Refer here.

Summarily invalidating all votes from a user who has asked for their account to be removed is both incredibly disruptive and unnecessary. If a user asks to be removed from the site, they shouldn't be allowed to take all of their votes with them.

Yes, even if they've engaged in voting fraud. Here's why: any votes that were invalidated during their tenure on the site don't count anyway.

Don't throw away all votes when a user is deleted is not a duplicate. That post refers to user accounts that are deleted by a moderator.

  • 2
    Voting fraud is not always detected. The current process of reviewing all the user's votes and checking for undetected fraud patterns is perfect. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog May 25 at 18:47
  • 7
    So we just assume that, if a user has ever engaged in any voting fraud, then all of their votes are invalid? Why is user removal a watershed moment for this judgement? Why aren't we simply removing all votes when any voter fraud is detected? – Robert Harvey May 25 at 18:48
  • 1
    Doesn't mean that none of their votes are invalid. This request, as written, would involve keeping the fraudulent ones too. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog May 25 at 18:49
  • 9
    Uh, no... Invalidated votes are always invalidated. If you want to take that stance, then make your invalidation process better, while they're still on the site. – Robert Harvey May 25 at 18:50
  • 1
    "when any voter fraud is detected"... it may not always be detected. There are ways for users to slip underneath the basic statistics shown to mods and to the serial voting script. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog May 25 at 18:50
  • 4
    You haven't answered my questions. Why does user deletion suddenly increase the importance of detecting voting fraud, and why is that an all-or-nothing decision relative to their votes cast? Delete bad votes if you must, but only the bad votes. – Robert Harvey May 25 at 18:51
  • 3
    Because user deletion is the fastest way to conceal fraudulent votes, because if the votes are preserved, they are extremely difficult to later detect and reverse as fraudulent due to the way it works. It's an all-or-nothing decision because once voting fraud is detected, there's no way to know if other votes are part of the fraud or legitimate (you can't see into the mind of the user), so they err on the side of caution and invalidate them all. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog May 25 at 18:53
  • 6
    And that logic needs to be re-evaluated. Hence the question. The existing policy is a really blunt instrument. – Robert Harvey May 25 at 18:56
  • 7
    if it was voting fraud it should have been caught a long time ago – Charlie Brumbaugh May 25 at 18:56
  • 1
    Don't throw away all votes when a user is deleted says that the way it's currently implemented is "as far completed as it's gonna get", and the situation that happened earlier is one of the "rare" situations. – Sonic the Anonymous WizHog May 25 at 18:59
  • 5
    Consider this scenario: user X creates a sockpuppet account Y. Account Y gains enough reputation to upvote posts, and then proceeds to upvote just a few of X's posts. Y then deletes and immediately recreates their account, and continues repeating this process. If they delete their account almost immediately after creating it, it's pretty likely that the voting fraud will go unnoticed and the user will be able to continue abusing the system without any votes being invalidated. – Pika the Wizard of the Whales May 25 at 19:06
  • 3
    Just to add one more motivations to the OP's question: One of the main issues with the lost reputation is that some questions one posted become in danger to be automatically deleted. For example, I have lost 1 upvote on dozens of my questions i.stack.imgur.com/sGGJ6.png: certainly some of them are going to be deleted as a result, but I can't know which one. – Franck Dernoncourt May 25 at 19:44
  • 3
    @Tonepoet because at that point, the evidence of voting fraud is effectively thrown away. Much of the information used to detect sockpuppets (like user IP addresses) is discarded when a user's account is deleted. – Pika the Wizard of the Whales May 25 at 19:47
  • 2
    @PikachutheWatermelonWizard How about not throwing away the evidence? – Franck Dernoncourt May 25 at 19:54
  • 7
    @FranckDernoncourt That's a lot easier said than done. GDPR doesn't exactly allow us to just permanently keep all information about a user because it might be useful in the future to investigate something. – animuson May 25 at 20:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .