Brickipedia:User rights/Removals/archive

Brikkyy13, remove administrator rights

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Done It has been suggested that this user's rights should be removed after the recent abuse of Special:Nuke (a special page where an admin can mass delete pages. In this case, it was set to delete all pages created by me). User claims that their account was hacked, and was in fact not them. NovaHawk 23:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Remove rights I do not wish to be a leader figure in a community that makes such harsh accusations (do not forget to remove the rights from meta as well) BrikkyyTalk 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Since "mea victim" is on the list (well, more of a web, really) of things that ticks me off, I would like to point out that that is what this is.... Berrybrick (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Seems overly dramatic... --Lewis Cawte (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Agreed. Yikes. -NBP3.0 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I'm really rather doubtful of the hack claim. What motive would someone have for hacking the user, and why was the user able to get hacked in the first place? If you can't protect your own account, should you have access to rather destructive tools? My feeling is no... --Lewis Cawte (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I don't know whether to believe Brikkyy or not. "Hacked" I don't believe. Someone guessing his password or obtaining it in some other way- maybe. The fact is, I don't feel it matters either way- either it's a case of vandalism or a security leak. I knew there was something holding me back from supporting Brikkyy for admin, which is why I took a few days to vote. But I couldn't find anything so I gave up and just based my support it on his contributions here (which have been great). But after this, it reminded me of what I was looking for. First of all: Check the summary of the block log here Check the edit summary of this edit - he was "hacked" before. This time by his brother, not a friend. Again, I'm not saying whether I believe Brikkyy's claims or not, but it clearly is either 1) a security leak (which isn't a one-off incident), or 2) made-up stories, and the actions have been performed by Brikkyy. Therefore, I don't think having admin rights applied to this account is currently suitable NovaHawk 23:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Would have been per Nova, but in light of the proxy evidence, I don't see any other (ethical) choice. :/ Berrybrick (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I was still holding some hope that it wasn't actually you, but the proxy being confirmed basically confirms this in my mind. But you aren't being victimised here - no one is calling for say, you to be blocked, despite sockpuppeting and vandalising and personally attacking other users. So stop acting like we are out to get you please. This is purely administrative. CJC95 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I really hate doing this. You are a valuable member of the community, but, the evidence it pointing towards some sort of elaborate hoax. If, you are indeed 'innocent' (I apologize for any law references - I love detective stories :P), then I feel bad for you. I know I'd feel awful if it happened to me. --LK901 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I am not acting like you are "out to get me," but it would not be a lie if I told you that I felt that this was injustice. I do know that this is purely administrative, and I'm trying to keep it in a stable situation (word of warning though, I will let loose in a tell-all blog post), my sig is in the remove rights section for Pete's sake. BrikkyyTalk 12:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Per CJC really, there is no part of me that likes revoking administrator rights (Unless it is skdhjf). -NBP3.0 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC) If it happened on one day, I'd believe but this seems to be a common event so it's forced me to vote yes. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Sorry. - Bug (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I am usually a pretty optimistic person, but this just ... Sorry. If things like this have happened before I kinda loose hope. I can't be too sure, but I'll see. ~~ You know, Sibo the First (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Keep rights Comments Evidence is currently available to admins - a edited version can be produced for here if needs be. CJC95 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) You probably should provide it. Berrybrick (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC) This relates to vandalism from a few weeks ago. Brikkyy undid the vandalism within a couple of minutes of it happening, and a week later the IP vandalises Brickkyy's user page. He then emails him (when I tell him not to give emails to vandals on chat), and later when Brikkyy says on chat about "are they reading the log" he got an email saying "yes". This "person" is responsible for the "hacking" and nuking. This is based in America, unlike Brikkyy, until it strikes me as being a proxy, and indeed both use identical devices. (unlikely, especially as not much hacking is done on iPad) Just before the Nuke, Brikkyy left and joined chat multiple times in the space of 15 minutes, unusual for him. Then the minute after the Nuke happens, he joins and says it wasn't him. He then guessed to me that this IP had hacked him. Also Brikkyy's password was said to "be strong". In my mind, the most likely explanation would be, for whatever reason, Brikkyy did it - I consider it less likely that a random American with a vendetta who happens to stalk Brikkyy once a week, and then manages to hack his account, and then whose first action is to use Special:Nuke - something most admins don't know exist - against a user NovaHawk they've never heard of, instead of saying, just calling Berry & Brikkyy rude names again. CJC95 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Proxy confirmed - http://free-proxyserver.com/ was used. NovaHawk 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) RE:Proxy + Sock Block + Chat + etc. Proxies are available to anyone, this person clearly escalated in rage faster than a normal/reasonable person would. As for the block idea, I've supported my own rights removal and "agreed" to go inactive (though I do admit this is in frustration with the situation) so, if anything, I'm meeting you half way (because I'm sure that right now you're discussing a block on the admin wiki). Multiple chat joins- Device refresh issue. (don't really mean to drag people into this) Sibo expirences this problem too. Finally, what would even make me want to consider doing something like this? What would be the purpose of bringing harm to an already struggling website? Increased edit count? Nothing that can't be achieved by normal editing. "Popularity"? Already been nominated for BotM (somebody close that please, no point to it after this mess). The hero act? A massive misuse of the Nuke tool would obviously mount an investigation like this (I saw this whole event coming the moment I saw that in the recent changes, thanks to Berry and Cody for getting those pages back btw) so there'd be absolutely no point in doing it. This whole thing I've described is the one flaw in your evidence (and more than likely at this point this guy's agenda). BrikkyyTalk 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) The flaw in the evidence is also the flaw in your defence - there is no reason for anyone to hack you either, certainly not because you believe that BIONICLE started in 2001. In all the years of admining wikis, which is longer than I've even been here (so, I don't know, at least 8 years of experience), I've seen people make enemies, and I've made enemies, and never has anyone ever managed to be hacked by one. As for the refresh issue, yes people have it, but until that night, you never had, and you didn't have it after you blocked yourself and switched account. I look forward to the tell-all blog, because I'd love to know all. :) CJC95 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) If you want me to speculate, I would guess that you did it for the same reason that you created Unlikely Peanut Butter: A bit of entertainment. At least with the BIONICLE thing. I'll admit that the nuke seems like a huge escalation, but the damage was obviously undoable and makes the arch-villain out to be more of a threat than just knowing wikitext. \_O_/ And nope, no block is being discussed on the admin wiki. And if one starts up, I'd probably "leak" it anyway since I'm not the biggest fan of holding those there anymore. Berrybrick (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Stole my words. I did something similar on a completely different website where I was an admin too (chief admin, actually, so even more embarassing :P. --LK901 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Re:Block yes, it wouldn't be done there - I didn't see that when I originally read, but as someone who stopped us discussing stuff like that there in the first place, it would be here. The admin wiki has had no discussion since the topic started here, because there is no need to have two discussions. CJC95 (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Entertainment? What's the entertainment in wreaking havoc then having the community (and yourself) vote on removing your rights? BrikkyyTalk 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC) The same pleasure one gets from trolling, I guess? As for the second part, I don't think you would plan on being caught. :P Berrybrick (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC) If I did do something like this I certainly wouldn't make it this easy for me to be found out. The evidence that has been presented are all dumb mistakes that semi-intelligent person would not make (for example, I wouldn't use the first proxy to show up when you google "proxy"). BrikkyyTalk 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC) To be fair, it doesn't show up until page 2 for me :) CJC95 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC) To be fair Google search results are based off of tracking and whatnot but it's still one of the first few things to show up BrikkyyTalk 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC) If your argument has been reduced to "I'm too smart to do something this dumb," then there isn't anything more for me to do than point that out. I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the proxy either.... I don't know much about the way that Google's results would work in this case, but might it show up as the first if you had used it regularly? It could be a regional thing too, maybe? Alternatively (and a bit convoluted), you are trying to make it sound like you would be dumb for using the proxy that you did even if it wasn't actually the most obvious choice to make because you are lying when it shows up later in the search...but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the other options (if Google does work that way. :P ) Berrybrick (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I am not saying "I'm too smart to do something this dumb" (I have done a lot worse than and acted a lot stupider than all of this before irl), what I'm saying is using that specific proxy for this purpose is such a dumb idea that even an idiot would know not to use it. BrikkyyTalk 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) You could have intentionally picked the dumbest option to avoid suspicion, assuming we'd also think "no, he's not that dumb". You might be very crafty. Not saying I think this, but you might want to use another argument. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I don't have a refresh issue, my issue is that I leave when I'm exiting Chrome. :-P It's pretty usual for me. Refreshing issues are not so common for me. Only once in a while. ~~ You know, Sibo the First (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

