Problem user


I have a question which I will be a bit vague on for obvious reasons. What is the best and most diplomatic way to deal with a problem user? Meaning, a user who adds incomplete releases with no reference, track times, has missing details, no cover art, etc? Now, the information that is missing is readily available. Just going to iTunes provides all that is needed. Notes have been left for this user time after time, nothing is responded to and nothing changes. I have been looking on and correcting adds as they come up, but it is more time consuming to manually enter things, especially the track times, after the add is in, compared to just adding all of it to begin with. Additionally, a lot of these adds are releases that have not even been released yet, but in most cases, all the info is there to be added.

I waited a while to ask, I know when you are new or did not encounter something yet, you may be confused or not knowing of exactly what to do. But after being told time and time again and not even arguing back at polite requests, it just tells me the editor does not care about the edits… and that is the issue I am asking about.


There will always be editors like that. If you are editing that artist, if you care about that artist, you will carefully fix or merge those lazy edits. That is all we can do. :blush:


Ok. I was unsure if there was a process to deal with such cases as the resulting edits are almost counter productive. But I do understand, I just wish when feedback was given on edits, the editor would respond or at least read it and follow it is they can.


We are just talking about lazy, incomplete edits. Now if you see some more toxic, destructive edits (altering exising data for the worse), you should first try to tell them and then there is a report this editor for bad behaviour button on their profile page. :wink:


Understood. I did not report the user or even directly contact them. All I have done is add note to the edits asking to please supply references and complete all the data for the release. You are correct, we are talking about lazy edits, not destructive ones. Trying to be diplomatic :slight_smile:


If a user consistently ignores edit notes, do keep in mind “Editor is unresponsive to edit notes” is also a reason for reporting - users are supposed to pay at least some attention to those and try to answer questions etc :slight_smile:


Is there a documentation page for reporting? I would like to know more about it, but I am not sure I want to do such a thing. I was once much less informed and had to learn, so I am not trying to be rude or anything. Just hoping for a way to say Hey, read your comments, without being too forward and attacking so as to cause issues.


There is nothing magic about it. When you report a user, an email is sent to the six MusicBrainz account administrators (@reosarevok and @Freso among them), and that’s all there is about that.


I see how it works, thanks.


That is basically what I usually say when I get an editor report landing in my e-mail (without naming the one who reported them - and often not even mentioning that someone reported them at all).


not speaking against anything in this thread. worth considering that one editor I know very well did not catch onto the existence of edit notes for months. I, I mean He, felt very embarressed when he discovered them. Emailing or directly messaging (if possible) and checking that the editor knows of the existence of edit notes might pay dividends.


I don’t see how emailing a user would help, given that they already get an email when a note is added to their edits.
Not to mention that the site will show you a banner if you have new notes.


@mmirG - I understand your point, I was once new too and made my share of mistakes. In addition to what @Zastai said, I was considerate on my question, including knowing what happens / does not happen. My intention of the question was not to cause a problem or discipline a user, but to get their attention in a polite way. If that would be ignored and/or the user does not respond to that and continue to be a problem, then ok, do as needed. BUt I wanted to avoid a direct confrontation, regardless of my intention to be polite … you never know how it will be taken when you criticize someone directly.

FYI- I ended up not reporting anything thus far. I took the advice @jesus2099 and am just almost silently making corrections. Speaking as a former new person, I can think of the names of a few editors that had to deal with me, the only difference is that I read the notes and learned a little something from those that commented AND offered advice, explanation, suggestion, etc.


Their address may be invalid so that they don’t get the emails, although in that case mailing them again isn’t particularly useful either, of course.

This is a bit unreliable because it doesn’t work across production and beta. Since many advanced users (who are likely to leave edit notes) regularly use the beta server, “normal” users may not get the banner notifications from them.


Thanks for pointing that out. I use beta most all the time, this is good to know, I never personally paid attention to that until you mention it here.


What I would see useful, and would happily go through myself, is to have a required training exercise before you can make edits. Especially knowing the thought of moving towards a Wikipedia style of editing. It might work like this…

You are given a release to add, from a list that already has good confirmed data. You are given the name / artist / medium type / etc. You are to look on Google / Bing / etc and locate at least one acceptable source, like iTunes, Amazon, AllMusic/AllData, Discogs, etc. Then, you are to add this release per that reference. This simulated add is then compared to the verified existing data. The user is them presented with a report of how they did, and pass or fail.

There could even be those who could respond to users, both that pass and fail, to help them understand the procedure. Honestly, I would have loved this when I started. I spent a lot of time fixing my own mistakes and getting frustrated at others. A few editors did this on their own for me and my edits and I find that most valuable.

Thoughts from the group? Is this even a possibility or something that would not even be considered? It can be left at just an approval process, or you could even have members certified for skillsets.