This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 3 days.
I will focus on posts and short explanations grouped by theme. Itās 4 paragraphs and a final āClarification to avoid confusion on what my complaint is not aboutā.
-
The trigger for āconflict of interestā 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 / āfor moderator attentionā 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 / āinappropriateā, was this one <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unificacao-dos-grupos-de-telegram-osm-brasil/98203/10> (āinappropriateā, but I used a variant of āpoopā 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 āturf warā, and what I would call preparation for Coup dāĆ©tat: 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 āinappropriateā (not the one about false information), so maybe even the coordinated wave of flags do not attempt to deny the affirmations of heās using his position! Anyway, the dates show that this kind of flagging has patterns.
-
Also this one Iām 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 thereās 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 āHub de Mapeamento Aberto para a AmĆ©rica Latina e Caribe do Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOTOSM);ā, which uses name of āOpenStreetMapā, doesnāt 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 āgrupo de trabalhoā 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 āofficialā, 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).
Thatās 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, thereās 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.
2 Likes
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 doesnāt 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 āsomething elseā.
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.
7 Likes
Thank you everyone. Iām okay if this thread is closed, without any changes.
I wasnāt 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.
1 Like