Autoeditor Election: jesus2099

[The Returning Officer]

A new candidate has been put forward for autoeditor status:

Candidate: jesus2099
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=285909
Proposer:  nikki
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=53705

* If two seconders are found within 1 week, voting will begin
* Otherwise, the proposal will automatically be rejected
* Alternatively, nikki may withdraw the proposal

Please participate:
http://musicbrainz.org/user/election/show.html?id=190


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[The Returning Officer]

Voting in this election is now open:

Candidate: jesus2099
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=285909
Proposer:  nikki
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=53705
Seconder:  gfmorris
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=90618
Seconder:  debris77
           http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=219335

* Voting will now remain open for the next 1 week
* Alternatively, nikki may withdraw the proposal

Please participate:
http://musicbrainz.org/user/election/show.html?id=190


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Nikki-12]

Hi,

I'm nominating jesus2099 because, quite frankly, I'm sick of approving
his edits. :P He was nominated two years ago but people thought he was
still too inexperienced, but he's now been around for about two and half
years now and has over 15,000 accepted non-autoedits, so I think he's
definitely experienced enough now.

Nikki

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Aurélien Mino-2]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Nikki <nikki@...> wrote:

Hi,

I'm nominating jesus2099 because, quite frankly, I'm sick of approving
his edits. :P He was nominated two years ago but people thought he was
still too inexperienced, but he's now been around for about two and half
years now and has over 15,000 accepted non-autoedits, so I think he's
definitely experienced enough now.

I'm really not comfortable with jesus2099 becoming an autoeditor.
While he's making a lot of correct edits, he also tends to make things in its own way (and often with a batch of similar edits instead of opening one edit to see how it's received by other editors). And I find that often his way doesn't match the MB principles and compromises.

E.g. in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9111154 he's changing the track artist to a collaboration because booklet credits say it's a duet while the second artist is not listed on the cover (which means according to FeaturingArtistStyle that the track title should not even hold a "(feat. XXX")).

Or with http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8507712 where he arguments that collaboration "Artist A & Artist B" is different from collaboration "Artist B & Artist A" because the order of appearance of artists (who sings first) is important.
Although everyone said him it was against common sens, I don't think he changed his mind since he's adding annotations to keep this information (e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/edit/annotation/show.html?annotationid=136967).

Furthermore he has a consequent number of failed edits (>120), but also a high number of canceled edits (>900).
Some of these (recent) canceled edits have been canceled because he received valid No votes.

So to my opinion he's still making too much mistakes and needs other editors to look at his edits.

- Aurélien // murdos

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Philip Jägenstedt-3]

I also have to vote no here. After having followed jesus2099 for a few
months I was going to nominate him myself, but at that time he didn't
want to be nominated. Unless he really wants to be nominated, I see no
reason.

More importantly, having followed him for quite a while longer I now
wouldn't nominate him myself. We bump into one another quite a lot
around Chinese, Vietnamese and Japanese artists and while we generally
work well together, I still find myself disagreing with his style
choices from time to time. Even though he'll always discuss the issue,
I might describe him as stubborn and often we simply don't come to an
solution at all. He doesn't take part in MB style and is happy to
leave style conflicts be. This is of course absolutely fine, not all
people enjoy the pendatic nit-picking that is involved in settling
most style issues, but from an autoeditor I would expect that they
either follow official and de facto style or be involved in
changing/codifying style guidelines they don't agree with.

With that said, I like jesus2099 a lot as a person and thinks he
contributes enormously to MB... but that doesn't automatically
translate into an autoeditor.

