Comment by the8472 3 days ago
That's a useful feature for long-running issues to include updates in the opening post. Or to improve formatting when a bug reporter isn't familiar with markdown. And that it shows in the edit history should at least discourage abuse.
Allowing the maintainer to prepend a comment to the top seems more sensible to me to be honest. Would make API use harder potentially, but it would avoid weird abuse like this.
reporting abusive edits requires moderation/arbitration. the rules can instead be changed to sidestep the issue, while maintaining the value of the feature.
Report to whom? Github, who allows the behavior and therefore doesn’t see anything wrong with it, or the repo admins who have proven they they couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the very thing you’re reporting? The well is already poisoned, there is no reason to think that they’d suddenly change their stance and cooperate.
In this case at least, github (most probably) banned this account, presumably after reports. There are also other stories for github banning accounts for pr trolling kind of behaviours. So not sure if everything is perfect, but at least there are cases such things work.
> designing it around adversarial use would be a loss for everyone
hmm... isn't this more of a 'personal viewpoint'? why are you stating this like a fact?
moreover, how would it "adding Edited by ~" constitute as a "loss for everyone" ?
I agree on adding "report abuse" button, but if no one notices that edit, how would anyone know what to report in the first place?
Yes, with an edit history I think it's a useful feature. I often use it to add pre formatting to errors or code examples people post, or to edit titles to be more helpful ("weird issue with X" → "clearer description of the bug" after triage). It used to be that it didn't have an edit history. I think it was added about five or six years ago? You could also delete comments with no indication there was ever a comment there.
I once had someone request a feature and they became quite aggressive after I declined it. I essentially told them to fuck off[1] and that was the end of it. A few months after this he strategically edited and deleted some comments to make it appear I was just insulting them for no reason and then started posting on HN and Lobsters what an asshole I was. Back then, there was no real indication of their manipulation.
[1]: In part because he was already a known troll. Well, maybe troll isn't the right word, but he does have a history of mass-reporting hundreds of feature requests across hundreds of repos, to the point where it's basically just spam. He's been banned from Github many times over this, but just keeps creating new accounts and it all starts over again.
I get what you're saying, but I feel like they should highlight comments in some way if a repo admin completely replaces a comment with different text. I'm struggling to imagine a situation where that would really be appropriate. The "Edited by: username" seems too easy to overlook.
The vanishing small percentage of people that would actually check a comment’s history are the same people who would check a Wikipedia entries history.
At a bare minimum, the post should have in big bold lettering: Edited by <user_name>.