I sometimes look at the edit history of a question, mostly when something smells "off" in the way it is written. I took a look at the history of this question and it seems like the editor has "writer's envy": the edits do little more than rephrase (poorly in my opinion: how do you "hover a user's question"?) what has already been clearly asked.
Is this a misunderstanding of the purpose of editing on the editor's part? Hubris? Rep whoring? Something else?
Am I just being picky here? It bugs me because I respect an individual's writing "voice" and edits merely for style seem a violation of that. SO/SE isn't about literature per se and so long as the writing is clear, without any glaring grammatical errors, what is the point of making these kind of edits?
In my arbitrary sampling of edits I've seen many instances of this – even one edit which replaced all the contractions (e.g. "I am" for "I'm") – because I guess the editor didn't like contractions. Don't like my use of an "em dash" in the last sentence? Fine, but don't you have better things to do?