DannyMcD, I'm afraid this is not going to cut it. OSM is a collaborative project. You can't go round telling everyone you have a disagreement with that you'd rather not talk to them again becasue it is too stressful to you. To be perfectly clear, you were the aggressive party in this. You reverted something without specifying a reason, and not for the first time. When asked about the revert, you refused to say why you did it and became all defensive. To this day you have not said why you did it - only that it was a mistake. You say you re-added the items later which I accept (and was not clear about, so thank you for putting that right) but still, now you are listed as the "original contributor" of these objects whereas you have denied that to the actual original contributor whose work you have deleted. And now you're speaking of the "stress" this situation causes for you and making it sound like you're the victim. You are not the victim; you have done something offensive, been caught out, and now you are unhappy about how stressful it is when you're caught doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

OSM is a community project, we need to talk to each other. Everyone is expected to provide good changeset comments when they upload a change, please do that in the future. You can of course revert vandalism or the bumbling edits of a newbie that went wrong, but if you do, write a changeset comment that explains why you did that, or if the other person is an experienced mapper, give them a chance to repair the damage themselves. You cannot ever opt out of discussing your edits with others (as long as they are reasonable and not doing this to troll you), so any form of "please do not contact me again" - to me or others - is inappropriate. Any other mapper has the right to contact you about any of your edits and receive a response - a process that happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day.

If you find that interacting with other mappers is stressful, you can do your part to reduce questions about your mapping, by providing good changeset comments (see link I already provided), and by refraining from summarily reverting whole changesets.

I totally understand that this can be stressful at times - but talking to each other is a requirement in a collaborative project. I am pretty sure the parties whose edits you have wiped out without even a comment did not exactly feel joy about that either.

I will let this matter rest here but please consider, in your future edits, that even if you are sitting in front of a computer screen, you are dealing with human beings here, and treat them accordingly. If interacting with other human beings is too stressful for you then OSM is, too.

To be extra clear, the problem is not reverting something, the problem is reverting something without any explanation, and aggravated by the refusal to give an explanation even when asked for one.

Danny, I am a member of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group and one of our mandates is to step in when there are disputes or edit wars between users. Reverting someone else's edits without any explanation whatsoever is an extremely hostile action. When challenged by *anyone*, DWG or not, someone who has executed such a revert should be straightforward with and explanation. You say that "you are here to map things, not write justifications". Even if you are not reverting, explaining your actions is something the community has a right to expect from you (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments). Even more so if you revert the contributions from someone else - which is precisely not "mapping things" but "unmapping things". And thrice so if your thoughtless reverts actually introduce errors like I pointed out in that other changeset. If you could now please find the courtesy to explain the reason for this revert? As for future mapping activity, if you insist on reverting changes without explaining why because it is "your style", then it will be "my style" to prevent further contributions from you until you change your style.

Why did you delete these buildings?

In this changeset you changed what was formerly a golf fairway to an agrarian shop: osm.org/way/905227139/history
This seems to be an error. Can you revisit that?

In this changeset you have mapped osm.org/way/835785516 with "smoothness=impassable". Don't do that. If something is impassable then it is not a track anymore; delete it, or use "abandoned:highway=track" or something like that.

Will you be able to remove the duplicate objects or do you need help with that?

Dear Alizair19, you're editing schools all over the US and applying a hash tag of "#schools". Can you explain what or who is driving this activity? How do you choose the schools you are working on?

It also appears that this edit is similar to one that has been done a few hours ago in osm.org/changeset/105710358 by the user DhiaeAGroom whose account has meanwhile been deleted?

Dear user DMAGM, please explain what you did here. Your changeset bears the tags typically associated with the use of the iD editor. Yet you have somehow amassed 2585 previous empty changesets with this new account which makes it look like you are using some form of scripted upload. Also, this changeset contains many duplicate buildings like osm.org/way/949626613 and osm.org/way/949626320, both added on top of a building that has been existing here for 6 years, osm.org/way/342692673. This is not something that would happen during normal use of the iD editor. Please fix these problems, and explain what software and process you are using to upload these edits.

Hello DannyMcD, in this changeset you have modified osm.org/node/8569961926 to have an "addr:street" tag of "Michael Streetoqua Street". Actually you had contributed this name two months ago, and it had meanwhile been repaired to match the actual name of the nearby street, "Michael Stoqua Street". You have reset this to "Michael Streetoqua Street". Have actually looked at this, or was this a blind revert without care? Because if the street is really called "Michael Streetoqua Street" it would make sense to rename the nearby street also. What is going on here?

Sorry for not making it clear enough. I want that you explain why you reverted this. Only then will I even be able to form an opinion on whether I disagree or not. And I want that you do not ever again revert anything without giving a proper reason, something you owe to your fellow mappers who are looking at edits in the area and trying to understand what is happening.

Dear DhiaeAGroom, can you explain what happened here? You uploaded over 400 buildings with a source of "own data", and then removed them again. What kind of "own data" is this? Are you working for a construction company or planning office or something like that?

"reverter plugin" I meant to say.

Hey there DannyMcD, the use of the reverted plugin to revert whole changesets is a relatively drastic action that requires a good reason. You have not given any in this changeset comment. Why did you revert these edits?

Hello Dirk, when you contribute to OSM, you should choose a changeset comment that explains what you have done in this session. This changeset comment needs to be understood by people who do not have a HOT background. Your repeated comment of "#hotosm-project-10739 #MissingMaps_DRK #redcross #missingmaps" does not fulfil that requirement. Please try to write something like "traced buildings in PLACENAME" or whatever it is that you did. -- Also, if your editor shows you a warning about buildings overlapping with other buildings or streets, try to investigate and fix the problem - since buildings and streets rarely share the same space, one of the two must be wrong.

Dear vootza, in this changeset you have modified the name tag of osm.org/way/45073278 from Ukrainian to Russian. Given that this street is in the Ukraine, a renaming to Russian should be accompanied by a very good explanation or ideally photographic evidence. In the future, whenever you change any name tag in the Ukraine to Russian, please always provide some form of proof that this name is the primary name on signs.

Vielleicht können wir die Diskussion über "Sockenpuppen" hier beenden. Grundsätzlich darf sich jeder in OSM mehrere Accounts anlegen, da ist per se erstmal nichts Böses dabei. Vielleicht mappt einer mit einem Zweitaccount in China, weil er verhindern will, dass er bei einer eventuellen künftigen Reise dorthin an der Grenze aufgegriffen wird. Oder jemand verwendet einen Zweitaccount im Urlaub, damit nicht jeder in OSM gleich weiss, dass dieser Mapper dort Urlaub gemacht hat. Das ist alles legitim. Selbst wenn jemand in seiner Vergangenheit in OSM viel Mist gebaut hat und gerne einen "sauberen" Neustart mit einem neuen Account will, ist das noch in Ordnung. Was wir nicht erlauben, ist das Anlegen von Zweit-Accounts zur Umgehung einer Benutzersperre oder zur absichtlichen Täuschung, z.B. um sich selber in einer Diskussion "zuzustimmen" oder in einem Edit-War den Eindruck zu erwecken, es gäbe eine Mehrheit für ein bestimmtes Tagging oder so. Man kann beautifulplaces völlig zu Recht viele Vorwürfe machen, was das Mapping oder das ständige "doxen" von Privatpersonen und ihren Arbeitsplätzen (und damit verbunden haltlosen Spekulationen über mögliche geheime Agenden) betrifft, und all das zusammen ist der Grund, warum eine weitere Zusammenarbeit mit ihm hier im Projekt nicht funktionieren wird. Die Erstellung von Mehrfach-Accounts ist meines Erachtens keines dieser Probleme.

GoodClover, your comments are not helpful; I am pretty certain that rarely anybody making high-level tagging plans on the wiki and the tagging list has contacted small local communities like the Lithuanian one. Tomas is right in so far as that wiki votes and tagging list discussions are not binding for local communities to follow - even though it can of course happen that data consumers like rendering engines slowly follow "new" standards leading to those rejecting them getting a less nice map. The crucial question here is whether the Lithuanian community actually exists as a group and stands behind Tomas, in which case his rejection of FriendlyGhost's mapping would be ok, or whether this is essentially one stubborn person clamouring for souvereignity when nobody else really cares. Tomas, be careful what you wish for - any global mechanism for making authoritative tagging decisions will probably overrule a small community like yours 10 times out of 10. The current system allows everyone some leeway where they feel it is important and it works on the whole. This sometimes requires some compromise. When was the last time you changed your mind on something regarding OSM tagging? Are you only this stubborn if someone from outside of Lithuania tags something you don't like, or do Lithuanian users get the same "I have been here for over 10 years, I know what is right and you know nothing" treatment?

Tomas, could you point out how the Lithuanian community makes decisions like whether to "go for something like landuse=moat, or landuse=basin+basin=moat"?