tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Sockpuppetry)

WillieWong comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7102)

WillieWong — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:47:05 -0700

I feel the same as Yemon and agree with Deane. I personally feel no need to pry further.

I also want to thank Scott for quietly and efficiently resolving this issue.

Yemon Choi comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7069)

Yemon Choi — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:51:06 -0700

Deane, thanks for the information. I think on reflection I'm happy enough with how things have turned out, at least from the narrow perspective of an MO user & contributor.

deane.yang comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7068)

deane.yang — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:07:11 -0700

Yemon, alas, both items you're looking for are in the comments of the deleted answer. But I'm happy to let Rosinger delete his misguided answers and comments and reconsider the consequences of what he did.

Yemon Choi comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7056)

Yemon Choi — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:03:30 -0700

While I don't want to stir things up again, just two points: 1) Willie, do you have a link to that "kind of graduate student" comment, because I can't find it at the moment? 2) the "evidence" of sockpuppetry, which is supposed to speak for itself, seems to have been deleted by the author(s).

(Both of these could be explained by discussions I'm not privy to; so please let me know if this comment should be deleted, and I'll happily do so .)

Scott Morrison comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7051)

Scott Morrison — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:22:08 -0700

If anyone is particularly interested in the details here they should contact me privately. I think at this point everyone is content with the outcome.

WillieWong comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7037)

WillieWong — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:19:57 -0700

@Gretar: dedicated ones won't let suspension deter them. Think of the SPAM last week about the "balls in urn" problem. In some sense the best way to deal with sockpuppetry is to leave the evidence as is and let it speak for itself. So that future accusations of sockpuppetry have an easier way of finding evidence...

Also, please note that the user in question posted a note asserting that the "sockpuppet" is in fact a "kind of graduate student".

Grétar Amazeen comments on "Sockpuppetry" (7026)

Grétar Amazeen — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:40:10 -0700

I find it rather unfortunate that the user is not suspended. Sockpuppetry is obviously something that is strictly forbidden!

Yemon Choi comments on "Sockpuppetry" (6999)

Yemon Choi — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:14:07 -0700

I don't know what official policy is, but I do know that the moderators are aware of the apparent use, as you say, of two accounts for the purpose of deliberate sockpuppetry. Owing to timezone differences and the demands of life outside MO -- as if there could be such a thing! -- we may have to wait for a more official action or notice.

jbl comments on "Sockpuppetry" (6993)

jbl — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:46:17 -0700

The thread
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/31387/what-is-the-situation-with-hilberts-fifth-problem/31820#31820
contains some sockpuppetry, now rendered very confusing because of the merging of two accounts. A short summary is that a user appears to have pretended to be soliciting information, then "discovered" the information in question in the form of some references to his or her own works. This is broadly consistent with the user's habit of posting both questions and answers that consist merely of references to the author's preprints on the arXiv, but is substantially less ethical and more irritating, at least to me. (It also comes packaged with a collection of bizarre insults.) I am curious whether there is a consensus on the appropriate way to deal with such a situation. (I note, for example, that the question has not been closed.)

Full disclosure: the user in question and I have interacted unpleasantly on a couple of other MO threads recently.