83

I was browsing through Stack Overflow looking for Q&A related to a regex-related issue I'm having and noticed this particular question with a warning-like statement written at the end of the question:

Do not edit my posts, if you have a question comment instead and I'll be happy to clarify.

Considering the fact that there will be members in the community who might be discouraged from contributing improvements and/or relevant edits to these posts, is it allowed for members to make statements like this in their posts?

11
  • 55
    No, that's clearly not part of the question and should be removed. but since the OP is combative and we the community don't have the tools to deal with such a user, the moderator team should deal with this exception.
    – Kevin B
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:41
  • 44
    What a conundrum. Because that's a kind of comment an may want to edit out, as it is immaterial to the question. :P The revision's timeline looks particularly funny.
    – yivi
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:41
  • 11
    It is not appropriate. But he is not rolling back edits to his recent questions anymore, problem solved.
    – Hans Passant
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:45
  • 9
    Eh... That post is from 2012, and apparently started a tiny edit war back then. But now, it's not particularly relevant imo.
    – Erik A
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 19:41
  • 6
    Using search, I found two others by the same user: stackoverflow.com/q/11164180/4284627 and stackoverflow.com/q/8522951/4284627. I edited both of those to remove the "do not edit my post" part.
    – Donald Duck
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 8:44
  • 23
    Ironically the only edits that were performed on the question that OP objected to were to remove the part saying to not edit.
    – Bernhard Barker
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 10:32
  • 1
    @fbueckert I meant 'weird' instead of 'disabled', but it's too late, I can't edit my post.
    – Patrickkx
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 16:08
  • @fbueckert Deleted. However, I think there was a spoon of truth in my post, though.
    – Patrickkx
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 16:15
  • 1
    @Patrickkx The Meta Effect is something that requires some research and understanding; essentially, you're bringing a question to the attention of the most quality-focused members of the site. That means you get more votes on it, down and up. And close votes, as you can see. There are attempts to try to reign it in, but I'm not sure where that's gone. Still seems to be happening; I think most people see it as beneficial to site quality.
    – fbueckert
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 16:21
  • what to do now that the question in the OP was deleted? should this answer be closed/flagged?
    – pep 1
    Commented Oct 22, 2018 at 19:42
  • @pep1 Why should this question be closed/flagged? There are many other users who fancy edit wars and this thread could be used as a reference rather than discussing about it all over again a few months/years down the line.
    – AndrewL64
    Commented Oct 22, 2018 at 20:41

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
110

While the OP technically owns the post and has given Stack Overflow a license to publish it, this license does not give them the power to prevent us from making copy edits to it as we deem fit. Messages like this are misleading and unnecessary, and should (ironically!) be edited out.

In this specific situation, it might be best to get a mod involved since that has "rollback war" written all over its history.

9
  • 10
    This thing happened on '12!! Involving a moderator now won't do any good.
    – Braiam
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:53
  • 8
    @Braiam: If the OP does it again it will...simply because it implies that the OP has a strong misconception on how the site needs to work.
    – Makoto
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:54
  • 24
    I hope he has learned in the last 6 years.
    – Braiam
    Commented May 14, 2018 at 17:55
  • 7
    According to this answer, an automatic flag is raised when there is a rollback war, so there is no need to manually flag the post for moderator attention (though according to the revision history of this question that feature was implemented after the rollback war on the question discussed here happened).
    – Donald Duck
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 8:34
  • 1
    @Braiam It doesn't seem so...
    – Félix Adriyel Gagnon-Grenier
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 19:29
  • 4
    @Braiam Unfortunately that wasn't his last edit war.
    – gre_gor
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 23:32
  • 4
    @gre_gor Well, what do you know. He's a repeated offender with the edit wars after all haha
    – AndrewL64
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 0:42
  • 3
    @gre_gor still, 3 years.
    – Braiam
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 1:15
  • @DonaldDuck It's better to involve a mod before it becomes a full blown rollback war. When the user starts rolling back edits that improve quality, just flag and move on. Don't escalate the situation.
    – jpmc26
    Commented May 17, 2018 at 0:28
5

If you want your question, or answer, to exist unmodified, the answer is very simple. You have to make it perfect, and the perfection has to survive changes over time.

Allowing contributors to mark their stuff read/only will lead to incorrect, outdated, poor practice answers existing while new q/a are posted to show the correct/updated/best practice answer. Now you have correct and incorrect versions and who's to say which one is right.

Better solution would be to bring in a moderator to moderate when there is disagreement over a correct answer.

2
  • 1
    I don't think it's possible to make moderator decide about the validity of edits everytime there is a disagreement. They 1) are not domain experts in all the subjects there is on SO and 2) would be completely overwhelmed. Disagreements happen all the time. Moderators are not there to decide of "correctness", the community is, through votes, edits and various other means.
    – Félix Adriyel Gagnon-Grenier
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 20:58
  • So if I should say, "irreconcilable disagreement"?, would you agree?
    – Jeter-work
    Commented May 21, 2018 at 15:28
1

Who's "allowed" to do what seems irrelevant, frankly. That's not the big problem here. More important is figuring out how users like John can be convinced that edits are a good thing.

The revision history just goes back and forth, without either side bothering to explain their position. It's no wonder there's an edit war.

As soon as John reverted the edit for the first time, someone should have explained to him in a comment why his position is untenable. If he still weren't convinced, a question could be opened here on Meta asking something like, "Can I categorically refuse all edits?" and John could be pointed to that discussion.

There are better, more communicative, more productive ways of handling this than just insisting on edits, even though those edits may be "right."

1
  1. Edit the question to improve it. For example, by removing the demand not to edit it.
  2. Let the OP roll-back the exit.
  3. Flag for Moderator intervention.

Why not immediately flag for Moderator intervention? Because rolling-back a legitimate edit is an action, not merely words. The OP has then demonstrated that they will actively oppose legitimate actions by others. They have demonstrated that further attempts at Community Moderation are likely to result in a rollback war. It has given the OP an opportunity to reconsider their illegitimate demand, and they have doubled-down. I suggest that the Moderators are more likely to rule the OP as wrong in this case.

2
  • 1
    You're not really adding anything new to this discussion...
    – Makoto
    Commented Oct 22, 2018 at 19:22
  • @Makoto Added further explanation for what I implied, but did not clearly state.
    – Raedwald
    Commented Oct 22, 2018 at 19:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .