« first day (2855 days earlier)      last day (125 days later) » 

1:06 AM
@bertieb - @JourneymanGeek Often tells me to just simply flag for moderation and walk away. I would say you can attempt to correct course once, but after that, let a moderator handle it.
 
 
6 hours later…
7:09 AM
@Ramhound yup, seems like a good approach; I was on board for trying to bring the guy round until his second edit (in response to my comments) and then I realised I wasn't going to get anywhere
Oh well, some folks aren't a good fit. (shrug) I could have found this out by checking their cross-site profile, as they've done the "100% information is already there" bit before, but hey ho
 
@bertieb also escalating to a mod lets us handle things quietly with less drama ;)
looks like someone got to it before me tho
 
8:05 AM
also, noticed an edit you did. If someone's editing in profanity.. flag, and don't bother to rollback/edit. makes you a target ;)
 
 
4 hours later…
11:49 AM
Any moderators around?
 
@B.Frederik (not a mod, but) I saw your post that you want to remove
Have you raised a flag on it yourself?
Actually, seems there's a comment to that effect just appeared
@B.Frederik please [flag] the question and mention what should be redacted — Sathya ♦ 2 mins ago
 
Hello, yeah I did. Hope it's ok the way I have flagged it.
 
@JourneymanGeek Aye, I'm happy to escalate in the second instance (or first if it's especially problematic); community has a part to play too the way I see it :)
 
:) Thank you. Do you possibly know how fast they get taken down? Only have 24 hours before I would/will be sued if they are not taken down.
 
The mods are on the ball
(I can't speak to a specific time of course)
 
12:00 PM
Alrighty. Well hopefully :) a 150.000 euro fine would hurt, but it might happen any ways we'll see.
 
That said, if your [erstwhile? :S] employer has an issue which is that critical with it from a legal perspective I'm not sure "tell the employee to take it down"
But then I don't work in finance
(I am guessing)
Legal departments like to puff out their chests from time to time though
Hope you can get it sorted out with minimum further fuss 👍
 
Hopefully :)
I'm guessing deleting this account wouldn't delete the post right?
 
Nope
 
@B.Frederik mods are volunteers + the redaction process takes 2 mods
 
You should be trying to recreate the problem in a script that is entirely yours, thus suggesting to an (edit?) so they can retract previous revisions, leaving a version of the question that can still be answered. Then of course you have the answer which has the domain name in it.
 
12:09 PM
I only know that my employees told me to delete it fully. They also told me to delete it off google, but I'm not entirely sure if even deleting this post it would be removed from there or if I need a lawyer/dmca
 
yep :<
 
I'm on my phone soooo
 
You can ask the question be disassociated from your account.
But I would only do that after you change the variable names and remove the obvious retraction candidates.
 
12:41 PM
Oh maaaan.
@B.Frederik this looks messy
 
yep :(
 
Hm. TBH I'm not sure what to do here
And a quick look suggests some of those questions don't have any obvious link to your job
 
Since the current revision removes the domain name, and the last two lines are not required, ad even the body of the foreach loop isn't really required. Honestly only the first three lines are required (with a blank loop block). So can't the information be retracted to that point creating the minimal recreation of the problem then disassociate the question from the user?
 
That feels like a start
But we're going to need a cm for that and... Erm...
Something here feels odd?
 
FYI: I am pretty sure I flagged this question for retraction in June...
I suggested it at least :$
The domain name is rememberable
 
12:51 PM
Former employer legal eagles will probably be unhappy with even 3 lines remaining (financial trade secrets!~)
(that's their problem, not SU's; but they seem to be trying to make it B.Frederik's problem too, unfortuantely)
 
I would argue that the request is unreasonable. The user can't remove something from a Google search
 
Yup
That's kinda what's bothering me
And the eyewatering financial penalty
 
I agree the requests are unreasonable ("get various parties to agree to remove some scripting or pay a six figure sum!") but legal departments are not knowing for their generosity of spirit :-\
 
A DCMA request would require the bank to request it not the user. Bank owns the copyright, and under the penalty of a fine (LAUGH OUT LOUD), those requests must be truthful and by the owner of the copyrighted material.
I LOL because it doesn't happen
 
@B.Frederik so... Even if I delete all the posts anyone who answered can see it
You're either going to want to contact SE with the contact us link or get your old employer to. Someone will review your flags and process them and I will try to let the other mods know
 
1:04 PM
Wouldn't that also include anyone with 10,000 reputations also?
 
If they can find it, yes
What he asks for probably needs dev level access and I suspect a takedown notice
 
 
8 hours later…

« first day (2855 days earlier)      last day (125 days later) »