Topic: I think I'm being trolled.
A certain user just voted against a string of my edits without adding a note as to why. I get the feeling he's doing this in retaliation for something. How do I report him?
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
An edit search hasn't shown any open edits of yours with No votes. Has the user changed their votes, or is it just a case of the edit search failing again?
3 2012-07-08 09:41:42 (edited by HibiscusKazeneko 2012-07-08 09:42:29)
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
reosarevok wrote:
An edit search hasn't shown any open edits of yours with No votes. Has the user changed their votes, or is it just a case of the edit search failing again?
Here's one. He caused all the edits in question to fail by voting No right at the last minute to ensure nothing could be done.
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
It's not only you - looking at their edit history, they voted no on a series of edits, unrelated except because they were at the top of the open edit queue. I'd recommend just re-entering the edits for now; we'll keep an eye on the editor to see if it was a mistake due to not understanding how voting works and they don't repeat it, or actually malicious and they do. If you get more no votes from them, please let us know.
5 2012-10-28 12:02:30 (edited by HibiscusKazeneko 2012-10-28 12:02:39)
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
I just had another last-minute No vote. It's by a different user this time, but I get the feeling it's malicious.
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
Nah, it's not - this one might be annoying but Freso is a trusted editor and this looks like a legit no ("CD in hand" doesn't say much for a 4x recording merge, unless you have all 4 CDs - or a better explanation like the one provided later).
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
That is the problem with the voting system here.
Many No votes are cast at the last minute giving no time to discuss the matters. Sometimes with little to no information at all.
Sometimes No votes are cast early on and that is better.
But sometimes for the stupidest of reasons. Sometimes they simply don't know the artist/release involved and make poor judgements.
Others where I have improved the release but didn't do enough work??!!
I fixed a load of featured artists from the track name but didn't do all of them and was voted down (or threatened to be voted down)
If I am improving the MB entry by any amount you should not vote down.
recently I had a few cover arts where I uploaded a cover for a release where there was none. It was good quality but voted down because someone decided to upload "better" quality. I don't see the need to vote mine down because of this.
I have no idea why there is a need for auto-editors at all.
Why shouldn't everyone be put through the voting process?
I honestly think that some/many auto-editors don't understand the problems that occur when you are voted down (very disheartening when done where the edit was legitimate) as they are magically immune to it.
Re: I think I'm being trolled.
Rovastar wrote:
If I am improving the MB entry by any amount you should not vote down.
Obviously, I agree with this part - and in any case where there's an improvement I will always try to approve the edit first and *after that* edit on top of it. Of course, that something non-autoeditors can't do, so some might feel an urge to make a more complete fix on top of it and vote No on the incomplete fix to avoid the changes made in it causing their better edit to fail. That's obviously not an excuse if there's no better edit entered though.
Rovastar wrote:
I fixed a load of featured artists from the track name but didn't do all of them and was voted down (or threatened to be voted down)
In this specific situation I can understand the problem - it's not too clear to me that an inconsistent release with half of the feat. on titles and half on artists is better than one that, at least, consistently has them all in the same place (I still wouldn't vote No on it, and I'd probably just approve and fix, but I wouldn't be surprised if other people had a different view of it).
Rovastar wrote:
recently I had a few cover arts where I uploaded a cover for a release where there was none. It was good quality but voted down because someone decided to upload "better" quality. I don't see the need to vote mine down because of this
That will be able to change when an option to replace images is implemented. Right now, if your edit and the one adding a higher quality image both went through, your image would have to be manually removed later as an inferior quality duplicate - so, there's no point on accepting the edit and causing a need for yet another edit for the removal.
Rovastar wrote:
I have no idea why there is a need for auto-editors at all.
For example, because it's hard enough to find problematic edits in the voting queue without having to look at, say, my 1462 edits made in the last 24 hours (or 8295 in the past week and I wasn't even that busy). 16000 edits in 2 weeks means I would be adding 1/4th extra edits to the voting queue, and I'm only one autoeditor - others have less insane amounts of edits, admittedly, but it all adds up quickly.
Rovastar wrote:
I honestly think that some/many auto-editors don't understand the problems that occur when you are voted down
Might be the case, and there is a reason why I usually insist to autoeditors that they approve and fix rather than vote No, as long as they're familiar enough with the edit to do so (which is likely, although not always the case, if they're familiar enough to see there's a problem). But for example, in the last HibiscusKazeneko edit I feel the No vote is perfectly legitimate - that was a recording merge made without any reason that justified it, and we've had enough people merging stuff wrongly that I'd rather let edits fail than try to fix it later (hint: it's usually *much* harder to undo a merge than it is to merge)