Brickipedia:User rights/Removals

Brickipedia's user rights removal page is a rather unpleasant page where users can nominate others for the removal of user rights in cases where they believe a user is unfit to keep the rights that they currently possess.

To be eligible to vote in a request for removal of rights, you must have made at least 50 mainspace edits to this wiki.

Current Requests

LegoFan4000

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was User was demoted So, this was proposed a couple weeks ago, and didn't get anywhere because the reasons given weren't great, and frankly it was a bit premature. Still, recent issues have come to light and I'm here to do a proposal that includes actual reasons. Communication issues: These issues haven't been fixed since the last time we talked about. As well as the examples mentioned last time (such as deleting the whole forum namespace because someone mentioned it wasn't needed offhand), he still doesn't respond to some questions - take this afternoon, where he has not responded to questions here, but has started another forum underneath it. A larger example would be the constant Main Page changes, where broken or poorly designed code where added to the main page, often while still being drafted by other users. When concerns were brought up they were often ignored, and consensuses were changed without asking anyone, such as in http://en.brickimedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1067826. Things being deleted with no reason given, such as the ArticleFeedback MediaWiki pages, and changes to other site features with no reason given, such as removing meta from the interwiki table while meta is both still open and while lots of things link there. [1] Basically, an admin shouldn't be struggling so much with communicating with other users and admins, especially when they specifically ask you to try and work out what is happening. Claiming others content as their own: While, there is a current fiasco over at BP:Forum about creating a wiki using Brickipedia content/templates/images/logos without any attribution, a more concrete example is this revision, where he claims to have made some "modification". This turns out to be the content from Wikimedia Commons (or the Niger Wikipedia, but probably the first), with a "false" changed to "true" and removed some help links. Phabricator - This is perhaps the main reason to create this, because it exemplifies the issues well. LegoFan has managed to get himself banned from Phabricator, which is admittedly an impressive achievement, and somewhat of a rarity. Basically for the same things as here: reckless/impulsive actions with little reasoning, wheel warring, and communication failure (such as reverting actions by experienced developers with no reason given). Since then some sock accounts have been banned, see here here and here. While Phabricator isn't here, it is the site which hosts our technical discussions and for one of our admins to be banned from there for the same issues as here, is worrying. Support As nom. CJC95 (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC) SamanthaNguyen (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC) I'd have no problem if you'd renominate yourself in a couple of months after you improve but as for now, no. I think it's our fault really for saying yes so early.Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Taking our content without permission or reason was the last straw for me. BrikkyyTalk 23:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC) It's the lack of communication and the evident refusal to reply/acknowledge his actions that has driven me to support LegoFan's demotion. LCF (talk!) 01:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but the Brickibooks incident has tipped me over the edge. And the stuff going on with Phabricator has made it much worse- I can't trust anyone who goes around making socks to evade a block on Phabricator with admin rights. And, as usual, when asked point blank why he was doing something, it was completely ignored. In addition to my previous reasons on the archive, the apparent apathy towards making other people clean up his mistakes has also gotten to me- eg, CJC had to restore just under 250 pages manually after the unexplained mass deletion (although there was nothing stopping him from fixing it himself), I've had to re-add stuff to interwiki tables three times (there's no "undo" button on these), and numerous people have had to fix several other things on specific pages. Not once have I seen anything like an "oops, sorry" or "my bad". Now making mistakes is fine, everyone does it, and I you don't have to apologize to anyone every time you make one, but seemingly not even remotely caring that people have put in a good amount of time cleaning up your mess has grated me a little. NovaHawk 09:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Per all above. Vasko (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Oppose Comments Not ready to vote (and very possibly won't) but the communication is the big one for me. I understand not wanting to work with others and I understand wanting to make the changes you think have to be made, but you can't have it both ways. You either need to answer questions and have a discussion or shrink away from what is causing the conflict. People have given plenty of opportunity, I think. Berrybrick (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC) It's now September 10th, which is (if I can math correctly :P), 15 days since August 26 - so basically 2 weeks. Can this be closed now? SamanthaNguyen (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Done. LCF (talk!) 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)