[OSM-dev] Various types and means of account blocks

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Sep 26 15:35:20 UTC 2018

Overall I would look at how Wikipedia solves it from technical viewpoint.
It is (hopefully) unlikely that we will get more vandals and trolls than English-languagewikipedia and they already spend quite significant effort on policing dedicated vandals.

24. Sep 2018 17:57 by frederik at remote.org <mailto:frederik at remote.org>:

> Is the opposite true as well - would/should someone given a cool-off
> period for being a dick in a discussion still be allowed to do mapping?

Absolutely no. It would give such person way to say "I was reverting you without

attempt to communicate because that was blocked".

That is just asking for trouble.

> Should a normal user block perhaps simply come in two flavours, "block
> mapping only" and "block all"?
> It has been suggested that blocking *all* communication functions might
> be problematic because one thing you might expect from someone you have
> blocked is that they apologise, or set something right, which they might
> not be able to do without the ability to write messages.

I agree, blocking mapping only may be really useful. For example user

refusing to communicate in changeset discussions may be blocked until (s)he

responds to comments.


> Do we need a full array of permissions - "can change user name", "can
> edit own user page", "can write personal messages", etc. - and the
> ability to short-time suspend any and all of them?

How complicated would be implementing it? I can imagine situation where otherwise

unproblematic editor changes his username 20 times a day and blocking this

resolves the problem - but how much effort is needed to implement this compared

to say three groups "nuke user" (for spam and troll-only accounts), "block all", 

"block mapping"?


> This also ties in somewhat with a separate discussion, on how a
> prerequisite for allowing children on the platform might be that we can
> disable the "social" functions of an account. In that case it would not
> be a short-term block, but a whole class of accounts that can edit, but
> not participate in discussions (for their own protection). I'm not sure
> that can work at all (given that the ability to contact a mapper is very
> important to us). Maybe such accounts would have to be linked to a
> "responsible" parent account who then gets the messages...
> Bye
> Frederik
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail > frederik at remote.org <mailto:frederik at remote.org>>   ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openstreetmap.org <mailto:dev at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20180926/51cdd9d2/attachment.html>

More information about the dev mailing list