The answer author's disagreement is now enough to reject an edit? (an edit rejected after only 1 review)

Question

We have this answer and a proposed edit https://workplace.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/72814

I made this edit to remove offensive characterization of people who take Software Freedom seriously (the question author names them "zealots"), without changing the overall meaning of the answer.
The edit was rejected, and I can see that the only user who reviewed the edit was the question author. The reason given is:

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post

I see 2 problems here:

1. The edit doesn't actually deviate from the original intent of the post, unless the whole point of the answer is to offend a group of people (which is not a valid goal on this site, if I understand it correctly);
2. The fact that an edit can be declined by 1 person.

I don't think the answer in its current form is OK; if something is wrong with the proposed edit, something else has to be done to it.

Answer 1

As others have said, the author of a post can single-handedly reject an edit.

That doesn't mean posts can't be edited. If you feel that a post does not fit site guidelines, whether Be Nice or Back It Up or something else, then in addition to downvoting you can also flag appropriately -- rude/abusive if it crosses that line or NAA if it doesn't meet answer reuqirements. If enough community members agree with you, the post will be deleted.

An author can reject an edit that he doesn't like, but there might be consequences. The community is not obligated to accept the post if y'all feel it's bad enough that it needs to go if it can't be edited.

Answer 2

This is in accordance with StackExchange rules on suggested edits:

The owner of a post or a moderator may cast a binding vote to accept or reject any modification of their post.

If the post owner declined the edit suggestion, it means he wants to keep his answer the way he has written it. You have the option of leaving a comment or downvoting the answer if you think the answer is not OK.

If you do not agree with the StackExchange rules, you can raise it on the main meta.

Answer 3

Regarding your 2 problems:

1. The edit doesn't actually deviate from the original intent of the post, unless the whole point of the answer is to offend a group of people (which is not a valid goal on this site, if I understand it correctly);

It deviates from the author's style and intent. If that user decided to use such word it was for a reason. Zealot is not a curse word, whatsoever, and probably was used here to make emphasis on the relevance of that part of the answer.

From the Review Queue we got these options when handling edit suggestions, which suggests that the original goal of the poster should be preserved:

Perhaps you don't like that word to much, but as of now it seems that other 83 users don't bother about that single word on such highly voted answer. Editing answers I think can be more delicate than editing questions, as we can see from this situation.

2. The fact that an edit can be declined by 1 person.

A post author's can instantly accept/reject any edits proposed. It is a status-bydesign feature, and I think that it makes sense. The author should have complete freedom to delete, edit, or modify their posts, so it makes sense that the author can instantly accept/reject such change.

Answer 4

The author is the final authority, this is to protect the post from deliberate twisting of intent, and in some cases, outright vandalism.

If you don't like a particular answer, provide your own, but do not alter an answer more to your liking. "Improving an answer" does not mean "Make it fit my worldview"

Answer 5

The answer author's disagreement is now enough to reject an edit?

No, it was ALWAYS enough, it's not something new.

Answer 6

So did OP actually change the post of someone else to remove an "offensive" word or was it just a suggestion (in a post or comment)?

If you did the first, that should not even be possible in my opinion. If the second, it should indeed be pending approval of the original author and you shouldn't have a right to forcefully induce a change to a post without the authors blessing.

If the post somehow violates the forum terms, then the poster should be alerted by a mod and given a chance to adapt accordingly.

I find arbitrary deletion of posts without proper reasoning / feedback and warning very aggravating and bordering on tyranny. But hey, such is the relationship on many boards between mods/sysops and the users (which funny enough are the ones keeping a board alive)...

p.s. I've been on both sides of this, so I speak from experience (;