Where there are numerous complaints from one person, the DWG cannot always deal with every case - some things we have to hand back to the community. Sometimes it is one word against another and in some cases the overall issue is not important enough to spend a lot of time on it. Mario has a history of requiring a lot of attention from other mappers in the region and elsewhere, and also from the DWG.
The DWG needs to be a place of last resort, where the community goes for help if they cannot solve an issue themselves. I do not want to enter a tit-for-tat here with Mario but the issues he brought to our attention were frequently issues that other people seemed less concerned about, and sometimes they were reported to us without enough specific detail to be able to be followed up.
Then, when Mario did not get the attention he thought his issue deserved, he would inquire about the status of his complaint, or write in different languages, or request that his ticket be handled by a different DWG agent because he was unhappy with the situation. In some situations Mario would ask friends of his who until that time had never so much as commented on a changeset to suddenly pop up at DWG and support his issues, or claim to be a random OSM contributor who just stumbled across this of all issues and want to know the status.
In the ticket above from which Mario quoted a part of his complaint, he also spent many words telling us about his personal mood on that particular day and went on: “If you still think we don’t understand each other, we can try as said chatting, or please handle the issue to a Dutch person, or Italian, or Russian, preferably a mathematician, thank you.”
The ticket (which actually is a complaint about 2 mappers) looks “solid” at first with five references, but three of them are to a private Telegram group, one is to a changeset that actually deals with editing offsets and not with copying from bad sources, and one is a link to simply one of those users’ block list.
Despite what was suggested in this ticket, there is no direct evidence that we could follow up that would bolster Mario’s accusations, and this is exactly what happened time and time again - the DWG receives a lengthy missive from Mario with an accusation that may or may not be valid that doesn’t provide solid evidence, and leaves the DWG to try to get to the bottom of the story by other means.
DWG communications with Mario have been so unfruitful over the years (and the evidence is that other mappers find him as difficult to interact with as we do) that whenever Mario complains that someone is misbehaving we now assume that Mario might also be a part of the problem, and view his complaint with at least a grain of salt.
Sometimes when more evidence is forthcoming from elsewhere we can proceed - it is worth noting that one of the two users mentioned in the complaint is at present blocked pending a reply from them about edits elsewhere.
The number of statuses that the DWG has for closing tickets is finite and the “no action necessary” is perhaps a little bit of a misnomer here; it should have been “no immediately actionable evidence supplied, and the complainant has exceeded the amount of attention we can spend on them”. I think we may have to revisit how we publish quarterly summaries in order not to mislead anyone. We will certainly not publish internal deliberations about the handling of tickets - most of what we do is public anyway (changeset comments, block messages, etc.), and unless people abuse our patience they will usually also receive messages when we decide not to do something.
This is actually something that I personally told Mario years ago - that the DWG cannot act as his personal OSM grief councellor. His take-away from that was apparently that the DWG must be overworked, as has been claimed in this thread.
I don’t believe that this is the case - I think that we have about the right balance of people for the workload - but we still have to be economical with our time.
Which is why I will not continue this discussion here - once again, Mario has managed
to consume DWG time that could have been better spent on other work.