Complaint by fititnt about communities:br moderator

TL;DR: I want to complain about the moderator (the same warned early) on #communities:br which already in conflict of interest by his employee is using the forum to incentive others to hide content which can be used to know further information to reveal if actions of a proto-working group is doing could be or not a crime in Brazil. Also, on Mapeamento Aberto para Gestão de Riscos - reunião para conversar sobre o assunto - #30 by EvertonBortolini, the moderatior implied that even contacting the person might break the forum rules; to be fair, I’m even suspecting that cited names may either not exist or not be aware their name was used in the minutes, so this is a reason to further believe that any average user of this forum could be harassed by certifying if what’s coordinated by the moderator is true or not.

To start, I will also ping both @WarpathPeacock and @apm-wa (they’re from Moderation Committee) and point to the public reply from the OpenStreetMap Foundation board that they need to give me access to content previously mentioned in the suspension I had early this year, as described here,_prior_to_an_appeal. I will also preventively request all content from me, involving Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc, which could become deleted from public view after that suspension and also allow to have a backup copy in a way that could grant its authenticity to be usable as evidence if submitted in criminal investigation. Note that this is not about “protecting OpenStreetMap brand”, but can serve as proof that “pessoa jurídicas” with clearance and natural persons (e.g. researchers in Brazil from civil defense organizations) if become involved in crimes could be simply because were made believe that an external actor to the country sponsored the actions.

As context, emergency response in Brazil is closest to how it is done in the USA (or any country following the Protocol I but with strong component on leadership still in control of military with a mix of civil government, so the Europeans here can assume is not far different than in your country, however HOTUSI does not operate in Europe) than Haiti, the “Republic of NGOs” which somewhat is the book reference on how HOTUSI was born and to this day despite billions of foreign aid is a failed state that not even HOTUSI do maphatons anymore. This means that not only the leadership of emergency response is the role of government/military, but INGOs/NGOs (even Red Cross and UN agencies) have “pessoa jurídica” and comply with laws related to money transferring and, obviously, other local laws. And how any “pessoa jurídica” is formalized, in addition to having lower taxes in case of some NGOs, this restricts what operations can do. Getting a “pessoa jurídica” for roles related to civil defense is obviously far stricter, and this also applies to certain operations that deal with receiving money from the government or military. This explain why (similar to how I assume any company, NGO or not, even in Europe), do not advertise a service which is stricter regulated in own region because this could lead to close the company.

So, what’s the recent deal? Well, a recent wave of hidden messages on #communities:br stated after on this thread…

…become clear that the HOTUSI doesn’t even have a “pessoa jurídica” in Brazil, so is not even about having specific authorization to operate or not. This alone is a red flag since this can be used to make it harder for local authorities to require response as part of investigations. If any crime is discovered (not only, but as example, lack of proper authorization to coordinate roles) by the formal authorities, those who would be affected are the companies or natural persons either paid or convinced to join this, so yes, is from the Interest of Brazilians to know HOTUSI doesn’t have a CNPJ in Brazil. The first wave of flagged content from me is not even (at least not yet, but maybe would be argued later that I cannot attach a email picture on the forum because the moderator forced be to send email, not replied that they don’t have a CNPJ) about lack of CNPJ of HOTUSI, but my comments related that the role of civil defense leadership in Brazil is the government+military, not NGOs, not even international NGOs. So, the major reason to me to ask @forums-governance to suspend the moderator on Brazil which is also a employer of HOTUSI is by recent, consistent attempts to incite mass flagging, to censor the my comments which are, at minimum, suspecting warnings in which HOTUSI can be discovered eventually to not be authorized to operate in Brazil by formal investigation. There’s several other moderators, but it is not my lack of extra existing moderators on #communities:br

Not sure if I would need to make a formal request to the working group related to trademark of OpenStreetMap (but anyways, I will ping @Mateusz_Konieczny and also 2 who sometimes correct attempts to HOTUSI appears to represent OpenStreetMap, @SomeoneElse and @SimonPoole). But I kindly ask anyone here who could edit this wiki pageão_de_Riscos_de_Desastres/Reunião_1 and add some note to warn that “Hub de Mapeamento Aberto para a América Latina e Caribe do Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOTOSM);” is not formally endorsed by OSMF as local representant OpenStreetMap. I prefer to not involve myself in edit wars in the Wiki, however the way other Brazilians and organization are contacted in Brazil to join the working group, the fact of contain “OpenStreetMap” on its name and be be on the Wiki can be perceived as “be official” representant in Brazil, which is both misleading and can further damage OpenStreetMap trademark in case of investigations evolve in concrete forms and actions become public. Actually, even without formal formal investigations, calls to action to volunteer on OpenStreetMap could become alerted as scam by local municipalities, similar on how they already do when money is asked to help people affected by disasters, so the distinction still relevant.

What I can affirm immediately is the following: at least part of what’s used as a showcase for HOTUSI volunteering platform and this proto working group to operate in Brazil is flawed . The cited names of the persons who supposedly visit one of the affected cities (e.g. what’s on the link for the wiki) was not recognized by the civil defense coordination of that region (and I have this by email). The same cited person also mention be together in that city with to evaluate the situation and get data from affected population with members of CEMADEN (a federal level agency) which aren’t viable to confirm if these are really from CEMADEN, but anyway it’s named coordinator wasn’t acknowledged by the true coordination of local civil defense. Also, all local NGOs (either mentioned in the wiki, or that typically work with HOTUSI in Brazil, so they could appear in future) aren’t the ones of with the kind of CNPJ (the Brazilian number for companies) that can coordinate emergency response. The implication is if neither HOTUSI have authorization do it alone with his own “pessoa jurídica” and cannot prove the parts of government/military branches focused in civil defense are involved (and know that are involved, government can sometimes delegate work, but this only is done in advance, with security clearance) then this is reason for authorities in Brazil to investigate, since this is a red flag that organized group already impersonated coordination of civil defense (aka government/military). And by the way, they’re saying in public that planning to do it again.

That’s what I have to say. Even if I got suspended again by the Moderation Committee, instead of dedicating time defending from tone policing, it is far better for me to continue helping the local authorities. The bizarre is that even others in that group complained about data from the mapathons not be usable by civil defense (who don’t know Portuguese, use automated translation), which further justify my complain to suspend the moderator, because of his attempt to imply rules of the forum of unsolicited messages to allow cross communication between the persons.

Is there a reason why this is in this thread, instead of separate one? It does not seem related.

Thanks for that TL;DR summary at least :smile: . Trying to make sense of that post seems littered with several different things that do not seem to make much sense to me (if you have several different issues, might I suggest opening a separate thread for each one? That might make it more readable).

Are you sure you wanted to make this a public post, as it seems it needs a intimate knowledge of things that are not known to public?

Well, if you wish to complain about some moderator, I’d guess you should specify which one? I can’t find that in that TL;DR.

I don’t speak the language, but the Discourse translation claims this was said: @fititnt For ethical reasons regarding privacy, I advise you to contact people to ask for their emails and ask for permission to send them messages.” - is that fair translation? If so, I don’t see how you inferred that it means “contacting the person might break the forum rules”?

You can contact the people by using community forum, like I can mention @fititnt, right? Don’t you think the users have a right to decide whether they should share their e-mail with somebody? In EU it is a law, I have no idea about Brazil, but it seems common sense and polite thing to do anywhere. If someone wants to give you their e-mail, they can do it themselves, right?

What “cited names”? That post you qouted in your TL;DR above does not seem to cite any names?

Um, where is in those Minutes stated that they “need to give you access to content previously mentioned in the suspension”? If anything, it says “In general we are not going to publish private messages in such context” which seems to me completely opposite to what you claim?

… From trying to read the rest of the post (which is very hard. Perhaps some of it is due to English not being your native language, but you should try to be more concise in any case; introduction to how NGOs work around the world does not seem required information unless asked for) I can only gleam that (one of the?) issue might be related that “some HOTUSI member is refering to HOTUSI as members and groups of the Brazilian OpenStreetMap community”, which might be problematic, but your TL;DR does not even mention that so it is complete mystery to me what are you complaining about exactly.


… same to me.

@fititnt: you are addressing the whole community here. Could you explain in some very few sentences and plain words what exactly your problem is and what it has to do with moderator selection criteria?


First, this recent discussion looks to me off-topic, which I would suggest to be moved to another thread. Regarding the convoluted message,

Not true. Please do not accuse the BR moderators of being puppets.

Also not true. Only 1 (one) message was hidden, because you didn’t follow the etiquette guidelines.

Actually, it looks to me that you are not following the etiquette guidelines, despite being already warned about that. From your recent messages here and on the Brazilian space, it seems that you are not acting in good faith nor being respectful, while posting false or inaccurate information.

Additionally, the guidelines give some tips for effective communication, such as staying on topic, trying to be concise, without avoid repeating yourself when making your point on a thread. Finally, it recommends to start a new thread if you want to introduce a new topic.

All these bold verbatim sentences come from the guidelines, and I would like to suggest you start a new topic, stating your idea in a clear and concise way. As it can be seen by previous messages from other members, you’re not making yourself clear, so we can’t do much about what you’re trying to say until we can fully understand it.


@fititnt, you have GOT to learn how to reduce the length of your remarks if you want to have any hope of convincing anyone of your ideas. I know of many community members that ignore your posts simply because they are difficult to read and confusing. “Oh look, another massive wall of text from @fititnt”.

The sheer volume of your communications is disrespectful to everyone’s time on a volunteer project.

Please, be specific about what the problem is, use links, don’t repeat yourself, and get off the stage once you’ve made your point.


Yeah c’mon @fititnt. There’s lots of ways to criticize any big org like HOT (maybe not here), but people are not gonna read so much text.


I got curious and i tried to make sense of it:

  • So, you want to complaint about Moderator in BR because of conflict of interest due to his employment/affiliation with HOTUS?
  • The mod is trying to influence others to hide content that contains information about a proto-working group that could be illegal.
  • You are saying that HOTUS can/should not operate legally in Brazil? And it may legally be problematic if it does operate?
  • And the wiki-page got an edit war? Althouth i don’t understand why?

These are the points i was able to take out of this? Is this correct?

Conflict of interest
Well, if the moderator is an employee at HOTUS it should be mentioned on the profile page if the work in OSM they do is in name of HOTUS. If its ‚just‘ private, its fine imo.
We have a moderator in our crew that is an employee of an in osm active company as well. Not a problem by default.

Hiding information and suggestings other to do as well
The post Mapeamento Aberto para Gestão de Riscos - reunião para conversar sobre o assunto - #30 by EvertonBortolini translates for me with deepl to „@fititnt For ethical reasons regarding privacy, I advise you to contact people to ask for their emails and ask for their permission to send messages to them.“ And thats a perfectly fine and normal request and i would do the same if(!) there are private names mentioned.

I translated the whole post with deepl and i could not find any names mentioned. The post was not edited as well. So this warning seems to me a bit out of place.

So, i’m getting out of this is the following:
You have a problem with what HOTUS is doing in brazil and because the moderator seems to be affiliated somehow, there is a problem as well?




if you have concerns about a conflict of interest situation for a moderator, you should raise the issue with the OSMF board. The ‘gang of five’ selected by the OSMF board has no original jurisdiction to intervene in communications on country subforums. If the OSMF board declines your request then your only recourse is to do a better job of convincing your compatriots that Everton needs to be removed as a moderator. Reading over your conversations and interactions on the Brazil subforum, your aggressiveness seems to be more alienating than convincing. If your diatribes against this man extend to any channels under our purview, our hands will be forced to conduct a review of your behavior in the interest of upholding the etiquette guidelines against possible violations.


You seem certain that HOT is violating some Brazilian legal statutes. If you want HOT to ultimately cease its activities related to Brazil, please take the personal initiative to contact the appropriate Brazilian government organization that has the power to force legal compliance. Submitting an ethics complaint to the appropriate entity would do far more to further your goal than these inscrutable long messages to what seems a mostly unsympathetic audience.


Your description of the linked board minutes in your original message is a fiction and has little relation to providing copies of previously censored or altered public messages. Reviewing the board minutes you provide carefully, the content concerns your request to access “all textual evidence for the ban, including hidden context from the public”. The board interpreted your request as asking for access to direct communications between moderators concerning your previous ban.

Based on this interpretation, they dismissed your appeal. Their dismissal is explicit in the meeting notes. In the minutes: “The ban under discussion expired weeks ago. In general, we are not going to publish private messages in such context.”

What I think happened with regards to your communications with the board is that your communication style failed you. You consistently fail to recognize when brevity would make your points more persuasive or understandable.

Please take seriously what I had to say in this message. I hope you constructively apply my advice. You might win over more people that way.


One minor clarification: the “gang of five” can intervene in a country or regional forum channel only if that channel’s moderators specifically request us to do so. We have no original jurisdiction in such channels, only jurisdiction when it is delegated by channel moderators.


If I recall from the moderation & EG process, the moderators are supposed to follow the OSMF Conflict of Interest Policy, so if it concerns their employer, they aren’t supposed to take action on a topic, or talk about it at all. Recall that a CoI policy protects the employee. It prevents the employer from coercing the employee, because the employer already knows it’s pointless. :slightly_smiling_face:


That sounds like a reasonable way to handle it, but does it indeed apply to Discourse category moderators?

I cannot seem to find any mention of it in Moderator selection criteria topic, and I’m not aware of any other places where this requirement has been stated, so perhaps that has been board topic or something?

As a moderator, I would definitely like to be made aware of such policies that apply to moderators!


I sent an email to the board about this in June, because the COI applies to some moderators but not others. I haven’t heard back. Members of the moderation team for talk@ and osmf-talk@ would be covered by the COI policy as a similar OSMF body

From my email at the time,

The WG COI policy (Working Group Conflict of Interest Policy - OpenStreetMap Foundation) states that that COI applies to WGs, committees, special committees or similar OSMF bodies. This has lead to a situation where some communication channel moderators are subject to the COI policy, but others are not. Members of the moderation team for talk@ and osmf-talk@ would be covered by the COI policy, but most moderators are not.

I recommend the board update the WG COI policy to change the first sentence to state “By board decision, this document is used as the default Conflict of Interest policy for any Working Group, committee, special committee, similar OSM Foundation body, or moderators of an OSMF-hosted communications channel.”

I don’t think any of this matters for fititnt’s complaint, given previous moderator actions taken by people who were subject to the COI guidelines, but it would be good to get COI guidelines applying to everyone.


I sent an email to the board about this in June, because the COI applies to some moderators but not others. I haven’t heard back.

The OSM Foundation board approved on 2023-06-24 the following resolution: 2023/12 “Update the Working Group Conflict of Interest policy to extend to moderators etc.”

Update the Working Group Conflict of Interest policy to change the first sentence to state “By board decision, this document is used as the default Conflict of Interest policy for any Working Group, committee, special committee, similar OSM Foundation body, or moderators of an OSMF-hosted communications channel.”

6 Likes +ão_de_Riscos_de_Desastres/Reunião_1

2023-08-16 :green_circle::school::

Text added on on 2023-08-22 (before this, this message was hidden, “Your post was flagged as off-topic: the community feels it is not a good fit for the topic, as currently defined by the title and the first post.)”

The link is a public news from São Sebastião/SP, where two big NGOs received complaints from the population of affected areas (there’s even protests in the roads, which became noticed by local news, I will not attach the photos of the protest here but is possible to follow links on the post). The municipality government was initially accused by its own population of not giving the donations, but these donations were in control of these NGOs (which got a lot of publicity in the middle of the crisis as go-to for donations). The whole situation forced the municipal government of São Sebastião/SP, with help from the Province government of São Paulo, to take action to make the NGOs expenses be investigated. They took as evidence for example, the simplified public spending not matching people who didn’t receive money in the early days of the calamity.

The result of the investigation is not finished (and it is likely they might attempt an agreement with Ministerio Publico if they made something wrong). Yet, as a fact, both NGOs at least admit they’re holding money (without being clear how much) that still needs to be passed for the population, despite several months after the event, so at minimum, they’re less efficient than the local government itself.

From the body of the initial post, two quotes to not make this (now edited) reply still on topic, since I mentioned that messages which could reveal doing or not a crime could be hidden.

