On 21 Jul 2009, at 09:31, Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:16 AM, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com
> wrote:
For the record: I agree with Peter that we need to undo this user's
changes, however it is done, and that it could cause large parts of
East
Anglia to be wiped out if data that happened to have his name on
were to
be removed because of the license process. We need a way to deal
with this.
You're exaggerating in this case. But if you're going down that road
then liam123 is the least of your worries.
Anyway, that's a legal question for a license switch, and the moment
he (or anybody else for that matter) touches a node/way/relation it
doesn't matter how we revert, we'll still have the problem. The
bonus of exact reverts is that they should be pretty easy to detect
and discard, but radical changes moved roughly back might not be
that hard.
He keeps coming back, day after day, making nonsense edits, but not
in a
random way. It's not just scribbling.
Frederick put the revert scripts in svn a while back if you want to
take a look.
I think this discussion is actually about the process of deciding that
we want to make a change, not the technical ability to do so. Let's
deal with the social side first and then do what we decide using the
technology which is evidently available.
There seem to be two options available:
1) Revert all changes for which the vandal (whoever they are) is the
last editor to the value before the change was made. Or...
2) Revert all ways which the vandal touch within an agreed date-range
to the information prior to the edits even if further edits have been
made over the top since them. To achieve this second we would need
agreement from the people who subsequently tried to repair by hand. I
suggest we should *not* consider this further at this point, instead
we should watch more carefully for malicious edits, especially from
new users, catch them more quickly and have an agreed way of getting
consensus that a revert and do the deed prior to too much repair work
taking place or new rendering to have be done.
I am not hearing anyone saying we should not revert all Liam123's
edits for which he is still the most recent editor. Can someone do it?
Should we set up a vandalism response process and team for England, or
the East of England, GB or UK which can deal with UK related
vandalism? One reason for doing this on at a territorial level is
because issues will be different in different territories - the middle
east and Cyprus have different issues from this part of the wold.
Possibly we start with the GB area (to match with talk-gb) and then
consider breaking it out to England, Scotland and Wales at a later
point if necessary and possibly into regions but only if there is a
good reason.
To be clear, we should only apply a revert to malicious edits; newbies
errors should be tweeked and dealt with much more sensitively
(speaking as one who has broken the coastline and sunk the east coast
on more than one occasion).
For licencing purposes I suggest we would should to recognise the
special case where a way had been reverted to exactly what it was
before an edit was done and then remove the person from the IPR chain
for that way in those circumstances.
Regards,
Peter Miller
Dave
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
