29

Currently, once an edit by a user without full edit privilege is suggested, it can be either approved or rejected.

There is a known edge case that cause suggested edits to get auto rejected: (aka edit conflict)

  1. User with full edit privilege click "edit" and start typing. Let's name this user Joe.
  2. Since the user from previous step did not yet send the edit, users without full edit privilege can still click the "edit" as well, oblivious to the fact someone else is editing the same post in those very seconds. Such user click "edit" too and start typing. Let's name this user Kenny.
  3. Kenny is faster than Joe: he send his edit first, creating new suggested edit. Joe is still typing.
  4. Joe finally done typing. He send his edit to its merry way oblivious to the consequences.
  5. As result of the full edit made by Joe, Kenny's suggested edit is kicked away and rejected. Boom.

This is all known and reported many times. Recent example where the user got it hard with at least two auto rejections in short period of time. Some concrete examples: one, two, three.

For edge case, it became pretty thick edge. This is not just minor hassle: enough rejections, and the user is banned from suggesting for a whole week: and remember we're talking here about good edits made by good users.
The above used to count for the ban, but no longer do. Thanks Gilles for requesting such a change!

I know it was already suggested to lock edits and similar solutions, but I suggest whole different approach: instead of auto rejecting the suggested edit, dismiss it, i.e. cancel it like it never existed same way a bounty can be revoked by moderator.

In the edit suggestion page it will show "Dismissed" instead of Approved or Rejected maybe with a tooltip explaining what caused this. This will soften the blow from those edge cases, taking the edge out of them. :)

13
  • 7
    It is possible that rejections by Community are not factored into the automatic ban... Do you have any proof that Community rejections count? Mar 12, 2013 at 13:38
  • @MartijnPieters possible but not very likely.. if that's the case no need for what I suggest of course. :) Mar 12, 2013 at 13:39
  • 2
    Why is it not likely? I know the devs of SE are all human, but don't dismiss the possibility they already thought of excluding auto-rejections by Community from the ban script. Mar 12, 2013 at 13:50
  • As Yannis love to say... proof or it does not exist. ;) Mar 12, 2013 at 14:37
  • I am eagerly waiting for some official word on this ... else I would soon find myself being banned :( Another example
    – Apurv
    Mar 12, 2013 at 15:24
  • @Apurv for now you can simply wait five minutes before suggesting an edit, this is usually enough time for the other editors to do their part. Mar 12, 2013 at 16:09
  • Here The edit was suggested 20mins after the question was asked. Now a 2k+ user edited the question kicking out the suggested edit. This edit process surely needs some change
    – Apurv
    Mar 15, 2013 at 4:39
  • @Apurv agreed. Rejecting the suggested edit in such cases is wrong in my opinion, while can't have them approved either "dismissed" would be more suitable. Mar 15, 2013 at 7:35
  • @Sha Wiz Dow Ard, the link in you Bounty announcement just gets me a bunch of waffle. Aug 18, 2013 at 8:10
  • @Bill I know, I mentioned 10K only meaning it's deleted. Here is a screenshot though so <10K can see what I mean: i.stack.imgur.com/nswMu.png Aug 18, 2013 at 8:27
  • @MartijnPieters Rejections due to concurrent edits used to count for the ban, but no longer do. Aug 18, 2013 at 8:49
  • @Gilles thanks, didn't notice that! Prefer to have it embedded into the post though. This reduce the importance of my request, but would still be nice because of the other reasons I have. :) Aug 18, 2013 at 9:22
  • @MaikaSakuranomiya no, I should not. And friendly advise, do not ask this, especially not on meta sites. Cheers. Nov 6, 2019 at 8:33

2 Answers 2

5

Yes. I think it should be like this, too.

Here is the standard process that I would wish for:

  • If the reviewers choose to approve or improve edit, the edit should be approved.
  • If the suggested edit has been conflicted with another edit, the system should auto-mark it as dismissed.
  • If the reviewers choose to reject or reject and edit, it should be marked as rejected.
4

To add to User447378's answer, I would also like to propose the following:

Good (approved) edits:

  • Approve

  • Improve edit

Neutral (dismissed/invalidated) edits:

  • This edit conflicted with a subsequent edit.

  • This item is not/no longer reviewable. (Edit conflict due to rollback)

  • Post was locked - suggested edit cannot be processed. (Post locked - Example.)

Bad (rejected) edits:

  • Reject

  • Reject and edit

By using this method, it will make it more explicit that Reject and edit outcomes do count towards the ban, unlike the other auto-declined reasons.

3
  • 2
    Thanks, nice suggestion as well. Just curious, how did you find this 10 years old request? (You appear to be new to the network, so wonder how of all questions you landed here. :)) Apr 19 at 10:04
  • 2
    @ShadowTheSpringWizard This user is not new to the network, and this specific issue is one of the things that led to their previous year long suspension, and has directly led to their new year long suspension.
    – Rory Alsop
    Apr 20 at 21:21
  • @RoryAlsop sorry to hear, now this makes more sense. Can't see how such thing can lead to suspension, and sadly mods aren't allowed to discuss suspensions in depth, but all good, thanks for explaining what I asked. Apr 21 at 5:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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