[Talk-GB] Liam123 back again - can we check if this is vandalism?
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Sep 4 06:44:31 BST 2009
On 3 Sep 2009, at 23:15, Mark Williams wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
>> On 03/09/2009 14:53, Peter Miller wrote:
>>> This looks like messing with a street and yahoo photography shows
>>> it as going through a house. This appears to be straight forward
>> Yes, looking at the Yahoo images, I agree completely.
>> I'm going to revert these two changesets now.
>> I suggest we waste no more time on this guy - we revert all his
>> future changesets immediately until such time as he talks to us,
>> and stop worrying about the minutiae of whether he's doing valid
>> edits or not.
> He has done loads & I have seen none with merit, lots of utter
> nonsense & some sneaky. If I could twit-list edits he'd have been
> there for months.
Here is a copy of a post to just put talk which suggests how to
grade contributors leading to a 'delete' immediately and don't even
check their work (which is where we seem to be with Liam123 and I
don't disagree about that at all.
Post on talk follows...
I think we need to agree on some guidance for response to possible
vandals and what level of checking should be performed prior to
reversion. I would add a rider to it now, which is that in the final
stage one concludes that it would be safest for the project to remove
all the other work they did which was not already been reverted and
for which one gave them the benefit of the doubt. Here is the post....
Personally I would suggest:-
1) We should expect that all contributors should at all time attempt
to make good, accurate and well researched changes
2) We need to ensure that every contributor is on-balance making the
dataset better, not worse. If the contribution is in doubt we owe it
to other contributors to investigate and respond.
3) We should be aware that people make mistakes, need time to learn
and newbies often need and will respond to support
4) We can request, but not require contributors to add a comments to
their changesets and to have created a useful personal user page with
some details about their interest and knowledge. Doing this makes
reversion less likely and make it more likely that the person will be
helped if needed.
5) In the event that someone seems to be doing strange edits one
should initially assume 'good faith' but should watch carefully and
discuss with others if appropriate.
6) If a significant number of edits to ways can be definitively proved
to be malicious, obscene, libelous or it is considered that they might
bring the project into disrepute then the related change-sets can be
reverted immediately without discussion and without 100% checking of
the rest of the change-set.
7) If the edits are dubious but it can't be proved to be incorrect
then one should contact the person and ask for some additional
information. If one doesn't get a reasonable response (or gets no
response) and the dubious edits continue and there are not a good
number of balancing clearly positive contributions then one should
look to prove at least one bad edit and may then come to the decision
in discussion with others that it is appropriate to revert the change-
set in question and potentially all changesets by that person.
8) Once someone has been identified as a problematic contributor then
one only needs to perform a brief of inspection of subsequent edits
before reversion future changesets. Liam123 is in this category now.
9) If the problem continues (Liam123 is actually probably in this
category) then one puts then on 'virtual ban' where their edits get
reverted with no inspection of the merit of the changes unless the
person contacts a sys-admin and says they have grown-up and want
10) If someone performs bad edits in any part of the world then they
can expect to be a global response because it seems very unlikely that
someone would mess with Ireland and do good work in Iceland and I am
not sure I would want to work out what was going on in their head - I
would prefer to protect the good work of others from mischief that
allow good work to be messed on the off-chance that some good edits
are also made in amongst the nonsense.
11) People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to
demonstrate that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate to
Can we work on this a little on the list and if there is agreement
copy to resulting text to the wiki?
More information about the Talk-GB