Auto-editor election: highstrung

Howdy one and all,

Hopefully I’ve done the correct set of due-diligence this time instead of mindlessly clicking a button and finding out what I did wrong.

I’ve spoken to highstrung and they’ve agreed they would like to become an AE.

I have subscribed to highstrung’s profile for a while and I think the level of their edits, the maturity of their account and the quality of their edit notes are great. They’re doing a great service to the areas of their interest (mainly jazz recordings, which can get prickly quickly!).

They’ve been doing some voting as well, which is always a difficult thing for us all to try and do. I know there will likely be a comment about auto-edit ratio, but that’s the way things seem to work for the moment; this recommendation comes directly from the amount of their edits which fall outside of that area.

Kind regards
Dan :slight_smile:


Just two more days to go.

So far the result look good, few abstentions but there are No votes. Would any of them like to step forward and provide some feedback?


Kinda defeats the point of a secret ballot if the voter has to explain themselves.

I had to laugh when I saw @highstrung’s name pop-up as I have had some great conversations with them in edit notes. Was an easy vote for me. But I also understand that some people have different opinions. I know I got a handful of no votes in my election, but this is a democratic system and a difference of opinion should be expected.

Edited to add: Actually… you bring up a question. How do you know that there are no votes?

1 Like

We recently hid the voter names to guarantee anonymity for the voters themselves if they don’t want to speak up (once the election ends the list can be seen but not what they voted) but the proposer gets to see the tally in real time. The goal is that they can choose to cancel the election if there’s a fairly large amount of No votes, even if they wouldn’t be enough to make the election fail, if they decide that they want to only have the election pass if there’s fairly high support for it.

Back in the day it was common to have open discussion about pros and cons for each editor, but that seem less common today (which is good in some ways since it can be disheartening, but a shame in others since some editors can learn from the issues and improve).

Edit: I like that the forum is sure I mean the “performance rights organizations and cons” of the editor :sweat_smile:


Okay, that makes sense. As long as it is just the tally.

So the follow-up to that would be is there an agreed threshold to fail an election? i.e. must have 66% of the vote yes or something?

I can agree how demoralising a debate would be here as it would be visible to the editor, but they would not be able to defend themselves as this part of the forum is AE only. It is why I found it a little odd asking to explain the No votes. No votes are just personal opinion.

The election will fail with 51% No votes. Some editors might think 66% or even 75% Yes is a desirable number and cancel the election otherwise.

It’s not needed to defend oneself against voter opinions :slight_smile: It’s very much a “if you think there’s something to it, try to learn from it, if not, ignore it” situation. But I agree not everybody is happy with it (some editors seem very open to such feedback though, such as in the other election running now).

Edit: Obviously we are talking about normal comments, such as “I feel this editor is not confident enough with X part of the system yet and I’m not too comfortable giving them autoeditor privileges”, not “This editor sucks and we should ban them instead, the prick!”


a polite poke to @reosarevok that this election has now completed :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you all for your trust, and for the nomination. And if any ‘no’ voters do wish to reach out directly, I am always open to constructive criticism.


hello and welcome to the cool kids club :sunglasses: