Why would community bot reject a suggested formatting edit that should have been approved ?
-
@texenthusiast the editor removed all the extra blank lines, added 2 back ticks, and then formatted the code. That is about 20-25 separate moves.– dustinAug 14, 2013 at 19:26
-
@texenthusiast it just seems to be an odd/weird rejection.– dustinAug 14, 2013 at 19:52
-
very peculiar. a few days ago i made a similar edit to Preventing the “end square” of proof environment to be alone on a newpage after an enumeration and it wasn't rejected. (a subsequent edit -- of only 1 character -- was made to fix something i missed, and that also wasn't rejected.)– barbara beetonAug 14, 2013 at 20:06
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
From Meta.SO: User Community rejects an edit "when the post owner or someone with 2000+ rep makes an edit and the suggested edit is still being reviewed."
In this particular case, user Adam's suggested edit was most certainly valid, since we encourage code formatting in posts. However, according to the post revision history, the following sequence of events ensued (some guess-work):
- 18:35:02 - User Adam suggests an edit
- 18:35:24 - User dustin approves the edit
- 18:35:36 - User dustin initiates an edit to the post ("someone with 2000+ rep" while the suggested edit is still pending)
- 18:36:13 - User dustin saves the edit, retroactively causing an edit rejection by user Community @ 18:35:36
Underlying here is the fact that a suggested edit isn't immediately incorporated once approved by someone reviewing the queue entry. Instead, (at least) two votes are required. See How do suggested edits work?
-
-
I think I know what may have happened. When I went to click approve, I hit edit but didn't edit. I hit the back button and clicked approve. Then the community rejected it so I put in Adam's edit afterwords. Would hitting edit and not editing to only go back to approve cause this?– dustinAug 14, 2013 at 20:12
-
@dustin: Not sure, since I haven't mis-clicked in such a fashion before. Sleuthing helps...– Werner ModAug 14, 2013 at 20:14