robinCTS

I realise only points 1), 3) and the first part of 4) are trivially implemented, but even just those would allow glancing at the indicator instead of visiting the user profile/using a script.

4) How many other posts currently exist for the user (a count of deleted posts would also be really nice)

3) The longest the user has held an account on any Stack

2) Whether the Ask and Answer help pages have ever been visited

1) Whether the Informed badge has been earned (although this can currently be gleaned if the user has no badges)

What would be useful, is if it included:

@JourneymanGeek As I'm currently just working the review queues and only occasionally answering a question (which I come across in the queues), I find the new contributor indicator completely useless. I used to, and still do, check out the user profile of 1-rep (and very low rep) users in order to customise a canned message. (This essentially means checking out every users profile.)

Unfortunately due to some technical issues, this took a bit more than expected to be conveyed. Coupled with the fact that, according to the edit summaries by the user, the two approved suggested edits could have been more extensive, but each clashed with a previous edit repectively, and the previously mentioned repeated edit summary on the one post, I can see how this could piss somebody off.

So, in summary, if I see an item in the review queue by this particular user, I will treat is exactly as I would if it were by any other user. If I see a suggested edit repeating the same issues I tried to address, I won't contact the user directly outside the queue again, but instead, I'll bring the issue up with a Moderator. (Which is what I would most likely also do for any other user anyway - that or just simply drop the issue.)

So, I rolled back the first suggested edit, re-edited the third one to show what a good edit looked like, then contacted the user explaining what I'd done and why, but leaving any further discussion up to them.

This would normally have been the end of my involvement, except I decided to check out the user's profile, and found a third suggested edit, essentially just an abuse of bold and backtick formatting, which had been approved by the OP. Since there were now three edits in the space of ten minutes, all of which should have been rejected but two had been forced through by the OP, plus the user having just started suggesting edits after a two year break, I decided to contact them directly.

(I've now worked out that this was most likely due to the moderator who stepped in and rejected the edit plus closed the question whilst I was in the middle of the Reject and Edit. There seems to be a bug involve though, as the sequence of event seems to have been 1) I started the Reject and Edit; 2) @ X:48:20 the Mod rejected the edit; 3) @ X:49:00 the Mod closed the question; 4) @ X:50:36 my Reject and Edit is applied; 5) @ X:52:38 my second, normal edit is applied as a separate edit)

So I did another quick, draft Reject and Edit (so the OP wouldn't have time to approved the suggested edit from under me ;-) ), and edited it outside the queue, to polish it off. Unbeknownst to me at the time, even though the two edits were only two minutes (and two seconds) apart, they ended up as separate edits both with same repeated extensive message to the user in the edit summary.

I shrugged my shoulders and went on to the next item in the queue. This happened to be by the same user, and while it was a minor improvement (it fixed the same word mispelled twice, capitalised the start of all three sentences, split the four-line single paragrah into two, and trivially tweaked the title), it also removed the only critical tag (out of two total tags), didn't fix the egregious grammatical errors, and used bold formatting to highlight four effectively random sections of text.

With this particular user, while I was in the middle of a Reject and Edit on a trivial, incorrect suggested edit (on a newly posted question, it used backticks to highlight a non-code, non-command ordinary part of a sentence, and used bold to highlight an already capitalised program name), the OP approved the edit.

The part that might be a little confusing is "but not attempt any further mentoring". So, just to explain, very occasionally (I think I've done it twice or so), if I notice a systematic trend of problem suggested edits I will contact the user outside the queue (either via chat or via a comment) to further explain in detail/supply supporting links.

@Ramhound Actually, that's precisely what I won't be doing ;-) I said "I'll just action any Review Queue item for the user as per normal".

@JourneymanGeek I'm not worried (or after revenge or anything like that). I suppose now that I do know 1) I can avoid any unnecessary interaction; and 2) I can be super-careful if I do interact with them - for example I'll just action any Review Queue item for the user as per normal, but not attempt any further mentoring (which is what I'm guessing set off the user). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@JourneymanGeek I allowed for that in my calculations. That's why it's only 99.87% instead of 100% ;-)

However, I just thought you might be interested - by a complete fluke (this'll change to "by an arduous process of hacking/detective work" as I re-tell the story ;-) ) I happened to find out who the serial voter was. (Well, I'm 99.87% certain, anyway.) Has been banned for a month. I honestly had no idea who it could have been until I stumbled across with great difficulty tracked down the suspension. Then it became completely obvious. (－‸ლ)

@JourneymanGeek Well, well, well! I've sent in a CM message. Still waiting for a reply.

Just found this one:

@JourneymanGeek Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I was using:

@JourneymanGeek Oh, btw, it's 2 min. Was trying to test how much time it would take, but someone kept posting and the text kept scrolling, making it much harder to do :P

That's via the contact support link at the bottom of the page, right?

@JourneymanGeek Not yet. Wanted your input first.

@JourneymanGeek :P

The likelyhood that that first downvote was by a different user is quite literally zero, as the total downvotes against me prior to this had been three - the last one occurring on Jul 4 (and most likely it was also a revenge downvote).

Any chance you can confirm my hypothesis with the tools at your disposal, or would this require a CM's input?

I'm a bit lot curious as to why only three out of the four were reversed. My best guess is that one of the triggers for reversal is for three or more downvotes to occur in the same "minute" (possibly on "good" answers, i.e. ones without any previous downvotes) but the script is not smart enough to pick up on related downvotes from the previous minute (or there's a bug involved).

The two posts from Aug 29 still had a downvote each, so they hadn't been reversed, whereas three out of the four Aug 31 ones had had their one and only downvotes disappear. Interestingly, the downvote on my latest answer, the first one downvoted on Aug 31, at 03:37:56Z, hadn't been reversed, but the next three, occurring in the next minute at 03:38:13Z, 03:38:32Z, and 03:38:47Z, had.

@JourneymanGeek OK. Here's something weird for you. At 03:01:48Z today there was a voting reversal. I was expecting either two (from Aug 29), four (from Aug 31), or six (from both days). Instead, three votes were reversed!

@JourneymanGeek I sympathise. Just like it's frustrating for me not being able to see deleted posts. I had an inkling who the serial downvoter might have been, as I noticed the first two downvotes almost as soon as they happened, and they occurred not long after I did a review on a post by a user with a few hundred rep (which is unusual). When I went to track down the post, it had already been deleted :(

BTW thanks for that bit of info. I was aware that mods couldn't invalidate votes, but I was also under the impression you couldn't see the votes. So specific votes on specific posts are hidden but you have tools to see user vs user voting patterns. I did wonder why that meta post suggested contacting the mods. Now I know why.

@JourneymanGeek Oh, I didn't mean to imply I was asking for help. I just thought you might be interested.

Hmm, maybe that qualifies as super obvious ;-)

@JourneymanGeek Oh, forgot to mention. The first two downvotes two days ago were my top two voted answers, downvoted in that order, and the last batch of four downvotes were my latest four answers, downvoted in precise reverse chronological order (most recent post first). All are good/very good, comprehensive answers.

@JourneymanGeek Will do.

@JourneymanGeek yes

@JourneymanGeek Thanks. Will do. Just waiting now for the next batch of downvotes in two days time ;-) (Unless the script catches the current ones and the big stick carrot stick is used.)

@JourneymanGeek ↑

Also, is it appropriate/useful to post a screenshot here of my reputation tab showcasing these votes?

Should I wait the requisite 36 hours, as per this meta answer, to see if the script picks it up, or would it be better if a Mod steps in early to head this off?

Looks like I've picked up a groupie (aka serial downvoter). Seems to be somewhat knowledgeable and trying to work out the vote reversal triggers - two downvotes two days ago at 09:49Z, then four more today, suspiciously at 03:38Z.

@DavidPostill Thanks. I should do that. I had a bit of a play in SOBotics at the end of last year/beginning of this one. Was thinking of getting a Charcoal account then, just never got around to it. (I did favourite the Charcoal HQ room, and I've added myself to metasmoke for auto flagging, though.)

@DavidPostill Great. Seems like on weekends spam tends to hang around longer.

spam superuser.com/a/1352254 and superuser.com/a/1352255, same user

In the end I had to basically ignore the user's comments on my answers, ignore the bad suggested edits/comments and keep careful track to limit which answers I was downvoting so they wouldn't be reversed (most of the answers were bad). It was the final straw that made me quit answering Excel questions for a while, and still limits my involvement with that tag. (Apologies for the rant.)