Is this edit proper form for editing or was my edit out of line?

Question

In this question here: What would a therapist be able to do with the ability to read people's dreams?

I made a couple readability edits to spacing and added a recap as a form of TL;DR reiterating the important parts of a fluff filled question.

To Recap:

• Dreams create temporary universes in a person's soul
• Succubi/Incubi can enter those dreams and have the same viewpoint as the host
• They can physically manifest in the dream world but usually just observe

Despite these being an addition by myself, they directly took the meaning from the OP's original wall of text. They were later removed (with the addition of a single word edit) by a later editor.

Was my edit really

The recap risked being more confusing, what with it reminding the reader of information that the previous paragraphs just said is being ignored for the purpose of this question.

as the editor said? Or is it more likely a case of "I couldn't make this small change by itself."?

revision history

NOTE: after I made this post, I did realize that the OP was the editor the second time around. I don't necessarily agree with his point of being more confusing but, its his post.

Answer 1

This isn't Stack Overflow, which means the OP has more control over a question than "normal."

The second edit was made by the OP. That's important to remember as I express my opinion.

Stack Exchange has a basic set of editing rules:

Edits are expected to be substantial and to leave the post better than you found it. Common reasons for edits include:

• To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
• To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
• To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
• To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
• To add related resources or hyperlinks

Generally speaking, we adhere to these. Especially bullet #2 (as you noted, no changes that change the meaning). Unfortunately, we're a lot more subjective and creative than, for example, Stack Overflow, which means that it's not all that hard to enhance a post in a way that the OP thinks changed their meaning.

We've tried over the years to improve the explanation of editing on this site:

• Rules for editing questions
• What happens if a poster's assumptions invalidate their answer when clarifications are made later
• What happens if a poster's assumptions invalidate their answer when clarifications are made later
• The difference between helpful editing and vandalism
• Proposal for Editing Rules
• Is it okay to edit?

What a lot of this boils down to is that any effort to help the OP beyond fixing grammar and formatting is treading on thin ice — because no matter how well you think you understand what they're asking, the reality is you don't actually know what they're asking. And so we favor trying to convince the OP to make edits beyond grammar and formatting.

Call it a consequence of working on a subjective, creative Stack.

To directly answer your question

IMO, no, your edit was not out of line. Had someone other than the OP created the subsequent edit, removing your summary, there would be cause for complaint. However, the OP's opinion trumps everybody else's every time — and it was the OP who made the subsequent edit.

Answer 2

I think the OP is correct in their assessment of your recap. The information you summarised is accurate, however, it shifts focus from the OP's intended question to the mechanics of dreams. Please note the explicitly stated condition:

Further assume that this succubus is only using her power to observe dreams, and assume that when used in this capacity, dreams work the same way that they do in the real world, and that the succubus can only experience the dreams from the same perspective that the person having the dream experiences them from. [bold emphasis added]

This question can be summarised as: 'What are potential applications in psychotherapy for an ability to directly observe people's dreams?' Dream mechanics and succubi's methods of entering dreams are irrelevant.