A few months ago I added an answer to a question titled Why can't I SSH to Raspbian anymore? after discovering that the cause of my issue was related to a recent change to Raspbian, and feeling that my discovery could help others if it were added to one of the first search engine results for the issue.

Another user has suggested this edit, which I feel is completely inkeeping with my intention to provide useful and relevent information in one of the first places persons with the issue come across.

It has however been rejected by two more senior members of the community, so I would be interested to hear some other opinions/explanations on this matter.

2 Answers 2


As you're the author of the post, you now have a binding vote to approve/reject edits, even after the review is completed (and an edit 'rejected').

It should look a little like this:

Review override

Image taken from the linked Meta post

You can simply click 'Approve' in the top right corner, and the edit will be applied (and the editor gets the +2 rep as expected).

This is mainly intended for situations like this, where editors aren't sure whether you wanted that edit, but you, as the author, might like the edit anyway. As Ghanima mentioned, reviewers don't want to accept these edits and put words in your mouth that you didn't want to say, but if you like the edit, there's no harm to it!

Moderators can also override review outcomes after the fact, and if you, or a moderator, rejects a previously accepted edit, the +2 reputation for the editor is revoked and immediately taken away from their rep.

  • 1
    Thank you for a really clear answer, much appreciated.
    – Unencoded
    May 6, 2017 at 10:05

I think that most users lean to caution when accepting/rejecting edits. The idea of edits is to keep the intent of the original poster. And since third parties cannot know whether an edit of the content agrees with the OP's intention it is quite natural to have such edits rejected. One of the reasons to reject edits from the review queue is explicitely tailored to that end. Suggesting major changes or additions to answers should not be made by edits but by comments instead. Then the OP can decide whether and how to incorporate that information.


Edits should not change the content of an answer. Good edits must always keep the integrity of an answer intact - even if the answer is inherently incorrect. The goal of editing is to make posts better by changing their formatting and wording, but very explicitly not the content.

You must log in to answer this question.

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