@Akixkisu To be fair, the overwhelming majority of those questions would have been on the active page anyway

We have a recent meta on this @Someone_Evil

And the key (from that discussion) is that flood edits of older questions drowns out the newer ones, editing the newer questions - that would be there anyway - doesn't do that

SE is against doing trivial edits though.

The fact that they're new doesn't unmake the fact that they're trivial.

"From what I see, SSD is attempting to clarify our guidelines since your understanding in the “so this is what I gather” paragraph is not really representative of them. SSD is worth listening to: their explanation is fairly good, and safe to say they're a very experienced editor. Engage with new and old material, and limit yourself whether you're editing new or old.

If you'd been exclusively editing dozens of new posts you may have received the same ping from me, though catching questions as they arrive for e.g. tag fixes is helpful. – doppelgreener♦ May 14 at 8:30 "

I mean this is two dozens edits.

Whether they are trivial or not.

I got a ping after my edits went through the suggested edits queue and were thusly considered as none trivial.

@doppelgreener ^ this should be of interest to you.

There is a difference in type (particularly variety) and timeframe between V2's general activity and the activity you were pinged for

That is true, I had less edits in that timeframe.

As I recall it your edits were in a substantially shorter timeframe

Mine were sparsed over a 28 hour period in three notable chunks.

Though I would have suggested more edits, but I couldn't due to the limitations of the queue.

Your suggestion history shows 40-odd suggestions on one day which seems to me rather higher than V2's activity (but I haven't checked theirs numerically), also it may have been better if they haven't been so clumped as "three notable chunks"

Yes, there were too much that is a conclusion of the past.

V2 had about 30 in 9hours.

rpg.stackexchange.com/users/33569/…

or 70 within 24 hours

see up to page 6.

In both cases that is more activity than I had, and without the quality control of the suggested edits queue.

So this should be brought to the moderators' attention who will deal with it.

Right, it's appropriate as users for us to make sure each other are aware of rel🐘 meta discussions, and to flag activities for mod review. Let's not turn that into users ordering each other around.

@BESW Good, will you help me with that?

You've pinged a mod and shared the meta. Our work here is done.

Ah okay, I don't know if there is a button somewhere to flag that specific activity.

I mean, yeah, next time you should probably use the "flag" feature on an edited post on the main site, select "needs moderator attention" and type in a special reason along the lines of "I think this post is part of a string of unnecessarily small edits being made inappropriately fast" or whatever your concern is, rather than making it a public spectacle in general chat.

In chat you can just say "Hey, [user], I'm concerned that your edits might not be in the spirit of [policy] and I wanted to make sure you're aware of [existing meta discussion] on the subject." Then the user and the mods can figure it out as appropriate.

Thanks, that is helpful!

We aren't the police, we're fellow members of a community and it's better to share information than to tell each other what to do. I have no idea what the edits under consideration are, I assume they're D&D-related and I don't watch those tags.

But I do know that the nature of substantive edits is an ongoing discussion, and that site preferences on necessary mass edits ("get it over with all at once" vs "do it a little bit at a time for minor disruption over many days") are historically waffley.

That is an interesting perspective. Generally comments that I read are along the lines of "Honestly, I would VtC this as unclear if we could because I'm just no longer sure what you are looking for here. Please explain what kinds of improvements and details you are looking for in an answer and address some of the comments to help clear up the confusion! Thanks :)" Maybe that is more common in the D&D tags?

...I'm not talking about improving questions.

Yes, the context is policing.

Okay, this stuff keeps getting starred. Chat is not the place to litigate a user's actions. If the user were here, we might engage in respectful discussion with them about perspectives. The user is not here. The proper channels have been activated and the wheels are in motion. I'm moving the existing messages to the Not A Bar to get it out of the main chat in the hopes that will help avoid further gossip in a community space that is trying very hard to be respectful and welcoming.

← 39 messages moved from RPG General Chat

My apologies to anyone who got needlessly auto-pinged by the move.

...Well, this has been an exciting conversation to wake up to.

as @Someone_Evil pointed out, they were all already on the front page. I don't think most of the edits were trivial.

@V2Blast Good Morning!

hello hello

@V2Blast I think your edits are generally helpful and I welcome them. I do not welcome double-standards.

I have to disagree with there being a display of double-standards, but I can understand where that view is coming from. This distinction if the age/otherwise activity of the questions as discussed above. Because of the nature of V2's edits (generally a last polish of Q or As) they're going to be shown as the last editor. But that hasn't changed which posts are in the active feed and are relevant for oversight. That last point is the concern with high edit volumes.

I don't think that discussion deals with the distinction. I don't think it is discussed there because the question asks about edits to old questions.

Also, extrapolating from your answer, I think you (understandably) like strict, clear rules. Unfortunately these don't work super-well for the site, and softer, reasoned principles and guidelines tend to be used/implemented instead. If you need/like implementing rules and limits to help you work with such (sloppy) principles, that's ok. But be thoughtful about these when applying them to others.

I want to apologize if I overstepped a boundary and got too personal, but I made that analysis in the hope that it would help you work with the site. You are making valuable contributions and I would like that continue as best as possible.

@Akixkisu I'd like to second Someone_Evils's sentiment here in that I'd like to see you continue to contribute to the site. We all have a finite amount of time, and that you give some of yours for the benefit of the site / users is appreciated.

@Someone_Evil and @KorvinStarmast thank you, I appreciate that!

@Akixkisu Hang in there. :) It took me a while to get used to how the site works best, and as with any human group effort, there are formal and informal norms one gets used to. One of the things we use meta for is to at the least discuss those so that we get better at being on the same page.