Philip (foolip)

2009/4/1 Aurélien Mino <aurelien.mino@...>:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Nikki <nikki@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm nominating jesus2099 because, quite frankly, I'm sick of approving
>> his edits. :P He was nominated two years ago but people thought he was
>> still too inexperienced, but he's now been around for about two and half
>> years now and has over 15,000 accepted non-autoedits, so I think he's
>> definitely experienced enough now.
>
> I'm really not comfortable with jesus2099 becoming an autoeditor.
> While he's making a lot of correct edits, he also tends to make things in
> its own way (and often with a batch of similar edits instead of opening one
> edit to see how it's received by other editors). And I find that often his
> way doesn't match the MB principles and compromises.
>
> E.g. in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9111154 he's changing the
> track artist to a collaboration because booklet credits say it's a duet
> while the second artist is not listed on the cover (which means according to
> FeaturingArtistStyle that the track title should not even hold a "(feat.
> XXX")).
>
> Or with http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8507712 where he arguments
> that collaboration "Artist A & Artist B" is different from collaboration
> "Artist B & Artist A" because the order of appearance of artists (who sings
> first) is important.
> Although everyone said him it was against common sens, I don't think he
> changed his mind since he's adding annotations to keep this information
> (e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/edit/annotation/show.html?annotationid=136967).
>
> Furthermore he has a consequent number of failed edits (>120), but also a
> high number of canceled edits (>900).
> Some of these (recent) canceled edits have been canceled because he received
> valid No votes.
>
> So to my opinion he's still making too much mistakes and needs other editors
> to look at his edits.
>
> - Aurélien // murdos
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
>

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Nikki-12]

Aurélien Mino wrote:
> E.g. in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9111154 he's changing the
> track artist to a collaboration because booklet credits say it's a duet
> while the second artist is not listed on the cover (which means according to
> FeaturingArtistStyle that the track title should not even hold a "(feat.
> XXX")).
>  

I can easily see the argument for that, I have some releases where the
cover has very little information at all about the artists and all the
track artists are in the booklet. I wouldn't think twice about using the
artists as credited in the booklet (given that we have the ability to
set track artists independently from the overall release artist). I've
also seen tracks where the full name isn't on the cover and is only
written in full in the booklet, but I would use the name from the
booklet there too. If I were to see that edit now, I would most likely
vote yes on it, I guess that makes me a bad autoeditor.

> Or with http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8507712 where he arguments
> that collaboration "Artist A & Artist B" is different from collaboration
> "Artist B & Artist A" because the order of appearance of artists (who sings
> first) is important.
> Although everyone said him it was against common sens, I don't think he
> changed his mind since he's adding annotations to keep this information
> (e.g. http://musicbrainz.org/edit/annotation/show.html?annotationid=136967).
>  

Firstly, that edit is over a year old, it's hardly a good example of his
current edits. Even though I don't agree with the edit, I don't think
that makes him wrong. We might not think the order is important at all,
but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. There's always disagreement
about what counts as a unique artist name (even amongst autoeditors),
I've lost track of the number of discussions/arguments about when a band
using a different name should count as a separate entry. Surely the fact
that he's now using annotations for the information (which he's
perfectly entitled to do if he finds that information important) means
that he's accepted the fact that MusicBrainz treats these as one artist
entry (whether he agrees or not), rather than continuing to enter A & B
and B & A as two separate artists. Isn't that what he's supposed to do?

> Furthermore he has a consequent number of failed edits (>120), but also a
> high number of canceled edits (>900).
> Some of these (recent) canceled edits have been canceled because he received
> valid No votes.
>  

I'm not really surprised that the cancelled edits are so high,
autoeditors cancel far fewer edits because most of their edits are
automatically applied, so you can only revert an edit, not cancel it. I
don't think cancelling edits after 'no' votes is necessarily bad, it at
least shows that a person is willing to leave the data alone if other
people don't agree with the changes (the equivalent for autoeditors
would be to revert a change).

I'm not saying that he's perfect, none of us are. He does however enter
a lot of edits which are accepted (1000 non-autoedits in the last month
alone - many autoeditors have been elected after that many edits), and
relatively few in comparison which people object to (in the last month,
3 failed vote and 3 cancelled after a 'no' vote). Don't forget that even
autoeditors can't make destructive edits without votes, if people object
to an edit, there is a trail of edits which can be quite easily
reverted. I'd much rather focus my voting energy on editors who really
need the attention than approving thousands of perfectly fine edits.

Nikki

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Atedos-2]

I'm personally against such nomination.
Not to say he is stubborn, his understanding of guidelines is very specific, and has it's own way. He doesn't take in account other opinions/positions, and always operates by himself, basing on his own principle.
It was said right, when there can be achieved no solution with him.
Not to say it seems he doesn't know basic rules (I can remember changing wrong release language, using unicode character we refused to use to). He also makes dozens of edits, which quality is under question.
His manner of dialog is sometimes aggressive (shouting, capslock), and once again, it looks like he doesn't listen to others, doing on his own.
That not an autoeditor I'd like to see.
My vote is No.

2009/4/1 The Returning Officer <returning-officer@...>

A new candidate has been put forward for autoeditor status:

Candidate: jesus2099
          http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=285909
Proposer:  nikki
          http://musicbrainz.org/show/user/?userid=53705

* If two seconders are found within 1 week, voting will begin
* Otherwise, the proposal will automatically be rejected
* Alternatively, nikki may withdraw the proposal

Please participate:
http://musicbrainz.org/user/election/show.html?id=190


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Chad Wilson-2]

On 2/04/2009 5:33 a.m., Atedos wrote:

> I'm personally against such nomination.
> Not to say he is stubborn, his understanding of guidelines is very
> specific, and has it's own way. He doesn't take in account other
> opinions/positions, and always operates by himself, basing on his own
> principle.
> It was said right, when there can be achieved no solution with him.
> Not to say it seems he doesn't know basic rules (I can remember
> changing wrong release language, using unicode character we refused to
> use to). He also makes dozens of edits, which quality is under question.
> His manner of dialog is sometimes aggressive (shouting, capslock), and
> once again, it looks like he doesn't listen to others, doing on his own.
> That not an autoeditor I'd like to see.
> My vote is No.

I agree with all three people so far against this nomination.

For a start, jesus2099 openly refuses to use the mailing lists; he will
only use the forums. I don't think that stubborness is acceptable if one
is to be an AutoEditor and contribute to the community in its current
state. (Even though I personally agree with him, and would much rather
use forums!)

I have also witnessed the other points by editors - stubborness on
edits, not working for a middle ground, unilateral edit making,
capslocking, bolding and aggressive tone. His clashes with other editors
I believe leave people somewhat exasperated.

I have not witnessed an ability for jesus2099 to take a middle ground.
IMO, part of being an AutoEditor is being able to say "I don't really
like it, but this is how the community currently do it." when people ask
for advice. Take the discussion at
http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=1554 . A user asks for
advice and receives an answer that is not the current practice at all,
and instead is jesus2099's opinion, without making it clear it is so.
I'm sure jesus2099 is aware of that, and I'd expect an experienced user
to present the various current options and say what currently is done.

I also echo the sentiments of Philip - a valuable community member, but
I really do not believe suitable to be an AutoEditor.

Chad / voice

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Nikki-12]

Chad Wilson wrote:
> For a start, jesus2099 openly refuses to use the mailing lists; he will
> only use the forums.
>  

Since when did that matter? Some of the autoeditors use the forums, some
use the mailing lists, some use both, some use neither.

> I have not witnessed an ability for jesus2099 to take a middle ground.
> IMO, part of being an AutoEditor is being able to say "I don't really
> like it, but this is how the community currently do it." when people ask
> for advice. Take the discussion at
> http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=1554 . A user asks for
> advice and receives an answer that is not the current practice at all,
> and instead is jesus2099's opinion, without making it clear it is so.
> I'm sure jesus2099 is aware of that, and I'd expect an experienced user
> to present the various current options and say what currently is done.
>  

I don't really see how his post doesn't make that clear. The person
asking did say "Would be great to hear your opinions" and jesus2099 said
"For me, it is obviously Option 1" and "Option 2 that is currently
beeing enforced". How does that translate to "Option 1 is the current
practice"? For that matter, if Soundtrack Style is so well accepted, why
is it still only a proposal?

Nikki

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Chad Wilson-2]

> Chad Wilson wrote:
> > For a start, jesus2099 openly refuses to use the mailing lists; he will
> > only use the forums.
> >  
>
> Since when did that matter? Some of the autoeditors use the forums, some
> use the mailing lists, some use both, some use neither.

Perhaps you see it as minor, but since all of the style discussions were had on mailing lists, one can hardly expect to keep up with discussions and changes in guidelines (let alone participate) if one doesn't want to use them. And yeah, I know a lot of current AutoEditors currently don't follow these lists, so perhaps that's a double standard.

> I don't really see how his post doesn't make that clear. The person
> asking did say "Would be great to hear your opinions" and jesus2099 said
> "For me, it is obviously Option 1" and "Option 2 that is currently
> being enforced". How does that translate to "Option 1 is the current
> practice"?

Well, perhaps I didn't find this as clear. Maybe it was a bad example; I can't find the others where I also got the same feeling - a couple were on edits. :(

> For that matter, if Soundtrack Style is so well accepted, why
> is it still only a proposal?

This is an entirely separate issue. I don't have any issue with jesus2099 disagreeing with the de facto or disagreed-upon guidelines at all; that's healthy stuff.

I am concerned that his approach and method-of-communication often doesn't appear to be very constructive towards finding a middle ground; or accepting that many things are "personal preference" (artists vs singers vs. composers, duets as collabs vs. using what's credited), and that it's thus often not helpful to assert that your personal preference is the correct one and doggedly try and force others to accept your viewpoint.

Like it or not, as an AutoEditor, what you say on edits sometimes carries more weight than you might intend, and so you have to be diplomatic. I also think sometimes you have to be an advocate for the positive sides of having a guidelines or standard, even if you don't agree with them personally. I guess I'm concerned that jesus2099 may not demonstrate those qualities as an AutoEditor, that's all?

Chad
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[Aurélien Mino-2]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Nikki <nikki@...> wrote:

Firstly, that edit is over a year old, it's hardly a good example of his
current edits. Even though I don't agree with the edit, I don't think
that makes him wrong. We might not think the order is important at all,
but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees. There's always disagreement
about what counts as a unique artist name (even amongst autoeditors),
I've lost track of the number of discussions/arguments about when a band
using a different name should count as a separate entry. Surely the fact
that he's now using annotations for the information (which he's
perfectly entitled to do if he finds that information important) means
that he's accepted the fact that MusicBrainz treats these as one artist
entry (whether he agrees or not), rather than continuing to enter A & B
and B & A as two separate artists. Isn't that what he's supposed to do?

I've no problem with annotations, that was just to point that he still want to have both "Artist A & Artist B" and "Artist B & Artist A" (he confirmed that in his mail to the user mailing list).
And I've no guarantee that he won't do that once he got elected and when few people look at his edits.

> Furthermore he has a consequent number of failed edits (>120), but also a
> high number of canceled edits (>900).
> Some of these (recent) canceled edits have been canceled because he received
> valid No votes.
>

I'm not really surprised that the cancelled edits are so high,
autoeditors cancel far fewer edits because most of their edits are
automatically applied, so you can only revert an edit, not cancel it. I
don't think cancelling edits after 'no' votes is necessarily bad, it at
least shows that a person is willing to leave the data alone if other
people don't agree with the changes [...]

 
The issue is that once you become editor, since most of your edits are autoedits, most of them are not reviewed by other editors.
So there would be less people to catch his mistakes and disagree, which means that these errors could stay.

And as others have reported in this thread, jesus2099 is stubborn. And the ability to No voting his edits is a counterweight.
Again I've no confidence that he would revert some of his autoedits because some people disagree.

[...] Don't forget that even autoeditors can't make destructive edits without votes,

I disagree. Destructive edits are not only Remove and Merge edits.
You can be very destructive with only adding and editing facilities.

 

if people object to an edit, there is a trail of edits which can be quite easily reverted.

 

Which can be very time consuming when there is a batch of similar edits, and this time could be better use by the one(s) who would revert that.
And I wonder what would happen if these edits are done again by jesus2099...
 

I'd much rather focus my voting energy on editors who really
need the attention than approving thousands of perfectly fine edits.

That's IMO not a good reason enough here for promoting jesus2099 as an autoeditor.

- Aurélien // murdos

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods

[The Returning Officer]

Voting in this election is now closed: the proposal to make
jesus2099 an auto-editor was declined.

Details:
http://musicbrainz.org/user/election/show.html?id=190

Thank you to everyone who took part.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods