<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Overall I would look at how Wikipedia solves it from technical viewpoint.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is (hopefully) unlikely that we will get more vandals and trolls than English-language</div><div>wikipedia and they already spend quite significant effort on policing dedicated vandals.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>24. Sep 2018 17:57 by <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">frederik@remote.org</a>:</div><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">Is the opposite true as well - would/should someone given a cool-off<br />period for being a dick in a discussion still be allowed to do mapping?<br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Absolutely no. It would give such person way to say "I was reverting you without</p><p>attempt to communicate because that was blocked".</p><p><br /></p><p>That is just asking for trouble.<br /></p><p><br /></p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">Should a normal user block perhaps simply come in two flavours, "block<br />mapping only" and "block all"?<br /><br />It has been suggested that blocking *all* communication functions might<br />be problematic because one thing you might expect from someone you have<br />blocked is that they apologise, or set something right, which they might<br />not be able to do without the ability to write messages.</blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I agree, blocking mapping only may be really useful. For example user</p><p>refusing to communicate in changeset discussions may be blocked until (s)he</p><p>responds to comments.<br /></p><p> <br /></p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">Do we need a full array of permissions - "can change user name", "can<br />edit own user page", "can write personal messages", etc. - and the<br />ability to short-time suspend any and all of them?</blockquote><p><br /></p><p>How complicated would be implementing it? I can imagine situation where otherwise</p><p>unproblematic editor changes his username 20 times a day and blocking this</p><p>resolves the problem - but how much effort is needed to implement this compared</p><p>to say three groups "nuke user" (for spam and troll-only accounts), "block all", <br /></p><p>"block mapping"?<br /></p><p> <br /></p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">This also ties in somewhat with a separate discussion, on how a<br />prerequisite for allowing children on the platform might be that we can<br />disable the "social" functions of an account. In that case it would not<br />be a short-term block, but a whole class of accounts that can edit, but<br />not participate in discussions (for their own protection). I'm not sure<br />that can work at all (given that the ability to contact a mapper is very<br />important to us). Maybe such accounts would have to be linked to a<br />"responsible" parent account who then gets the messages...<br /><br />Bye<br />Frederik<br /><br />-- <br />Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"<br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />dev mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:dev@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dev@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev</a></blockquote> </body>
</html>