Weâre issuing [Edit: identifying information redacted] a two-month ban for using multiple accounts to vote on the same posts and comments, and in one instance for commenting in a thread pretending to be two different users. [Edit: the user had a total of 13 double-votes, most far apart and are likely accidental, two upvotes close together on othersâ posts (which they claim are accidental as well), but two cases of deliberate self upvote from alternative accounts]
This is against the Forumnorms around using multiple accounts. Votes are really important for the Forum: they provide feedback to authors and signal to readers what other users found most valuable, so we need to be particularly strict in discouraging this kind of vote manipulation.
A note on timing: the comment mentioned above is 7 months old but went unnoticed at the time, a report for it came in last week and triggered this investigation.
If [Edit: redacted] thinks that this is not right, he can appeal. As a reminder, bans affect the user, not the account.
[Edit: We have retroactively decided to redact the userâs name from this early message, and are currently rethinking our policies on the matter]
[A moderator had edited this comment to remove identifying information, after a moderation decision to retroactively redact the userâs identification]
Do suspended users get a chance to make a public reply to the mod teamâs findings? I donât think thatâs always necessaryâe.g., we all see the underlying conduct when public incivility happensâbut I think itâs usually warranted when the findings imply underhanded behavior (âpretendingâ) and the underlying facts arenât publicly observable. Thereâs an appeal process, but that doesnât address the public-reputation interests of the suspended person.
Weâre issuing [Edit: identifying information redacted] a two-month ban for using multiple accounts to vote on the same posts and comments, and in one instance for commenting in a thread pretending to be two different users. [Edit: the user had a total of 13 double-votes, most far apart and are likely accidental, two upvotes close together on othersâ posts (which they claim are accidental as well), but two cases of deliberate self upvote from alternative accounts]
This is against the Forum norms around using multiple accounts. Votes are really important for the Forum: they provide feedback to authors and signal to readers what other users found most valuable, so we need to be particularly strict in discouraging this kind of vote manipulation.
A note on timing: the comment mentioned above is 7 months old but went unnoticed at the time, a report for it came in last week and triggered this investigation.
If [Edit: redacted] thinks that this is not right, he can appeal. As a reminder, bans affect the user, not the account.
[Edit: We have retroactively decided to redact the userâs name from this early message, and are currently rethinking our policies on the matter]
[A moderator had edited this comment to remove identifying information, after a moderation decision to retroactively redact the userâs identification]
I guess it makes sense that people who disagree with the norms are more likely to do underhanded things to violate them.
Just quickly noting that none of the double-votes were on that thread or similar ones, as far as I know.
Do suspended users get a chance to make a public reply to the mod teamâs findings? I donât think thatâs always necessaryâe.g., we all see the underlying conduct when public incivility happensâbut I think itâs usually warranted when the findings imply underhanded behavior (âpretendingâ) and the underlying facts arenât publicly observable. Thereâs an appeal process, but that doesnât address the public-reputation interests of the suspended person.