02:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

9:00 PM
@EmilioPisanty sorry I don't understand.

@PauloCereda I've seen Grace Hopper's video: smartest people are those who have the greatest sense of humour!

@Papiro is gone.
Since @Papiro was one of the top voters on the site, I'm assuming his departure has a great effect on user's reputation.
Give some feedback if you find this to be outrageous. :-|

@Werner What a pity, I tried to tell him not to go away!

@CarLaTeX Yeah... I don't know the reason.
On Wayback Machine, his vote count stood at ~50K in Dec, 2016:

@Werner He said He was becoming TeX.SE addicted

9:10 PM
@CarLaTeX Oi. So this is a clean break from a (good) relationship? :-o
I'm just wondering what happens to the ~50K+ votes he's cast.
I've seen the effect on my reputation, and it wasn't really that significant (in the bigger scheme).

@Werner Yes, I think

@DavidCarlisle In mine, yes, when I checked my reputation tab.

@Werner I haven't lost a single vote, perhaps he didn't like any of my answers:-)

@DavidCarlisle Ha ha!

9:14 PM
@Werner I haven't seen any change in my reputation, too (but I have few points)

@Werner actually I guess votes cast on rep capped days don't get lost (@egreg seems to have lost none today for example)

@DavidCarlisle Yes. Only rep received is reversed.

@Werner yes I'd hoped to see something similar for egreg but he's at +290:(

...and that receivership could be negative as well (one in my case).
@DavidCarlisle Useless, I know.

@DavidCarlisle No way. :P

9:28 PM
@egreg shame. But at least we've both moved further ahead of @Werner, so it's not all bad.

@DavidCarlisle Pffft...

@Werner :-)

I think your time zone benefit you in this case, living around UTC.

9:50 PM
@DavidCarlisle Herbert lost 3224

@egreg ouch

@DavidCarlisle And Jake 1060; Gonzalo 2265

@egreg clearly pays to rep cap every day, as a precaution

@DavidCarlisle Definitely

@DavidCarlisle @egreg You two are hilarious...
Just look at this list - the reputation by week in reverse - to see the affected individuals:
I wonder... should we consider this an issue?

9:54 PM
@Werner oh @ChristianHupfer got hit again. Yesterday by mod action, today by user leaving

Papiro has been around for quite a while, and was a prolific voter.
@DavidCarlisle Yes.
This seems to stand for a case where user Community can absorb Papiro's votes so it is still retained...
...the affect seems huge (as I mentioned, around ~50K votes voided).

@Werner but that's just how it is. If @PauloCereda left it would show even more I guess. It's fairly clear that deleting your account removes your votes.

@Werner I think the rules require much higher rep in order not to remove the votes.

@DavidCarlisle I know that's how it works... Of course, you're comfortably sitting on a high chair since toiling with your rep cap hat... ;)

@JosephWright I shouldn't look at such questions -- it's given me headaches ;-).

9:58 PM
@egreg The "rules" seem subjective... do you have any references?

990

Currently, when a moderator deletes a user all of the user's votes are removed along with the user himself. I was pretty surprised at this behaviour when I first heard about it, and I don't think it is a good idea to throw away all of the votes just because the user is deleted. Votes are locked ...

@Werner However, the passage that says The exact values of those thresholds don't particularly matter; they're pretty low, but not so low that you could hit them easily while still hiding fraudulent activity. doesn't seem to be really true in this case. Unless the reviewer decided for otherwise.

@egreg Isn't that nifty... :)
@egreg I guess one could bring this up with the SE team...
@JosephWright: When Papiro asked "to be excused", you mentioned that it has been "actioned".

@Werner "But rarely if ever will these votes cause a non-trivial drop in reputation" oh that doesn't seem to have happened here.

What does that mean?
Did you contact the team? Did they initiate the deletion? Do they perform investigations into this or is there just some script in the background that runs (while everyone looks away)?

@Werner Staff action is required to delete accounts above a certain rep

10:05 PM
@DavidCarlisle True, @shog9's comment there seems to have happened.

@egreg Though I can't be sure, my feeling is that the Powers will say 'if your rep is still above 20k after a loss of this type, there is nothing to worry about' even if the loss is relatively large: beyond 20k rep has no value at all in terms of the site

@EmilioPisanty No but you can redefine \author. I did it once - but not with a simple optional argument but a keyval-argument to be able to set the author for the toc, the header and an exported bib-entry.

@Werner, @Papiro indeed casted a lot of votes. I've lost nearly 200 rep... :'-(

@GuilhermeZ.Santos Be happy
29 mins ago, by egreg
@DavidCarlisle Herbert lost 3224

10:21 PM
Correcting what I said before, I was affected, too...

@JosephWright That should read: "While 20K+ users are valuable to the site in terms of their contributions, reputation removal through vote reversal would likely not impact their behaviour or contributions..." Perhaps? ;)

@Werner You can bring my case as example of one user well under 20K who lost more than 200 points...

@DavidCarlisle Actually, he seems unaffected by Papiro's departure (for now; not sure whether some corrections are still rolling out).

