I like to hope that enough of us remember what it was like being new and low on damage points to understand what is happening here more thoroughly than some simplistic FAQ-waving. For one, I remember.
The critique that people edit posts just to gain points is not an uncommon one, and people do encourage people to make such edits substantive ones as much as they can. Whilst that is not true here, the editor of the question does not help to demonstrate that it is not true by saying that xe repeated the edit because "I thought it was funny". Xe would help more by pointing out that it was a substantive edit that corrected grammatical errors such as mis-spelling the pronoun "I".
From the new user's perspective, remember, what happened here was that
- a diamond moderator high-handedly stepped in to lock the questioner out of xyr own question, rolling back a spelling correction made by the original questioner in the process;
- there was no mention from either the diamond moderator or the original editor that the original edit actually was correcting both spelling and punctuation errors in the question;
- neither the diamond moderator nor the original editor removed or clarified the "xD"; and
- the only response from two diamond moderators was still not to explain this but to repeatedly say (once twice) "you will not be happy here" and to imply that the new user was an outright vandal who was "defacing" the question.
We all have to remember what the process looks like to the people who do not have the accrued damage points that we have; and what our actions look like. It does not behoove us to call someone a vandal who clearly is not, any more than it behooves us to go around calling people "noob kali users". We know what questioner vandalism actually looks like, and it is far from simply clicking on the "reject this edit" button that the site gives to authors when their questions have suggested edits, which is what in fact happened here.
It does not behoove us to explain that we did edits because "I thought it was funny", and when we use the edit summary "Add formatting" it should not be that much of a surprise when people naïvely take us at our word and think that adding formatting was what we did.
And it does not help to then inflame the process by mis-characterizing this on Meta as the original author wanting "to not format and use incorrect spelling", especially when the original author made a spelling correction of xyr own and so very clearly did not want that.
In addition to the things that the regular users around here could have done better in this situation after remembering what an opaque system Stack Exchange is to novices, from being aware that people see edit summaries and "reject edit" buttons to not calling someone a vandal for rejecting a suggested edit and telling them in essence to just go away, is also remembering that novices come here with preconceived and wrong ideas based upon how other sites work.
They put "SOLVED" into questions. They put entire answers into questions. They think that posts should contain "Thank you in advance.". They use wacky markup conventions, such as the original questioner here using curly brackets. They bring in silly prejudices, that they have learned from decades of people wrongly saying how bad these things are, against "rich text" formatting such as boldface, italics, and monospace. (This is especially antithetical here on Unix & Linux, given the text processing history of Unix going back to the 1970s, and the fact that we've had things like boldface and italics in our document processing tradition for all of that time.)
So whilst the original edit was a good one, a lot of subsequent steps, from the edit summary onwards, have been mis-steps. This is not as vastly one-sided as the votes on answers here might lead one to think. The votes simply tell us that there have been only two extreme positions expressed until now, one telling us the received wisdom that one can still receive from all over the place today that formatting in questions is "shit" and one telling a novice to just read the FAQ and go away because "this site is not for you".
I suggest a less extreme position of remembering what it is like to be a novice, complete with these daft and wrongheaded learned prejudices against any sort of text styling.
And far from "this site is not for you" I suggest that this site may well appeal to you, once you un-learn the unfortunately pervasive but quite wrong received wisdom that you have that one should not use in questions the same simple kinds of text styling for the literal text of commands and output that our operating systems' own manual pages have been using for the past almost half a century. As well as the idea that sentences end with full stops. ☺