The content of this post has been sanitized in response to anonymous feedback that the formatting was making it completely unreadable by assistive technology (AT). I strongly value making content accessible over proving a point against users who willfully contribute to making content inaccessible. Read this post as it was originally intended to be read, at your own peril.Read this post as it was originally intended to be read, at your own peril.
I just had to roll back about a dozen incorrect suggested edits that were approved, because all they did was litter backticks all over random words and phrases and calling it improved formatting.
This is just one of the less exciting cleanup tasks I've taken it upon myself to do, as these edits are not only rampantly suggested, but also rampantly approved, obviously by the same people who think it is for whatever reason OK to mark keywords and other random things with backticks.
The fact that I'm rolling these edits back means that these edits shouldn't have been approved in the first place. Since rejecting a suggested edit denies the editor of the +2 rep bonus that would otherwise be awarded when the edit is approved, I propose that rolling such an edit back do two things:
Mark the edit as rejected instead of approved, either by Community♦ or the user performing the rollback, preferably with the invalid edit reason if not one of the user's choosing.
Revoke the +2 rep bonus that was awarded when the edit was approved, if applicable.
