Timeline for Could we have a less obvious review audit user?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2013 at 10:50 | history | edited | Sathyajith BhatMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 28, 2013 at 14:54 | vote | accept | Journeyman GeekMod | ||
| Feb 28, 2013 at 0:53 | answer | added | Shog9 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 26, 2013 at 6:07 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | I'm intentionally not mentioning it since, its obvious enough that it would allow for review audit evasion if you knew about it. | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 20:29 | comment | added | Canadian Luke | @JourneymanGeek What name? | |
| Feb 25, 2013 at 1:55 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | I also just realised the user's name is a bad pun | |
| Feb 24, 2013 at 16:25 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSuper_User/status/305715132372250624 | ||
| Feb 24, 2013 at 6:21 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | Seriously. I was about to superping a user for crap reviews and only thanks to my due diligence I didn't end up doing that.. else would have been real bad | |
| Feb 24, 2013 at 6:20 | history | edited | Sathyajith BhatMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 24, 2013 at 6:17 | history | edited | randomMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2013 at 6:14 | history | asked | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |