Unwelcome visitors - and recent "unpopular" threads

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello

We thought you should know that we've had a few "visitors" lately who have, collectively, been hellbent on stirring up bunfights on the boards.

They're not your average hairy trucker/bored schoolboy/silly perve but a group from another (now defunct, it seems) forum.

They were behind the Unpopular Opinions thread - and a fair few other threads that have kicked off recently.

We're on the case.

But we would appreciate your help with "Hoovering" up any visitors our Ban button may have missed.

So do report any suspicions using the Report link, and we promise to check 'em out - though it make take us a while

Many thanks, MNHQ

I was on the LeQueen 'bashing' thread, I thought it was more gentle fun rather than bashing really, perhaps I missed something.

I'm not new, have been here about 6 years I think. And I've said to LeQueen's (internet) face anything I'd say about her.

Think its a bit unfair to be troll hunting when perhaps some people just don't like/get another particular poster, that doesn't make them trolls.

And if you do refer frequently to your amazing DH/amazing DC/amazing house/amazing holidays/amazing wedding dress/amazing edcation/amazing bloke that just thought they'd ask you to be an English teacher even though you're not qualified then surely you would expect some ribbing back?

Right I don't think I actually care but a quick yes or no to my understanding of this would be appreciated....

Some people posted stuff

Some people got annoyed

Someone, having recognised a poster from an old forum from years ago, told mnhq (and a few others) it was all some big organised troll-y invasion?

So this announcement from mnhq is all based on ONE persons hunch? I thought 3emmasandac's posts were rather interesting.

Odd. And worth remembering that as vile as the thread was(if you are of that opinion) it was pretty much full of regulars. Can't really cal troll and wash our hands of all the shit that got said.

It's not quite like that though, Jeremy. There was also namechanging and sockpuppeting going on which made it look more concerted than your interpretation implies. I think too, that when MNHQ were initially tipped off, they were given the heads up on the tactics and likely threads to be posted by this group (who are a group, btw, who used to have their own small paid-for webring); and it wasn't until these predicted behaviours started actually happening that it was obvious what they were up to.

I think that concerted and deliberate forum-wreckers should be banned, as they obviously put people off and damage (dare I say) The Brand. I can't see us getting the webchats we do, or the competition prizes etc etc, if we become known as dullards.

I think its a quick Yes from me Jez. Although I don't know for sure.

I am mystified that so many regulars seem to know what goes on behind the scenes at mnhq [twinge of jealousy emoticon] but you are quite right to say that not all of the unpopular opinions can be blamed on trolls.

So, possibly, a litte stirring went on. Still doesn't change the fact that plenty of controversial stuff was posted by our own fair sisters.

Ah, see I just x posted with one of those who are properly in the know. Always happens!

Hmm, well I know nussing about the ins and outs of it all - but my impression is that the invasion (if thats what it was) is neither here nor there and being a bit overblown.

The upset was caused by opinions that were posted by, in the main, regular MNers. It's not like we need anyone to lead us astray, is it?

I don't actually know anything useful though, Bibs. But I need to keep abreast of this stuff for my Advanced Troll-Hunting Diploma.

That's true, Jeremy, but then again, we don't need anyone to make us worse either, IYSWIM.

So it would seem, bof

And thanks Bibs, knew I could rely on you!

Of course nobody remembers that stuff. You will always be out-grimmed on Mumsnet. That is very mild grimmery in the scheme of thing round these parts, you know.

why are people arguing over the cause of these people being banned?

MNHQ let quite obvious trolls stick around for ages.

For them to have banned someone means that they have found evidence of them delilberatly trying to cause trouble.

Your average poster has no way of influencing that decision one way or another (other than by reporting suspect posts, but as we all know that doesn't usually equate to a deletion let alone the poster being banned)
I don't get why there is this discussion.

When i saw this thread i was pleased that for once MNHQ actually acted quite quickly before they were able to cause too much damage and even more happy that they have let us know that they have taken action and why.

but there really is no need for this bickering. no poster "got" anyone else banned. MNHQ made a decision given the information they had and their own investigations. surely?

Bickering?

For me, I just wanted to know a bit more about what had happened on this occasion.

I wasn't involved in the threads.

It is rare for mnhq to ban people and it is rare for them to disclose how they know someone is trolling.

I haven't seen any bickering on this thread since I came on it at 1.30 and I think there was fairly lighthearted fluffyness going on at that point anyway.

Is this still rumbling on?

So what's the difference between a sockpuppet and a troll? I his hignorant of this term!

troll comes on to cause trouble.

Sockpuppet is the troll, but with a new name, who posts on the original thread to back up the OP.

Some trolls seem to invent a couple of different alter egos/sockpuppets

A sock puppet is a troll or poster who namechanges to back themselves up on a thread

Yes, I have never done that ever- it's disgraceful behaviour.

I know, BOF. That would be most unlike you.