it's pretty easy t osay "listen they removed it form everywhere and we removed it fro medit data.. it's pretty decided this info is removable to anyone attmepting this readding
reosarevok
yvanzo: probably admin email history for a paper trail. But let's talk that one with ruaok
Freso
reo: MBBE_Bot autoedits
reosarevok
So!
yvanzo
reosarevok: I mean for adding reference from the modified edits
(but that can be discussed later on)
reosarevok
I was confused about why I wasn't able to enter MBBE_Bot lyricwiki removals as autoedits (they get approved anyway immediately after I enter them by chaban or kellnerd)
Then I realized it's because I never made MBBE_Bot an autoeditor
Would anyone strongly oppose making MBBE_Bot an autoeditor for those kinds of edits so we don't flood people's open edit lists?
CatQuest has no problem with m bb being autoed
CatQuest
lol autedotr voting for a bot? :D
Freso
I wouldn’t oppose it. Would it make sense to run it through the regular AE voting process?
reosarevok
We generally haven't for bots, but if people want me to, I don't care as such
Freso
I’m good either way.
CatQuest
personally i would second this bot autedit vote jsut for the fun of it :D
reosarevok
Well, I think we haven't. Let me check election history quickly
Yeah, no _bot there, at least
rdswift says "Just do it!"
CatQuest
(I'd als obe fine to jsut admin it to autoed)
yvanzo
reosarevok: moderate opinion is possible ;) it would be nice to have the bot enter noauto edits at first, then switch to auto edits.
reosarevok
Sure, I'm not asking about always entering autoedits
Just "once it's clear the community is fine with a specific MBBE ticket and the code works fine, should we autoedit them"
CatQuest
generally human autoeditors also do this so :D
reosarevok
(the ended ones for example were autoedits already because they're autoedits for everyone, apparently)
yvanzo
reosarevok: Yes, that was just to clarify. I don't know about bot's ability to set edits noauto.
Freso
Looks like a number of AEs have AE bots.
reosarevok
Including me, for my other bot :)
Freso
So I think it would be fine based on precedent that an "official" MB bot gets AE.
CatQuest
this is true
reosarevok
Ok. I'll make that change, but try to always run at least one or two full days of non-auto for each ticket so people can find issues, before I start autoediting?
CatQuest
(personally I didn't even know it wasn't AE even)
yvanzo
MBBE is slightly different, it runs a lot of different tasks.
reosarevok
Does that sound sensible, yvanzo?
yvanzo
+1
CatQuest
i liek that idea. first ru na few as non-auto
reosarevok
I think for smaller tasks people won't be bothered by having them open anyway
It's stuff like lyricwiki (60+ thousand edits) which is annoying :)
Freso
yvanzo: Sure, but they’re all vetted through the ticket system, which is more rigorous/official than any other bot (except for area_bot, maybe).
reosarevok
I mean, technically someone can say "do this" on JIRA, I can be like YES I WILL and do it, and nobody else have seen it in the meantime
CatQuest
I am actually rather sick of seeing lyrics wiki edits ¬_¬
reosarevok
Although maybe we *should* have a system for those where we confirm on a Monday meeting before running if it's not 100% obvious
CatQuest
area_bot is basically drsaunde anyway :D
reosarevok
(normally it's pretty obvious, such as "X page closed on this day, set to ended on this day"
but for stuff like removals at least)
This specific removal was actually agreed on this here meeting IIRC a couple weeks ago, so I'm sure it's fine :)
Freso
I see no one being against MBBE_Bot having AE status, and there is clear precedent for bots getting AE if their "owner" has, so I think we can go ahead with giving the bot the AE flag.
If we want to discuss further policy around how MBBE_Bot is used, I think that should be a different agenda item. Which we can take up right now if people want. :)
reosarevok
Ok :) I think I'd happily "self-censor" and bring potentially destructive changes to the meeting
yvanzo
It has already been settled IIUC.
reosarevok
Does anyone think that's a bad idea?
(as in: removal edits, or any merges if we ever happen to do any)
CatQuest
yep
yvanzo
who? ;)
Freso
I mean, destructive changes can’t be autoedited anyway.
reosarevok
Freso: URL removals can
CatQuest
hahaha true
reosarevok
I guess other things can't
Freso
Sure, but not merges. :)
reosarevok
Technically the idea is URL removals are not destructive because you can just paste the URL again
Freso
(Even URL merges can’t be autoedited, even if they can be approved.)
reosarevok
I think :)
Which, well, the MBID does get lost, so that's debatable, but
In this case I'm interested on them staying that way so shh :D
Ok, I think I'm happy with this, so if nothing else, Freso, carry us off?
Freso
Yes.
TOPIC: MetaBrainz Community and Development channel | MusicBrainz non-development: #musicbrainz | BookBrainz: #bookbrainz | Channel is logged; see https://musicbrainz.org/doc/IRC for details | Agenda: Reviews, personal data in edit history (reo)
CatQuest
🚆
Freso
Thank you all for your time. Be sure to stay hydrated and be kind to yourselves!
</BANG>
yvanzo
Thanks!
lucifer
oh well, i spent over half an hour trying to figure out where a stray connection was coming from. only to realise that I hadn't cleared my terminal from a few hours ago. 🤦
