40some - in answer to your question about tank being deleted - it is a long running episode, there were threads of comments on it. Basically from what I understand. MNHQ believe that tank was previously a poster called "wash-with care" who apparently caused a huge about of problems, instigating threads to wind people up and hurt vunerable people. A nasty troll, who was banned from MN, it was before my time here so know nothing more about it. Somehow (and for security reasons they won't say how), they "know" it is tank (as we now know her). There was a gap between WWC being nasty and then tank coming here, but somehow the two have been linked.
As you know tank very sadly lost her daughter to a virus. Then earlier in the year there was a thread about a mum asking whether she should take her daughter out and about while she has chickenpox. The thread got very heated, with some people saying, of cause no problem, don't worry about infecting others, and then there were others (including tank) who were warning of the dangers of chickenpox to other vulnerable people. Having lost her own daughter to a virus tank knows well the dangers, and in her grief was a little less than sensitive to others (which I can fully understand, who wouldn't). Tank got angry with one (silly in my opinion) poster who was belittling the risks totally, and made a comment along the lines of "I wish you knew what it it like to loose a child", I don't know the actual words she used, but it was taken as a death-wish on the posters children and was reported. Tank was then banned and that post removed, and later all her posts removed. MNHQ later (felt like much much later), came back to say that they had realised that she was WWC and that she had to be banned to protect everyone.
Other threads appeared with people from the bereavement section coming to say that they had been hurt by MNHQ's actions, since a wonderful thread for bereaved mothers had been destroyed by the removal of tanks posts. Yet more people were saying that tank had made up a story about the death of a daughter, and that she was still a dangerous troll. But MNHQ, have insisted that since WWC was so nasty that they could not let tank back, whether or not she has or had not lost a daughter. How they found out tank was on our thread I don't know, and clearly none of us does.
I am sorry tank for dragging it all up here, but it is so unfair that you are being punished yet again for what could be a stupid mistake (assuming that MNHQ are using )
From what I can tell their last post on the matter was:
OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 04-Oct-10 20:47:30
Hello again all
Just to say firstly thanks for the kind words about my pg, and also for the virtual chocolate wine and gin.
And also to remind people that while we understand your need to talk about this, speculating on the thread really does not help at all.
We have been working round the clock on this, but there is other business in the inbox too and we can't ignore everybody as we're sure you'll understand.
However if you have any thoughts or queries about the situation PLEASE email us directly and we can see what's what properly and ensure that we are getting back to everyone as best we can.
Thanks
MNHQ
Previous comments from MNHQ on the same thread:
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 03-Oct-10 15:51:48
fizzledrizzle
Justine - can I ask why all her posts were deleted?
Is this usual practice?
Thanks
Yes if we think someone is a serious troll - ie they maybe trying to do real damage.
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 03-Oct-10 15:46:23
zeno
Justine, I'd like to press you on one point.
I think it's wrong to have said that it's highly unlikely Susan's bereavement is true. There was no need to say that. A "treat with caution" warning would have sufficed. You don't know whether it's true or not - you were speculating.
Why, if you had one grain of doubt that maybe Sassy had in fact lost her little girl, would you set off that witch hunt. Why risk being wrong on that point when you've plenty of other ground to be sure on?
In layman's terms, and what's really in my head - how do you dare to accuse someone of inventing the death of their child when for all you know it may well be true, and when you have NO evidence to suggest that this particular aspect of their story is untrue.
That's the bit that bothers me. That's the bit that causes me pain as a bereaved parent. The thought that you could do that to someone without knowing for sure.
I think that's fair enough, Zeno. We probably did jump in a bit fast and assumed SassySusan was trolling based on past behaviour. And no we don't know for sure about her story and the more people post, the more it seems likely it might be true - although it is always very hard to be really certain. Those who've made the analogy with the boy who cries Wolf are probably right.
When you see persistent trolls in action from our standpoint and the distress and damage they cause, it does I'm sure cloud your ability to believe anything they say.
So I accept your point and we'll have a think about it, but I hope you also understand why we came to the conclusion we did.
JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 03-Oct-10 14:39:14
slimmingworldmum
if she is a troll and mnhq banned her 4 times why didn't they ban her as soon as she signed up this last time?
Because she hadn't crossed our radar till she wrote that nasty blog post about another mnetter last night and folk reported her. We don't pre-screen everyone.
SS must be feeling.
Add message | Report | Message poster JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Sun 03-Oct-10 14:28:48
I'm not sure what answers you need Dee - we have been very clear, I think. But I'll say it again:
SassySusan is a troll we've banned at least four times over the last year or so. One of her memorable previous identities was WashWithCare. All of them have caused trouble and stirred to a lesser or greater extent (one not so much because we banned very swiftly).
We are not going to tell you how we know this, for obvious reasons but we do. And I'm afraid you'll just have to trust us that we do.
It is, as I've said, possible that SassySusan's sad story is true. We can't know but we think it was important to adhere to our policy and ban her because if she is a troll the damage she could cause would be considerable. I'm afraid given her history we didn't feel able to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I think that continuing to pick over what's happened is doing no-one any good. If Susan's story is true - it's the last thing she's going to want to hear about. If it's not, she's getting exactly the attention she's after. Either way it serves no purpose.
We will reinstate the first post of the bereavement thread as soon as we can because we appreciate that if you have you have pagination switched on, not having an OP makes a mess of that thread - apologies for that.
I'd also like to say that the support bereaved Mumsnetters give eachother on a daily basis is wonderful and we are extremely proud that Mumsnet is a place that enables this kind of support - it's exactly what we are here for. We know this episode hasn't been easy but we do hope that it doesn't effect what you do here, because it's a tremendous thing.
Now at this point I want to say sorry again to tank for putting this here.
It is clear that MNHQ are determined that you are a danger to us, and I am sorry that I have not helped.