I'm looking at a user whose edit suggestions simply consist of unnecessary bold formatting. Some of these edits are getting rejected, correctly, but the vast majority of their edits that are getting approved are all decisions by the owners of the posts being edited, either
overruling any and all third-party reviewer decisions regardless of how many reject votes an edit receives, or immediately committing the edit before anyone else has a chance to
It's nice that these post owners are accepting formatting edits graciously, but when the editor is making poor formatting edits claiming them to be improvements, their naïve decisions actually encourage the editor to continue making these poor edits in spite of other reviewers repeatedly thumbing them down.
users making appropriate edits that get approved by other reviewers but
rejected by post owners can get
banned from making further edits when they shouldn't be. This usually happens when the post owner doesn't understand the principles
behind the site, and thinks it's not OK for other users to be editing their posts.
I'm not proposing removing this
feature entirely, because it's not the fault of the post owner — in most cases, they don't know better. But if their decisions are protecting bad editors from rejections and bans, or
causing good editors to be banned from making further edits, I'm proposing that the
system simply not consider owner decisions for the purposes of determining edit bans. Edits with no other decision except by the owner should be