TL;DR: I want to complain about the moderator (the same warned early) on Brasil (Brazil) which already in conflict of interest by his employee is using the forum to incentive others to hide content which can be used to know further information to reveal if actions of a proto-working group is doing could be or not a crime in Brazil. (…)

(…)The cited names of the persons who supposedly visit one of the affected cities (e.g. what’s on the link for the wiki) was not recognized by the civil defense coordination of that region (and I have this by email). (…)

As said previously (and despite attempted confusion with not-even-confirmed endorsement from another municipality, Guarulhos/SP) the call-for-mapping was not recognized by the civil defense of São Sebastião/SP (“COMDEC São Sebastião/SP”), which actually replied very fast by mail, but at that time I was not aware that had all this massive public discussion with now NGOs acted in that city. The minutes of the proto working-group (while open to partnerships with government) already were considering work with local NGOs as alternative mapping activities.

Mentioned the links for both a post and the Wiki minutes, because they share in common “Instituto Verdescola”, which is one of the 2 big NGOs. I have no further more specific opinion what relation the proto working group (which is coordinated by the moderator which is also employee of Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc) have with the NGO, but I’m sorry, they’re using both OSMF-sponsored forum and the OSM Wiki to cite that NGO which even the local population from the affected areas gone on the streets to protest asking where the money gone. Also the civil defense Province of São Paulo (which includes both cities I said not be the same) also is, as is mentioned in the news, supporting the investigation of the government of São Sebastião/SP of NGOs, so regardless of be truly coincidence, the cases of use of the group, are very bad for trust inside Brazil on the very same organizations that would lead emergency response, it is just more obvious in São Paulo province. Also, before attempting this local NGO, the only reference of potentially any organization behind would be the civil defense of a different city (which still not confirmed if was endorsed activity or not)

Also, the news in Portuguese , not because of the proto working group on Brasil (Brazil), but the NGOs in São Sebastião/SP and and even one from the province of Minas Gerais paid by the NGOs, already do exist a very high awareness of NGOs attempting to work on disaster response in Brazil while asking donations. So an additional reason to me to suggest edit the Wiki and try to distanciate OpenStreetMap brand from this working group is that the civil defense at city level might make public statement of the activities on OpenStreetMap are part of a financial donations scam (data not used for the emergency). This may seem too much, but note that they could do this because of the kind of local NGO allowing reuse of its name for coordinating the mappaton or even if it is promised that anyone without experience could do it.

PS.: In addition to a COMDEC/COMPDEC (coordination of civil defense at municipality level) do not allow work without invite in a different municipality than it own territory, any individual either from universities or member of education programs of federal-level government agencies cannot go public and imply coordinate civil defense in a city without explicitly authorization. In Brazil, by law, the lead response is at municipality level, all the rest of civil defense coordination as support. So any of you receive affirmations contrary to this to refute my complaints, please record.

If the intention was to convey some information to other people reading the thread, it seems to have failed @fititnt, at least for me.

Would you care to provide some context about what those links are supposed to show, and how they relate to the topic of this thread?

Please don’t post link-only posts, it is rude to other readers and wastes their time. Links should be used only to augment the text of the post with external references and other details (if needed), not as a replacement for writing a human-readable post.


Agora argumente o que você quer insinuar ao me marcar neste post e me associar com esta notícia sobre a ONG.

Acha que estou envolvido, é isso? Explique o que quis dizer! Quero saber qual a sua opinião sobre isso. Ou está com medo de falar? O que tem a esconder?

Mandou diversos e-mails para meu local de trabalho pedindo informações sobre mim e agora está com medo de responder o que o Coordenador da Defesa Civil de Guarulhos lhe enviou!

Seja aberto aqui para falar sobre isso e para que todos saibam quem é você. Que você fica fuçando sobre a vida das pessoas em seus locais de trabalho. Olhando perfil do LinkedIn para conseguir informações e criar argumentos sem base.

A Defesa Civil de Guarulhos trabalha 24 horas por dia. Estarei lá hoje, inclusive. Que tal dar uma passada lá pra conversarmos sobre isso tudo? Se passar por Guarulhos, disque 199 que teremos o prazer em lhe atender, porém não temos tempo pra infantilidades.

Qual seu problema? Já pensou em procurar ajuda? Terapia talvez. A título de informação, sociopatia tem cura.

Já que gosta de questionar tudo, honre com seus princípios (se é que os tenha). Parece que não saiu dos 7 anos de idade ainda. Parece uma criança que pergunta tudo. Porém, diferente da inocência de uma criança, você é mal intencionado, inútil à sociedade e quer expor as pessoas, que você nem conhece, ao ridículo. A se expor você tem medo, só questiona para dar exposição aos outros. Você está escondendo algo e não quer que saibamos.

Please flag any message that is inappropriate so moderators can take action (including temporary or permanent suspension of bad actors), and please do report any and all cyberbullying and other forms of abuse.

Do try to avoid engaging in communication with trolls, as that is exactly what they want from you. It will only result in more and more provocations.


[I avoid meta discussions, but I will do now, because is relevant]

For moderators, please do not delete (or, if have to, at least, not without take copy with long term archiving, in which you can affirm that comes from same online user) any post from others where the supposed attacked person is me.

I will not “flag” such posts, even with ad hominem (in particular the recent one), and will ask to not delete, because in the middle of text it has affirmations that need to be checked with relevant authorities. When is via “Lei de Acesso à Informação” <> each request takes up to 20 + 10 days. However the behavior of the public, in particular from whoever affirms itself to be a public servant or implying endorsement from employees from government/military organizations, is subject to other internal channels in Brazil, which by the way, are taken more seriously than when a non public servant does.

Also, for context with those not aware of level of transparency in Brazil, with exception of employees where there’s risk for national security their Identity be leaked, both monthly payments and full personal names of everyone employed by government is public Information published online, such as (not only) on <>. While private companies and NGOs in Brazil do not need detailed individual-level transparency, local NGOs which ask donations inside and outside Brazil (such as for disaster response) and which does receive government money can (when government receive complains, such as mismatch of simplified public explanation of expenses) be subject to detailed, government-level, need to prove of how they expend money, (a level of compliance is very very hard). And if fail and NGO cannot pay back diverged money (the alternative often means a financial plan with an agreement with Ministério Público, to avoid the NGO diverge even more money in future projects), those responsible for the local NGO go to jail when government while trying to check misuse of own payments actually discover misuse of donations.

Like I said initially, please do not delete (or at least make a copy which can be used for in the future). I do not plan to engage in personal attacks.

(humm, for some reason this part was cut from the the previous message)

About supposed reply the “Coordenador de Defesa Civil de Guarulhos” gave me, he didn’t confirmed/denied the relation of the person with COMPDEC Guarulhos/SP in written form, which is why I used the Corregedoria Geral da União platform and still waiting, so make no sense the idea that “I’m afraid” to say something, because Mr Pires (e.g the coordinador) still neither confirmed nor denied. Mr Pires only attempt was suggest me that I could talk directly via phone call, which I would not be able to use as proof, since in the written form also asked if the position on COMPDEC Guarulhos/SP would authorize such individual operate in the area of COMDEC São Sebastião/SP (yes, when is very relevant, I do avoid use use communication channel which cannot be recorded). What may not be obvious for outsiders is that Guarulhos/SP is merely a city, and even if someone is from the civil defense of one city. it doesn’t mean it is from all others, not even in the same province in Brazil. So, this is why bragging in public of (supposedly) being from COMPDEC Guarulhos/SP, does not mean being from COMDEC São Sebastião/SP because they are… different cities! And, like I already said, The COMDEC São Sebastião/SP explicitly denied in written form this person being from civil defense in São Sebastião and the COMPDEC Guarulhos/SP still not even confirmed if the person is from the one on Civil Defense in Guarulhos/SP.

@fititnt everyone reading understands you have a long-running dispute with HOT. The details aren’t relevant for if moderators of Brasil (Brazil) have a conflict of interest like you are alledging. If one of them has made decisions where they have a COI, please provide the name of the moderator and a link to the decisions or posts hidden.

If you can’t provide those details, without going on at length about the details of your dispute with HOT, everyone will conclude there is no COI.