Misleading and damaging information on Forum

Thankyou for your balanced and reasonable request!

A small amount of investigation does actually hold up the idea that this may be a slander attack, or at least mis-attributed.

In the linked thread, 4/5 accounts could be malicious
jacob-g http://drupal.org/user/1755380/track
vitamino http://drupal.org/user/1751646/track
villecoder http://drupal.org/user/695856/track
sandysite http://drupal.org/user/635352/track (OP)
are single-issue posters, although from entirely different addresses, and at different times
Tommy Kaneko http://drupal.org/user/204712/track however is a vetted user with good history - who reports a bad story with hosting24 specifically.

All of them conflate HOSTING24.COM and 000WEBHOST.COM as the same company. I'm not sure what to make of that. WHOIS doesn't clarify it, as one of them has cloaked registrar information.
But therefore I'm tending towards benefit of the doubt for hosting24 here, and the request to unpublish that issue is looking reasonable.

A number of reviews out on the net also claim that the two companies are related - describing 000WEBHOST as the cheap service designed to drive business to HOSTING24 when it hits crappy performance.

..
Based on this confusion, I think, on reflection, it's likely that HOSTING24 has been tarred unfairly.
I still don't really want to remove a real review totally. Mistakes should be corrected, not hidden.

At this point I'd suggest
* we can remove the reference for HOSTING24 from the issue title
* we can edit the post to include an editorial right-of-reply correction prominently above that thread (by editing the OP) containing wording that HOSTING24 would be happy with to correct and clarify the mistake
* let the thread stand.

if HOSTING24 would like to supply an appropriate paragraph here, or comment in that thread, I'll make that change.
This issue does seem to have very high search-juice, so I appreciate the concern. With that in mind, it's a good place to put a correction.

Otherwise I'll leave this open for now and a second opinion form other d.o webmasters for now.

Since the stuff is pretty ancient anyway, we could just unpublish it. Waiting for more opinions.

In general we don't edit/unpublish/delete old content unless it's obvious spam or something that shouldn't have been uploaded (e.g. mysql credentials in a code snippet). What makes this different?

Yeah, I knew somebody would bring that up.

The question is: is a hoster review from 2009/2011 relevant in 2013? But if we decide that it is not, and we wanted to act on that, we'd have a lot of gardening to do....

Of course, 000webhost.com is hosted on a server belonging to hosting24. This is all so fascinating.

we'd have a lot of gardening to do....

yeah, and imo we don't want to get into these types of content review and/or moderation. Forums are what they are. They are not authoritative or guaranteed to be truthful.

Hosting24 is free to post on that thread what they posted here. And we can lock the thread from further commenting if desired.

Totally agreed with worldfallz in #6.

+1 to WorldFallz

+1 to #6

I guess we can won't fix this?

seems so.