Calm down Bill. It is not as if Election Clerks have changed your vote for you - as they thought that it looked more tidy to have equal piles of votes on the table.

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??"

Bill D says.
yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably.

Is time or effort really a factor - where there is no question of any offensive content? We know Bill that you would always be safe from such impositions but are their not more important considerations at stake than the volunteer's time and effort? You may always agree to any proposed changes - so would most posters, I suspect. If a job is worth doing - perhaps the time and effort should be given to ensure it is done well - or if the time and effort is not available to do it properly - not done at all?

And if non-controversial 'tidying' edits were only ever undertaken at the request of the originator - that would ensure that these were always in fact non-controversial - wouldn't it.

It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc.

Bill please explain why you and 99% of posters think this? Who are these 'clean ups' so desparately needed by? All 99% of us? How do you propose to support this rather surreal claim? Or do you always think that 99% of the people agree with you?

No one is suggesting that such 'clean ups' could not still take place. But as they would only happen with the originator's permission and never be imposed upon them against their wishes - these actions could never be confused as routine censorship - could they?

Is this really such a terrible suggestion?