Add new account state: Locked

[joyeusenoelle]

Tangential to #6954.

Currently we have five of what I'd call account states: Active, Silenced, Suspended, Redirected, and In Memoriam. This proposes to add a sixth state: Locked.

A Locked account should not be able to post new statuses or interact with others' statuses, through any interface (web, API, or otherwise), except that a Locked user should be able to send direct messages to their own instance's admins (see #3785). The owner of a Locked account should be able to change their user info (avatar, display name, bio), download following/follower/mute lists, add and remove 2FA and and use the API to gather an archive of their toots.

The user page of a Locked account should display "This user has been locked until further notice." However, a Locked account's individual toots should be accessible by direct link (e.g. for discussion with moderators).

When an admin or moderator Locks an account, an email should be sent to the address on file for the account, indicating why the account was Locked and what action, if any, can be taken to unlock it.

---

• I searched or browsed the repo’s other issues to ensure this is not a duplicate.
• This bug happens on a tagged release and not on master (If you're a user, don't worry about this).

[rtucker]

I like this, and it would have been a very useful feature for nearly all of our "this isn't the right instance for you, sorry" situations.

[rtucker]

I like this, and it would have been a very useful feature for nearly all of our "this isn't the right instance for you, sorry" situations.

[Gargron]

Presumably this is what account suspension should be like if suspension and deletion weren't the same thing?

[Gargron]

Presumably this is what account suspension should be like if suspension and deletion weren't the same thing?

[rtucker]

Yeah. It would do what I expected "Suspend" to do, right before the first time I clicked it and irrevocably deleted an entire users' existence ^^

[rtucker]

Yeah. It would do what I expected "Suspend" to do, right before the first time I clicked it and irrevocably deleted an entire users' existence ^^

[joyeusenoelle]

Yes, and I'd be perfectly happy to shift the current "Suspended" to "Deleted" and have this be called "Suspended". I was just trying not to change existing UI too much. :)

On Mastodon, a user brings up what should happen if someone views a thread where a Locked user has participated. I suggest using the fix I suggest in #7274 even if the Locked user's threads would otherwise be visible to the viewing user.

[joyeusenoelle]

Yes, and I'd be perfectly happy to shift the current "Suspended" to "Deleted" and have this be called "Suspended". I was just trying not to change existing UI too much. :)

On Mastodon, a user brings up what should happen if someone views a thread where a Locked user has participated. I suggest using the fix I suggest in #7274 even if the Locked user's threads would otherwise be visible to the viewing user.

[bhtooefr]

I'd say that changing avatar, display name, and bio could be a method for a locked user to perform abuse - it's why IRC servers prohibit nick changes when a user is in a channel and +b is set on them.

[bhtooefr]

I'd say that changing avatar, display name, and bio could be a method for a locked user to perform abuse - it's why IRC servers prohibit nick changes when a user is in a channel and +b is set on them.

[nightpool]

is this redundant when considering soft delete? that seems like a better step forward and solves the same use cases

[nightpool]

is this redundant when considering soft delete? that seems like a better step forward and solves the same use cases