Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
MNHQ

Why we temporarily banned Anyfucker and what next

68 replies

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:18

Hi all,
So as many have pointed out there are an awful lot of threads about AF from last night and today, many of them repeating the same stuff, some of them including misapprehensions.

So we thought it best to state our position on the matter fully here and to lock the other threads so anyone with stuff to say can say it here and it's all easier to follow. (Apols for any difficulties you've had in following all this because of multiple threads - we don't normally allow them but in this case, as there was a fair bit of MNHQ conspiracy theory floating around, we thought it best not to start deleting things today).

So first why did we ban, or more accurately suspend, AF for a week?
As already stated AF did break our Talk Guidelines a lot wrt troll-hunting, PAs and generally aggressive behaviour.

We have looked back and found we've sent her nine mails of the 'please stick to Guidelines or we'll have to take further action' variety and we've banned her once before. There have been c. 600 reports of her posts - and there are 1100 cases in our system concerning her one way or another (not including any name changes). We've deleted
posts under the name 'AnyFucker' 185 times (some of those reports will be duplicate reports of the same post, so it's not that we've deleted 185 out of 600 posts reported).

It is not the case that most of these posts were in response to trolls, plenty were against folks most would agree were regular posters. Others were against folks she thought might be trolls but we could see were not. Some were against folks who were subsequently banned.

We haven't actually been able to forensically analyse each of the 600 cases - it really would mean going back through each thread - but we will over the next little while if folks think it necessary.

Some people have been calling for an auto-ban mechanism for posters who are multiply reported - if we had one of these AF would have been likely banned a few more times than she actually has.

We wrote to AF a couple of weeks ago after deleting some of her posts warning that if she crossed the line again we'd have to suspend her and that's what we did yesterday. She wrote back to say she knew it was coming.

We don't take these decisions lightly wrt Mumsnetters who've been contributing for so long and whom we know so well. We agree AF's a fantastic poster who goes out her way to help others but we're not talking isolated incidents here and it's very often not directed at actual trolls. Often we're talking about aggression/personal attacks/accusations of trolling against other Mumsnetters who AF disagrees with.

Plenty of people today have cited examples of this type of behaviour. Some have also spoken of an orthodoxy on the relationships board which is difficult to diverge from and which puts them off posting there. And of course, plenty of others have cited examples of AF's kindness and support on those same boards.

But what would you really have us do? Ignore the PAs against Mumsnetters? Ignore those posters who report such PAs to us? We are not talking exclusively PAs on trolls here. If you've been following today's threads you have to accept that. Believe me, we have not been trigger happy here. The last thing we want is for AF, or posters like AF who offer so much to Mumsnetters, to leave MN. But we have a few rules for very good reasons we think. Without them, Mumsnet would be incredibly insular and one dimensional and very unwelcoming to newcomers. We have to accept that if folks can't live with those rules then, ultimately, that's their decision.

I think it's worth saying what we do believe in, here at MNHQ, because although the site has grown, these values (if that's not too aggrandising) really haven't changed since it started.

We believe that the pooling of knowledge and advice makes parents' lives easier.
We believe in tolerance of differing opinions and in letting the conversation flow wherever possible.
We believe in listening and engaging and being transparent as much as we can.

We do have things we don't tolerate (which have been honed and refined over the years by collective user experience) because we think they are less likely to promote the things MN values. Namely personal attacks, deliberately inflammatory posts, posts that break law/hate speech.

We will also delete things that are downright mean and obscene (though clearly this is a matter of judgement).

We have never billed MN as a safe haven. It is open and searchable and public so can never be as safe as a closed, heavily moderated or pre-moderated environment would be.

It is a largely female space and we think that is incredibly valuable in a male dominated internet/ world. But it is not an exclusively female - it's by parents for parents and it always has been. Men are welcome to post and to express their opinions and we've had many valuable male Mumsnetters over the years.

Quite apart from anything it would both be impractical and possibly illegal to have it otherwise.

Obviously there are things we at MNHQ can do better. We are never going to be entirely consistent in our moderation as we are human and it often come down to fine judgement calls. And we apologise in advance for inconsistencies but can only say we really do try our best.

In the case of this ban/suspension, as many have pointed out, we could have communicated what had happened and why more quickly and more clearly.

Some people have suggested a clear, more widely known "sin bin" procedure and we'll certainly look at that.

We will look at resources and response times generally to reported posts and are working on empowering all HQ mods to post on the boards and to be transparent as possible. (NB this would be easier if HQ mods felt they could post in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding Grin.)

We do put a lot of energy into investigating and banning trolls. We don't make a fanfare every time we ban someone for obvious reasons - trolls are here for the attention. But I concede that maybe that adds to the atmosphere that we are tolerating/ignoring/doing nothing about trolls. So we will think about that.

We don't have any auto suspend in place but we might look at that based on a large amount of reports of a particular poster.

And as suggested by someone (apols have forgotten who) we'll hold an MNHQ mods webchat with me, Rowan and Rebecca on Friday 8th at lunchtime and will open a thread in advance, so anyone who can't make the chat can post their question.

Please, of course, post your thoughts and further suggestions here before then, or whenever suits.

Sorry for the very long post - thanks to those who've read to the end.

(We'll be locking all the other threads in the next little bit.)

Go to post
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:34

@hermioneweasley

Thanks for the update. Once explained it seems reasonable, but a shame it's taken 24 hours during which rumour and high feelings have built up.

Well to be fair Hermione I did post a lot of it last night - just not the factual analysis stuff.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:35

@NoelHeadbandz

I feel a bit icky reading that tbh- like being privy to someone else's school report

Yes, agreed NoelH, we really wouldn't normally do this, but we do see it as quite exceptional circumstances given the amount of suspicion in the last 24 hours.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:36

@CreatureRetorts

The thing that I wonder is what do you do if there's a targeted attack against individual posters and others get away with being rude etc?

I have to say the whole thing is a bit Confused

Well if you contact us with examples we will always look at it and obviously targeted attacks against individuals would break the guidelines.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:42

@ScreamingNaanAndGoryOn

If I was AF, after reading that I probably wouldn't want to come back.

I understand where you're coming from in wanting to defend HQ, but that's an official drubbing of a single poster.

I've not seen you do that before. I'm pretty sad that you have.

I see where you're coming from SN and if I'm honest it's not something we like doing at all but as said, it's been pretty exceptional circs here over the last 24 hours and some Mumsnetters have been very doubtful of our actions/motives etc so I think transparency is the only way to go in this case. I repeat that AF is a much valued poster by MNHQ and clearly by legions of other Mumsnetters, so very much hope she'll be back and posting soon and we can all move on!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:43

@trish5000

Seems a fair response to me. I too am aghast at the amount of reports concerning AF.

Is it possible that there will be more night cover? Is that on your agenda?

Yes it is, trish. Not quite sure exactly where we're at but Rowan will be...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:45

@reelingintheyears

I hope you asked AF first before posting about previous warnings etc.

I thought all that stuff was private.

I think it's relevant though reeling and, as said, I don't see that we had a choice in the face of being called upon pretty vociferously to state our reasoning. If we don't explain our actions we get criticised and shouted at?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:47

@Annonynon

in the most non-arsekissy way possible...

I think you're doing a fab job mnhq, I don't envy you the decisions you have to make but to me you always seem fair,balanced and reasonable

You can say that as many times as you like Annon Smile

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:49

@Thants

Why do you outright ban other people with no warnings yet this person is given many warnings and only a temporary suspension for breaking the guidelines?

We usually only outright ban trolls, Thants. Most posters get a warning. Posters with a long history of being helpful get a few more warnings than most.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:53

@reelingintheyears

Yes, explain your actions but at least have the courtesy to ask someone first before printing out their history. Just basic manners.

It's not really their history is it? It's as much our history isn't it - where they've broken the rules and we've been compelled to moderate them. But I agree I heartily wish none of this were necessary. But sadly, I think it was in this case.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:54

@BOF

I'm sure we can take a collective deep breath and move on. I can say that now, because I'm sober...

Can I just apologise for any part I played in inflaming things by saying the ban was permanent? I didn't have the full facts at all, and was somewhat well-oiled.

I'm just looking forward to seeing her back.

Thanks for the explanation and apology, BOF. (Have to admit we were a bit baffled by your intervention!)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 21:56

@JustineMumsnet

[quote trish5000] Seems a fair response to me. I too am aghast at the amount of reports concerning AF.

Is it possible that there will be more night cover? Is that on your agenda?

Yes it is, trish. Not quite sure exactly where we're at but Rowan will be...[/quote]

We have some extremely kind volunteers lined up to do overnight modding - they won't have anything like full privileges, but will be able to delete and ban outright spammers and trolls.

We're just waiting for a bit of tech work to be done before we set it all in motion - and of course we realise it will take some bedding in, so we hope you'll all help us out (as ever) by telling us how you think it's working

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:02

@ExcuseTypos

I agree with whoever said those statistics will be used to goad AF for years to come.

I also think, if you are going to publish them for all to see, the full context should have been given. How many posts has AF posted altogether?
I assume it would be many, many thousands, in that context 185 deletions over x years, isn't as bad as it sounds.
And as you said Justine, you don't know how many of those deletions were for repeating someone else's rule breaking. So maybe they accounted for half of her deletions. Who knows?

The full facts or non at all should have been posted.

AF has posted 72,000 times - so yes, you're quite right that as a percentage, 185 reports is low.

But (as another piece of perspective), we have quite a few other posters who've posted a lot more, or around the same amount, but not been deleted anything like as much.

We're sorry not to be able to provide a full analysis tonight - our systems aren't really set up for this sort of thing and we thought it was more important to get some facts out there than to wait until we had a thorough stats analysis - although as Justine says, if there's a strong call for that we'll do it.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:11

@tribpot

It strikes me that the lack of information about the length of AF's ban played a significant part in the situation that occurred last night. Yet this rates barely a mention by MN.

Yes, we should have been clearer about this last night and that's definitely been a 'learning' for us today...

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:17

@ScaryNutellaFangs

I think that had HQ said on their first response that it was a suspension and was for a week then it would not have blown up the way it did.

The sweary thread which got deleted was being used to blow off some steam and then that got deleted with a very prim and proper "this is not in the spirit of the site" message, when it was a huge venting joke.

When you get that message knowing full well that they have been allowed in the past as jokes and were understood to be so is perhaps what incensed some into starting the 15 + other threads about it.

Yes, in retrospect it wasn't a great move to delete that thread. We're sorry about that.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:22

@PacificFucker

Thanks, Justine, for your OP. I am glad that AF can/will be back after a short period of time.

2 points:

Somebody with strong opinions on a subject more likely to be emotive such as for instance, oh say, 'Relationships' is more likely to generate polarisation. So people posting a long, say, in the gardening section, even if prolific posters are far less likely to be controverstial. I think (disclaimer: I know little about gardening Wink).

Actually you would be amazed (genuinely) by the things people get passionate about on here.

We completely agree that some threads and topics are more polarising than others - and we do try to take into account the amount of 'heat' being generated when we look at a thread or post.

But in the end, whatever the context, if people break Talk Guidelines and are reported, then we need to take action.

It's worth saying that there are some posters who have posted many tens of thousands of times, and who plainly hold very strong opinions on many things, but who manage to stick within Guidelines. We don't, tbh, agree that strong opinions need go hand-in-hand with personal attacks (or other Guideline-breaking posts).

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:27

@garlicfucker

FWIW, Justine et al, I agree that auto-bans cause more trouble than they save. I also agree, though, that patterns of aggravating posting tend to go unnoticed. Along with some others on these threads, I will start reporting posters for this reason, regardless of specific post content. It'll then be up to you how, or whether, you follow it up.

With that in mind, I second/third the suggestion of a 'report poster' option on the report form.

We'll think about the 'report poster' option - but loads of people do exactly that already, just by reporting a post but using the comment box to say 'er actually you need to have a look into this one, it's all a bit goady/inconsistent/rude' or whatever.

We spend lots of time looking into posters' entire or recent histories.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:29

@NoelHeadbandz

Well yes I wasn't going to say anything but....yes, I AM one of the new volunteer mods

Open to bribes people, open to bribes

As with our other innovations, this may work brilliantly or it may not work at all. We're going to suck it and see because we don't like to see our overnight MNers having to suck up mountains of spam/horrible abusive posts overnight. But if it turns out to really not work, we'll scrap it and try something else.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:36

@TheFabulousFuckingIdiotFucker

Who will moderate the vollunteer mods?

We're going to be keeping a close eye on what they do.

They will have no access at all to other posters' data (including namechange details and things like that).

They will have two buttons - 'delete' and 'ban'. And strict instructions to use them only for very obvious spam and really vile abusive posts (rape jokes and things like that - which sadly we do sometimes get a bit of overnight.)

We'll review what they do, and if we think someone is over-stepping the mark (although obviously we have no reason at all to think our generous volunteers would do that) we'll take action.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:45

@TondelayoSchwarzkopf

Some have also spoken of an orthodoxy on the relationships board which is difficult to diverge from and which puts them off posting there.

I don't know much about this issue or about AnyFucker but as a regular lurker and occasional poster in Relationships I cannot emphasise enough how much I disagree

The Relationships thread has helped so many people who are at their lowest in life, it has clarified issues for so many and mobilised many vulnerable women to take action to help themselves and their children. I've never been an OP there, but the advice, reading and stories there have clarified things and helped me personally.

There is no orthodoxy on Relationships - many people post there and many disagreements and debates are had there. This would not be the case in an 'orthodoxy'

We know that the Relationships board is hugely valued in what it does, and we don't doubt that it helps lots of people - we know that it does.

But we also get many reports and off-board messages saying that people feel they can't post in there because they will be shouted down for not following what they think is the party line.

This isn't only a problem in Relationships - we've had problems like this on other boards before, and no doubt we'll have problems like this on other boards in the future. But from what we've seen, some posters definitely think that there is a problem. And we're not talkig about people who are reporting to cause trouble; we're talking about 'genuine' MNers who feel reluctant to post.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:47

@usualsuspect

I'm just interested as to how they chose the mods.

I never saw a thread about it.

Is that ok Notyomomma?

yy there was a thread usual. We'll try to dig it out

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:52

There was a thread!

I just can't seem to find the right Gmail search term to unearth it right now

But there was definitely a thread, we didn't just stick pins into our user record

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:54

@MarmaladeBatkins

I got a PM from MNHQ begging me to be a mod. I turned them down because I found out that they wouldn't pay me in gin and being allowed to sit next to Rowan.

They were devastated but I'm sure they'll recover.

SandyMumsnet is the desk buddy you want - she has the brownies.

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 22:58

@MilllyMollyMully

I think MNHQ being transparent is great.

Re volunteer mods: I can see you're saying that they will have limited powers (mwahahahaha) but could you just reassure us that they will not be able to join all the dots which make up our personal lives and those of our families? Ie, our RL identities?

And if you ever need to raise funds, I should think you could have some kind of auction for people to find out how many posts they have made in their MN lifetime Shock and how many emoticons they have used. Halloween Smile

They won't be able to see any of a user's data at all. Nothing. Nada. They will be seeing MN exactly the same way everyone else see it, but with added 'ban' and 'delete' buttons.

We reckon you might be right about the auctions though

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 23:00

@ScaryNutellaFangs

BIWI- someone on another thread suggested Rowan was a man

This terrible calumny keeps getting rolled out and I will fight against it until the day I die. (Maybe)

MNHQ

RowanMumsnet · 24/10/2013 23:03

@lougle

Hmm...are you sure there was a thread, Rowan? I've used google to do a site specific search and there is nothing coming up about moderation volunteers from MNHQ.

I really am almost 100% sure there was, although you're making me doubt myself now.

We will find it for you tomorrow when people with higher IQs than me are around

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates