Timeline for Massive user removal in one night?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2019 at 7:15 | comment | added | peterh | @SonictheInclusiveHedgehog I suspect, some "VoteHistory" table or so could exist in their prod DB, it is just not published on the SEDE. Practically all their tables have a history and it has a good reason, this good reason particularly stays for the votes table. | |
| May 26, 2019 at 22:32 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @NicolBolas I disagree but like I said elsewhere, I do realize I can't do anything to change it. | |
| May 26, 2019 at 15:03 | comment | added | Nicol Bolas | @ShadowWizard: Your question makes no sense. Not all reviews result in deleting votes. But some still do. That is the point of the review: to determine when it is appropriate to delete votes and when it isn't. The sheer number of votes is not the only thing at play. The fact that a decision was made to delete a large number of votes does not mean that there's no point in ever doing this review. By that logic, there's no point in reviewing; just establish an arbitrary keep/delete vote threshold based on vote counts. | |
| May 26, 2019 at 7:03 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @animuson so what's the point of reviewing? If you choose to not preserve votes of someone who voted thousands of times and cause loss of reputation to thousands of users, better just let the deletion be automatic, no review at all, and be done with it. Will save the team lots of time, and won't annoy the users who delete their account by making them wait. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 23:26 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @AndreSilva No, it doesn't, as I explained elsewhere. Nor can we explain the specifics of a user to identify why their votes weren't preserved. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 23:11 | comment | added | Andre Silva | Tks for the explanation. The next question is inevitable. If someone from SE staff opted out not to preserve the votes, this means there was a vote fraud (given the amount of votes discarded). How this came unnoticed to SE for so long, in a way a single user significantly affected almost the entire network? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 23:03 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | @AndreSilva We didn't used to look at this issue at all when that happened. Now we do. It's very different in that someone actually did look at these deletions and opted not to preserve the votes. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 22:55 | comment | added | Andre Silva | How is this different from meta.stackexchange.com/questions/173045/…? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 19:41 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @SonictheInclusiveHedgehog That seems to be the issue. Why not fixing it? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 19:40 | comment | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | @FranckDernoncourt Because when votes are "preserved", they are actually moved to the Community user. No mark is maintained as to who cast the original vote. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 19:39 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @SonictheInclusiveHedgehog why would account deletion make it more difficult to conceal the voting fraud? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 19:37 | comment | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | @FranckDernoncourt Because committing voting fraud then requesting deletion knowing your votes would be preserved makes that an extremely attractive option to conceal your fraud. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 19:29 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @SonictheInclusiveHedgehog Why would voluntarily-removed users be more likely to engage in fraud than non-removed users? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 18:45 | comment | added | user102937 | meta.stackexchange.com/questions/328673 | |
| May 25, 2019 at 18:40 | comment | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | @RobertHarvey Because some of them engage in voting fraud, and preserving the votes in all cases would make that extremely difficult to detect and reverse. In other words, vote defrauders prevent us from having nice things... | |
| May 25, 2019 at 18:21 | comment | added | user102937 | Why aren't we preserving reputation for all voluntarily-removed users? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 9:00 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| May 25, 2019 at 10:01 | |||||
| May 25, 2019 at 5:03 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | As I've stated, we can't discuss the specifics of a user, but this decision was reviewed and we cannot reverse it. | |
| May 25, 2019 at 4:53 | comment | added | iBug says Reinstate Monica | feature-request Can we reverse this vote removal and retain the reputation? | |
| May 25, 2019 at 4:43 | comment | added | Ron Maupin | The same thing happened on Network Engineering, and some users lost a lot of reputation. It was apparently a user in the Top-10 of voters for the site. Apparently, the user did not meet the criterion of "high reputation." it disrupted some users, so I wonder if it should fall uner the: "Because high-reputation users have usually cast a great many votes, removing all of them could be that much more disruptive to other users. In such cases, the staff use a special deletion that preserves the votes, resulting in no reputation change for those who had been voted on by that user." | |
| May 25, 2019 at 4:36 | history | answered | animusonStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |