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
2023-09-12 https://t.me/osmrs/25550 (link and date merely for date reference, this is the first non-deleted message on
@osmrsfor the first organized editing). This other have the image https://t.me/osmrs/25557 (archive: https://archive.is/dQl4x)
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.
2023-11-19 https://t.me/osmrs/25875 (archived: https://archive.is/Sdqre) merely for reference date; first message related to the issues I raised in the group)
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.
One link to see a compilation of my complaints was done later in the wiki, for who’s interested is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing%2FActivities&type=revision&diff=2633119&oldid=2633081, it’s at the end of the table “Activities list”.
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
2023-12-19:I compiled the list with examples of each issue on an achievable place, under control of OSMF, the same link suggested by Organizer Editing Guidelines: The Wiki Organised_Editing/Activities. What happened? He deleted. And then deleted again. Already at start, he already did not copied everything. I reported this edit war on Wiki:Talk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Organizer_keeps_removing_reference_from_own_activity_on_the_Organised_Editing/Activities and opted to make no further edits on the Wiki and opted to wait until they finished the re-re-??-validation.
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.
- Reference content: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing%2FActivities&type=revision&diff=2633119&oldid=2633081
- This was the second time he deleted: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Organised_Editing%2FActivities&type=revision&diff=2633165&oldid=2633119 with description “The Brazil Floods Organized Edits were listed in HOT mapping projects. Notes are very long and they were copied to the project wiki page. Notes are not “Community objections”, they are not talked about in the Brazilian community”, emphasys mine on affirming was copied, without implying edited)
- This is the history page where supposedly all content was copied https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Brazil_Floods&action=history; yes, description of additions are vague
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. - Have a public commitment written in a archivable medium to adhere
to minimal standards recommended even in the Tasking Manager
documentation for the mapper
levelhttps://learnosm.org/en/coordination/tm-admin/#mapper-level
in any future mapping for the same organizers, such as never create
an activity which allow 0-edit beginners edit areas with previous
content from local mappers - Evidence of ignoring internal feedback: previous complains from
one HOT global validator in public on previous organized editing
TM13594https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/13594archived page TM13594https://archive.is/zoJJj, section Questions and Comments ,
reinforced by another global validator on the ongoing project,
which, in a public changeset, admitted complain in private to
the organizers and peers from HOT about the poor quality of the
mapped tasks [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. - This also means that recent attempts since 2022-12-15
Telegram messagehttps://t.me/OSMBrasil_Comunidade/1/71977telegram message archivedhttps://web.archive.org/web/20231219122751/https://t.me/OSMBrasil_Comunidade/1/71977
to move the discussion from active mappers from Rio Grande do Sul (and
even here, more priority to the city-level mappers if they engage) to
any outside group to outnumber decision will be ignored. Even the
organizers/validators which initially said to be from the province, did
armchair mapping, with one of them, admiring using Google Street view to
validate (and even without this, the map still has something similar to
Copyright Easter Eggs easy to
check).
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).