Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Faendalimas

< Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Faendalimas edit

Faendalimas (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

I have been an editor on Wikimedia various projects since 2006, roughly 13 years. For the most part I edit on Wikispecies and Wikipedia (EN, PT) with work on Wikidata also.

  • On Wikispecies I am a Bureaucrat, Admin and CheckUser (Userpage, verify).
  • I have been involved in policy development in the areas of Check User, Admin Review, Local Cleanup Issues, Bots on Wikispecies.
  • Have been involved in policy development in the area of Taxoboxes, Namespace, Dispute Resolution and Plagiarism on Wikipedia.
  • On Wikiversity I am a recent edition to the Editorial Board of Wikijournal of Science. Hence am becoming increasingly present here.
  • BSc Zoology and MSc Zoology from University of Canberra, Australia.
  • BSE from Australian National University.
  • 2 years of PhD Zoology University of Sao Paulo.
  • Curator of the Chelonian Research Institute in Florida, USA.
  • Research Associate Museu de Zoologia da USP in Sao Paulo, Brasil. (I live in Brasil work part time in USA)
    • On Wikiversity I am able to spend time each day patrolling, anti-vandalism etc, but also assist in the development of policy across a wide range of issues, as needed this can include the development of policy pages, which often requires the use of the Import Tools. Basically as I am spending time on this wiki as part of my role on the Editorial Board of Wikijournal I am happy to spend some time helping to develop this wiki's policies etc. Various Admin tasks and having some of the tools makes this useful.
    • As a CheckUser on another Wiki I have already been fully identified to Meta as well as signed the Privacy Policy. ([1]) I also have an existing account on Fabricator.

Thank you for your consideration. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions edit

Have you had to

  1. merge page histories using Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves or similar on Wikispecies,
  2. hide revisions using Revision deletion,
  3. monitor Wikiversity:Import or comparable on Wikispecies and import content from a sister project,
  4. monitor the AbuseLog (Special:AbuseLog) and create or update an abuse filter, and
  5. block a user or IP, or unblock a user or IP and under what consensus if any? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for you questions, all important administrative actions.
  1. I have not had to use this tool, obviously I cannot on Wikipedia as you seem to have surmised but on Wikispecies because of the nature of how wikispecies is set up merges are not common. Every taxon has its own page and if that name is no longer used, say its synonymised, then it is redirected to the current valid name. So this one has not come up for me at this point.
  2. I have had to hide or at least partially hide offensive revisions that occurred during debates, however in general we do preserve all conversations on issues, though may archive them or put them in collapsible boxes. I am not an Oversighter there is a limit to how much I can do on this issue. I have also been asked to do it on a few occasions, again mostly for accusations of abuse, however I refused on those occasions because it did not seem a reasonable action under the circumstances. Wikispecies is about taxonomy and debate can get heated among that group but its not personal. The exception has been in several episodes where accused socks have tried to defend themselves.
  3. Imports. When I developed all the pages for Wikispecies Checkusers policy, request, archives and forms I used Wikimedia Commons as a model. So I had to import many templates, pages etc from Commons then rewrite them to be relevant and work on Wikispecies. In regards to the import log most of our imports are done by 3-4 different sysops only, its not that others cannot do it, all admins can, but tend not to. As such monitoring that log constantly is not necessary and I am not aware of any issues that have arisen.
  4. Abuse Filter. I have not had the occasion to create or update an Abuse Filter, however I have used the Abuse Log when looking for types of vandalism from very specific users. Generally when I am trying to do repairs. This page was recently vandalised extensively, some of the revisions were picked up in the Abuse Log, some where not and had to be manually reverted. However the page was scrambled afterwards so I had to go in and manually repair it. I wanted to see if all the revisions were the same user. I used the abuse log and the revision history for this.
  5. Blocks. Yes I have blocked users, as a CheckUser it is one possible outcome of what we do, the consensus there of course is usually between all three of our CheckUsers and any other admins will support us on that if that is the result, I may not always be the one that clicks the block command there in all cases, we come to an agreement and one of us blocks them. I have also blocked or been in the discussions that lead to blocks for users for repeated vandalism, or abuse. For an unblock that has not come up often, the few socks that appealed were not successful. and that was by consensus of all admins involved. I did unblock one user who I had blocked, I felt my block was unwarranted after I received more information. We came up with a better solution.

@Faendalimas: I hate to throw you into the deep end of the pool, but I was wondering what your perspective is on our most recent Community Review. I'll give you an out, if you prefer, in that it is is difficult to research for background information when you can't see the deleted content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will answer this as best as I can. As a sysop we get difficult issues we have to be able to answer them. As you note I cannot see the deleted histories etc because they are under protected view and I do not have the rights. However, from the user in questions first statement as you pointed out in response to it, it seems that whatever those links led to were an accurate summary of the situation in question. I am going to run with that assumption for the purpose of this answer. In my answer I will focus on the process rather than the issue itself, for two reasons. One it is closed and I have nothing new to add to the discussion. Two I do not have the necessary background knowledge to discuss it.
  • Basically what I can see is this was review of an ethics violation by a sysop. A serious issue. Any user with advanced rights is entrusted to be there for all the other editors, to act on behalf of editors and the WMF to ensure policies, decorum, and ethics are maintained fairly. For this reason yes I think sysops are held to a higher standard and must be. I think the process laid out was fair, it was evidenced and the user in question was given every opportunity to respond. A de-sysop can be a very stressful process. As Justin (@Koavf:) is very aware as he has also been involved at Wikispecies we had a very ugly de-sysop of a Bureaucrat a couple of years back. So I know how difficult it can be. Your process remained very cordial throughout. Including to his credit from the user involved. Proposal to de-sysop was unanimous hence that is the course of action. I gather the further actions decided on in the end was a voluntary subject ban this also seems reasonable and from what I can tell the user in question agreed to it. So in the end I think it was done very well, correctly, inline with Wikimedia Policies and had an appropriate outcome.
  • I am currently in the middle of what will likely be a de-sysop on Wikispecies, though its for inactivity not a breach by the sysop in question. At present I am waiting to see if that sysop responds, he has 30 days, if he does not I am off to the stewards to remove his rights. It is another one of the things we have to do.
  • cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Learning Environments edit

Lets start from WikiSpecies and create a brigde to Wikiversity. A learning environment has

  • learning objectives,
  • tasks for the learner (e.g. Wikiversity quiz, activities, ...)
  • definition of terminology, ... (Wikipedia)
  • scientific references - rationals for the learning resource,
  • lecture, seminars slides e.g. generated with Wiki2Reveal
  • ...

For a learning topic e.g. in epidemiology many Wiki resources must be integrated to support learning progress

How do see your role for guidance of Wiki authors in integrating those different resources in Wikiversity learning resources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bert Niehaus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 October 2019‎ (UTC)

Very interesting question, considering the forum of this question a sysop application, I am assuming you mean my role as a sysop, Custodian. Of course I could also apart from that review the piece but I think that's another topic. My major role in the development of an article, that is being written by others, using cross-wiki information is to ensure policies are adhered to. Including Copywrite policies, neutral point of view, if there are editors here that work in a field they are editing they need to be wary of OR (Original Research). Of course I also ensure it follows our Manual of Style, Of course I should also be available to assist if needed. There are also additional issues that may come up that would require a sysop, for example importing items from other wikis, creation of items that are restricted (you have just had a user need this on the requests for custodian action page with someone needing interface admin rights temporarily). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your statement about the role as sysop very much and how you derive possible activities as sysops from the requirements and constraints on the content level. The example with Wiki species is related to the expertise, all custodians have in their own specific domain. But the derived sysops acitivies, that you stated go beyond your specific expertise and the relevant content elements for such a specific learning resources. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 06:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Faendalimas: What are your thoughts on the activity at this community discussion and what, if anything, would you have done as a custodian? --mikeu talk 18:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather disconcerting vote. I wont discuss how I would have voted on that, anyone who knows me could probably guess. However, as a Custodian this vote would have concerned me, as it clearly did others.
Once a vote starts it has to be permitted to run its course. However, that all oppose votes were by well known users and all support votes were by complete unknowns is a huge red flag. It brings to mind two things, vote stacking and canvasing. I would have done what clearly several Custodians did and go through each vote and examine them for their appropriateness. Struck-out and canceled all votes that were clearly illegitimate. The result would be called on what is left. Which would seem to be a unanimous oppose. Considering how few edits, often zero, were done anywhere on WMF by some of these people raises the possibility this applicant was canvassing outside WMF for support. This is not ethical. Now the vote was clearly opposed in the end and can be closed as unsuccessful it can be left at that maybe the applicant will get the point. I would have discussed with other sysops whether we wanted to take this further though. Obviously I do not know if your staff did this. Vote stacking and canvassing are both blockable offenses depending on severity. But I would only take it to that step if that was a consensus decision. I find it hard to believe that 5-6 people who had never made a single edit on any project would suddenly find a nomination that they can vote on. Unless they were told about it. This would be reasonable evidence of canvassing. A warning or a block for that are possible outcomes. However, it could also be dealt with just as appropriately by cancelling all votes that are clearly illegitimate as I gather you did for this occasion. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful response. This is certainly an unusual case (which is precisely why I asked about it; deep end of the pool as Dave calls it.) Technically speaking Wikiversity:Canvassing was never adopted by the community as an official policy, hence the voting irregularity as the primary reason for the closure. FYI, I also PROD'd his "website" which he had linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Philip as it was a recreation of w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip. --mikeu talk 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Voting edit

Outcome edit

There is broad community support for User:Faendalimas as custodian. Closed as successful. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship/Faendalimas&oldid=2203163"