@AaronHall Do you have some examples? Would you mind making a post on meta with those examples? Putting that kind of banner on other people's answers is never ok, and such edits should be rolled back without hesitation. It might also be appropriate to flag it to moderators so that they can keep an eye on users who are doing this multiple times.

If a user doesn't agree with an answer, he should just downvote it, and if he feels very strongly about it (or even otherwise) he can post a comment or even a separate answer explaining why he thinks that answer is bad advice. Vandalizing other people's answers with banners because he doesn't agree with should not be accepted here. Besides, why should we just trust the banner and assume that the answer is bad advice?

> the original answerer leaves them like that too (and regularly returns to the site).

If the answerer disagrees, they are free to change it. Some don't. Why? Inertia?

No, they agree that their original answer was bad, and apparently don't see it worth the effort to correct it.

If they or the community disagrees, they can roll it right back.

Edits are simply not the tool to point out disagreements

That's what comments are for

I am frankly quite baffled that I am arguing this with a moderator

Wait, so this user is a developer but also wants to be a bartender facing a problem that they can't drink alcohol, except that two questions over on Beer, Wine & Spirits seem to indicate that they'd like to taste whiskey and drink cocktails with wasabi. What kind of soap opera is this?

@SQB Maybe their personal situation evolved to the point where they can't have a drop.

Bartenders can make good money and maybe the guy wants a side job where he doesn't have to think too hard...

@AaronHall ^^^ yeah sure

@gnat ...yanno those are different users, right?

@ArtOfCode different users operating the same network profile, why not. Except that iirc this is forbidden by Stack Exchange ToS, no problem

@gnat what do you mean? The user from the bartender question is NID 8341728, but the user from the meta question you linked is NID 10051250.

@ArtOfCode oh I probably was unclear sorry. I meant non-drinking bartender has the same account as a developer who likes whiskey. Guy having exceptionally exciting life from meta question has different account. Though one never knows, same user can in theory operate both accounts

@gnat Yeah. My point was that you're linking that meta question as if to say "no the same user has more outrageous questions", which clearly ain't true :)

Well as answerers we must attempt to suspend disbelief and provide wise answers without questioning the credibility of the asker, with all the credulity we can muster.

Anyways, I can't find where making up a question is actually against the terms of service: stackexchange.com/legal

At least not with about a five minute scan or so...

that'd be because it's not

Sharing an account?

@AaronHall And, in fact, whether or not said situations actually happened is far less relevant than whether those situations might plausibly happen to other people some day.

no, making up a question

sharing an account is against the TOS, making up questions is not

I did Ctrl-f for "shar" - didn't get anything...

> (d) knowingly post any false, inaccurate or incomplete material,

there it is - no making stuff up.

@AaronHall not sure how, given that it's in there 6 times

nothing about sharing an account.

it doesn't explicitly say no sharing accounts, though I thought it did - but it does say that you are responsible for ensuring the confidentiality of your password

which isn't quite the same thing but has a similar effect

I've heard talk of offices sharing a stackoverflow account, and hadn't seen anyone up in arms over that aspect...

There's also this:

I wonder if that guy who "trolled" server fault actually thought he did rm -rf root, and then played it off as a hoax to save face.

> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Stack Exchange may offer to provide the Services, ... solely for Subscriber’s own use.

which could create some issues around who actually accepted the terms or who they apply to

What that probably means is that Stack Overflow can kill a badly behaved account without worrying too much even if someone claims it was a shared account and no fair.

oh they can do that anyway

pretty sure there's something about being able to terminate registrations for any reason or no reason at all

He claimed he did it to advertise his business. How likely is that?

No way. He thought he deleted from root, posted his question, figured out how to recover, when the story went viral, regretted using his real name when his clients started calling, then claimed it was a hoax.

At least, that's the version of events that makes the most sense to me. I'm not claiming some otherwise special insight or inside info on it.

I'm going to forward the comments to the CM's and let them deal with it.

Fine

I deleted the comment and I should've taken it to the TL, but changing meaning of other people's post is still not okay

And refusing to discus it is disrespectful

A mod should know better. And a mod should be open to constructive criticism

(and my comment was a bit too harsh, and for that I apologise, I had hoped to deleted it before you saw it, but you were too fast)

@AaronHall Why do the CM's need to get involved in this?