Why has Mumsnet HQ retroactively edited four deleted messages?

[DaemonPantalaemon]

I do not want to start a thread about a thread. But I am in a Catch-22 logical bind here in that I cannot ask my question on the thread itself because the thread has been deleted.

So I am asking it here.

Why has Mumsnet edited its deletion messages on at least 4 threads? When the threads were initially deleted, they had deletion messages that said, among other things, our heart goes out to Poster X at this difficult time, and he assures us the support from Mumsunet has been helpful to him.

Another thread said it was important to give Poster X the benefit of the doubt.

Those deletion messages have now been edited with a generic "its time to stop talking about this".

So my question is, why is MNHQ so keen to gaslight the members of his forum by retroactively editing deletion messages?

Thank you.

So hang on, the deletion messages WEREN'T changed? Is that right?

Mnhq Also that people who've been bereaved do often behave in ways that can seem, for want of a better word, odd
I think that's a terrible thing to say in this case! Bereaved people are grief stricken yes, that doesn't mean they can be excused from sending inappropriate texts

I definitely saw the 'above and beyond' comment (I think it was part way through a thread?) and remember feeling guilty as I had been a little cynical up to that point. It was the reassuring tone of MNHQ's posts that convinced me all was legitimate.

The shite about bereaved people acting a certain way is terrible.

Yes, he sexually harassed people but he was grieving.

If they did speak to him yesterday then that's just weird! Why continue to validate him?

Please could @ionamumsnet or @katemumsnet explain why some posters have been banned but not poster X?

Because x isn't asking awkward questions

I felt exactly the same as Rufus27.

But why were posters giving a stranger on the internet, their phone numbers?confused. Mnhq can't be responsible for what grown ups get up to, off this site

I must have missed the drama playing out, but have been catching up on the (numerous!) threads after.
This baffles me too. Not giving out personal details to strangers on the web is basic internet safety that they teach my primary school child.
Anybody could be anybody on here.
I really don't see why everyone is getting cross at MN. We're all grown ups on here (presumably.)

I really don't see why everyone is getting cross at MN

Because for months posters have been reporting the threads to HQ about them being a scam and for months MNHQ have been banning those that report..... Mumsnet then validated the OP and moved the threads to Charities...

Str4nge I had that "special" thing too via PM. I answered with something bland like hoping he had irl support. Creepy. Hugs to Ltbiscuit hope you're ok.

Apparently they went 'above and beyond' to check the OP of those threads out....

I really don't see why everyone is getting cross at MN

Because HQ started they went 'above and beyond' to check him out , they validated him and put the GJ page in the charities section.

I can see how it happened.

**JG

**stated

Phone is crap, sorry!

Are we any the wiser then?

Short answer? No.
Long answer? Drags enormous trolley of boxes and begins rustling through them to find the first notebook.

I wonder how the adults who gave their phone numbers out willynilly (to someone they couldn't possibly have trusted or met in RL) if one of their DC has done the same thing!

Blaming MNHQ for not following those very basic rules of internet safety is utter madness and delusion.

But those people will never ever accept that, they'll just blame others for their rash and careless behaviour.

I didn't post on a single thread by that creep. All that Caps Lock crap spelt attention seeking and fakery from the word go. I didn't invest hours of my life fighting a lost cause trying to convince others it was a sham.

Be happy you are a kind person and not a cynic

Associating a bit of healthy cynicism with not being a "nice person" is the reason many people feel that giving money from their own budget to a con-person was kind, nice and somehow more admirable than not believing them.

It's a nasty world out there and until people stop believing fraudsters this sort of awful situation will trip people up again and again.

Its just when you try to say that, you'll get rounded on.

Well daisy you can feel smug in your superiority. But, as someone who took a quick look and didn't post on those threads, I can also see that posters have been warning, for quite some time, that MN seems to be viewed as an easy place to tap kind-hearted people for money. And there is no need at all for those threads to be allowed to play out.

I don't think it's really possible to be unaware of the rules of cyber security (at least I hope not, because parents really need to be drilling it in to their DC).

it is a pity that MNHQ, who often use a reminder about not giving (financially and emotionally) more than you can afford to lose, did not make that warning more clearly and more often. Because it's there to protect people, and remind them to avoid getting sucked in.

And it's not victim blaming to teach your DC about cyber security, not giving out personal details to someone you know only on a chat site (without significant consideration even for a throwaway mobile number, and with awareness that the person might not be who they seem even if you've been 'chatting' for a long time) and not meeting people you've only 'met' on line (other than in a public place with someone knowing where you are and pre-arranged 'help me' message). And of course being very cautious if asked to do something that makes you uncomfortable (whether that's posting naked pictures or giving money, game assets, self-harming to camera etc) any if which could be dressed up in all kinds of ways to make you think you'd be a bad person if you didn't do it.

You may need to repeat this to vulnerable family members who live alone (rip off roofer fixing a 'broken tile' at great cost, new driveways, cold calls about computer viruses)

And today's scam of the day, according to BBC about fake cards from your postie about a missed delivery, which if you ring the number will cost you a whopping £45.

Well daisy you can feel smug in your superiority

This is why I don't bother posting very much. This is exactly the type of personal attack that is so unpleasant and unnecessary. I'm talking specifically about the ludicrous situation where the blame falls solely on MN and no responsibility on people's own actions. I'm not going on a thread and attacking or criticising individuals. but it's the elephant in the room.

I'm happy to keep my opinions/observations to myself. It isn't my loss but it's sad when people are close minded to an alternative POV and just attack.

Hiding thread.

Completely agree with @daisychain01 and don't think you sound superior at all.

I didn't read any of the threads as the title typed in capital letters was enough to make me assume the OP was either fake or unbalanced. Sending your phone number to someone on the back of a ridiculous, attention grabbing thread...mind boggling.

As to why MN kept the threads going. Well they attracted huge amounts of interest, people flocking to the site via other sites (Reddit) and generated controversy...the better to attract attention from the Daily Fail as well no doubt. All those new Unique Users helps with the onsite advertising revenue as well.

Go ahead MNHQ, I can see your finger hovering above the delete button