I have been uploading comic art images by Moebius for several weeks almost daily to the [email protected] community, where I´m a moderator myself. All those images have disappeared. Modlog says the images have been deleted by “admin”. Modlog gives no reason for this but says the images were later restored by “admin” but that is not true. All my comic art posts have been destroyed and are empty posts now. I was not even contacted a single time about this and honestly can´t think of a reason because I had uploaded exclusively “safe for work” and apolitical material. We are trying to build a community for european graphic novels like “Tintin”, “Lucky Luke” and “The Incal” and I put a lot of love in those posts because I want to help make our community interesting and grow. However - I have been stongly discouraged to contribute content now that I have seen it gets arbitrarily wiped by anonymus admins. How can I find out what happened, who deleted my stuff and why they did so? How can I avoid this happeing to my posts in the future?

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    if abusive admins on a power trip will just arbitralily wipe my stuff “accidentially” whenever they feel like.

    You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions here.

    You’re using a website that’s operated by volunteers, that’s seen a ton of abuse from spammers and bots, that’s run on software that’s pre-version-1 and that lacks advanced mod tools, and that likely has an admin team that’s using some hacked together third party scripts or tools to try and identify bad actors. It’s not only possible, but entirely reasonable, that one of those tools may have falsely identified you as a spam account, and someone either just ran a script that banned a bunch of people, or got into a flow state and just hit the wrong button out of habit.

    Pointing fingers and accusing others of bad behaviour out of pure speculation while you’re both stomping your feet and having a fit because you feel hurt while simultaneously telling others that the lens they’re using is “pure speculation” is… Not productive, to put it mildly.

    • Nakedmole@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions here.

      Yes I did, you are right, sorry. I am just angry because I feel that I have been treated in an unfair manner. I edited the part where I jumped to conclusions.

      You’re using a website that’s operated by volunteers, that’s seen a ton of abuse from spammers and bots, that’s run on software that’s pre-version-1 and that lacks advanced mod tools, and that likely has an admin team that’s using some hacked together third party scripts or tools to try and identify bad actors.

      I understand that but that does not justify nonchalantly destroying all my posts and then not contacting me about it even once.

      It’s not only possible, but entirely reasonable, that one of those tools may have falsely identified you as a spam account, and someone either just ran a script that banned a bunch of people

      Running a script that automatically deletes posts without human confirmation and without having the ability to bring deleted posts back, in case the script makes a mistake, seems like a questionable and bad practice to me. When they tried to bring the posts back and it turned out that it was not working they should have at least contacted me to communicate what happened.

      got into a flow state and just hit the wrong button out of habit.

      That person must have really been in the zone then, considering we are talking about 34 posts. Flow state or not, that would be a pretty embarassing fail but still understandable since humans make mistakes - however, not contacting me at all to communicate about what happened is not.

      Pointing fingers and accusing others of bad behaviour out of pure speculation while you’re both stomping your feet and having a fit because you feel hurt while simultaneously telling others that the lens they’re using is “pure speculation” is… Not productive, to put it mildly.

      I edited the part where I jumped to conclusions …

      while simultaneously telling others that the lens they’re using is “pure speculation” is… Not productive, to put it mildly.

      The comment you are referring to is de facto based only on speculation. I also wrote that it might be correct but that I would like to know the official reason instead of guessing around. How is that not productive?

    • Polar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you’re making your own scripts that can wipe out an entire, legitimate, actively contributing member, you’re incompetent and should shut that shit down.

      A script should never do that. It should flag them for manual review.

      Sorry, but it’s 100% on the mod team. Let’s switch out power trip for incompetent.

      • Teppic@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t really have issue with a bot rate limiting, or suspending users (provided the false positive rate is low enough), but there does need to be a robust appeal and undo process which is the bit which seems to be lacking here.

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s always the dilemma. The higher the ratio of banning bots, the higher rate of false positives. Do you want more bots with virtually no users being banned or do you want virtually no bots with a lot of legitiment users being unfairly banned?

          The answer most sane people take is the former but not everyone shares that opinion.

          • Nakedmole@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Using scripts to flag possible bots/spammers is fine. The final decision should be made by a human though. I would volunteer for that.

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure but you’d need enough volunteers to sort through hundreds or even thousands of flags daily. Not always possible with large userbases but having a ‘likely false positive’ subset that can be done by manual review would be good.

              You shouldn’t have lost your contributions and it’s made worse by an ineffective restoration feature.

              • Nakedmole@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You shouldn’t have lost your contributions and it’s made worse by an ineffective restoration feature.

                Yes, indeed!

      • Rooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Flag them for manual review… You forgot that the MANUAL reviewers are f*cking volunteers. LW lost already few because of that trauma. And they would rather wipe a user than have a chance on spreading csam.

        • Polar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t volunteer if you’re just going to complain about it. You sound worse than Reddit mods.

          • Rooki@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You sound like the unfriendly guy that got banned on r/funny with the reason “unfunny”. You are complaining non stop here.

            • Polar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Says the guy who wrote a rant reply to my week old comment. Cope, buddy.