4

I had a suggested edit to one of my posts here:

The editor involved already knew that, because of my baby-level knowledge of syntax, I believe that the phrase One of the main problems is the Subject in the sentence in the question:

  • One of the main problems was people doing X.

Because they disagreed with me about this, they decided to rewrite my post so that it reflected their own interesting idea of the grammar.

What can we do about edits that flagrantly ignore the author's intent? Can we have a wall of shame, please? Or a ducking stool or something?


Note: If you fancy a giggle, read the edit summary given by the editor!

  • 1
    I'm not certain, but I think if someone has enough edit suggestions rejected then they might be restricted from editing in the future? – curiousdannii Jan 5 '16 at 11:52
  • 2
    Or, if necessary, moderators can restrict a user from suggesting edits. That action will only happen for a sustained run of rejections, though. – Andrew Leach Jan 5 '16 at 12:09
  • @AndrewLeach Thanks for the response. I must admit I'd prefer a ducking stool though ;) – Araucaria Jan 5 '16 at 12:17
  • @Mari-LouA I think that was just an absent-minded slip (Ricky already had a chat with me). I've accidentally approved something before and then had to go and roll back the edit myself :/ – Araucaria Jan 5 '16 at 13:09
  • As they say in Italian "Mah?" I don't know, that was such a huge change to the original it's difficult to make such a mistake. A change in tense, a spelling correction which is actually incorrect etc. those edits can slip through the net but that one? All I know is that good edits which should be approved sometimes aren't, and trivial edits are nearly always approved. And I myself have approved of trivial edits because at least they didn't do any harm. – Mari-Lou A Jan 5 '16 at 13:16
  • 1
    That edit I mentioned previously? It was approved, the full stop was moved before the end of the speech marks. Words fail me. If Ricky realized his mistake, then that's fine. – Mari-Lou A Jan 5 '16 at 13:33
  • Dude, that is so uncool...to take your answer and rewrite it and then add their own 200 words. It's almost criminal. No wait, it is. Was this edit accepted? – michael_timofeev Jan 5 '16 at 14:57
  • @michael The edit is shown in the link in the post above. Green on the right-hand side is new; red on the left-hand side is deleted. – Andrew Leach Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
  • 1
    @Rathony anyone, anonymous, unregistered, a stray cat can suggest edits that's why we have the queue, just to make sure that nobody abuses the system. Think if the user who suggested that (vengeful?) edit on Araucaria's post had enough rep not to have his edit reviewed. Think if it had been on a post that was two years old written by someone who was no longer active on the site. It just shows you that it's not just low-rep users who take advantage of the system. – Mari-Lou A Jan 5 '16 at 16:50
  • 2
    @michael_timofeev 50 characters that's a lot, sometimes a typo and a little reformatting take up about, what, 10 characters? The edit didn't pass through, the system "worked", if it had passed through, somebody would have noticed it. Users who review edits need to be trained, that's what needs to be done! :) This is all voluntary work, nobody gets paid to ask, answer, review, edit or tidy up. You can only warn the user not to repeat that malicious edit. If he/she does, then they get suspended. – Mari-Lou A Jan 5 '16 at 17:01
  • 1
  • 1
    @Mitch I don't really have a complaint about the system - although the ducking stool would seem appropriate to me. But the intent of the editor here was to deliberately overwrite someone else's answer because they disagreed with it. The fact that they displayed total ignorance about elementary grammar is not what worries me, I think what I wanted most was to verify that this kind of behaviour is completely out of order. If it happened several times, I wanted to know what would happen. I got good answers in the comments, and so I am happy. I agree that the review system worked well here. – Araucaria Jan 6 '16 at 14:46
  • 1
    I've never defended vandalism. You should migrate this to SO (because this is ELU-agnostic; it would affect the entire SO software). Also, activity of the kind you suggested doing yourself in your deleted comments (like frivolous edits) are bannable offenses. – Mitch Jan 6 '16 at 20:41
  • 1
    @Mitch Are you being serious? I cut my comments down because there was just way too much here. For the record, I said "can I do the same kind of thing to your posts?" Exactly what is "bannable" about that? And you have defended vandalism. The reason that you say that what I wrote is "bannable" is because I satirically asked you whether you would give me permission to frivolously edit your posts. Asking you to idiotically give me permission to do so, is just to point out that it would be idiotic of you to do so. It's not to be able to carry out the kind of idiotic vandalism that you support. – Araucaria Jan 6 '16 at 20:54
  • 1
    @Mitch Did you actually read the edit comment by the editor? – Araucaria Jan 6 '16 at 20:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .