2
\$\begingroup\$

The question in question:

Why am I unable to edit the Input Field object's script?

The issues:

1) My original question was "edited", in ways that add nothing meaningful (slight changes in words, but not meaning or fixes in grammar).

enter image description here

2) I edited the answer I planned on accepting, because I found additional relevant information, which completed the answer:

enter image description here

Note that this edit was accepted. This is also very much in line with accepted etiquette for when answers should be edited: Why can any user edit any other user's question or answer?, and something I am used to doing on other Stack Exchanges.

However, this edit of mine was rolled-back (to a state where I would not fully accept the answer any more), and the following comment was left by the editor responsible:

enter image description here

Except that the edit I made was not much of an alternative, it simply notes that the source code for Unity's UI Engine is officially available. The editor made further edits to the answer which were trivial comma additions.

My immediate reaction was to simply delete my gamedev.stackexchange account and move on, rather than deal with this annoyance, but I have decided to take out the time to put together something more comprehensive to the meta community, in case I am in the wrong. Please advise.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I didn't even realise it was the asker making that edit. But actually, you do still accept the answer; you did before the edit had been made :/ \$\endgroup\$ – Gnemlock May 28 '17 at 23:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ The first edit is explained more clearly in this help article, more specifically, under "Should I use tags in titles". TLDR; only in an unforced way; never in the style of "Unity:". The second edit was first raised as a comment, though. In these cases, it is fine to initially explain your reasoning for the edit in the comment. I interpret the edit as alternate information, not necessarily supplemental. No-one seemed to care enough to reply to my initial comment, though :/ \$\endgroup\$ – Gnemlock May 28 '17 at 23:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Actually, that last edit was inappropriately minimal; by itself. I missed it, the first time I confirmed the edit, but added it roughly 23 seconds after. In such cases, the system is suppose to roll the changes into the prior edit, so it really doesn't count as performing another edit at all - more like correcting the prior one. But grammatically, it is correct. \$\endgroup\$ – Gnemlock May 28 '17 at 23:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Your time & effort are appreciated & it's clear this situation has frustrated you. What isn't clear, a least to myself, is what you're asking. Without a clear question, is difficult to provide answers or reach a solution. \$\endgroup\$ – Pikalek May 29 '17 at 15:16
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ For the record, I was one of the reviewers to the edited answer. I do not see the edit as being alternative information, but rather additional information as what was in the second paragraph ("how to view the source code of a dll"). I also did not notice that it was the Asker that was making the edit. Per this meta question I have no meaningful input. \$\endgroup\$ – Draco18s May 29 '17 at 21:52
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I also reviewed the edit adding the source code link. It struck me as a little unusual, but then I thought about how often we approve edits replacing a broken link with a working one, or a secondary source with the original source. This struck me as a similar situation: adding a more reliable source for the information the answer's author wanted to provide. On that basis, I approved the edit, since it only improves the answer and didn't contradict the author's message. I wouldn't recommend leaving over an editing disagreement though — we all have them from time to time and we sort them out. :) \$\endgroup\$ – DMGregory May 30 '17 at 2:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Having reviewed the scenario I really don't see anything here that was untoward or indicative of a "power trip." For the record. I think dopplegreener's answer does a good job of explaining things. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh May 30 '17 at 15:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Gnemlock I am sorry about this, I think I let my own annoyance grow disproportionately, rather than address it in more productive ways. Let's think about whether we can roll back the last edit, and everything else is fine? \$\endgroup\$ – user89 May 30 '17 at 18:20
8
\$\begingroup\$

1) My original question was "edited", in ways that add nothing meaningful (slight changes in words, but not meaning or fixes in grammar).

This edit was standard protocol: we discourage writing tags in titles. That means a title of "How do I foo?" is preferable to "Unity: How do I foo?" when the question is also tagged . An edit to remove that single word from the title is fine, and the user removed another superfluous word while they were in there (which is also fine).

2) I edited the answer I planned on accepting, because I found additional relevant information, which completed the answer [and then the same editor criticised the decision]

Ok, that's reasonable to object to, but it doesn't indicate a power trip. It's also standard protocol to be wary around other editors adding content to others' posts, though this looked to be a pretty reasonable circumstance to add new content and a good edit.

All of us in the community can get tired, not check something properly, misinterpret what's going on, etc. We're human beings and limited in our energy and abilities. At times like that mixups like this can happen, or the wrong thing can get called out. Sorry to hear it frustrated you, and I can understand this looking particularly objectionable in light of the apparently-minor edit to the question itself — nothing too bad happened here though.

I suggest that in circumstances like this, it's helpful to assume the user was tired and made a mistake or misunderstood something, and investigate with them accordingly (e.g. explain the circumstance and request clarification in comments) before assuming malicious intent. The community members moderating this site are after all generally doing their best to act in good faith — and if they really are acting with malicious intent, it will become clear while you're trying to converse with them under that good-faith assumption. If you suspect foul play or someone overstepping, remember you can also flag for custom moderator attention.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "We're human beings...". Speak for yourself. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse May 30 '17 at 18:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks, this answer is great, and yeah, having a few days too cool off, I do think that I got too riled up myself. Your recommendations for how to proceed when stuff like this happens in the future is great, and something I will keep in mind. \$\endgroup\$ – user89 May 30 '17 at 18:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user89 I'm happy you were able to work things out. :) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 31 '17 at 11:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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