Why was this question on the difference between take positions and take up positions deleted?

Because the deletion was done by a mod, raising the issue here is the only way to even have the possibility of re-opening what I think was probably the most interesting question to turn up all day!

Since asking here, I've realised that the deleted question was posed by a vexatious user (who's presumably been deleted again). But that doesn't make it a bad question. I've come in for some criticism in the past for re-posting a question under my own name (complete with my own answer) when a previous question from this user was deleted. Surely there's a better way to keep any reasonable questions from this tiresome user?

  • 1
    +1 I agree. On a tangent, I wait with apprehension for his suspension period to end. Surely breaking the rules so many times should extend his "day in the penalty box".
    – Daniel
    Jul 18, 2012 at 22:18
  • @Daniel δ: I don't understand why he keeps coming back under the same username and breaking the rules (I assume they're not just repeatedly deleting him for breaking the rule that suspended users aren't allowed to post). If it was me, I'd just register under a different name, and not keep doing the things I'd been suspended for. It seems stupid to have a standing appeal to all other users not to waste time answering questions from this particular lame-brain. Jul 18, 2012 at 23:34
  • 3
    Well, actually he is using a different name every time. Even now I'm not sure we've caught all his aliases. I flagged a post by the user KittyCat today, mentioning that the two posts s/he had posted were suspiciously similar to the style of that certain user's. Sure enough, when I went back to check, a mod had checked the IPs and merged the accounts, so now KittyCat doesn't exist. But as long as he can keep posting under different names, he's having his fun. I'd suggest an alert for mods as soon as the IP of a banned user was posted, so they could check right away.
    – Daniel
    Jul 18, 2012 at 23:41
  • 2
    @Daniel δ: oic. It really is an object lesson in how much disruption can be caused by a tiny number of antisocial people. In a couple of months, this one @!*#£$ has caused far more problems than all the other "somewhat imperfect" users I've been aware of over 18 months of coming here. Jul 18, 2012 at 23:48
  • The current stance on this user is, essentially, to delete on sight unless there was an upvoted answer.
    – user10893
    Jul 19, 2012 at 1:14
  • @Danielδ The IP ban apparently won't work in this case because it changes too much. It was, however, considered.
    – user10893
    Jul 19, 2012 at 1:23
  • @simchona: I don't understand why the question can't be left to stand on its own merits - which in this case I'd obviously be prepared to argue for. Even if the user habitually posts bad questions (I've no idea if he does) that still shouldn't need to taint all his questions. Why can't they be "owned" by the Community user, for example? Jul 19, 2012 at 1:59
  • I think this conversation would be better at meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/2777/…
    – user10893
    Jul 19, 2012 at 2:21

1 Answer 1


I think it has been delete because the user is trying to circumvent the suspension of his/her main account, and none of the answers was up-voted.
This means that who answered didn't lost anything, and the user who is trying to ask questions when he/she would not doesn't see the answers given.

Obviously, all the questions asked from who has been suspended, and who is using a secondary account just to be able to keep asking questions cannot be kept not deleted; this would be as sending the wrong message, "Are you suspended? No problem, ask your questions with another account, and you will get your answers."
At the same time, we should not penalize who is not able to understand if an account is a sock puppet of another account; if an answer gets a +5 score, the user who answered deserves the gained reputation, as long as the question is appropriate for the site where the question is being asked. (With this I mean that, if a user answers to a question about a cooking recipe on EL&U, he should not be surprised when he loses reputation after the question is deleted.)

It is all a matter of finding the right equilibrium, and I think that has been found, in this case.

  • 1
    When a user posts questions in violation of a timed (or permanent suspension), and the questions themselves are good, why not simply make them community-wiki? Then the question can benefit the community but the banner user doesn't gain reputation, nor much notoriety, from them. Jul 20, 2012 at 20:32
  • The problem is the for such users the reputation is not much important, or they would wait for the suspension to end. With a CW, not even who answer get reputation, and they are making the effort of giving an answer that is the best of their knowledge.
    – apaderno
    Jul 20, 2012 at 23:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .