What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 142 Stack Exchange communities.

I understand that there's been a reputation clean-up over the past few days, and the reasons for it.

However, a valued member of the TeX.SX community, @egreg, on his reputation page, has an entry saying

-4360 ... Voting fraud reversed

I'm not challenging the arithmetic, but the description is offensive. Would someone please fix it!

share|improve this question

migrated from meta.tex.stackexchange.com Mar 2 '12 at 10:53

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems.

1  
This has also happened to one of the top-ranked users on mathematica.SE –  Verbeia Mar 2 '12 at 10:59
2  
@Verbeia -220 is quite different from -4360. :) –  egreg Mar 2 '12 at 22:11

1 Answer 1

The message means that user was the target of voting fraud, not that they committed it.

I'm wide open to a clearer message here. Community (that's you!), please give me better copy to put there and we'll make it so.

Update: In the next build these items will read "Serial [up/down]voting reversed", this build will roll out in just a few minutes.

share|improve this answer
2  
If I received 4360 rep that I shouldn't have, I wouldn't really feel like a 'target' :) –  AakashM Mar 2 '12 at 11:02
6  
would "serial upvoting reversed" avoid implying a value judgement? –  Flexo Mar 2 '12 at 11:03
    
Nick, thank you. Where can I find out what "Voting fraud" actually means? –  Brent.Longborough Mar 2 '12 at 11:05
2  
@awoodland The problem with both of this is that the subject is missing, so somebody might assume the subject is the user whom the history belongs to –  Yi Jiang Mar 2 '12 at 11:06
    
@awoodland's suggestion is perfect IMO. –  Pëkka Mar 2 '12 at 11:06
1  
@Brent.Longborough: Wait...you came in here complaining that something is offensive and you don't even know what it actually means? –  Time Traveling Bobby Mar 2 '12 at 11:08
7  
@Bobby: Think about it for two minutes. I know what "Voting Fraud" means in English. That doesn't mean I have to know what it means in asp.net or any other StackExchangeSpeak. And in English, I find it offensive. –  Brent.Longborough Mar 2 '12 at 11:10
    
@Bobby: He was offended by what he thought it meant (which is very unclear). Aside: How the hell can that much rep be involved in "vote fraud" in one day? –  Wesley Murch Mar 2 '12 at 11:11
    
@YiJiang'sProble_, would Reversed sustained serial voting alleviate the ambiguity? –  Frédéric Hamidi Mar 2 '12 at 11:14
    
@Brent.Longborough: So, I guess you're one of the people who find the name "Braunf_ck" offensive, too? And yes, I just bowed to that **** ******* obfuscation of real names. On a mere side note, I do not find that term "Vote fraud" offensive at all, though, that would be a discussion about personal preferences, I fear. –  Time Traveling Bobby Mar 2 '12 at 11:15
9  
@Bobby: How can you not understand that someone could be offended by being randomly accused of involvement in "vote fraud"? –  Wesley Murch Mar 2 '12 at 11:18
5  
@awoodland has a good suggestion for an alternative description. I'd refine it to "Reversed serial upvotes by other users". No intimation that the user that lost the rep had anything to do with creating the serial upvoting. –  Verbeia Mar 2 '12 at 11:27
3  
@Bobby: I'm sorry, I didn't want to get into a meta-argument; let me try to explain. First, I didn't know what constituted "vote fraud"; second I wasn't offended by it per se - after all, I've been to Florida --, but I was offended that it appeared to be attached to the name of a good friend who I know wouldn't do that. –  Brent.Longborough Mar 2 '12 at 14:19
1  
Brent's question was born from a chat conversation on TeX.StackExchange which originated from my remark that having so prominent a -4150 in rep was not very nice, particularly for the "voting fraud" wording. I know what it is about (it happened some months ago, actually), but my perception is that such a wording might be misleading for the unexperienced user that happens to look at rep pages. I don't like very much having such a big figure in my rep page, but can live with it. :) The new wording seems quite better. –  egreg Mar 2 '12 at 18:17
2  
It now reads "Serial upvoting reversed". That still doesn't make it clear that egreg did nothing wrong. And there's still a wacking great red line where there shouldn't be. –  Loop Space Mar 8 '12 at 19:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124222/voting-fraud-reversed-implies-that-the-user-did-wrong-even-though-they-didnt?answertab=active
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-18
84592
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:HN63Z4VMTEZNF4ANUUCPNZ6DXOXQAFL7
<urn:uuid:4b648c4d-3f84-49c7-9488-bbfcc783768b>
2015-04-26T15:49:56Z
104.16.13.13
sha1:H3RA6FPMOLPSVNN5PUQUCKBHQF4NIDDV
<urn:uuid:ad9fb07f-54ef-453c-a42b-450f9718e2d8>
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124222/voting-fraud-reversed-implies-that-the-user-did-wrong-even-though-they-didnt?answertab=active
length
response
<urn:uuid:1f7bcfff-ce3b-4d6c-b890-d9a925b8e3ef>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-235-10-82.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-18
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf