@Andy

I have three points.

First: a blockage remains a blockage. As long as I hadn’t read your message, I was blocked and couldn’t continue working. If I had happened to pause for 10 hours longer the second time before restarting OSM, the consequences of the 2-day ban would have been effectively the same as your zero-hour ban.

Second: So you are defending the public pillory, a punishment ritual from the Middle Ages. Have you ever thought about why it is a sensible rule in our modern democracies that not everyone can see your certificate of good conduct? Please also consider: too much sunlight is harmful to skin and eyes.

Thirdly: Personally, I am most likely to be convinced by stringent arguments. By the way, I found the comment that triggered the second lock to be relatively unproblematic compared to an earlier one that resulted in nothing being done. The amusement I was accused of was due to the technical failure of OSM, which showed more reactivations than there were completions. If it weren’t for this weirdly illogical ad, I wouldn’t have commented. The user mentioned in it will not have reported me because of this comment. It’s just that your colleague had already commented on a completely different matter and was now connecting the two in an unfortunately non-logical way.

Best regards

@MKnight: Schade, dass Du es nicht geschafft hast, meinen Text aufmerksam zu lesen.

Sonst hättest Du bemerkt, dass es hier nicht darum geht, dass ich eine Sperre bekommen habe, sondern um das Prozedere dabei, da es fast alle Rechtsstandards unterläuft.

Schön, dass Du dennoch meine Verwunderung, wenn auch nicht ganz, verstehst.

Aber wieso habe ich “genügend anderen Leuten” (Dir also Gott sei Dank nicht) ihre Zeit gestohlen? Wer hat sie gezwungen, meine Kommentare zu lesen? Ich beteuere: ich war es nicht! _____________________________ Notabene: schon bei der Organisation der Diskussion könnte sich OSM bei der Schwester-Organisation Wikipedia viel abschauen. Da kann man eine Replik direkt unter einen Kommentar setzen, statt wie hier an eine lineare Bearbeitung gebunden zu sein.

 Dear Andy,

thank you for trying to talk to me without blocking me straight away.

But the notes you quoted are a thing of the past. My blog entry is not about the punishment itself or its level. It’s about the circumstances. I present facts that I can substantiate and draw conclusions from them. If you see it differently, then argue against it.

I specifically mentioned that OSM does a lot of things well - except for the locks. You should be able to endure this criticism!

Only if a grievance is addressed can it be remedied. In this respect, I see my blog entry as constructive.

Almost 1000 changes and 1400 completed notes should be proof enough that I want and can work with others.

By the way, my second lock was probably not due to a complaint from another user, but only to your colleague, who acted as a public prosecutor and judge in personal union, who also did not follow your advice from „sine ira et studio“ when imposing his sentence and refused to answer questions.

I can only appeal: make the allocation of the locks transparent!   Best regards