linkedin account high restricted

Obituary: Skankworks Agile on LinkedIn

Didn’t take long. Banned from LinkedIn permanently, another one of our IP addresses put on the no-fly list, our content contributions, our interactions, striken from the record.

After only three weeks and all. Why? Read on to find out.

Account High Restricted

This is, we gather, the highest level of ban LinkedIn can give. In the LinkedIn EULA it says, “If you get an Account High Restricted it means we fucking hate you now and have murdered your account, deleted all your content, blacklisted your IP, and you’ll have to positively identify yourself to us before we will even speak to you again, you cunt“.

There is no levelling up from here.

A Bug Report

It happened after we filed a bug report in an unorthodox manner. But as professional software testers we know and value the unorthodox approach. We were also donating our bug report to LinkedIn without asking for payment, instead we chose our own manner of reporting. We did not reveal to anybody what the bug was, or how to recreate it.

We wrote a Pulse article in which the bug could be seen. Or rather, could not be seen, since the effect of the bug was to render certain parts of the page blank.

LinkedIn didn’t like that, either.

In Memoriam

So it’s RIP Skankworks Agile, our branded linkedin profile, July 8th – August 1st 2015. It’s final comment, on Friday July 31st was:

Today we've seriously ruined the weekend for a couple of cowboy recruiters. Reported one recruitment director's illegal hiring practices to the relevant authorities, and broke LinkedIn's CMS. 

Now we're off to open a bottle of Bolly. 
Skankworks Agile, July 31st, 17:48

The account went out in style, and it is unironic that LinkedIn’s response to a professional doing what he’s good at is to ‘fire’ him. It’s par for the course. LinkedIn are trying to do to the professions what Uber is doing to taxis – drive them out of business. The Commodification of Jobs.

Obituary

On this page we will show the linkedin page that caused the ban, followed by technical discussion of how the bug manifests itself and what it does. It’s essentially two bug reports. One pro-bono and presented with wit and humour for entertainment and education, the other objective and formal.

thick_black_line

The Pro-Bono Bug Report. Published on LinkedIn Pulse, Friday 31st July 2015, now expunged from the LinkedIn record.

6 * 6 = 387

by Skankworks Agile
linkedincommentocunt

Our titular equation has been corrected several times today by the sharp-eyed professionals of LinkedIn. Our self-evidently fallacious claim that six sixes are three-hundred and eighty-seven influenced a virtual twitter storm of corrective crowd-punishment action. Don would approve.

agile times table

Although it cannot be said that the correction was always accurate.

6*6 is 36

Perhaps Vipul was holding his handy upside-down when he made the calculation, but this is exemplary of the level of discussion one finds on LinkedIn. When they are not waving their likes at you trying to attract attention to themselves, nor impressing you with how they can all tell the real difference between a leader and a boss, they are arguing about the times table.

Robots

This is why we program bots to send them motivational one-liners superimposed on a floral background.

agilequotes

It’s like Seconal to them. Keeps them calm and sedated until the next elementary question, the intellectual equivalent of the belly-button challenge, has them all confounded.

But We Can’t Find the Staff

Sometimes, when incompetant recruiters tell us, “we can’t find the staff”, we can almost believe them. But all the people we see here have jobs.

Scary stuff.

No wonder their employers have to be bailed out.

NB: This page demonstrates a bug in LinkedIn’s Content Management System. We’re not going to say what it is or what it does, because that’s what we do for our job, and no matter how passionate we might be about it, we still need to get paid for doing it. See if you can spot what the bug is, and leave us a comment if you can.

thick_black_line

Comments

The comment count you see for the article relates to comments that were made before we invoked the bug. We only added the nota bene after comments had been made. We waited for some comments, then we edited the article to add the note about the bug, and to address a couple of grammar issues.

Kind of like writer’s bugs, those are. We can “bug-fix” the text by editing, but the underlying problems our article caused can only be fixed by LinkedIn. It was the way we edited that invoked the bug, which has lost all previous comments and prevented new ones from being made.

When anybody viewing our article on linkedin’s website clicked on the comments icon, the page would scroll to a blank part of the screen. Where the comments should have been displayed. When we realised this was a bug, we bought it to linkedin’s attention.

By publicizing our article on social-media, as webmasters are wont to do.

The clue was in the call to action. Since clues are evidently in short supply in the LinkedIn locality, we thought it only fair to provide them with one. The bug we had found disables comments. Once you’ve spotted it, you can never comment to say what it is. Which our clue draws their attention to.

We then turned our attention to fucking with cowboy recruiters over the phone for a while, before returning to LinkedIn to sign off late on Friday afternoon with what would prove to be our account’s in memoriam.

Part Two

Come back for part two, in which we file a formal bug-report that will explain the bug and it’s root causes, give steps to recreate it, and propose solutions and a test case to verify them. We may perhaps even delve into OPSEC by hinting how public sources could be exploited to manifest this bug on a large scale to the detriment of a certain website’s already poor quality of service.