SFLEX asked me to disable his account twice. I responded to one of the requests (several hours after the first request) with a link to False Passwords Void / Method to Disable Your Account, which tells how users can disable their own accounts. About 7 hours later, the account had been locked (with a meditation having been posted between those two times). Clearly, the account was not disabled by accident nor in a heated rush.

Your "because it's my account and you can enable it" (paraphrasing slightly what you wrote multiple times) is not much of a reason at all. It very much does not demonstrate a change of attitude that would give the gods confidence that you'll not just run off again in a fit of pique and disable an account and then come back a week later again and want manual intervention as a personal favor.

Disabling my account was to see how many people where paying attention and further in fuel their ego need to wright in my post if they read some parts of my profile of SFLEX.

Ah, so it was just a ploy. Sorry, disabling your account is not a ploy. The site officially notes that your account is disabled. You wanted the site to claim that your account was disabled as a ploy and then thought you'd just get the account back and make a liar out of the site once your ploy was done. The administrators of the site are not here to personally aid you in petty ploys you want to run as you try to troll the people you think are trolling you. In undoing your ploy, the gods can't undo the revealing of the secret 8 down-voters that you craftily exposed, and thus undoing the ploy would not be fair.

How fair would it be to have one of the gods posting official announcements in collusion with a "buddy" as part of a ploy to trick people? And then just wave their administrative wand and make the official announcement go away.

(I was against providing a "disable account" feature. If one doesn't want to use an account any longer, then just stop using it. Giving the users something that they can't undo themselves just leads to silly nonsense like this. Anybody can delete their e-mail, post a "gone" notice, and then paste random garbage twice into the password fields and be done with it. Providing an official "This account has been disabled" feature has just motivated nonsense.)

At this point, I can't think of any reason that would motivate me to re-enable the SFLEX account. Removing the self-rating on CPAN and promising to never self-rate on CPAN again crosses my mind as a positive step, but I doubt even that would be enough for me to become a knowing aid to SFLEX's petty ploy. Perhaps also developing a history of posting without resorting to trolling or "re-trolling" or petty ploys or other nonsense might be enough. It'd be a good idea in any case.

The only real reason I can think of is we now have an individual with posts under two accounts, something usually associated with the gods. And if he sticks around as Shaka_Flex then we are depriving new Monks the benefit of seeing all of his nodes (such as the heavily downvoted ones that apparently show his true character). If there was a way to link the accounts -- something like "by Shaka_Flex (posted as SFLEX)" -- then that would be great, especially since he would not be able to edit his old SFLEX nodes. Anyway, that's the only reason I can think of.

Personally, I wish Shaka_Flex would see this as an opportunity to start over with a clean slate but it sounds like it will take a few more years for him to mature to that level.... Such a waste. :-(

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

we now have an individual with posts under two accounts, something usually associated with the gods

Site Rules Governing User Accounts explicitly allows that to any ordinary user under the condition that they tell the gods. I know of ordinary users who post under two accounts (even I have an alternate account for it allows me to test whether it's my user settings that's broken something). It's quite possible that there are lots of people that post under multiple account, only they don't need to reveal that, whereas gods do reveal the connection between their normal and godly accounts. In fact, the gods also have not completely public extra accounts too, eg. it's not completely obvious who's behind

<Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>
.

Is that him posting under $h4X4_&#124;=73}{ as well? I thought Monks were normally supposed to have only one active account?

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

You claim to be SFLEX, who was around for four years on this site. Being around and participating on this site, which you did, should also teach you a bit about what is considered good behaviour and what not. Yet you think that reposting a private conversation in public is acceptable form here, and you also think that behaving in such bad form will entice anybody else to reenable the account that you claim.

Shaka_Flex it seems you have not understood the error of your ways yet and why what you have done was wrong.

Perhaps if you address the root of this matter, i.e. having rated your own module, the gods may show any leniency on you.

So my suggestion is to first deal with this and then throw yourself at the mercy of the gods.

Of course a node titled "For PM gods only" will attract me as a red cape will attract a bull.

:-) Me too.... I love sticking my head where angels fear to tread.

---

I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
Old Perl Programmer Haiku ................... flash japh

The XP made on the first post was at like 22++ with 8-- down votes. So this got me to wonder who are those other 8 down voters that did not post a comment but only voted down.

Why don't people wonder about them? Why is it you feel that "down" voters ought to post a reason, just you're happy to to collect plus votes without people explaining why they up voted? Doesn't that seem odd to you?

If you wanted to reach the gods, you could have used private messages. Posting publicly makes it a public message. Also, you could have used the proper shortcut to make your link so that it doesn't take people to a URL for which they don't have a login cookie.

Please quit coming to the site just to stir up trouble. If you can't contribute usefully, there are plenty of other sites where you could go spread grief and strife. We have enough trouble here without you.