Discussion about the yearly Arbitration Committee elections.
Someone has posted some interesting data about past votes. It shows that ArbCom elections since 2014 have involved over 6,000 unique voters. Carrite has already suggested this could mean his successful predictions in the past have been mostly luck. I will say, my particular method has generally proven to have the same level of accuracy before the mass notifications. Back in 2013 is when I did my first analysis of the voter guides. There, as every other year I analyzed, the guides predicted the top winner. The top seven in the guides all won that year. As usual the bottom of the winners had the most irregularity. LFaraone won a seat on lack of opposition rather than abundance of support with Beeblebrox squeaking into a one-year term by overcoming significant opposition with supports. Was too pre-occupied at the time to do one in 2014, but glancing at the guides, it does seem the top three were all the top support-getters in the guides. Courcelles arguably should have been the top due to getting more support, but both he and Weller had zero opposes with DGG getting one. The vote that time was also very close as the gap between Courcelles and Weller was just 36 votes. Low participation could have skewed it a little that year.
Results are in and Carrite was wrong for the first time. The guides once again proved to have strong predictive value. GorillaWarfare did perform a bit better than the guides suggested, but she just barely edged out AGK. Looks like it was a tight race, however. We have just over a 3% spread between the top and bottom vote-getter among the winners. Kelapstick did more poorly than expected, apparently due to lack of support. However, as I suggested, Joe Roe was able to sneak into the winner circle. Courcelles surprisingly was just barely able to get back on the Committee. Again, though, there is a very tight spread so it could have gone other ways. Very interesting is that the top three in supports includes DGG and Drmies, who both failed to win and GorillaWarfare got the most support. She, in fact, was the only one who got absolute majority support of all votes cast. Every last one of them suffered due to heightened opposition. GW got 50% more oppose votes than Mkdw, thus putting her below him.
I'd like to think that my question (that wasn't a big deal for any regulars, but looked pretty bad for irregulars who would have been just checking the questions page which got 4500 pageviews) made the difference on Drmies not getting elected.
I personally think the now oversighted hatchet job by Fram may not have helped Drmies much either, between that and how he answered the questions, and his general conduct, it seems like although he started as a good candidate, he ended "up shite creek without a paddle".
When Drmies was first elected, I think a big part of the thinking was that he was a counter-balance to the nanny state civility warriors the tenor of the election made it seem many of the new arbs would become. Bereft of that motivation, Drmies just comes off to voters as a surly jerk who is better suited to other tasks.
It is mostly just a list of the same creeps who have plagued Wikipedia for years now. All are editing under pseudonyms. I don't know Joe Roe, but his presumably fake name alongside theirs doesn't look good. He says he is an archaeologist; is this true? At this point anyone who researches the pasts of these other arbitrators probably qualifies as an archaeologist.
That is his real name, and yes he is an archaeologist.
Look at his UCL profile:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/peopl ... udents/roe
Compare to his commons record:
Theres a photo here:
https://ccrs.ku.dk/staff/neareastern/?p ... ons/590642
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest