Editing 1677 objects without reviewing them is a mechanical edit.
I cannot find the point in the wiki that man_made=works would contradict any building tag.
Re-reverting a disputed issue within a day is not a good idea.
Adding further tracings to a revert is not a good idea also.

Why did you delete the wastewater plant just to expand it?
Why did you delete the pylon still visible in the images you cite?

Why did you split the forest=wood off the existing way/495678450 and the new MP relation/10784650 ? How is the boundary between them defined?
Why did you remove the forest tag from the natural reserve in relation/113533 w/o providing any other landcover? The area looks definitely tree-covered in the aerial imagery.
Revert in 81796013

Why did you delete, and not refine the cliff of the quarry (way/155605460)? It is obviously still there, though it has moved between the time the Esri and the Maxar image was taken.

This CS was reverted fully in #81794881:
deleting large landuse polygons w/o refinements; compared to some minor tracing.
DWG Ticket#2020022910000011

This CS was reverted fully in #81794881:
deleting large landuse polygons w/o refinements; compared to some minor tracing.
DWG Ticket#2020022910000011

DWG Ticket#2020022910000011
part of coordinated mechanical edit
convoluted manipulation of relations, effectively removing a valid amenity tag in favour of an unusual landuse, while on the other hand removing a valid landuse=industrial from power plant which is a recommended combination;
user did not notice that the website has changed and applied a 404 link

partial revert with comment:
SV: partial revert of #81476305 which maliciously deleted a large landuse relation w/o refining or caring for its members as part of a sockpuppet network; preserving 4 fresh small manmade/industrial

@jobatey - if you recognise it was accidential, why do you call it vandalism?

@jobatey - welche spezifische Kenntnis hast du über den Schutzstatus?

Mark,
what kind of "mechanical fixup" did you "revert" specifically?

Really? You delete 916 freshly traced buildings because they do not hold up to your rectangular expectation of perfection?
What effort did you do to improve them?
Where is you effort to tell the mapper what could be improved?
They ended up to be traced again, and are still not perfect.
OSM is about iteration from course to fine.

Hi Belobog,
I'm trying to understand the logic here.
You say you are reverting a mechanical edit, however many of the object are in v2 in this changeset. That means, they were created in v1 and you changed them to v2.
Could you explain were the mechanical edit was?
Could you explain why many of the objects have never been touched by the user you cited?
Could it be that your changeset is a camouflage mechanical edit, tryng to remove "brand:wikipedia", and by calling it a revert you try to cover the mechanical effect of your effort?
Could you explain your experience with reverts and mechanical edits on the 30th day of OSM experience?

...as in Maxar.

Why did you delete the 11 storage tanks way/484713031 and following? Visible in Bing which you cite, as well as in
Agreeable they are not buildings, but that is not a reason to delete them.

Restored / tag adjusted / 12th added.

You added a nice wastewater plant that is visible only in Maxar, not yet in Bing or Esri.
No problem with that, but you maliciously deleted a basin that is very visible in the Maxar image!

The rest of your changeset is an undiscussed mechanical edit for eroding established amenity tags, unplausible deletion of man_made=works, and adding unplausible landuse values to buildings.

Partially reverted, wastewater plant kept.

Undiscussed mechanical edit was reverted (81700185) for the following reasons:

- malicious deletion of objects created and recently maintained by local mappers, without giving a reason what was broken
- deleting object to re-draw them (133726967 -> 777802967)
- eroding established amenity tags
- introducing implausible building values
- adding landuse tags to unsuitable objects (like buildings)

DWG Ticket#2020022910000011

18 buildings maliciously deleted; implausible landuse
DWG Ticket#2020022910000011

individual parts of the revert:

1 BR: partial revert of #71740390 which was commented; "6 storage tanks have been deleted without reason, still visible in all imagery."

2 BR: update harbour to recommended tagging scheme

3 JA: partial revert of #80164386 which has the comment: "removing natural=coastline tags from small islands (leaving them w/o object tag); deleting landuse/natural relations/polygons w/o refinement." (some obvious adjustment made during the revert)

4 JP: partial revert of #80162510, reason: malicious deletion of buildings; deleting landuse/natural polygons w/o refinement, (some obvious correction contained in the revert)

5 JP: full revert of #80164386, reason:
removing natural=coastline tags from small islands (leaving them w/o object tag); deleting landuse/natural relations/polygons w/o refinement.

all except no 2 under DWG Ticket#2020022910000011

Warum löschst du way/27512997 um die Fläche sogleich als way/735199685 neu zu zeichnen?