I'm not entirely convinced Dave read my posting, because it wasn't a metric
(but no matter).
When I tidy up after my children, I just put the bits back in the box, I
don't try to undo every single move they made in reverse order. And it's a
lot easier if the pieces from different jigsaw puzzles
On 18/09/09 10:33, David Earl wrote:
Tom - this is persistent continuous abuse. I really think we have to
block his IP address until such time as we can work out how to deal with
the edits. They are just so pervasive and destructive. We've discussed
suspending his account and the chances of
2009/9/18 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
***PLEASE*** PULL THE PLUG ON HIM!
Is it a good idea to remove the Live Change Feature in Potlatch for everyone.
I'm thinking this is the cause for a lot of our problems.
I can't see why anyone would want it any more anyway. Its a dangerous
Tom Hughes wrote:
I have repeatedly stated that I am not prepared to block people on my
own. Get the DWG to order him blocked and I will happily do so.
Not to Tom personally, but:
Can the DWG then finally speak up to acknowledge publicly that they
*are* working on this case?
And about
On 18/09/2009 11:17, Lennard wrote:
And about removal/deactivation/hiding of Potlatch's live editing mode:
yes, please. We've had a case in Belgium as well, recently, of someone
dicking about in live mode, apparently unaware of the destructive nature
of their actions.
+1
But I don't think
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:
2009/9/18 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com:
***PLEASE*** PULL THE PLUG ON HIM!
Is it a good idea to remove the Live Change Feature in Potlatch for everyone.
I'm thinking this is the cause for a lot of our problems.
Peter Childs wrote:
Is it a good idea to remove the Live Change Feature in Potlatch
for everyone.
I'm thinking this is the cause for a lot of our problems.
I can't see why anyone would want it any more anyway. Its a
dangerous feature without a purpose.
*shrugs* You've already made
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 18/09/2009 10:53, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 18/09/09 10:33, David Earl wrote:
Tom - this is persistent continuous abuse. I really think we have to
block his IP address until such time as we can work out how to deal
On 18/09/09 11:26, David Earl wrote:
On 18/09/2009 10:53, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 18/09/09 10:33, David Earl wrote:
***PLEASE*** PULL THE PLUG ON HIM!
I have repeatedly stated that I am not prepared to block people on my
own. Get the DWG to order him blocked and I will happily do so.
How?
We seem unable to contact Liam123 via normal channels. This means we
have to think of other ways of contacting members who continually put
mistakes into the dataset.
Is it not possible to put a flag on his account, so when he logs in he
is told what he has been doing and asked to explain himself?
Lennard wrote:
They would be easier to fix if people didn't start reverting his changes
by hand the moment he does them, which is what currently prevents a
clean revert of his latest changesets.
That could be difficult - it would mean saying to people in potentially
a wide area please
On 18/09/09 12:13, Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brian Pranglebpran...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I may be being a simpleton but can't we just disable write privileges for
this user to the database? Then he can continue editing but it all has no
effect
If somebody writes
On 18/09/2009 12:13, Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I may be being a simpleton but can't we just disable write privileges for
this user to the database? Then he can continue editing but it all has no
effect
If somebody
David Earl wrote:
***PLEASE*** PULL THE PLUG ON HIM!
Does anyone know if there are any discussions ongoing about what
restrictions might be put in place on newly registered user who e.g.
haven't uploaded any tracks and suddenly start editing in a wide area,
to avoid whack-a-mole problems?
2009/9/18 Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk:
I'm sorry if I seem frustrated by this, but it is because I am. We've
all spent thousands of hours each on this, and this guy is undermining
everything we've all done. Even though it's not my area (though close),
it completely destroys any
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote:
I agree. I think it would be even more useful to be able to quarantine
particular users changesets for manual review so the could be let
through in the end - though there's all the problems of conflicting
changes
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:
I agree. I think it would be even more useful to be able to quarantine
particular users changesets for manual review so
Peter Miller wrote:
'data protection', 'data monitoring' and 'data moderation'
all seem to be good.
'data protection' might be confused with 'Data Protection Act', ie,
legal data issues
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
On 18 Sep 2009, at 17:33, Godfrey Bartlett wrote:
'data protection', 'data monitoring' and 'data moderation'
all seem to be good.
'data protection' might be confused with 'Data Protection Act', ie,
legal data issues
This discussion reminds me of Douglas Adams' Restaurant at the End of
Hi,
Dave Stubbs wrote:
The problem needs fixing with better tools for sorting out mess, not
more weird and wonderful metrics for getting in people's way.
+1
Whenever a vandal pops up, we have tons of people coming up with tons of
cool measures to shoot oneself in the foot, and if they had
Two changesets:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510163 reverted cleanly
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510485 failed to revert
410 gone - I suspect there was a node/way changed in the second
changeset that was also in the first.
The automatic reversion is
On 17 Sep 2009, at 13:23, David Earl wrote:
Two changesets:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510163 reverted cleanly
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2510485 failed to revert
410 gone - I suspect there was a node/way changed in the second
changeset that was also
I've been thinking about this for a while.
Is he doing anything (legally) wrong?
Is he always connecting from the same IP address?
Can the login script be amended to point suspect users to a You've been
dicking about with the map - we're going to let you continue in the hope
that at some point
On 17/09/2009 14:09, Peter Miller wrote:
Who would join a 'talk-counter_vandalism' list or support its creation?
Yes. But can we call it something less judgemental: not all incorrect
changes are vandalism, and people seeing their account names on such a
list would be most depressing.
On 17/09/2009 14:30, Peter Miller wrote:
Possibly a different name would be clearer
talk-Counter_vandalism_tools, but that is getting a bit long. Any other
ideas or feedback?
talk-reversion-tools?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
On 17/09/2009 14:38, David Earl wrote:
On 17/09/2009 14:35, David Earl wrote:
Another one at 13:56, also failed to revert
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/2511524
changeset upload failed: 412
2009/9/17 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com:
On 17 Sep 2009, at 14:30, David Earl wrote:
On 17/09/2009 14:30, Peter Miller wrote:
Possibly a different name would be clearer
talk-Counter_vandalism_tools, but that is getting a bit long. Any
other ideas or feedback?
I'd join too -- but I doubt I would be of all that much help.
JR
2009/9/17 Someoneelse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
Peter Miller wrote:
The other question though:-
1) Would you support the existence of such a list?
2) Would you join it?
Yes, I'd join.
Hi,
We seem unable to contact Liam123 via normal channels. This means we
have to think of other ways of contacting members who continually put
mistakes into the dataset.
Is it not possible to put a flag on his account, so when he logs in he
is told what he has been doing and asked to explain
David,
David Earl wrote:
... which also won't revert now its closed (changeset upload failed:
409 Conflict)
I also hear you talk about automatic reversion which gets a failure
rate of about half. Are you sure that you know what you are doing?
Because if not then there's a risk that you make
Not a big contributor to the lists, but...
1) Yes I'd support it
2) Yes I'd join (but unlikely to contribute much)
Jeni
http://blog.jennystuff.com
Peter Miller wrote:
The other question though:-
1) Would you support the existence of such a list?
2) Would you join it?
If no one supports it
31 matches
Mail list logo
