[OSM-talk] Blocking, was, This list requires moderation

Sun Feb 7 17:34:38 UTC 2021

To provide some context, John (80hnhtv4agou--- aka jdd 3) was given a
one-year block a few months ago [1], which he circumvented by creating an
alt account shortly after the block began [2]. Any complaints from him
about the ban policy are probably related to the consequences of his own
behavior.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3979

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/amazon_gis/

On Sun, Feb 7, 2021, 12:19 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk <
talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism#Temporary_block
> Blocks come in varied time lengths to expiration from 0 to 96 hours.
>
>
> Sunday, February 7, 2021 10:45 AM -06:00 from 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk <
> talk at openstreetmap.org>:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy#Long-term_blocks
> Before a user is blocked permanently, they will have received at least one
> warning, in their own language, telling them explicitly that an longer
> block will be considered if they continue with their offending behavior.
>
> A long-term block can only be placed after an internal DWG discussion and
> if there is consensus within DWG.
>
> Sunday, February 7, 2021 10:33 AM -06:00 from Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu
> <http:///compose?To=tom@compton.nu>>:
>
> I'm sure you'll be happy to tell us which part of the policy that is
> contrary to?
>
> Tom
>
> On 07/02/2021 15:47, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
> > this person is DWG.
> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck_repair>
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck
>
> > and blocks people for ten years,
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck/blocks_by?page=1
> > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck/blocks_by?page=1>
>
> > contrary to the OSMF ban policy.
> > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy
> > <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy>
> >
> > Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:34 AM -06:00 from Frederik Ramm
> > <frederik at remote.org>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've chosen a somewhat cheeky subject on purpose. I don't mean to say
> > that this list requires a moderator, or that people on this list are
> > impolite and offensive and all that stuff - on the contrary, this
> > mailing list is a place where discussions are generally factual and we
> > don't have trolls, abuse, bigotry, or any of that.
> >
> > What I am calling for is moderation in the sense of restraint, or (a
> > definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) "observing reasonable
> > limits".
> >
> > Discussions about tagging are important for OSM, and it is good that
> > they are being held here on an open mailing list. It is also good that
> > we are actually discussing and not just upvoting and downvoting. I don't
> > want to change any of that.
> >
> > But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
> > follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
> > could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.
> >
> > Things that I see too often:
> >
> > * Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
> > else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
> > other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
> > that" and then repeat everything in other words.
> >
> > * Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
> > often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
> > different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
> > *almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
> > aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.
> >
> > * Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
> > reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
> > responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
> > willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
> > response altogether because someone else has already said it.
> >
> > * Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
> > gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
> > three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
> > fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.
> >
> > * Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
> > to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
> > I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
> > ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
> > bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
> > isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
> > that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
> > going exactly as I would like it.
> >
> > Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
> > uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
> > wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
> > that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
> > remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
> > presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
> > words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.
> >
> > Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
> > impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
> > of this list need to read?
> >
> > Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
> > save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
> > one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
> > things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
> > has already been made redundant by then".
> >
> > I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
> > and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
> > the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org
> > </compose?To=frederik at remote.org
> <http:///compose?To=%2fcompose%3fTo%3dfrederik@remote.org>> ## N49°00'09"
> E008°23'33"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210207/4f18aae3/attachment.htm>