﻿ Is it OK to set up more than one account? | PhysicsOverflow
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

174 submissions , 137 unreviewed
4,308 questions , 1,640 unanswered
5,092 answers , 21,632 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
641 active unimported users
More ...

  Is it OK to set up more than one account?

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
255 views

My only answer on the site was down voted twice which now makes my reputation negative (damn! ;) ), which means I can no longer comment on stuff which requires a reputation of 0. I'm OK with this if that's the new rule since on physics stack exchange they require a 50 reputation to comment everywhere.

To get around this, I was thinking of setting up a new account and want to know if this is within the rules here?

asked Aug 4, 2014 in Support by physicsnewbie (-20 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Aug 4, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Yes, we allow you to post anonymously, so we should also allow you to make a pen-name character. This can be useful for allowing a person to discuss controversial things without impacting their reputation in general.

But please don't make a new account in this particular case, as this amount of downvoting is extremely small, and trivial to undo--- either delete your answer, or answer a few other questions to zero out the rep loss.

If you just make a new account, you still need to do these things to get the small amount of rep for priviliges.

answered Aug 5, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,600 points) [ no revision ]

Are you suggesting to have two accounts, one for the reviews section and one for the Q&A section? I am not sure if I correctly understand this answer.

Certainly, the lack of a privilege should not be circumvented by sockpuppeting ...

(At present, there seems to be a bug concerning commenting the own posts when not fulfilling the permission, I have already pinged polarkernel about it)
 

I am saying that if Vladimir Kalitivianski decides to have two accounts, one of which is names "Vladimir Kalitvianski" and is devoted to discussing atomic form-factors, antenna physics, Newtonian physics, and so on, and a second sock-puppet account named "VK Renormalization Warrior" with negative rep, which only comments according to the negative reputation accrued to this manifestation, we should treat them as two different users for purposes of reputation accrual (not for voting).

Making a character and speaking in character is an established way to do controversial things in science. You can even make a "Bourbaki", where 6 people have the same username, and together get a lot of rep through their publications, which does not translate to any one individual.

I don't see the point of restricting such activity, as we can judge the contributions of each user, human, collective, or sock, individually, and give them priviledge according to their activity.

I don't think it can be abused, if these users are non-voting. It does require a "nonvoting user", however, so that people can't sockpuppet votes.

@RonMaimon I agree, besides, it should be obvious that sockpuppeting votes is not allowed, and there is polarkernel's vote reversal plugin to reverse a user's votes in the last few (can be set to anything) hours, which is to be used in case of sockpuppet voting.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...
https://www.physicsoverflow.org/21408/is-it-ok-to-set-up-more-than-one-account
www.physicsoverflow.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-35
124552
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ERCBJ6U2VKH7F56K5AIBYPBPPCUJ6OZ6
<urn:uuid:662cbdfa-e70e-4b51-aeee-144b53a9d6b3>
2019-08-21T15:53:41Z
129.70.43.86
text/html
sha1:VFYGGIHUBDXYUSST24Y3C6RRPP5I2CUN
<urn:uuid:c3f5b042-05f9-4bff-b5d8-1d75a4ebcf4c>
https://www.physicsoverflow.org/21408/is-it-ok-to-set-up-more-than-one-account
response
<urn:uuid:1f57d4bf-65d5-4cb9-92a2-c52311317398>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-35
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-156.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/