Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/Election report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony1 (talk | contribs) at 09:08, 13 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Election report

The community has spoken

Just after midnight UTC end of Wednesday 8 December, the four independent scrutineers—all Wikimedia stewards based on projects other than the English Wikipedia—posted the results of the 2010 Arbitration Committee Elections. The 12 vacant seats on the committee will be filled by three current arbitrators whose terms are about to end (Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, and Shell Kinney); two former arbitrators (Casliber and John Vandenberg); and seven new faces (Iridescent, Elen of the Roads, Xeno, David Fuchs, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, PhilKnight, and Jclemens). If Jimbo Wales in his ceremonial role as appointer of the committee follows the precedents he has established in previous elections, the three candidates with the lowest successful votes are likely to have one-year terms to minimise the theoretical oscillation of vacancies at the next election, with two-year terms for the other nine successful candidates (see the chart of arbitrator terms). Wales is expected to formally announce the results in the coming days.

The Signpost welcomes the election of the new arbitrators, and wishes the unsuccessful candidates well in their future contributions to the project.

New arbitrator terms

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/December 2010 ArbCom election The Signpost welcomes the 12 successful candidates and wishes them well in performing a central role in the English Wikipedia. Seven of these candidates will be first-time arbitrators:

These new arbitrators will join three re-elected arbitrators whose terms are about to finish:

and two newly elected former Australian arbitrators:

  • Casliber (talk · contribs · logs), a consultant psychiatrist in Sydney; and
  • John Vandenberg (talk · contribs · logs), a university research support officer at the University of New England (by coincidence the region shares its name with the US region; it is several hundred kilometres inland from the east coast of Australia).

Making sense of the stats

This year, 850 voters cast nearly 18,000 individual votes for 21 candidates. The withdrawal of three of these candidates during the voting period could be expected to boost the overall oppose vote; despite this, voters supported an average of 34.7% of the candidates, up from 27.9% last year (and 12.9% in 2008, when the time and effort required to vote for a candidate manually appears to have been associated with minimal active choice by voters). In 2010, on average voters opposed 27.8% of the candidates, up just 0.4 of a point from last year's 27.4% and significantly up from the manual 11.8% two years ago. The neutral proportion of the pie chart above for 2008 represents "no shows" by voters at candidate voting pages, whereas in 2009 and 2010, neutral votes can be presumed to have been a conscious decision not to click on either "support" or "oppose" buttons for a candidate.

On the scatter plot below, each of the 71 candidates from the past three ArbCom elections is shown as a point: red for this year (21 candidates, 850 voters), blue for ACE2009 (22 candidates, 996 voters), and black for ACE2008 (28 candidates, 984 voters). Because the number of candidates and voters varied in each election, the support vote for each candidate is given as a percentage of voters who supported her/him—rather than raw vote numbers—to enable the years to be compared on an even footing (vertical axis). The horizontal axis represents the results of the ranking formula used to elect arbitrators.


File:Enwiki ArbCom 2010 supports vs ranking %.gif


The graph shows several dramatic features. Only five candidates of the 71 have been supported by 50% or more of the voters—four of them this year (visually, two of these 2010 votes are almost merged). The support votes of candidates were at much lower levels in 2008 than in the SecurePoll elections in 2009 and 2010. This appears to be indirectly caused by the huge "abstain/neutral" vote related to manual voting, as discussed and shown in the pie charts above; the relative paucity of long-shot candidacies in the more recent elections may also be a factor. Under the formula, supports boost the ranking percentage, opposes suppress it; neutral/abstains boost the "ranking formula" value over the raw percentage of voters who support—the vertical axis—because they dilute the support vote (supports divided by voters) but are excluded from the formula.

Using SecurePoll, voters are more likely to click either the oppose or support buttons than they were to visit a candidate's vote page, scroll, and type in a support or oppose vote. In the two SecurePoll elections, the neutral vote has still boosted the apparent support for candidates, using the ranking formula, although less than for the pre-2009 manual voting elections. To interpret the graph, the following should be considered:

  • the closer a candidate lies to the no-neutrals line, the closer the ranking formula is to the actual percentage of voters who supported the candidate; the closer a candidate lies to the bottom-right corner, the greater this difference;
  • the closer a candidate lies to the top-right corner, the fewer the neutral and oppose votes they received (highly desirable);
  • it is not possible to lie on the other side of the no-neutrals line—it is the line of maximum voting intensity, where every voter chose either a support or an oppose for the candidate.


Information about first-time arbitrators is drawn from their user pages, RfA and RfB texts, the election pages, and in some cases from what they have told us directly.