Should we ask non-autoeditors to fix a massive number of recent, time-consuming mistakes? - Non Auto-editor responses

I’m getting concerned about the AE’s invading this non-AE thread. :joy: Get back in your exclusive thread… (lolz - joke).

I think the point is we all have our own little ways of persuasion. There in no “answer” to the question. Each misbehaving editor needs something different, and ultimately none of us would be here if we didn’t care for the data.

No arbitration. The official title is not BAFL as that sounds confusing - baffling even. The guideline says there is no appeal after the Word of the BDFL has been Said. So if they say “Thou shalt sit in the corner with the silly hat on” then that would be their Word. And it would be so. :upside_down_face:

1 Like

The purpose of only soliciting opinions from auto-editors is that auto-editors are held to a higher standard by Code of Conduct - MusicBrainz, which contains a section specifically asking for auto-editors to revert their own edits, but not for non-auto-editors - and that’s the topic being discussed.

I would argue that section should be deprecated by MusicBrainz making so many types of edits automatically apply for everyone, as was already noted by the first person who replied.


Since I was taken prisoner in Singapore, I have lost 45 lbs. I don’t mind clearing jungle all day, but some bread and water on occasion would be nice. Are there any AE’s with ribs showing? I am looking like a fashion model now! Please some moldy bread… :upside_down_face:

are you ok?
is this a plea for help?