I noticed an answer where a person claimed to be Writer and Director of a franchise.

If the answer had provided canon evidence, then of course it would have been a good answer regardless to who the person claims he is.

Knowing nothing about the said franchise, reading the answer it appears more to have been taken as The word of God.

When we look over to the metapost about the posts on SFF where we had professionals participate one can observe many such answers provided by the said professionals.

OTOH, We have this answer where it was confirmed that it was indeed the co-author who was answering.

There is a previous Meta Post on this subject where community seems to be divided equally on whether or not such answers be accepted prior to some verification that the person is really who they say they are.

Have we agreed on a policy here? Surely allowing such answers, which would otherwise be Downvoted or sent to the VLQ queue had the OP not claimed to be the author, can't be acceptable? As of now, If I go to unanswered questions of , go to this question, whip up an answer and claim to be George R.R. Martin, should that be acceptable?

Mooz has shown us a way to verify the identity when he contacted the co-author of the book on this answer so it can be done in theory.

enter image description here

Mooz's twitter handle not hidden as he has himself provided that in the comment on the answer

Note that I am not saying that we should start badgering people to prove their identity. Like the rest of us, they reserve the right of anonymity. But they are giving that up when they claim to be someone known to us as authority on the work in question.

Not to mention not all authors maintain a presence on twitter or other form of social media.

The purpose of this post is to get a consensus on the policy. Do we or Do we not allow the answers where answerers claim to be the authors and do not provide any evidence proving their answers?

(Note, answers! Not their identity itself. If the ID is confirmed, no evidence is needed anyways as in the case of the question where Mooz confirmed the identity).

  • @Randal'Thor Thanks. I have seen those two and linked the one (With which the other was marked as dupe) but on both of them, community seems to be divided half and half. a) Dig and dig. b) Nopes it's not needed. What I am asking is, If the answer has some supporting evidence, it's fine. If it goes more along the lines "Eh I just did it for x[reason here]", should we accommodate that? And Can we finally reach some consensus?
    – Aegon
    Jan 6, 2017 at 15:16
  • The consensus on both dupe questions is that we're entitled to doubt unless proven otherwise. Any celeb that's interested in answering a question with their name as their evidence should be willing to prove their identity when asked to do so. It protects them as much as it protects us.
    – Valorum
    Jan 6, 2017 at 15:19
  • @Aegon - With my votes up and down, there's a clearer margin now.
    – Valorum
    Jan 6, 2017 at 15:20
  • @Valorum So to be clear, If no such info verifying the ID on Word of God Type answers is provided, we can flag it as VLQ? Or as Rand suggested, we raise a custom flag?
    – Aegon
    Jan 6, 2017 at 15:21
  • 1
    @Aegon - Yes, of course. Anyone can claim to be anyone on the Internet and anyone can whip up a throwaway account on Stack with any name. Why shouldn't we flag as VLQ if someone posts a bad answer without proof? Better though to raise a moderator flag so that they can look at the person's PII and see if that acts as proof. If GRRM has logged in from [email protected] then that seems pretty conclusive. If he's logged in from a disposable email, it's much less likely.
    – Valorum
    Jan 6, 2017 at 15:23
  • If you can find strong evidence that someone claiming to be an author/producer/etc. isn't, that's potentially grounds for action; impersonation is not allowed.
    – Kevin
    Jan 6, 2017 at 18:00
  • @Valorum - Is that reason enough to look at a user’s PII? I understand that moderators only are supposed to do this under very particular circumstances.
    – Adamant
    Jan 6, 2017 at 18:15
  • 1
    @Adamant - This is precisely the sort of circumstances when looking at someone's PII would be both allowed and advisable.
    – Valorum
    Jan 6, 2017 at 18:35
  • 1
    Andy Weir handled this very well for his Reddit interview. Jan 11, 2017 at 15:39


Browse other questions tagged .