Editing Posts and Rollbacks

Question

I did review Why would people make unnecessary edits? and Is it appropriate to edit questions for grammar? before making this post.

I do edit questions for grammar for two main reasons¹. First, I really hope it will help the OP. Second, I think grammatically correct language represents a higher standard, and I know quality is an important issue for the powers that be at Stack Exchange.

ROLLBACKS

Why do some users reject editing?

Lately, though, I've noticed when I've edited posts that have had blatant and/or extensive grammar errors, the LULZ, or have been in need of ESL assistance, the OP is rolling my corrections back to their original version, incorrect SPaG² and all. What's frustrating is the OP then leaves the post in its original sloppy state and makes no attempt at corrections himself/herself. On a few occasions I've had my edits rolled back, and then will notice another user also attempted to edit the same post, but the post is still in its original incorrect state, meaning the OP rejected suggested edits at least twice. So the OP is actively resisting community assistance.

I have no problem with an OP rolling back my edits, only to make their own corrections. That's awesome and I think it's great to see an OP take responsibility for making their own corrections.

So, is there anything we can do to encourage all members of this community to remember that we do have a Wiki-like set up here and to help users to be more amenable to grammatical corrections, to not rollback edits that are meant to be helpful?

EDITING

First, I do want to say that whenever I edit a post, I always try and work within the original spirit of the OP's post. When I edit for SPaG, I try to be extremely thorough, so multiple edits on the same post won't be necessary. However ... is this considered okay? When does it cross the line into over-editing? I will correct SPaG, and if I see a word being used incorrectly, I will fix the word, too. For example:

"I did not give you my constant to edit my George R.R. Martin answer to add a picture of Harry Potter" becomes "I did not give you my consent to edit my George R.R. Martin answer to add a picture of Harry Potter".

Another type of change I will make is to clarify speakers and characters in sentences if I am positive I know which character is doing or saying what. For example:

"First, he cast a fire curse at him; in return he hexed him and gave him a magnificent rack of antlers. His curse also hit the Fountain of Magical Brethren, but he repaired it" becomes "First, Voldemort cast a fire curse at Dumbledore; in return, Dumbledore hexed Voldemort and gave him a magnificent rack of antlers. Voldemort's curse also hit the Fountain of Magical Brethren, but Dumbledore repaired it".

Is this kind of edit inappropriate or too extensive? Where do you draw the line with editing?

---

¹_{I know I'm not the universe's gift to grammar :P}

²_{SPaG is Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar. I use this code for the "reason for edit" box and have had a few people ask me what SPaG means. So I thought I'd just mention it as an FYI.}

Answer 1

The edits you describe seem fine. Please keep up the good work!

If a user goes in a huff because you edited their post, refer them to the FAQ. You can leave a comment like the following (adapt for context as needed):

Welcome to Stack Exchange. This is a [collaborative questions and answers site](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/about). Editing other people's posts to improve them is part of the normal working of the site, as indicated in our [FAQ#editing].

Add some specific advice about what your edit fixed (e.g. spelling, presentation) and how their original post is likely to attract negative attention. Downvote or vote to close as applicable if the unedited post is not fit for the site. Do not engage in a rollback war¹. If the OP doesn't cool down, flag for moderator attention and explain what's going on.

¹ _{Except for extreme cases of inappropriate content like insults, racism, etc. In that case, roll back once, and flag a mod.}

Answer 2

I do not know why they do these things, but I've only noticed it myself from those with "1 rep". So not only are they new here, they're new to SE sites in general. The sort of psychology that would take it as a personal affront if something I can't explain, it's mysterious to me too.

I do not think your editing is inappropriate or too extensive. Fixing grammar, fixing formatting, adding links, or specific instances of clarification (I think I saw a quote added that the OP referred to but did not include)... these are all nice. Go for it. Also, though not mentioned, adding images seems fair too (assuming relevance, of course).

The mods should punish those who rollback because they see edits as insulting. This isn't 4chan.

Answer 3

In a case like your first example, simply fixing spelling and grammar errors, if the OP rolls it back you should leave a comment explaining that it's not a personal affront, on SE we insist that posts have decent spelling and grammar. Then roll it back to your revision, or give the OP a chance to make his own corrections. If you're not sure or don't want to roll it back yourself, ask in chat. If the OP rolls it back again, ask in chat, perhaps ping a mod (they can lock it). If you make more substantial changes, adding a picture, say, that's a bit more understandable on the OP's part and you don't need to pursue that further.

Answer 4

I know why I have repeatedly rolled back your edits on my posts, I can't speak for anyone else. You have made multiple edits on my posts (At least two in recent times, a few others before the name change), all of which were style edits, not grammar edits. I have no problem with somebody coming along and fixing spelling errors or egregious grammar errors, but I have large issue with people changing the voice of my posts. In the ten plus SPaG edits you did on my posts, ONE was an actual grammatical error and I made it intentionally.

I do salute your willingness to correct others posts and I also praise you for not getting into rollback battles with the OPs. Like I said, I can speak only for myself, but I will always reject style editing to my posts unless I see an obvious improvement. Also, as said multiple times, the OP is the one in control of such things. It's great that you want to offer a correction, but if the OP doesn't feel it's warranted or that it is not an improvement, stackexchange sites come down firmly on the side of the OP.