Oh thank you.

On <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143333801> (among other questions) I asked if validators get special instructions beyond what is already public when  already exists previous data from local mappers. His reply was similar to yours (not only the buildings themselves, but also fix other obvious issues). I also questioned other less experienced validators on different occasions, but beyond squared buildings/overlapping ways comments, they seem to really emphasize automated checks (maybe overly confident about accuracy/completeness of them).

Please note I'm not complaining specifically about you and have no opinion about the armchair mapper (see previous paragraph). But to keep this sort,  in this case,  the building=yes was created as way/1293057728 while <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230883851/history#map=19/-29.50606/-51.96521>, added by local mapper, was deleted.

Again, thank you. I will provide feedback focused on the organisers of this kind of activity (when data by previous local mappers already exist). Currently, no one from the active mappers on Rio Grande do Sul (including ones more receptive to this type of activity) seems willing to review collateral damage if armchair review part of the activity cannot solve it. As one (but eye opening) example, in previous wave of editing (all fully validated by the time I complained) the town house of the city intended to help was deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141685445#map=17/-29.23705/-51.87336 .