On this edit, I have a question. I see that the edit was voted “no”, as the featured artist were placed in track names vs in the artist section. My question is
I thought auto-editors had the ability to apply those changes to the edit, so when (if) it passes, it is applied correctly, is that correct?
Does it make sense to vote no and fail the whole edit over something that can be fixed after it is applied?
I know personally I get annoyed when I make an edit and a part of it fails dependency, and in turn, it fails the entire edit. I am not trying to directly question anyone’s votes or choices, I am only trying to understand.
AEs are not there to do cleaning up after other user’s errors. Those Nos are correct (but really everyone who votes no should explain why, not just add silent Nos)
A No is not a negative against a user, it is a way to slow down an edit and allow someone to explain the correct way to do something.
An AE isn’t officially a policeman either. They have zero authority. They can just do faster edits. They don’t have to tell people what to do. It is down to all of us in the community to guide the noobies in better understanding of the guidelines.
That is usually caused by double editing a track list. I do that all the time. Gets lots of conversations with modbot. I learnt to laugh at them. Modbot is my friend now.
Yeah, I understand that. I did not mean anything bad by it, I just recall years back someone doing that to one of my edits… where they commented on the errors and fixed them, both explaining and showing the issue and how to do it properly.
I also agree that a “no” vote is the right vote. I am just trying to learn more in the voting process, and this edit came up in my looking. I did mange to get a “yes” vote in though
Regarding auto-editors, maybe I have misunderstood in part the role. I understand that there is no one “in charge” here. The opinion of auto-editors I have is that the role is to watch over things, do edits in their special areas (most auto-editors seem to have a specialty or focus), help and guide editors, etc.
The only point I disagree on is “They have zero authority”. Unless I misunderstand, an auto-editor has the ability to not only bypass voting on their own edits, but they can approve or reject edits of others. I am not implying that this right would be abused, but the fact that it is there I believe does give some authority.
That is one of the helpful ones. Some editors just like shouting.
Notice how it has happened in your example edit? One of the AEs on that edit made the correction, but left no explanation. While a second AE pointed out the corrected edit as the example of how to do it correctly.
That is Trust not Authority. They are trusted to fix things and potter around and clear up errors. They are not in any way Above us in a hierarchy. The Guidelines are the only Authority. And even then it is a Guide, not a Rule.
Notice when there is a debate on an issue that AE votes are weighted the same as you or I? They cannot Reject anything. And if you didn’t like an auto-edit they had done you can immediately change it and send it to a vote.
Assuming that the feat.’s are correct in the given edit, people should be voting yes to it. Just like auto-editors can’t be expected to clean up after other users, we also can’t expect a user to do the work that they’ve already done.
IMHO, it’s better to have the features in the track titles than not have them at all… so that edit should go through.
So in that edit, as it sits, it will fail. Wont that just negate the changes/corrections that were made, as the release will not close with a pass?
I did not mean to sound offensive, it sounds like it might have been taken that way.
Ok. I know an auto-editor can approve an edit from another user, I thought they could also reject/fail an edit in the same manner. I would not expect any auto-editor to abuse such things, my query is more of better understanding.
This was my thought as well, but in this case, this edit will fail, although the corrections have been made is seems. A bit confusing.
To clarify… so the idea is that the edits gets voted down, but the auto-editor changes behind the scenes (so to say) fixing it, which will cause the edit to fail dependency vs being voted down, so it shows that the edit was not done properly (thus the no vote), but was altered to save the data that was entered in the corrected form.
Yes. That is how I understand it. An AE decided to correct the data without a seven day wait. The original edit would then just have “failed dependency” due to the track list having changed.
I don’t know what registers first - the no votes or the failed dependency. But would still have been a flag to the original editor that something was wrong.
The way I originally understood this is the AE was just diving in and fixing things. Other fixes were also happening to the release at the same time. It probably popped up on various people’s Subscribed lists due to lots of artists involved.
I could see the logic in the No votes as then the beginner editor would have seen their mistake. If this had been auto-edited through and instantly changed I don’t see how the original editor would ever have known or learnt anything?