Problem with vandalism and 2 DWG members

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
( )

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.


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.


Edit: I am awaiting an answer from apm-wa before replying.

The first sentence is essentially correct. Discussions should be courteous and present facts in support of arguments. Furthermore, complaining about a DWG action in this forum would yield no remedy, assuming the complaint were valid. Thus, if the complaint about DWG action is serious and can be backed up by facts (not emotion), it should be presented to the OSMF Board of Directors for adjudication. The DWG’s block of SHARCRASH falls into that category of DWG acts.

If the moderators had wanted the forum conversation to stop, I would have locked the thread. The conversation is welcome to continue, but I respectfully remind all participants to observe the Etiquette Guidelines. Differences of opinion should be worked out amicably, with demonstrations of mutual respect.

@SK53’s analysis above is correct.

1 Like

That’s true, but I already wrote “The complaints about DWG mishandling are still undue here of course.”

Yours looks indeed like a sensible interpretation to me. Evidently SHARCRASH interpreted it differently. Unambiguous communication is not easy! As an example: unless I myself am also misunderstanding you here (which would be very ironic and kind of funny), it would appear that you even misunderstood me just now. (About defending the DWG complaint – no hard feelings though.)

Absolutely. My first message to him was warning him that he’s treading on thin ice, so I made it clear that something has to change. I’m also putting in considerable time and effort to help something change indeed. For reference: SHARCRASH and I first made contact between messages 15 and 16 in this thread (ZeLonewolf’s mockery and my asking to refrain from too much tomfoolery).

Bear in mind that changing your mind takes time and energy. This is the reason why I am asking to be a bit patient in that regard. But is his latest message not an improvement already? I choose to focus on that positive aspect and on the goodwill that I believe everyone here has, since otherwise it’s pretty obvious what the outcome of this situation will be.

By the way, my asking for goodwill from everyone here, hinges on SHARCRASH continuing with a constructive stance and avoiding flaming. I’m not going to be seen defending destructive behaviour.


That’s a shame, because the original complaint:

I would like to expose vandalism in my country and how the moderation has been mishandled by @woodpeck and @SomeoneElse with total lack of logical judgement, transparency and mediation, leading to: tampered and loss of OSM data, personal degradation, unjustified accusations/blocks but letting a vandal going on

…is so utterly without merit and full of bad-faith accusations that I can’t believe that we are continuing to entertain this dumpster fire of a thread with any degree of seriousness.

The only meaningful discussion that might further arise from this thread is why the DWG has allowed this behavior to go on for so long to the point that this thread is now wasting everyone’s time. Perhaps the DWG might institute a ten strikes and you’re out rule for contributors that continue to break the rules and cause problems. Normally in the US we go with a “three strikes and you’re out” rule but that’s because we like baseball. Since the project is based in British-isms, I guess we use cricket-style rules, where the game never ends…

1 Like

Using football (what Americans call Soccer) terms, first foul is a
yellow card (warning) and second yellow card instantly becomes red and
you are sent off.

@apm-wa and @SK53 thank you for reminding the etiquette.

It’s a simple issue that became complex. I see it as a whole, that’s why I included all elements of this story in order to be complete and transparent. I can split it, post the data issue in a forum here and forward my concerns with moderators to the board.

The mods asked us to discuss in a group only 4 months ago, on ticket Ticket#2023082110000581 p2p, here Changeset: 141025194 | OpenStreetMap by Stereo, then here by SomeoneElse Changeset: 141162853 | OpenStreetMap
Reminder: this started in May 2021, woodpeck announced us he would investigate and he would give us an answer, but no conclusion in order to give us a guideline was ever given. This situation persisted and the other part kept deleting existing features and changed accounts. After months, Stereo, with whom I’ve been very often in contact for various cooperations, suggested me to reach the community in the IRC OSM Luxembourg channel. I posted there some deletions, no one reacted. There are only 20 people though and some are not from Luxembourg. This is also one of the reasons why I pasted changeset comments with evidences and claiming it is vandalism for a broader reach.

I came here only after 4 months because I needed a break (made no OSM edits since, in contrary for the other part who changed account and continues deleting), I contacted two communities and directly some members, one being in charge of the community, surveyed again recent deletions, gathered evidences and prepared my post here. OK its form is not right, sorry again, I’m human, this has been giving me stomach aches for 2 years but its essence seeks a honest solution. I do realize the admins have done a lot of good for the project but no one is perfect. So when an issue arises I just hope that all involved parties can talk about it and everyone analyses the facts and reasons with logic with the aim to solve it.