What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Often when I review suggested edits, I see edits that makes the post worse. Typically they changes the format to worse (adding stuff in bold which makes no sense, putting things that aren't code in code tags, etc.), introduces new spelling mistakes, etc.

When rejecting these edits I'm left with two choices: Either check 'vandalism' (which in most of the cases isn't appropriate), or write a custom rejection reason. As this is by far my most common reason of selecting custom, I suggest that "changed the post to the worse" should be a separate option for rejecting a suggested edit.

share|improve this question
5  
I'm getting more and more tempted to actually tick vandalism for random word highlighting and things like this. –  ben is uǝq backwards Jan 15 '13 at 8:56

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I think there are too many rejection reasons already... I'd rather not have any more.

Most people seem to tick "too minor".

enter image description here

I've taken to using "custom" with this message:

Please do not randomly highlight random words. See Reject an already-approved suggested edit when rolling it back

Don't forget there's another option. You can Improve the post and uncheck the "Suggest Edit was Helpful option".

share|improve this answer
    
We have just enough reasons, true. As for improve, it's a real headache as you are faced with the wreck left by the edit suggestion and need to clean it yourself, maybe opening the original version in different tab. Too much hassle, better wait until the edit is rejected (hopefully) and then make your edit on clean canvas. :-) –  Shadow Wizard Jan 15 '13 at 9:07
    
Or more likely rollback the previous edit and then do it @sha :-). –  ben is uǝq backwards Jan 15 '13 at 9:11
    
If it's too many reasons, maybe removing the 'copied content' option is a good idea? I've reviewed 1000 suggested edits, and never seen copied content in an edit (I've seen it in new posts, but never as an edit). –  Aleksander Blomskøld Jan 15 '13 at 10:05
    
Aleksander, I've rejected copied content a good deal. It is almost always on tag edits, where people plagiarise the corresponding Wikipedia entry without giving credit. –  Emil Vikström Jan 15 '13 at 10:09
    
Guess I know who to blame for the downvotes I'm getting on my question today. –  BoltClock's a Unicorn Jan 15 '13 at 10:28
    
You've already got a gold badge @bolt; you'll survive :-). –  ben is uǝq backwards Jan 15 '13 at 10:34
    
Depending on the character of the change, I've ticked "Too minor" for things like this (fixing formatting while leaving significant grammar, punctuation and/or spelling errors; "too minor" to me implies that the edit fell short of the work the post needed) and "invalid edit" for others (i.e. introducing grammatical errors while "cleaning up formatting"; this reads "invalid" as "incorrect"). "Improving" has, a few too many times, led to my changes being rejected because the original edit was approved by others before I finished improving. –  pjmorse Jan 15 '13 at 18:36

'Vandalism' isn't the only rejection reason listed by that radio option, there is also defaces the post in some way. Incorrectly formatting, new spelling mistakes and incorrect code tagging all count as 'defacing' in my book - even if it is done with the best intentions. In any case it is certainly otherwise inappropriate.

enter image description here:

share|improve this answer
    
This post disagrees with you: meta.stackexchange.com/a/137231/190750 it says that 'vandalism is malicious'. –  Aleksander Blomskøld Jan 15 '13 at 9:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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