What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 150 Stack Exchange communities.

When a moderator edits a question, it shouldn't be reversible by a regular user. For instance, a mod sees a flag about a 1-rep user ranting in their post, and edits the post to get rid of it. If that 1-rep user returns and re-edits to insert the rant again, that mod won't know unless someone else re-flags.

I would suggest that it require a substantial amount of rep to change a post once a moderator has edited it. Possibly even restrict this ability to 10k users.

Edit: Perhaps, rather than blocking completely, any edits thereafter by low rep users (the level of rep being in question), those edits just go into the edit queue for review and approval by users with the required rep.

share|improve this question
Seems like a good idea in theory, but then the bullets start flying. Would you then become responsible for all edits to the question? If another user asks for clarification, the original poster could not provide it. – Anthony Pegram Dec 27 '11 at 17:58
Couldn't you just use a timed lock if the user wrote something that suggested they were going to be abusive? I guess that would have its own problems... Still, it seems very risky to block most people from editing because, for example, Marc fixed a typo when he was answering someone's question. – Tim Stone Dec 27 '11 at 18:00
@AnthonyPegram: Good point, one that will probably torpedo this request. Thanks. I guess 10k is too high. Maybe drop it down to the 2k region. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 18:02
@TimStone: Timed block, possibly. Or the edit would just go into the proposed edit queue until a user with enough rep can ensure it isn't ranty. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 18:02
Dude, mods are like monkeys with guns. That isn't awesome nor infallible. – BalusC Dec 27 '11 at 18:23
Isn't that why we have the locking feature? – NullUserException อ_อ Dec 27 '11 at 18:43
@Chichiray: Huh? Monkeys with guns are both awesome and (at least from their perspective) infallible. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 18:50
@Null lock every single edit just in case the user rolls it back? Not feasible. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 18:50
I vote for the checkbox that says "Notify me of additional edits to this post." This could also be useful when posting new questions and answers, with a "Notify me of any edits to my post." – animuson Dec 27 '11 at 19:26
The potential unintended consequences seem disastrous. For instance, you edit a lot of titles. Just by virtue of you touching the titles, the bodies would no longer see improvement by the original askers. – Farray Dec 27 '11 at 20:10
@Farray: Um, I think we've addressed this in the evolution of answers and comments. Specifically, the edit goes into the edit queue so that any user with the minimum rep would be able to accept. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 20:13
RE your edit, isn't that exactly how all edits work for low rep users? Which already seems like a suitable solution to me... – Ben Brocka Dec 27 '11 at 20:16
@BenBrocka: Uh, not on their own posts. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 20:17
True, but...why would you block edits on one's own post, ever? One should always be able to edit their own post, no one knows as much about the problem prompting the question as the asker. – Ben Brocka Dec 27 '11 at 20:19
@BenBrocka: Again, it is supposed to be a level of block inbetween "user can revert mod edits" and "mod locks post forever and ever". So 1) low rep user (<2k?) rants 2) mod edits 3) low rep user tries to revert 4) edit goes into the edit queue 5) >2k users see rant in the edit queue and deny the edit. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 20:22

2 Answers 2


Moderators can lock posts. That's pretty much the ultimate "don't touch mah edits!" If you don't feel you need to lock, then act like a normal user and let your edit stand or fall according to the whims of the OP.

Of course, locking also implicitly closes the question, which isn't always desirable... But if there's a real need for locking edits on open questions, I think we need to support that as an explicit moderator option - not implicit protection on every edit a moderator happens to make.

share|improve this answer
I'm for that as well. I don't want to lock a post for X hours because I think the user might roll it back. Also, the locks say when they are lifted, so anyone planning on rolling back will just wait. Having something between "user clowns mod by rolling back edits" and "fascist mods ripped my flesh" would be nice. – Won't Dec 27 '11 at 18:48
Well, if a user is determined to subvert a moderator's actions, they can pretty much always manage to do so - or at least, chew up unacceptable amounts of moderator time trying. So really, you want to be sending them increasingly strong messages to the effect of "don't do that" until they either get it, or you end up suspending them for not getting it. – Shog9 Dec 27 '11 at 19:28

One possible middle-ground would be to disable only the option to roll back the mod edit, but leave other editing possible. This would mean that in order for a user to reinsert inappropriate content, they would have to retype it all instead of just getting one-click satisfaction. That may be enough of a deterrent to keep crap from getting reinserted, but it would still let them edit in additional information as needed.

share|improve this answer
Copy-paste from the original...only slightly more work than clicking "roll back" – cdeszaq Jan 6 '12 at 16:41
Many users are unaware of the roll back feature, and submit an edit with copy-pasted text already. This is a small deterrent if it's a deterrent at all. – Kevin Vermeer Jan 6 '12 at 17:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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