Complaints against Brazilian category moderators


the forums governance team has reviewed the evidence provided by Rocha (@fititnt) and no evidence provided supports there being any issues with the Brazil category moderation. We also found no evidence on the cited wiki pages of the Brazilian category moderators claiming any authority outside the Brazil category. In fact, we found no mention of moderators or moderation at all.

Rocha was asked multiple times by multiple people to supply evidence to moderation-related misconduct and did not provide any. If he had evidence, this was the time to supply it.

Although in some cases conduct in some other location may impact someone’s ability to be a moderator here, it would be unusual and normally involve measures taken by the other location’s moderation (e.g. DWG or Wiki admins). This is not the case here, and Rocha has a previous history of assuming improper behavior of Brazilian moderators without evidence, when the alleged improper behavior did not happen.

The issues appear to all stem from a dispute over organised edits. Handling this is the job of the Data Working Group, not of forum moderators or the forum governance team. We are not equipped to handle editing disputes, nor do we have any powers on the OSM API as part of our forum work.

If an individual believes misconduct has happened they can raise it with @forums-governance at any time. They do not need to wait for annual health checks and if there is misconduct it is better to deal with it at the time. We can check what moderation actions were taken on a topic and verify what happened.

In addition we have found that Rocha’s actions on Discourse, viewed as a whole, fall well short of the expected behaviors in the etiquette guidelines and repeatedly claiming a group of people are misusing moderation powers while failing to provide evidence when asked multiple times is not acceptable behavior. This serves as a formal warning, and repeating this behavior may lead to blocks or other actions from the global moderators or forums governance team.


I discovered in the middle of the revalidation here Brasil - Revalidação dos moderadores - fevereiro de 2024 - #28 by Matija_Nalis that even to enable voting in the annual health check, it would be necessary to provide a longer justification. Done in English instead of Portuguese here because was a reply to this, because it also helps to contextualise one moderator deleted his messages and other content outside this Discourse, such as telegram channel he was in contact with local community. He also makes threats of taking legal action in the very place that other mappers would vote.

I repeated multiple times the reason to add this information here is to enable voting, and still waiting for this yes or no to the original request. The context of what’s happened is bad enough for mappers express they dislike; even if voting become more a act of protest than majority in the first year, it work as deterrent for moderators here, in Telegram, and on OSM Wiki to stop using Etiquette to censor complains for data-related issues. It is also relevant because (based on what happened here in Rio Grande do Sul) helps require in future that any individual claiming to represent “Brazilian community” for self interest become expected to provide evidence of where it was decided (which is very relevant to DWG complaints).

With all this said:

  1. Can @forums-governance provided where I affirmed justifications are for the permanent health check, instead of the voting justification?

  2. Can @forums-governance explain that it was not me that created the title of this thread “Complaints against Brazilian category moderators”?

  3. Can @forums-governance, also considering your reply from the Q1 and my previos replies in this thread, look at the 5 links with “proofs” that I do not reply answers here and pinpoint which one I was required to reply?

As context 2 of the 5 questions are… related to my membership on Engineering Working Group which I cannot simply reply in public without consult other members.

Olá Emerson, poderia detalhar quando e onde isto aconteceu?

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Perhaps there is a language barrier.

Polls are sometimes required with health checks, but it is not automatic. In cases where there is disagreement over if a poll is required the forum governance team will decide if it is needed, and we have not made a decision yet on this.

Yes, this topic was split from the moderator selection criteria as it was far off topic. You can see this in the original topic. I was the one who split it and named it because the discussion has mainly about your complaints against the Brazilian category moderators.

You’ve been asked many times. The most recent ask from me was this

For the five links, there have been multiple posts with links - can you restate the five links?

To be relevant they must be linking to a post where moderator action was taken on Discourse by someone who is a moderator of the Brazilian category or a specific case where a moderator was the one to bring up their status. If it is an off-forum link please additionally quote the exact sentence where moderator status is mentioned.


Ok, these five.

[quote="matheusgomesms, post:19, topic:110407"]
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 ](

additional context

From the question asked, there notable two

reply to this: this time, the answer is: no.

(Trivia: in last 6 months, discussions moved to telegram, just look at the gap on posts on Brasil (Brazil))

and this one, which I still drafting a reply. I’m on OpenStreetMap as volunteer, and in the last weeks I’m busy.

Should I reply this?

But other than these two above, there’s several questions such as

I mean, I’m being spammed by questions without any relation to the case, or borderline assuming I’m a retarded. But maybe the more absurd (which seems to be attempt on rethorical question) would be this one

This question seems to imply I’m accusing Wiki Admins of something, which is not the case.

Olá Emerson! Como os administradores da OSM Wiki reagiriam se a situação envolvesse alguém que não fosse um moderador deste fórum? Qual seria o motivo para eles adotarem um tratamento diferenciado nesse caso?

​Everton, I will reply your question if you answer (without weasel words) or “asking for further clarification” as you done here Complaints against Brazilian category moderators - #14 by EvertonBortolini the following:

The edits you made on the OSM Wiki page with your personal account about complaints against the organized editing you are part of, were made “in the name of Brazilian community” or made by you, as an individual?

It was recommended here to me to move the complaint to DWG. However this single, direct reply likely affects their response.

Olá Emerson! Apenas copiei para a página do projeto as observações que você tinha feito na página geral.

Yes, the notes were copied to 2023 Brazil Floods - OpenStreetMap Wiki and this activity already listed in Organised Editing/Activities/Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team - OpenStreetMap Wiki.

No caso é necessário ver se estas observações feitas por você foram discutidas na comunidade brasileira, porque elas estavam documentadas na coluna “community objections” na edição que você fez originalmente → Organised Editing/Activities: Difference between revisions - OpenStreetMap Wiki.


“In this case, it is necessary to see if these observations made by you were discussed in the Brazilian community” (“No caso é necessário ver se estas observações feitas por você foram discutidas na comunidade brasileira”).

please do not reply to a direct question about the changes already made by your personal account in the past with… another question/action to be done in the future.

The list of issues I (as local mapper, e.g. I’m able to do a quick travel and check in person to prove) compiled and uploaded to the wiki are different from what someone with account “Everton_Bortolini” left. It already was asked in your talk page. to explain the edits.

Please respond: Who is behind the difference between what I uploaded on 2023-12-19 (and was deleted, twice) and the account “Everton_Bortolini” between 2023-12-20 and 2024-03-06 changed on the OSM Wiki page about the activity you are listed as organizer?

If you insist on avoiding a direct response, I would kindly already ask someone from @osmf-data-wg to come here and make the direct question public.

Para entender a relevância da sua pergunta eu preciso ter clareza sobre este ponto.

Thank you. So, this is my attempt at short summary of what you are saying currently looks to me:

  • you have no complaints about any Discourse forum moderation actions taken by Brazilian mods on Discourse forum
  • you instead complain about unclear/misleading/unapproved edits of wiki by some accounts (who are allegedly the accounts used by people who are also Discourse category mods). This has also been reported to wiki admins.
  • you also complain about wrong/unwanted edits of map data, done by some accounts (who are allegedly the accounts used by people who are also Discourse category mods). This has also been reported to DWG.

Would you say that is fair summarization? Am I missing or misunderstanding some important piece?

1 Like

2024 Revalidation for the Brazil Moderators was completed yesterday with a majority approving. They apparently have the trust of the Brazil community, at least the portion that particpates here. That is all they need to continue as moderators.

The problem is, since you have made your derision of folks affiliated with HOT so widely known, It has become easy for the wider community to dismiss your complaints against Everton as hyperbole or personally motivated because he works for the organization.

If you were to have a private conversation with Mr. Bortolini mediated by the DWG, letting them make a final determination with respect to the alleged problematic HOT edits you reference, it would help to restore your credibility.

Would the data working group @woodpeck @SomeoneElse be willing to mediate between these two? Everything relevant has already been said publicly and repeating the motions of this conflict here has little value.

For completeness, the DWG does have an open ticket “Ticket#2023112210000181 — #hotosm-project-15602 BRAZIL - FLOOD IN THE TOWN OF ARROIO DO MEIO (RS)” Neither @woodpeck nor myself are dealing with it. I’ve read the messages in that ticket just now, but it’s a little unclear what the detail of the complaint actually is, although some of it seems to mirror some of what has been written above.

Had there been a problem with a particular organised editing project in a particular area, I’d have expected to see something about it in the Brazilian category. A search for “hotosm-project-15602” finds nothing, " ARROIO DO MEIO" 1 old post from 2018.

I’m not sure that a private conversation would help, but I will message @fititnt privately and try and help them toward making whatever complaint they have clearer.

Separately to the above, (which is what seems to be the only relevant DWG complaint we have is about) has this information on it:

“This project is coordinated by Open Mapping Hub for Latin America and the Caribbean and was created by JuanMelo.”

(for completeness, in OSM that person is here). It therefore looks like it our outstanding ticket is entirely unrelated to whatever the complaint is above, and that in turn seems to be entirely unrelated to this forum, the Brazilian category of it, or the moderators there.

If @fititnt wants to create a new ticket with details of something else that the DWG needs to look at then please email with details. If it could be in the form of a summary with fewer than 100 words in it that would be even better.

Hi @SomeoneElse ! Important information: This project is under my resposability.

Hi Everton - thanks for that.

There seems to be an entry missing from the Organised Editing/Activities page for that activity. The guidelines say " Organised edits should have a Wiki page named [[Organised Editing/Activities/Name of the Activity]] for the particular activity, and record the page in the list under Organised Editing/Activities".

The guidelines then go on to say “This page should truthfully describe, where applicable: … the coordinating person or organisation …” among other things. If you’re responsible for the activity I’d expect you to be listed as the coordinating person there. With regards to the “Informing the community” part of the guidelines, I’d have expected a post in the Brazilian category on the forum. I didn’t see one, but perhaps I was searching for the wrong thing?

I would agree that a lot of what you removed in this wiki edit doesn’t really belong on the “organised activities” page. That sort of critique I’d expect to see in discussion forums such as (in this case) the Brazilian category here.

As I said above, the DWG has only had one report that seems relevant, and that doesn’t appear to contain any references to specific data problems, something like “the edit to a particular object in a particular changeset was invalid for a particular reason” (naming the specific object, changeset, and reason). The deleted wiki revision does refer to some specific changesets such as this one, but that example is only a new contributor’s 4th changeset, and the issue raised in the changeset comment was later resolved, so at least in that example I don’t think that there is an outstanding data issue.

It’d be great if:

  • any data issues that haven’t yet been tidied up were notified to the DWG (with which details of the relevant objects, and the changesets that are a problem)
  • any future activity such as this did actually try and follow at least the spirit if not the letter of the the OEG. As the guide itself says, “following [the guidelines] is the best way to make your organised edit successful and receive constructive community feedback”.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

(finally to be clear - this entire thread is entirely unrelated to category moderation in the Brazil category, but it is a worthwhile discussion to be having, and now that this thread’s here I guess it’s as good a place as any to do that)

Hi Andy. The activity is listed on HOT organised editing activities page.

That’s great, but there needs to be some way for people to get to that from either an organised activity, a task manager project or a series of changesets, and also the only reference to “Arroio” on that page does not contain OSM contact details. Three individuals are listed; one (you) has an email address listed but not OSM information, the other two have nothing.

If someone wants to know about new organised edits they should be able to add the OEG activities page to their wiki watchlist. They shouldn’t have to add literally every other link from there as well.


I will fit this.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 2 days. New replies are no longer allowed.