Did Community really approve the awful edits here https://english.stackexchange.com/posts/221888/revisions ?
If not, what was Community's role in the edit history?
-
haha...Community is the worst – Mitch Oct 29 '17 at 22:18
-
Well, yes and no. The Community moderator is a bot, and it automatically approves any edit by somebody with over 2000 reputation points, because they earned that privilege and trust. If I am reading the suggested edits correctly, it looks like the people who suggested these edits had enough rep. to force it through their vandalism without any real review. Regardless, just because you earn a privilege, does not mean you necessarily deserve it or ca not abuse it, so I'd suggest we watch this question for a while and roll back any vandalism. – Tonepoet Oct 29 '17 at 22:18
-
@Tonepoet Mari-Lou already rolled it back, removing the tendentious commentary. – Mitch Oct 29 '17 at 22:19
-
1@Mitch That's true, but there were multiple parties involved, and she's not the first person to need to roll it back (tchrist did so already in rev. 4, and rev. 5 was another vandalism attempt). It seems like this question is prone to vandalism for some reason, and may be vandalized yet again, hence the need to continually watch it, well, unless it's deleted anyway. Deletion seems rather likely given its current form isn't up to snuff regardless. – Tonepoet Oct 29 '17 at 22:23
-
@Tonepoet ?? I don't understand. Deletion of what seems likely to you? The rolled back answer is fine (no downvotes), and the question itself doesn't even have downvotes. Also, for those over 2000, the edit isn't labeled with 'Community' but with the editor's name. (there's some other circumstance to get it labeled 'Community'...mods, explanation? – Mitch Oct 29 '17 at 22:31
-
@Mitch The question, since there's little effort put into it, including the lack of the requisite contextual sentence. However, that can be disregarded, since it was based upon having another version of the question open in another window, which didn't have a highly voted upon and accepted answer, so I didn't see anything that was worth preserving until now. Also, what I'm looking at is the revision history of the post. Revision 2 and 5 in particular. The community approved those, but if you click on the edit approved links, it seems like Richard Kayser made rev. 2, and J. Taylor made rev. 5. – Tonepoet Oct 29 '17 at 22:41
-
@Tonepoet That's irrelevant to the small-c community's opinion of those things. Voting, not your opinion, is what counts. – Mitch Oct 29 '17 at 22:44
The edits were only approved because a user with edit privileges clicked "improve edit". When this happens, the Community user gets the credit for approving the original edit because only moderators can unilaterally approve (or reject) edits. The reviewer's own edit is the one that comes immediately after.
You can see the review history of an approved edit by clicking "edit approved". You will see something like this:
Reviewer reviewed this X hours ago: Edit
Community♦ reviewed this X hours ago: Approve
In this screen, the reviewer who decided to "improve edit" is the one listed as taking the "Edit" action.
Community may take credit for rejecting edits when a user chooses "reject and edit". Here's a recent edit I rejected and edited. You'll see something like this:
Reviewer reviewed this X days ago: Reject and Edit
Community♦ reviewed this X days ago: RejectThis edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed.
