Re: incompetence and stupidity among SO mods (Was: Fuck Around and Find Out (FAFO))

But I had also a lot of fun, drawing verbally pictures
of their complete incompetence and stupidity. Here
you see the contrary of "prompt action" and "swiftly",
just complete morons occupied with themselves.
Especially ipodtouch0218 is the typical messenger
of brain damage. Not to mention chivracq, probably
just leaning out of his cradle, demonstrating his baby brain:
- If a URL across many answers are compromised, then
you should just edit out the malicious link from the
posts (or make a post about it on meta if widespread enough),
repeatedly vandalizing the posts entirely was not the way
to solve this. – ipodtouch0218
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:09
@ipodtouch0218 I made 3 posts on meta, they were all ignored
and deleted. I didn't vandalize a single thing. Because I don't
own the posts. I connot edit or delete them. I wrote in this
post "edit suggested", but you ignored that. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:11
@ipodtouch0218 Just more demontstration how unfit meta.SE
and meta.SO is to deal with such situations. Zero customer
orientation. Total crap performance. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:12
I must say the website operator that took down the website, was 100% more professional than any of the moderators here. Total disaster meta.SE and meta.SO. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:13
The other meta posts were definitely not at all clear about
what the issue was, I only figured it out after the meta last
post was deleted by happening to run into your vandalism
suggested edits in the review queues. Your suggested
edits are vandalism as they completely delete the answer,
instead of just removing the malicious URLs. – ipodtouch0218
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:14
Strange that your Posts each time look like Poems written in Alexandrines... – chivracq
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:14
@ipodtouch0218 Nobody asked constructive questions, just
like you: Accusations, harassament, thats all. Nothing useful.
You wouldn't survice in a real operator job one day. Things
would fly in your face the first hour. Debris would be all
over the place. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:14
@chivrarq would play the uculele while the server room is
burning. LoL – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:19
My claim that your edits constitute "vandalism" is based on
Stack Exchange's own definition: "damages or destroys the
content of the post". A post that just says "I suggest a
complete delete of this answer" definitely isn't an answer.
Just because something is outdated / irrelevant doesn't mean
it should be deleted. I'm not sure what I said that you think
would be considered harassment, and I don't get what you mean
by a "real operator job". I'm not a moderator, if that's your assumption. – ipodtouch0218
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:20
We have been overbearing in the amount of support we've tried
to give you in our correspondence. We've tried to explain to
you that the way to coordinate the removal of rotted links
across the site, when it affects a large number of posts, is
to post here and get community support to make the necessary
edits, then act on it when it's sufficiently supported.
Throughout this experience you have exhibited zero effort to
follow the processes we've described, instead deriding us
for our lack of support, and stating that you'll quit. – Spevacus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:21
I am not deriding anybody. There is clear evidence of complete
lack of understanding, or even a minimal effort to understand
anything. You don't understand what a throw away prototype
means and what digital right management means. You don't
understand that there is no legacy, nothing. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:23
Ruben, your previous meta posts were -extremely- unclear. I had
no idea your last one was about a compromised external link on
existing SO posts... If you want to report something like
that, keep it simple: "Several posts link to website.com,
that site is now compromised. What can we do to fix this?"
That's all you needed. – Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:23
What does "throw away prototype" have to do with a compromised
site? – Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:23
You are too late for the party. You could have suggested that
a few hours ago. But I don't think hat any formal measures
would solve the problem. The problem is deep inside the
philosophy of stackexchange. Which doesn't work with
throw away prototypes. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:24
@Cerbrus About "throw away prototype" see the thead I
openened, that was deleted. its extremly relevant. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:25
Buddy, your previous "thread" was extremely unclear.
That's the problem. If you want to report a broken or
compromised link, then just do that. Don't bring other
unrelated concepts into it... – Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:26
@Cerbrus From what I can gather, QP claims to be the
previous owner/maintainer of the compromised website and
that they've since abandoned it. Hence it's a "thrown-away
prototype". I assume the justification for outright deleting
answers rather than editing would be that answers will never
be relevant, because their "prototype" cannot be obtained
legally anymore: "If somebody reproduces this solution, he is
using an invalid license" (Not that an answer being irrelevant
has ever been a valid justification for vandalism) – ipodtouch0218
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:27
Okay, now you're just being rude. Ruben, it's clear you're
frustrated with how this went, but please be open to our
feedback. A lot of users were trying to help you, but you're
just dismissing everyone as "incompetent". That's not
helping anyone. –  Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:29
@ipodtouch0218 False accussations again. I am not able to vandalize anything. I cannot edit or delete anything. The bitrot is 5-15 years old. Don't you get it? I am not the owner of it. – Rúben Dias
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:29
@ipodtouch0218 ooooooooh. He owned the link, in the past? – Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:30
@RúbenDias I strongly suggest you take a step back to cool down. Insulting people isn't going to help anyone, you least of all. – Cerbrus
  CommentedNov 19 at 16:30
I own the company, the threat was an imposter of my company. I don't own the jekejeke.ch domain. The jekejeke.ch domain was pointing to a phishing site. The delete meta posts explicitly say phishing site.
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/432279/17524790
Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
 The advice is: Prompt Action on Reports:
Respond swiftly to reports of malicious links.
Was a big problem for SO. They showed a high
degree of incompetence and stupidity.
 One mod told me I should suggest edits.
Guess what I can only suggest 5 edits per day
with my SO user level. Thats the opposite of
"prompt action" and "swiftly".
 LoL
 Bye
 P.S.: Unfortunety this advice is behind moderator
chat wall, I cannot send a link. But I made a few
screenshots. Just to have something to laugh at
every day from now on.
 For those who have moderator privilige, here is
the link. I first showed them a query how to
find the links:
 https://stackexchange.com/search?q=url:jekejeke.ch&pagesize=50
 Then the moron mod responded:
 "Do you not see an Edit button below the post?
Even if your edit isn't applied immediately,
it will go through a review queue where other
users will approve it. Or, we will go through
your suggested edits and approve them ourselves."
https://stackoverflow.com/users/message/127965#127965
  Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
>
Its all fun, until somebody gets hurt:
>
The more you fuck around, the more you're gonna find out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qEcm43Lx3c
>
I am not the owner of jekejeke.ch anymore.
So if somebody gets some bruises because of
some phishing, I cannot be held responsible.
>
Bye
>
The liability is on people like Jean-François
Fabre, Karl Knechtel, etc.. who prevented the delete:
>
ChatGPT tells me:
>
Yes, a website can potentially be held liable for
linking to phishing websites, but it depends on the
jurisdiction and specific circumstances.
>
Here's a high-level summary:
>
Factors That Determine Liability:
>
Knowledge and Intent:
>
If the website knowingly links to phishing websites or
facilitates malicious activity, it could be liable for
aiding and abetting fraudulent acts.
>
Negligence:
>
If the website failed to vet the links it provides and
this negligence caused harm to users, liability might
arise under certain laws (e.g., negligence claims).
>
Consumer Protection Laws:
>
In some jurisdictions, consumer protection laws require
website operators to ensure their content does not lead
to harm. Linking to a phishing site might be seen as a
violation if due diligence wasn't performed.
>
Safe Harbor Provisions:
>
Many countries have laws (e.g., the DMCA in the U.S.,
or EU's e-Commerce Directive) that protect websites
from liability for user-generated content if they act
quickly to remove harmful links when notified.
>
Terms of Service (ToS):
>
Websites often include disclaimers in their ToS to
mitigate liability for external links. However, courts
may not always honor these disclaimers if negligence or
malicious intent is proven.
>
Reducing Liability Risks:
>
Regular Link Audits: Monitor and verify external links.
>
Clear Disclaimers: State explicitly that the website is
not responsible for third-party links.
>
Prompt Action on Reports: Respond swiftly to reports of
malicious links.
>
Collaborate with Authorities: If malicious links are
identified, working with cybersecurity and legal authorities
shows good faith.
>
Ultimately, liability will depend on whether the website
owner acted responsibly and in good faith to prevent harm.
>