I had an edit to a post that removed an "EDIT:" flag from one of my posts. I see this as counterproductive and obfuscatory.
Stack Exchange has a tools and cues throughout the interface that allows anyone to see the detailed time sequence of edits. This is for a reason and has been well though out.
However, if there is a particular addition that would not otherwise be understood as an addition in the timeline but a user has a reason that they would like to acknowledge the change and make note of it to other users, they will sometimes add am editorial mark of a few characters like note or edit to all this out.
This is the discretion of the post writer.
I don't understand the benefit to the site of just going in and removing these from other users posts. This seems to be a "I wish people wouldn't write differently than the way I want them to" more than a genuine beneficial edit.
In this case (compare edits 3 to 4) the third-party edit was substantial. Some people like to leave the strikethrough's in place to demonstrate the evolution of thinking, and again that's at the discretion of the author.
Why do these need to be removed? Why do the intentions of the author need to be overruled?