Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Log

2000 edits
Why are people making notes identifying the few accounts voting who have fewer than 2,000 edits? I wouldn't greatly mind if this was being done to highlight the lack of moderately new Wikipedians voting here, but doing it by the individual vote almost looks like some people want voters to be more qualified than candidates have to be.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All non-blocked accounts with 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2010 are eligible to vote. I found it unacceptable to single out accouts with fewer than 2000 edits — which by the way is a really high number and will only lead to Editcountitis. Right now I can't figure out the use of notes like these, the votes are going to be counted anyway. Regardless of the intentions of the editors who added the notes it definitely looks like we are treating less-than-2000-edits accounts as second-class editors, and there are no second class editors on Wikipedia. I'm not accusing said editors of this, you may very well have had a valid reason to add the notes. Since I've never seen this type of notes before I'm taking the liberty to remove them. Please comment on this page if you would like to re-add them, because I doubt that I'm the only editor who finds this troublesome. jonkerz♠ 02:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

1. As explained in the edit summary, this edit was a test to indicate the format of the annotations.

2. Read the actual text of the page; annotations are not scarlet letters of any kind, just notices of outliers that may be of use in identifying accounts with a higher likelihood of being sockpuppets. I really would expect editors to appreciate this, but if the wording needs to be made more obvious, that can be done. Skomorokh  03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got too worked up over the 2000 limit, I shouldn't have removed the notes indicating a reasonable low number of edits and instead waited for an answer regarding the 2000 limit on the talk page. Now that the high-limit notes are removed by the editors who added them I've no problem with the notes, apologies to all, jonkerz♠ 14:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I appreciate that we've now lowered the threshold for these notes so only editors with fewer than 850 edits seem to be identified, and also I appreciate that we have a risk of socking here. But I'm still concerned that these notes might be offputting to relatively new editors. I'm happy with the idea that those with a talent for sock spotting do something here. but can you please do it a little more discretely? On a side note if you have tagged all the voters with fewer than a thousand contributions then I'm worried at how few those editors are. Perhaps in future we should do a bot message to those editors who qualify to vote and are currently active.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote was initially tagged as "Less than 2000 edits", and I will admit--it made me feel a bit of editcountitis. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is eligibility set at 150 edits, if voters with 850 edits or less are going to be tagged as suspicious? If that's the case, why not just set eligibility at 1000 edits and be done with it? This looks very much like an insider's election, by insiders for insiders about insiders. I'm not eligible to vote, with fewer than 150 edits,  so this isn't about me, it's about the message you're sending to those who work on the project but aren't in the circle of insiders with huge edit counts. Since one of the appeals of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and since apparently it's been decided (by consensus, edict?)  that anyone who has 150 edits is supposedly welcome to vote in the election, I find this tagging of people who are eligible to vote rather appalling. Woonpton (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More thorough investigation of those with under a certain number of edits makes sense because an account with 1000+ edits is unlikely to be another's sock (it would take more time than most people find it's worth to chug up another thousand edits just to vote an extra time in an elections where the result generally does not turn on a single vote). However, tagging them on a private version of the log rather than a public wiki (and perhaps keeping the cutoff secret as well) would make more sense. Perhaps the scrutineers will keep the rest of their vetting off-wiki?--Chaser (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

sheesh
While some excellent editors voted, overall it looks to me that the drama-prone lamer contingent is overrepresented as usual. What a drag. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)