Sparkly Unicorn?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

:(

[mommymilkies]

I want to add that our group did NOT start public commentary about this.  Ravin (not a member of the group Sparkly was in) mentioned here first that a group she was in was affected.  After that, I'll take the blame as I commented it had happened to us, as well.  Discussion went from there.  This was not our group trying to create drama or intrigue.  

[Catwoman]

When the complaining happened, it was because we were told those moderation issues would not happen, then there was some backtracking on what actually happened and we were unclear as to what was happening in our group as well as if rules had changed (something surely everyone in SGs would want to know). We also wanted to warn other social groups that their info may be public if ours was-something we're sure they would want to know. We're asking people not to ask for details because SWB has specifically asked us not to and we are obeying her wishes the best we can. We did not post it in a separate thread to cause drama, but in a thread about social group issues.

The problem is, that social group thread is in a public place on the forum. In retrospect, do you think a PM to SWB would have been a better solution, to try to settle the matter privately instead of bringing it out into the open?

 

People were very angry and posted some very unpleasant sentiments toward SWB, Peace Hill Press, and the forum moderators in those other other threads (in the Site News and Discussions area,) and I think it was very unfortunate that those posts were made publicly.

 

I know that some people disagreed with me when I said this on those threads, but I still feel that we owe SWB a lot of gratitude for providing these forums for us free of charge, and I still think she should be given the benefit of the doubt instead of essentially being called a liar.

[brehon]

There's really not much more to it than was already discussed in the thread that was linked above — one or more mods went into a private social group and started reading and deleting posts. The reason given was that one particular thread somehow became public, and posts were reported. Various tech people have said that the possibility of a random glitch making one thread in one private social group suddenly public is unlikely. It also doesn't explain why the mod returned later and deleted other posts in other threads.

 

So what is known is that mods went into a private social group and deleted posts from more than one person in more than one thread, despite assurances that social groups are not moderated. If it's also true that threads in private social groups can go public and become searchable due to random glitches, then that is even more concerning. People posted very personal information in there, including real names and addresses, and there were personal discussions of marital issues, mental health issues, issues concerning children and other relatives, and various things that one would not want "out there" in public.

Oh, goodness. I'm so sorry to read that. After reading this and the thread linked earlier I can certainly understand how one could feel one's privacy to be violated.

[Mom in High Heels]

If I disappear, will people miss me? I know it's just me being insecure, but I am so, there it is.

 

Quill, I would miss you dreadfully!  Don't leave me...um, us, I mean us.  Don't leave us!

[Catwoman]

There's really not much more to it than was already discussed in the thread that was linked above — one or more mods went into a private social group and started reading and deleting posts. The reason given was that one particular thread somehow became public, and posts were reported. Various tech people have said that the possibility of a random glitch making one thread in one private social group suddenly public is unlikely. It also doesn't explain why the mod returned later and deleted other posts in other threads.

 

So what is known is that mods went into a private social group and deleted posts from more than one person in more than one thread, despite assurances that social groups are not moderated. If it's also true that threads in private social groups can go public and become searchable due to random glitches, then that is even more concerning. People posted very personal information in there, including real names and addresses, and there were personal discussions of marital issues, mental health issues, issues concerning children and other relatives, and various things that one would not want "out there" in public.

I absolutely understand the concern about privacy. If a group is supposed to be private, it shouldn't be made public.

 

But as SWB explained it, it was a very brief mistake which was quickly rectified. I would assume there was no reason for her to lie about that. She has never lied to us in the past and has always treated us all very honorably. Mistakes happen. She admitted the error and apologized for it. I'm not sure what else anyone could possibly expect her to do beyond that.

 

That said, I can understand why private groups might be concerned about future glitches, and I certainly understand if they decide to move elsewhere as a precaution. If I was in a private group, I wouldn't want my personal information and private posts to be made public, either.

[Catwoman]

I'm just wondering about something, and I'm too lazy to go try to find out, but is there anything in the rules about whether or not moderators are allowed to go into private social groups?

 

If not, I think that would be important information to know.

[brehon]

Sadie, that jibes with my suppositions. As I said I have no first hand knowledge of the thread in question (the one from the private social group which apparently was made public). I do agree with your characterization about the moderation of late. And I am still upset that long-time member(s?) felt they had no other option other than to leave. (Not upset at her/them, mind you, at the situation.)

[Catwoman]

It is the moderating behaviour in response to the reporting of social group threads, combined with

 

Wendy would not ban herself over something trivial. People can characterise this as a dummy spit if they want, but Wendy isn't really a dummy spit kind of a person.

I can't imagine that anyone would think Wendy would have banned herself over something trivial. She was here more often than any of us, and she posted all the time. I think that's why so many people are so curious about what happened. It's not like Wendy was the type to post "goodbye cruel forum" threads and then show up again two days later. She never did dramatic stuff like that.

[Catwoman]

They could go into it anyway, whether they're allowed to or not, because the thread/s in question went public. That's how people not in the group were able to hit the report button on the posts.

 

If people had been polite about the thread/s going public in the first place, like others of us have done before, none of this mess would have happened.

I was just wondering if there was an actual rule in place.

 

And depending what people saw in the thread(s) that went public, they may have felt they had a good reason to report them -- assuming they didn't realize that they were accidentally reading posts from a private group, which appears to have been the case.

[Corraleno]

Part of the issue, as mentioned above, is that several tech people have said that it is either unlikely or impossible for just one thread in one social group to suddenly, randomly, accidentally go from completely private and hidden to public. The group owners did not see any evidence that any settings had ever changed or that the thread had indeed become public. So either it is possible for some unknown glitch to randomly make any thread in any private social group publicly visible, which should concern everyone who posts personal info in a private group, or a mod went into a private group and started deleting posts he or she didn't like. And since there were posts deleted in more than one thread, when only one thread was supposedly public, a third option is that both occurred.

[Mrs Mungo]

Part of the issue, as mentioned above, is that several tech people have said that it is either unlikely or impossible for just one thread in one social group to suddenly, randomly, accidentally go from completely private and hidden to public.

Not to be argumentative, but didn't someone say above that this happened in one of Ravin's groups, that she brought the issue up, and she wasn't part of the group in question? I know that social groups have been generally glitchy for a bit now. I don't use them much, so I don't know much about the issues.

[Mandylubug]

there have been plenty of times when I clicked New Content that I saw social group titles such as Orthodox, Chronic Illness, etc... I could see the title and if you scrolled over the title with the mouse, it would show the first and last posts. Naturally, I tried to stay away from those posts. None of my business but there was the occasional time that my mouse would drift over and I would think, gosh I wouldn't like being a part of a private group that allows "windows" of private information out. So,  just an fyi, that there were times that I personally saw posts.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Honestly, I wonder if there was betrayal in the ranks. [ETA: This was meant :tongue_smilie: to be clear. I do not even know who the ranks are.] I wonder if someone from inside that social group could have been the reporter. Obviously, even within a generally like-minded group, someone is going to think differently and get offended now and again. I would sooner believe that than most other scenarios, actually.

[Catwoman]

It's clear when you are reading a social group post. When the Orthodox social group had a thread go public, it was 100% possible to see it was a thread from there, not from the Chat forum. I didn't have to go digging or even put on my glasses to see where it came from.

Thanks. :)

 

I'm not in any groups, so I have the Chat forum bookmarked and I just show up here whenever I come to the forums.

[Alte Veste Academy]

And yes, you can recognize a social group thread. They are distinct. But if moderators are technically allowed to moderate them and they get a report, I think the only recourse is a hard and fast rule.

[Alte Veste Academy]

No. But you know, cast aspersions.

Zero aspersions cast. Completely possible for people to disagree...

[idnib]

This is going downhill. I can feel my go kart wheels speeding up...

[Alte Veste Academy]

I fail to see how it is offensive to consider the idea that someone within the group reported but perfectly fine to hint that an unethical moderator with an axe to grind was at fault...or that the thread was intentionally outed...or that we can't trust SWB.

[Alte Veste Academy]

It's going downhill because some people have an idea of the group involved and seem to think that 'such people' must have brought it on themselves somehow.

 

Fine. Let's leave it there. Just don't post anything in your social groups you wouldn't post here.

