@user21820 Open for deletion

@user21820 I agree, it's of poor quality.

@user21820 @Did @amWhy @ZacharySelk @XanderHenderson @JohnMa One more vtc needed!

@SimplyBeautifulArt closed. Hello! Where are ye now!

@user21820, @SimplyBeautifulArt, @Did, @ZacharySelk Keep an eye out for this user who seems to post nothing but PSQs. See the two question posted thus far today, e.g.

Needs to be put on hold PSQ

@DanielFischer Are you around, or just "away without having "left" the room"?

That depends. If it's not something quick, I'm already in bed.

@DanielFischer Go to bed! It's the weekend afterall! :-) thanks for stopping in.

I'm already on my way ;)

math.stackexchange.com/questions/2604151/…

This has no context and is likely a cheater.

@Typhon good call.

@amWhy thanks. If I had more authority I would vote to close and delete but oh well. That is never gonna happen for me.

glad you and others participate enough here to be able to deal with such issues

@Typhon well, posting here in this room goes a long way. I voted to close it, and downvote it; also flagged as "low quality"... more likely to have more viewers review it. But such a flag can also be declined/disputed. Thanks for posting here!

np

I seriously wish the no cheating policy would be enforced better though.

@Typhon I agree whole-heartedly. It seems, unfortunately, that as long as there are users here (answerers) who enable cheaters by giving them the answers they seek, it will continue. It is the answerers of cheaters' questions that bear a lot of the responsibility for enabling them.

@amWhy yeah in my opinion every single person on here should provide us with proof they are not cheating.

however that would be unfeasible.

at that point we might as well build a wall to keep everyone out

XD

@Typhon How tempting!!! XD

Yeah I mean not to get into politics but building a wall might be beneficial if it were actually possible and not just a pipe dream.

@amWhy well either Im being overbearing or that person is lying through their teeth.

@amWhy I flagged him for spamming edits.

15 edits is ridiculous

@Typhon It seems that you might want to read the Be Nice policy. George's question may be an attempt to cheat, but it is also possible that George is self-studying, or that they have confusion about something that is related to some class that they are taking.

The accusation that they are cheating is uncalled for.

@XanderHenderson I am well aware of the site policies. I have zero tolerance for cheaters and asking for sufficient proof that they are not cheating is not uncalled for or unreasonable on a site that is plauged with such issues.

@Typhon Part of the policy is "Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions."

The assumption should be that one is not cheating until and unless there is sufficient evidence that they are

@XanderHenderson under that paragraph it refers to formatting and policy issues not moral issues regarding cheating. Once again, it is not rude to ask someone to at least provide us with information in their question stating why they are asking it so that we can at least see they are not posting their homework.

it says to assume that people may not know the rules

Indeed. Because it is not your job to police whether or not others are cheating

Either a question is good for the site, or it is not.

It is against the rules of the site to cheat.

[citation required]

no it is not. go read the rules if you dont believe that.

If you claim that it is part of the rules, provide a link.

unfortunately SE does not make it clear where the rules are even located.

Moreover, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that someone is cheating. What evidence do you have that George is cheating, other than a poorly written question (which is remarkably improved since it was first posed)?

@Typhon Well, I just edited again. I think one could reasonably see the attempts of the asker to edit as good faith attempt(s) to improve the question. So perhaps it isn't the best to assume ill intentions by the asker, here. The consequences of bullying a non-cheater are worse than missing a cheater, as I see it.

in my opinion the number of cheaters getting through gives the site a very bad reputation.

unfortunately

@XanderHenderson the fact that they have yet to provide context.

This is also relevant.

@Typhon I don't disagree with that. But I think there are far more obvious cases of attempts to cheat than is the case with George. I think George has worked far more than most users who are asked to clarify and format their posts.