Auto-editor election #314: RocknRollArchivist

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f756f5f06b8>

RocknRollArchivist has shown a great dedication to the project for a long time now.

He is always very willing to discuss things in edits and seems to have a good attitude and a great dedication to the project and would make a great autoeditor.

1 Like

oops…forgot to post the election link

Member since: 17 Sep 2011
Very few edits voted down, useful edit notes


I have to vote “no” here.
RocknRollArchivist writes a lot of lazy and not useful edit notes and when you point that out to him he often gets defensive or even hostile. I’m sure he knows a lot about the music he is editing, but he shouldn’t demand we just trust him blindly because of that, but write what he knows in the edit notes (e.g. instead of “lengths” for recording merges that have nothing obvious in common).
Also he seems to be a slow learner or unwilling to regard the guidelines as he keeps doing the same types of edits again and again without any sign that this time he made sure he didn’t make the same mistakes as before (e.g. all his edits where he moves ETIs into disambiguation fields and even though he already had to cancel tons of these edits he keeps just writing “disamb” as an edit note).

I’m sorry this all sounds horrible and I wish I had the English writing skills to convey a friendlier tone here. I absolutely don’t have anything against RocknRollArchivist, I just honestly believe MB profits from his edits remaining votable as e.g. indicated by his 3.264 cancelled edits.
He is definitely a huge enrichment to MusicBrainz, but I think more so as a normal editor.


One can’t leave this without a reply.

The first fights I had with RocknRollArchivist go back to 2011. And yes, it was sometimes tedious, partly because both of us had to discuss difficult issues in a language which was not ours. But all the time – even if we finally had to agree to disagree – it stayed polite and friendly; with both parties arguing with the intention to make this Database the best possible.

To see what I mean see e.g. the last edit by RocknRollArchivist that was voted down (merely by accident, I believe) in 2017: and the related (the second last of his edits being voted down was in 2013!). What I see here is a great dedication to the project and a positive, friendly attitude, always responsive and willing to find the best possible solution, even if it wasn’t what he first had in mind.

I admit that RocknRollArchivist can be insistent (or seem stubborn or a pain in the a… :slight_smile: ), when he believes that his solution is the right one, but we all know (or can see) that he’s done a great deal of research before taking the task to work on improving/completing a given discography (of Jerry Lee Lewis, of Fats Domino or way back in 2011 on Boris Vian).
I can’t see how one could call this means of communicating with fellow editors (in a language which is not his mother tongue) “defensive or hostile”. I think RocknRollArchivist has all the qualities an AutoEditor needs. And the fact that some of his edits will pass without votes will certainly not refrain him from correcting or redoing his own edits should he find better evidence, as he has always done in the past.
And as nice good, verbose edit notes may be: The quality of an editor lies in his edits, not in his edit notes :wink:


Election closed a few days ago, and…

Congratulations @RocknRollArchivist! Enjoy your new autoeditor privileges and be sure to check up on the Code of Conduct and its Auto-Editor section—esp. if it’s been a while since you last looked it over. :slight_smile:


Thanks to the community for electing me Auto-Editor, despite the active opposition to this. As before, I will make every effort to improve the database.