Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights

An extreme measure against administrators and bureaucrats that, over prolonged periods of time, have worked deliberately against Wookieepedia, have displayed undesirable behavior that causes substantial harm to the image of the Wookieepedia community, and/or abused their powers.

Voting will last two weeks from the date of nomination, ending at 0:00 UTC of the fourteenth day.

To view past requests, see the archive.

Requirements:


 * 1) There exists substantial proof that the admin or bureaucrat has worked deliberately against Wookieepedia, engaged in behavior that has damaged the image of the Wookieepedia community, and/or abused their powers.
 * 2) Links to said proof must be provided. Edits to Wookieepedia, comments on other web sites and IRC chat logs may be used as evidence.
 * 3) Participating registered users' votes must have a 2/3 supermajority for adminship to be removed (Only users who have been registered for over a month—from the day the nomination is put forth—are counted).
 * 4) Participating administrators' votes must have a 2/3 supermajority for adminship to be removed.

RFRA message
Let me start with saying this: Administrators and bureaucrats are elected to their positions to serve the community. They are not voted to be granted sysop abilities so that they can use them as weapons against users when it suits their needs. It is an unfortunate event when a sysop-user has to be put up for "Request for removal of user rights". Why? Because they were originally voted into their position to help the community, and they would not have received any support if users didn't think that they would do a good job. However, there are rare times when administrators allow themselves to lose sight of what their true role is within the community, and I'm sorry to say that this is now the case with Kuralyov. This is not really something new, and his attitude towards users, both admins and non-admins, has been unfortunately deplorable far too many times. I'm not saying that Kuralyov does not contribute to this site; in fact, he's a machine when it comes to content edits. He is an excellent editor, is seemingly always up to date on new sources and appearances, and he contributes at a bots-pace. However, even though I would say that he is an excellent contributor of content, I can't in good faith say that he is a good administrator. Now, granted, every administrator of this site has, at one of another, done things that might have not been the best choice at the time, or maybe allowed their position to influence their decisions. However, the difference with them is that when confronted about these mistakes, they shape up, admit their mistakes, or generally change their attitude upon realization that they are servants to the community, and not rulers of it. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about Kuralyov. He constantly uses his sysop-position to intimidate new users, and even established users, with threats of bans, blocks, and reversions.

It's unfortunate that this needs to happen, but it has been a long time coming, and his attitude/behavior over the last month or two has been what has now led me do nominate Kuralyov for the RFRA process. Even though Wookieepedia's admin team has, at times, been at odds with each other, the vast vast majority of the currently serving administrators recognize what their role is and are content in using their sysop-tools to help the community, instead of hindering it and causing negativity to infest it. I would have hoped that Kuralyov would have heeded the multiple warnings and advice on his talk page (and talk page archives) from both users and administrators alike to cease in his aggressive/threatening/intimidating behavior. I would have liked for that to have happened, and for Kuralyov to realize when his attitude/actions were wrong, and simply owned up to them. Instead, I feel that Kuralyov retaining his sysop rights will only continue to be detrimental to community. As with previous RFRAs, I only believe that the RFRA process is the absolute last resort in the face of individual administrator problems. However, I unfortunately don't believe that Kuralyov will heed various warnings that he has been given, and I doubt that even more time will change that. I regret that this even needs to take place, since I firmly believe that Kuralyov is a great asset to the site; however, the site's administration is not contingent on any one administrator, and I feel that enough is enough now. I firmly believe in giving second chances, but Kuralyov's blatant disregard of any warning or advice given to him shows that he does not necessarily care how his actions affect the community. So, on that note, I request that the community now decide whether Kuralyov should retain his sysop rights, or if they should be removed from his user account. Greyman http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One final note: It would be appreciated by the administration if this RFRA nomination is kept clean and civil, and that any grievances be communicated in a respectful manner to those involved. This is not the place to flame other users or administrators, but instead this RFRA process is meant to be conducted in civil and respectful manner to all those involved. Please only be concerned about the evidence, and don't get into trouble by allowing your attitude to control your behavior. This RFRA process is the result of that such behavior.

RFRA evidence

 * 1) Block log for Kuralyov – He's been blocked by other administrators for breaking, or skirting, the 3RR rule&mdash;not once, but three times. The admins know any other administrator can simply unblock themself, but the simple fact that he needs to be blocked for engaging in edit wars, some of which he uses his sysop tools to block the other party, is simply wrong. Instead of doing what is expected of an administrator, and take any disputes to the talk pages, Kuralyov believes that his position entitles him to bypass the rules established on this site. Edit wars are something that we might expect from new users who don't know the rules. However, an administrator who breaks or even skirts the 3RR rule demonstrates that they don't even understand the basic concept of what it means to be an administrator of Wookieepedia.
 * 2) Archived talk page post – Along the same lines as the previous point, here is a 3RR warning to Kuralyov from a fellow administrator regarding edit warring. Regardless of the other users involved, edit warring from an administrator is simply embarrassing.
 * 3) Specific VfD vote - General combative and aggressive attitude from Kuralyov, directed at several users and administrators. I honestly don't care if this was a sensitive topic or not&mdash;again, Kuralyov is an administrator, and regardless of the efforts of fellow administrators to be civil (even if it was restrained), Kuralyov eventually holds nothing back and does his best to discredit both fellow users as well as people off-site. Flaming your fellow user and those people off-site who you don't like is biased, negative, and not what is expected for those elected to the administration.
 * 4) Archived talk page post – Shows that Kuralyov uses his community-given sysop-tools for the wrong reasons. The fact that a non-admin user attempts to show Kuralyov the error of his ways, speaks volumes for how his behavior and attitude are seen by the community.
 * 5) Talk page post, to another user - Demonstrates that Kuralyov is simply too quick to jump the gun, and threatens a user with a "cool down ban". What's so wrong with approaching an established in a civil manner and attempting to talk it out? Nothing. The worst that will happen is that they'll fight back, flame you, and then you'll have cause to give them a "cool down ban". However, this user believed that they had reverted in good faith, and was thus almost scared away due to Kuralyov's abrasive and aggressive attitude.
 * 6) Talk page post, to another user – This post is worse than the one above this. Threatening, aggressive, pompous, arrogant&mdash;this just shows users that administrators are always ready to block them, even when they've done nothing wrong. This user reverted an addition in good faith, as seen here at the time stamp 02:29, 23 March 2008. Kuralyov replied with the linked threat to the user, which is completely unacceptable. One should wonder if this would have even happened if it was an addition to an article not done by Kuralyov.
 * 7) Talk page post, to another user – This talk page post demonstrates Kuralyov's attitude of reverting things to show his own point of view of things. Kuralyov approaches this user, after they approached him, and simply implies that if his PoV wasn't maintained, then he would continue to revert/remove the information until the other user(s) backed down.
 * 8) Talk page post, to another user – Summary of this post: This user was told "Unless you can provide a source for this name change, and soon, I am going to ban you for vandalism". Now, not only is this the completely and totally incorrect way to approach a user, for an administrator, but this is ironic since Kuralyov is frequently asked by other users to provide sources for the information he adds, and which he refuses to acknowledge or do. Should this mean that Kuralyov should be blocked for vandalism, since he has a habit of adding unsourced information to articles? Absolutely not. So, why is it alright for him, or any other administrator, to warn a user like he did here? Answer: It's not alright. This is just a continuation of the attitude seen on various talk pages, both previously linked and not-linked.
 * 9) Archived talk page post, to another user – Why not simply approach this user and explain why what he did was wrong? Instead, this user was threatened with a ban (and whether or not it was justified is beside the point) and not explained why it was wrong. It took another administrator to come along and explain to this user the errors of his ways, when in the first place, a little more tact, concern, and diplomacy from Kuralyov would have solved the problem in the first place.
 * 10) User subpage – To be honest, this page speaks for itself; likewise, it was at the center of some debate on the site before.


