - either deliberately or through inactivity - those areas where such is not the case. I hope that the results of this exit poll are so diverse that the only conclusion to be drawn is that we somehow manage to consistently elect good candidates without being able to entirely settle on how or why. To create a rigid template by which candidates are judged would do a disservice to the project.}}					No further comments.

via email
nm	PrimeHunter	Sumanah	Nellis	Apwoolrich	Erpert hiScore	39793	1153	883	3139	29373 bornOn	2005	2011	2006	2004	2010 maxHat	admin	aConf	aConf	aConf	aPatrol

onwiki
nm	Kopiersperre	DGG	Gobautista	Dweller	Ale2006	Jehochman hiScore	912	183588	619	44719	1045	39414 bornOn	2009	2006	2013	2005	2006	2005 maxHat	aConf	arb	aConf	crat	aConf	admin

preliminary analysis

 * q#0. Pull == "I'd like ARB com members to me more active against bullying"
 * q#1. batch#1 avg 6800-to-7200 edits min, batch#2 avg 6100-to-6700 edits min.  overall:  40% say "non-numeric or quality-vs-quantity" (and 20% mentioned it again in their closing comments).
 * q#2. batch#1 avg 1.9 years min editing, batch#2 avg 2.7 years min editing.  overall:  10% say idle months ought be elided
 * q#3. batch#1 and batch#2 were both midway between C & D ("slightly-prefer admins" roughly is the 'numerically-averaged' sentiment).  Overall:  15% reqd RfA, 35% prefer, 45% see it as optional, 5% prefer non-admins for diversity, 0% demand non-admins.  Nobody especially-mentioned previous admins per se, though as mentioned, 15% wanted people who were currently admins.
 * q#4. batch#1 avg 1.2 years min as admin, batch#1 avg 0.7 years min as admin.
 * q#5&6. overall: 20% voted tactically (top nine), 20% voted selectively (top ~three), 10% could not recall their supports, and 50% of respondents declined to answer.  Pull == "...with tactical voting in vogue what I did will be viewed by some as risky or a waste. I chose only to cast up or down votes in cases where I was completely confident in my decision..."
 * q#7. overall: 90% mentioned no future names.
 * q#8. Pull == Why did you vote... what motivated you to participate this year?  "I thought it was a critical year and things could have gone very badly, but thankfully they didn't."  pull2== "...unlike others who take a 'burn it to the ground' point of view, I still see value in what this project offers, and we need to protect it still.  Hopefully enough voters agreed with me."
 * q#9. 20% sought well-rounded broad experience, 60% left this blank.  Of the 25% who specified important areas:  article-talkpage discussions, usertalk-discussions, wikiproject work particularly (plus helping others generally in various venues), and content-creation work (especially GA/FA/DYK).  Pull == “I am not keen on candidates with an obvious bee in their bonnet...”
 * q#10&11. Of the 15% who specified important areas:  arbcom-case-pages and AE were mentioned most often, as well as DRN (though one person saw this as a *worrisome* venue) and NPOVN, LTA and OS/REVDEL, 3RR and pageprot, plus also AN and AN/I.  No redflag-noticeboards got more than one bangvote in the exit poll.  pull== "I wouldn't specifically pick targets based on where they discuss as much as how they discuss."  pull2== "I want to see candidates who take initiative to resolve open items, not just chirp from the sidelines and fly away."
 * q#12. Pull == "Will you be a candidate for the next election of 2016?  No."
 * q#13. Pull == "I find the voter guides useful... I read [half a dozen of the two dozen advertised guides]."  Pull2 == "For all of the categorization and quantitative measurement that this survey attempts to frame the voting process through, to me it ultimately comes down to qualitative judgement, messy and subjective as that is."

discussion
Ryk72, years and editcountitis were generated from queries like this:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&ususers=Ryk72|GamerPro64&usprop=blockinfo|groups|editcount|registration

Note that some usernames are cleanstarts, or were similarly making legitimate usage of alternate accounts; in these cases, bornOn and hiScore figures will be later and lower than actually would be correct. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

candidates
nm                                	hiScore	bornOn   	gap	years	ed/day	ed/yr	maxHat Cas.         	149570	2006-05-05		9.6	43	15541	sysop Opa.  	9925	2006-05-10		9.6	14~	5000~	sysop Kei.          	55835	2007-04-29		8.6	18	6461	sysop Drm.           	190931	2007-08-27		8.3	63	22968	sysop Cal.         	48633	2009-08-30		6.3	21	7715	sysop Kel.       	39789	2006-12-20		9.0	12	4422	sysop Gor.       	28531	2007-07-28		8.4	9	3398	sysop Kir.   	72308	2005-06-08		10.5	19	6866	sysop Gam.         	72021	2004-02-17		11.8	17	6085	sysop Thr.         	53268	2004-12-26		11.0	13	4851	sysop LFa.         	16171	2004-12-01		11.0	4	1464	sysop Haw.         	61176	2005-06-19		10.5	16	5826	fSysop Kud.          	73501	2006-10-18		9.2	22	8015	sysop Ric.       	1036612	2004-05-02		11.6	244	89122	fSysop Kev.       	11886	2011-01-26	 	4.9	7	2428	sysop Tim.         	66609	2006-03-29		9.7	19	6849	aPatrol NEE.           	18747	2006-03-31		9.7	5	1929	aPatrol Hul.	72704	2006-07-31		9.4	21	7746	reviewer Mar.       	3458	2006-07-04		9.5	1	366	aConf Wil.       	20468	2006-05-23		9.6	6	2138	rollback Mah.       	4626	2011-08-24		4.3	3	1071	rollback

Successful top-nine candidates were average and median tenure of 9.1 and 9.0 years. Unsuccessful candidates were even longer, average and median tenure of 9.2 and 9.6 years -- primary preference was given to 8-or-9-years, and *secondary* preference given to 10-or-11-years of editing.

Successful top-nine candidates had a median editcountitis of 56k edits. Unsuccessful had a median of 20k edits. Averages were thrown completely out of whack by the 1m+ editcountitis of candidate Rich Farmbrough. :-)


 * Breaking it down further, the top four candidates got 70%+ support/(support&oppose) and had a median edit-count of 103k.
 * Next-five candidates (all successful) had 60%+ and median edit-count of 49k.
 * Next-next-five candidates (above 50% but not successful) had 50%+ and median edit-count of 61k.
 * Remaining six candidates (below 50% and not successful) had sub-50% and median edit-count of 15k.

So in some ways, the exit-poll data which says 0.9 years of adminship, and 2.3 years of editing in total, with at least ~7k edits, is wildly optimistic. Actually-successful candidates tend to have four times that long (nine years) and eight times that many edits (50k). Still, in other ways the minimum criterion allegedly revealed by the exit-poll seem to be correct: the exception that proves the rule was Opabinia, who with 9k edits and two years of actual editing (with a long gap in the middle for off-wiki pursuits) was rated very highly by the voter-guides, by the exit-poll participants, and by the actual arbcom election votes. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

maxHat explanation
users	userRight 107k	aConf 6500	reviewer 5500	rollback 3300	aPatrol/aRev 112	acctCreat 1300	sysop 115	crat+cu+os ~100	arb