The Signpost

News and notes

Online harassment consultation; High voter turnout at ArbCom elections

2015 voter edit count distribution vs. 2014 and 2013

This year's Arbitration Committee elections are seeing substantially higher voter turnout than in previous years, a reflection of the use of mass messaging to notify volunteers eligible to vote. SecurePoll's voters' list shows 2,778 votes cast at the time of this writing (including some repeat votes from users who changed their votes). Last year's ArbCom elections, by comparison, attracted just 593 valid votes.

The population of voters taking part also appears to shape up very differently from past years. According to an analysis by Opabinia regalis, herself a candidate in the election, the percentage of voters with relatively few contributions (150–5,000 edits) is markedly higher this year. However, early fears that the mass messaging would attract large numbers of voters who had not edited the English Wikipedia in years and were consequently out of touch with the project seem to have been disconfirmed. According to a post by Opabinia regalis on 1 December 2015, based on data available at the time, only 162 voters would have been filtered out by a "must have edited Wikipedia in the last three months before the election" eligibility criterion.

The elections are scheduled to close at 23:59 (UTC) on Sunday, December 6, 2015.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • For those of you who haven't been following my vote counting at Wikipediocracy, here's the thumbnail sketch. The notification really rocked the vote count for the first three days of the election, with daily raw vote totals (not excluding revotes) of 561, 772, and 431 (compared to just under 600 total votes in last year's election). For the next 7 days there were roughly 100 votes a day cast, give or take, falling to about 65 a day for 3 days and finishing with 97. Total raw votes I have as 2,855 with a total of about 2,673 after revotes are excluded. The Scrutineers will toss another group of votes for not meeting this criterion or that...
More democracy is good. As there are about 3,300 "very active editors" in any given month, chances are we are tapping this group very hard in this election, which is a good thing. We might want to consider a higher number of total edits to "vest" editors as voters next year, say a bar of 500 edits, but that's a matter for another day. Good luck to the candidates. Carrite (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite Very insightful - thanks for sharing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, Please provide a link to your "vote counting at Wikipediocracy." Here is my thought about eligibility criteria. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I updated the histogram after the close of voting; this one includes all 2674 voters in the 2015 distribution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0