Handling of conflicts of interest

[dieterdreist]

@westnordost

Hmm, @dieterdreist, you are implying that the linked topic was locked because of conflict of interest and not because of the reason given in the closing statement. I.e. you seem to assume it was done in bad faith. What makes you think that the reason given was false?

I think you might be assuming in bad faith that I thought the topic was closed because of other reasons than the ones given.
What I said was that someone with a COI should not interact with superpowers in topics that are related to their COI, and I wonder how this is currently reflected in the guidelines, and whether we should add something if it is not.

[westnordost]

@dieterdreist

I think you might be assuming in bad faith that I thought the topic was closed because of other reasons than the ones given.

Hehe okay. The thought that you cited the linked topic just as an example of a situation where a COI is something that people could assume came to me only afterwards / after I read Michael’s post, sorry.

[jimkats]

Don’t mind me for interfering in this discussion, but the request of yours is worded very aggressively in a way that won’t help you in what you seek. Yes, nukeador locked your initial topic following the OSM guidelines, even though he personally shouldn’t due to conflict of interest, but as mentioned above, not enough global mods to assist in such case in a reasonable time period for respond.
And it seems you have foggy thoughts due to all this situation going on, which originated by the sorta-aggresive topic about HOT’s old ad. I understand and accept that you don’t like HOT, I’m also not fond of their whole whereabouts, but if you want to have a discussion about HOT in general here, try and keep it more in a non-aggressive tone, just like others did in your topic.

[fititnt (Rocha)]

Going in public outside here about one moderator sponsored (paid, an employeer) by external organization acting in obvious conflict of interest against the OpenStreetMap Foundation by not reverting an action is something that is worth to be assertive if necessary.

I can be reasonable in many aspects, but this is not one of them.

What you here think @'s both would result? The organization profit over OSMF trademark, yet this cannot be discussed on OSMF forum?

[Map_HeRo (Mikke)]

@fititnt
The issue of this topic is a general discussion about how to handle conflicts of interest in this forum.
Your personal vendetta against HOT and @nukeador does not really fit in notwithstanding the question, if the lock of your topic was adequate or not. Imho all your posts in this thread are off-topic and should be subject to flagging.

In respond to the topic I believe such cases may be very rare (at the time being). If it occurs, the best solution would be if the mod being in potential conflict would ask another authorized user to take over. Otherwise every affected user should have the right to ask for a review in an appropriate and polite way.

Yes, I got the point of lack of modpower for the global categories but in such extraordinary rare cases someone being able to handle it should take the time. Such matters should not be underestimated imho.

[fititnt (Rocha)]

@Map_HeRo thank you for calling my attention. So, for anyone reading: if either my two previous comments here in this thread become hidden or deleted, I’m okay with that.

Going back to the actual question

About the proposal for this issue, the initial suggestion from @Mateusz_Konieczny seems very similar to how Wikipedia recommends to handle conflict of interests with super users. I really think it’s a approach that makes sense.

Handling of conflicts of interest

Not sure. But if someone would make thread complaining about me specifically or about someone paying me, then I would not use moderation tools in that thread. Maybe except extreme, blatant and urgent cases like someone posting scam links or porn images. That linked thread was not ideal, starting from something that was happening in 2017 is not too useful. But someone employed by HOT (not checked is this claim a true one) should not be closing thread criticizing HOT. On the other hand, if som…

I don’t remember the best link to describe it but maybe the one as starting point is the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia .

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@Tordanik

So as far as I’m concerned, the best take-away from this is to hurry up with finding some good mods for the global categories whom the community can trust.

Is there a thread describing current attempt to do this? Or is there no such thread/attempt?

[Matija_Nalis]

@fititnt

Going in public outside here about one moderator sponsored (paid, an employeer) by external organization acting in obvious conflict of interest against the OpenStreetMap Foundation by not reverting an action is something that is worth to be assertive if necessary.

Um, isn’t the whole point of “not using superpowers when one is in COI” that one shouldn’t be using superpowers when one is in COI? The COI has been identified and acknowledged/explained by the person doing it, as I understand.
Thus, no more usage of superpowers by that person should be acceptable in this topic, period. Insisting that someone does another wrong in order to right the initial wrong is not good idea at all, for all sorts of reasons.

So, IMHO, any and all (possibly needed) corrections requiring superpowers should absolutely be done by other moderators/admins (preferably after conferring between themselves), and definitely not by the one who is in alleged Conflict of Interest.

[mariotomo]

(I’ve read this thread only up to post #10)

@Tordanik

as @nukeador has explained, there just aren’t that many other people

in my experience (with LATAM), there has been no effort to find other moderators before creating the community, four people selected themselves and that was it, at least for the time being. and here again hot, or hot-friendly.

[nukeador (Rubén Martín)]

@mariotomo

in my experience (with LATAM), there has been no effort to find other moderators before creating the community, four people selected themselves and that was it

Note that for all communities created before the moderator selection criteria was agreed, there is a process to discuss, validate and renew moderators in 1 month period (December 10th)

Moderator selection criteria

This document was created by the @forums-governance team as a result of the identified need of providing transparency and clarity on how decisions around the selection of moderators are made. It aims to summarize the process and requirements for the community to suggest and validate new moderators on these forums. This is version 1.1. It was approved on 2023-11-30. Note: The intention is to come up with good-enough guidelines that have general consensus and that are expected to keep improving…

[fititnt (Rocha)]

@mariotomo

in my experience (with LATAM), there has been no effort to find other moderators before creating the community, four people selected themselves and that was it, at least for the time being. and here again hot, or hot-friendly.

Your feedback is eye opening to me. I wasn’t aware of the LATAM moderators are this level of conflict of interest. Making 1 person on global moderation is not even a problem.

Just pinging @forums-governance to check this comment 6ta reunión bimestral de OSM Latinoamérica - #2 by mariotomo as a starting point. The current moderators from Latam (not sure if have any exception, but if have, so is the majority of moderators there) are not just from Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc, but actually are from same group that at least attempted to create entire communities on telegram to replace existing ones (some Telegram groups already are deleted), but most @mariotomo evidence still feasible to check.

And yes, this is a serious problem, and is related to conflict of interest. It’s not just that most moderators are there are HOT, but most users’ posts sort of are related to HOT projects (just there’s no affiliation disclosure) or someone like @mariotomo. I can’t say about Asia or Africa where HOT is also active, but the LATAM does not have the existing groups you @forums-governance think you have to build a healthy community. Whatever short period of time to “revalidate” current Latam moderators is sort of a joke considering most people are not here. What are you gonna do to not accidentally endorse de facto community splitting?

[Matija_Nalis]

@fititnt

Whatever short period of time to “revalidate” current Latam moderators is sort of a joke considering most people are not here

Hmmm, I’m confused. The period before the new voting should be used by proponents/wannabe-moderators of both (or however many) groups to rally the people to come here and vote (with usual lobbying why people should vote for them, and not for the others).

Because, if the “people are not here” and do not plan on being here (on community.openstreetmap.org), than anything that happens “here” is not relevant to them, is it? Or what am I missing?

It’s not just that most moderators are there are HOT, but most users’ posts sort of are related to HOT projects (just there’s no affiliation disclosure)

I think that moderators should be required to disclose their involvements that might lead to conflict-of-interest when using their superpowers. For regular users, not really - there are just regular users. The fact that some of them might also be involved in HOT (or any other project) is not really relevant if they don’t have any extraordinary powers - after all, I assume anybody can take part in communications there regardless of their country of origin (or gender or race or religion or whatever), provided they follow the same rules as the others, right?

[davidoskky]

@Matija_Nalis

Because, if the “people are not here” and do not plan on being here (on community.openstreetmap.org), than anything that happens “here” is not relevant to them, is it?

I don’t think this will be a problem at all, but just to be critical.
This forum is being pushed to be the main place where to announce tagging proposals and maybe also to discuss them. While people are currently not here, it may be very possible that this forum becomes relevant to them once this forum will assume such importance. The moderators in the forum will not have been selected by them because they weren’t here at the time of the selection as they didn’t care about this forum when it had no official importance.

Thus, if this forum actually assumes some official valence; such as requiring the RFC and votations to be announced here; it might be sensible to hold a new round of elections to allow the interested people that will come to choose their moderators.
This I would do after (if that happens) the mailing list loses such role.

[Matija_Nalis]

@davidoskky

While people are currently not here, it may be very possible that this forum becomes relevant to them once this forum will assume such importance

True, and it may happen even in cases where users are here, but their structure and moderation preference changes with time. But that should be handled sufficiently with current rules of periodic moderators re-evaluation, as well as other methods mentioned in Moderator selection criteria, or don’t you agree?

[davidoskky]

I do agree, as I said I don’t think we are discussing about any real and concrete problem.
I was just pointing out that it’s not really true that just because people are not on the forum, what is going on in the forum and how it is moderated is not relevant to them.
It may become very relevant in the future.

No, I do not think there is any problem or that big problems will arise with moderators in the future.
I do not think any corrective action is needed.

Interpret the message above as: you wrote something that makes completely sense but is based on a slightly faulty assumption. Since people are discussing about it I’ll be extremely pedantic and point out that slight inconsistency even though it has no real relevance on the outcome.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@nukeador

I agree that having me handling/closing that topic was not ideal.

@Tordanik

The way this was handled is not good practice.

The explanation that the action was not ideal or that it was not best practice or that it could have been done better or any other such explanation is not valid for the case we discuss here. If it has been done wrong, it must be recognized and rectified. Not to do so is to persevere in error and injustice.

One should not be particularly harsh on someone who simply made a mistake. We are human and we all make mistakes. We must be understanding in this.

However, if you make a mistake, are unable to recognize it and do nothing to rectify it, you should not expect others to trust you.

[dcapillae (Daniel Capilla)]

@SimonPoole

I think we need to be clear that there was nothing that wasn’t factual in that thread, and contrary to the other “anti-HOT” thread opened by @fititnt there was no obvious OSM Etiquette Guidelines violation. I would consider morphing the guidelines to cover legal entities and to include tone policing to be way outside of their intended scope.

I did not find any violation of the guidelines. A rectification would be appropriate and welcome.

Etiquette guidelines should be minimum standards of behavior. Transforming them into something else to regulate the controversial content or its “tone” is a poor way to go if we want an open and free communication channel.

[porfiriopaiz (Porfirio Páiz)]

@nukeador

I agree that having me handling/closing that topic was not ideal.

Then why that topic is still closed (does not accept more replies) and still unlisted?

[westnordost]

@porfiriopaiz

hen why that topic is still closed (does not accept more replies) and still unlisted?

This is off-topic here. The reason for the closing was given in the mentioned topic.