There is a user who managed to get sort of protection provided by the "serial" script so that their posts regularly get a portion of undownvotes when script kicks in (Reputation tab in the user profile shows steady stream of undownvotes that happen daily at 03:00).

To avoid misunderstanding, my downvotes appear going through just fine, script seem to punish other community members.

The thing with the user is they are known to post from multiple duplicate accounts when their main one is suspended. And their posts from duplicate accounts typically collect massive downvotes.


To avoid misunderstanding, downvotes seem to happen not because community members recognize the duplicate account, but because of quite consistent low quality of the posts.

I wonder what happens when their duplicate account gets merged into the main one.

More specifically, does script kick in and starts undownvoting posts made from duplicate accounts on the false premise that some of community members have been previously "caught" serially downvoting another user account?

For the sake of clarity, here's more formalized issue description (discovered thanks to now deleted answer).

  • When following happens: 1) duplicate accounts A and B are merged, and 2) there's another account C who downvoted A and 3) account C has been caught before at serially downvoting B - so that all votes of C against B are reverted by script.

  • After merge, what happens to votes cast by C against A?
    Will script also reverse these, as if downvotes were cast against B?

  • Good Notice @gnat – Lucifer May 15 '12 at 7:48
  • 1
    I hope the script is able to handle those cases, or down-voting two accounts that are then merged could be considered serial down-voting, when the accounts are merged. Probably the script checks the votes done in the past 24 hours; in that case, the probability of un-down-voting is lower. – kiamlaluno May 16 '12 at 12:43
  • 1
    Note to address potential questions like why don't they just delete all these duplicate accounts - this case is somewhat exceptional for the abuse turned out harder to stop and quite long term. They seem to keep the account for tracking the history (think of it like repository in version control system), to make it easier identify and neutralize multiple duplicates and sock-puppets (10+K readers can find more details discussed in this deleted answer) – gnat May 16 '12 at 14:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .