Arbitrary deletion of reviewed and accepted edit

Question

A question was submitted by a new contributor. The question covered an advanced topic in matrix calculus and received a very good answer which provided detailed coverage of those topics. However the question was nevertheless closed. There was an option to reopen the question by suggesting improvements; I submitted an edit which was reviewed and accepted. The edited question also received positive marks. But then the question was closed and the edits were removed. The reason given was that my edits '[did] not clearly align with the original intentions of the author'; anyone with basic understanding of matrix calculus would realise this was not the case. The moderator responsible for removing my edits also suggested that I had 'hijacked' the original question. This is a ridiculous suggestion since I have no privileges that allow me to reedit and submit unilaterally. Furthermore all my edits were entirely within the original scope of the question. The original author had tried standard differentiation using the indexed components of the matrix but did not go to enough detail to show why that approach did not work. My edits provided this missing detail. Another reason given for removing my edits was that they invalidated the submitted answer. But anyone with basic knowledge of the subject would know that my comments reinforced the validity of the submitted answer. I give very little importance on whether I get good marks or not; but I am not going to allow arbitrary interventions that disrupt the process of learning on this site to go unnoticed.

---

Key issue: Edits to a question are always placed in a queue. They are only posted when approved by moderators. What is the point of this procedure if after the edits are approved then the edited question is closed again?

Answer 1

I'm sure you had the best of intentions, but let's review the editorial comment you left when updating the original post:

Defined problem more clearly; added an alternative approach that is difficult to resolve. Gave a reference that has examples of matrix calculus applied to similar problems.

Such changes are inconsistent with the Community's policy of preserving the original poster's intent. "Light" editing to fix obvious typos (misspellings and the like) are permitted and encouraged, and if you wanted to Answer a Question using the "alternative approach", explaining the gap between the OP's original thinking and your preferred outlook, that would avoid any issue of the changing the OP's intent.

That would be a better way to give "a reference that has examples of matrix calculus applied to similar problems," and might well be the help that the OP needed to create valuable site content.

Answer 2

Moderating the Question

The original version of the question was four lines long (two, really, if the displayed equation were inlined). It was two sentences. The proposed edit was significantly more than four lines—it introduced an entirely new discussion about "index notation" which was not present in the original question (it is hinted at by the statement "I can obtain a solution in terms of the elements of the matrices," but it is not obvious that this means "index notation", nor even that the asker is familiar with "index notation"), there is an entirely invented computation, and there is an added reference which may or may not actually reflect the original asker's level of knowledge.

This edit goes far beyond what the community generally considers to be acceptable.

In moderating that question, I noted that the question was closed by the community at the time the edit was made. Then the inappropriate edit was made, and the question was subsequently reopened. I reverted the inappropriate edit and closed the question for the reason it was originally closed, thereby returning the question to the state it was in before the edit was made. I have no dog in this fight vis-à-vis whether or not the question is opened or closed, but I do want the community have the opportunity to act on a version of the question which clearly reflects the original author's intent.

I will also note that another edit was made to the question which incorporated a comment left by the original author. Such a comment does clearly reflect what the author was thinking—so, even though that edit more than doubles the length of the question, it is appropriate.

It also appears that the question is likely to be reopened (it currently has 4 reopen votes).

Some History and Context

The Math SE community has, after years of arguments, come to an uneasy consensus that editors should take a very light touch with respect to changing questions. It is fine to correct obvious typos, but it is not okay to invent context for a question. This compromise comes from a long-standing argument on the site between "deltionists" and "anti-deletionists" (or the "pro-homework" and "anti-homework" factions, or "exclusionists" and "inclusionists", or "archivists" and "tutors", or whatever else, depending on how, exactly, you want to draw the lines).

Math SE does permit users to post homework problems, but users asking those questions must present context for their homework. The argument is that this context informs answerers about the asker's background. What is their general level of mathematical knowledge? What do they know about the specific topic? What relevant tools are they familiar with? And so on. But these data are related to the original asker, and not any other random editor who might come along. Questions are personalized.

(As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of this compromise—I would rather just declare that homework questions are off-topic, drop the context requirements entirely, and focus on making sure that the questions on Math SE are, first and foremost, good questions. But that is not the way the world works, and we get compromises which no one likes. That's what a compromise is, after all.)

Because there are diamonds in the rough on the site, and there are good-mathematics-questions which are not good-SE-questions, we have developed a procedure for salvaging good questions which don't meet the site's standards. In a nutshell, first use the comments to suggest changes which might improve the question. If those changes are never made, feel free to post a new question, then flag the old question for moderator attention.