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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>:
> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
