-1
$\begingroup$

Recently I edited a post and it was approved by the COMMUNITY. But some other user(I won't mention the name) felt the edit was not perfect and re-edited it.

Till now, it is fine.

Then I felt that this re-edit was unnecessary. So I went for a rollback.

Again , fine till now.

But now I found that this rollback of mine was REJECTED. Okay I might be wrong in my edit opinion. BUT I WAS REJECTED BY THE SAME USER WHO HAD DONE THE RE-EDIT.How is it possible?

It is quite obvious that a person will favour his own edit more than mine and reject mine (with or without bias). You can check it from these 2 pages:here and here.

So that is my question. How can a reviewer also be the editor of the same post?

Should there not be some kind of a feature prohibiting this kind of thing?

No offence to anyone,please.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

With reputation come certain privileges - including the privilege to edit without review, and the privilege to review others' edits.

The idea is that higher-reputation folks have earned that reputation - something the FAQ calls "a measure of how much the community trusts you". So I think it's a deliberate design choice - not a bug.

And in the case of the edit in question - using $\times$ instead of $\cdot$ is indeed generally considered wrong; it's not something to get into an edit war over. Especially when the question has many downvotes and is closed...

Incidentally - as far as I can tell from the edit history, when Sebastian encountered your edit, he did not approve it; instead he improved (in his opinion) your edit. Since he has sufficient reputation, his edit was automatically approved (by "Community" - that is a bot of sorts). Thus, your edit never really "made it"; it was the edit of the edit that really was approved (but this showed up as two separate edits, so that your own effort was still visible).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I again repeat.. my edit might be wrong..that is not the point. The question focuses on whether there should be an alternative to this or not. There is no war involved here. And the word "Deliberate" seems to be a little confusing..I mean there should be at least some higher requirement for this...that is, a moderator. Is my request by any means illogical? $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Sep 17 '15 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Aniket - see my updated answer. Maybe that clarifies it more. $\endgroup$ – Floris Sep 17 '15 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ Please check this link physics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/98176. I am only a member of 26 days so I might not know but doesn't this mean that my edit was approved by the community?(approval by community is supposed to approve the edit all alone.) So no more approval was at all required. $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Sep 17 '15 at 19:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I looked at that page. You will see both an edit and an approval, with the same time stamp. "Community" with a diamond after it is an automatic approval (because the last person editing was a trusted user). That's how this happened, I think. $\endgroup$ – Floris Sep 17 '15 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Aniket - As Floris mentions, "community" is not a real person, it is a bot. The way (I understand how) this process works is - 1) suggested edits require approval from 2 people, 2) users with >2k rep can both edits posts themselves, and review others' edits (and can also improve suggested edits), 3) if such a reviewer chooses to edit a suggested edit, because he has the editing privilege, his version (and not the original edit) goes through, 4) this improved edit also "requires" 2 approvals, and in this event, the second user turns out to be the community bot, because any user ... (contd.) $\endgroup$ – 299792458 Sep 18 '15 at 4:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (contd.) ... need not manually approve the improved edit, the editor himself had the editing privileges that come with 2k rep score. Thus, community is more of a signature, the bot that steps in to "approve" the improved edit, just a rule-keeping device. Also, in this case, the edit signature below the post goes to the person who improved the edit. $\endgroup$ – 299792458 Sep 18 '15 at 4:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ PS - (Just in case, this point is getting missed or isn't clear) Please note that >2k rep members do not get +2 rep for editing, unlike the <2k members. Thus, there is not malicious rep-harvesting on the part of such editors, their improvement is solely for the purpose of improving the post (or perhaps, getting the Copy-Editor badge). But it is more like a free service (in the sense that there is no rep gain involved.) $\endgroup$ – 299792458 Sep 18 '15 at 4:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheDarkSide Thanks, that was a wonderful answer , no doubt about it. +1 for all your comments and had you put it as an answer, I would have accepted it. All doubts cleared. $\endgroup$ – SchrodingersCat Sep 18 '15 at 10:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Aniket that these comments by @TheDarkSide deserve to be an answer. I would upvote it... $\endgroup$ – Floris Sep 18 '15 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Aniket See the Meta Stack Exchange post on edit reviews by the Community user. What happened here is that Sebastian clicked Improve Edit and posted his own revision after (the Community user) approved yours. If you have questions on site mechanics and this meta doesn't clear them up, try looking on MSE. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '15 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ Touching off on a couple of points which haven't been mentioned in detail. 2k+ users are 'trusted' in that they've been here long enough to (i) recognize trivial edits which don't really improve the post and which simply litter the front page, (ii) leave alone such posts, and (iii) not engage in 'edit wars'. Note that our threshold for edit wars is really low, because all edits bump posts up the front page. Rolling back an edit (particularly for cosmetic reasons) without previous discussion in the comments is frowned upon. Talk it out in comments or bring it up on meta before you roll back. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Sep 18 '15 at 11:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .