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.
Secondly
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.
Thirdly
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.
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.
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.”
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” <https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm> 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 <https://portaldatransparencia.gov.br/servidores/>. 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.
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”.
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.
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.
I have looked at the flagged posts, thank you for making your complaint more specific. However, your point that @EvertonBortolini has flagged several of your posts does not demonstrate abuse of moderator powers. Flagging a post is an action available to most users, it does not require moderator privileges. So in my view, there is indeed insufficient reason for @forums-governance to take action.
Posts on this thread were flagged by a large number of different users who are unlikely to act in a coordinated fashion, including users with no relationship to HOT or the Latin American communities at all.
This post was not hidden by @EvertonBortolini and was handled by other Brazil mods.
This post was not hidden by @EvertonBortolini and was handled by other Brazil mods.
This flag was not reviewed by any of the Brazilian moderators. The flagging system probably doesn’t give great feedback when multiple people have flagged a post for different reasons, but five different people flagged this post for being off-topic, inappropriate, and “something else”.
It took longer than desirable to deal with the flagging because there are a small number of people with moderation powers over the site suggestions category. I handled it because I felt it should not wait until the next forums governance meeting. I am not employed by HOT, and have no affiliation with it.
This does not seem related to any actions he has taken as a Brazilian moderator. Discourse moderators do not control wiki content.
When reviewing the topics you linked, I saw some flags from @EvertonBortolini were rejected by the other Brazilian moderators, so they are clearly applying independent judgement. I also saw flags from large numbers of users when your posts reached a wider audience, many of whom have no affiliation with the Latin American communities or HOT.
I see no conflicts of interest in the moderation actions you linked, because none of them were taken by employees of HOT, which is what you were alledging.
Thank you everyone. I’m okay if this thread is closed, without any changes.
I wasn’t aware the moderators actually could see the flags on Discourse in detail. So this actually reduces incentive for one of the core arguments I was suspecting as possible, and from that I assumed a single moderator (plus help of small number accounts) could actually manipulate. This is not viable. Great.
To keep my final comment very short: the other mods on Brasil (Brazil), in particular after knowing more about the case, can still make peer pressure if they want to, since the entire situation is bringing a lot of unnecessary bad attention.
: