Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/V. Molotov

V. Molotov
[ Vote here]  (23/10/0) ending 03:55 [September 26, 2005] (UTC)

– Tireless vandalslayer. Tireless editor and creator of exceptional articles. All-around good guy who has this project's best interest at heart and a cool head during times of crisis, despite his rather "explosive" user name. :) I cannot recall ever having nominated another user for adminship and I cannot think of anyone more deserving of the mop and bucket. - Lucky 6.9 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Thank you, thank you, thank you. Gracias, obrigado, merci, arigato... Okay my point is clear.. I accept Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 21:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Molotov is extremely geneous with bestowing Barnstars, more proof of his good nature toward Wikipedia and Wikipedians. - Lucky 6.9 21:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Andre ( talk ) 21:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dealt with well before, really like him, thought about nominating him myself. N (t/c) 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) THE STRONGEST SUPPORT A PERSON COULD ACTUALLY GET &mdash;Its about damn time :). I would have nominated him myself, but I read somewhere that he was waiting a bit. Great guy, Wikipedia will certainly benefit.   Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * 5) Support - Guettarda 23:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Administratsysoptorise  Martin  23:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support! Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) I SUPPORT YOU!Tdxiang 01:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support great editor who has made some great contribs on Russia-related articles. perfect person for adminship. -GregAsche (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, sooner or later I would have nominated him myself. &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Please get that preview button under control though :).... there are sometimes five edits within a single minute (!) with the same (unfortunately unuseful) edit summary. Slightly more careful edits + better edit summaries == happy me.  Other than that looks good. Ryan Norton T 07:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No prob with Molotov, should make a fine admin. Alf melmac 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support: I do believe that he shall be a successful administrator. --Bhadani 14:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, a very useful addition, SqueakBox 16:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, calling someone an idiot one time should not rule him out of adminship. Besides, this jeff merkey guy seems to stir people up ;) Sam Spade 21:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Of course. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support--MONGO 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Will be a good admin.   Ral  315  02:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Someone below cited angry outbursts, but outbursts don't bother me much. What's really important for an admin is to generally have the right course. Everyking 10:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support He'll do a good job. Pilatus 14:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Of course... Fire Fox T  C   E  17:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Even though i dont normally agree with u in VFD u will still make a great adminirador --Jaranda'' | yeah 05:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support KHM03 16:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Regrettably I'm going to have to Oppose. As an admin you're going to have run-ins with lots of unpleasant people, if you can't keep your cool in such cases (or even worse, feel entitled to break the rules because people are mean to you) you might want to concentrate on other aspects of wikipedia. --fvw *  14:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) While the frustration is understandable in such circumstances, I feel that a personal attack made so recently is sufficient reason to oppose. I think that admins definitely need to be able to stay cool under trying circumstances.  Again, Molotov is a fine editor, and has IMO far more positive contributions than negative.  However, he's young and perhaps too excitable at this point. Friday (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He's young? Andre ( talk ) 23:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, see comment below. Friday (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per fvw and Friday, gkhan 22:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - fvw and Friday's comments ring very true for me. Also, in January and April of this year this user engaged in a campaign of harassing DreamGuy. (See User talk:24.164.211.25,, for a small sample) He has repented and mended his ways since then, but not enough time has passed for me to support him. Also, I don't put much weight on Barnstars and welcome messages. They seem to make people happy, which is great, but they are unrelated to admin work. Because of the enthusiastic support above, I am wavering between Oppose and Neutral, but I don't feel confident that his interpersonal skills have matured that much in 5 1/2 months. FreplySpang (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) After seeing the link that Dragons flight posted below, I am not wavering any more. FreplySpang (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This is just not acceptable; I don't care how provoked it was.  Dragons flight 05:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Sorry, but I am forced to agree with Fvw and Dragons flight, those outbursts just days before your adminship request gives a very negative impression. An admin must be at least somewhat gracious in the face of adversity. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. The recent unacceptable conduct cited above is the reason I'm opposing. Assuming this was an isolated incident, I would support in a few months. Carbonite | Talk 15:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Per Dragons flight; Admins must be able to keep a cool, level head. This behavior clearly shows the opposite. I can not in good conscience support a nominee for admin when they exhibit behavior live that. --Durin 15:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)  Addendum: Seeing the notes below, I remember now that I have had interactions with this nominee before. The harsh attack as noted by Dragons flight is not isolated. When the user was relatively new to Wikipedia, he got involved in a vandalism war against a user that he had a dispute with. I attempted to mentor him, and he appeared to want to contribute in more effective ways. He was thankful at the time for my belief that he could become a better editor. I had hoped he would maintain a level head moving forward from that incident a long time ago. I'm disappointed that has not been the case. While I strongly encourage the nominee to continue to strive to be a better editor (and he has become better), I can not see any reasonable basis for this nominee becoming an admin. --Durin 15:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, the link provided by Dragons flight confirms my discomfort. By way of observation and advice, the nominator's adminship was long delayed, due significantly to a few similar outbursts. He finally received it after demonstrating his continued dedication to Wikipedia, improved behavior, and above all, willingness to take and act upon constructive criticism. As a further note, I think the new username is a poor choice, as it gives the appearance of attempting to encourage/justify this sort of behavior (it's also a little borderline under the username policy). --Michael Snow 16:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, after reviewing some of the editor's contributions, including the link provided by Dragons flight above. Jonathunder 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, for reasons cited above.  "Courtesy in the face of any insult" should be the first goal and guiding principle of all administrators.  Candidate should review WikipediAhimsa for a general idea of what I'm referring to.   Un  focused  19:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. He's a fine editor, but may lack sufficient understanding of policy.  He seems to get flustered at vandalism at times, to the point of saying he's leaving the project, so I'm not sure why he'd want to be an admin.  If he sticks around, I believe in time he could be a fine admin.  Friday (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC) Changed to oppose, see above.

Comments
 * Dude, I can't believe your out against me because I lost my temper. I apologized, and FVW apparently you don't understand why I had gotten so angry.  A user had spread terrible lies claiming I told him to f*** himself here, after being warned by other users that he had been spreading lies about me.  I called him an idiot because the fight had been going on for nearly a week, and naturally, I got a bit pissed.  It wasn't good judgement at the time, but I definitely do not think that is a bona fide reason to oppose me.  I personally believe that I have tried to put more "good" in this site than bad, and therefore disagree that this incident was a reason to try to stop me from being an adm. However, I must respect your decision. Molotov  (talk)


 * I crossed out old comments, however, I would like to note that I am disappointed that a single incident such as me calling a known troublemaker and vandal an idiot after one week of harrasment and apparently trying to get me banned - as he had stated several times, and including in his edit summaries, is a reason to "go out against me." I have spent countless times patrolling recent changes, participating in Vfds, rfas, cfds, imds, congratulating users, reverting vandalism, handing out several hundreds of barnstars, uploading military ranks, welcoming newbies and of course, creating several dozens of articles; it is naturally to my chagrin that some people have felt that this incident warranted opposition to me fufilling my duties here on Wikipedia.  No person on earth can say that they had never lost their temper, and considering the length of his irritation and my efforts to quell this conflict, I am a little "flustered" that some users could actually believe that this incident was a bona fide reason to oppose me.  I can't be upset, but I can still hope that I win the votes over.  Therefore, I will still respect their decision, although it deeptly upsets me and has me to worry about the discretion of several Wikipedians; and of course future candidates whose positions will be put in jeopardy because of petty incidents.  Note that on the VFD for Jeff Merkey one of my opponents had stated that Jeff Merkey was a known troublemaker. Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 01:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Addendum my page was vandalized nine times during/after this incident, (see my talk and user page history, but especially the former) and it seems that the culprit is obvious. I think a slight loss of temper is undertstandable.  Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have an unformed idea that V. Molotov used to have a different username until recently, and that I then had some kind of basis for a notion about him — don't know if it was a good or a bad notion, but most likely good, I'm sure. Anyway, could you help me out, please (unless you'd rather not for privacy reasons)? Were you somebody else? Bishonen | talk 20:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He was D. J. Bracey, SqueakBox 20:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SqueakBox. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, he was User:Horatii at one point. FreplySpang (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I had to readd vote by MONGO Molotov (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 01:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a reply to  Andre , from above, but it's a bit long so I'm putting it here.  Yes, I believe from his user page that he recently graduated High School.  But, I should point out that I don't mean to imply that I think being in any particular age range is any kind of qualification.  Certainly, Wikipedians of all ages are valued contributors.  However, I think seeming young may be what really gives me reservations, rather than being young.  In the grand scheme of things, the "outbursts" are no big deal.  Everyone makes mistakes; I won't pretend I haven't had moments of questionable civility too.  It's just that seeing such edits only a few days before an RFA gives me pause.  I agree that an isolated episode shouldn't prevent anyone from adminship, and don't think it will.  The worst that could happen is that this nomination will fail.  I think temperament is a very key attribute of a good sysop.  I know it's theoretically "no big deal", but I feel that civility is one area where we should have very high standards.  Friday (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment/Question Like I wrote on your talk page a couple weeks ago I think you have a great, positive attitude. I have a question for you though. I know that you do new page/RC patrol from time to time, while looking at new pages do you think you would stay close to WP:CSD policy? Do you think that admins/RC patrolers need to stay within WP:CSD guidelines when coming across possible CSD candidates? Rx StrangeLove 04:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Final Comment I am very disdained that ancient history with DreamGuy is taking away votes from me. I have done way more good work on this site than bad, and had effectively made peace with this guy. Concerning Jeff Merkey, the entire conflict had been pushed at that level because of his hideous lies posted about me/ and his refusal to negotiate. I apologized, and think we should all move on here. Apparently, people are looking at bad things way more than they are looking at my potential to be a successful editor for this site. Molotov (talk)  18:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * CSD QUESTION RESPONSE Of course I believe so. However, I believe that users that are adding nonsense to Wikipedia should be warned and eventually blocked should they continue to add CSD material. Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw desire to become an adm. Due to aggressive users. Molotov (talk)  19:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A statement


 * I have generally been disdained and pissed off by generally arrogant editors on this site, who bring up ancient history and a recent outburst to oppose me on my RfA - without looking into the fact that I had been contributing edits and had effectively set a high standard for every article I have edited or created. They have chosen a vandal (Gadugi/Jeff Merkey) and a known provoker of vandalism and edit wars (i.e. DreamGuy), over me.  In my opinion they do not have the discretion to accredit hard working Wikipedians, hold grudges, and have generally betrayed me as some of those people on my opposition I had helped before.  Although the idiot comment against Gadugi is completely warranted - they do not seem to care.   Neither do I, and it is for that reason that I see little incentive to want to contribute to this site, as it has only provoked my anger for the last few months.  I don't need Wikipedia...on the other hand, Wikipedia needs users such as I, and other hard workers, who actually take the time out of their lives to take bullcrap on a daily basis and get vandalized in the process.  Furthermore, the lack of recognition and the quickness to point out mistakes has led me to the conclusion that I have no reason to be on this site.  I want to revert every good thing that I did here...erase all those articles, and put back in all the vandalism that I had taken out, just to demonstrate what one user's value really is on a different perspective.  RickK had emphatically stated that there is a fatal flaw in this system - that being those of intellectual, and arrogant pricks who are running the others like they are in a zoo.  I have left Wikipedia before, and had only come back because other Wikipedians told me my presence was needed here...that what I was doing was notable and admirable.  Apparently, they are not correct, as my RfA had proved to me that I have no reason to be here. I have recently been invited to join WikiBooks, and Spanish and Portuguese sites...so I may stick around there, but I am not sure as this entire site has me "flustered" with a general lack of judgement and arrogance.

I see no reason to continue here,Molotov (talk)  22:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think few people are questioning your ability to generate positive, contributory edits of high quality. That is not what is in question. What others and myself have shown is a pattern of volatile behavior on your part when faced with stressful situations. This pattern existed months ago, and as Dragons flight noted, exists now. It has nothing...nothing...to do with picking a vandal over you. It has everything to do with assessing your ability to deal with stressful situations which are likely to be more frequent were you to become an admin. Please recall how you were involved in waging a vandalizing war, and I helped mentor you out of it (see your #1 talk archive). If instead my action had been to personally insult you and attack you in every way possible, your reaction to me and to Wikipedia may have been dramatically different. You can't behave like that towards people...even vandals...when you are an admin. As always, I strongly welcome your contributions. I think you make a great editor. There's nothing here to tell you that you shouldn't stick around as an editor. Please stick around. Not being an admin is not the end of the world. In the end, you have to decide for yourself. But, you are very welcome here indeed. --Durin 02:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No he isn't. I had just started to think about becoming an editor here myself, however, I had changed my mind after looking at this.  In my opinion, you all should feel like jerks and dorks.  The man was obviously a fine contributor, and you let an editor who speaks three languages and who is obiviously extremely intelligent leave over a recent but single incident which he had apologized for, and then one that dates back several months.  There is a fatal flaw in this system. -- Danny Matthews edit by 
 * In fact I think calling you all intellectual pricks was an understatement. The word starts with an a, and ends with hole. -- DM edit by 
 * Wikipedia is not run by, nor is it represented by the very small % of total users who have voted on this particular RfA. I am truly sorry if you have taken offense at this process and the people who have voted here. I can assure you that the user who is the subject of this RfA is very much welcome as an editor. However, this user would make a poor admin. As has been repeatedly pointed out here, he has a pattern of volatile behavior. Even in his above statement he states that people here on the RfA have "pissed [him] off". The pattern of angry lashouts at those who disagree with his perspective continues. It simply isn't acceptable behavior for an admin. That does not mean he can not be a good contributor; he's demonstrated he can be. That does not mean we're being arrogant or disdainful of his efforts. In fact, quite the opposite; we want to see him succeed as part of Wikipedia. Putting him in an admin position is going to put him in a situation where he is going to come under even more stress. Apologizing for the behavior is only a first step to resolving the issue. Corrective action in the form of preventing it from happening again is another step. That step has yet to be taken, as his lashing out at "arrogant editors" who brought up past behavior has shown. Worse, he still believes his referring to Gadugi was warranted...which goes directly against his apology. I have followed this user periodically over the last many months. I think he is a fine editor. I do not think he should be offended at the prospect of not winning a vote to become an admin. Instead, he should learn the lessons from the comments that were made, apply them, and come back in a few months when he's demonstrated he has resolved these issues. --Durin 06:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Who says he would make a poor admin? 23 votes in favour and 10 against is hardly consensus for a poor admin; indeed it is nothing more than the POV of the user writing it. The way the case was going was a marginal will he/won't he type of case, and by no means a rejection, so I think Molotov shouldn't take Durin's comments to heart. I stick by comment when I voted, SqueakBox 06:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A RfA is by definition burdened with POV. It's a voting process, and opinions are going to be spoken. My comments are in line with my vote. I do think Molotov should read all comments here, glean lessons from them, and apply those lessons to his work here. I can not judge for him what lessons he thinks are important or not so important; thus taking it to heart isn't really the point. --Durin 06:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I plan to try to help out newbies most of all, which I already do with my current powers - but plan to augment this right with sysop powers which I hope to attain. Unfortunately, I have encountered a lot of vandalism on this site, so I am not squeamish to block an anon IP, especially if all the contributions they had made were vandalism.  I plan to show mercy, basically.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I absolutely am proud of every article I have created; especially those pertaining to military ranks, such as the Ranks of the People's Liberation Army and Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. Moreover, my absolute favorite article that I had created was under an IP - the William Lynch Speech.  I have created several articles since I have been here - hundreds if you count stubs related to the Maldives - and continue to contribute these.Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. In one such instance, I compromised with User:Fledgist on the William Lynch article. Through compromise, most things are made better in my opinion. Molotov  (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 21:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)