The 2021 Committee has had a relatively uneventful (public) year, but the RexxS case was probably the issue that caused the most ripples throughout the community. It was the subject of many of the questions to the candidates.

• ACE2019 had 22 candidates for 11 seats.
• ACE2020 had 11 candidates for 7 seats. All candidates reached a qualifying threshold.
• ACE2021 has 11 candidates for 8 vacant seats. Some sitting and some former members are seeking re-election.

By closure, out of all eligible voters, 1,633 voters had voted with 1,570 usable votes
For a complete breakdown of the voting, see below.

Users' voter guides will be analysed when the results of the election are known.

Arbcom is generally composed of a few mature, professional individuals, and some users who have little relevant experience either in real life or on WIkipedia.
Effectively, Wikipedia decision-making appears to some to be ceded to 'a small group of obsessives whose hobby is Wikipedia governance.' ^[1]

One of the main problems of Arbcom is the election system itself. In the 2020 election with so few candidates, all got a qualifiying percentage of votes (only 50% support needed to gain a seat), and with thousands of users making drive-by votes, not all those elected in this year's campaign will necessarily be a perfect fit for the role.

Voter guides analysis[edit]

(Voter Guide Page Views - complete stats) All views peaked on 16 November and 23 November.

• The Rambling Man 1,743 (peaked very sharply on 16 Nov. reflecting users checking out his dozens of edits to the page on that day.
• Ealdgyth 1,659 (peaked on 21 Nov.)
• Moneytrees 1625
• Kudpung 1,583 (most viewed guide on last day)
• Giraffer 1,191
• Elonka 996
• Pythoncoder 857
• Nick 815
• Tryptofish 534
• Epiphylumlover 347
• Atsme 347

Voting analysis[edit]

(Don't hesitate to leave comments on the talk page)

Voting pattern

42,022 eligible users, within the last 12 months, received a message

Total votes cast: 1,570

Results[edit]

The results did not match my prediction 100%. However, they matched exactly my preferred result from the available candidates - which is not to say that I favoured all those who were elected. I voted for Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, and Beeblebrox. I opposed all the others (no neutral votes). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Results (in order, elected in bold)

1. Worm That Turned (906/421/243 78.85%).
2. Opabinia regalis (794/536/240 76.79%)
3. Beeblebrox (679/534/357 65.54%)
4. Wugapodes (679/617/274 71.25%)
5. Cabayi (554/725/291 65.56%)
6. Guerillero (551/688/331 62.46%)
7. Izno (573/709/288 66.55%)
8. Thryduulf (569/623/378 60.08%)
9. Enterprisey (658/639/273 70.68%)
10. Donald Albury (610/703/257 70.36%)
11. Banedon (321/554/695 31.59%)

Questions for the candidates - analysis[edit]

There is currently no limit to the number of users who can pose questions. Generally the number of questions at an ACE appears to be just about manageable for the candidates. The questions in this year's election were often more tailored to the individual candidates rather than mostly being boilerplates for every contender. The questions were from a varied cross section of the community, some were of real use for the community in deciding whom to vote for. Other questions ranged from "Oh, I'm allowed to ask questions. I'll think of something to ask" to the almost incomprehensible.

This year's questions were less antagonistic than usual and none were totally disingenuous. Some questioners entirely misunderstood the point of asking questions and despite being limited to two questions, some questions were muti-part questions (a former bug at RfA which has finally been stamped out), while others were posed so late as to be only of interest to the individual interrogator - it's just as well that all 1,542 voters didn't ask questions!

Many questions hinged on the RexxS case (or aspects of it) which was to be expected, but in general the candidates respectfully avoided directly answering questions of the kind 'How would you have voted on case X?'

There was a marked lack of enthusiasm from some candidates to provide full and/or direct answers. This may be reflrcted by their scores in the voting.Overall, the civility was good. Of the questions that have been asked by users, some candidates' answers were clearly evasive. Some candidates naturally didn't suffer fools gladly. Of all the candidates, only Opabinia regalis appears to have fully understood them all (or attempted to politely answer even the weird ones) and provided complete, enthusiastic, and fully relevant answers.

Discuss the candidate - analysis[edit]

The validity of this part of the current format of an ACE campaign is possibly debatable. If the comments are objective the section may be useful, particularly as in RfA they pinpoint serious issues concerning the candidate' suitability for Arbcom, However, it's not always easy to phrase such comments in a non-adversorial manner, and some comments are distinctly hostile. IMO the candidates themselves should best stay out if it and not allow themselves to be drawn - rebuttals often create more heat than light from the participants as in the case of the Beeblebrox section where some users just won't let go and are determined to persist even after closure of the voting (this is also typical of RfA).

Occasionally at ACE, some candidates do not attract any comments at all. The reasons for this can be many and any attempt to explain them would be pure conjecture; the results of the election might shed some relevant light on it.

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · block log): Generated some discussion. Mostly very positive. Negative comments either sour grapes or just not relevant.

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · count · block log): Generated a lot of comment. Some positive in clear support. Heavy criticism for his participation on a Wikipedia hate site. Other comment are just sour grapes.

Banedon (talk · contribs · count · block log): Clearly not everyone's favourite. Main concerns are lack of experience and perception of Arbcom.

Wugapodes (talk · contribs · count · block log): Comments are all neutral-leaning-positive.

Donald Albury (talk · contribs · count · block log): Not much said. Mostly neutral-leaning-positive.

Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · count · block log): Only one comment. From Kudpung, very positive.

Cabayi (talk · contribs · count · block log): No comments made.

Guerillero (talk · contribs · count · block log): Comments made by one user could possibly be retaliation for the cited thread, but nevertheless might not be entirely without merit when viewed as part of an overall picture. However, with well over 50% of votes already cast, they probably come too late to be of consequence for the voting.

Izno (talk · contribs · count · block log): One mildly positive comment, but not one that would influence the voting.

Thryduulf (talk · contribs · count · block log): All negative, some strongly, but possibly with a hint of retaliation for what seems to be an emerging pattern in the candidate's participation on Wikipedia.

Enterprisey (talk · contribs · count · block log): No comments made.

Updated Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).