I meant theoretical evidence for DWG being evil.
I am pretty sure that it does not exist, like in all previous cases I investigated where people complained that DWG is evil/vandalising OSM data and so on.
+1
Is “theoretical evidence” something like alternative facts? 
That comment wasn’t really addressed to you specifically, more towards anyone who felt the urge to wade through it. If anyone does, they’ll naturally need to wade through similar evidence on the other side of the argument, starting with changeset comments etc.
To be clear - if someone thinks that they’ve been wronged by the DWG then they can escalate to the board. The board have also asked us to make things clearer in the past without an external complaint (the latest version of this policy was much improved after someone on the board suggested it needed a new section adding to reflect the way it was used).
(for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t know, @Mateusz_Konieczny sits on the board)
1 Like
I done I quick look at some example changesets of members of DWG making simple questions (which could be simply answered, no drama need) and every one of them the post author made ad-hominem attacks out of nothing.
If this post idea was “make you appear injusticed” , it appears the opposite.
All I’m seeing is that someone didn’t like being told no by a higher authority figure, so he’s complaining on the forums.
First of all, I want to note how DELIGHTED I am to be afforded the opportunity to comment on this thread before it gets locked. “DWG is out to get me” threads are one of my favorite OSM topics.
I also want to point out that I am as yet unable to use the 
emoji to react to the OP and therefore I will offer my thoughts in long form.
It seems that we are being asked (if you’ll permit me to devilishly use the passive voice) to determine which of these assertions are true:
-
@SomeoneElse and @woodpeck have gone rogue and are part of a grand conspiracy theory to facilitate vandalism despite the valiant attempts of @SHARCRASH to combat it.
-
@SHARCRASH is the latest in a list of active contributors that nonetheless find themselves suffering with extreme difficulty in getting along with other comunity members.
Just for clarity’s sake, I want to note that I too have objections to the way @SomeoneElse and @woodpeck handle cases where community members find themselves in conflict with others. My objection is that they are far, far too lenient and accomodating. I have unceremoniously tossed people out of the OSM World Discord server for far flimsier rationale.
Having read through this thread, there is really only one obvious conclusion. This project isn’t a good fit for you, and that’s okay.
4 Likes
I know it’s long but i really wanted to show how much has been falsified/deleted. I’m not someone who talks without facts.
Indeed this has been going on for years because the 2 DWG mods never resolved the issue. The vandal could create new accounts and continue hiw vandalism. As said, no investigation conclusion was ever given. It’s not my fault if after all this time me and other contributors still find falsified data. That’s what the community is showing up! Not one vandal and several of his sock-puppets claiming fake information and spread fake evidences (see my first recent example).
I know it’s not the first time SomeoneElse screws it up. A contributor mariotomo had been blocked because SomeoneElse claimed he was “bullying” but after Mario brought up the issue, several contributors checked the discussions and stated there was nothing wrong. See Andy Townsend acaba de enviarme un bloqueo and mariotomo's Diary | I do not know how not to care for quality | OpenStreetMap
I don’t have sock-puppet accounts, it’s Kugelbaum, ex tomolobla, etc and the other accounts I listed.
Agree! We didn’t need all this drama. Woodpeck just had to restrain tomolobla from deleting more. Instead, even though I had shown I was on terrain nad evidences, I’ve been the one blocked. In the end, we end up with several tens of falsified data and third-part contributors reporting false data.
When I got contacted I always explained and demonstrated the issue. Again, that’s not an ad-hominem attack. If it’s long, it’s because it was needed, I just tried to be complete. If people want to ignore it, they are free but that’s quite an uncommitted and unserious attitude, especially from a moderator.
You conveniently say they are ad-hominem comments. They are not! Read the definition and apply!
For an unbiased point of view https://chat.openai.com/share/7a837294-f4bb-4b07-a34a-a27d3dfc6e92
The 2016 block has nothing to do here and it was not the “Luxembourg community”. It was only about 2 users: Stereo and PierreLux who were against me creating superMPs. It was a workaround to contribute faster because iD is tedious. Stereo from DWG/chairman had contacted me, we met and showed me JOSM. It was OK for me to stop but JOSM has a learning curve so I didn’t stop directly. In the meantime, woodpeck had blocked for not complying directly but I did correct anyway. Stereo even told me he didn’t want it to happen this way. I can admit when I’m wrong! After that, I had no problems for 5 years with anyone until this came up and I receive 9 blocks only because of this.
Indeed i didn’t like it… because that authority acted without logic, neglected facts and was fooled by sock-puppets. In this world an authority does not constitute directly as “morally right”. For example, there are totalitarian governments who think that their citizens are mere meat.
It’s weird that some people here are conveniently ignoring the falsified data. After all, that’s what matter and how we ended up with it. If I’m complaining here it’s because woodpeck and SomeoneElse told me to bring this matter to the community, talk about the data, etc.
I don’t see why it would get locked since it’s woodpeck and SomeoneElse who told me to bring up the matter here.
- In your infinite wisdom, please, can you explain us how we ended up with so much falsified data and several other contributors confirming it is wrong? That would be more useful than a popcorn emoji.
I’m not getting along with certain people but I do pleasantly and friendly get along with others. That’s how the world functions. What we can rely on though about are facts! And the facts here are speaking by themselves.
Myself I volunteer as admin in a community of +8000 members. So I know too well what good moderation implies: empathy, logic, facts, mediation and equity. It’s not just about showing the stick, as you seem emphasizing.
Thanks for joking around and you’re free to be DELIGHTED as you say. Maybe you didn’t realize it but it’s important to me. So I would like to discuss it seriously without trolling, if you can…
1 Like
In order to adequately characterize my cheeky response here, I felt that I need to do a bit of meta-analysis on your initial complaint. Forgive me if I’m slightly off in these numbers, as I only have, collectively, twenty fingers and toes upon which to tally up these metrics.
You’ve provided fifty-eight bullet points which comprise one hundred fifty-six links. Some of those links point to Google Drive locations which presumably contain even more content.
If you’re asking community members (who presumably have limited free time that they volunteer to make and do things with maps) to review the one hundred fifty-six links that you’ve provided in order to assess the performance of two well-respected volunteers, then it tells me that you have such vanishingly little regard for people’s time that it’s impossible to take the complaint seriously.
I felt, given the circumstances, that it was fair and appropriate to provide links to eight threads from other cases in which someone in the community also felt that they were treated unfairly. That’s a mere five percent of the volume of links which you’ve provided here, and I think that if you have time to assemble one hundred and fifty-six links that you also have time to read about things like Hjart, the Commander of Denmark and other such tomfoolery. It would also give you context as to how other types of complaints have been received in open forum here.
I also felt that, rather than slogging through this massive pile of whatever this is, that the broader community would be better served by someone expressing their incredulity in a humorous way while simultaneously expressing support for a couple folks that do a thankless and at times ridiculous job in keeping the peace. A bit of levity, in the form of salty snacks which might or might not be french fries, seems oddly appropriate in the circumstance.
If you’ve read this far, congratulations – I think at this point it’s time to address:
Ah yes, well, unfortunately there are not a lot of ways to say this gently or lightly. They’ve (in my humble and potentially worthless opinion) sent you here because you’ve not listened to their suggestions and recommendations and are giving you rope to demonstrate to the community exactly what they’ve been having to deal with. Whatever legitimate complaint you may or may not have is presently drowned out by the sheer, overwhelming volume of your communications, and tainted by indications that commuications with your peers have been anywhere from disrespectful to downright abusive.
3 Likes
While I can’t say SHARCRASH didn’t have it coming by making such a fuss, I am in a chat with him, trying to understand him, and perhaps help calm things down. He has shown himself very willing to improve the situation. As such it’d be nice if we could refrain from too much tomfoolery.
11 Likes
It seems addressed to the two people. See the second paragraph, which starts with “Both of you have”.
2 Likes
@M_dgard thanks again for your understanding.
I just want to solve this issue. Sorry all for the negative comments but that’s how I felt. During investigation of 2021, @woodpeck authorised us to map if we had made a local survey, that’s what I did and I gave him my GPS data, notes, videos, etc. I think I’ve been cooperative. Yet he blocked me anyway but the other part was keeping deleting features. That’s when it escalated.
@woodpeck and @SomeoneElse you asked me to come here and talk about the data conflict. I’m here, I haven’t changed account, not trying to hide like the other counterpart . I explained the issues about the data, included my evidences and demonstrated that the new account from tomolobla (Kugelbaum) posts actually erroneous locations/evidences in order to delete existing elements. What’s the next step?
I’ve had a chat with SHARCRASH and I’ve seen a passionate mapper who cares very much about the map, but who could use a lot of positive guidance to react better to conflict. In this latest forum message here I see an honest attempt at converting to a constructive stance and cutting down on snarkiness, which I hope could be reciprocated and maybe lead to a virtuous circle of trust-building (one can only hope, I’m trying to bring out the best in everyone here).
My suggestion for a next step was asking SHARCRASH and tomolobla/Kugelbaum to meet in real life with the help of a mediator.
2 Likes
Moderator chiming in here. All please tone down the snarkiness and be matter-of-fact. If there is a genuine problem with the DWG, @SHARCRASH should take it up with the OSMF Board of Directors, not complain about it on this forum, which has no authority to act on the complaints. If @SHARCRASH has a problem with another community member, direct communication with that person in compliance with the Etiquette Guidelines is a better route to take.
1 Like
Adding to the previous comment…
Based on the OSMF Etiquette guidelines, the Communication Working Group deals with moderation issues at a meta level.
If the community is generally unhappy with moderation they can contact the board via the Communication Working Group to suggest a change in moderation
( https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette )
The CWG doesn’t deal with disputes related to how the DWG handles vandalism, which is the core issue here. Such disputes are escalated to the Board. My comment on the Etiquette Guidelines pertains to how @SHARCRASH should communicate directly with any other OSM community member, and not to a dispute with the DWG.
Do note that the DWG specifically asked to raise the problems with this mapper on the forum, e.g. in SHARCRASH blocked by woodpeck | OpenStreetMap. (The complaints about DWG mishandling are still undue here of course.)
It looks like you are asking both to be matter-of-fact and to take this complaint elsewhere. Would you like this forum conversation to stop, or could it continue if people behave? The forum indeed has no authority, yet I am attempting to talk from human to human and resolve the conflict amicably.
2 Likes
This seems a somewhat generous interpretation of what is written in the block:
asked you time and time again to discuss the issues you have with each other’s mapping in a wider group on the forum
I would interpret this as suggesting discussion on what it is appropriate to map and how to map it in such a way that views of other community members are respected. I don’t see this as an invitation to complain about the DWG and some of its members to all and sundry. Indeed it is clarified further down:
I expect you to write up the mapping issues you have with each other and discuss them publicly on the OSM forum, with the aim of enlisting other community members in finding a solution - answering questions like just how clear something needs to be on LIDAR to be mappable, and what is mappable in the first place - there is global agreement on many things but there is not on mapping half-overgrown rabbit paths or micro cliffs. This is something that requires discussion and the building of a consensus.
Most of this thread instead seems to be along the lines of the last paragraph, just with more people involved. I see absolutely no discussion of micromapping features visible in Lidar. The title of the thread and its location in the Foundation category also fail to support the idea that this is discussing tagging issues as was suggested. Much of this is “explaining how your block was unfair”.
If any of you write to us explaining how your block was unfair, how the other person is much worse than you are, and/or how the other person has more sock puppet accounts, I will block your accounts again - the problem here is with both of you, not with one of you.
As @apm-wa says conflicts with DWG need to be taken to the board as they are the appropriate body to appeal DWG decisions.
6 Likes