I will focus on posts and short explanations grouped by theme. It’s 4 paragraphs and a final “Clarification to avoid confusion on what my complaint is not about”.
-
The trigger for “conflict of interest” by @EvertonBortolini on the main thread I referenced, was this post <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapeamento-aberto-para-gestao-de-riscos-reuniao-para-conversar-sobre-o-assunto/98604/27> which would be the activation protocol <https://www.hotosm.org/downloads/ActivationProtocolV2.pdf> by his employer, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc. The post hidden at 25 jul 2023 08:38 / “for moderator attention” was the <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapeamento-aberto-para-gestao-de-riscos-reuniao-para-conversar-sobre-o-assunto/98604/28>, which happened the day after I contacted by email and confirmed that they do not have CNPJ in Brazil and posted a screenshot on the thread.
-
In the same wave of flagged posts around the same time, 25 jul, 08:29 / “inappropriate”, was this one <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unificacao-dos-grupos-de-telegram-osm-brasil/98203/10> (“inappropriate”, but I used a variant of “poop” in Portuguese in a sentence, but if solely that, okay to me edit, that one is well written IMHO). However, that flagged message actually cites a post where @EvertonBortolini starts the thread from a software from his employer <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/coordenacao-das-ferramentas-de-tasking-manager-no-brasil/98110>. So that flagged post explains another thread by the same moderator, potential Conflict of Interest, a sort incentive to “turf war”, and what I would call preparation for Coup d’état: he using his position to propose Task Manager instances where he in the end would be admin in both, while ignoring that already existed a 3rd one from the oldest group in Brazil. Also, quite interesting that the flag on this one was “inappropriate” (not the one about false information), so maybe even the coordinated wave of flags do not attempt to deny the affirmations of he’s using his position! Anyway, the dates show that this kind of flagging has patterns.
-
Also this one I’m not sure. The first hide by off topic of this post <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/complaint-by-fititnt-about-communities-br-moderator/101737/14> before my edit was fair (because I do agree it was incomplete). What actually is strange was the entire mass flagging that locked this entire thread by 3 days (and so, delayed this reply here where I was supposed to reply) was very, very strange.
-
Also, even if there’s insufficient reason to remove @EvertonBortolini for Conflict of Interest at this time on Discourse, I would ask them to edit the wikis <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Grupo_de_Trabalho_em_Mapeamento_Aberto_para_Gest%C3%A3o_de_Riscos_de_Desastres/Reuni%C3%A3o_1> and <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Grupo_de_Trabalho_em_Mapeamento_Aberto_para_Gest%C3%A3o_de_Riscos_de_Desastres/Reuni%C3%A3o_2>, which are used by his working group and used as evidence that the meetings happened. My additional request would be at least add some sort of footnote that his affiliation “Hub de Mapeamento Aberto para a América Latina e Caribe do Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOTOSM);”, which uses name of “OpenStreetMap”, doesn’t imply endorsement or equivalent like a Local Chapter. The trademark policy page on <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy> asks to avoid confusion when reusing the name, under section 2.3. No confusion, endorsement, or affiliation. On this thread <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/criacao-de-grupo-de-trabalho-na-comunidade-do-openstreetmap-brasil/101748> he already mentioned interest in make his “grupo de trabalho” close to an official OSMF Working Group, and since all OSMF Work Groups always have a board member, then if outsiders confuse his affiliation as something “official”, then he and his peers could also convince outside that his working group would also imply similar official OSMF Working Group (just the minutes are not on OSMF wiki, but OSM Wiki).
That’s it.
Clarification to avoid confusion on what my complaint is not about
Just to be very clear, neither all other moderators nor the companies that may be affiliated, are on this complaint. This really affects a single moderator and conflict of interest with this employer. To be more clear, the companies focused on editing the roads (Kaart and ADT), in my current opinion do not seem to have any influence on what their employees do when they are moderators/admins. (And note that I would not omit such criticism from any corporation, but actually they often clean up routing errors without even commenting in public).
This might also be relevant for moderators in other country-level forums (which might fear the recent more explicit policy on conflict of interest for moderators) that both in Brazil and the LATAM one, the paid editing for roads, first, is very hard find errors made by them, and when mappers found, there’s no attempt on censorship. And, anyways, most discussions would happen on changesets, and their OSM accounts on the main website already do disclaimer about their affiliation on road paid editing while they actually avoid using discourse or (what I guess) the old forums to make any influence.