opinion-based

C: not sure how it gots so many upvotes... It's just a routine computation problem with no effort.

@ArcticChar Very hard to understand those upvotes. Even ignoring the lack of context/effort , I can still not see a reason.

@Peter Found another 4. C2, C3, C4, C5

They all use either the tag functional analysis or differential topology.

Aren't C2 and C5 identical ?

Yes, just found that out.

So it's four accounts. 3 of them are registered 3 months ago and one 8 days ago. All accounts asked only 1 question today.

@ArcticChar I know from a user that was banned for a year for multiple accounts , do you suspect this here ?

I really have no idea.

Sorry, one more: C6 quite hilariously, one of the users I linked before actually come to this question to delete the tag after my comment.

One more vote needed: C1, C2; D1, D2, D3, D4

For closure: C3, C4, C5, C6,

C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12

For deletion: D5, D6, D7, D8

@ArcticChar A follow-up observation is that at this moment, about half of the mentioned posts have been deleted by OPs around about the same time interval.

@OliverDiaz "Geezer" is explicitly derogatory. Please refrain from such language, thank you.

Please close this question

Please close this question

@TeresaLisbon Hi, new idea for my conjecture in "Martin Hopf's prime numbers"

@Peter Will come there now.

@Saad A conspicuous pattern now is that right after I commented that @ArcticChar's C4 was deleted and reposted by the OP, the new post got 3 upvotes almost instantly, which really smells like sock puppets. Could mods investigate this matter, @XanderHenderson?

@Saad In the meantime, let's just close it again.

@user21820 I've run out of quota, though.

@Saad Oops no wonder.

My guess is that these users might have had (multiple) accounts before and know the presence of CURED due to the synchronousness of deletion of the posts.

@Saad Sockies it is! I've voted up your comment so it gets attention.

@TeresaLisbon Thanks!

I've also voted to close that post. I'll be on the lookout for future posts, though not very tightly.

This question has one of its two duplicates linking to this question, the linked post is completely unrelated... can someone remove the second link? (it has an [induction] tag if someone with gold badge can)

@Sil The second link appeared during the review process and there's technically no way to romove it (unless the post is reopened).

But I see no need to reopen the first post.

D9

@Saad People with a gold badge for [induction] can edit the duplicate target list. – @BillDubuque, do you hear us? :)

@MartinR Could this one that you commented on be part of the entire voting ring as well? Well, putting it out here anyway. It seems that people are reposting following closure/deletion. Actually, this question has no problem per-se but the voting is suspicious.

@MartinR But even after it's already closed?

The question here has in fact been deleted now.

(Self-deleted).

@TeresaLisbon Now that seems like yet another case of sock puppets.

@Saad Yes:

Yes, and all these pairs (?) of socks are probably related. One of the names was Russian so I tried to take a brief look if there was some famous exam around, but I found nothing. I am sure there's probably some exam going around, maybe an admission exam.

@user21820 Geezer is more nuanced than that, as in British English it isn't derogatory. See for example this Quora discussion, or Merriam-Webster. That is, it is only sometimes derogatory, and hence not explicitly derogatory.

PSQ (with two upvotes).

@JoséCarlosSantos This PSQ is identical to @ArcticChar's C5. So there're possibly two pairs of sock puppets now.

@XanderHenderson The matter is now more serious.

@MartinR Yes, I removed that puzzling dupe link - per request.

@user1729 If it is explicitly listed as derogatory in a dictionary for a widely used English dialect, one would do well to avoid it once it is pointed out. I hope you agree that there's no good reason to purposely continue using such words in the future, and that's what matters.

@user21820: I agree with you that this word shouldn't be used for that very reason, but I think in this context Oliver should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the Oxford Dictionary, it is listed as an informal (but not derogatory) word for "man" in British English. In American English, it is derogatory and informal term for "old man".

It looks as if the user who asked the question about the twin prime conjecture has deleted their account. That's a shame

@Joe I was giving the benefit of doubt, otherwise I would have flagged or trashed it, and I would have said something much stronger than "refrain". So I think we are in complete agreement, and thanks for the comment!

@Joe And thanks for the update!

@user21820: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't giving Oliver the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, it's nice to see some agreement on this chat!

@Joe Yup. =)

Yet another one here. This time they have put some efforts, but the upvotes are still fishy...

