Thanks for being honest. What about Piero Tiziani (user_18567094) instead?
We know of getting on for 20 now.
I’ve also had a periodic look here and yes, there are “new accounts” popping up. I’d expect most of those to be genuinely new users though - we shouldn’t treat them with suspicion until we have some evidence that they are just more sockpuppets. It’d be unfair on genuine new users in Italy to not assume good faith, just because Martino is behaving like an arsehole.
Watch your language. I never called you names, even when I had every reason to.
< Thanks for being honest. What about Piero Tiziani (user_18567094) instead?
Yes, and I think there aren’t more, if I remember correctly.
C’mon Martino… Changeset: 135830222 | OpenStreetMap
A user that creates an account, makes one set of edits and then immediately deletes their account (following a long-line of such behaviour) is not acting in good faith. If anyone needs any help reverting this please let the DWG know - email firstname.lastname@example.org with a subject of “[Ticket#2023041110000115] [OpenStreetMap] deleted account”.
Actually it wasn’t me, but okay…
The gentlemen goes around, still, the explanation of why the edit was made is useless “fixed town”
Changes city to town and the population to a round 80000, which is the coincidental threshold to distinct between city and town. The node is representing is seems the district and not the main residential area by itself. Think a revert is in order,
There definitely have been severe problems with this city on the carto rendering, as it made disappear Naples in certain zoom levels, but this is something I would expect to be fixed in Carto and not necessarily in the data. If Giugliano is better represented as city or town is something that can be discussed but should be discussed and not just changed.
They’ve just done it again. The name (at one stage prior to deletion) was “gapathys”, but is now deleted. The changesets were:
Would it help if I reverted those on principle (to make it clear to @Martino_Scaglione that this sort of behaviour isn’t OK (who, for the avoidance of doubt, has denied that some of this behaviour isn’t theirs, but the changes above are “somewhat characteristic”).
Sorry, I read this message only now (after I reverted the edits myself already). The reasons are the same I stated already in the past, the user can use his main account instead of creating disposable accounts non-stop. This make difficult to take track of discussions, understand what’s going on ecc. as stated many times.
For the record I reverted this sockpuppet also: user_19193084
Since people from other communities (New York, Andorra, Spain, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and San Marino mainly) have posted or are following this topic, I want to make it clear that I’m only tracking new sockpuppets in Italy. Therefore, I don’t know if there are any others in those places/countries.
Reverting edits from ban evading accounts seems a good idea in general (without applying it blindly to all edits before block).
And in general I would treat editing and then immediately deleting account as admission to vandalism and a request to revert all their edits.
And in cases where user was repeatedly requested to cease such behaviour as a malicious trolling, intentional attempt to waste time of others and in general being rude and annoying and breaking OSM rules.
So +1 to reverts on sight in such cases.
Obviously some effort is needed to avoid affecting unrelated editors, but edit+self deleting account is quite revealing.
For the record, this is the message I left to the user when the last sockpuppet was created: “Ciao, come richiesto numerose volte, perché non usi il tuo account principale?” (DeepL: “Hi, as requested numerous times, why don’t you use your main account?”). He played dumb in response. I think I’ve been polite enough, his main account is still not blocked and he can use it without limits.
Now I find out that a brand new account has been created and performed a complete revert again:
Meanwhile he keeps editing with other sockpuppets, such as:
Yet one of the last edits is 4 days ago.
Thanks - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7166 and https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/4018#issuecomment-1575478479. Revert of the latest “gapathys” changeset done at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136925432. Revert of “saifanjahmal” latest changes is at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136927150.
An overpass query that can find data by one of the sockpuppet accounts created by @Martino_Scaglione here is https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vHF. The userid in that search is the one for the first of the “freddieforbes” accounts.
Also note that I’ve blocked Martino’s main account until they contact us: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7168. They won’t be able to post here after any authentication they have in a browser expires. However, I’ve said that if they wish to continue as part of the OSM community they should email the DWG and we’ll revoke that block.
Edit: Somewhat later, the second “gapathys” account was deleted, and @Martino_Scaglione has created a third: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7169. Revert of that completed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136927476.
Edit: Somewhat later, the third “gapathys” account was deleted, and @Martino_Scaglione has created and deleted a fourth with userid 19480213. Revert of that is complete in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/136934793. Some nodes gave 400 errors, but I suspect that is just a difference between how JOSM and other edit methods treat null changes:
cannot restore node 10951331381 to version 2 (put): 400 Bad Request cannot restore node 10951331383 to version 2 (put): 400 Bad Request cannot restore node 10951331384 to version 2 (put): 400 Bad Request cannot restore node 10951331382 to version 2 (put): 400 Bad Request
Edit: likewise a fourth account, 19480843.
Edit: likewise a fifth account, 19481216
Edit: Likewise a sixth account, 19486309
(and several more - see below)
A list of the accounts relevant to this discussion is as follows:
Block Account name Userid Other names 7168 Martino Scaglione 10901495 Marty5550 n/a Lorenzo9422 18813953 n/a crosley-millan 18918945 n/a (unknown) 19193084 n/a francesc75 14440280 n/a HeadAsylum432 18794293 n/a HeadAsylum433 18840068 7063 yannis323 18919519 7072 leonardashley87330 18841250 n/a taaxd6M$ 18840462 n/a Lorenzo9422 18813953 7068 GianlucaTrani85 18917472 7167 saifanjahmal 18309341 7071 francisdouglas88614 19014237 7074 francisdouglas88614 19021744 7077 francisdouglas88614 19031302 7076 freddieforbes 19023184 7081 freddieforbes 19032694 7084 freddieforbes 19034401 n/a gapathys 19303717 7166 gapathys 19471310 7169 gapathys 19478605 n/a gapathys 19480213 n/a gapathys 19480843 n/a gapathys 19481216 n/a gapathys 19486309 7209 xzaviar 19486720 7172 gapathys 19487402 n/a gapathys 19487457 7173 gapathys 19488794 n/a gapathys 19489420 7174 gapathys 19489916 7175 gapathys 19490000 n/a gapathys 19491496 n/a adrikmayar 19492114 n/a jareth-joden 19492447 n/a gilbert24336 19493470 n/a gapathys 19493588 n/a gapathys 19497537 n/a tizianomorani322 19032787 7194 gapthys 19499304 n/a tizianomorani322 19499914 n/a (unknown) 19500798 n/a gapthys 19501225 n/a (unknown) 19502949 n/a tizianomorani322 19503902 n/a gapthys 19501625 n/a (unknown) 19507646 n/a (unknown) 19511757 n/a gapthys 19515741 n/a (unknown) 19517642 n/a tizianomorani322 19520190 n/a (unknown) 19523508 n/a gapthys 19526053 n/a (unknown) 19527570 n/a gapthys 19531348 n/a tizianomorani322 19533258 n/a (unknown) 19535882 n/a tizianomorani322 19573917 n/a (unknown) 19577077
Most or all are deleted or blocked, so https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7084 says that the user is “user_19034401”. To search for objects last edited by a userid, use an overpass query like https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1vHF but change the “uid” number in there.
If there are any other accounts I have missed, please email email@example.com with a subject of “[Ticket#2023041110000115] other accounts” to let us know. If any accounts are on this list in error, please email firstname.lastname@example.org with a subject of “[Ticket#2023041110000115] account on list in error” to let us know (although most of the block messages say that already).
Two more: user IDs user_19480843 and user_19481216 .
Edit: I’ve now reverted both of those.
Yes, You can!
(Sorry Andy for off-topic, but that was just too nice!)
A question about the Stelvio Pass:
https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/901697069 is part of the Stelvio Pass. As you can see, in the last 3 months there have been a couple of changes. One was from primary to secondary in https://osm.org/changeset/133570560 and then back again by https://osm.org/user/saifanjahmal (one of Martino’s accounts - see above). Martino also removed the names, which seems odd.
I suspect that the correct tagging here should:
- have the names restored
The whole section (not just this way) needs looking at - see this changeset by “saifanjahmal”. I have not reverted 136985265 by “jareth-joden” (now deleted, likely a Martino sock-puppet) because I suspect that more work is required.
Looks like original user IDs are being used in creating new user IDs
While I can understand the initial desire to get the user to use their main account instead of the throwaway ones, what they are doing violates the ToS for openstreetmap.org and there is no reason why that account cannot be blocked for that on its own.
Absolutely - we (the DWG) have been in contact with the admins a couple of times to try and see what options there are to restrict them technically. Here “everyone knows” who the bad actor is, but see also https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/4018#issuecomment-1576835352 which explains how currently the osm.org website allows an account name to “sidestep” blocks, comments (and probably OsmCha etc. reactions) rather too easily.