Its about this question about Dota 2.

I have flagged the answer with

Edit changed the original post completey. Please take a look at Revisions number 4 and 5 The editor changed the original answer completelly.

Maybe it is correct, but sure not the information the Author of the answer has given

and my flag was accepted.

But the answer was not reverted to its original state.

I have flagged it again with

You have already accepted my flag with "Edit changed the original post completey." Please revert the edits to number 3

This time it was declined with

declined - It's fine for this to stay as is. The ability to edit others' answers exists for a reason. If the OP dislikes it he can revert.

Was I wrong?

And if "yes" why?

| |
  • I don't know about the factuality of the edits, but it looks to me like it's simply reorganizing the information to be more readable. Everything seems to still be there, albeit in a different order and slightly different words. – MBraedley May 31 '14 at 13:27
  • @MBraedley - he adds extra information - thats the problem. – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:43
  • 4
    @MikroDel And that is a problem because? – badp May 31 '14 at 14:08
  • @badp - as StrixVaria♦ commented "There are guidelines on how to do this (don't edit others' answers too much) which were broken in this case." – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 15:10
  • 1
    @MikroDel adding information isn't a problem, reorganizing information isn't a problem, and rewording the existing information isn't a problem (as long as it doesn't change the meaning). The only problem with this edit is that WizLiz did all of those things in the same edit. Given how the edit vastly improved the answer, and how writing a new answer would duplicate a lot of information, I'm fine with this. – MBraedley May 31 '14 at 16:27
  • 3
    @MikroDel Perhaps "guidelines" were "broken" but guidelines are that -- guidelines. They are not to be applied religiously. I see no obvious advantage that can be gained from the application of this guideline: we'd get a worse answer, waste and discourage editing effort and validate the blind application of guidelines. No, thank you. – badp May 31 '14 at 16:41
  • @badp - so the advice of other moderator StrixVaria♦ "In the future, if you have this much to add to an answer, please consider making your own answer instead" is wrong? – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 22:25
  • There is no real contradiction. When faced with a problem — the top answer is not as good as it could be — you can tackle it in a number of ways; you can edit the top answer or you can contribute your own or you can make a bounty or you can do a number of other things. Asking to consider all options before taking action is different from telling people to do something and not some other thing. – badp Jun 1 '14 at 0:03

I handled both flags.

I accepted the first, because you made me aware of the fact that the answer had been edited so heavily. Without your flag, I would not have known, so it was helpful in that regard. However, there is no pressing reason to revert the edits. WizLiz isn't the kind of guy to add a lot of extraneous information for no reason. If the original author of the post wants it reverted, then we'll do so immediately.

This is why I rejected your second flag. I was already aware of the state of the answer, and had already decided that no action needs to be taken. I left a comment for WizLiz telling him to consider posting his own answer in the future.

I don't see any reason for the mod team to act on the edits made to this answer. I hope this clarifies my intent with each of the flags. It's hard to convey the full intentions when accepting or declining.

| |
  • There is some kind of rules on SO sites. And one of it, that you should not change the post the way is was done – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:37
  • As you say - WizLiz can (if he want) post it as its own answer. – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:37
  • The argumentation that Author of the original post can revert it himself its wrong. Cause this way I can revert it myself back with the same arguments ". If the original author of the post wants it reverted, then we'll do so immediately" – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:39
  • 2
    At this point, the post is improved by the edits. Reverting it really doesn't gain us anything. It could have been handled better in the first place (by WizLiz making his own post), but looking at it now, it doesn't make sense to revert the edits. – Invader Skoodge May 31 '14 at 13:40
  • You are the moderator here, and maybe for this site gaming.stackexchange.com you have other rules as for stackoverflow.com – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:40
  • The answer is better now - sure - in terms of information. But the information was from other Author. Why dont we post the only answer to ervery question - and all the Users will edit it. Something like Wikipedia? – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:41
  • 1
    The goal of this site, as with all SE sites, is to get users the best information to answer their question. There are guidelines on how to do this (don't edit others' answers too much) which were broken in this case. In the future, ideally, people would answer using their own answers. However, removing the improved information goes against our core principle of getting people good information, for the sake of enforcing the letter of the law. I don't think that's worth the trade-off. – Invader Skoodge May 31 '14 at 13:44
  • The best infromation was given and the answer was accepted before edits that changed it. – MikroDel May 31 '14 at 13:53
  • 1
    @MikroDel That doesn't matter. In fact, locking an answer once it's upvoted (or even only when it's accepted) is a Bad Thing™ because then it can't be updated when a game changes. A whole lot of answers are already out of date because of updates, and we want to be able to change and update that information when someone new comes along with the same question. Upvotes and accepted status do not matter! – MBraedley May 31 '14 at 17:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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