Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

mn hq, can we have an explanation - jess - and maybe re other trolls in future?

999 replies

wannaBe · 20/02/2012 13:40

I am aware that you can't divulge the means by which you determine whether or not a poster is genuine, predominantly because if you make that common knowledge then posters will know how to avoid being detected in the future.

but jess (long ongoing eleven weeks abortion threads) threads have now been deleted for being a troll, and I was wondering if, given it's the site users who usually report these things, we could perhaps have a bit more by way of explanation?

e.g. when sassysusan was banned, mn hq confirmed that she had previously posted as washwithcare, and users were able to identify.

There has been some speculation that jess was dizzymare, and I wondered whether this was the case?

Also, these threads have been ongoing for over a month now. How is it that it takes quite this long to determine that someone isn't actually all they seem?

OP posts:
MrsEros · 20/02/2012 14:00

I know several posters flagged her up to MNHQ as suspicious when the first thread started. It never rang true and only became more far-fetched as things went on.

TheOneWithTheHair · 20/02/2012 14:01

I think the posters who stuck with it were worried about a woman/ baby. They did the right thing and possibly saved a very confused woman from doing something she may later live to regret.
I agree Stealth that without more details you can consider what you all offered her to be a good thing.

AlistairSim · 20/02/2012 14:01

I completely missed this thread but think it would very useful for HQ to give out a bit more information about all troll threads.
It would at least stop some of the speculation.

StarlightDicKenzie · 20/02/2012 14:01

Oh is that how the story panned out?

I gave up when she said she's not allowed to choose adoption on the second page of thread one. Not being smug but must have too much exposure to the dizzymare and cvq types in the past. They sound the same kind of neediness iyswim as well as being boringly predictable and dramatic.

SinicalSanta · 20/02/2012 14:01

but surely dm or any half decent troll wouldn't use the same name all over the internet?
Will I - Won't I scenario when it comes to unexpected pg is v common in rl.

Maybe this is just an example of the digital generation divide. Some people, especially younger ones ime, play out their whole lives online and don't care about recognisabilty. (if that's a word)

here I did think goatmuncher, when I eventually clicked, but could of course be wrong.

LilacWaltz · 20/02/2012 14:02

What alerted mnhq?

fridakahlo · 20/02/2012 14:02

She had my trolldar humming from the first post but I did not post my suspicions as the site t's and c's state no troll hunting. Should I have reported because I had no proof, just suspicions?

SinicalSanta · 20/02/2012 14:03

I think so Frida, that's the procedure

ChippingInNeedsCoffee · 20/02/2012 14:03

I didn't get involved on that thread as I had my suspicions :(

It would be good to know if it was Dizzymare again or not and if not, what other name she'd posted under.

Northernlurker · 20/02/2012 14:04

Frida - I report suspicions all the time Grin

OnlyWantsOne · 20/02/2012 14:04

Yep, i saw and suspected all that followers bullshit... urgh

MaryZ · 20/02/2012 14:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

wannaBe · 20/02/2012 14:06

cynical dizzymare used the same name elsewhere too iirc, including on various bereavement forums. Shock and just for the record, dizzymare was proven to be a troll when someone elsewhere apparently spotted that the pictures of her dead twins had actually been lifted from the internet. Shock

OP posts:
MerryMarigold · 20/02/2012 14:06

I have troll spotted correctly in the past, but this one went by me. She even inboxed me, but I didn't reply to that. It wasn't even inviting a reply really. Weird. I get poo trolls getting a kick out of it, but this was so....well, mundane. It was hardly dramatic, just sadly quite real.

TheSecondComing · 20/02/2012 14:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SinicalSanta · 20/02/2012 14:07

Horrible.

MaryZ · 20/02/2012 14:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Portofino · 20/02/2012 14:08

The first 2 are still there.

MrsEros · 20/02/2012 14:08

Yes, Frida, you report and say something like "OK, so I am probably a nasty suspicious cynical person but this has my trolldar humming BIG TIME" and MNHQ reply saying "Thanks for letting us know; we'll keep an eye on it". And then sometimes eventually the thread gets deleted, but generally not for a while.

LeBOF · 20/02/2012 14:08

My heart was in my mouth there, Mary...the ", for example" MN trope is deeply ingrained Grin

Agincourt · 20/02/2012 14:09

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

AmberLeaf · 20/02/2012 14:09

Aah~!

I started to read that thread, but TBH when I just read the title I though 'here we go again'

The forumla is just soo cheesy, its getting easier to spot!

Wonder if the other one has been debunked yet?

LilacWaltz · 20/02/2012 14:09

TSC.... You aren't the first to have said that!

MerryMarigold · 20/02/2012 14:10

(Though I only went on the first thread at the beginning so perhaps the drama upped.)

LilacWaltz · 20/02/2012 14:10

Porto... Is there a link?