I posted this thread, without issues. A year later, I finally got a really insightful reply that wholly answered my question well:

https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/39819472/25666072

Now it is “Removed by mod”. But I am the mod… the only mod (wtf?). No, I do not have multiple personality disorder as the modlog shows.

So somewhere, someone booted that user. That had a ripple effect of destroying all that user’s content. So then I found a “restore content” button, used it, and had to give a reason. I thought I would just be sending myself a useless alert, but it actually restored the content.

So it’s fixed to some extent. But I would like to understand more about what happened. I cannot tell from that user’s modlog who banned them, or even which instance did the banishment. It may be true that it was an anti-spam control, and perhaps rightful, but it’s a bit fucked up how it killed all that user’s content when obviously some of it was useful.

I have seen this before in communities I moderate where a comment is gone because a user is banned. I never looked further. But now it’S clear this is not optimum. It was only in the case at hand that a user’s comment was useful enough that I remembered it, and it happened to be recent.

Clearly this is a bug: I am given the option to “restore comment” but I cannot review the comment before clicking that. So how can I first give a reason for restoring the comment if I am restoring it just to see if it should be restored?

  • Dr. Wesker@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    5·
    2 days ago

    I’m so sorry that happened to you. I’ve only had this happen when the person was banned by an admin (despite the message incorrectly stating it was a mod) and restoring did work.

  • Schwim Dandy@piefed.zipEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Since you didn’t share the username/instance, we’ll just have to guess since we can’t look at the modlog but I would say that an instance admin got overzealous with the ban and remove all feature. I will admit that I did this one time when I shouldn’t have and spent hours restoring years worth of their content when I realized what I had done.

    I wouldn’t say it’s a bug but it is very easy for an admin to use incorrectly or withoutout care for the ramifications. It would make some sense to have a threshold time limiit as default so say “remove all content in the last day/week/month” or the admin can remove all in the event it’s necessary.

  • one_old_coder@piefed.socialBanned from communityEnglish
    62·
    2 days ago

    it’s a bit fucked up how it killed all that user’s content

    Well, if he is banned from the instance, he is banned. I don’t think I would expect anything else that removing his content. Some spammers try to write a few useful comments before doing their job.

    The bug about restoring a comment to see what it’s all about is indeed a feature that is missing.

      • one_old_coder@piefed.socialBanned from communityEnglish
        51·
        2 days ago

        What do you mean? I’m stating facts and there is no victim here, it’s all about having basic features that I would have implemented:

        1. Banning an account means his whole content is deleted (that’s how it was done since the 90s)
        2. Spammers do write some random content to pretend they are not bots, again a fact.
        3. Having access to banned content is a feature that mods should have.

        What’s wrong with that?

        • evenwicht@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
          4·
          2 days ago

          Banning an account means his whole content is deleted (that’s how it was done since the 90s)

          Lemmy did not exist in the 90s. When a usenet account or email account ceased to exist for any reason, the content on news servers and mailing lists was separate. Software can be crudely designed (web-based in particular), or it can be well designed.

          Saying “(that’s how it was done since the 90s)” implies a conventional wisdom fallacy. It’s irrelevent how it was done in whatever span of time. Tech was often designed better before the 90s. Advancements are obviously made but I see design approaches worsening.

          Most importantly, the tool /can/ be smarter. A good tool might remove all content as a starting point, then a spamassassin-like process could run that works out likely ham, which could then be either reinstated or flagged for human review, depending on resource constraints (both human and machine). A blunt remove all is important to have but crude and reckless if it’s the only option.

          Spammers do write some random content to pretend they are not bots, again a fact.

          And? Intent doesn’t matter. The end game is still about separating spam from ham. Your claim just supports the view that there is some ham to save.

    • evenwicht@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      Which is limited to Microsoft boot lickers in Microsoft’s walled-garden. After MS bought github their 2FA incompetence broke my access. So the 5 bugs are reported here.