 * I'm sure that more evidence of the above behavior and attitudes could be found, but I, a) don't feel I need to scratch the surface any farther, and b) don't believe that any more evidence is required (though, I am probably mistaken). Again, I think it's unfortunate that this RFRA even needs to take place, and I wish that it had not of come to this, but I have been approached by far too many users over the last few months for this not to be dealt with now. Like I said above, this is a last resort, and I would have preferred that it had not come to this, but it has. Greyman  http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Unfortunately, but enough is enough. Administrators are voted to their positions so that they can serve the community, not so they can use their sysop tools to serve their own point of view. Greyman  http://images.wikia.com/central/images/9/9c/Jan.png ( Talk ) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Good editor, bad admin. Havac 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Specifically per item 6. I was involved in that one, and I've never been so turned off in my career as a Wook editor. Kura has consistently shown he is a corrupt administrator, and despite some of the comments supporting his quality as an editor, he makes poor edits in bad faith. I've had to remind him several times to source the information he adds, which he has refused to do time and again, and even to not create speculative, fanon-esque articles, reasoning that he defiantly chafed against. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Based on the overwhelming evidence. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) No comment. Graestan ( Talk ) 01:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) If it were just the latest bout of rudeness and squirming out of punishment, my attitude would be live and let live, but looks like his rap sheet goes back quite a while Enochf 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Graestan. Din&#39;s Fire 997 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I have no objections to Kura as an editor, and have never encountered any personal "beefs" between him and I; however, the rap sheet, as Enochf puts it, is quite extensive and encompassing. Nothing personal, or anything of that nature. 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Cabal vote. -- Manticore   (talk)  03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) --Pinky Talk 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I'm sorry Kuralyov, like others have said you're a good editor... but unfortunately I have to say: per the overwhelming evidence. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) During the incident that was mentioned in Item 5, I had started reviewing his Talk Pages to see if this was a new thing. Unfortunatly, I saw repeated "Can you source that?" and "What'd I even do wrong?" messages.  Over and over and over.  I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, chalking his attitude up to having had a bad day, but when the continued pattern of behaviour became more and more obvious...  Several times, I've thought of approaching another admin and discussing this, but I wasn't sure how to.  I left a long message on his talk page, asking if he would be willing to discuss the matter with me in hopes that it could be resolved, but I never heard anything from him.  I'm still hesitant to edit certain articles, even moreso whenever I see his name popping up in Recent Changes.  It's making it hard to work on the Rodian article, as I stop and think "Is Kuralyov gonna ream me for wanting to do this?"  I'm just not too sure if Kuralyov has the maturity to handle being an administrator.  He seems to be intoxicated by the position he holds.  Absolute power corrupts absolutly.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Kuralyov has ignored numerous attempts by others to talk with him about his actions, and doesn't seem to want to change his ways. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I considered trying to start something like this back in the days of the Quote:KT fiasco, and even discussed the possibility with some other admins on backchannels, but at the time we had no statutory method of removing admin status so I didn't follow through. Afterward, Kura's behavior seemed to die down, and so it seemed unnecessary.  However, with his recent flurry of threats and bans aimed at established good-faith users, it seems that it unfortunately is necessary after all.  At any rate, I'll point out that his most recent self-unban, in addition to being in bad form, is technically a violation of administrative autonomy.  jSarek 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Per Havac. I've been on the receiving end of this phenomenon a couple of times; despite that, I don't cast this vote lightly, but the evidence speaks for itself. Admins should try to be reasonable in almost every situation.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) I thought he'd cooled down some; this latest unblocking is evidence that leaving an individual with sysop powers with a continued pattern of explicitly breaking policy is not a good idea. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)