Just to keep people here up to speed, “@yannis323” has created some more accounts, included but not limited to GianlucaTrani85, leonardashley87330, francisdouglas88614. Most edits by the new ones are simple “revert to force my opinion on everyone else” and have themselves been blocked until they contact the DWG and reverted to the status quo ante.
Objects last edited by yannis323 include these. Some of those changes do look OK; some perhaps less so.
For example, this shop may be spelt slighly oddly, or it may not - I’ve no idea.
The Pascal Neis page has labelled this person as ‘hit-and-run’', the pie chart cuts are of never seen before and created 41 lines of routing issues. 2 users blocked, no idea how, and 1 active block Training for something.
Saw a mapper last night tagging street long bridges in a desert town across nothing, two_way labelled roads taking the wrong side with a playground on the roundabout center island. Thats how this comes across too.
At this exact moment there are at least 4 active accounts of this same user. He collected 14 blocks. He is well know in Wikipedia as well where he collected 5 warnings and 2 blocks with the following motive: “Edit war, personal attacks, uncooperative attitude”.
It’s crazy the amount of time ONE single user can waste on a community/DWG. I think at other cases such as the Greece vandal: here
Time to revert, fix, look for fake accounts. It takes all the fun of the mapping out. I wonder if the current sistema is fitting the increasing number of users in OSM, or if we should re-think it (as someone suggest already in the past, as in here).
Seems to me that the current schema benefits this kind of users. Just create new accounts and keep editing as you want, at a certain point the other person will stop reporting you and that’s all.
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
On numerous occasions, during the Geminiani S mass deletion incidents, I was very tempted to interpret the extremely slow action by the moderation team as siding with the vandalism: that has the potential to severely damage trust in OSM.
I’ve noticed that there;s quite a lot left by leonardashley87330. An overpass query to find that (which will still work if they delete their account) is here. Do those changes look OK, or does some of that need reverting?
We’ve had new accounts created by this user as “francisdouglas88614” (3 different accounts blocked here, here and here) and “freddieforbes” (2 different accounts blocked here and here). It wouldn’t surprise me to see more.
Another thought, why can every Joe Blow run reverts? Block that until someone has a mapping reputation which can only be given an override by the DWG. These tools have specific ID’s, according the Pascal Neis pages the one subject has used 2-3 different ones.
It’s possible, because it’s very easy to create new email addresses (for example, the domain that I use for most non-mailiing-list email allows me to put anything to the left of the “@” sign, so the email addresses that I have access to are limited only by my imagination).
Because it’s technically not that difficult to do so? There’s a widely used (mostly for good rather than ill) plugin for JOSM; and even websites running software such as https://github.com/Zverik/simple-revert are mostly used for good.
vandals smart enough to use them are fairly rare and overall it would make dealing with vandalism worse, not easier
(though maybe it would be reasonable for revert tools to refuse working for accounts with <10 edits or registered <24h before? but in such case vandals like this specific one would just make more empty edits or vandalise manually)
Can we please stop calling my edits “vandalism”? I’ve got yet to see any argument for why this would be the case.
Wouldn’t you be upset if someone reverted a bunch of your changesets that weren’t even disputed by anyone just because you deleted your account?
I can agree that maybe my methods are not the best, but words have a meaning, and whatever is what I did is surely not vandalism. It can be bad and still not be vandalism, if we use words knowing what they mean and not just because they sound bad.
Un esempio tra molti, era dicembre 2021 quando fosti informato che Wikipedia non era una fonte valida per aggiungere ele=* e population=* nel database di OSM: Changeset: 114577827 | OpenStreetMap
Hai continuato ad aggiungere questo dato comunque, sia col tuo account principale che con sockpuppet. 12 giorni fa sei stato bacchettato per lo stesso motivo su un tuo sockpuppet: Changeset: 134806147 | OpenStreetMap
Dopo il blocco di quell’account hai continuato a creare altri account per importare ele=* e population=* sul database di OSM, pur avendo letto da diversi utenti che ciò non era possibile. Non è vandalismo?
@Martino_Scaglione Normally I’d be the first to say that most problematical editing of OSM isn’t really vandalism at all, but just a different viewpoint or an error, or inexperience in editing.
Your behaviour, however, went beyond that. You have caused a considerable amount of work for the local community and the DWG. You have created numerous sock-puppet accounts (3 francisdouglas88614, 2 freddieforbes, and 10 or so others). Your first action with these accounts was often just to force through your view about some extremely trivial matter, such as the capitalisation of names. Often, other mappers’ edits that had no quarrel with you were blown away as collateral damage.
This behaviour is not OK. Although the OSMF ban policy has a very high threshold (and among the members of the DWG I’m usually the one arguing against permanent bans) what your have done exceeds what has caused other mappers to be banned permanently from the project. I would therefore suggest that you choose your next words and actions carefully.
Firstly, I think that you owe us all an apology for the way that you have behaved.
Secondly, a way to show that you are now editing in good faith would be to only use one account.
Thirdly, do not use any revert tools; in fact do not undo any other mappers’ edit for any reason whatsoever.
If you can do those three things and edit in peace with the other mappers in the region, then I’m sure that it’ll be possible for you to continue in the project. If not, I’m not so sure. To be clear, it wouldn’t just be my decision, but a repeat of your recent problem behaviour could well be enough to convince the DWG to exclude you from OSM.
I never said anything about good faith or bad faith. I simply said this is not vandalism, as vandalism is literally defined as “willful damage on public or private property”.
Since I never saw an actual argument for why my edits could be considered damaging to the project in themselves, this
OSM ha la sua propria definizione di vandalismo, che rientra perfettamente nel tuo comportamento:
Vandalism is intentionally ignoring the consensus norms of the OpenStreetMap community about editing data.
Queste norme di consenso comprendono, ad esempio, i bilinguismi. Che hai provato a modificare più volte sia con il tuo account principale che con i sockpuppet.
Why don’t you focus on editing your own area, with on-the-ground surveys, instead of changing (and deleting!) place values and place names of territories far away from you, where those place and name values has been already been decided by local users and remained the same for +10 years? There’s much to do yet in your city. There are many cool apps to be used on the field such as StreetComplete, Vespucci and Everydoor.