I've noticed a number of edits with revision summaries such as the following.
- hit the wrong dang vote button. +1
- minor edit to undo upvote (see comments)
- Minor edit to undo downvote. This doesn't cover all cases (no upvote) but encouraging editing is good (no downvote)
- edit to undo accidental downvote
- not a feature, and minor edit so I can upvote instead of downvote
- fixed small error (down-vote -> up-vote)
- Fixed naming (but basically a dummy edit to allow me to revoke my earlier downvote)
- updated due to new information, and also so I can remove my downvote!
- Edited to allow me to cast my upvote
- I did intend to upvote this post too.
- Changing my vote
- no-op edit so downvote can be reversed
- no-op edit so that I can change my vote since there is an SE now...
- Urgent need to change my vote ;-)
- mostly editing to remove my downvote; see comments
- tiny edit mainly so I can re-upvote (I accidentally removed my vote after the last edit)
- Edited to change a miscast vote.
- vote change
- Edit so I can downvote it.
Is this acceptable behavior? Even if I have edit privileges on a Stack Exchange site, shouldn't my vote be locked in until someone else edits a post? If not, what's the point of locking votes in the first place if anyone with edit privileges can get around that "restriction" anyway?
Should we allow edits to reverse upvotes and downvotes?