Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

That really wasn't well handled was it MNHQ?

189 replies

ASorcererIsAWizardSquared · 14/08/2015 11:37

Yes, this is a telling off.

Your communication over the Calm Down Jeffrey incident was atrocious.

I find it shocking that you can be sat there, posting to us that all is well and under control when we can see, in front of our very own eyes, that someone was hacking MNHQ posts and editing them, and also posting under posters names and editing other posts as well as deregging and banning other users who insulted them.

The response from you was seriously lacking, on top of your coquettish rubbish about not putting 50p in the meter when you went down over night.

Its not on.

You have a duty to your posters when these things are happening to keep us all informed, we're not stupid and we deserve to be treated with a little more respect. Not fobbed off with half truths and blatant lies.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 18/08/2015 18:13

MaryZ I completely agree with you!

Maryz · 18/08/2015 18:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 18/08/2015 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tribpot · 18/08/2015 18:07

Or even before a mass reset, they could have gone on the thread and said 'as a precaution we advise changing passwords' - yes, possibly it was too early to tell if it was safe to change passwords, but then it was probably too early to have had the site in write mode. I remain convinced the only reason the site came back is because Jeffrey got bored of his DDOS (not surprising as it's not the most exciting hack in the world unless you've got a load of people kicking off on other forums, as happens when the Playstation Network gets hacked every Christmas).

Chipsahoythere · 18/08/2015 18:06

Do they even know for sure his point of entry though at this time? Good point.

SkullyCat · 18/08/2015 18:05

everyone had the option to do that any way, which i did, and again today just in case.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 18/08/2015 18:04

Yebbut, if they'd done that without knowing what he had and where he was and before they'd locked down his points of entry, then it would have been pointless and we'd all have had to do it again after they'd found all that out.

But yes. It's a bit shit.

Chipsahoythere · 18/08/2015 17:59

I think it's pretty poor!
They could have just reset passwords a week ago even if they weren't certain he had our data

Maryz · 18/08/2015 17:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GraysAnalogy · 18/08/2015 17:54

Those saying MNHQ don't owe anyone anything, they don't, but what they do have is a duty of care for it's users and to protect them from web attacks. Giving out warnings of attacks is par of the course when you run a website, so people can safe guard themselves.

SkullyCat · 18/08/2015 17:52

::eye roll::

Apparently it was classed as sock puppeting, which i didnt think about when i posted.. my apologies.

I am the OP.

I still think some people owe the OP an apology!

Chipsahoythere · 18/08/2015 17:47

How odd!

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 18/08/2015 17:45

Well why in hell was it deleted then?! Hmm

Maryz · 18/08/2015 17:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 18/08/2015 17:42

Crikey, I only read the first bit of Skully's post and it didn't seem that offensive (hadn't clicked through on it) - did she get offensive after saying that the OP was owed an apology?

Maryz · 18/08/2015 17:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SkullyCat · 18/08/2015 17:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 18/08/2015 17:00

It certainly does, Maryz - but better late than never?

Maryz · 18/08/2015 16:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

differentnameforthis · 16/08/2015 03:59

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty They suggested that that was because they didn't want to repetitively draw attention to the second rate hacker. Not because they didn't want to keep us updated.

IPityThePontipines · 15/08/2015 16:13

I'm on the "chill, people" side of things.

When MN shut down one New Year, there were so many howls and claims that people might harm themselves if they didn't have access to MN (yes, really), that the modus operandi of MNHQ is probably to do nothing which would disrupt the site too much.

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 15/08/2015 15:59

Icimoi - which is why they should have been using channels like Twitter to get information out too / instead of on the site, IMHO. I know it's easy with hindsight and in a crisis it's easy to miss the obvious, but if you post a message saying "check Twitter for an update" then don't do as you have said, it does add to the general impression of headless chicken-ness

Icimoi · 15/08/2015 13:33

I think people are forgetting that at one point Jeffrey had access to admin accounts. Therefore, at least for that period if HQ had been posting messages he could (and did) simply amend them. They could only have avoided that by shutting down completely, which would probably have brought forth even louder complaints.

Fflightattendant · 15/08/2015 07:56

Ebear, that's fascinating. Thank you for explaining the differences.

differentnameforthis · 15/08/2015 04:42

exLtEveDallas A fucking men!! Well said!