How to know when a moderator action is binding?

Question

I just had an exchange with a moderator and now I am confused.

Said moderator had edited my post in the past. I claimed they used mod powers. They said they didn't, it could have been anybody, editing is a 2k privilege.

Technically, that is correct. Joe Random from the internet could edit my post, at 2k even without review.

But if Joe Random edited my post and I did not like it, I would just revert it. If a moderator edited my post, I had assumed that was somewhat binding. That technically I could roll it back, but it would get me into trouble, basically repeating my offense, which is never a good thing.

So to get into a real example, if a named moderator with a diamond edited my post, left the edit comment that says "Removed sentence implying [...]. This is offensive and alienating.", how am I supposed to treat that?

Is that a binding moderator edit that I should not roll back, or am I supposed to treat that like any Joe Random from the internet that I can just ignore, because editing is not a moderator-only privilege?

Sorry to ask this, because up to now it had seemed simple, but just now a moderator told me they are not to be taken more serious than Joe Random when they edit my posts, since it's a 2k privilege, not a mod power.

Answer 1

We will tell you. Many moderator tools are pretty much the same as a sufficiently high reputation user - and sometimes we might choose 'gentler' tools like edits or comments to try to encourage people to go a certain way.

If you see litter on the street, you could pick it up yourself or wait for someone to. The former is more civic, and sometimes our users may help deal with issues they see on the site by editing. (Naturally, if you see a dead body, call the cops. Likewise, if you see a major issue, flag!)

I feel we're not talking about a spelling error or grammar error being fixed (some folks are a little precious about those - but I don't think this is the case).

So to get into a real example, if a named moderator with a diamond edited my post, left the edit comment that says "Removed sentence implying [...]. This is offensive and alienating.", how am I supposed to treat that?

I think the reasoning is clear and that that's done with the goal of moving to post towards something acceptable towards community standards. The 'binding' nature isn't in the edit - it's in that we've told you what's wrong with it, and have attempted to resolve the issue in question. Practically you would have been told - and someone already made the attempt to resolve the issue in the gentlest way possible, considering the alternatives are flags (which you wouldn't see), deletion (which can come from flags) or suspension.

If Joe Random disagrees and you don't want to get into a rollback war, you could flag, and if a moderator feels it's valid we'll roll back, and deal with the inevitable mess. That said - we trust active, long standing members of the community to do so appropriately and will have a word with them if they abuse that trust. We're happy to take a look if so.

When a moderator does it - very often when it comes to matters like this, we've already discussed the issue internally, both in general and specificity. In some cases we do pull in staff if they are free for particularly messy cases. This isn't 'unique' to main meta, though we sometimes do need to deal with thornier issues.

Answer 2

How to know when a moderator action is binding?

Quite simple: Binding moderator actions are those that the community can't override. For example, our delete votes are binding. A post deleted by a moderator can't be undeleted by the community.

Close votes, and flags, are also often referred to as binding, because when a moderator uses them, they have an immediate effect.

Following that logic: Edits aren't binding, but locks for content disputes are.

But if Joe Random edited my post and I did not like it, I would just revert it. If a moderator edited my post, I had assumed that was somewhat binding.

Instead of saying that you don't take edits from Joe Random seriously but should take those of moderators seriously, I'm going to say you should take all edits seriously, whether they were by Joe Random or a moderator doesn't matter!

Okay, maybe not always. To add an example of when not to take an edit too seriously: I've once had someone edit the numbers I used in a post to words. No matter if that's Joe Random or a moderator, you can probably safely roll that back, smile, and file it away as a good anecdote for a future MSE answer.

But in general, most edits are honest attempts from other users to improve your post, and no matter if that user is Joe Random or a moderator, you should probably at least seriously consider the problem they were trying to fix before rolling back or making further edits.

So to get into a real example, if a named moderator with a diamond edited my post, left the edit comment that says "Removed sentence implying [...]. This is offensive and alienating.", how am I supposed to treat that?

And, from your comment:

could I have just rolled that back without any repercussions?

I personally would encourage people to take these kinds of edits in particular seriously, whether they were made by moderators or Joe Randoms. After all, if you roll back the edit from Joe Random, there's a good chance the same or another Joe Random might flag your post as offensive, or for a moderator to take a look.

Neither edits from moderators or Joe Randoms are binding, but instead of just rolling back, perhaps you can find a way to add the point you need to make back in again, without the implied things that led to it being removed for implying something that's offensive and alienating?

If you keep just rolling back an edit where other users or moderators seem to agree the sentence isn't adding anything to your post but offense and alienation, there may be consequences: your post ends up locked or deleted as rude/abusive. So by not taking the edit at least a tiny bit seriously, you're probably just creating more work.

I would personally say that starting a discussion on the site's meta is a suitable first step when you think an edit damaged your post in any way. No matter if that edit was made by Joe Random or a moderator: Then you know if there will be any possible repercussions to rolling back the edit.

Answer 3

For context, I have no diamond by my name, and thus can't offer an official statement regarding policy, so the opinion that follows may be trumped by an actual mod coming along. That said...

---

First off, I do think that your concern is a valid one. What I read from your post and comments isn't that Joe Random makes bad edits that you can unilaterally always overrule at your whim, but that Joe gets it wrong sometimes, especially when it comes to semantics (what's rude/ insensitive) rather than syntax (factually right or wrong information/ formatting), because semantics are a lot more about what you personally mean/ intend rather than about what's factually correct.

TL;DR - I think the only real answer here is that it depends, and context matters.

It's been established that moderator edits aren't special on a system level; they aren't recorded differently than edits by privileged users, and they can be rolled back just like a standard edit, with the exact same effects on the system level as rolling back any other edit.

But this isn't what you're asking about, because you're wondering whether a mod will penalize you for rolling back their edit, because, well, they're a mod, and as a form of authority, their actions should be considered with a little more reverence (I don't think this is wrong or misguided, as keepers of the site I think their actions and opinions should be taken with a little more reverence).

I really think the type of edit is the key matter here. Factual, syntactical edits are easy to judge-– they're either right, or they're wrong. If a mod makes an edit that adds/ changes/ removes info to be factually incorrect, then roll it back! No worries, nothing more to consider.

But if someone makes a semantic edit, one that softens something you said, or subtly changes the meaning, or removes something considered "rude," then this is a more complex decision. To be clear, if anyone changes the semantics of your post, in any way, you should carefully consider the change made, and whether it makes your post better. This is even more true for edits that remove something considered "rude," because hurting readers of your post will never, ever be a gain to you.

If you feel inclined to rollback an edit of this kind, you should be very, very certain that what was removed is invaluable to your post, and that it's worded in the best way possible, before you click that rollback button, mod editor or no. If a mod made this edit, I think that just means you should be extra, extra sure about this.

Is rolling back a mod edit an insta-ban? An instant warning? No, of course not. Just like any other edit, this is highly context dependent. At the end of the day, with every post you write: be careful, be smart, and be considerate to your readers. Take edits seriously. If your goal in the first place is to convey information rather than to attack or provoke, you'll likely be just fine.