"... you decided that OSM data will benefit from adding such geometries?". Not those buildings in particular - But in my opinion, those few bad buildings are justified, because the overwhelming majority of the buildings are good and those 130k good buildings outweigh the -let it be 50- bad buildings. (no, I didn't add them intentionally)
You can look at it that way, but you don't have to. I do.

"but they are all useless". Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're useless. Besides that, many arguments are just replies to your questions.
"Continuing to argue when I have probably said more than five times to cut it out is more rude" What?! Of course i'm arguing, it is my good right to voice my opinion. I don't care if you don't want to hear it, you started all of this. I'm not going to stop only because you don't agree with me.
"since you are incapable of either listening or arguing in good faith."
Who do you think I am? Your son whom you can tell what to do and what not to do? Who has to "listen" to you and do what you want? No. Also, where do I argue in bad faith?

I apologize for insulting & ignoring guidelines. I'm not apologizing for any edits, I fail to see any damage caused. I'm not going to do undiscussed and unreviewed imports.

"I'm going to the DWG." Why? Because you don't agree with me? Seriously, what do you hope to achieve? The stuff (+some other innocent things) is already reverted.

"Which one is the case here?"
None. The data quality is overall good, most of those examples aren't significant quality issues.
I already answered the other questions.

Valid objects like way/1084826654 were deleted too. Data quality is now definitely far worse than before... but who cares. The evil import is gone, some good things too, but some things are unavoidable, right?

"changing the subject" - I'm bringing attention to some way bigger problems no one really bothers/does anything about.

"All you've done is insult..."
All that was done to me: My work got deleted, my arguments largely ignored (not bothered to reply), I was depicted as vandal. My argumentations are called "only insults" and more. And that's all completely fine?

"trying their best, they are always more accurate" - But (almost) no one is trying their best. If everyone tried their absolute best everywhere, we wouldn't get anywhere.

"If you're so concerned about wasting time, this discussion seems like the best place to save some" - To let you or anyone else do whatever you/they want with my edits? No thanks.

Now, go through some "random" hand-traced buildings and look how bad they are. But since those edits are not so visible like this edit, you (& no one else, otherwise I wouldn't come across them so often) don't care. Nice.
Have you ever looked at some "random" HOT-buildings? They look poorer than the country they're in, but no one cares.
Don't tell me some stuff like "BeCAuSe TheRe ArE bAd tHingS, yoU can't aDd eVeN moRe!!1!1" I can, I even have to. This is still far better than most hand-drawn buildings and fulfils the quality expectations & uses of 99% of normal data users.
But since you "modified" only 6k buildings all-time, it is possible that you do not know this.
Congratulations to anyone who wastes their time tracing anything by hand here.

The thing with several accounts - that's indeed very weird.
I'm sure he's been doing this for at least a year, with 10-20 "sockpuppet" accounts, as such experienced zero-to-ten-edit accounts are repeatedly found under my edits - and also at many other people's. (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=16805615&commented) The topic also came up in the OSM US Slack multiple times. Unfortunately, these accounts never answer when asked about it.

Why do you create tons of sockpuppets to comment, why don't you use your main account?

"Unmodified Bing footprints in the dataset don't really benefit people that much." - I don't agree with that. Obviously, the main map(s) on osm.org and many other OSM data products can be used much easier for orientation. And also, to modify/enrich them with additional infos ... they still have to be drawn by someone.

"Still, my opinion doesn't matter until a discussion is had on the import"
Well, it is an manually reviewed import (except those 0,015%, but ... come on) and for these the import procedure is not necessary.
However, this does not mean that your opinion is meaningless and I don't care about it. But simply delete everything, I don't consider that to be a good idea at all.

Fixed those 4+another one in the area. Were the only broken buildings in the area.
I didn't use Rapid - but MS Footprints, which are a known & widely used data source. "An entire group" is an exaggeration. A group would be a block or something, no, we're talking about 4 buildings. I probably fixed something nearby, zoomed in, and when I zoomed out I missed that map part.
"that's twenty per second. That is literally impossible." - I said "over 2 hours", so it could be close to three. Am I expected to set up a timer?
And no, it is not impossible if you hover in a low zoom level over the data. Because the overwhelming majority doesn't need fixing.

Yes, it is an import, but an manually reviewed one. Also, what do you want? Do you just like deleting data, or do you seriously think reverting will improve the map quality? The buildings will be better if someone uses his/her time to trace those buildings by hand, when he could be adding driveways, pois, landuses and whatever instead?
Rather trace everything by hand, to avoid ... 0,01538% (assuming pessimistic 20 bad ones) bad buildings? Not in proportion.

Preparing the upload over two hours is still my work.
I "bothered" to do the licence check already a half year ago, HIFLD is US Goverment data which is in public domain.

osm.wiki/RapiD
Why does https://i.imgur.com/S1rKF9m.png apply to most of my edits (and humanity in general)?
I added ~130k buildings here. And no, not without any review. I went trough all the buildings, and have very often adjusted rotations, added minimal details, rounded etc. This took over two hours. And because I missed a few buildings/edges out of 130k, then of course that means I didn't review anything....

Deleting my stuff without caring for anything i wrote because your principles are hurted (which you supposedly do not even like yourself) is totally acceptable and welcomed?
"your own lack of sincerity" What "lack of sincerity"?
"All you've said has failed to address that this is an import." - I never said it isn't an import, did you bother to read the account's name?
"You are making no attempt to reach a resolution to this dispute" - So writing a long novel explaining my actions and EVEN explicitly saying that i'm going to improve things is "not even an attempt" for you?

"NoT yOUr pERsonal daTabaSE"- are you fucking serious? I have not even remotely spoken of this - did you even think for a second about what I was babbeling?
"If you'd actually like to contribute to the community" I don't give a shit about "contributing to the community", am I a "community manager" or what? I "would like to contribute" to the (community's) data, that's what i'm here for.
And stick your hypocritical fake-sorry up your ass, I feel extremely mocked by this. Youre obviously not sorry, not the slightest, if you do not care to respond to a single thing i wrote about.

What I think I have to make very clear here: It's in my own best interest to get good/excellent data related to energy infrastructure - and I think my approach is the best for such data on OSM. And i'm probably more interested in that than most other people here (I know that this sounds very narcissistic -I don't like my wording either!- but since I keep an eye on changes in this field I know that quite a lot of other people's edits are pretty lousy)

When I map pipelines, I often come across those stations and then copy the relevant information from the HIFLD data - which takes me significantly more time than just getting it out at once now.

Also, it seems like some people think i just download the orginal data and upload it here within 5 minutes. No, I invested a lot of time - fixing title capitalisation/reviewing them, fixing operator capitalisation, reviewing locations, changing tags, fix names/review them (i've gone through the whole list and fixed a lot of names, although, I may have missed a few.), i identified ~80 already mapped stations and more. But if I now also documented everything, discussed, voted and whatever else it would have taken significantly longer - mainly my time - in which I could also have copied the stations one by one from the HIFLD, just like i did so far. Of course, you can always find something that could be done better (BTW, sometimes i come across older edits of mine, noticing things i did wrong and fix them) - but is it worth the time?
For example, the ref in name issue: I think it's a very insignificant problem, which I can also take care of when I add the connecting pipelines some day. Website issue: A year or so ago I saw 3 or 5 stations tagged by someone else with the parent's company of the pipeline company website. (removed it nonetheless, but because the site was dead) So I included those websites here as well - compressor stations usually don't have "official" websites anyway and this might be better than no website at all.
I will look what I can improve, but I also belive the import is a massive enhancement for OSM energy mapping - certainly not "deleterious".

My bad quality imports? Aww, :(
I "give a shit on criticism" - except when it comes from zero-edit sockpuppet (troll?) accounts, like you, @Vildeu.

Nowhere - I don't waste my time on bureaucratic nonsense for small imports in whose subject area I am the only mapper with significant contributions- I make actually useful contributions in the meantime.
But if you have questions, I will happily answer them.
------------------------
Because it dosen't have to be like that, nothing is duplicated.
Thats like a MC-Donalds building mapped as building=yes and the shop node placed above the building (instead sharing the outline) - it's not wrong. I will merge those when I add the connecting pipelines, but it is ultimatively-low priority.

wrong account, not an import

Added.

The source is the Texas RRC Website - public domain data (https://mft.rrc.texas.gov/link/d4eda8c4-9ff0-43b7-8f19-da0a57f10fd2). Everything manually reviewed - and I will also add further detail by adding substations/wellsites/valves/etc later (and did that already on large parts of southern tx).

Restored some.

railway=abandoned means that a railroad used to be there and that this is still visible. Both conditions apply, so i'll restore it.