Timeline for What to do with a user who is editing existing questions and replacing with entirely new ones?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 15:24 | vote | accept | Arturo Magidin | ||
| Dec 16, 2010 at 5:45 | comment | added | Alex B. | I have now requested moderator attention with the request to rollback and lock the questions. | |
| Dec 16, 2010 at 0:54 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | @Willie Wong, all: Seems like he recently logged on (says "7 minutes ago" when I checked just now). | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 17:35 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | @J.M. Sounds reasonable. I'll put a note in the question that changed the most to that effect. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 17:00 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | It's warranted here I think, Arturo (and I at least have great trust in your judgment); I was just speculating on how we'd handle such a thing in the future. The locking is certainly mod-only territory. But it I were in your shoes, I'd like to see the OP say something first; it's been nine hours since his last visit (as I'm typing this). If he logs in and still doesn't reply, or he doesn't log in within 24 hours or so, a rollback is definitely in order. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 16:52 | comment | added | Arturo Magidin | @J.M. Well, I can roll back (as I implicitly indicated when I said I had done so to one of those questions before it got edited again). Consensus seems to be to roll them back, and I'm willing to do that if that is indeed the case, though it will bump them up. And I don't have the ability to lock them in any case. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 16:00 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | ...another thing: I am hoping that the people with rollback capabilities are also people who read meta as well. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 15:40 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | Alex mentioned a pretty strong motivation for the user doing what s/he's doing; though as Willie said, repetition does not necessarily imply maliciousness. Maybe we should agree on how many "repeat offenses" we should tolerate before a mod steps in? I would like to see an "escalation" plan here... | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 15:31 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @Mariano and Alex: I know that a similar thing has happened before on MO, but I am unwilling to assume the same for these questions. After all, the first and third questions at least are about stuff you can find in textbooks, and seeing that the user gives hardly any identifying information, I frankly don't think his peers or advisor would find out, or care if they do. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 15:27 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 18 | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 13:49 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | @Alex, that's what I think is the most probable explanation. Alas :( | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 13:36 | comment | added | Alex B. | I agree. One of the more sinister explanations I can think of is that he doesn't want his questions to be searchable (by peers? by his supervisor?). I would even say they should be rolled back straight away until he explains his behaviour. | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 5:19 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | If it were not for the unfortunate side-effect of bumping, I'd go with rolling back. I would say a moderator should be the one e-mailing the user to ask about this peculiar behavior. If there is no reply within n (maybe other people can suggest actual values) days, the moderator(s) should roll back, and if the user persists even after moderator attention, a suspension is probably in order... | |
| Dec 15, 2010 at 5:02 | history | asked | Arturo Magidin | CC BY-SA 2.5 |