What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Earlier yesterday, someone serially upvoted me on Ask Ubuntu. That doesn't bother me as much as I know the votes would be reversed in a matter of time.

But I noticed a possible bug in the serial upvoting reversal script. From my understanding, it checks for the number of fraud votes and reverses the effect by removing the false reputation. However, it seems to me that the script doesn't check if one of the voted posts is a community wiki and removes the reputation merely based on whether it was one of the serially voted post or not.

Since I don't actually derive any rep from upvotes on community-wiki posts, I think I am being wrongfully penalized for someone serially upvoting me by removing rep that I actually didn't get through the serial votes.

Here's the link to my reputation tab on Ask Ubuntu.

Clearly, I was on the receiving end of 18 upvotes, of which one was on a community wiki post. As such, I only got 85 rep but was deducted 90 rep.

share|improve this question
    
Hm? I'm confused, how do you know the serial voter was the one that voted on your CW posts? You didn't lose all the rep you earned yesterday, there was clearly others voting on your posts... –  Yannis Aug 30 '12 at 7:03
    
@YannisRizos: It only makes sense since all those question votes occurred in a 2-minute period of 19:54 to 19:56... It could be possible that one of those question votes somewhere in that 2-minute period was a legitimate vote and that user cast an upvote on one of his answers at a different time, but that just seems unlikely. Too much coincidence. –  animuson Aug 30 '12 at 7:10
    
@animuson The timestamps look fishy, true, but this can only be verified by someone with access to the database... –  Yannis Aug 30 '12 at 7:12
    
@YannisRizos Put it this way. 90 rep was removed and there were 18 probably serial upvotes on questions. How else can you pair this up? –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 7:15
    
@jokerdino We don't know if all 18 votes came from the same user, that's what I'm saying. The timestamps may look suspicious, but it might just be the case someone else was voting on your posts at the exact same time. It happens to me all the time ;D –  Yannis Aug 30 '12 at 7:16
    
And it's clear that there were at least two people voting on your posts, since you had two upvotes in two answers, the one being the CW. –  Yannis Aug 30 '12 at 7:19
    
@YannisRizos shrug. It could be possible. I don't know. :/ –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 7:20
3  
Well, if it happens to be a bug, it will be a great catch ;) –  Yannis Aug 30 '12 at 7:20
1  
@YannisRizos I am not sure if you have already noted but that community post has a question and an answer from me. It could be the same person upvoting both at different times. And I do hope it is a bug. :) –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 7:25
    
Could you link to the specific CW post in question? –  Pops Aug 30 '12 at 14:34
    
Interesting. You asked the question on May 24. A mod CW-ified it Jul 20 (revision log). It got upvoted three times before CW happened (timeline). Those three votes should be worth the normal +5 rep each. If one of them was removed, then the math is right. The only problem is that those votes were cast in May, and the serial voting was recent. My theory is that your upvoter cast a legit upvote on that back in May and the script considered it suspicious. –  Pops Aug 30 '12 at 14:52
    
@PopularDemand Thanks for your time. Shog9 apparently nailed the cause. Sorry... :/ –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 14:53
    
Argh, I happened to refresh between when Shog edited the question and when he posted his answer. –  Pops Aug 30 '12 at 14:55
2  
FWIW, I initially made the same assumption that Pops did, since the script can go out of its way to consume votes over a longer period of time when it's sufficiently spooked. But that wasn't the case here. –  Shog9 Aug 30 '12 at 14:57

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Actually, the vote on the CW post wasn't invalidated. You're missing the vote on this question - there were two votes by two people, and one of them was invalidated along with the rest of the serial up-votes.

Altogether, that makes 18 question up-votes, which equates to 90 reputation points, matching the reduction shown as a result of the script's invalidation.

share|improve this answer
    
I just noticed that too. Looks around sheepishly. –  TCPMAN.EXE Aug 30 '12 at 14:51
    
Shrug. I overlooked things. –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 14:52
    
Many apologies for overlooking the same thing @jokerdino :) –  TCPMAN.EXE Aug 30 '12 at 14:53
    
@mootinator It wasn't exactly your fault. I was, in a way, overjoyed in running into an interesting bug. But, apparently, it wasn't a bug after all... –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 14:54
2  
@jokerdino: you're missing a prime opportunity to Blame Canada - what's wrong with you? –  Shog9 Aug 30 '12 at 14:55
2  
I blame Canada. –  jokerdino Aug 30 '12 at 15:01
8  
Not cool, you guys. Not cool –  meagar Aug 30 '12 at 15:08
    
I know there is no bug in this case, but it would be great if someone could confirm whether the bug can possibly exist or not –  ajax333221 Aug 30 '12 at 18:58
    
@ajax: if you didn't gain any reputation for a vote, you shouldn't lose any for it. That doesn't mean you won't ever lose rep for invalidated votes on CW posts though, if the votes were cast prior to the CWification of it. –  Shog9 Aug 30 '12 at 19:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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