Timeline for What to do with the "rm -rf" hoax question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
54 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 21, 2016 at 19:26 | comment | added | Iszi | Also: "Any fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise illegal activity or any use of the Services or Content in violation of this Agreement may be grounds for termination of Subscriber’s right to Services or to access the Network." Now, to be fair, the verbiage is "may be grounds for termination". Still, I agree this is a rather offensive case as demonstrated by - if nothing else - the votes in this thread. | |
| Apr 21, 2016 at 19:24 | comment | added | Iszi | Why is everyone getting so hung up on the spam argument? It's much more simple than that. From the ToS (emphasis mine): "Under no circumstances will Subscriber use the Network or the Service to ... (d) knowingly post any false, inaccurate or incomplete material..." | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 12:35 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @yagmoth555 If someone gets banned for an entire year, then it's not a first offence. It means that they have had repeated warnings and ignored them. Suspensions are escalating, so to reach a 1 year ban means they've had multiple shorter bans and continued their behaviour. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 12:34 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson I seen a user with over 3k points on SF that got banned for 1 year for beeing a dickhead, while that dickhead got a week ban. Downplaying that dickhead is not fair either. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 11:06 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @IanKemp there have been plenty of dickheads doing dickheadish things on this site before and we've never. Ever. Had this level of outrage over it. I also never said we shouldn't do anything about it. I think the action that was taken now is 100% the correct action (merge, leave a message). Everyone is just super passionate about this particular dickhead suggesting all sorts of nuclear options that are, in my mind, unreasonable and over the top. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 9:59 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @MarkHenderson "I agree this was a dick move, but I really don't see why everyone is so furious about it." We are furious about it because not doing something about a dick move tells everyone that dick moves are okay. And they absolutely are not. | |
| Apr 19, 2016 at 9:56 | comment | added | Ian Kemp | @ArtOfCode "...the site itself has gained traffic and users from it..." I'm pretty sure BuzzFeed and other clickbait sites think the same way. Do we want to be better than them (quality), or do we only care about page views (quantity)? | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 13:22 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson for me it fit Andrew B comment to ArtofCode for the definition of spam. We simply just dont agree into that point. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 12:10 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @yagmoth555 That "startup" thing you mentioned, some people have already tried it before. That's astrotufing. This was not that either. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 12:08 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @yagmoth555 sigh. There is no one week ban for spammers. Spamming is an insta-kill. But this was not spam. The only rule that he actually broke what what we used to call "not a real question", but essentially you're only meant to ask questions about problems you've actually had. And that isn't even enforced very rigorously. I agree this was a dick move, but I really don't see why everyone is so furious about it. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 11:58 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MartinSmith 'first post' review queue exist for that to leverage the spam detection & rate. The user got a lot of view, is hoax worked. Next thing is what, posting valid questions about a startup product to get it know ? | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 7:17 | comment | added | Martin Smith | @HopelessN00b I extremely doubt that SF will suddenly become the platform for any further "viral marketing" as a result of this. I doubt any potential customers were impressed by the antics of the OP. And if it did then prospective viral marketeers would just know to open a throw away account in the future anyway. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 2:23 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson for a spammer the repercusion you told me is a week ban ?? wow. facepalm | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:41 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @HopelessN00b failing to see the downside of that, assuming that the question isn't horrible. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:34 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @MarkHenderson Yeah, right. And the moral of the story is: feel free to use SF as a platform for your viral spamming campaign, because you'll get a week's suspension, even if the community is 8:1 in favor of treating a spammer like a spammer. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:22 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @HopelessN00b except... Where's the bit that he spammed? Where did he actually post an advertisement on our site? Also basil is correct, at this point in time it's just wasting bits to discuss it further. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:19 | comment | added | Basil | Again, it doesn't matter- if he comes back, he will likely use a new account to avoid looking stupid. Banned or not. Don't waste more brain cells arguing about the finer interpretation pointss of the rules. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:18 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @MarkHenderson Excluding the hoax question, he's got 11 posts with a combined net score of -2. His spam post got 190k views, and has a current score of +9. Sure sounds to me like his account's primary contribution is spam. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:12 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @HopelessN00b then you should remember the checkbox you have to select when nuking a spammer. And the text saying that it's primarily a spam account. This account is not an account that was created explicitly for spamming. This account was in good standing and could return to good standing in the future. | |
| Apr 18, 2016 at 0:09 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @MarkHenderson Every mod and ex-mod on here has deleted multiple spammer accounts, so let's not pretend this is without precedent. He's made 11 other posts, only 3 of which have a positive score. Not exactly a pillar of the community, and not the first time a minor contributor decided to go spammer, and got deleted accordingly. A handful of upvotes haven't protected other spammers, and they shouldn't protect this one either. (To say nothing of the giant middle finger he gave us that run-of-the-mill spammers don't.) | |
| Apr 17, 2016 at 12:51 | comment | added | Basil | I don't think it matters if he gets banned- as long as we know who he is when he posts. On that note, banning is a purely symbolic act that tells whoever you've banned that you're butthurt and want them to have to enter the registration details again. No real damage, except maybe to reputation of post history content, is done. So let's stop arguing about this like it's a "nuclear" option. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 21:48 | comment | added | allo | Delete the account, but allow to re-register under another name. You cannot prevent people from registering new pseudonyms anyway and the karma loss and loss of known nickname should be enough. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 20:43 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Iain this community, sure. Now go look up my network profile. I'm rather well acquainted with moderator action policies, I'm afraid. I give your retort much the same contempt. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 10:32 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MartinSmith That only show that we should open a another question of how to react to the user and move that Answer there. As everyone in comment there approve something, but not all for the same thing. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 6:55 | comment | added | Martin Smith | @Iain lack of involvement with the community is probably an advantage here in reaching an impartial and objective view. Some of you seem to be taking this far too personally and blowing things way out of proportion. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 1:34 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson oh ok, well for me as iam not a native english I maybe mistinerpreted the option, as nuking for me only meaned a ban on all se's site, sorry if I misinterpreted your opinion. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 1:23 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @yagmoth555 at no stage did I say there should be no repercussions! I just do not support this specific nuclear option, as there is no precedent to justify doing so. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 1:19 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson Why you fear what other think ? You bring the debate somewhere else. The problem of how the community react is another debate (like peterh's critic in the past) The problem there is that if you let someone use other on SF it's simply a lack of respect. I help by donating my time, does you endorse that someone start hoaxing question to advertise is own stuff ? That hoax got more view than all of my help over 1 year.. so yes, maybe SF is a great advertising platform now. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 1:07 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Mark We're splitting hairs here. Yes, it could be better. I can get behind being better. But zero snarky quips? On the internet? Without moderator intervention? You're using an unreachable ideal to mince a point, and I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole all night. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 1:00 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @AndrewB they couldn't have selectively chosen smartass comments if there were none to choose. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 0:58 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Mark In an industry that thrives on selective quoting, I don't buy "100% our fault". We own our share of the blame, sure, but the rest of the blame belongs to anyone who specifically chooses to use those remarks as representative over the highest upvoted answers. As such, harm still occurred. (and this by no means endorses smarmy remarks that are wrong) | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 0:54 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | Imagine the great publicity we could have got if more people wrote answers like Journeymans, and were way less dickish in the comments | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 0:53 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | As for people saying we are too stupid to understand block level recovery, that is 100% our fault. We write smartass smug answers and we reap what we sow. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 0:50 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @AndrewB I didn't say he was right. I just said that his opinion isn't invalid. | |
| Apr 16, 2016 at 0:48 | comment | added | Andrew B | @Mark I understand that this topic is important to you, but can you please pick your examples better? I've respected your stance up until now, but the idea that only the OP suffered here is demonstrably false. Some of the coverage this has gotten left people on mailing lists that I frequent with the impression that we're too stupid to understand what block level recovery is. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 23:50 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @iain that doesn't make his point any less valid. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 22:41 | comment | added | user9517 | @ArtOfCode I note with interested sadness your complete lack of prior involvement with community and give your comment the contempt it deserves. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 22:17 | comment | added | Andrew B | @ArtOfCode I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you read the mobile version of the story. By the poster's own admission this was part of an attempt to advertise his startup. The content of the Q&A itself may not be spam, but it exists for the purpose of commercial self-promotion, and therefore meets the definition. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 22:05 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @Iain Account deletion is not a proportional, reasoned response to someone taking the mick. It's overkill and petty revenge for a perceived slight that has only affected the OP negatively; the site itself has gained traffic and users from it. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 22:03 | comment | added | ArtOfCode | @yagmoth555 That was not spam; if you think it was, then you need to revise your definition. It was a troll, but there are no rules specific to that so it's down to the situation and mod discussion to decide what to do. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 20:17 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @MarkHenderson As he spammed I would atleast block him on SF, aka a ban. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 19:56 | comment | added | Massimo | He changed his profile name in the meantime; probably some of that attention backfired. Looks like you don't really get good publicity for your company by telling the world "I accidentally nuked all my servers and data"... even if it wasn't true, it's still quite unprofessional. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:23 | comment | added | Shog9 | Bit late for that; question and user have had a fairly insane amount of attention already; best to make the truth known. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:22 | comment | added | Martin Smith | Way to over react. Personally I doubt it warrants a suspension let alone account deletion. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:11 | comment | added | user9517 | I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:09 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @Iain moderators do not enforce the community's wish. They enforce the rules. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:08 | comment | added | user9517 | Sufficient upvotes might get it done though because that's the community's wish. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:06 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | @Iain Show me where it says that moderators can unilaterally delete someone's entire account based on their own discretion. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:06 | comment | added | user9517 | @MarkHenderson If this were a mistake? or April Fools then I would agree with you but it's neither. It is a deliberate act and should be punished as such. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:05 | comment | added | TheCleaner | @MarkHenderson - businesspundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/… | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | TheCleaner | Permlock his account but keep it around. Edit the profile description with a link to this Meta question with the words "Don't be like this guy" | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | Mark Henderson StaffMod | This I disagree with. A single transgression does not warrant this. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 14:00 | comment | added | tombull89 | Agreed. Push the big red button. | |
| Apr 15, 2016 at 13:54 | history | answered | user9517 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