10:38 PM
@UlrikeFischer If you have the example around I'd be interested. Otherwise, I guess custom commands will do.

@DavidCarlisle: Do you know anything about longtable?

@DavidCarlisle This is not meant to happen to this sort of extreme level.

Would using \number\numexpr\value{page}+1\relax in the repeated footer resolve to the correct page number?

you guys should call in a community guy from the team to look at that rep table

10:53 PM
@DavidCarlisle Perhaps it were Papiro's votes which were corrected in my case.... perhaps I will lose another 25k (at most ,-))

@Werner no:-)

tex.stackexchange.com/help/user-was-removed I think the staff did not use a special deletion in this case...

@Werner Im confused as the question doesn't mention LT. In most cases in LT you'd want that in the table foot, but they are boxes set at the beginning so makes it hard to use page numbers

11:09 PM
Can somebody tell me what this is for?
\def\baseclass{book}
\DeclareOption*{\PassOptionsToClass{\CurrentOption}{\baseclass}}
\def\@checkoptions#1#2{
\edef\@curroptions{\@ptionlist{\@currname.\@currext}}
\@tempswafalse
\@tfor\@this:=#2\do{
\@expandtwoargs\in@{,\@this,}{,\@curroptions,}
\ifin@ \@tempswatrue \@break@tfor \fi}
\let\@this\@empty
\if@tempswa \else \PassOptionsToClass{#1}{\baseclass}\fi
}
\@checkoptions{11pt}{{10pt}{11pt}{12pt}}
\PassOptionsToClass{a4paper}{\baseclass}
\ProcessOptions\relax
\LoadClass{\baseclass}

@cfr by eye it sends 11pt to the base class if the user uses 10pt,11pt or 12pt (but oddly leaves it at 10pt if no option is specified)

@DavidCarlisle Doesn't it set \@tempswatrue if the option is in the list? And otherwise pass 11pt?
@DavidCarlisle I really wondered why make it this complicated.

@cfr yes but the temp switch is just an implementation detail, recording if one of the specified options is seen, an then used on the next line around the passoptionstoclass

@DavidCarlisle True, the OP doesn't mention longtable; only in the comment they highlight the use-case.
I guess they abstracted the problem too far, and now it's related to something they want to do in the longtable footer...

11:24 PM
@Werner yes but the LT case is completely different so an answer to the question asked probably won't work there

@DavidCarlisle So it passes 10/11/12 if specified, otherwise 12. But why implement it this way?

@CarLaTeX Thanks...
...I've launched an inquiry with the SE team regarding the vote reversals.
I'm estimating there's about 10K+ users affected by this.
@DavidCarlisle Yup...

@cfr no it passes 11 if 10/11/12 are specified, i guess it's just trying to force 11pt and silently ignore 10pt and 12pt options, but accept all others (but I don't think it does that right and is more complicated than needed if that is the intention)

...so if the footer box contains an page expression, will that result in an incorrect page number? Always? Never? Sometimes?

@Werner well the footer is same one every page except the last where you can use \endlastfoot, but both the repeated footer and the last one are set at the start, so if you put a \label and \pageref the last page of the table, you can do something with the \endlastfoot I guess

11:28 PM
@DavidCarlisle It doesn't do that, if it is meant to. But I don't understand how it could. If the option is found, the switch is set to true, so the \else is never executed.
Isn't
\DeclareOption*{\PassOptionsToClass{\CurrentOption}{\baseclass}}
\ExecuteOptions{a4paper,11pt}
\ProcessOptions\relax
\LoadClass{\baseclass}
equivalent?

@cfr oh yes so it does, (I wonder who wrote the option parsing code in the kernel.,...) :-)
@cfr probably, yes

@DavidCarlisle ??

@cfr I just meant I ought to know how PassOptionsToClass and friends work :-) (even though I read that code completely incorrectly)

@DavidCarlisle Oh, I see. ;) Sorry, I'm trying to deal with a Thesis.cls and it is ... er ... well ... Not sure why. I just can't bring myself to send it back as is.

There are some very old answers popping up in the Late Answers review queue... another result of Papiro's account being deleted?

11:46 PM
@DaiBowen I've noticed that... not sure...
Just heard back from the SE Team regarding the user deletion...

@Werner and?

Hello,

Unfortunately the user's behavior and voting patterns warranted not saving the 50,000+ votes from his account. It is our general policy that users who have been contacted and/or suspended for voting irregularities or sock-puppets in the past should *never* have their votes preserved upon deletion regardless of the impact to other users, due to the probability of remaining votes being inappropriate - and we can't easily reverse votes once they've been transferred to the Community user. Given the number of votes involved, we do investigate into the user before approving the deletion.
2

@Werner ah..

@DavidCarlisle ditto...
For me it's clear that they investigate(d) this rather than just clicking some huge, red, plastic-box-encased, DaNGeR button.
I doubted it since the help on user removal and the accompanying reputation change to other users in the community seemed to contradict what was going on here.
But I'm satisfied now... chilling in the dust of you and @egreg.
:-o

02:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00