@ArcticChar Ah so it's probably one of the puppets, whether made of socks or meat.

:58696729 Have you flagged the post for moderator attention with that information? One of us should do it, and via flag not chat, so that there is an actual record.

I have raised 2 flags for the first 4-5 accounts @user21820 But honestly I don't know how long it takes for the mods to see that, given that now they have so many flag to handle.

@ArcticChar Well, just have to wait I guess.

@ArcticChar The last commenter here is another person who has a single question with fishy up votes. It was a PSQ from ages ago, but it still retains the key facet of having too many up votes.

What, actually, is , going, on , here.

close Again: the same question PSQ for the third time.

And it already has 5 upvotes. I've flagged the moderators for being a sock-puppet.

It seems we could run out of votes today just by closing all these questions.

@JoséCarlosSantos It actually has 8 upvotes...

@user21820 From there I conjecture that they have 8, or at least 7 accounts.

Yet another one: here (sorry for bombing the room) for this post you can see another account helping out this account.

@ArcticChar The earlier one wasn't convincing enough, but this one is. First burst of 3 upvotes in 15 seconds, second burst of 3 upvotes in 30 seconds. The other two upvotes may be from other users.

@ArcticChar Maybe you're right after all; it just got another upvote. This is just ridiculous; so many puppets...

So many puppets putting on a show, well they are definitely trying to save puppetry traditions!

Seems that the user wants to demonstrate the weaknesses of the software of this site. And probably is very amused to be able to outsmart the software. Well, who needs it.

@Joe This is not a matter of definition or how the law considers it. You seem to miss the point. For me, it is beyond rude and at least borderline, if not insulting.

Moreover, it is a speculative comment.

Btw can't just mod see everyone IP address (it is allowed) and whichever users have same IP keep a check on them. This way puppet can be caught easily. However it is not necessary that he is working on same pc he might be working on different pc and thus will have different IP sadly :(

@Peter: I absolutely agree that Oliver should not have targeted you personally in the way he did. I just meant that his use of word "geezer" was not necessarily intended to be derogatory. As user21820, user1729, and I have discussed above, there might have been a misunderstanding due to the differences between British and American English.

I have noticed that this question which I answered has attracted 3 upvotes and 3 downvotes. Is it because of lack of effort on the asker’s part? I thought it had borderline effort, so I answered it, but I will delete my answer if the consensus is that the question goes against the guidelines.

The asker has not been online since asking the question, so they have not even seen my answer. I’ll have no issue deleting it.

@shoteyes I presume it's because it was a cheating attempt, as was recorded in the timeline.

@user21820 I see. Even though, there was an additional upvote and downvote on the question in the last 24 hours way after the question had been reopened due to concerns that it was part of an active contest. This leads me to believe it is still somewhat controversial?

@shoteyes Cheating is always disgusting to some people, whether or not it is caught, and whether or not the cheating attempt is over. For that reason, I think downvoting the cheating attempt is always justifiable. As for closure, current consensus seems to be that it depends on solely the question quality itself (independent of any cheating allegations), which is probably why it hasn't been closed for context reasons.

PSQ

Another PSQ

PSQ to close.

@user21820 You are offended by the "old geezer" term but not by the fact that any of you (over 20's) enjoy bullying not only undergraduates but even seven graders? Do not worry, I will refrain with your little gang (though I do have respect for a few at CURE).

@OliverDiaz calling the proposed deletion of a question on MathSE "bullying" is positively offensive to those who experience actual psychological trauma from their peers

@OliverDiaz Enough of this. If you think there is bullying, flag for moderator attention. If the moderators disagree with you, then do not keep making accusations.

If the attitude of closure and downvoting is being referred to as bullying and (from similar references on that page) "slamming the door", then we really need to talk about what posters go through when their question is closed, and what kind of psychological effects that has. I don't know how such a person truly feels v/s how they "should" feel according to us.

The usage of such words points to the fact that closure is a truly disturbing thing. As someone who hasn't had questions closed, I thought it might be reasonable to ask people how they react when their question is closed.

sorry I'm just too curious

How should they feel according to you?

Not good, @Yorch. Like a lot of things in life.

@TeresaLisbon It doesn't matter. Every community has rules and guidelines. If they are not followed, there are consequences. If one thinks closure/deletion is bullying, they need to substantiate their claims on Meta SE, not here. This room is not for such discussion.

Then that's how it feels, not good.

@user21820 That's true, but the usage of such words as I mention shows that there's more than just "rules and guidelines" to it. We have to make the process appear more transitional and improvable and less "an end to things".

Please everyone, stop and post on Meta SE if you wish to air your thoughts about purported bullying via closure/deletion. Otherwise there will be yet another pointless off-topic debate in the wrong place.

@Yorch Ok. Now, do you think it could be made better?

Sure, see what 99% of the users of the site do

@TeresaLisbon Before you ask that question, ask whether "feeling not good about something" is good enough reason to "make it better". In any rule system consequences rarely make offenders feel good, and 99% of the non-offenders don't even care to enforce the rules, and yet they benefit from the rule enforcement.

But as I said, this is the wrong place for such discussion.

@user21820 Thanks, I realize that now. I'm ending it here.

Sorry, I just had to come in cuz the level of hilarity got a bit too high please don't let me disturb your activitites

sure, thanks for the courtesy.

@TeresaLisbon I do not know on which side you are. But again, noone can even know whether the user actually is a child. Everyone can claim that. Just think about this. And I agree user21820 , even if it is the case, rules apply for everyone. Choosing your words : I feel not at all good that this site currently seriously gets out of hand.

@Peter Good point, although the language on THAT post reflected the thought. But yes, this is the wrong place for this discussion. By the way, I did not notice that there was a new answer on the ""Enforcement of Quality Standards" post. It's a different take on things, and worth reading.

A summary of this answer would be useful for everyone here, I think.

True, although I cannot see myself doing that. I'm still trying to understand the answer!

downvote/delete This time not 1+2+3+...=-1/12 however.

@Peter Interesting deviation. One more downvote to deletion!

Not really inviting discussion, but I just saw some of the recent comments, and the brief "librarians vs teachers" debate. Jyrki's take on it is that the "teachers" are relatively more uncompromising , because their pedagogical point of view is fundamentally untenable when we look at our policy, after all their primary take on things would be to not have any policy enforcement at all. In short, to allow debate of any sort, we must create a middle ground between us, and the high-rep users that...

... aren't voicing their opinions and getting suspended, and about whom now, there is talk on meta saying that their opinions were never considered. I suppose the site is always going to be in limbo about this, because there's always going to be this lack of middle ground. Either we respect it, or we keep doing what we want and clashing. IMO the reflected activity on meta is clearly not enough to resolve this clash.

@Peter: Let me try my best to summarise Toby Mak's answer to the Enforcement of Quality Standards post.

Toby disagrees with the change in procedure outlined by EoQS because he believes that users should be trusted to make their own decisions about whether each post meets the quality standards of this site. He also questions whether there is a unified consensus about what constitutes a "good question".

In his answer, he includes an image of a private email sent to him by the moderators that warns him that "a significant number of [his] posts are answers in reply to 'Problem Statement Questions' (PSQs)". This email seems generically written, which is another source of Toby's frustration as he believes that many of the criticisms in the email are not relevant to him.

For instance, the email states that he answers many duplicates, but Toby states that he often uses Approach0 to search for duplicates before he answers. The email seems indicative of how "no longer are users trusted to make their own decisions", which Toby argues will have a detrimental effect on this site. He ends the post stating that EoQS will be "the beginning of the end" for MSE.

@Joe: I think your summary is good. But I also think people should just read the whole thread there, so that they can't say there is any bias in a summary. But given your summary here, we might as well also mention the currently topvoted comments on Toby's post that are relevant to the post:

This post is also useful to read for those concerned. But it's virtually impossible when your overlords' aim is to increase the traffic on site and make sure that people "don't ask to ask". So many times we've seen videos, quizzes,guides etc. suggested for this. This, and we have to accept that most people visiting our site don't share the same vision as we do, period.

So it's always going to be a fight. It will never stop unless crucial figures strive to reach a middle ground, the most crucial being prolific answerers on MSE, whose contributions (i.e. answers) are most likely to be visible and become markers for the general population. For reasons I do not know, this population doesn't represent itself on meta, and that's half the reason why people will always say there is no consensus, no debate etc., because key figures are abstaining from meta.

@TeresaLisbon That's not very accurate. SE has explicitly stated that sites are given some freedom to have their own community guidelines for interaction, as long as it doesn't violate certain core SE policies. That is also why Phys SE can have (for years now) a very firm no-homework policy, contrary to many other sites. I'm not saying Math SE ought to do that, because I'm still in favour of letting students get help on their homework. But I feel EOQS has gotten a good consensus.

Also note that "Don't ask to ask" does not at all imply "ask whatever you like", in case that is ever brought up.

@user21820 I agree that EoQS has got a good consensus, but I cannot help but feel that questions about EoQS and how it was being implemented were required on site. That, and the shambolic nature of the email tells me that this answer of Toby will at least provide an answer underneath which a little bit of middle ground can be promoted. I now see that the message I would want to send to someone getting suspended, isn't that kind of a mail for sure.

(Getting suspended/warned)

@TeresaLisbon Of course. On the other hand, I would say that Toby's post is actually insincere. He knows what are bad questions and yet answers. Witness it with his comment here:

3 minutes before he posts an answer.

@user21820 Ah yes! I was witness to that post. I've seen another user behave like that often, a kind of limbo between answering and improving the post. I think we should talk to someone like Toby and ask them what their idea of enforcement would be, because I think the idea of trusting users seems to not be a prospect of worry to them, while on the contrary I would say it is quite worrying.

And it's also false that they abstain on meta. They definitely make the most noise on meta, even if I don't have the statistics to back up this claim. After all, where do you think the 30+ downvotes on the EOQS post came from? And yet, there are 120+ upvotes. You can be sure that all the PSQ farmers downvote on EOQS. But can you be sure that all the users who desire quality questions upvote? No. In fact, I myself didn't upvote at first after seeing that it already got many upvotes.

They even make dud accounts just to make noise. bobby.608, for example, states to have quit after receiving a timed suspension. Why then is that user who supposedly quit back on Meta just to make noise?

@user21820 But without taking names, think of some of the high-rep users/suspended users/ warned users who you'd think have suffered from EoQS policies. They haven't come to meta, right? Of course it could be that they sort of know they can't defend themselves, but the problem is that a user like that now has something (defensible, but still damaging) to hold against me, for nearly no fault of my own. YD was consistently flouting guidelines , but he never came to meta and asked "why me?"

@TeresaLisbon Because they know they are deliberately flouting guidelines. Look, if you want to ask anyone what the rules should be, you should ask a fair sample. Not ask those who make the most noise.

@user21820 That's true, but who is the fair sample representing this high-rep user population, and trying to justify their actions? Or, perhaps, deep down, everybody knows they are doing the wrong thing.

@TeresaLisbon I thought it should be obvious how to take a fair sample. Randomly.

@user21820 Ah, yes, forgive my ignorance. I just want to make sure that a section of the population isn't then getting polarized (as TM and bobby seem to be) simply because they see these suspensions and self-deletions of certain users. They need to know that these users also could not defend what they were doing, and were clearly flouting the rules again and again despite being warned of it.

Which is difficult, because for such a user the "best" users on the site are those with the highest reputation. It's a difficult link to break.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no better post that ever had more viewership than EoQS though. That reached every nook and corner of MSE. Which is also why I'm partly surprised that a response similar to TM's didn't appear earlier.

Well, that's why the moderators have no choice but to suspend repeat offenders. It's not even guaranteed to have a high success rate, but it's better than nothing. Previously, even deleting PSQs don't have any effect because these PSQ farmers just farm so many that they don't care about losing some rep. In some rarer cases, they even make sure to hit the rep cap, so they won't even lose any rep from deleted posts as long as the remaining rep in that day remains above 200.

I didn't think about the rep cap part. That's shocking! Anyways, I just feel a whole lot better after this conversation. We still need one with TM, perhaps after they are composed, but thanks @user21820 for your opinion. I must say it's very reassuring.

I've got to go now, but I will keep these very nice points in mind.

@TeresaLisbon Ok see you, unless you want to wait a bit for my requests haha..

@user21820 Oh I do want your avalanche!

At least one person will be very happy to be hit by it today.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

@TeresaLisbon Well that's it for today, so thanks! I also got to go soon anyway.

@user21820 I'll have a bite, and a good [insert time zone here] to you!

@TeresaLisbon See you!

See you too!

Please reopen this question and close the associated question as a duplicate.