LegoFan4000, remove administrator rights

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Not done I'm sorry but he's been rather annoying lately. He won't listen to criticism and he goes around deleting and adding stuff as he pleases. I think this is a good example of why we shouldn't just add administrators because they're editors. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Remove rights I've already explained all my reasons before, at this point my vote is pretty self-explanatory. SamanthaNguyen (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Keep rights Not because I think he is using the rights as well as he could - I agree with most of what Sam says, and often end up coming into conflict with him over his edits, but because I don't feel that this is currently worthy of being here. User rights removal feels to me the result of breaking rules, or abuse rights, and I don't think Legofan has actually done that. He has perhaps taken Wikipedia:WP:BOLD a step too far, and could certainly be a lot more commutative and response. As with a lot of my votes these days, its not that I necessarily disagree with the principle, but I'm weary of the precedent, and the potential diverse nature we can get to if we start doing things based on someone being annoying. I think a lot of us admins have been annoying in the past. I can list examples if people like. Basically, keep on principle. CJC95 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Conditional keep only on the grounds that the communication-related issues are resolved. Wikis are a community effort and communication between editors is the key. I consider myself somewhat of a deletionist, but some of LegoFan4000's recent deletions have been too much. On 8 August LegoFan4000 deleted a bunch of interface messages (MediaWiki: pages) related to the ArticleFeedbackv5 (AFTv5) extension. This is problematic, because 1) he did not discuss with anyone about this prior to taking the action, 2) those pages exist(ed) for a reason and 3) no valid reason for the deletion was provided (for log purposes etc.). We discussed about this on chat either on that day or on the next day, during which I explained the reason for those pages' existence (it makes no sense that our tools link to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy and whatnot when it's obvious the WMF's policies do not apply here because this isn't a WMF wiki), but so far the pages haven't been restored. I haven't restored them because while it's obvious that they shouldn't have been reverted, I'm not going to start a wheel war. AFTv5 stuff aside, some days prior to that — late July and on 4 & 5 August — LegoFan4000 deleted a bunch of pages related to the DPLforum extension/old forums. While these pages weren't actively used, their deletion was later on contested (by Edward Nigma in chat, if I recall correctly) and it was pointed out that they contained historical information that might've been useful to keep. Then there's the whole MediaWiki:Mainpage debacle. While I agree with LegoFan4000 here — there was and is no point in keeping a customized MediaWiki: message if and when its value is the same as the default value — the problem here is that this is a classic example of wheel warring. Despite all this, I believe that LegoFan4000 has learned from these events and knows what should've been done differently and why, and how to improve in the future. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Comments Sam, would you mind elaborating on what reasons you have? I don't know what you're referring to. LCF (talk!) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Right here: Brickipedia:User_rights/Requests, and then you scroll down to the oppose section of his RFR SamanthaNguyen (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Ok, sorry, I never meant to bother you, but I would rather keep my rights because I have done stuff thats not unhelpful as well. LegoFan4000 talk 20:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Actually doing things is nice. When those are things we don't want done and it continues to happen without any discussion: not as nice. Berrybrick (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Tempted to support, but neutral. This user's whole "it has to be done my way or noone's way" attitude since they have gained admin rights has been extremely frustrating. If they're going to keep their rights, they need to learn to work with the admins and other users instead of thinking of themselves as above everyone else. Single-handedly making drastic decisions (like deleting large chunks of archived material that's been around for 10 years), and more prominently, constantly reverting admins and/or other more experienced users who know what they're doing instead of talking things out on a talk page or forum has been getting a bit beyond ridiculous in the last few weeks. NovaHawk 04:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC) I'm going to have to agree with Nova here, the situation borders on actions worthy of demotion, but some just seem like honest mistakes. LCF (talk!) 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Not Done. Closing this off- if a rights removal was going to happen, it would need a pretty strong consensus, something that this is clearly not going to get. NovaHawk 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)