So, IIRC, this user returned after a rather lengthy suspension, and now it appears that he might be the one who is systematically downvoting some of my most upvoted questions. At the same time, these downvotes are spaced out with a day or two in between to avoid the automatic detection system. Is there anything that can be done about this?
@DavidPostill thank you for your help in that regard. I realize that everyone had the best of intentions, but it was still very frustrating when I explained the logic behind my rejection to the first approver and they remained adamant that it should be approved.
"The entire edit seems unnecessary by itself." Although you and I have slightly different perspectives, that is essentially my point, also. As I said, I felt that this proposed edit truly was superfluous, and the fact that the question hadn't been touched in more than nine years just made it that much more egregious.
My thoughts exactly, good sir. I engaged in a rather lively debate with this editor following their approval, but they remained steadfast in their beliefs. From my perspective, we would really be "polluting" the Super User front page if everyone who had sufficient privileges made very minor edits to Q&A that are almost a decade old.
However, two subsequent reviewers approved it. Please, enlighten me: am I off-base here? Should every potential improvement be approved, regardless of the question's age?
Hoping the solicit feedback from the mods, as well as veteran contributors like @Ramhound. Working in the Suggested Edit queue yesterday, I encountered this proposed update. Notably, this Q&A had not been active in more than 9½ years! Since the changes were very minor and the question was so old, I felt that the proposal was superfluous and the question shouldn't be resurrected just for this update.
The author of this question managed to create three Super User accounts. Rather than devote a nominal amount of time to clean up his mess, he simply started a brand-new question with essentially the same information utilizing his "newest" Super User login.
These questions have really involved into a "please don't feed the troll" scenario. This is actually the fourth time this person has posted the same question under a quartet of different (and unregistered) user names. From what I have seen, they haven't actually responded with a comment in any iteration of their query. Time to just downvote and ignore them?
Fun fact: while the contributor referenced within this previous chat comment has primarily mended his ways regarding low-quality edits, he has also approved more than 93% of the Suggest Edits that he has scrutinized... and I am fairly certain that the vast majority of his rejects are from the blatantly obvious "audit tests." Just some food for thought.
"I'm actually pretty curious to what's going on" Same here. I actually woke up this morning to discover that I had lost 120 reputation points for the same reason.
The OP within this question has submitted the same Suggested Edit on a subsequent answerthree separate times, and seems to be beyond polite discussion. Perhaps a moderator's input would help.
@Mokubai Agreed. During the transition when Firefox 57 was first released more than sixteen months ago, the significant differences made the firefox-quantum tag valuable. However, I don't think we should change the Super User community focus to the point that the firefox-quantum tag becomes the new default, especially with the disparity in the number of questions assigned to each tag.
...and beyond that, the Quantom version of Firefox (57 or newer) is now the only one that is still supported. Even the Extended Support Release (ESR) is version 60 now. As a result, Firefox Quantum should really be simply Firefox now. Last but not least, casual users probably won't know what Quantum really is... essentially, a Mozilla marketing term. It seems prudent for make Firefox Quantum a synonym of Firefox.
I wanted to solicit the opinion of the braintrust within this room before I potentially authored a Merge Request in Meta. For starters, I am having second thoughts on approving this tag wiki edit. At the moment, there are over 7000 question with the Firefox tag, but only 45 using the firefox-quantum tag...
Understandable. As I said, I made a subjective call based upon recognizing the user name of the person suggesting the edit, and they typically have a very reliable approval rate regarding their past suggestions. If I was wrong, that is strictly on me.
@Ramhound, since I don't see a hyperlink I assume that you mean this one? Beyond that, I assume you are referring to the additional PC version that the Suggested Edit referenced? I made a judgement call based upon a very solid resumé of previous suggestions from that user.
This user just posted four different answers that seem to rely upon YouTube videos from the same channel, although most of them aren't applicable to the question at hand. Possible spam?
And yes, that OP seems to be rather antagonistic (e.g., Do you use Windows 10?). Quite frankly, I really doubt that the OP even made an attempt to see if the scheduling trick works, but I specifically asked and they said "Yes, I did." Short of questioning their integrity, I simply decided to quietly walk away.
@Ramhound, agreed on all counts. I haven't actually tried the schedule trick, but I remembered that you awarded that specific answer a bounty very recently and from my perspective, that is an excellent endorsement.
Many of the solutions to prevent windows 10 from doing their auto reboot updates are not working anymore. The solutions posted here:
How to *disable* automatic reboots in Windows 10?
Are outdated and just a waste of time for everyone to try as they do NOT work anymore. It's 2019, what tricks d...
@Ramhound good call, and thank you for pointing that out to me. Yes, that one is definitely my fault. Quite frankly, I was so pleased to see an entire paragraph posted with the proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation, that I simply didn't stop to think about the "big picture" and realize that it still wasn't an appropriate suggestion. Thanks again, and I will ensure that I am much more cognizant of copy-and-paste tag wiki proposals in the future.
Agreed. It was essentially the exact same question and as I said within the comments, if the OP had done an advanced Google search aimed at SuperUser.com, the Q&A that solved his problem was the top result!
@Ramhound there were actually several more comments there were deleted underneath the original question. It was a civil conversation, but I emphasized to the person who was supporting Brian that although duplicate answers may be posted inadvertently, it probably sets a bad example for a new user to recommend that they intentionally author a duplicate answer. Essentially, we agreed and both deleted our own comments.
Research shows %AppData%\Microsoft\Windows\AccountPictures\ is the location where the Lock Screen image should be stored.
On the PC in question, I presume the customer has Done Something, and I would like to find where the Lock Screen image is stored in this Windows 10 Pro box. I do not wish to...
Mods, if I could please get a "sanity check" on the following scenario. I realize that there are some unusual circumstances surrounding this Q&A, but should we really be encouraging a new user to intentionally submit a duplicate answer?
@DavidPostill I understand what you're saying, but I think that there might be a healthy dose of subjectivity in the interpretation. From my perspective, the pertinent wording is the key: it isn't strictly opinion-based, but I do think that it is primarily opinion-based. It wasn't too hard to predict that this particular question would be a fertile breeding ground for very opinionated answers. Of course, I will defer to whatever the mods want to do with it.
@JourneymanGeek, needless to say we appreciate all of your time and effort, and I truly understand that this contributor has the very best of intentions. However, he doesn't seem to understand the concept that he just shouldn't edit the suggestions within the review queue, and nothing we say is going to stop him.
Even after everything that @n8te, @fixer1234, and I said, he emphasized that "if some one rejects must put the view point for readers as well for the answerer also,, otherwise it should be considered as personal,, or baseless." In other words, he doesn't want to offend people by rejecting their proposed edits, and his stats support that: only two rejections out of 46 edit suggestions, and those were probably review audits (which he has also been known to approve).
When you have a few minutes to spare, read the "About my posts" chat discussion. We have been trying to politely educate the user, and it just doesn't sink in. Full disclosure: I also have a teaching degree! :-/
Mods, I agree with @n8te. While this person may have the best of intentions, he honestly doesn't seem to comprehend relatively simple concepts regarding how to properly manage the review queues. We would essentially need to watch over his shoulder every time we see his name in the review queues.
In the aftermath, it is at least moderately amusing that @n8te specifically said within his Reject review that there was "No chance we're going to approve this," and then the subsequent review both approved it and cleaned it up a bit more! ;-) No worries, n8te... after the mushroom cloud dispersed, we fixed it.
@RajeshS do you understand what we are saying? When you review, it clearly says whether it is an answer or a question. That suggested edit was aimed at a question, and this brand-new user wanted to change it to answer, instead. Of course, that is wrong. However, you approved it and as a result, there was an entire discussion that featured several answers, but the question was deleted. It should have been rejected.
Please understand: by the time your "Improve edit" work was done, that entire post was filled with answers without any question, because you allowed it to be deleted.
@RajeshS it doesn't make any difference that you "simply distributed the Text into Steps only." The proposed edit was from a brand-new user, and it's our job to ensure that their suggestions are appropriate. That edit deleted the entire question and replaced it with an answer! As a result, you should have rejected it.
Many of the solutions to prevent windows 10 from doing their auto reboot updates are not working anymore. The solutions posted here:
How to *disable* automatic reboots in Windows 10?
Are outdated and just a waste of time for everyone to try as they do NOT work anymore. It's 2019, what tricks d...
Research shows %AppData%\Microsoft\Windows\AccountPictures\ is the location where the Lock Screen image should be stored.
On the PC in question, I presume the customer has Done Something, and I would like to find where the Lock Screen image is stored in this Windows 10 Pro box. I do not wish to...
About my posts
About my posts