Yesterday one of the people was pretty disappointed with me not upvoting his answer, made some downvotes and after that serial downvoting appeared from a random account (not from his account). The serial downvoting was reversed, but I suspect that it was his a sock puppet (I do not know the ID of a sock puppet, but I know the ID of the user.

Is there a way I can ask moderators to investigate whether my hypothesis is correct?

  • 11
    You can put a flag on one of the suspected users questions or answers. – πάντα ῥεῖ Mar 15 '15 at 10:47
  • Sorry if the question is silly, but even if moderators are notified, if the user is using a different account, how can one determine as they are same person? – Tanmay Patil Apr 26 '15 at 4:11
  • @TanmayPatil actually it is not that hard is the person is careless. Correlation between time of activity of user and his puppet, similar IP addresses. – Salvador Dali Apr 26 '15 at 4:21

Yes, the best way is with a flag on one of the user's posts. In it, flag as the choice of other, and then use the space to explain your exact reasoning for why you think that user is or has a socket puppet.

This is probably the best route to go. However, if it is of serious concern, you can also use the contact us form and then explain your reasoning in there.

  • thanks Travis. Just a minor question. To what extend should I detail my explanation. Do I need to provide the period of time when the sock puppet has done downvotes, the details about the conflict with the original user? – Salvador Dali Mar 15 '15 at 10:55
  • @SalvadorDali - Just explain the situation and give any evidence you have. Explain any speculation. If there was voting irregularity, more than likely the reputation will be restored by the automated script which detects voting fraud. – Travis J Mar 15 '15 at 10:57

If this is a one-off incident I would suggest you leave it, as all you have is some suspicion (i.e. no proof), and the serial voting script (amongst others) caught it. For example, refer to this previous answer from animuson ♦.

Having a secondary account in itself is not illegal. Misuse of one (operating as a "sock puppet") is time consuming to track even when you have mod tools at your disposal. Frequently there will be multiple secondary accounts that need to be investigated, infringers seldom have just one.

If it happens repeatedly then take the steps advised by Travis. The mods get a steady stream of complaints about suspected sock puppet accounts so obviously the more evidence you can supply when notifying this the better, in general suspicion will not be acted upon.

Edits: added a few reference links, mostly to ♦ mod and employee posts on the subject.

  • 11
    having a sock puppet is illegal. Having additional account is not. They are different things. Having a sock puppet means that you try to use your additional account in your favor. – Salvador Dali Mar 15 '15 at 11:40
  • 2
    I wonder what the legitimate justifications are for multiple accounts? I seem to do OK with just the one? – Martin James Mar 15 '15 at 13:07
  • 17
    @MartinJames: Testing on lower rep, separating work from fun, ... – Deduplicator Mar 15 '15 at 13:38
  • @SalvadorDali You are right and wrong. Using a secondary account for self advancement or manipulation of the system is illegal. Having a secondary account isn't illegal, myself and many others will often refer to it as a "sock puppet" as it is simply an easier term to use. As for my advice - I'm a mod on a different site. SO mods may treat things slightly differently, but in general they are way busier than other sites so have less time to chase smoke and ghosts based on suspicion. – slugster Mar 15 '15 at 20:46
  • @slugster I understand your point, but in my opinion I have significant justification to back up my suspicion. – Salvador Dali Mar 15 '15 at 21:48
  • @SalvadorDali If you have one coincidence, then that may be all it is - coincidence. If you have a recurring pattern then you may have enough to present to the mods. I'm not trying to persuade you not to do it, I'm simply advising you to wait till you have enough evidence (i.e. coinciding rep gains/losses at specific times for specific users). Unfortunately serial down voting can happen often and there is a steady stream of people wanting their account checked - so the more solid info you have the better, wait till you no longer have to use the word "suspicion". – slugster Mar 16 '15 at 0:31
  • 1
    @Deduplicator: "separating work from fun" sounds like we should be deleting the "fun" account outright. – BoltClock Mar 16 '15 at 3:03
  • @SalvadorDali Just to further illustrate my point I have dug out a couple of references for you (and hopefully they'll satisfy the down voters who might have got upset at my terminology). – slugster Mar 16 '15 at 9:08
  • 1
    @slugster thank you for your links. Just to clarify, I was not one of the downvoters, I just disagreed with your first reply (which I wrote in the comment) – Salvador Dali Mar 16 '15 at 9:24
  • @SalvadorDali No problem :) My original answer was typed up in a brief window of time I had at work, which is why it was missing references and the terminology was a bit loose. – slugster Mar 16 '15 at 9:53
  • 2
    @BoltClock - I think it makes sense. What if you have a fun account which posts to arcade and a work account that posts to SO? I understand your point of view if it were only in regards to SO (there can be no fun on SO!) ;) – Travis J Mar 16 '15 at 15:41
  • to clear all my downvotes on a recent c# post I'd need at least 10 sock puppet accounts, and frankly, I don't care that much or have the energy! But separating work which is mostly c#/sql, vs php and python that I am learning, or Excel VBA and Forumlas, which I have fiun with, that makes sense to me. – Our Man in Bananas Mar 17 '15 at 10:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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