Username search not allowed now

[CarefreeMe]

I believe I’ve just had a thread deleted by accident (sorry!!!) as myself and another poster recognised the username and mentioned something in her previous thread.

MNHQ deleted the thread as they said doxxing is against the talk guidelines.

Is this a new thing?
As I wasn’t aware of it and assumed that’s why you could search usernames.

Sorry to the OP who started the thread, although her thread was very misleading and completely different to her other ones, which is going to affect posters advice.

If you posted this in site stuff, you might have got an answer from MNHQ. Sounds weird.

Definitely not doxxing by normal standards. Sounds a bit ridiculous and more like mn should be looking behind the scenes at the authenticity or lack there of of the poster.

Hi OP

We're not too sure that this counts as doxxing (we'd need a link to the thread) but generally, we do delete when previous threads are bought up. It's case by case but usually, it isn't done in a nice way and so we don't think that's in the spirit.

Context is everything though - and so it really depends on the thread. It could have been that there were other posts on this thread that managed to identify the poster. It can happen.

How is allowing OP's to change their story 'in the spirit' then?!

This!

Good question.

Making up bullshit is in the spirit, but calling out bullshit isn't.

Me too! I won't be shamed into stopping.

@CarefreeMe is this by any chance about the SIL pregancy announcement thread?

I'd really like to hear the answer to this question too...

Me three. If someone is telling an entirely contradictory story to the one they told under the same name previously then one of those two is a pack of lies. Are deliberate lies now in the spirit? I thought making shit up for the responses was considered trolling.

After all this isn't just turning three children into two or citing ages a year or two different or changing Cornwall to Devon on a family holiday story.

I was in that thread and I was one of the ones pointing that her story didn’t make sense specially after seeing her other thread. And the consequences of what other posters had been suggesting could have been quite bad for a third person outside of their marriage hence why I pointed out her old thread

op called me that I was billing her for not agreeing with her and bringing back her old thread and not long after MNHQ deleted the thread

infind this quite bad. As @CarefreeMe is saying the stories were completely opposite so people were advising things that could have been quite bad for someone just because the op wasn’t transparent. I have never seeing MNHQ deleting a thread before for mentioning another thread. I’ve a feeling OP didn’t like what some of us told her , realised she wasn’t going to be anymore the “happy marriage” she wanted to demonstrate and was going to be told things she’d not liked so decided to report her thread to close it. A shame as if she had been clear since the beginning people would have given her better advice

*bulling

Yeah that ain’t doxxing

However, AS still doesn’t work as well as it used to - I tried to AS someone the other day and it didn’t recognise their username

The MN obsession with searching peoples username to catch them out is hilarious. I’m glad the are putting a stop to it. Time to find another hobby to fill your day.

It's OK for MN to link similar threads on the threads though. It's just the users that can't do it.

Honestly, talk about mixed messages MNHQ. You can link, users can't. You rely on your users to report troll threads, you don't proactively search for them or stop PBP from reregistering. You've jumped the shark yourselves on this one, I hope you have a rethink because it looks bad.

is this by any chance about the SIL pregancy announcement thread?

No it wasn’t, I didn’t see that one.

It was one where she said a new work colleague was harassing her DH because she was texting him (even though he has replying to this women) and that he was going to speak to his manger about it.

The OP was being quite rude about the women and said that she trusts her DH 100% and she was just worried that this women was going to turn around and say that the DH was harassing her which could get him in trouble.

A few posters asked if she’s sure DH isn’t enjoying it or why can’t he just not reply/block her and OP said that she completely trusts him and he would never do that.

So I said but on your previous thread you said that your DH has been acting dodgey for months and you know that’s he’s been cheating with a work colleague and he’s cheated in the past.
So I asked if it’s the same work colleague or a different one.

And then a couple posters wrote posts but hadn’t read my post and was supporting the OP saying the women is after her DH and then the thread got deleted so it was most likely because of my post.

I guess if everyone knew he had form for this type of thing she would get different responses but she wanted to know what to do about this women and was adamant that her DH wouldn’t do it and was getting defensive about posters blaming him - so I don’t think she did it to get unbiased answers.

What was in the deletion message? Sometimes when OP's realise that a thread isn't going their way they ask for it to be withdrawn, specifying nebulous "outing" details.

I think it might have been me who recognised the other poster as well

Yes, the other poster was being unpleasant, using words like trollop etc if that rings any bells

@CarefreeMe i wouldn't worry too much
It wasn't doxxing
You did nothing wrong imo

So you’d rather advise to report someone like the op was being advised for something they might have not been doing jusr because you have got trusting problems with your husband ? Maybe if you’ve problems with your husband you should focus on that rather than coming to mumsnet to tell a different story each time

When did deleting threads that refer to previous threads start?

Does that mean that if a poster posts a thread and says ABC then posts another that contradicts with XYZ you will delete the second thread, the first tread or both?

No one can now question an OP about the veracity of their posts without the whole being deleted? Surely that's another disincentive for posters to take the time to respond in the first place

I had someone reference a thread I'd started almost 18 months before when I commented on a thread (I wasn't even the OP in the new thread). I actually found it really disturbing and name changed as a result. And actually, the comment I made was a natural progression from what I'd been posting about 18 months before so it was even weirder as she did it in a weird "gotcha" kind of way.

So I'm all for a bit of MN deleting at times.

I think @MNHQ have made a mistake here and are not admitting it. This is not doxxing, and the relevant job experience intern (because it cannot be a proper staff member surely?) needs educating.

The whole name change capability would not be needed if AS is not allowed.

Please make a thread in Site Stuff about this as it needs escalating.

This doesn't make sense.
"Doxxing" could arguably apply where someone is saying one username is the same person as another (although many people namechange "recognisably" on purpose).

But same username is a way of displaying you're the same person as you were last time you posted with that username.

It's not hard to namechange - I do it regularly - so use that function if you want a "new" identity.

I had someone reference a thread I'd started almost 18 months before when I commented on a thread (I wasn't even the OP in the new thread). I actually found it really disturbing and name changed as a result.

Yes I get that it can feel a bit weird, especially if your situation has changed.

But I don’t understand starting a thread asking for advice if you’re not going to be honest about the situation.

Lots of posters were telling OP to get her DH to speak to his manager about him being harassed incase the women made a false claim against him but knowing the background meant that it sounded like DH was just cheating again.

This scenario we’re taking about happened in a matter of 2 weeks
middle nov : I’ve trusting issues on my husband. I think he’s cheating on me
end nov: a woman wants to steal my husband. We are deeply in love and I trust him

people change of course and things that are valid 18 m ago they might not be the same today. But In 2 weeks things don’t change that much. Yesterdays op was being told to report the other woman for harassment. If she had said the same thing as 2 weeks ago I highly doubt mners would be telling her the same but more ltb

I think it might have been me who recognised the other poster as well

I don’t think there was any identifying information and it seems silly that you can’t say that the poster is being misleading and let other posters just waste their time giving her advice.