@quid shady/suspicious.... both work. Otherwise, I'm not clear on your last question.

@amWhy thanks, this is what I meant to ask. It was just a tangential language question.

Indeed, "shady" is very valid and common. Suspicious is just the word that popped in my mind.

@amWhy while it is unusual it is not unheard of. When Lord Shark started it also was noted.

@quid But I don't remember Lord Shark having so many poor answering. And yielding so many accepts in one day. But, alas, you can see more than I see.

@amWhy I am now not certain anymore about which user we are talking. The one John Ma mentioned in my opinion has a rather low accept rate like around 1 in 5.

And if not low, then at least not unusually high.

"poor answering" (meant "poor answers"): I say this only because a very many of their answers have been flagged and sent to the low-quality review in the past few days, and indeed, the answers were poor. I haven't gone though post by post, the answers.

@quid Oh, I am referring precisely to the user @JohnMa linked to.

@amWhy yes, that's true. It is to be hoped they'll adapt to the standards in due course; on the good side, they also have a number of posts that seem alright to me.

I mean, 19 accepts in one day?

@quid Well I'll just have to hope for the best then, I guess.

But I am going to keep an eye out for the user.

@amWhy yes, that's a lot. Yet then they gave almost 40 answers today. Certainly it will be good to keep an eye on it.

@MichaelGreinecker @DanielFischer @mixedmath @quid Look it is quite obvious that the user is using puppets, and the claim that there is no evidence is simply silly. The incidents I noticed and told two of you about were Nov 13,19,22. I admit that the Nov 13 one was on separate answers to the same question but there were 4 upvote pairs in this year alone each within 30 seconds (do all those upvoters upvote both posts only after reading both??) Also there is another on Jun 6.

Whether sock or meat puppets, the evidence is quite clear. The most you can say is that it is not absolutely undeniable evidence.

But the evidence strongly suggests that that user at least asks friends to upvote him/her blindly (as a moderator previously admitted somewhat), so if there are no repercussions, are you condoning the rest of us users to ask our friends to upvote us, especially if we think our answers are of much better quality than this user's?

@MichaelGreinecker: By the way, the flag was declined, so I don't know what you mean by "not cleared the flag".

@user21820 I did not clear the flag. Regarding the evidence: Why should one make the effort to create sock-puppet accounts but not wait between upvoting with the different accounts- which also means they are open at the same time, not even that easy within the same browser. It is much easier to open questions in different tabs, read both, conclude one likes them, upvotes both, close the tabs.

This is perfectly acceptable behavior. If you have evidence that the user pestered his friends to upvote his answers, please let me know.

@MichaelGreinecker Well those 4 pairs were all on that same two posts, for which I at first only noticed the Nov 13 pair. The answer age and time difference tells me each pair is from the same user rather than different users, and certainly it is easy to do what I said with the answers on the same page. In any case, the user is a total stranger to me in real life so I would not have any evidence of real life interaction. Alright I've probably wasted too much of your time. Thanks for putting up with it!

@user21820 I've only been a passive observer so far. Would you mind linking to his profile again for me?

@mixedmath Can you see my most recent flag on Math SE, as I don't want to state the user's name here?

@mixedmath Daniel posted it on the mod-chat.

@user21820 @MichaelGreinecker gotcha, thanks

@user21820 I sorry to say (since this is definitely not what you want to hear) that everything seems pretty clean from our end.

I agree with the other mods' analysis

@mixedmath Strange to hear that there is no evidence on your end, but okay. Thanks for looking into it!

Just a quick question, @quid, or @DanielFischer, I very recently flagged a post (the most recent question that Smokey links in CRUDE. I flagged it, because the question was merely an uploaded image, and an answer, even after being deleted, was reposted by the asker, who accepted the answer. I see nothing showing that I had flagged it, in my profile/activity. My guess is that it was dealt with my a mod/deleted, because I can't relocate it now.

Still there (I used the link to it in CRUDE: math.stackexchange.com/a/2550921. So perhaps I failed "submit" after writing in the text box of my "moderator attention" flag. So, if one of you, or any other mod sees this post (the one above), please check out.

@amWhy I see no indication of you having flagged it. Maybe Jack deleted it right as you wanted to submit the flag, causing no flag to be recorded.

@amWhy No, wait. The image thing is a different answer.

@DanielFischer No, the question link provided by SmokeDetector, which I linked here too, just above, is still open. So the fault seems to be my own.

@amWhy The Smokey link goes to an answer posted today, and deleted shortly after that. The image answer, whose first version was deleted by the author, and then re-posted is older.

@DanielFischer I see I mistook the link as being to the image question and image answer, but in any case, I find the question/answer pair suspicious, because they are image only (link only), and cited from a source from which they were copied/uploaded. Sorry about any confusion.

Any way, @DanielFischer Probably not worth it at this time (given the age of the post) to worry about it. Thanks though, for the clarification!

@amWhy To me it looks like just another bad question. The OP then found a solution - or at least thought so - and posted that (as an image of a Word document or so, it seems).

@DanielFischer Yes, seems so. I really have to problem with it staying open, and would likely have never seen the post, were it not for Smokey! :)

@amWhy It's on hold now.

@DanielFischer As always, I really appreciate your responsiveness!

Hey, @skullpatrol. Looks like the Raiders, and the Packers are at 6 - 6.

Yup @amWhy

Perhaps we will meet in the Super Bowl.

@skullpatrol Maybe next year!! (Waiting for Rodger's healing!)

Next year is World Cup year!

::hides from DanielFischer::