Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

deleted threads again, sorry.

11 replies

grumpygov · 26/04/2013 23:25

I am a bit miffed that a thread was deleted today 'for the OPs privacy' when it was blatantly because the OP got a bit of (pretty reasonable and mostly civil) stick and didn't like it. They hadn't given a load of identifiable details, they were just having a huff.

It really spoils it when whole threads disappear Sad grumblegrumble

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 09:48

Hello.

And sorry you all feel so cross about this. It does sound as though we selected the wrong deletion message in this case - and we do apologise for that.

We should have written a special "custom" deletion message instead.

From what I can see, the OP of the thread in question mailed us in some distress (and many many times) saying one of the people she was posting about had seen the thread, realised it was about them and was issuing threats in all directions.

In that kind of situation, we do tend to consider thread deletion (as you know, we don't routinely delete threads on request).

But we were well aware that the OP may have been relieved to see the thread go for other reasons, too. And, in these cases, we do make it pretty clear, even if we delete (because of her RL situation) on this occasion, it's worth knowing for future ref that we don't delete because you've got responses you don't like.

We also always ask OPs to go back on the thread and thank people for their responses and explain, as best they can, why they've asked for deletion. It's a shame the OP didn't do that on this occasion.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 09:57

@Freddiemisagreatshag

I agree with Moaning

Plus, what's the difference between her emailing "in some distress" and me emailing "in some distress".

If I'd fibbed and said someone involved had seen my thread, would it have been deleted?

Well, I'm afraid you're probably going to have to trust our judgement on this.

We tend to be pretty good at distinguishing fact from fiction

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:05

@Freddiemisagreatshag

And another thing - sort of on the subject.

If you don't post on a thread, but do report it because you think it's odd/trolly or whatever -sometimes you get an email that says "we are looking into it" but you never hear back what the looking into it found.

And if you've not posted or put it in watching then you never know if you were totally wrong

Other times you do get "we have no reason to believe the poster is anything but genuine so we are going to let this one stand" (wording might be off but that's the gist)

Freddie, "we are looking into it" means just that: we're looking into it. It can take some time to establish whether someone is trolling or not. We think it's important to let you know that we have received your report, though - so you don't think we're just ignoring your concerns.

As for not mailing back to tell you exactly what we've found out: we hope you can understand why we tend not to do that.

First of all, if it is a troll, we'd rather be banning 'em and sorting the whole mess out - and reporters who are on the thread can usually tell by the thread deletion (and message) what is going on.

If the situation is unclear - as it often the case, at least to being with - there is nothing to be gained, and probably an awful lot to lose, by mailing everyone who reported and saying, "Ooh, yes, bit dodgy, does sound like a troll, doesn't it?" If that person is, in fact, genuine, she's now been publicly (and unfairly) tarred with the brush of suspicion.

Our standpoint is, and always has been, to give benefit of the doubt until we know otherwise.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:06

@Freddiemisagreatshag

Helen, I can see your point. But can you also see how it leads to inconsistencies and can leave some posters (like me on the thread of mine I'm referring to) feeling quite hurt? There was a comment made on that thread that was still standing, the last time I looked, and it STILL comes into my head at odd moments and makes me cry.

Sorry - not sure which thread you mean

But do please report that post to us and we'd be happy to take another look.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:09

@JugglingFromHereToThere

I think, on balance, that you should probably err more on the side of benefit of the doubt Helen - and even say that you will consider requests for deletion by the OP in exceptional circumstances (or summat)

That's exactly what we've been saying here, isn't it?

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:23

@Snazzynewyear

Threads by Certain Posters always get left to stand, so it does depend on who you are.

We really don't think that is true, Snazzynewyear.

We don't have any "special" posters or "golden children". We really would be cutting off our nose to spite our face if that was our policy.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:24

@TheDoctrineOfSnatch

There is sometimes a "thread deleted because it turned into a bunfight" message which seems handy.

Indeed. Smile

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 10:26

@BalloonSlayer

But there was also another one, yesterday, in Relationships (the baby support one was in Legal).

The one I am talking about is the one with the gigantic paragraphs that were all one sentence, where the OP was cheating on her DP. All the replies were along the lines of "they are both twats, get rid of them both and start again" and then she started saying "I'm going to get this thread deleted."

The message reads "This thread has been deleted at the OP's request. (We don't normally delete whole threads but we will do so when it is to protect a poster's privacy.)"

Saying "we don't normally delete whole threads" is a tad disingenuous when you do it twice in one day.

Especially when it was fairly clear she just wasn't getting the answers she wanted.

Well I'm not sure about this one, I'm afraid - I'll have to go and take a look at our logs.

But think it's worth saying there are two issues here and they're easily muddled up.

Issue 1: MNHQ deleting threads at OP's request.

Issue 2: MNHQ cocking up and selecting the wrong deletion message when deleting a thread.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 12:37

@Maryz

No, there is a third issue:

Issue 3: the mumsnetter on duty giving in to a particularly, erm, insistent op.

So if I email and ask politely for my thread to be deleted (either because I am upset, or have made an arse of myself), I will politely accept a polite refusal. As Freddie did with hers. See, all PARD-like Grin

But if I spit out my dummy, have a hissy-fit, start insulting everyone and everything onthread, start naming names, repeatedly email mumsnet, and pretend that someone I know has seen the thread, then it is easier for the mnetter on duty just to say "fuck this for a game of cowboys, I'll delete the fecking thing".

Which I sympathise with.

But in that case, you should say "We don't normally delete entire threads, but if you are precious care enough to go completely bonkers, we will probably give in to the pressure.

Well, that may be true in some cases but it's really a (rather annoying) subset of Issue 1, innit?

Let's just say it's not unknown for us to ask very politely exactly what RL details could have been disclosed or what it was about the details on the thread that caused this RL person to think the thread was about them.

We hope you'd know us well enough to trust that we can usually tell what's going on (see my post earlier about us being well hard).

Obviously, though, any deletion policy that relies on looking at each case individually and in context, rather than having blanket rules, will mean some folks will think we're inconsistent. I'd like to think we're pretty damn consistent in our overall approach, though, and also as transparent and honest as possible about what we're doing, especially when we (occasionally) get it wrong.

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 12:37

@Freddiemisagreatshag

I agree with Maryz.

You have mail, Freddie. Smile

HelenMumsnet · 27/04/2013 12:54

@seeker

The only people who can get threads deleted are school governors or members of the PTA.

Ha! What if the MNHQer deciding on deletion (or not) is a school governor or member of the PTA? Is that top trumps?

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread