92

This edit was approved and should not have been. Is there some way to change it to rejected at this point?

13
  • 8
    Theoretically you could reject it as the post owner according to this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/178340/… – Don't Panic Jun 3 '19 at 19:55
  • 1
    I don't know if it still works after you rolled back the edit, maybe that counts as a subsequent edit. – Don't Panic Jun 3 '19 at 19:55
  • 42
    The revision message "modified logic when there are negative numbers in an array" seems strange for a whitespace only edit, perhaps the editor forgot to include something. – user000001 Jun 4 '19 at 9:55
  • 5
    Yeah my hunch is they forgot to update the code as the comment suggests the code does not cope with negative numbers? – user1761806 Jun 4 '19 at 12:09
  • 53
    Someone's getting points for a pointless edit??? Oh dear. – TrebledJ Jun 4 '19 at 13:37
  • 11
    The edit wasn’t just pointless: It appears to be spam. Note that the edit message is complete nonsense. It appears that the user is simply attempting to gain points via spammy edits. This behaviour should probably be penalised (that said, it appears to be the user’s first such action). – Konrad Rudolph Jun 4 '19 at 13:51
  • 7
    (The answer is indeed wrong for some negative array, I pointed it out in a comment under the answer.) – user202729 Jun 4 '19 at 15:01
  • 3
    @user000001 technically, he added backticks fencing, not whitespaces. See markdown view. – Braiam Jun 5 '19 at 5:44
  • 12
    @KonradRudolph: It's best to assume good faith. A possible scenario: he made an edit, then realized during the grace period that the edit was wrong, and then restored the original code, while forgetting to remove the fences. – user000001 Jun 5 '19 at 6:43
  • Interesting detail: The editor wrote "modified logic when there are negative numbers in an array" but there's absolutely no logic changed. – klutt Jun 5 '19 at 12:11
  • 1
    hot cross-ref on meta.meta.stackoverflow.com: pointless question answered :P – Eliran Malka Jun 6 '19 at 13:58
  • @KonradRudolph: I tend to agree. All of this user's edits so far (four at this time) hit on one or more of the reasons I would reject an edit. I hesitate to raise a flag but maybe they should be notified before they get carried away and suspended. – Cᴏʀʏ Jun 6 '19 at 15:24
  • 6
    I actually find it worse that two reviewers approved the edit despite the pointless content and the incorrect message. We may assume good faith for the editor but I don't see many excuses for the reviewers. – Marvin Jun 6 '19 at 18:20
59

Yes, moderators and OPs have overriding powers when a suggested edit has been reviewed and binding vote when it is still pending reviewing.

I see you are the OP. You can reject the edit - there should be a button at the top saying Reject. Click it and the edit will be rejected. However, you have now rolled back that edit, so there wouldn't be any button I suppose.

Some additional hunting: you can go and search suggestor's suggestion history to find other smelly stuff and flag one of their posts for moderator intervention. You can do the same for reviewers. But this is endless...

7
  • 52
    There is an important point for rejecting that edit, even after the rollback: teaching the editor that such an edit is not appreciated. That's important imo, if bad edits get approved, that behavior gets rewarded while it shouldn't be. – Erik A Jun 3 '19 at 20:38
  • 51
    Unfortunately the OP rolled back the edit, instead of rejecting the suggested edit. Any subsequent edit removes the “reject” option, including rollbacks. – Martijn Pieters Jun 3 '19 at 23:12
  • 28
    "you can go and search suggestor's suggestion history to find other smelly stuff" - I don't think there is a need for that. The user "had 1 edit suggestion approved, and 0 edit suggestions rejected". You can see these stats, along with the stats for the reviewers when you click (more) at the bottom of the list of reviewers in the suggested edit screen. – VLAZ Jun 4 '19 at 8:44
  • 23
    @ErikA Those who APPROVED the edit should be taught that they did something wrong – klutt Jun 5 '19 at 12:09
  • @Broman In some cases they are -- moderators have been known to reach out to people with a history/pattern of approving bad/harmful edits to let them know, either by literally mod-messaging them, review banning them, or both. In the event of a single bad edit approval, though, it's almost never worth it. – TylerH Jun 5 '19 at 13:41
  • @ErikA people will always find ways to break out of the box, why bother with the edit when it basicly does not change anything. Instead, OP and editor get some reputation – clockw0rk Jun 6 '19 at 15:22
  • @clockw0rk, reputation is a reward for doing things that benefit the site and community. Enough of it confers capabilities on the recipient that are intended to be contingent on them having demonstrated an interest in and ability to perform beneficial work. It is therefore completely appropriate to go to some length to squash abuses of the system such as the subject of this question. – John Bollinger Jun 6 '19 at 18:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/385734/pointless-edit-approved
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-25
150712
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:UFEM2S5N64I6TSZ7S3OHO2HR6FOZLLXD
<urn:uuid:28ad80af-902b-4414-a008-0011214d92f6>
2021-06-15T14:23:13Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:3QPOCZGEDNAW4MFJ4NO6WS3WKBGDMXUJ
<urn:uuid:0451acf6-86ca-40af-8b7e-4427d483f6c4>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/385734/pointless-edit-approved
response
<urn:uuid:9ac5b2cb-77ed-4f58-ae28-c5237fab978e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-25
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-19.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/