Debated edits

[Brian Schweitzer]

Hey everyone :)

I'm writing this because I've seen several instances over the past
half year where one autoeditor was demanding that another revert, but
where I disagree that the original editor has any such obligation.
The particular edit, this time around, was one of mine -
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10729640 .

In my opinion, while we do have an obligation to avoid approving
disputed edits, or autoediting to bypass a disputed edit, simple
disagreement with an edit, after the fact, does not suddenly make that
edit a "disputed edit".

In this case, I added a release, and within the next 2 minutes,
noticed an error (twice, actually, not just once) in the release
title, and edited to fix it.  This was on 2009-06-07.  On 2009-06-23,
16 days later, voiceinsideyou left an edit note.  The email got buried
under a bunch of various emails from reviewboard.mb on my end, such
that I didn't see it until yesterday.  I responded; now, 55 days
later, a claim is being made that this edit is somehow suddenly
"disputed" and should be reverted.

I don't buy it.  As I say, this isn't the first time I've seen myself
or other autoeditors being told to revert by yet other autoeditors -
maybe once every two or three weeks I see an edit with a similar
demand being placed on one of us by one of us.  I don't see this as
civil behaviour; the proper way to handle it, if you disagree with an
edit for whatever reason, imho, should be to enter a edit that
corrects what you disagree with, with *your* edit being the one left
open to voting and debate.   (And hopefully, in the interest of
fairness, a quick pm to the orignial editor to give him or her a heads
up.)  So long as the original autoeditor wasn't approving a disputed
edit, or editing to bypass a dispute, imho, that autoeditor has no
reason to expect the edit is debated, and that autoeditor bears no
responsibility to follow an order or demand for a revert and re-edit.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive to this, but I don't like being told
that I "must" revert and redit, simply because someone else, weeks
later, disagrees with something.  (The last time I had someone make
such a demand, my autoedit had been closed for a year and a half!)
Honestly, I think this dilutes the concept of a "disputed edit"; that
an edit is disputed should be, something that is clear from the start,
not something that all of a sudden happens with an edit, weeks,
months, or years later, when someone happens to disagree with an edit
long since entered.  Otherwise, any of us could have edits from 2, 4,
6 years ago pulled out with a demand for a revert, simply because
someone now happens to disagree.

Brian

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

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Brian
Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:
> I'm writing this because I've seen several instances over the past
> half year where one autoeditor was demanding that another revert, but
> where I disagree that the original editor has any such obligation.

The assumption is that autoeditors make edits everybody agrees with
(ie, they have three implicit yes votes). Of course you have no
obligation to revert it if somebody disagrees with you, but we are all
people and can talk. I don't see why not just revert it and submit as
a regular edit, if somebody asks you to do so. (I would vote against
the change.)

http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10953747

--
Lukas Lalinsky
lalinsky@...

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

[Dave Smey]

> In this case, I added a release, and within the next 2 minutes,
> noticed an error (twice, actually, not just once) in the release
> title, and edited to fix it.  This was on 2009-06-07.  On 2009-06-23,
> 16 days later, voiceinsideyou left an edit note.  The email got buried
> under a bunch of various emails from reviewboard.mb on my end, such
> that I didn't see it until yesterday.  I responded; now, 55 days
> later, a claim is being made that this edit is somehow suddenly
> "disputed" and should be reverted.
>

In my experience with you, Brian, you tend to focus unreasonably on the
time elapsed after an edit, rather than the actual content issue involved.

In my case, I discovered multiple editions of Don Giovanni that were
botched as part of your mass CSG normalization project.  You had some
tracks out of sequence and some of your edits failed to go through due to
excessive string length.  It was clear that you hadn't checked your work,
as these errors did indeed languish for years, and at least some of them
are still there to this day.  Personally, I think it's questionable that
an autoeditor would make edits that are demonstrably inaccurate, and feel
no obligation to make things right, regardless of how much time has
elapsed.

Here, I see voiceinsideyou is questioning your title on style grounds.  I
don't really see how the 55 days is germane - it would seem to be a
reasonable concession to the culture of MB to put your own edit up for a
vote.

- Dave Smey (bkylnd)


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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Dave Smey <autodave@...> wrote:

> In this case, I added a release, and within the next 2 minutes,
> noticed an error (twice, actually, not just once) in the release
> title, and edited to fix it.  This was on 2009-06-07.  On 2009-06-23,
> 16 days later, voiceinsideyou left an edit note.  The email got buried
> under a bunch of various emails from reviewboard.mb on my end, such
> that I didn't see it until yesterday.  I responded; now, 55 days
> later, a claim is being made that this edit is somehow suddenly
> "disputed" and should be reverted.
>

In my experience with you, Brian, you tend to focus unreasonably on the
time elapsed after an edit, rather than the actual content issue involved.

In my case, I discovered multiple editions of Don Giovanni that were
botched as part of your mass CSG normalization project.  You had some
tracks out of sequence and some of your edits failed to go through due to
excessive string length.  It was clear that you hadn't checked your work,
as these errors did indeed languish for years, and at least some of them
are still there to this day.  Personally, I think it's questionable that
an autoeditor would make edits that are demonstrably inaccurate, and feel
no obligation to make things right, regardless of how much time has
elapsed.

Here, I see voiceinsideyou is questioning your title on style grounds.  I
don't really see how the 55 days is germane - it would seem to be a
reasonable concession to the culture of MB to put your own edit up for a
vote.

Dave, I would only respond by pointing out that, anywhere I found that the titles had happened out of order, contrary to your comment, I actually did make the corrections (as you know, as you pointed some of them out to me, and saw that I in fact did make those corrections).

Brian

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

[Chad Wilson-2]

Lukáš Lalinský wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Brian
> Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:
>  
>> I'm writing this because I've seen several instances over the past
>> half year where one autoeditor was demanding that another revert, but
>> where I disagree that the original editor has any such obligation.
>>    
>
> The assumption is that autoeditors make edits everybody agrees with
> (ie, they have three implicit yes votes). Of course you have no
> obligation to revert it if somebody disagrees with you, but we are all
> people and can talk. I don't see why not just revert it and submit as
> a regular edit, if somebody asks you to do so. (I would vote against
> the change.)
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10953747
>  

In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an autoeditor
should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed edit must be.

"If you made an Auto-Edit <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
then realise that it is disputed, you should:

    * Excuse yourself in an Edit Note
      <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Edit_Note>.
    * Revert your edit.
    * Temporarily disable your Auto-Editor
      <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Editor> privileges and enter the
      edit again as one to be voted upon."

"made an autoedit" - this is basic English for "an edit has been made in
the past, automatically applied"
"then release that it is disputed" - i.e. after the edit has made,
someone questions it

What part of this is not clear?

Brian, you appear to think you have a license to do what you want with
no sense of personal obligation to "do the right thing" when others
disagree with you. Completely inappropriate AutoEditor behaviour, IMO.
Were I a non-AutoEditor, this would likely completely put me off the
whole project.

If someone questions/disputes your edit, you of course have the ability
to try and convince them of your motivation, but if they still do not
agree then you should AutoEdit-revert to a common ground before making a
new edit proposing your preferred solution.

If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw away the
whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
non-compromising twats.

This whole thing disgusts me, to be honest.

Chad

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

[Mika Heiska-2]

On 23.7.2009 20:04, Chad Wilson wrote:

> If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw away the
> whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
> non-compromising twats.

I'm willing to admit this regardless of code of conduct. Just saying.


But yes, there isn't much left to be debated, code of conduct seems very
clear on this.

~Mika

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

[Brian Schweitzer]

In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an autoeditor
should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed edit must be.

"If you made an Auto-Edit <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
then realise that it is disputed, you should:

Perhaps it's my being a native English speaker, rather than reading this more literally.  However, my understanding of this line has always been that it means if you make an autoedit, and then realize there is a debate ongoing (the edit, the guideline, whatever), you reverse it and make the edit votable.  I do not read it to mean that if anyone ever, at any time in the future, comes back and questions an edit, that edit suddenly becomes a disputed edit and has to be reversed and made votable.  The CoC says this slightly better, with more of an implication (as I read it) that this is talking about an immediate situation, not one that can be opened at any time, ever, should someone decide to dispute an edit.  "Don't abuse Auto-Editor privileges, including applying controversial changes without a vote or making edits another person is already making (although this does happen accidentally sometimes). "  (A change, at the time it is entered, is either controversial or it isn't; we can't and shouldn't be expected to read the future enough to guess if someday something might become controversial.)

Dave said he thinks I tend to focus too much on the time elapsed, but I honestly do think that the time which has elapsed is important here.  If I made an edit, and there is ongoing debate, that definitely is a debated edit and ought to be reversed.  If someone left an edit note a day or two later questioning the edit, then sure, I can see that too as a debated edit.  But I think, after weeks, months, even years have passed, it simply cannot be claimed that, *at the time the edit was made* there existed a state of the edit being disputed. 

Theoretically, any edit can be potentially disputable (it's frequently the ones I least expect to be debatable which end up with the longest debates).  What I read that directive to indicate is that we ought to use our best judgement *when making the edit* to avoid making disputed edits, and when we find that we've done it anyhow, we ought to reverse the edit.  I do not believe that directive to mean, however, that we ought to be eternally responsible for reversing any autoedit, at any time, just because someone decides they disagree. 

By your reading of this text, at what point does it actually become the responsibility of the person who disagrees to put the edit to a vote, rather than our simply leaving ourselves essentially open to having any autoedit, from any time we have ever edited, come back with someone demanding we revert and make the edit votable?  Edits which expire into the database unvoted do not have this "eternally open to immediate reversal", so why should old autoedits?

Brian, you appear to think you have a license to do what you want with
no sense of personal obligation to "do the right thing" when others
disagree with you. Completely inappropriate AutoEditor behaviour, IMO.
Were I a non-AutoEditor, this would likely completely put me off the
whole project.

If someone questions/disputes your edit, you of course have the ability
to try and convince them of your motivation, but if they still do not
agree then you should AutoEdit-revert to a common ground before making a
new edit proposing your preferred solution.

If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw away the
whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
non-compromising twats.

This whole thing disgusts me, to be honest.

I am willing to revert an auto edit, within a reasonable few days where disagreement becomes evident.  I have done this in the past.  I am not, however, willing to be exposed to having to revert and argue any edit, from any time ever in the past, at any time, simply because someone decides they disagree.

I have never claimed, nor believed, that I had a license to do whatever I want.

I always attempt to do the right thing per community decisions, the guidelines, and, when neither is helpful for a given case, per decisions in other similar edits.

I simply disagree with the concept that, after significant time has passed, we somehow still are supposed to revert on demand.  I would suggest that this was not intended, and that the proper solution, for the person who disagrees, is also in the CoC: "Try not to pick fights by nit-picking other editors closed edits. Asking for a source or reason (if not provided by the editor in an edit note) is OK; otherwise you can always submit your own edit to fix small errors or omissions. This is more productive."

Look, I try to make good edits.  I try to help other editors.  I try to work towards compromise, be it edits, guidelines, or even debates about server code.  I may not always be successful, but I do always try. 

I do not, however, appreciate being essentially ordered to do something, simply because someone decides that they disagree with an old edit.  If it was an edit from yesterday, then sure, I could understand a request for a revert.  However, when someone leaves a note on an edit so old I barely even remember it, demanding I revert something, I find it offensive.  It's not a responsibility of an autoeditor as I read the CoC, and honestly, I find it quite offensive; the editor can just as easily enter his or her own votable edit, rather than demanding I go revert and re-edit (if it took weeks+ for someone to even comment, then it's quite hard to sustain an arguement that, at the time the edit was made, a situation of "controversial" existed...)

However, Chad and Lukáš, you seem to feel that my involvement in editing at MusicBrainz is not beneficial.  I was voted an autoeditor on a vote of 25 to 3.  Your comments recent have however, to be honest, rather offended me.  So, if there is sufficient demand for it here, I will resign as an autoeditor.  Should someone then choose to nominate me again, I would accept that nomination, and it could go to a revote.  So, the offer is on the table - is there demand enough that the edit which made me an autoeditor also ought to be reverted and put to a new vote?

Brian

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

[Philip Jägenstedt-3]

I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626

Brian, if MuicBrainz were an essay writing competition you would be
king. Since it isn't I suggest making your points concisely, or no one
will ever read them...

Philip

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 19:04, Chad Wilson<chad.wilson@...> wrote:

> Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Brian
>> Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm writing this because I've seen several instances over the past
>>> half year where one autoeditor was demanding that another revert, but
>>> where I disagree that the original editor has any such obligation.
>>>
>>
>> The assumption is that autoeditors make edits everybody agrees with
>> (ie, they have three implicit yes votes). Of course you have no
>> obligation to revert it if somebody disagrees with you, but we are all
>> people and can talk. I don't see why not just revert it and submit as
>> a regular edit, if somebody asks you to do so. (I would vote against
>> the change.)
>>
>> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10953747
>>
>
> In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an autoeditor
> should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed edit must be.
>
> "If you made an Auto-Edit <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
> then realise that it is disputed, you should:
>
>    * Excuse yourself in an Edit Note
>      <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Edit_Note>.
>    * Revert your edit.
>    * Temporarily disable your Auto-Editor
>      <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Editor> privileges and enter the
>      edit again as one to be voted upon."
>
> "made an autoedit" - this is basic English for "an edit has been made in
> the past, automatically applied"
> "then release that it is disputed" - i.e. after the edit has made,
> someone questions it
>
> What part of this is not clear?
>
> Brian, you appear to think you have a license to do what you want with
> no sense of personal obligation to "do the right thing" when others
> disagree with you. Completely inappropriate AutoEditor behaviour, IMO.
> Were I a non-AutoEditor, this would likely completely put me off the
> whole project.
>
> If someone questions/disputes your edit, you of course have the ability
> to try and convince them of your motivation, but if they still do not
> agree then you should AutoEdit-revert to a common ground before making a
> new edit proposing your preferred solution.
>
> If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw away the
> whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
> non-compromising twats.
>
> This whole thing disgusts me, to be honest.
>
> Chad
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
>

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

[Philip Jägenstedt-3]

I read the last paragraph of your reply, Brian. I for one would not
support reverting your auto-editor status, that would be quite
unecessary. Simply accepting the same interpretation of the
CodeOfConduct as most of the rest of us have would do just fine. If
you think that the elapsed time is in itself important, then perhaps
you should suggest adding a time limit.

Philip

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 20:57, Brian
Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:

>> In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an autoeditor
>> should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed edit must be.
>>
>> "If you made an Auto-Edit <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
>> then realise that it is disputed, you should:
>
> Perhaps it's my being a native English speaker, rather than reading this
> more literally.  However, my understanding of this line has always been that
> it means if you make an autoedit, and then realize there is a debate ongoing
> (the edit, the guideline, whatever), you reverse it and make the edit
> votable.  I do not read it to mean that if anyone ever, at any time in the
> future, comes back and questions an edit, that edit suddenly becomes a
> disputed edit and has to be reversed and made votable.  The CoC says this
> slightly better, with more of an implication (as I read it) that this is
> talking about an immediate situation, not one that can be opened at any
> time, ever, should someone decide to dispute an edit.  "Don't abuse
> Auto-Editor privileges, including applying controversial changes without a
> vote or making edits another person is already making (although this does
> happen accidentally sometimes). "  (A change, at the time it is entered, is
> either controversial or it isn't; we can't and shouldn't be expected to read
> the future enough to guess if someday something might become controversial.)
>
> Dave said he thinks I tend to focus too much on the time elapsed, but I
> honestly do think that the time which has elapsed is important here.  If I
> made an edit, and there is ongoing debate, that definitely is a debated edit
> and ought to be reversed.  If someone left an edit note a day or two later
> questioning the edit, then sure, I can see that too as a debated edit.  But
> I think, after weeks, months, even years have passed, it simply cannot be
> claimed that, *at the time the edit was made* there existed a state of the
> edit being disputed.
>
> Theoretically, any edit can be potentially disputable (it's frequently the
> ones I least expect to be debatable which end up with the longest debates).
> What I read that directive to indicate is that we ought to use our best
> judgement *when making the edit* to avoid making disputed edits, and when we
> find that we've done it anyhow, we ought to reverse the edit.  I do not
> believe that directive to mean, however, that we ought to be eternally
> responsible for reversing any autoedit, at any time, just because someone
> decides they disagree.
>
> By your reading of this text, at what point does it actually become the
> responsibility of the person who disagrees to put the edit to a vote, rather
> than our simply leaving ourselves essentially open to having any autoedit,
> from any time we have ever edited, come back with someone demanding we
> revert and make the edit votable?  Edits which expire into the database
> unvoted do not have this "eternally open to immediate reversal", so why
> should old autoedits?
>
>> Brian, you appear to think you have a license to do what you want with
>> no sense of personal obligation to "do the right thing" when others
>> disagree with you. Completely inappropriate AutoEditor behaviour, IMO.
>> Were I a non-AutoEditor, this would likely completely put me off the
>> whole project.
>>
>> If someone questions/disputes your edit, you of course have the ability
>> to try and convince them of your motivation, but if they still do not
>> agree then you should AutoEdit-revert to a common ground before making a
>> new edit proposing your preferred solution.
>>
>> If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw away the
>> whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
>> non-compromising twats.
>>
>> This whole thing disgusts me, to be honest.
>
> I am willing to revert an auto edit, within a reasonable few days where
> disagreement becomes evident.  I have done this in the past.  I am not,
> however, willing to be exposed to having to revert and argue any edit, from
> any time ever in the past, at any time, simply because someone decides they
> disagree.
>
> I have never claimed, nor believed, that I had a license to do whatever I
> want.
>
> I always attempt to do the right thing per community decisions, the
> guidelines, and, when neither is helpful for a given case, per decisions in
> other similar edits.
>
> I simply disagree with the concept that, after significant time has passed,
> we somehow still are supposed to revert on demand.  I would suggest that
> this was not intended, and that the proper solution, for the person who
> disagrees, is also in the CoC: "Try not to pick fights by nit-picking other
> editors closed edits. Asking for a source or reason (if not provided by the
> editor in an edit note) is OK; otherwise you can always submit your own edit
> to fix small errors or omissions. This is more productive."
>
> Look, I try to make good edits.  I try to help other editors.  I try to work
> towards compromise, be it edits, guidelines, or even debates about server
> code.  I may not always be successful, but I do always try.
>
> I do not, however, appreciate being essentially ordered to do something,
> simply because someone decides that they disagree with an old edit.  If it
> was an edit from yesterday, then sure, I could understand a request for a
> revert.  However, when someone leaves a note on an edit so old I barely even
> remember it, demanding I revert something, I find it offensive.  It's not a
> responsibility of an autoeditor as I read the CoC, and honestly, I find it
> quite offensive; the editor can just as easily enter his or her own votable
> edit, rather than demanding I go revert and re-edit (if it took weeks+ for
> someone to even comment, then it's quite hard to sustain an arguement that,
> at the time the edit was made, a situation of "controversial" existed...)
>
> However, Chad and Lukáš, you seem to feel that my involvement in editing at
> MusicBrainz is not beneficial.  I was voted an autoeditor on a vote of 25 to
> 3.  Your comments recent have however, to be honest, rather offended me.
> So, if there is sufficient demand for it here, I will resign as an
> autoeditor.  Should someone then choose to nominate me again, I would accept
> that nomination, and it could go to a revote.  So, the offer is on the table
> - is there demand enough that the edit which made me an autoeditor also
> ought to be reverted and put to a new vote?
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
>

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

[Kuno Woudt-2]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:33:14PM +0200, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
> amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626

I also agree with Chads post.

> Brian, if MuicBrainz were an essay writing competition you would be
> king. Since it isn't I suggest making your points concisely, or no one
> will ever read them...

And this.

-- kuno / warp.


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

[Paul C. Bryan]

Brian, as AutoEditors, I think we should give serious consideration to
any calls for us to revert and put to vote, regardless of how much time
elapses -- dubious element(s) of an edit will presumably withstand the
test of time.

I also think it's especially important to give deference to those who
have a significant amount of experience editing (i.e. such calls from
other AutoEditors). Generally, if it's controversial enough for another
AutoEditor to voice dissent, it's important enough to put to vote.

I don't think the worst-case scenario you're worrying about -- having
lost past edits being called into question on an ongoing basis -- will
actually materialize.

On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 14:57 -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

>        
>         In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an
>         autoeditor
>         should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed
>         edit must be.
>        
>         "If you made an Auto-Edit
>         <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
>         then realise that it is disputed, you should:
>
> Perhaps it's my being a native English speaker, rather than reading
> this more literally.  However, my understanding of this line has
> always been that it means if you make an autoedit, and then realize
> there is a debate ongoing (the edit, the guideline, whatever), you
> reverse it and make the edit votable.  I do not read it to mean that
> if anyone ever, at any time in the future, comes back and questions an
> edit, that edit suddenly becomes a disputed edit and has to be
> reversed and made votable.  The CoC says this slightly better, with
> more of an implication (as I read it) that this is talking about an
> immediate situation, not one that can be opened at any time, ever,
> should someone decide to dispute an edit.  "Don't abuse Auto-Editor
> privileges, including applying controversial changes without a vote or
> making edits another person is already making (although this does
> happen accidentally sometimes). "  (A change, at the time it is
> entered, is either controversial or it isn't; we can't and shouldn't
> be expected to read the future enough to guess if someday something
> might become controversial.)
>
> Dave said he thinks I tend to focus too much on the time elapsed, but
> I honestly do think that the time which has elapsed is important here.
> If I made an edit, and there is ongoing debate, that definitely is a
> debated edit and ought to be reversed.  If someone left an edit note a
> day or two later questioning the edit, then sure, I can see that too
> as a debated edit.  But I think, after weeks, months, even years have
> passed, it simply cannot be claimed that, *at the time the edit was
> made* there existed a state of the edit being disputed.  
>
> Theoretically, any edit can be potentially disputable (it's frequently
> the ones I least expect to be debatable which end up with the longest
> debates).  What I read that directive to indicate is that we ought to
> use our best judgement *when making the edit* to avoid making disputed
> edits, and when we find that we've done it anyhow, we ought to reverse
> the edit.  I do not believe that directive to mean, however, that we
> ought to be eternally responsible for reversing any autoedit, at any
> time, just because someone decides they disagree.  
>
> By your reading of this text, at what point does it actually become
> the responsibility of the person who disagrees to put the edit to a
> vote, rather than our simply leaving ourselves essentially open to
> having any autoedit, from any time we have ever edited, come back with
> someone demanding we revert and make the edit votable?  Edits which
> expire into the database unvoted do not have this "eternally open to
> immediate reversal", so why should old autoedits?
>
>
>         Brian, you appear to think you have a license to do what you
>         want with
>         no sense of personal obligation to "do the right thing" when
>         others
>         disagree with you. Completely inappropriate AutoEditor
>         behaviour, IMO.
>         Were I a non-AutoEditor, this would likely completely put me
>         off the
>         whole project.
>        
>         If someone questions/disputes your edit, you of course have
>         the ability
>         to try and convince them of your motivation, but if they still
>         do not
>         agree then you should AutoEdit-revert to a common ground
>         before making a
>         new edit proposing your preferred solution.
>        
>         If AutoEditors aren't willing to do this we may as well throw
>         away the
>         whole CodeOfConduct and admit that we're an elitist bunch of
>         non-compromising twats.
>        
>         This whole thing disgusts me, to be honest.
>
> I am willing to revert an auto edit, within a reasonable few days
> where disagreement becomes evident.  I have done this in the past.  I
> am not, however, willing to be exposed to having to revert and argue
> any edit, from any time ever in the past, at any time, simply because
> someone decides they disagree.
>
> I have never claimed, nor believed, that I had a license to do
> whatever I want.
>
> I always attempt to do the right thing per community decisions, the
> guidelines, and, when neither is helpful for a given case, per
> decisions in other similar edits.
>
> I simply disagree with the concept that, after significant time has
> passed, we somehow still are supposed to revert on demand.  I would
> suggest that this was not intended, and that the proper solution, for
> the person who disagrees, is also in the CoC: "Try not to pick fights
> by nit-picking other editors closed edits. Asking for a source or
> reason (if not provided by the editor in an edit note) is OK;
> otherwise you can always submit your own edit to fix small errors or
> omissions. This is more productive."
>
> Look, I try to make good edits.  I try to help other editors.  I try
> to work towards compromise, be it edits, guidelines, or even debates
> about server code.  I may not always be successful, but I do always
> try.  
>
> I do not, however, appreciate being essentially ordered to do
> something, simply because someone decides that they disagree with an
> old edit.  If it was an edit from yesterday, then sure, I could
> understand a request for a revert.  However, when someone leaves a
> note on an edit so old I barely even remember it, demanding I revert
> something, I find it offensive.  It's not a responsibility of an
> autoeditor as I read the CoC, and honestly, I find it quite offensive;
> the editor can just as easily enter his or her own votable edit,
> rather than demanding I go revert and re-edit (if it took weeks+ for
> someone to even comment, then it's quite hard to sustain an arguement
> that, at the time the edit was made, a situation of "controversial"
> existed...)
>
> However, Chad and Lukáš, you seem to feel that my involvement in
> editing at MusicBrainz is not beneficial.  I was voted an autoeditor
> on a vote of 25 to 3.  Your comments recent have however, to be
> honest, rather offended me.  So, if there is sufficient demand for it
> here, I will resign as an autoeditor.  Should someone then choose to
> nominate me again, I would accept that nomination, and it could go to
> a revote.  So, the offer is on the table - is there demand enough that
> the edit which made me an autoeditor also ought to be reverted and put
> to a new vote?
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> 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]

Brian Schweitzer wrote:

>
>     In fact, this is /exactly/ what the CodeOfConduct says an autoeditor
>     should do, and /exactly/ what the definition of a disputed edit
>     must be.
>
>     "If you made an Auto-Edit <http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Auto-Edit> and
>     then realise that it is disputed, you should:
>
>
> Perhaps it's my being a native English speaker, rather than reading
> this more literally.

I'm a native English speaker?

Pray tell how the reasonable editor could be expected to notice your
edits within a few days. Should I be writing a report of all edits made
by autoeditors to my 2000 subscribed artists and scanning it over every day?

This is unreasonable. As far as I'm concerned, it's just weasel words
looking to disclaim responsibility. "I can do what I want as long as
no-one notices it in 3 days" isn't an AutoEditor motto we want to
encourage. I agree with you that the time elapsed does play a part, but
I don't think 6 months is unreasonable, and as long as an editor is
active around MB, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask on their edits.

The intention of the CodeOfConduct, it seems to most but you,  is to
make it an AutoEditor's responsibility to make democratized redress for
an accidental AutoEdit. Of course it is intrinsic to the whole system
that any editor could make an edit to revert what the AutoEditor has
done, but to me, that clause is putting that responsibility onto the
AutoEditor to "do the right thing", rather than just say "if you want it
changed, you fix it". This is an important distinction to me. By making
the change his/herself, the AutoEditor gives up his/her vote on the
matter, puts the onus back onto themselves to argue for a particular
edit's merits and allows the "questioner" to place their vote without
having to whip up community interest somehow to have a chance for their
POV to be heard.

> However, Chad and Lukáš, you seem to feel that my involvement in
> editing at MusicBrainz is not beneficial.  I was voted an autoeditor
> on a vote of 25 to 3.  Your comments recent have however, to be
> honest, rather offended me.  So, if there is sufficient demand for it
> here, I will resign as an autoeditor.  Should someone then choose to
> nominate me again, I would accept that nomination, and it could go to
> a revote.  So, the offer is on the table - is there demand enough that
> the edit which made me an autoeditor also ought to be reverted and put
> to a new vote?

This is really not what I feel, and while it's a somewhat-noble gesture,
I don't think this would be net-positive for me, the community or
anyone. I will admit to feeling very frustrated (usually on behalf of
the person involved, since it's usually not me) with having every
disagreement met with a 3-page essay, and feeling that you're well...
intransigent... on many issues. It feels like filibustering, given most
volunteers here have limited time they can or will spend.

You will note that my initial polite questioning and debate on the
original edit quickly turned to a demand to revert as soon as you
started essay-writing. I feel that once the essays start, you have an
entrenched position and nothing short of a mortar round has a hope of
dislodging you from that position, so there's no point exchanging small
arms fire.

Chad

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

[Aurélien Mino-2]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...> wrote:

I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626

For the record, Brian crossed the line again by abusing his auto-editor privileges:
He added 19 more Wikipedia links while there were open edits and discussion to remove all other links excepted German and English ones:

http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?automod=&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=95678&voter_type=0&voter_id=29366&artist_type=3&artist_id=11285&orderby=desc&minid=29%2F08%2F2009&maxid=30%2F08%2F2009&isreset=0

And discussion (Brian was aware of it since he took part of it before making his autoedits):
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778

- Aurélien



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

[Kuno Woudt-2]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:01:44PM +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...>wrote:
>
> > I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
> > amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626
> >
> >
> For the record, Brian crossed the line again by abusing his auto-editor
> privileges:
> He added 19 more Wikipedia links while there were open edits and discussion
> to remove all other links excepted German and English ones:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?automod=&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=95678&voter_type=0&voter_id=29366&artist_type=3&artist_id=11285&orderby=desc&minid=29%2F08%2F2009&maxid=30%2F08%2F2009&isreset=0
>
> And discussion (Brian was aware of it since he took part of it before making
> his autoedits):
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778
>

Indeed.

Brianfreud, I would like to ask you to act according to the Code of
Conduct to resolve this.  Specifically re-read "Making disputed edits"
at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CodeOfConduct#Making_Disputed_Edits if
it is unclear to you what I mean by this.

-- kuno / warp.


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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Aurélien Mino <aurelien.mino@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...> wrote:

I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626

For the record, Brian crossed the line again by abusing his auto-editor privileges:
He added 19 more Wikipedia links while there were open edits and discussion to remove all other links excepted German and English ones:

http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?automod=&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=95678&voter_type=0&voter_id=29366&artist_type=3&artist_id=11285&orderby=desc&minid=29%2F08%2F2009&maxid=30%2F08%2F2009&isreset=0

And discussion (Brian was aware of it since he took part of it before making his autoedits):
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778

- Aurélien

Again, one argument the editor himself presented as justification for the removals was the "completeness" problem, due to *my personally not having added the new links.*

The "debate" is over the removal of links, when there is no guideline justification for the removal of those links.  The validity of adding new, valid ARs is not under debate.  The *removal of valid ARs* is what is under debate.

When the editor himself uses the fact that I, *personally* have not done some edit(s) as justification for his creating destructive edits, that creates a situation where I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.  Either I assume that the editor is creating a situation of "debated edit" for *any* add Wikipedia URL AR edit, and I don't address the "completeness" problem (claimed as a result of my own inaction) that he is using as an argument, or I fix the "completeness" problem, add the missing ARs, and still get damned because others now shift the "debated edit" part from a lack of my having added the edits to my having *not* not added the edits.

You can't have it both ways.

Brian

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

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:01:44PM +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philip@...>wrote:
>
> > I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
> > amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626
> >
> >
> For the record, Brian crossed the line again by abusing his auto-editor
> privileges:
> He added 19 more Wikipedia links while there were open edits and discussion
> to remove all other links excepted German and English ones:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?automod=&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=95678&voter_type=0&voter_id=29366&artist_type=3&artist_id=11285&orderby=desc&minid=29%2F08%2F2009&maxid=30%2F08%2F2009&isreset=0
>
> And discussion (Brian was aware of it since he took part of it before making
> his autoedits):
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778
>

Indeed.

Brianfreud, I would like to ask you to act according to the Code of
Conduct to resolve this.  Specifically re-read "Making disputed edits"
at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CodeOfConduct#Making_Disputed_Edits if
it is unclear to you what I mean by this.

-- kuno / warp.

It strikes me as very strange that the addition of data which is 100% correct per every single guideline can be considered itself debatable.  However, as the claim is there, rather than dump 17 new edits into the system, on top of the 101 other edits, I'll wait until the current debate has been resolved before creating new votable edits.  In the meantime, I'll remove them.

Since this is being pushed, and the situation was itself created by an AutoEditor,  I would cite the CoC with regards to KRSCuan's actions themselves.

I first even became aware of these edits due to a comment left by KRSCuan on an edit of mine that had been closed for 18 months.  http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8339770

"What the fuck were you thinking here?  And as nikki quite consciously pointed out, why the hell did you enter languages like Volapük, spoken by 20 people, but not his mother tongue?"

We then get into the current edits.  Zero consultation of the style or users list, merely the entry of over 100 destructive edits, removing data that is entirely valid per all guidelines, with hyperbole and personal opinion used as the sole justification for the edits.  While there is a valid argument about the utility of some of these, this was not the way to do it.  Throwing such a large number of destructive edits out, without any consulation or guidelines justification, simply abuses the fact that we all know most people aren't going to actually bother to seek out these edits, to ensure that they don't pass - some would inevitably slip through, which merely would exacerbate the "completeness" problem.  Had there been a single edit to test the waters, and concurrent consulation of the style list, this would have gone a lot differently.

Following that, when then pressed for justification, the argument was made that not only was the list of links now incomplete, but that it somehow was may own personal responsibility to keep it updated: "But you showed little effort to add them when they appeared during the last 1½ years.". 

Comments such as "And again, you showed little effort to add another myriad of links to other composers like Händel, Bach or Beethoven. Or maybe I was just lucky enough to miss them." disrespect the effort; while I can understand his disagreement with the existance of the links, there has been no reason, right from the first comment on my long-closed edit, for the disrepect that has been thrown my way.  Snide comments such as "Proof that Brian didn't look at the links he added – checked ✔" (edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115746 ) can serve absolutely zero beneficial purpose, and, I would argue, are themselves contrary to the CoC.

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

[Philip Jägenstedt-3]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 20:38, Brian
Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 07:01:44PM +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> > <philip@...>wrote:
>> >
>> > > I agree with Chad (apart from the part about being disgusted, I'm more
>> > > amused). Sadly I've seen this exact situation with Brian before in
>> > > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8532626
>> > >
>> > >
>> > For the record, Brian crossed the line again by abusing his auto-editor
>> > privileges:
>> > He added 19 more Wikipedia links while there were open edits and
>> > discussion
>> > to remove all other links excepted German and English ones:
>> >
>> >
>> > http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?automod=&moderator_type=3&moderator_id=95678&voter_type=0&voter_id=29366&artist_type=3&artist_id=11285&orderby=desc&minid=29%2F08%2F2009&maxid=30%2F08%2F2009&isreset=0
>> >
>> > And discussion (Brian was aware of it since he took part of it before
>> > making
>> > his autoedits):
>> > http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115778
>> >
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Brianfreud, I would like to ask you to act according to the Code of
>> Conduct to resolve this.  Specifically re-read "Making disputed edits"
>> at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CodeOfConduct#Making_Disputed_Edits if
>> it is unclear to you what I mean by this.
>>
>> -- kuno / warp.
>
> It strikes me as very strange that the addition of data which is 100%
> correct per every single guideline can be considered itself debatable.
> However, as the claim is there, rather than dump 17 new edits into the
> system, on top of the 101 other edits, I'll wait until the current debate
> has been resolved before creating new votable edits.  In the meantime, I'll
> remove them.

Thanks!

> Since this is being pushed, and the situation was itself created by an
> AutoEditor,  I would cite the CoC with regards to KRSCuan's actions
> themselves.

Good, I also think that all but one edit is canceled until the debate
is settled. Fortunately, these edits aren't autoedits.

> I first even became aware of these edits due to a comment left by KRSCuan on
> an edit of mine that had been closed for 18 months.
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8339770
>
> "What the fuck were you thinking here?  And as nikki quite consciously
> pointed out, why the hell did you enter languages like Volapük, spoken by 20
> people, but not his mother tongue?"
>
> We then get into the current edits.  Zero consultation of the style or users
> list, merely the entry of over 100 destructive edits, removing data that is
> entirely valid per all guidelines, with hyperbole and personal opinion used
> as the sole justification for the edits.  While there is a valid argument
> about the utility of some of these, this was not the way to do it.  Throwing
> such a large number of destructive edits out, without any consulation or
> guidelines justification, simply abuses the fact that we all know most
> people aren't going to actually bother to seek out these edits, to ensure
> that they don't pass - some would inevitably slip through, which merely
> would exacerbate the "completeness" problem.  Had there been a single edit
> to test the waters, and concurrent consulation of the style list, this would
> have gone a lot differently.
>
> Following that, when then pressed for justification, the argument was made
> that not only was the list of links now incomplete, but that it somehow was
> may own personal responsibility to keep it updated: "But you showed little
> effort to add them when they appeared during the last 1½ years.".
>
> Comments such as "And again, you showed little effort to add another myriad
> of links to other composers like Händel, Bach or Beethoven. Or maybe I was
> just lucky enough to miss them." disrespect the effort; while I can
> understand his disagreement with the existance of the links, there has been
> no reason, right from the first comment on my long-closed edit, for the
> disrepect that has been thrown my way.  Snide comments such as "Proof that
> Brian didn't look at the links he added – checked ✔" (edit
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115746 ) can serve absolutely
> zero beneficial purpose, and, I would argue, are themselves contrary to the
> CoC.

I agree that this kind of disrespect towards other editors isn't
acceptable. I hope regular users haven't been subjected to these kinds
of edit notes.

--
Philip Jägenstedt

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

[Kuno Woudt-2]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 02:38:37PM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:
>
> We then get into the current edits.  Zero consultation of the style or users
> list, merely the entry of over 100 destructive edits, removing data that is
> entirely valid per all guidelines, with hyperbole and personal opinion used
> as the sole justification for the edits.  While there is a valid argument
> about the utility of some of these, this was not the way to do it.  Throwing
> such a large number of destructive edits out, without any consulation or
> guidelines justification, simply abuses the fact that we all know most
> people aren't going to actually bother to seek out these edits, to ensure
> that they don't pass - some would inevitably slip through, which merely
> would exacerbate the "completeness" problem.  Had there been a single edit
> to test the waters, and concurrent consulation of the style list, this would
> have gone a lot differently.
>
> Following that, when then pressed for justification, the argument was made
> that not only was the list of links now incomplete, but that it somehow was
> may own personal responsibility to keep it updated: "But you showed little
> effort to add them when they appeared during the last 1½ years.".
>
> Comments such as "And again, you showed little effort to add another myriad
> of links to other composers like Händel, Bach or Beethoven. Or maybe I was
> just lucky enough to miss them." disrespect the effort; while I can
> understand his disagreement with the existance of the links, there has been
> no reason, right from the first comment on my long-closed edit, for the
> disrepect that has been thrown my way.  Snide comments such as "Proof that
> Brian didn't look at the links he added – checked ✔" (edit
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115746 ) can serve absolutely
> zero beneficial purpose, and, I would argue, are themselves contrary to the
> CoC.

I agree to all of the above.  I appreciate you were the one to bring it
up in mb-users, and agree that KRSCuan should've been the one to do
that, instead of starting an edit war with another auto editor by entering
a mass of edits.

-- kuno / warp.


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

[doncuan]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 20:09, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Again, one argument the editor himself presented as justification for
> the removals was the "completeness" problem, due to *my personally
> not having added the new links.*

Actually, the completeness argument was meant to illustrate one part of
the reasons which IMO made your edits pointless. I didn't expect you to
go ahead and add the "missing ones". Well, actually, I didn't rule out
you would.

> When the editor himself uses the fact that I, *personally* have not
> done some edit(s) as justification for his creating destructive
> edits, that creates a situation where I'm damned if I do, damned if I
> don't. [...]
> You can't have it both ways.

As said, I didn't intend it that way, though I'll keep the strategy in
mind if I should enter politics someday.

I don't think that Brian absolutely has to revert and re-enter these
edits as votable ones. If there's a broad consensus for removing the
ones with open edits, there won't be a dispute over the removal of the rest.
Oh, I see that he did enter the removals in the meantime. Fair enough.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 20:38, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> We then get into the current edits.  Zero consultation of the style or
> users list, merely the entry of over 100 destructive edits, removing
> data that is entirely valid per all guidelines, with hyperbole and
> personal opinion used as the sole justification for the edits.  While
> there is a valid argument about the utility of some of these, this was
> not the way to do it.  Throwing such a large number of destructive edits
> out, without any consulation or guidelines justification, simply abuses
> the fact that we all know most people aren't going to actually bother to
> seek out these edits, to ensure that they don't pass - some would
> inevitably slip through, which merely would exacerbate the
> "completeness" problem.  Had there been a single edit to test the
> waters, and concurrent consulation of the style list, this would have
> gone a lot differently.

Firstly, until now, I mostly shunned contributing actively on the
mailing lists, for various reasons. (one of them is that I don't like my
mail adresses to be quoted every time…)
Secondly, I chose the mass edits because many of your links had the
utility problem, among others I feared and which were partially
confirmed, mostly by nikki. And also to match your move of mass adding them.
I also reckon that not adhering to protocol should have put voters up
against my edits, but so far I see no vocal opposition besides you.
Doesn't look like any one of the edits will slip through unnoticed
either, there were several voters even before you posted on the mailing
lists.

> Comments such as "And again, you showed little effort to add another
> myriad of links to other composers like Händel, Bach or Beethoven. Or
> maybe I was just lucky enough to miss them." disrespect the effort;
> while I can understand his disagreement with the existance of the links,
> there has been no reason, right from the first comment on my long-closed
> edit, for the disrepect that has been thrown my way.  Snide comments
> such as "Proof that Brian didn't look at the links he added – checked ✔"
> (edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115746 ) can serve
> absolutely zero beneficial purpose, and, I would argue, are themselves
> contrary to the CoC.

I don't know whether my taunts were explicitly against CoC. If you took
any of these as attacks against you personally, your general work on MB
or were offended by my language (common knowledge says it's easier to
swear in foreign languages), I'm deeply sorry.
But as far as they were just ridiculing your set of adds or some of the
arguments that felt like you pulled them out of thin air, I still stand
behind them. A "This is ridiculous" wouldn't have been any different.

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 20:50, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I agree that this kind of disrespect towards other editors isn't
> acceptable. I hope regular users haven't been subjected to these kinds
> of edit notes.

AFAIR, I've mostly refrained from this.
I remember calling a long-time inactive editor a retard for adding
several borked and p2p bootleg releases and just leaving his handle in
the edit notes. And I called another one an idiot for adding bogus
DiscIDs of CDs he burned from a lump of mp3 files to real releases. Both
of this behind their backs. Not nice, I know. ;(

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

[Aurélien Mino-2]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 02:38:37PM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:
>

> We then get into the current edits.  Zero consultation of the style or users
> list, merely the entry of over 100 destructive edits, removing data that is
> entirely valid per all guidelines, with hyperbole and personal opinion used
> as the sole justification for the edits.  While there is a valid argument
> about the utility of some of these, this was not the way to do it.  Throwing
> such a large number of destructive edits out, without any consulation or
> guidelines justification, simply abuses the fact that we all know most
> people aren't going to actually bother to seek out these edits, to ensure
> that they don't pass - some would inevitably slip through, which merely
> would exacerbate the "completeness" problem.  Had there been a single edit
> to test the waters, and concurrent consulation of the style list, this would
> have gone a lot differently.
>
> Following that, when then pressed for justification, the argument was made
> that not only was the list of links now incomplete, but that it somehow was
> may own personal responsibility to keep it updated: "But you showed little
> effort to add them when they appeared during the last 1½ years.".
>
> Comments such as "And again, you showed little effort to add another myriad
> of links to other composers like Händel, Bach or Beethoven. Or maybe I was
> just lucky enough to miss them." disrespect the effort; while I can
> understand his disagreement with the existance of the links, there has been
> no reason, right from the first comment on my long-closed edit, for the
> disrepect that has been thrown my way.  Snide comments such as "Proof that
> Brian didn't look at the links he added – checked ✔" (edit
> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=11115746 ) can serve absolutely
> zero beneficial purpose, and, I would argue, are themselves contrary to the
> CoC.

I agree to all of the above.  I appreciate you were the one to bring it
up in mb-users, and agree that KRSCuan should've been the one to do
that, instead of starting an edit war with another auto editor by entering
a mass of edits.

I can understand that KRSCuan opened edits rather than starting a discussion where Brian is involved.

My personal feeling is that it's nearly impossible to discuss with Brian.
He can ignore sensible arguments but nitpick on irrelevant details, be of bad faith and writes outstanding long replies.
It can be very frustrating and tiring to try to argue with him (to such an extent you may become a bit too emotional and use language that you later regret).

It would be sad if MB turns into politicians conversations limited to English native speaking people.

Edits seem more democratic (if they are announced), and are a faster (the only one?) way to make Brian accept than most people don't think like him.

- Aurélien

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