Odd edits in Italy

and that user has a history of that sort of thing.

I’d suggest reverting the undiscussed mechanical edit back to the previous state, creating a forum thread here to discuss the name and telling the author of that mechanical edit to discuss it with everyone there.

I can see the logic - clearly the games are similar - but are they similar enough? Hopefully a discussion will answer that. Searching for boules and bocce here doesn’t find any data consumers for bocce, but perhaps there are some that haven’t advertised themselves to taginfo. There are boules data consumers; I doubt anyone has asked them whether they should expect bocce too.

PS: Moving these last few posts into that new thread would be a good idea.


Noticed the same happened to [


](Pétanque - Wikipedia).

Oh, thrown on the same Italian wiki page, bowls. Some stiff upper lip British citizens would suffer exploding heads if the sport would get sub labelled under boules, 16K use and held up so far as sport=bowls.

Of course by this vain we could as well throw raquetball (mentioned yesterday) and padel (or paddle as some name it) and saw the seeming annoyance in a US paper yesterday about pickleball under the sport=tennis + tennis=*. Think to have seen a JOSM preset where tennis and ping pong are mentioned in same. The ‘field’ is slightly smaller.

Edit: PM’d @geozeisig

1 Like

This has been shared with the French crowd, and addressed. Thx

Here we go again, I reported at least 3 new accounts to the DWG 2 days ago (waiting for a response atm). He’s already engaging in edit wars, e.g. OSM history

Computer says no?

Looking at recent editors to this node, there are no tickets for either of the two recent editors and there are no issues in our queue.

I just copied the original report text in an normal email to data at openstreetmap dot org

Thanks - that appeared at 11:38.

This town-city battle reminds me of Giuliano in Campania near Napels and just checked the city/town node is now version 54. It’s still the ‘city’ admin centre node of 122K people but then somehow magically the number went to a round 80,000 the criterion for yes it is or it isn’t. What the source is of the current 80269 is i see not mentioned but with that value it IS a city and the warlord changing it to town is by that threshold of 80K exact wrong.

SekeRob, that population was added in Changeset: 135950097 | OpenStreetMap

But data correctness is not the focal point of my report, but as I said “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 far as I know this user is not blocked for life, his last main account block states: “Please contact OSM’s Data Working Group by email at [email] with subject “Re: [Ticket#2023041110000115] Martino Scaglione” so that we can discuss this behaviour.”

So there’s no reason to use sockpuppets under these circumstances.

1 Like

That’s correct. The block on the “original main account” was here. See here for some of the others. That block says ‘If you promise to act as a “good citizen” within OpenStreetMap from this point forward we will revoke this block’, which became somewhat moot when they deleted their account. I don’t believe we’ve invoked the ban policy for them.

Obviously whoever deals with that ticket will compare current behaviour to previous edits - we won’t automatically assume that it’s the same person has before. However, looking here there are some similiarities with previous edits.

1 Like

So that was at v20 and now we’re on v64 (not 54 as i wrote in previous post). Depressing

Just for the record, from v21 to v62 the versions increased because of another user that was mass deleting name:ru tags, not the same user discussed here.


Update su alcuni nuovi sockpuppet (solo quelli che ho scoperto io ovviamente):

  • funny_la (user_20335028) é stato revertato (in parte o completamente?) da Fizzie41. L’utente ha cancellato l’'account
  • amarie-vinnie - nessuna azione intrapresa
  • osouleonapule (user_20334939) é stato revertato completamente da me. L’utente ha cancellato l’account.
  • pavia212 - nessuna azione intrapresa
  • user_20369577 é stato revertato da me. L’utente ha cancellato l’account.
  • rndm123 - nessuna azione intrapresa + l’utente ha ammesso di essere l’utente in discussione.

Fresco di giornata:

  • fabiotolni - si é iscritto ieri ed é giá a quota 75 changesets. Ha giá ripreso a ripristinare le modifiche annullate precedentemente da SomeoneElseRevert: OSM history

Il DWG non é reattivo, ad esempio funny_la lo avevo giá segnalato il 28 settembre (penso lo avesse segnalato anche @DabMK) ma é stato revertato solo oggi ad esempio. Nella stessa email segnalavo anche amarie-vinnie che non é stato né revertato né bloccato. Sembra che la sola creazione dell’ennesimo account per evadere i blocchi non sia piú motivo di ban. Il DWG mi richiede ogni volta di indicargli puntualmente quali problemi (sempre gli stessi) ci sono nei changeset anche se l’utente é chiaramente lo stesso. Questo anche se gli OpenStreetMap Foundation Services Terms of Use dicano che creare nuovi account o usare account alternativi per evitare la cancellazione o sospensione degli account sia una violazione dei termini:

Attempting to evade a cancellation or suspension (such as by creating a new account or using an alternate account) is a violation of these Terms.

Qua potete vedere una parte di tutti gli account precedenti: link

The DWG is likely to be more responsive if you actually tell us about these problems. There is no mention of that user name in any OTRS ticket (automatically generated in response to an email) or issue in our queue.

Until this bug is fixed the issue won’t go away, but the good news is that there is active discussion around how to resolve some of these problems.

I don’t see a point in reporting this new sockpuppet, if DWG decided that amarie-vinnie isn’t worthed a block, they will decide the same with this user, since is the same exact person editing the same exact way.

I reported it here (and I will keep doing it if I find new accounts) for the record and to let the Italian community know about the current situation, so they aren’t mislead in thinking some editing conventions are shared about many users (while in fact is one).

  1. DWG is not a hive mind, it happened to me before that I needed to make multiple reports in some cases (maybe my initial report was less clear? or next time different person reviewed it? or maybe they judged situation differently?)

  2. Can you post content of mail report to DWG about amarie-vinnie? Maybe it could be made more clear…

Ivan, sorry but in case you haven’t noticed, over these last few weeks, the DWG has been rather busy with continuing waves of mass-vandalism attacks in Russia & Ukraine, then in this last week, with people trying to remove Israel from the map entirely! (& in the process, damaging a lot of the Mediterranean coastline).

I know that towns in Italy are important to you, but under the circumstances, they pale into insignificance!

Going through some of the ones you’ve mentioned:

pavia212: we’ve looked at their changes & it appears that all they’ve done is copy Wiki population info. I did ask you for examples of something in particular wrong with their work but haven’t heard anything back yet.

RNDM123: Have they been reported yet, as we have no record on them? Please also bear in mind that it can take up to a week before reports actually reach us.

3 accounts that you have reverted their changes & they’ve then deleted their account. What would you then expect us to do with them?

Amarie-Vinnie: No, we haven’t got to that yet, As I said, we’ve been busy!

As I & others mentioned in response to some of the reported issues though, it makes our life much easier if there have been Changeset Comments left to point out problems, as we don’t necessarily know what the issue actually is? (Which isn’t helped when we have to work through translators)


This is what I meant when I wrote “Il DWG mi richiede ogni volta di indicargli puntualmente quali problemi (sempre gli stessi) ci sono nei changeset anche se l’utente é chiaramente lo stesso”. When I reported the sockpuppets, I wasn’t reporting bad mapping, but the creation of new accounts to avoid block, which is a violation of the OpenStreetMap Foundation Services Terms of Use.

There are several tickets in which I repeated the same reasons of why those socketpuppet belong to that same user. Every time I have to repeat myself. Maybe every ticket was handled by a different DWG member, I can’t know it. I should have some credit by now, I’m an active contributor, I obviously wouldn’t report a user if I’m not certain its him. I don’t want new users to be banned for nothing.

The greece vandal for example seems to be handled differently. Seems like most of the times the sockpuppets were handled by DWG members who knew the user previous history and mapping pattern and who trusted the active members of the greek community in their reports. All of them were banned and reverted as far as I know.

Instead in this case we have accounts who literally restored the old sockpuppets edits reverting DWG reverts, and still it seems there are doubts about them. Maybe a solution would be to refer me to a DWG member who knows well this exact user in particular so I don’t have to explain everything from the scratch everytime I send a ticket? This would save time for both me and the DWG, so the member replying doesn’t have to verify all the info from the start and knows that the mapping patterns I’m reporting are indeed theirs.

EDIT: New account btw, auronita (user_20505582). Already deleted.
EDIT2: New account, roczen (user_20465067).

1 Like

would it help to directly use data@openstreetmap.org ?

1 Like

In urgent cases, yes, definitely, as they reach us virtually instantly.