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

80hnhtv4agou at bk.ru 80hnhtv4agou at bk.ru
Sun Feb 7 17:43:18 UTC 2021


I am not amazon_gis.
 
and yes the block was unjust. but is this the place to expose me and my block. 
  
>Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:34 AM -06:00 from Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com>:
> 
>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 >:
>>>> 
>>>>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 > ## 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/b65885d4/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list