Really, this is not true at all, from me anyway. People disagree, all kinds of people, all the time. People get offended, even by people they love.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

It's going downhill because some people have an idea of the group involved and seem to think that 'such people' must have brought it on themselves somehow.

 

Fine. Let's leave it there. Just don't post anything in your social groups you wouldn't post here.

 

And may we one day see dancing bacon again! I doubt it though.

 

Whoa. I really do not think that's the case.

 

And isn't that pretty much the golden rule of the Internet? Assume that everyone can see what you say there, now and forever, no matter how much privacy you think you have? 

[Alte Veste Academy]

And no-one has made the ludicrous suggestion that SWB is not to be trusted.

No, just accusing her of lying. In other threads, if not this one.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Ugh, so you'd like to keep on ? Any positive outcomes you see arising from that ?

You can choose not to believe me, although I don't really know why, because I'm not a big instigator here, LOL, but I didn't come in here to bicker, just to express a possible explanation since people keep saying it is so unlikely for a thread to accidentally go public. OK, so maybe it didn't. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. And I don't know why you would assume I have a low view of people in whatever group this is, because I don't even know what group it is.

 

And you don't have to answer, or "keep on." We can be all done. :)

[Samiam]

Can I just add that I had no idea social groups were even that active!!!!!! Huh, who knew! I've been here for years...I think I may even be in a social group or two...they never seemed to do anything, I don't think I've clicked on them in months. Who knew members were actively using them?!?!!!

[Jenny in Florida]

No, just accusing her of lying. In other threads, if not this one.

 

I don't think that correcting a statement that you believe is demonstrably inaccurate is the same as accusing someone of lying. People mis-remember and mis-speak sometimes. It's happened to me, too, more often than I like to remember. But neither the fact that I meant no ill will nor that I was not intentionally dishonest don't make me immune from correction.

 

I'm grateful to SWB and PHP for providing this forum, which has been an enormous support for me in the last several years. However, SWB is not infallible. I, personally, took a long-ish board break a couple of years ago in part because of a comment from SWB that felt very insensitive and dismissive to me. I'm sure she didn't intend it that way. I'm sure she doesn't even remember saying/typing it. But it hit me hard and was hurtful to me.

 

Of course, SWB has the option to take her marbles and go home, but I don't think that it's out of line for people who are unhappy with something they've experienced -- something that may be much more significant to them than folks posting here really get -- to say it out loud.

[OneStepAtATime]

Something unfortunate happened and people many here cared about are gone, possibly for good.  SWB is aware of the issues and is looking into it.  She is asking for feedback on the Site board.  If anyone has suggestions or concerns, she is hoping people will post them there for her to take into consideration as she attempts to find a better way to handle this in the future.  Hopefully she will get lots of useful feedback.

 

In the meantime, I would like to say how grateful I am that I got to know Sparkly/Wendy and so many others on this board.  I will miss those who have left and wish them well.  I wish all those that remain the very best, too, and hope that if nothing else this situation will help SWB and those that help her maintain this board to improve what is honestly already a pretty nice thing to have available.  I am so incredibly sorry that things went so wrong so quickly.  I just hope with all my heart that it never happens again and that those that left may someday return.

 

Best wishes to all.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I don't think that correcting a statement that you believe is demonstrably inaccurate is the same as accusing someone of lying. People mis-remember and mis-speak sometimes. It's happened to me, too, more often than I like to remember. But neither the fact that I meant no ill will nor that I was not intentionally dishonest don't make me immune from correction.

 

I'm grateful to SWB and PHP for providing this forum, which has been an enormous support for me in the last several years. However, SWB is not infallible. I, personally, took a long-ish board break a couple of years ago in part because of a comment from SWB that felt very insensitive and dismissive to me. I'm sure she didn't intend it that way. I'm sure she doesn't even remember saying/typing it. But it hit me hard and was hurtful to me.

 

Of course, SWB has the option to take her marbles and go home, but I don't think that it's out of line for people who are unhappy with something they've experienced -- something that may be much more significant to them than folks posting here really get -- to say it out loud.

Exactly. No one is infallible and people can be offended by anyone, even those they like/love/respect. This was what I came in to say (which I now regret, LOL), as an alternate to the repeated suggestion of purposeful targeting by a moderator.

