The revalidation process was promised to happen once a year. If it didn’t happen in 2023 on Brasil (Brazil). This is why I changed my mind and want to propose myself as moderator there. I’m very sure I can at least make the basics work. Election is a serious thing, and even when re-election is feasible, any previously agreed periodicity becomes very important.
For sake of fairness, I strongly suggest the same benefits/requirements should apply both for current and new candidates.
I suppose I might get attempts to block me from even being a candidate there. However, I have no active sanction against me. And I will stand my ground, continue acting based on principles, and not stay silent to attempts to persuade peers using their position as moderator to benefit their employer in detriment to local mappers and/or OSMF (in special OSMF financial part).
PS.: If the place to cite me as a candidate for Brasil (Brazil) is not here, please point where I do it.
We are in progress on this and many forums have started, for example with Oceania being the first English example.
The annual health check does not imply a new election is required - as stated in the rules poles are used sometimes during health checks.
As this topic is about the selection criteria, issues about specific moderators or a specific category should be raised directly to forums-governance or in a different topic.
Because the new forum started officially at the end of 2022 and a lot of the categories got created in 2023 so there were close to no mods in place for one year. So this is the first time a health-check is needed. The rules for that also got active in September 2022 as far as i know.
So 2024 is the first official needed health-check as far as i’m aware, if someone has done it before it is really nice and a good move but it was not mandatory.
And why is the exact date needed? A thread is opened every year and everyone active should see it anyways. Plus, in the community i’m in we also post a link to the poll into various channels as well, so to miss it someone really has to be quite inactive.
But i’m open for a discussion on that one, i just don’t see a exact starting-time as neccessary.
One good reason (including when it seems okay to accept the moderator) is this becomes a yearly check for moderators disclosing their affiliations which is 4° of the 5 requisites mentioned here https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/moderator-selection-criteria/2392 (“Disclosure of relevant affiliations and willingness to follow the OSMF WG Conflict of Interest Policy https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy”). This disclosure granted to happen at least on yearly revalidation is necessary not only for the voters of the respective community, but be easy access for moderators at higher level, since the employment status can (and often will) change.
Another important question what should we do if (with exception of one) none of the other current moderators are disclosing their affiliations (or explicitly the lack of it) at 2024 revalidation? On one case, the companies to be disclosed likely would be ones on OSMF sponsorship https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members and/or Overture equivalent https://overturemaps.org/, so is definitely relevant.
Working Group Members should list employers, directorships, and other similar affiliations on the WG membership page if their organisation does business related to OpenStreetMap.
(there is no “WG membership page” for community forum moderators though, so the community forum user page or wiki is probably the best place to do it. It’s not a big deal, but the document could use some brushing-up to more cleanly cover all categories it applies to).
If in doubt, I would ask in thread in that category each moderator explicitly to list/update their potential CoI affiliations (in case they forgot to update their user page), or to state explicitly if they have no potential CoI related to OSM.
If you doubt the truthfulness of those information, I would suggest you provide other information which you may find might be in conflict with stated affiliations and ask for clarifications on seemingly conflicting information in polite way (instead of, for example, engaging in potential libel, attacks, accusations or other sorts on uncivil or non-friendly behaviour)
One moderator is making threats of legal action against voters in the same thread future voters are supposed to disclose their reasoning to not continue with his moderation.
Can anyone with super moderation powers go there, remove this threat, and warn the moderator to not do public threats again in the election 2024 and let the election run it’s course?
(Obviously, if anyone feel offended and plan to do legal action, can simply do it)
If so, what “threat”? They seems to be asking you to provide evidence for your claims of their alleged wrongdoings, lest it be considered libel. That doesn’t seem as any “threat” as you seem to imply, if you ask me. In fact, libel is exactly the same thing I warned you to refrain from in my post above (which you -ed - and yet here you seem to complain when others warn you of the exactly same thing?)
Also, you should’ve produced the supposed evidence in the same post where you accused them of alleged wrongdoings, instead of “I’ll provide proof at some indefinite point in the future”. That is ridiculous behaviour. You need to provide proof of your accusations ASAP, or hold your peace forever after, eh? Does something so obvious really needs to be pointed out?
Especially seeing that you’ve seemingly had grievances with those mods for more than a year now, one would expect that you would be ready to spill all that evidence on the first hour of the first day of that moderation thread coming into existence!
I try hard to afford people second chances, and to take posts in good faith by default, (regardless of previous behaviors of posters). I like to think that people should be given a second chance, for a hope that some would repent on their old bad behaviors and try to improve how they behave in the future. That goodwill is however not a license to go back to bad behaviors one has already been sanctioned for in the past. Please don’t waste that chance. You can do better and provide valuable input to community.
Can anyone with super moderation powers go there, remove this threat,
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, as if people with “super moderation powers” stumble upon such shenanigans again, they might as well decide to remove the perceived community threat.
Done. I took the time to write why people can be upset with one of the moderators.
I hope it is sufficient to allow election in one subforum. Otherwise if requirements are the same, there’s no difference between revalidation and health checks.
1. Context (TL;DR related to a set of problematic organized editings)
Most of the discussion of a set of armchair organized editing happened on province-level Telegram channel @osmrs (place where this specific moderator on Brasil (Brazil) is not moderator; it’s relevant because can delete own messages, but not from others).
As per Organized Editing Guidelines, even under urgency, is expected to “contact the community” and a group of organizers done on @osmrs because was the closest group with mappers from the region. This set of mapping started in the month of 2023-09
After their 100% validation several weeks later, of the list of active mappers of Rio Grande do Sul, I decided to check, and I started to find several issues.
But the ones I found aren’t detected by automated tools (and not, are not related to unesquared building or building touching ways). Some kinds of data are not even possible to infer from aerial imagery alone, and this is relevant because none of the mappers/validators are from the region to have local knowledge (the most common being using specialized types of building=* over the building=yes). At first I guessed everything of this kind was outright invented by the armchair mappers, and asked with an Etiquette-compatible tone on changesets for explanations of sources of information. However, at least part (the reduced number which was plausible and has name=* and sometimes other metadata) was just copied from Google; for example, even one of the validators replied here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141593785 admitting using “Google Street View and Google Maps” beyond the “Bing Maps Aerial” in the changeset.
The organized editing organizers at first didn’t reply to the complaints on @osmrs telegram. Simply ignored. Other mappers from my region agreed the problems were real, however (other than suggesting attempts to fix) no local mapper wanted to dedicate time to fix (in particular because it could not be automated). That is when I start asking help outside on strategy to do a full revert to the previous state. However only at this point organizers start replying and promising to do another round of validation.
I contacted DWG, which promptly responded. Then I became aware that the DWG itself could revert if necessary and potentially take other actions, however I (while informed of the ongoing situation) preferred to wait. This was on 2023-11-22, so is before they moved away from @osmrs.
2. Summary of a incomplete list of the problems (TL;DR: attempt use of community to decide data problems / manipulate data complains even on OSM Wiki / selectively hide links to admissions from own validators)
2023-12-15
2023-12-15: this is the date the moderator on Brasil (Brazil) decided to announce on @osmrs (province level; he’s not moderator there) the intent to create a voting on @OSMBrasil_Comunidade (country level,; he’s moderator there) on this (now deleted) message https://t.me/osmrs/26026. His message on the other channel (where he was moderator and make permanent threats of Etiquette ban to anything against his projects) is on (not deleted, at least not yet) https://t.me/OSMBrasil_Comunidade/1/71977
“Olá pessoal, como uns dos responsáveis pelos projetos e dada as observações da comunidade do OpenStreetMap do Rio Grande do Sul quanto a qualidade dos dados, peço que a comunidade brasileira avalie a necessidade de reversão das projetos citados aqui → https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/2023_Brazil_Floods”
2023-12-??
2023-12-?? I’m unsure which date and time, but between 2023-12-15 and 2023-12-19, he deleted most of his own previous messages on @osmrs.
Nalis, Did you know the term if when someone does something, then erase, then later complain to prove? I don’t know where this election will go, but I find it ironic.
By the way, I know what DifamaçãoPortuguese is, and this one does can be a crime regardless of having proofs of be true or not affirmation. Do exist other specific types that do match your description.
2023-12-19 I addition to his edit messages on Organised_Editing/Activities about deleting because content was somewhere else on the wiki to delete the complains about organized editing, someone (Mateusz) questioned on his talk pake https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Everton_Bortolini if he truly copied the content and he confirmed. Also note that on 23 December 2023 (UTC) was making redaction, and is unclear that was discussed in any public place. His attempt on 2023-12-15 did not get others engaging (trivia: most people do not even have the skill to evaluate this); would be a good question for him where the “Brazilian community” discussed the edits in the exact level of detail he done, otherwise not only would be CoI, but he actually is lying.
2.1 Incomplete list of examples of what’s removed (Using OSM Wiki as one example that has history)
Telegram doesn’t have built-in history (on this point it is less powerful than Discourse). But mappers from my region on @osmrs know he wrote there (and these old messages don’t exist). So I’m using OSM Wiki to prove how manipulative he can be, such as when he selectively deletes the direct links for Tasking Manager documentation and every time participants (e.g one Validator and 2 HOT global validators) confirm serious issues.
CLICK HERE to expand the list. Content with strike is example of what is missing
Provide a public copy of instructions directed for mappers and
validators as they might expose poor suggested tagging practices
that need to be changed in future.
Evidence: do exist content not already public description on
Tasking Manager and large enough not fit a changeset reply Confirmation by global validator [c143333801] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143333801.
Create Organized Editing Activity for each city (the first one,
Muçum, was even different organizers and far less problematic
result) or, if want to group the cities , the logical approach is
use Vale do Taquari region and list the differences. The current
title of the page “2023 Brazil Floods” makes no sense and even the
hashtag “#EnchentesRS” implies the Rio Grande do Sul province.
Under certain circumstances (which actually are even partially documented, but can be deliberately ignored), a mapping activity using the Task Manager can have good enough final results to pass automated checks while still with similar types of problems as this one (remember: initially it already was 100% validated). When this happens, not even TM global validators will be able to fix collateral damage. I know this because I talked with them (which is one of the omitted links).
I’ve just skimmed your post quickly (I’ll give it more time later), but I do not seem to find any detailing of this particular accusation as I understand it:
So, do you have somewhere in there any proof that that person, acting as a community.osm.org forum moderator, was actually deleting information on community.osm.org forum while having CoI in the topic where deletion allegedly took place?
Not what happened on unofficial telegram channels, not alleged wiki wars, not DWG related complaints, not illegal activities they may be involved IRL etc. (not to say those are not important if true: but they do not seem related to this particular accusation about Discourse category moderation powers abuse - if that was indeed what you complained about).
So, was there any abuse of moderation privileges on this Discourse instance in forum category where they are moderators (i.e. Brazil category AFAICT?). If so, in which thread exactly did deletion took place? (link the thread please)
Or, if they did not do that, what exact rules (that would preclude them being Discourse category moderators) do you accuse of them of having broken? Can you quote that exact line, so we’re on the same page what we’re talking about?
Fiquei surpreso ao ler sua acusação de que menti em um tópico no fórum da comunidade do OpenStreetMap. No entanto, para que eu possa entender e abordar adequadamente sua preocupação, seria útil se você pudesse fornecer mais detalhes sobre a alegação específica que você acredita ser falsa e o fato real correspondente.
Estou comprometido com a transparência e a precisão em minhas interações online, especialmente em comunidades tão importantes como o OpenStreetMap. Se há algo que precisa ser corrigido ou esclarecido, estou mais do que disposto a discutir isso de forma construtiva e colaborativa.
Por favor, forneça mais informações para que possamos resolver esse mal-entendido da melhor maneira possível.
I’ve also only skimmed and will look at what I need to read later. If you have a concern about behavior around an organized edit, please contact the DWG. This category is only about Discourse and if you have complaints about behavior somewhere else in OSM you need to take it up with the appropriate body.
You’ve alleged a specific misuse of moderator powers, but I can’t see any links.
Please provide a link to the topic thread where you believe inappropriate moderator action was taken. In general, someone can privately contact the forums governance team at any time if they believe moderators are violating the rules, but in this case the allegations are already public.
If he wasn’t moderator on Brasil (Brazil), OSM Wiki admins et al would react differently. Actually, even for DWG decide what the level of reaction of what to do (the case still open; only recently in the revalidation process he edited wiki to mark as “done”, so eventually I still need to stop and update DWG), becomes relevant if the edits on complaints for the organized editing are based on false claims of support.
Under this context, the lack of content of discussions on Brasil (Brazil) about this set of problematic organized editing in the region I’m a mapper (such as having public evidence that specific the changes he made aren’t outright invention of the responsible of organized editing) actually are relevant.
I hope I provided sufficient explanation on why the re validation on Brasil (Brazil) should allow vote in 2024.
<snip the parts about wiki / DWG issues, as those are being handled by their respective teams and cannot be handled by Discourse teams like forum-governance - you do realize those are separate functions with separate privileges, right @fititnt?>
Sure, problematic organized editing for some region should be discussed in that forum category, I’m all with you here.
But how is the fact that you (and possibly other parties) didn’t take the effort to discuss the issue in Brasil (Brazil) Discourse category in any way related toDiscourse category moderatorabusing their Discourse moderation powers in Discourse forum?
From your wording before, I was expected that you started a discussion in Brasil (Brazil) forum category, and that the moderator there with Conflict-of-Interest inappropriately deleted that discussion because they didn’t like it being discussed or whatever. Did that happen, or not? Please answer this question with simple Yes or No.
If they didn’t do that; did they instead break any rules that apply specifically to Discourse category moderators (not wiki, not edits, not mailing lists, not tile usage ToS, not crimes IRL etc.), and if they did, please quote exactly which rule (with a proof of such allegation).
IOW, forum moderators are chosen by their ability to fairly moderate the forum.
And not by their ability to correctly use JOSM and make useful map edits, or to edit the wiki in accepted and understandable way, or to speak clear English, or their ability to lead in a military conflict, write good OSM open source code or play good soccer.
They could be absolutely horrible at any or all of those (which I am neither implying, nor denying; as I have not even had time to look into it), and still be excellent category moderators. In fact, it is statistically almost a rule that if you are good at one thing that you’ll likely be worse at other things.
So, the question pertaining to selection of moderators is “are they doing good job of managing category forum?”, and do people using that category in that forum approve of their use of extended moderator powers in that forum category?
So if they are doing a good job of category moderation, and users of that category approve of the way they use their moderation powers, then everything is as it should be as far as their category moderation status is concerned, I would say.
(until possible overriding OSM global ban is issued, which obviously haven’t happened)
I would just like to point out that Community Forum (Discourse) is one thing, OSM Wiki is another, Organized Edit is a third different thing. Let me clarify if it’s still not clear to you:
1 - if you have a problem with a moderator here (Discourse), you bring the problem to @forums-governance (immediately! Not just when revalidating mods)
2 - If you have a problem with any edits (organized or not), contact the mapper first, then local community (if not solved), then DWG (if not solved).
3 - I don’t see any relevance with your complaints with regarding to OSM Wiki Administrators. What should they do? What the Brazilian mods did wrongly on the wiki that the admins there should have done?
Are you saying that those 18 people on that wiki page are accomplices to any wrong behavior in the wiki (which are still not clear to me)? I would not like to be accused to that, thankfully I’m not a wiki admin!
You made several accusations to all Discourse @mods-brazil in the past weeks, and yet you haven’t provided any proof. Also, you’re constantly violating the Etiquette Guidelines, which is not the first occurrence, since you were banned last year about the very same thing.
I even myself translated that page to Portuguese, just to make the guidelines clear to Portuguese-speakers. Have you EVER read that page?
Finally, could you please respect our free time, and stop accusing us in many topics, but when we ask you anything you simply don’t answer? You didn’t answer here, nor here, here, not even a thread you opened here or here.
You are making a very, very serious accusation, and then citing Etiquete.
I provided the link to OSM Wiki (another OSMF-sponsored) about one moderator deleting/editing content from organized Editing he’s part of and arguing some supposedly support of “Brazilian community”.
So, your accusation is false. I am presenting proofs.
-ed - and yet here you seem to complain when others warn you of the exactly same thing?)
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, as if people with “super moderation powers” stumble upon such shenanigans again, they might as well decide to remove the perceived community threat.
