[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Repeating words in answer: How many 10 digit numbers are there so the sum of the digits is $2$? by idk on math.SE

@XanderHenderson the question was edited and does not contain that question anymore. The answer whose edit-history would contain it is deleted. I just do not see what locking it now would achieve.

I was responding more to the accusation of cheating than anything else---IF a question contains a contest problem, then there are reasonable things to be done with such a question without needing to accuse anyone of cheating. Whether or not the questioner is attempting to cheat is irrelevant. That's all I meant to convey.

@amWhy Dup'ed.

@DanielFischer :D

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad NS for domain in answer, link at end of answer: Is the "determinant" that shows up accidental? by Winston Rosenberg on math.SE

Nice work, @SmokeDetector.

Member for 8months, 800+ rep, asks this PSQ. Close vote? (Also seems this user has earned some of their rep from posting many other PSQs.)

In this PSQ, asker requests "urgent reply"

This PSQ showed up on the list on the right hand side of the front page.

This PSQ from an asker with attitude needs to be closed, based on the poor quality of the post

Why are the displayed equations \Large? Are normal displayed equations not good enough for some reason?

ugh... it hurts my eyes :(

@XanderHenderson It should no longer be there, on the right-hand side of the front page?

It is gone, but now this one is there...

That should be gone now, as well as another linear algebra question, from the HNQ

Why does this have so many upvotes?!

Was likely a HNQ for some time.

@XanderHenderson Indeed I saw it on the HNQ. I'd give it a pass, on the assumption that it really is some confused young kid who wasn't taught properly in Elementary School.

@user21820 What bothers me about that question is that I could find two very similar questions with a simple search. Where's the effort? :'(

@XanderHenderson Ah that's true. I don't have a problem with closing it as duplicate anyway.

@XanderHenderson I just voted to close as a dupe; feel free, @Xander, to cite as a dupe of the other question you found.

I also just voted to close as a dupe

when I stated the process there were no votes; by the end, there were two

it seems that we were working at nearly the same time ;)

PSQ needs closure. I'm also getting ticked off with Jose Carlos Santos and his apparent attraction to answering such poor questions.

This question is a duplicate of this question, right down to the attached photo.

Methinks that someone has created a new account.

@XanderHenderson Indeed, and they essentially acknowledged so. Second question/second account now gone.

@XanderHenderson But, their original question was reopened, and shouldn't have been. :(

@XanderHenderson Oops, I just saw that you had voted to reopen the original question. Hmm...

I thought that the addition of the image (which is clearly wrong) merited reconsideration

I'm not sure that MSE should be a repository for errata, and the book is unnamed, but the image at least gave some context and clarity for the question

@amWhy why not?

They tried to solve an exercise in a book; they solved it (correctly) and it did not match the solution. So they ask. This is seems like a legitimate use of the site to me. The original version suffered some serious short comings that made in unanswerable. Once the solution in the book is provided it's alright, I think.

@quid I'm sorry, but the asker showed no work of their own, merely reported their answer, the post was closed, then an image of the book's work was posted for them, then the asker tried to game the system by creating a new account, reporting that their original account had been question-banned, and so ["logically?"] they created a new account (thumbing their nose at site-imposed restrictions), then they are treated like a 5th grader and hand-held? Sorry, I don't see the logic.

@amWhy they performed a conversion from radians into degrees. Then they said they put it into a calculator and reported the solution they obtained. When asked for it they provided the image of the book.

@quid Are you still so naive as to believe that this doesn't happen every day, multiple times? Oops, question banned, create a new account. Oops, my question was closed, and I need this answer in three hours when my homework is due, create a new account. Oops, I need to gain rep quicker, create another sockpuppet account. Oops, I'm pissed off at user XXX, create another account so I can double the retaliation.

On second thought it's not clear to me where the image came from.

Oops... it's okay to do all of the above, and then some....

@amWhy the second account was deleted.

And the user was told they should not do this.

But no consequences for the user whose question you reopened, who is the user who created another account to get past a closed question and question ban, correct?

@quid Yes, I told them. They simply replied that "of course" I did so for justifiable reasons?

Right. However, it is still important to show that the system works.

@amWhy there is no real point in consequences for minimal accounts.

@quid But you haven't shown that to many of us. The "system" did not work in this case, after all. You and Jaideep saw fit to rescue them.

@amWhy the question was asked, was lacking, was put on hold, was improved, was reopened, was answered.

The improvement was in part due to OP.

@quid That's not what I've heard: second accounts are okay, as long as they do not interact with each other, and that they are not used to "game the system": get around rules, sanctions, suspensions, questions put on hold, question bans, etc. If you're saying such accounts are okay, and any user creating such accounts to bypass imposed restrictions on their account can do so with impunity, then I guess I must not be on the site I once knew.

@amWhy I deleted the second.

And informed the first account that what they did was against the rules.

I consider a warning as sufficient and efficient in this case.

If you disagree with this please make a specific proposal what should have been done, and why this would have been more efficient.

@quid Only after I cast a third flag: "Isn't this account going to be deleted?" And what real consequences did the gamester user face? The loss of an account they created an hour earlier to beat the system? That's par for the course, but your action likely pulled them out of a question ban. They were not told how to appropriately get out of a question ban; instead, you granted them whole new license to reoffend. I respect that your own feelins re this case.

But I do not agree.

@amWhy I did not delete it in response to your flag. Until now I was unaware of that flag (as it got autocleared due to deleted and I had not seen it before).

But good that we agreed on that action! :-)

There is also a risk in demanding too much from new users. It needs to remain easier to operate within the system than outside it.

This user would not have faced a question ban based solely on the one question asked. This user undoubtedly had asked other questions which were deleted, or deleted by the asker, and with today's question under this (kept) account, they may have tipped the scales, in terms of entering a "question ban". You have failed to mention in this discussion that this was NOT a a desperate first time user who was terribly confused and made a careless mistake.

@quid This user is a user who has done enough so as to earn them a question ban (never happens due to one day's activity). And so I find it hard to see this user as some poor user not knowing their way around this site.

@quid So I find it difficult to consider the user in question a "new user."

@amWhy as a matter of fact there are no deleted posts attached to that account.

@amWhy And not everybody knows that there is a difference between a question ban and rate-limiting ("that wasn't very good so far, ask again in x days", where $x \leqslant 7$), let alone can tell the difference when a message pops up.

@DanielFischer That is true. I do still believe that on this site, and likely on most SE sites, the number users ever to use this site is likely far below 50% of the apparent accounts. I've asked, and quid can verify this, that SE take this question seriously. Though SE seems to relish in "numbers", so they'd likely be reluctant to test sample how many actual people use the site they sample, vs. number of accounts created. This user, today, is one mere example of such abuse.

@amWhy As a matter of timelines, was not the old question reopened before the new question was posted?

@XanderHenderson (I linked the comment you wrote, and clicked on it, and up came the dupe.) I do not remember noticing whether the first post was open or closed, but at that moment, I thought I saw it as closed. But I may very well be mistaken.

@XanderHenderson no.

So the original question was closed, new account was created, new question asked, then the old question reopened?

@XanderHenderson yup, and finally, the question asked by the same user with a different account was deleted. But that did no happen immediately.

@amWhy yes, it took 6 minutes. Because I first reopened the other post, and write two comments there.

@amWhy Before one needed to register to ask a question, there were many people creating a new account for every question they asked, a lot of them without any ill intention (clear the cookies, and you can't access the old account any more). So the number of users is surely significantly lower than the number of created accounts. The number of destroyed spammer/troll accounts is comparatively low, but perhaps not totally insignificant.

As for the user today, I see no indication that they created other accounts than the existing one and the one quid deleted. So, in dubio pro reo, I'd go with "It's a new user who mis-stepped. They've been told that it was wrong. Unless new misdeeds come up, there's no need to drop a piano on them."

@DanielFischer Please don't suggest I was suggesting anything of the sort, including not dropping a piano on them. I think that there should have been a slap on the hand, and not just a "don't do this again, okay, wink-wink + smiley-face?"

@amWhy what specific action is "a slap on the hand"?

@DanielFischer I'm not talking about merely "before" registration was required. The duplicate accounts (typically not any more due to forgetting log in credentials, but intentional) are more dangerous or nefarious than ever before. I've personally experienced consequences of this "under the radar" activity.

I thought it was clear that the piano-dropping wasn't meant literally. I don't know if quid issued a wink-wink + smiley-face, that would have been inappropriate, IMO. But in the case in question, I find a "Don't do that again!" not necessarily insufficient.

@quid You said you warned the user. Are you referring to your "don't do this again, smiley-face comment on the original post," or are you referring to the more appropriate warning sent via email to a user from the mse mods?

@amWhy Sure, the duplicate registered accounts are (not all) a more serious problem. But in sheer numbers, I think the duplicate unregistered accounts were more.

No, I did not write a mod-message, among others since those are cc-ed to about a dozen people.

@quid quid, I respect your handling of the situation. I am not here to try to berate you; I have merely answered your questions and Daniel's, and/or responding to them. But without a formal warning having been given, then the most that can happen if this user repeats this behavior (which will likely remain under the radar, anyway, but if it identified), is a more formal warning..., and then....

Besides, it calls into question why some users are given formal warnings on first infractions, followed by suspensions if the behavior recurs , yet others get informal comments from a mod, followed by what, a formal warning, followed by what, another formal warning, followed by what, maybe if necessary a suspension?

There is a risk that informal warnings fall through the cracks down the road, that's true.

What to do exactly is always a judgment call. The user was relatively co-operative in my observation. Also the question was in a way pretty reasonable. After all the were face with an error in a book.

@quid What concerns me in this case, is that even after I commented, and others pointed out the duplicate question and second account, the user simply responded with reasons: 'Well, I was told my account was banned from asking questions, and the other question was closed, and so I created a new account because I have urgent need to know.' Not a confession, but as though they felt they were entirely justified in doing so.

@amWhy yes. That's not great but also pretty common.

I'm not doing a sociological study documenting mse behavior, @quid, I'm saying your comment to the OP was less imperative than mine, and I doubt the asker feels they did anything wrong. With or without their comment. They just wanted the answer, and in the future, that's all they're going to want, and will do what it takes to get it, to hell with "protocol."

@quid and all, Let me refer to the initial question to which I've tried to respond, and all the follow-ups. (Click on arrow to see the source question). I am not trying to pick fights. I am not angry with anyone.

@amWhy I am not sure about that. After all they got the answer on the original post, while the dupe was deleted. One could thus hope they understand it is better to focus on the original post.

@quid That argument totally falls apart. School shootings in the US aren't great, in fact they're horrible, but also too common. The fact that some behavior is all too common makes it right? or forgivable? or understandable? Not in my world.

@quid Sure... all I do these days on this site is hope.

I do not compare infractions on MSE to school shootings, but the logic used is inappropriate for both cases.

@amWhy the behavior is such that somebody might think it is still alright even if not great.

Maybe littering is an analogy. Sure it's not a good practice but many people do it. And depending where exactly it is done it might be between acceptable and resulting in a fine. Not always handled coherently likely too.

@quid And that's the very behavior used by users to create sockpuppet, to double, triple retaliate against a user; seems some people think that's alright. Seems there are too many members of the NRA in the US that it's alright to manufacture assault rifles for "hobbyists"....

My point is, quid, despite the sociological data about the not-necessary-optimal-behavior of people ought not condone sub-optimal behavior, especially when too much suboptimal behavior from too many users can ultimately make a site base and worthless.

@amWhy it is not really the same behavior.

Oh, and in 7 minutes, I will again be subject to the retaliations from a "problem source". I should leave now.

@amWhy Are you sure you read the time-stamp correctly?

If so I am not sure what you refer to, but I might have checked too late;

@quid Yes, March 25th, 14:44 (my time) was five minutes ago.

@quid It's no big deal.

@quid Oh... I just saw the '19 as in 2019! Thanks for making me check again!

@amWhy no problem :-)

@quid That's a big relief for me!

can we all just agree that this is a crank answer?

@XanderHenderson Probably still in the ranks of a "wanna be," or "gonna be" crank. :P

@CarlMummert This has been deleted now, so I will unpin it from the right side.

@XanderHenderson Oh, I'm disappointed! I thought I'd get some nice Crock-pot recipes! :P

@user21820 I'm unpinning this, as the answer has been deleted.

5 downvotes on this PSQ, and only one close vote.. Need more close votes. The OP claims to be an eighth grader (yeah, I know, yawn).

Seems the OP self deleted the post linked immediately above.

Okay, seems the OP just undeleted the poor post.

@amWhy Please don't just add ${}{}$ to titles. That's a bad edit. Try to find a legitimate use of MathJax instead if a question has been in the HNQ long enough.

@DanielFischer Yeah, I kind of got that message two days ago. Here

@amWhy Okay. I wasn't aware of that. It had just been brought to my attention elsewhere.

@DanielFischer No problem...

@DanielFischer Just now? Someone must be ruminating on my edits three days ago.

@amWhy Or they have just waited a couple of days before mentioning it.

@DanielFischer Okay, but if the complainant is the user who posted this question in the mod chat, to which quid answers (see my last link labeled "Here") then it's a ruminator. Otherwise, if some other user paying attention to rather harmless edits, and not more salient matters on this site. In any case, I assure you I got the message two days ago, by merely reading an interaction between another mod and another user.

@amWhy It was somebody unrelated (a mod from a different site). Don't dwell on it. You got the message, so things are good.

@DanielFischer Okay. :-)

'Night then.

@DanielFischer Yeah, it's past bedtime for you!