 

As to the lying accusation, when someone says "honesty is needed" and then presents evidence in a caught ya! way, that does ring as an accusation to me. It doesn't give the benefit of the doubt, assume innocent misstatement, a simple mistake, or other reasonable explanation.

[Arcadia]

It's clear when you are reading a social group post. When the Orthodox social group had a thread go public, it was 100% possible to see it was a thread from there, not from the Chat forum. I didn't have to go digging or even put on my glasses to see where it came from.

 

On my small iPod screen, I usually don't remember which forum I am reading, whether it is chat or general education or other.

 

The Chinese social group has gone public a few times. I could read it without being in that group by either google or by clicking on the new threads.

 

Technically it could be a web server glitch or else web server admins and technical support won't have a livelihood. No web servers are perfect. Won't be surprise if either a human error cause permissions to be set wrongly or there is a web server bug. Web server patching is a never ending story.

 

ETA:

Searching for Chinese, group and welltrainedmind on Google gives me the Chinese Homeschoolers social group link.

[fraidycat]

There's really not much more to it than was already discussed in the thread that was linked above — one or more mods went into a private social group and started reading and deleting posts. The reason given was that one particular thread somehow became public, and posts were reported. Various tech people have said that the possibility of a random glitch making one thread in one private social group suddenly public is unlikely. It also doesn't explain why the mod returned later and deleted other posts in other threads.

 

So what is known is that mods went into a private social group and deleted posts from more than one person in more than one thread, despite assurances that social groups are not moderated. If it's also true that threads in private social groups can go public and become searchable due to random glitches, then that is even more concerning. People posted very personal information in there, including real names and addresses, and there were personal discussions of marital issues, mental health issues, issues concerning children and other relatives, and various things that one would not want "out there" in public.

Thanks. This was the explanation I was looking for.

[MomatHWTK]

 

So there are social groups other than the ones that show up on the New Content feed?  Because I've been seeing a few of the social groups first and last posts via New Content for a very long time. There are at least 3 different groups that I remember seeing often.  The Social Groups folks didn't know that was happening?   I had no idea there were postings to other groups that we couldn't see, so I certainly wouldn't have thought to let the SG know that I could see their new posts. 

 

[Audrey]

There are a few who did as Sparkly, and left completely. There are some that left, and haven't decided if they'll be back ever yet, and quite a few who are posting less, as the feeling of security and community is gone.  Kind of like having someone you trust and are completely at home with, stab you in the back. You might still see them, but the trust is gone, making it very uncomfortable.  

 

And the majority were fairly active, but as Mommymilkies said, maybe not on every board. 

 

Bolded.  True.

[creekland]

 apparently a huge number of people left over this issue, meaning the issue was important enough to take drastic steps.

 

I guess this is the bottom line.  Members leave all the time.  I've considered leaving since my boys are now all in college and I work in a public school - no more connection to homeschooling or need to consider curricula or any of that nature.  Others leave when they get offended or "life" happens and they move on.

 

It's really ok.  The sun will still come up in the morning... and there are plenty of members left - just as there are when others leave.  The sun will come up for them too and I wish them well the same as I do for anyone who leaves for whatever reason.

 

To me, that's the beauty of this board.  It's large enough that it continues on in a fun way even if one - or one hundred - members feel it is their time to leave.

 

Like everyone else, I'll miss folks who leave (if I notice it :huh: ), but even IRL, when people leave my circle, life still moves on.

 

And the point about being careful with what one posts on the internet is always true (ANY base forum/site).  But I know I never saw anything personal... I suspect not too many people did, but of course, I've no idea. 

 

In general, it sounds like an unfortunate happening between posters and a moderator...  I'm sorry it happened and everyone gets to make their own choices about how to proceed.

 

Whether people stay or go (any reason), I wish them well.

[Melissa in Australia]

If anyone is in touch with sparklyunicorn could they please send her my best wishes. She is in my shortlist of favourite posters

[Lanny]

@Sparkly Unicorn (Wendy)   If you read this I am very sad that something bad happened and that you are no longer on WTM. I hope that you and your family will always be in excellent health and safe. Gentle hugs from Colombia!

[Another Lynn]

Sparkly/ Wendy I have missed you. Please come back.

 

 

I was wondering about her too.  I hope she comes back soon.

 

 

I miss you, Wendy! I hope you come back when you are ready.

 

 

Hope you come back soon, Wendy!

 

 

Please come back! We miss you! :(

:iagree: :iagree:   Wendy, please come back.  There's a ton of us who saw nothing and know nothing except we wish you were still on the boards.  :grouphug:

[PrincessMommy]

There's really not much more to it than was already discussed in the thread that was linked above — one or more mods went into a private social group and started reading and deleting posts. The reason given was that one particular thread somehow became public, and posts were reported. Various tech people have said that the possibility of a random glitch making one thread in one private social group suddenly public is unlikely. It also doesn't explain why the mod returned later and deleted other posts in other threads. 

 

So what is known is that mods went into a private social group and deleted posts from more than one person in more than one thread, despite assurances that social groups are not moderated. If it's also true that threads in private social groups can go public and become searchable due to random glitches, then that is even more concerning. People posted very personal information in there, including real names and addresses, and there were personal discussions of marital issues, mental health issues, issues concerning children and other relatives, and various things that one would not want "out there" in public. 

 

yup- this is very disconcerting.  Esp. mods deleting multiple posts in a section that is un-moderated.  I haven't really trusted the privacy of Social Groups for a long time.  I take most of my private discussions to PM or simply don't talk about them here.  Sometimes I slip up, but I try to operate on the knowledge that all of the WTM forums are searchable.  

[PrincessMommy]

I guess this is the bottom line.  Members leave all the time.  I've considered leaving since my boys are now all in college and I work in a public school - no more connection to homeschooling or need to consider curricula or any of that nature.  Others leave when they get offended or "life" happens and they move on.

 

It's really ok.  The sun will still come up in the morning... and there are plenty of members left - just as there are when others leave.  The sun will come up for them too and I wish them well the same as I do for anyone who leaves for whatever reason.

 

To me, that's the beauty of this board.  It's large enough that it continues on in a fun way even if one - or one hundred - members feel it is their time to leave.

 

Like everyone else, I'll miss folks who leave (if I notice it :huh: ), but even IRL, when people leave my circle, life still moves on.

 

And the point about being careful with what one posts on the internet is always true (ANY base forum/site).  But I know I never saw anything personal... I suspect not too many people did, but of course, I've no idea. 

 

In general, it sounds like an unfortunate happening between posters and a moderator...  I'm sorry it happened and everyone gets to make their own choices about how to proceed.

 

Whether people stay or go (any reason), I wish them well.

 

But see, I think many of us have seen other popular forums go the way of the dinosaurs in the last 5yrs or so.   It's really sad when I think of the people that I have lost touch with.  I still think about some of them, years later and wonder how they're doing.   I'd like to avoid that happening here at WTM.

 

[Kathryn]

I don't understand why some are saying that ONE thread from ONE social group went public and that's impossible to happen accidentally. Several people have said other social group threads have gone public and we've all seen how wonky the forum has been since the last upgrade. I don't even know what group this is about, so I obviously don't know the timeline or who was involved other than Wendy, but I really am having a hard time imagining nefarious intent.

[Guest submarines]

Are some social groups more private than others? Could someone chime in on this? Is it possible to have a more public social group and then a completely private social group? Thanks!

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Yes, the person who controls the group can set the privacy settings.

[Callie]

I don't understand why some are saying that ONE thread from ONE social group went public and that's impossible to happen accidentally. Several people have said other social group threads have gone public and we've all seen how wonky the forum has been since the last upgrade. I don't even know what group this is about, so I obviously don't know the timeline or who was involved other than Wendy, but I really am having a hard time imagining nefarious intent.

I don't have a clue what SG this is about but I agree w/ Kathryn that SGs have been public since the last forum update in November 2012 or was it 2013.

 

When I have clicked on New Posts I have been able to view SGs I am not a member of.  As to the poster (I think Sadie) who said it is easy to know you are reading a SG post it wasn't for me.  The SG post was in New Content and clickable I never checked which forum it was from and a few times I realized it was a private SG.

[Matryoshka]

So there are social groups other than the ones that show up on the New Content feed?  Because I've been seeing a few of the social groups first and last posts via New Content for a very long time. There are at least 3 different groups that I remember seeing often.  The Social Groups folks didn't know that was happening?   I had no idea there were postings to other groups that we couldn't see, so I certainly wouldn't have thought to let the SG know that I could see their new posts. 

 

 

I can see a few Social Groups on my New Content feed.  One that often shows up I can't read if I click on it (usually it's an interesting-sounding topic and I don't realize it's a social group post till it tells me I'm not allowed to read it - what a tease!).  But the others I've been able to read.  One thread I was reading I also didn't realize at all was from a social group, until I tried to respond to it.  I remember thinking I should join so I could post, as it was an interesting topic and I 'knew' most of the posters there, but then never got around to it...  it's true you can see the posts are from social groups, but I use generic "New Content" a lot and don't really pay much attention to what board the posts are from...

 

[Callie]

I can see a few Social Groups on my New Content feed.  One that often shows up I can't read if I click on it (usually it's an interesting-sounding topic and I don't realize it's a social group post till it tells me I'm not allowed to read it - what a tease!).  But the others I've been able to read.  One thread I was reading I also didn't realize at all was from a social group, until I tried to respond to it.  I remember thinking I should join so I could post, as it was an interesting topic and I 'knew' most of the posters there, but then never got around to it...  it's true you can see the posts are from social groups, but I use generic "New Content" a lot and don't really pay much attention to what board the posts are from...

 

This has been my experience also.

[Pawz4me]

Yes, the person who controls the group can set the privacy settings.

 

My understanding is the same -- that some SGs are set as private and some are not.  And it's the ones that are not that people have been seeing in new content.  The groups that are set as private should NOT be showing up in new content.  But apparently at least one of them did.  If my understanding is incorrect, I hope someone will step in and let me (us) know.  I think it would clear up a lot of confusion if we all had the basic facts about this incident.  The speculation and not understanding how these things work is just making things worse IMO.

[Callie]

How does one ban themselves?  I have read a few times that Wendy banned herself but I see that she changed her username to a bunch of numbers.  When I view a post from her it doesn't show she is banned.

[DawnM]

I am a bit confused. So when you all are saying that social groups show up on your feed, do they show up in the regular chat forum then?????  I have never seen this.

 

Also, when I go to social groups, I can ONLY see the social groups I am part of.  I can't even see if there are others I would like to join.  I can't see what social groups are even available.  Is this not true for everyone?

 

Dawn

[Scarlett]

I am a bit confused. So when you all are saying that social groups show up on your feed, do they show up in the regular chat forum then????? I have never seen this.

 

Also, when I go to social groups, I can ONLY see the social groups I am part of. I can't even see if there are others I would like to join. I can't see what social groups are even available. Is this not true for everyone?

 

Dawn

I can see all sorts of stuff there.

[Matryoshka]

I am a bit confused. So when you all are saying that social groups show up on your feed, do they show up in the regular chat forum then?????  I have never seen this.

 

Also, when I go to social groups, I can ONLY see the social groups I am part of.  I can't even see if there are others I would like to join.  I can't see what social groups are even available.  Is this not true for everyone?

 

Dawn

 

When I go into Social Groups, I can only see the ones I'm a member of.

 

When I go to the Chat forum, I can only see posts from the Chat forum.

 

If I hit "New Content" at the upper right, I see new posts from all the forums, as well as social groups I am a member of, along with a few I am not a member of.

 

[Callie]

I am a bit confused. So when you all are saying that social groups show up on your feed, do they show up in the regular chat forum then?????  I have never seen this.

 

Also, when I go to social groups, I can ONLY see the social groups I am part of.  I can't even see if there are others I would like to join.  I can't see what social groups are even available.  Is this not true for everyone?

 

Dawn

I have never searched for a SG to join so I can't answer that question.  SG posts show up when I click the New Content option.  I just clicked NC minutes ago to see what SG would show and none did.  In the past some have.  I can't say how many or how often because I was never looking for them.  I would only notice because I would not be able read the thread (I could hover and see 1st, middle & last post)

or I wanted to reply and would not be allowed to.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

It depends on the SGs settings that determines what shows up and is viewable.