Wikiversity:Community Review/Recent actions by Emesee

Recent actions by Emesee
User:Emesee has protected Topic:European history so that only custodians can move it. Uninvolved parties, please review this to see if there is a better of action that should and/or could be taken in light of the circumstances. He is open to reasonable dialogue.


 * The original complaint, and following discussion, have been removed by Emesee (diff), after which he protected this page from editing for two weeks (diff). The Jade Knight (d'viser) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Topic:European history has been unprotected. --mikeu talk 10:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Community Review has also been unprotected by a steward. --mikeu talk 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Below is the discussion removed by Emesee before he protected the page. --SB_Johnny talk 14:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Emesee has moved and protected Topic:European History to prevent it from being moved back. Emesee appears to be unwilling to engage in discussion on any talk pages about his need to constantly move pages where he is not involved in developing content, despite the fact that I have brought the issue up multiple times on his talk pages. I created the page and have been involved significantly in its development. Emesee has hardly been involved at all, and has insisted on renaming the page however he likes. While this sort of unwelcomed unilateral action is disrespectful to begin with, what I find particularly inappropriate is that Emesee recently moved the page to the version he likes, and then protected it himself, without any discussion at all, to prevent any further changes. It is highly inappropriate for Emesee to be using his Custodial tools to protect pages so that he may protect his preferred version of them. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to tone down your language here. Emesee 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are currently being highly disrespectful and you are abusing your role as a Custodian. It is inappropriate to engage in edit-warring and then to protect a page to your preferred version while ignoring what discussion has occured (which you chose not to participate in).  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above post was originally in response to this; Emesee has since self-censored his response. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that Emesee has taken issue with every single action I have proposed at School_talk:History. Also he appears from one post to be looking for a template to delete. Geo.plrd 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this related to the issue at hand? Do you feel that this reflects on Emesee's other actions in the School of History?  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is part of a larger scheme of his actions in the School of History. I remember that he created a History of the Americas page, which blocked a merger. This appears to be the manifestation of his disagreement with merger proposals that we have been working on.

If you are talking about those templates, then yes. I object strongly. That arguably takes away from organization on Wikiversity in the long run a great deal. I strongly advise against using it, but consensus is consensus. Please let me know where that template is, which I think I may have created. Emesee 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) This would appear to be him planning to delete the templates in use at American History. I know its a stretch but he indicated displeasure with their use, then asked where they were, then noted that he might be the author. Geo.plrd 06:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think this is the best way to approach the betterment of Wikiversity. Then great. Good luck. Have fun. Emesee 06:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If what is, Emesee? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to find out why Emesee is now trying to censor me. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Jade Knight

 * Action proposed: Ban for ten years.
 * Reason: Incivility
 * Evidence: Stating the other users are "whining" and acting "silly".

Please find the diffs yourself. Emesee 08:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ban as per nom. Emesee 08:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ban as I don't see a need for it at this time Geo.plrd 08:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * —I will stand by consensus as to whether or not this is appropriate. Please do review this page's recent history while deciding, however.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 08:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed Please provide detailed evidence that such a drastic action is warranted, and don't open a new request unless you can back it up. --mikeu talk 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
I'm a little confused about what's on my watchlist this morning, but it doesn't look good. What's going on?

Just for the record, Emesee's tools were removed by a steward, but has two other accounts in the sysop usergroup. Could we get an account of what happened so we can make whatever decisions need to be made? --SB_Johnny talk 11:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Found this revision, which seems to sum it up. Seems he was edit-warring with the assistance of the page protection tool. The section above (recommending a ban of Jade Knight) shows rather poor judgement as well. Keep in mind that there has also been a pattern of poor communication about other things over the past few weeks (see his talk page), including some very heavy-handed blocks of dynamic IPs, censoring comments, and so on. --SB_Johnny talk 12:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Nominations for checkuser/Remi which has been reopened to review the CU access request. --mikeu talk 12:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The checkuser nomination has been closed, per Emesee's advice. Cormaggio talk 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to remove tools from all accounts
There is clear support for removal of custodian access. The community does not have confidence in his ability to use the tools in an appropriate manner. --mikeu talk 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(administrator access temporarily removed until the community can review)

Emesee has removed comments and asked on #wikimedia-stewards to get the buttons turned back on, etc. I think it would be a good idea at least for the time being to remove the tools from his other two accounts. We can give them back later if that's determined to be a good choice by community discussion. --SB_Johnny talk 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * , regretfully but firmly support immediate removal of all tools. --SB_Johnny talk 15:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , Geo.plrd 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * immediate removal, while discussion is ongoing. --mikeu talk 15:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I no longer have confidence that he can use tools in an objective and fair manner. Protecting a mainspace page during an edit war that a custodian is involved in is inapropriate.  Protection of a Community Review page to shield oneself from criticsm is unacceptable, and does not reflect the kind of judgement that we require from a custodian.  --mikeu talk 17:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * removal - Why did multiple accounts have tools in the first place? (I know some of the background, but I still think it's a valid question, there is no reason for one user to control more than one account with admin tools) Note, you may wish to discount this support as I have little activity in this community. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal. I, like Lar, fail to understand why multiple admin accounts were permitted in the first place. I have had little confidence in Emesee's ability to perform the CheckUser role (unfortunately I was unaware of the nomination until after it passed), and now I have little confidence in Emesee's ability to perform the custodian role given the rather clear recent abuse. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @meta 17:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , per recent events and discussion. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal - per Lar ..--Cometstyles 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of tools on all accounts. Highly erratic, unexplained behaviour, not responding to questions, editing other people's comments (after being asked not to, and saying he wouldn't). Also using custodian tools to have influence over an edit war. Cormaggio talk 08:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it be if I supported that? As I understand it, there was not particularly a valid reason to have the tools removed in the first place. Emesee 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're kidding. I think the above comments clearly state what actions were inappropriate. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I appreciate that this is being done on wiki. I hope it was a third party that alerted Stewards to my "abuse", if it wasn't, and they should know if it was, then I urge that User:Emesee be reflagged as custodian. Emesee 16:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of procedure stewards only remove flags, it is the local bureaucrats who add them. Actions like protecting Community Review while you are in an edit war does not give confidence that you can use the tools in a fair and appropriate way.  It mattered little who alerted them, actions like that speak for themselves.  --mikeu talk 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The request to the stewards to have you emergency desysopped was, in fact, not made by me. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser?
Closed - There are good reasons to believe the account is not compromised, and no other reason for needing CU has been explained,. --mikeu talk 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I hate to have to say this. However, I feel that a checkuser is necessary to see if this is a compromised account, because of the erratic behavior. Geo.plrd 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The other two accounts have been inactive since early summer. He also verified his identity last night, so it's fairly unlikely that this is a compromised account.--SB_Johnny talk 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for a user to checkuser, might I suggest Special:Contributions/Werdna? Emesee 16:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Wernda is a highly trusted user acting in perfectly normal ways; accusing random people isn't helping your case. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @meta 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume you are saying this person has more than three edits on Wikimedia projects. Thank you for the information. Emesee 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to stop editing others' comments. – Mike.lifeguard &#124; @meta 17:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see a real need to checkuser Emesee… The Jade Knight (d'viser) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)