Me and another high-rep user came into conflict over the editing process and authorial intent at Help with problem player. Specifically, I think that if an edit fundamentally changes the question asked it should be authorized only by pre-existing author approval, whereas he is of the position that as long as a request for authorial approval is present changes in fundamental meaning should not be undone/further edited. Which of us is right about that and how should this have gone down?
The edit overstepped and I have rolled it back.
@legendarydude may be correct about the source of the problem - maybe the way their group can have fun is by adopting a deeper in-character RP stance. But the place to address that is in an answer, not by changing the question.
Edits should not change authorial intent, and if an edit is proposed to the OP should be engaged (some are too hapless to do the edit themselves but at least get their buy-in in comments).
If the OP doesn't come back/won't engage, then there's zero worth in spending time working on their question/answers anyway. Getting them to engage will often improve the question in unexpected ways and makes sure we're spending all this work with a meaningful benefit at the end. Don't be afraid to ask questions/make suggestions and wait. Patience is the hardest thing to have, but it's the right answer here.
In general once an edit or whatever is contentious enough that it's been made but then someone objects, don't just keep rolling forward/rolling back especially if you're not the OP. Take it to meta and/or revert it and have patience.