Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

Deleted Thread Announcement - "Lads"

39 replies

MoleSmokes · 13/05/2020 19:09

Message from MNHQ: Lads, we're getting a billion reports and tbh, we're not sure that we're the place for this. How about thrashing it all out somewhere else? We're going to remove this thread now. Love and peace, MNHQ.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3907094-Comerfords-style-on-Twitter

Could someone from @MumsnetHQ please explain why the Thread Deletion message apparently addresses the OP (male) and the subject of the thread (another male bullying a female)? That is, rather than the Mumsnetters actually contributing to that thread who (I will take a wild guess!) were all or mostly female?!

I was on that thread and I did not see anyone posting, apart from the OP, who I know to be male, although MumsnetHQ might know better, of course.

It is particularly concerning that MumsnetHQ deleted a thread in response to "billions" of reports about Mumsnetters deploring the actions of a male (not a Mumsnetter, I would guess!) who has been relentlessly bullying a female Mumsnet member.

Then to address the Deletion message to "Lads"!!

Women were supporting a woman who was, and probably still is, being subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying and vilification by a male.

The fact that that this was brought to the attention of Mumsnetters on FWR by a male Mumsnet member is irrelevant. It is disappointing that MumsnetHQ seems to think that this is the most important aspect.

Even more disappointing that MumsnetHQ sided with the male bully (a Mumsnet member?? Really??) and his gang of Twitter followers against a female Mumsnet member and female Mumsnet members condemning her persecution by him.

Mostly this has been on Social Media but this has been part of a sustained campaign that has included "economic sanctions", blocking her receipt of donations from Mumsnetters when she was in dire financial straights.

From the flippant tone of the deletion message you seem not to have grasped that this is:

a) far more serious than people throwing hissy-fits on Social Media

b) about a young woman being persecuted, primarily by a gang of males led by a man - not a trivial spat between two "Lads"!

OP posts:
DioneTheDiabolist · 13/05/2020 19:14

That does not read like any other MNHQ message that I've seen. Is there a new member of staff?Blush

ArriettyJones · 13/05/2020 19:18

I didn’t see the thread, but doesn’t that translate as “Sling your hook chaps”?

ArriettyJones · 13/05/2020 19:18

It also has a whiff of ban hammer to it, doesn’t it?

SeriouslySoDoneIn · 13/05/2020 19:39

Wow

Redshoeblueshoe · 13/05/2020 19:45

I only saw the beginning of the thread and I have no idea why it got deleted.
However a certain person seems to want Glinner cancelled.
Glinner Wine

ArriettyJones · 13/05/2020 19:54

However a certain person seems to want Glinner cancelled.

Heh. I wish them luck with that. 😏

Nice to dream big.

JamieLeeCurtains · 13/05/2020 19:55

I didn't see the thread but I agree the message is very unusual.

mouldysprouts · 13/05/2020 20:00

I've never seen a deletion message quite like it.

ItsLateHumpty · 13/05/2020 20:30

I don’t recall MN ever using sex based adjectives in a deletion message before. Quite jarring really.

I also thought MN had moved away from allowing reports from non-members, so who are the ‘billions’ that complained? Or are we being mod’ed by non-members still?

My comment / question are more general of FWR than this particular thread because I didn’t see said thread but the points raised by the OP are of concern as actual member of MN, especially at a time when MN are asking for subs.

TheChampagneGalop · 13/05/2020 21:42

Lads? Does this person know where she or he is?

Unshriven · 13/05/2020 21:46

I read it in Ardal O'Hanlon's voice. Grin

The kind of use of 'lads' that covers everyone, like 'guys'.

MindyStClaire · 13/05/2020 21:58

Maybe a new member of staff who's Irish - lads is very gender neutral here, and would be used for a solely female group.

UpTheLaganInABubble · 13/05/2020 22:08

I was just going to say the same about may be Irish... lads is used by some of us here in NI to mean either/both males and females

CodenameVillanelle · 14/05/2020 06:51

Wow.
@mnhq why do you think mumsnet isn't the place to discuss this? Why are you still doing what people who don't use mumsnet and who mass report threads want you to do?

Z0rr0 · 14/05/2020 09:47

I just can't understand the 'billions'of reports things. From who? This was posted in the Feminist Chat section which is hardly the most trodden section, and had about ten comments on it.
I saw this on Twitter, which implied it was feminists objecting to a man fighting their battles for them, but Glinner was just raising awareness of the online bullying and suggesting a course for others to take in the event they became a target.
Others in the Feminist Chat section seemed to think it unlikely anyone there reported the post, so who are these billions?
I really think we do need some sort of an answer to this.
(Given the lads / Irish connection, maybe it was a 'fun' nod to Glinner.)

Deleted Thread Announcement - "Lads"
Ajollygoodwrap · 14/05/2020 10:34

From talk guidelines: If a whole thread is deleted, please don't start a new one repeating and/or rehashing everything that's been deleted. Most Mumsnetters consider that to be very bad manners - and, of course, it's highly likely that the new thread will be deleted, too.

MNHQ does not owe you shit and quite frankly I think they've been amazingly indulgent of the entitled behaviour of some posters on this site! I doubt anyother site would "owe" you an explanation for "modding and admining" at their discretion. I think they've bent over backwards to try to accommodate all the excesses from different types of users here. They're not saints, they're doing what they can. It's a bloody free site and chat forum. So many other places to choose from, if MN isn't working for you. I know I would jog on if I was so frothy about how a site's been run. No one's chained you to this place ffs!

JamieLeeCurtains · 14/05/2020 11:19

There's a premium (paid) membership, Ajollygoodwrap

A lot of posters on FWR pay for it

Z0rr0 · 14/05/2020 11:22

Well, you didn't see the thread because this is in no way rehashing what it was about.
Yes, they don't 'owe' us anything, but if a decision to delete an apparently inoffensive thread is confusing, then an explanation of why will help us not make the same error again.
But it's the message about 'billions of reports' that is most querisome. As someone said above. If MN say they will not delete a post based on external pressure, who are the 'billions' who are reporting it and under what pretext have they deleted it?

MoleSmokes · 14/05/2020 14:35

Ajollygoodwrap - I did not start a "Thread About A Thread" (TAAT) here. This is a request for clarification of a Thread Deletion Message.

"It's a bloody free site and chat forum."

Maybe you have decided not to pay for Premium Membership in order to keep Mumsnet running but some of us have:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3878378-Premium-Membership-Privacy-and-Data-Protection-MNHQ-please-clarify?msgid=95683430

"I know I would jog on if I was so frothy about how a site's been run"

I suggest you do so then, as no one else is foaming at the mouth quite as rabidly here Smile

Z0rr0 - I agree about the baffling "billions" thing. To claim that "we're getting a billion reports" is childishly hyperbolic and just adds to the staggeringly offensive trivialisation of a very serious issue.

ItsLateHumpty - "I also thought MN had moved away from allowing reports from non-members, so who are the ‘billions’ that complained? Or are we being mod’ed by non-members still?"

Mumsnet has previously reassured us that "external monitors" are not an issue - but that hardly chimes with the "billions" claim:

@JustineMumsnet said

"I just want to pick up on the idea that we simply remove stuff because it's reported by non-members or single issue activists and that this happens a lot. In fact we've had zero reports on trans issues by email since the beginning of the year.

And when posts are reported we look at the post in context and apply our guidelines to decide whether or not it warrants deletion. Posts on both sides of the trans/ womens' rights debate are reported overwhelmingly by long-standing mumsnet members who are active on the site. When it's clear that people are reporting vexatiously on posts that do not require deletion we deal with that appropriately, and we have banned people who are only here to promote a single issue or to censor the conversation around a single issue.

Ultimately our aim is to consider only one thing though, whether posts are made within our guidelines and if they're not, they go."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3874618-Mumsnet-Premium-membership-please-support-us-if-you-can?msgid=95471726#95471726

That reassurance is completely at odds with the Thread Deletion Message I am asking about:

Message from MNHQ: Lads, we're getting a billion reports and tbh, we're not sure that we're the place for this. How about thrashing it all out somewhere else? We're going to remove this thread now. Love and peace, MNHQ.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3907094-Comerfords-style-on-Twitter

In particular:

". . . when posts are reported we look at the post in context. . . . When it's clear that people are reporting vexatiously on posts that do not require deletion we deal with that appropriately, we have banned people who are only here to promote a single issue or to censor the conversation around a single issue.

Ultimately our aim is to consider only one thing though, whether posts are made within our guidelines and if they're not, they go."

The "context" is, as I have explained in my OP:

"a sustained campaign that has included "economic sanctions", blocking (a Mumsnet member's) receipt of donations from Mumsnetters when she was in dire financial straights. . .

. . . b) about a young woman being persecuted, primarily by a gang of males led by a man."

Precisely because I wanted to avoid this being perceived as a TAAT, I did not mention the details of this attack as part of a wider campaign "to censor the conversation around a single issue".

For the benefit of anyone who missed the deleted thread - but please do NOT pick up the conversation in this thread - the "single issue conversation" being censored is the desperate need for emotional and practical support for detransitioners.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 14/05/2020 15:16

I saw that deletion message too and was Shock

I didn't follow the thread after the OP so assumed it had turned into just Glinner and the other bloke shouting at each other, as that's the only way that deletion message would make sense. It sounds as though that was not the case though Hmm

I agree thats a very odd message, and the wording and the reason for the deletion could both do with clarification.

MichaelMumsnet · 14/05/2020 15:29

Hi all. We had a number of reports about that thread - mostly saying that it was bringing over a spat from Twitter - which is not really what we're about. The deletion message was an attempt at moderating with a light touch - it obviously missed the mark with a few of you.
The 'lads' was a nod to the OP - apologies if it landed badly.

MoleSmokes · 14/05/2020 17:39

MichaelMumsnet - This is looking horribly like a phenomenon that this all to familiar on Twitter but which we really should not expect to see on Mumsnet, ie. a man intervenes in a conversation involving several (apparently invisible) women and addresses the only man involved.

I would also strongly suspect that the "number of reports" (One-Two-Three-"Billions" !?) that succeeded in censoring women were mostly made by males. All on the Feminist Chat/Women's Rights board on Mumsnet.

You could not make it up!

I can understand how on first sight (the Thread title) that the thread might have appeared to be "bringing over a spat from Twitter" but it was obvious from the OP and following discussion that:

a) the OP was reporting a sequence of events in which he was not personally involved, so therefore not "bringing over a spat from Twitter"

b) neither of the parties to the conversation on Twitter were involved in the discussion on Mumsnet, so again not "bringing over a spat from Twitter"

c) the purpose was to bring attention to the ongoing campaign of bullying against a Mumsnet member that I have already detailed. As far as I can recall there were only screenshots, ie. no links that would enable "bringing over a spat from Twitter" and then taking it back to Twitter.

d) Most if not all replies were from members who either said they were not on Twitter or that they were blocked by the man harassing the Mumsnet member on Twitter and there was no evidence, at least that I saw, of any "spat" on that thread. So, again, not "bringing over a spat from Twitter".

After Mumsnet asking members to support the platform financially to keep it afloat, it is a kick in the teeth to see that the Mods are so very far from having our backs and, to add insult to injury, misrepresent "a number" of reports (from members or the "external monitors"?) as "billions" and have the insensitivity to talk over our heads (the "girls"?) with "a nod to the Lads".

"Moderating with a light touch" that "missed the mark" ??

No, heavy-handed censorship silencing women with a side-order of Bantz between the Lads to really put us in our place.

OP posts:
Z0rr0 · 14/05/2020 18:39

@MoleSmokes Wait, did Comerford come onto the site specifically to take up the attack against Glinner?!

Redshoeblueshoe · 14/05/2020 19:07

Sounds like it Z0rrO

DioneTheDiabolist · 14/05/2020 19:19

Ah right, two blokes were having a barney? That explains the lads thing.🙄 We don't get many butch fights on MN, I'm sorry I missed it.Grin