Timeline for Abuse "Reject-and-Edit" to reject singlehandedly
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2020 at 13:42 | comment | added | halrankard | The same user who applied "reject and edit" in the first four edits you list just "rejected and edited" one of my edits, which had already been approved by one person. In this case, the user applied the same edits as me (fixing latex) and then added more of their own. This seems like a case for "Improve" rather than "reject and edit", which erases my contribution and participation in the community. The edit is here: math.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1416188 | |
| May 23, 2020 at 14:14 | comment | added | Later | related | |
| Apr 5, 2019 at 5:23 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 58 characters in body
|
| Mar 31, 2019 at 7:51 | vote | accept | Andrews | ||
| Mar 30, 2019 at 18:10 | answer | added | quidMod | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 24, 2019 at 4:32 | comment | added | Andrews | @YuiToCheng Actually, as you can see, I explain my reason for edit every time in comment, but I find less care about it. | |
| Mar 24, 2019 at 4:30 | comment | added | YuiTo Cheng | @Andrews So you may clarify it in the edit summary next time. | |
| Mar 24, 2019 at 4:27 | comment | added | Andrews | @YuiToCheng If so, the user can doubt the legality in comment and reject, rather than reject and edit trivially to reject singlehandedly. | |
| Mar 24, 2019 at 4:24 | comment | added | YuiTo Cheng | For edit 1, maybe the user who rejected your edit was worried about the legality of your link (copyright issue)? | |
| Mar 24, 2019 at 4:04 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 175 characters in body
|
| Mar 23, 2019 at 23:42 | comment | added | Andrews | @jgon I will write it in comment every time when I retag, maybe it's often ignored. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 23:39 | comment | added | jgon | @Andrews I agree that the retagging was beneficial (imo) in both cases, I meant that it's possible that the retagging went unnoticed because of the minor edits to the body of the post in both cases. I.e., in 3 and 4 you made minor edits to the body and you also retagged. If the retagging was missed because of the changes to the body, that might explain the rejection. Idk, my goal was to attempt provide a plausible, non-abusive explanation for the reject and edits. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 23:34 | comment | added | Andrews | @jgon Yes, the same user. And he tends to reject retagging edits, see undates in this post. I think #4 is much different than #3, #3 may not be necessary enough, but #4 is substantive, it's a problem from complex analysis actually. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 18:50 | comment | added | jgon | That said, I don't understand why edit 1 was rejected at all, that seems valuable. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 18:49 | comment | added | jgon | Edit 4 may be the same as edit 3. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 18:48 | comment | added | jgon | As for edit 3, it's possible that the frankly irrelevant changes you made to the body of the post distracted from the valuable retagging. Based on the actual edit, it's likely that the person rejecting was going to reject anyway and noticed a minor edit that they wanted to make, so they decided to reject and edit. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 18:45 | comment | added | jgon | That said, some of the reject-and-edits were imo reasonable, in the sense that I probably would have rejected the edit and made the same changes. (#2) in particular. I find your edit lost the meaning of the original post, whereas the actual edit was more conservative. Regardless, don't bother editing posts without context like that one, since they will be closed anyway. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 18:41 | comment | added | jgon | I am concerned that Edits 1-4 were all Reject-and-edited by the same user. | |
| Mar 23, 2019 at 7:10 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 126 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 23:50 | comment | added | gparyani | This seems like an abuse of the "Reject and Edit" button. It's an intentional feature that should only be used if the reviewer plans to replace it with a different edit. If you notice a user abusing this button to double their vote without performing a substantive edit, flag one of their posts for mod attention and explain the problem; mods can issue a manual review ban and warnings. | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 21:56 | vote | accept | Andrews | ||
| Mar 31, 2019 at 7:51 | |||||
| Mar 22, 2019 at 21:29 | answer | added | Arctic Char | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 21:06 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 83 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 20:58 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 83 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 20:35 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 83 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 17:31 | history | edited | quidMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed mention of a user, not necessary and likely to cause conflict
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 16:33 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 551 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 13:36 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 19 characters in body
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 11:27 | history | edited | Asaf KaragilaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 11:25 | history | edited | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body; edited title
|
| Mar 22, 2019 at 11:23 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I don't think this has anything to do with "trusted users". | |
| Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 | history | asked | Andrews | CC BY-SA 4.0 |