As mentioned in a comment on an other post

Indeed. There are some either really stubborn or really stupid users who keep suggesting the same edit to the same post over and over again until it gets approved by some unwitting robo-reviewers. – BoltClock's a Unicorn Feb 18 at 17:24

My idea

So that why I think it will be great to block users to suggest same edit twice if the first one was already rejected by reviewers...

I know that it would store a lot of datas, but maybe with a lifetime for storing old edits, you will be able to avoid most of bad re-edit!

Alternative proposal

So thanks to comments, an acceptable solution can be implemented :
edit-bans like flag-bans which have already proved its usefulness.

The idea is to suspend the suggest-edit right after some warnings if the user get too many declined edits in the same question. The right may be suspended generally or only for the targeted post...

  • 1
    Suggested edits are already kept even if rejected (at least for a while), I don't think this would increase data store size. (But would increase complexity/cost of course.) – Mat May 2 '14 at 9:26
  • 15
    No, sometimes a good edit is being rejected, so auto blocking isn't a good idea in my opinion. I would prefer to have some kind of automatic moderator flag when same edit is rejected 2-3 times in a row, so a mod can warn the "offending" user. – Shadow The Curly Braced Wizard May 2 '14 at 9:46
  • 1
    @JoDev : What about making edit-bans instead, if too many suggested-edits are rejected, like with flag-bans? In flagging, good flags can also be rejected. – user2284570 May 2 '14 at 11:02
  • @user2284570 Yes, why not! But in my mind, I was thinking more of an automated process! To limit human's charge... – JoDev May 2 '14 at 12:48
  • @ShadowWizard : I understand that, but if the same user has editted few times the same post, and was rejected each time, I think that this edit could be flag as bad, and the user could be blocked to edit this post for few minutes... you don't think so? – JoDev May 2 '14 at 12:49
  • 1
    @JoDev : I don't understand : It is completely automated when you are banned from flagging : It happen automatically when declined flags reach a percentage in recent flags : see meta.stackexchange.com/a/175405/242800 . – user2284570 May 2 '14 at 15:51
  • @user2284570 : You're right! Sorry for the lack of understanding! So yes, it will be a good idea, and it would does the trick! – JoDev May 2 '14 at 15:58
  • 1
    @JoDev : Puisque très peu de gens votent pour votre qestion et que les « flag-bans » ont prouvé pleinement leur efficacité : vous devriez vraiment mettre à jour votre question dès maintenant, en changeant votre proposition pour inclure l'autre possibilité comme alternative à votre suggestion. (lacks of understanding from you : your native langage should be better) – user2284570 May 2 '14 at 19:05
  • @user2284570 Thank you for helping me. I've changed the post to correctly highlight the edit-bans solution. Was that what you asked me to do? And about your last comment, thank you for the translation but what do you mean by "ont prouvé leur efficacité"? flag-bans already does the trick for you? And the answer will just be to add another particular flag to handle bad edit and not only bad post? – JoDev May 5 '14 at 9:20
  • Should we really discard as ludicrous the (admittedly small) possibility that a) The proposer is right and therefore re-submits it or b) The proposer has no clue it was rejected instead of just not entered into the system (that can happen on some sites)? Maybe add a big warning if a previous edit on the same question was rejected (I don't know if it's already done)? – Deduplicator May 5 '14 at 12:37
  • @user2284570 I really want to keep the idea that sometimes, user who make bad edit for a post can make a good one for another post! That why I think it will be great to ban just for the poorly edited post. – JoDev May 6 '14 at 8:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .