The Signpost welcomes the election of the new arbitrators, and wishes them well in performing a central role in the English Wikipedia. The Signpost thanks the unsuccessful candidates for their contributions to the election, and wishes them well in their future contributions to the project. Seven candidates will be first-time arbitrators, and will help to constitute a Committee of diverse skills and backgrounds:
Iridescent (talk·contribs·logs), with us since February 2006 and an administrator since September 2007, is based in the UK. Iridescent has been a significant creator of featured articles, including many on topics of English history and geography—some of them not without a certain quirkiness. Iridescent has recently brought to featured status a series on an English railway line that is a significant contribution to this field on the internet. Iridescent has a strong knowledge of the deletion policies and a track-record of vandal fighting.
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk·contribs·logs) is a member of the British Royal Naval Reserve. He has been an administrator since November 2007, and on the project since 2004. His work has included a strong presence at OTRS and Administrator intervention against vandalism, as well as the more recent Contribution Team and 2010 London fundraiser. Among his (self-admittedly limited) content contributions has been work on articles on the North Korean navy, world ships and submarines, as well as teaching new contributors to edit via OTRS. He appears to have survived the only oppose comment at his RfA: "Outrageous username – excessive in length, inconvenient, churlish, infantile", and has managed to stay relatively free of drama during his tenure as an administrator.
Jclemens (talk·contribs·logs), currently a graduate student in the US, has been an administrator since November 2008 and recently joined the OTRS team. He has considerable experience dealing with heated situations at controversial articles. He has provided Third opinions, has been actively involved with the AfD and Deletion review processes, and was active in vandal fighting earlier in his involvement with Wikipedia. He has a strong track-record as a good article reviewer.
In addition to these first-time arbitrators, three arbitrators whose initial terms are about to finish were re-elected:
John Vandenberg (talk·contribs·logs), a university research support officer at the University of New England (named after a region that by coincidence shares its name with the US region; it is 60–100 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, "support" votes were almost 35% of the total votes, up from just under 28% last year (and about 12% 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, "oppose" votes made up 27.8% of total votes, up 0.4 of a percentage 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.
The graph shows several dramatic features. Only five candidates of the 71 were supported by 50% or more of the voters (see vertical axis), 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.
The statistics were independently reviewed by User:Jayen466. Information about the arbitrators was drawn from their user pages, RfA and RfB texts, the election pages, and in some cases from personal disclosures.
The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!