I am writing to request more information regarding a strike that was issued against my account last summer. I never received detailed feedback on what exactly triggered it, and I would like to get some clarity on my account history.
Based on my own review, I suspect that this first strike was triggered by my submission of a local street sign (“Hans-Zens-Straße”) for alleged “Mocking/Abuse”. If this submission was indeed the reason, I believe it was a false positive issued in error due to a misunderstanding of the historical context.
As seen on the physical sign’s subtitle (attached), it reads “Bürgermeister in Kreuzau von 1966–1999”. In my description, I simply stated that he was the former and now deceased mayor of the community to provide accurate context and highlight the local significance of the landmark. Hans Zens is a real historical figure who served the municipality for over three decades and passed away in 2010.
My text was entirely factual and respectful. It contained absolutely no jokes, offensive language, or fabricated elements. If this specific submission was the cause of the strike, it appears that automated filters or reviewers falsely reported a standard historical explanation as mocking.
Could you please provide more information on whether this submission was indeed the cause of my first strike? If so, I kindly ask for a manual review of the case so this incorrect strike can be lifted from my account.
When something is rejected for abuse, it rarely means you actually harassed or upset anyone. It can mean wayfarer abuse instead, for example deliberately misplacing an object into a free cell is a common abuse theme.
If you’d like to share more information maybe we can help you figure out what it meant? If it was 1 warning nearly a year ago then you have little to worry about as long as you’re now careful to work within the criteria
The “Abuse” rejection narrative can be flagged for a nomination for any of the following reasons (roughly in order of how often they occur):
* The photo is not yours (e.g., taken from streetview, found on another website)
* The wayspot location pin is misplaced
* The wayspot is deliberately misrepresented (e..g., on school property but pretending it isn’t)
* Another nomination was flagged and all of yours have been flagged as a consequence
* The text itself is abusive
* The nomination is controversial and likely to be offensive (e.g., a mural of terrorists)
* (there may be others)
It is very badly phrased and rarely matches the actual issue, since it strongly implies the submitter is being offensive, which is very rarely the case.
As it has been accepted for a while now you should be able to see it on the map (50.7515826, 6.4920482) those should be the coordinates you should be able to find it. Those are not the exact coordinates because I don’t know the exact coordinates but I guess the position shouldn’t be the case and the text says that the sign honors the mayor and that he passed away so I don’t think that’s the reason either. I have taken all the pictures by myself and I took some more to have the option to take the picture that looks the best to me
@Stanoffer has stated that they can’t find an email.
If I have read correctly then the submission is around 14th August 2025.
The correct action has been taken in creating this new topic to deal with this separate issue.
At this point I think it is simply a case of waiting patiently for the wayfarer team to respond.
