Return to Question

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict of this type, the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinions, I would prefer if unilateral changes were avoided.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the users were trying to attract more attention to their question; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the beginning while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done and they have achieved their goal. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (contrary to what has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict of this type, the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinions, I would prefer if unilateral changes were avoided.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the authors were trying to attract more attention to their questions; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the first days while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done and they have achieved their goal. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (contrary to what has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict between the users the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinion just saying "my opinion is more correct than yours and it is the one that deserves to stay" is simply arrogant.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the users tried to attract more attention to their question by misusing this site; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the beginning while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done and they have achieved their goal. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (as has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict of this type, the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinions, I would prefer if unilateral changes were avoided.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the users were trying to attract more attention to their question; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the beginning while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done and they have achieved their goal. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (contrary to what has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict between the users the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinion just saying "my opinion is more correct than yours and it is the one that deserves to stay" is simply arrogant.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the users tried to attract more attention to their question by misusing this site; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the beginning while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (as has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?

In this question, I made an edit to change the formatting because I thought it was inappropriate (related meta discussion).

The author swiftly reverted my edit to restore the original version, without waiting for further opinions. Is this the appropriate behavior?

I believe that when we notice a conflict between the users the proper procedure would be either alerting the moderators or opening a meta discussion. Reverting edits is OK for vandalism, or in cases in which an edit contains an honest mistake (for instance, changing a notation wrongly). But when there is a clear conflict of opinion just saying "my opinion is more correct than yours and it is the one that deserves to stay" is simply arrogant.

Something similar happened in this controversial question. I edited it to remove out a part that I considered inappropriate on this site; another user disagreed with me and reverted the edit without much discussion. Later on, in the meta discussion a vast majority of users agreed that my deletion was appropriate (+21/-4 votes as I am writing). The question still stands in its original state, by the way.

In both cases, the users tried to attract more attention to their question by misusing this site; so I believe that if the question stays in its original state for a long period of time, especially in the beginning while it is new and active, the 'harm' has already been done and they have achieved their goal. So we should err on the side of the editor in this kind of conflicts, not on the side of the author (as has happened in both cases).

What is the opinion of the community and of the moderators on this issue?