Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights/Archive/Kuralyov

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for removal of user rights that resulted in the removal of adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Kuralyov (15 administrators + 11 users/0 administrators + 0 users/1 administrator + 1 user)

[edit] 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 ^(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.

[edit] RFRA evidence

1. Block log for Kuralyov – He's been blocked by other administrators for breaking, or skirting, the 3RR rule—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—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—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.
    • Thought it should be noted that Kuralyov just deleted this page. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've restored it, and unfortunately, it's that type of attitude from Kuralyov that has led to this RFRA—he believes that he is above the rules since he's an administrator. I will continue to restore it, if he deletes it, until this RFRA is either successful or not. Greyman ^(Talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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 ^(Talk) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 ^(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'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. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 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 ^{(Talk page)} 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
17. I agree with pretty much everything said above. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
18. Per Chack. Unit 8311 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
19. I'm afraid the body of evidence speaks for itself. -- Ozzel 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
20. If I was ever unsure, that tirade sold me. - Lord Hydronium 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
21. I know voting at this point is somewhat redundant, but I had to get my two cents in before this thing is over. Point 1: All joking aside, the implication that there is some kind of IRC cabal is absurd. If you ever spent any time in there, you'd realize that none of us get along well enough to form a cabal. Getting two of us to agree on something is hard, getting three of us to agree on anything is like trying to teach housecats to dance a chorus line. Point 2: There's no reason why Kuralyov couldn't have spent time on IRC. If you can use the web, you can use IRC. It's not our fault he's antisocial. People join the group all the time. Point 3: Repeatedly denying a fact does not invalidate that fact. If Ackbar broke 3RR, Kuralyov broke 3RR. Point 4: I know damn well that it could easily be me up there being voted off the island, but for the fact that I can sometimes accept that I am wrong and I am capable, though not easily, of backing down on issues. Kuralyov clearly is neither. Point 5: Reductio ad Hitlerum. You fail the internet. Point 6: A forum mod is not a Wiki admin. Forum mods have less leeway in choosing when and how to enforce rules and have to answer to authorities more concrete than "the community." Havac is a damn fine Wiki admin, and ad hominem attacks at fellow admins chosen at random are unhelpful and dumb. Havac can be just as stubborn as anyone, but he never uses his power to enforce his own personal views, which is the definition of a bad Wiki admin. Several of us have been guilty of this, myself included, but Kuralyov makes it part of his daily routine. Point 7: There is no point 7. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
22. --Eyrezer 06:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Per all of the above. Riffsyphon1024 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Agreeing with everyone else, but see comments below. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Well, no surprise here because this has brewing for quite a while. The point of my user page was to collect information. I did not think that any single infraction was RFR-worthy, but as we see from the evidence Greyman has posted, it is an ongoing trend, not isolated situations. Other than that, there's nothing I can add that hasn't been said already. Oh, wait...that might have been said already too.  :p Oh, I will reiterate one other thing. He's a great contributor; just not a good admin.WhiteBoy 00:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Per above. And because of the generally antagonistic relationship Kuralyov has always had with me. -LtNOWIS 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Object

[edit] Neutral

1. -- I need a name (Complain here) 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2. On the grounds that there wasn't some sort of admin wide message sent about. How is it that this has gone on for two days and I'm only learning about this now? I know I'm not the most in-the-loop admin at this site, but I am here everyday. -- SFH 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
   • This is one of those pages that everyone should probably keep on their watchlist. -- Ozzel 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
     • And even if I had of done a admin-wide msg, via the admin mailing list (which every admin is a member of, SFH, other than you), you still wouldn't have gotten it :P Greyman ^(Talk) 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
       • You would have had to announce it loudly in the top header for everyone to see it. I would also hope that all admins pay close attention to this page with watchlists, even if 90 percent of the time it is empty. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
       • Er, it lasts 14 days. What does it matter you didn't find it in the first one? -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

All right, why the hell not, if this will all make you feel better. I might as well have a last say.

1. First off, way to go Greyman for so objectively and dispasisonately failing to inform me that this was going on. Afraid that I was going to use my super secret powers to delete this?
2. After this, I figure this is it for me on Wookieepedia, at least for a long time and under this screen name. I'm not saying this to try to threaten you to change your minds since it obviously won't work, or get sympathy of which there clearly is little, I'm just stating it. Even if it would work I'm sick of this place, this is probably for the best for me anyways. To be honest, I probably subconsciously precipitated this just so I could get an excuse to walk away. You all have fun dragging me through the mud but the bottom line is that I did more for Wookieepedia than probably any of you voting now, it was fun while it lasted, now it's a shame (but not unexpected, given how I was voted in just to have more admins to fight vandals) that a bunch of wet blankets have taken over.
3. That being said, this is pretty damn funny. This whole thing started because Admiral Nick and Admirable Ackbar got angry at me for putting the Supreme Commander in the succession box at the bottom of the Stazi article. However, the article - which they themselves wrote - states in several places that he was the Supreme Commander, as do just about every other article relating to it here. And Nick never did reply to my challenge as to whether he honestly does not think that Stazi is the military leader of the Galactic Remnant. And then, in the aftermath of that, I really did not do anything wrong. Admirable violated 3RR, I did not; I was spun as the villain by the secret cabal of IRC buddies who, no matter what the letter of the act may be (and I still deny that) they clearly abused the spirit of the administrative autonomy (on the topic of which, jSarek, thanks for pointing out that violating it only applies to me!). I am willing to bet that the whole reason Greyman started this was because I bruised his ego by pointing that out. But what the hell, I don't hold it against him.
4. But what I do hold against him is his #10 piece of 'evidence' up there. That was a slimy piece of shitmongering by WhiteBoy and Three Dot was right when he called it a Gestapo page. If any other user made a page like that, against any other user, they would have been permabanned. You have some nerve bringing that up as 'evidence' and trying to say that the 'center of debate' was over me as opposed to WhiteBoy being his usual asshole self over it. Fuck you for that.
5. Also, Havac: you have some nerve calling me a bad admin seeing as how you're probably one of the worst mods at TFN. Want to talk about letting personality get in the way ob objective reasoning? And that is saying something, considering that McEwok, Rogue Follower, Jello, and the aptly-named DP are your companions. Which brings me to the last point:
6. Some final advice, if I were you (which I never really was) I'd stop letting mods and admins from other sites, especially TFN, become admins here. The whole WhiteBoy issue was tied into TFN staff trying to export their semi-official censorship regime over here.
7. Anyways, that's about it. I am now going to delete the WhiteBoy subpage as one last hurrah and then leave here for good. FYAD. Kuralyov 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
   • I challenge you to point out where I got angry. For the love of God, did you even read my first message to you about the issue. I respectfully informed you of the issue raised on Stazi's FAN page and asked you to source it. If that is "angry", you sure have a damned funny definition of it. Furthermore, after I noticed you and Ackbar reverting each other, I left you another message on your talk page saying we should all try to work this out. The fact that you are accusing me of things I never did is quite a suprise for me, especially considering we have never had a confrontation before. AdmiralNick22 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I knew I wouldn't need to comment. Graestan^(Talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• There aren't words to express my opinion of this whole thing. Sorry Greyman, no chance of keeping the civility here. FWIW, don't feed the trolls. And no, that's not a personal attack. It's a general expression of wisdom on the Internet/RL. Sheesh. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Though I'd rather not get into this, but…Kura, might you please link to the four times you claim I reverted on Stazi in a twenty-four hour time period? I'm willing to entertain the notion that myself, Greyman, Culator, and StarNeptune were all wrong and were missing the obvious, but only if you can actually show it. From what I count, you edited it 4 times (3 reversions + an earlier addition of the info I removed; basically a reversion) and I edited it 3 times (3 reversions). Continually repeating it over and over without backing it up doesn't make it any less false. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In future, when someone puts up an RFRA, could they at least take the time to notify the admin in question? By my count, this was up for more than nine hours before Kuralyov was notified. His comments seem to indicate that he wasn't notified privately or on the IRC channel either. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) (withdrawn: I've been told he was notified privately after all. —Silly Dan _(talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

• What is strange is how two hours before the RFRA, Kuralyov said to Greyman: "You truly are a model admin, I do hope someday I might be like you!" I'm getting even more confused now. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't want to speak for him, but that reads as sarcasm to me. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• I knew it would end like this, I just expected someone else between me and Kuralyov. This is just like the bloody French Revolution all over again. (Pun intended.) - Sikon 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)