Why is voting fraud so much more important? Or, to put it another way, why should it be more important than anything else? If a user plagiarises content significantly, is that better or worse than manipulating imaginary points on a website?

@jimsug it's just as important as anything else, and I would be happy to trust other sites moderators on other things - if I had reasons to do so. The case with voting fraud is only different as I pointed in that it's supported by objective facts, not solely by unknown guy judgement

Every suspension should be supported by facts. However, every suspension also relies on a moderator to take those facts and act upon them honestly. Whether the offense is voting for yourself, vandalizing answers, or editing racist screeds into someone's question, sooner or later someone has to make a call on its severity and what must be done to stop it; we're trusting people to do the right thing, even in the face of criticism, and relying in part on venues like this one to let us know when someone screws up. A leap of faith... But then, so is all of this.

too much a leap for me, I simply don't trust these 500 folks from obscure sites

I can sympathize; that said, I don't think the status quo is helping that either: seeing folks running with multiple recent suspensions and troubling allegations still stuck to their heels doesn't exactly engender confidence in the future. In any case, you could always do what I do: nose out & encourage promising candidates before / during the nomination period, so you can get wind of what's making folks reluctant and perhaps catch anything fishy before it's too late.

that's what I do already @Shog9 and I don't need a manipulative bunch with diamonds acquired at obscure sites to decide anything for me. "I did not vote for these guys, I do not participate in sites they moderate and I have no slightest reason to trust their judgement if they decided that particular user needs to cool down at their site."

@gnat "I don't need a manipulative bunch with diamonds acquired at obscure sites to decide anything for me." - You might want to tone down your language a bit, if not the attitude it spawns from. It might actually do your proposals a favour, which I think would be in your interest. Exaggerated and overly indignant wording is not always the best means for transporting an otherwise reasonable idea. Unless of course the goal actually is to spawn heavy controversy in order to complain about it afterwards.

@ChristianRau this wouldn't help really, just take a look at wording in the answer. This gang of voters just doesn't care

Unless, and that's merely a possiblity of course, however unprobable, they don't agree with the answer anyway.

@ChristianRau yeah all 18 of them, carefully evaluated it, figured what is exactly that they don't like (in the text of the answer, not in the person of the answerer) and decided how to vote. Yeah sure, that's what I usually observe here

Well, I can admittedly only speak for me, and that's exactly what I did. I don't know how many of my fellow moderators followed this approach or if we just somehow all share equal concerns. But I for myself haven't taken the poster into account, nor what my fewllow moderators did or did not vote on, only the fact that I don't see the problems he sees in his answer.

gnat, your conspiracy theories aren't helping your case. Is it so hard to believe that ordinary users disagree with you, without you having to invent a voting ring?

@MonicaCellio yes it is. Note I observed voting on this and some other posts quite closely before coming to that conclusion (while we're at it, say hi to kind folks at Teachers Lounge and pass my thanks for proving my point that they are not trustworthy... and watch your comment being voted up)

@gnat I saw this question in my normal browsing this morning, read it and the answers, voted on some, read comments, and commented here. I haven't been to TL yet today. I won't be surprised if it's come up there too, especially since the question was posted by a CM, but ascribing motives to people that are not correct does not tend to go over well. I don't care who a post is from, only its content.

@gnat Normally I find your contributions (especially on various metas) quite reasonable. But I downvoted because I don't really think this particular argument is sound; it seems to put far too little trust in the checks and balances built into some of the most important aspects of SE site moderation, but my experience has generally been that those checks and balances are effective.

@gnat: From my point of view, I downvoted the answer because I read it, disagreed with it, agreed with the top voted answer and voted for it instead. I'm not sure why my downvote makes you think I was led to vote that way, as you are suggesting.