Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zero0000

Zero0000
This person is a rare combination of somebody that is both well-informed on Middle-Eastern history and current events as well as takes a professional (read: unbiased and cool) attitude towards article management and discussion. These kinds of people should be cherished on Wikipedia. -- Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept the nomination. Thanks for all the comments, both positive and negative.  To Angela and Cecropia: yes of course I understand and accept that restriction. --Zero 00:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Dissident 21:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, of course. Great editor. Danny 22:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Secretlondon 22:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. WP need more people like him. BL 23:22, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  If people engage in edit wars with him, he can now protect the page and make the needed changes. ChrisDJackson 01:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Eh, that would be a violation of policy. -- Dissident 03:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * In my support below, I'm assuming Zero0000 would not take ChrisDJackson's advice. Zero? Cecropia 06:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. No-One Jones 18:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Zero has a hard edge that he would do well to remediate. I disagree with some of his writings, but that is not what this is about. I'm impressed with his intelligence and skill and would like to hear an expression from him that he would "count to ten" before crafting his talk responses and admin duties. So, cautiously support. Cecropia 06:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) (BTW, did he ever accept the nomination?)
 * 3) Support. john 06:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Valuable contributor, support -- Viajero 14:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, though I think he will need to be careful not to use admin powers in articles he is involved with. Angela
 * 6) 172 00:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Fully Support we need people who know middle eastern history! Comrade Nick
 * 8) Support, if he can write neutrally on the Middle East. On the other hand, given my Jewish heritage I must question MY OWN ability to write neutrally on that subject. :-)) --Uncle Ed 12:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 16:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Martin 18:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) --Lst27 00:04, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I've looked over some of his article edits and some talk page edits. Seems knowledgeable about subjects that really need someone knowledgeable. Doesn't appear to have an agenda. I don't see that he has any problems communicating with other editors. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Good enough record all things considered GrazingshipIV 07:22, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Cribcage 05:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Sure, why not. ugen64 02:15, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) He's a good contributor. WhisperToMe 02:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) Too many edit wars. I feel this user is contentious. Kingturtle 21:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) anthony (see warning) 22:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I get a bad feeling about this person. He was a very emotional and non-considerate arguer: Talk:Permutation Hfastedge 05:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed with Kingturtle and Hfastedge. --&#913;&#955;&#949;&#958; &#931; 23:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I appreciate his attention to detail, as well as his knowledge and writting talent in his major areas of contribution, as do those that support him, but adminship has nothing to do with that, nor will adminship or lack thereof effect his ability to perform in these areas.  The skills that are relevant to adminship are interpersonal communication and critical thinking.  I am not confident with him in these respects, in concurrence with the assesments of those above. See for example, Talk:Permutation Kevin Baas 19:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *Where in Talk:Permutation? I only see article discussion. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 20:33, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) **Ofcourse you only see article discussion. Anything else would be inappropriate for an article talk (a.k.a. discussion) page.  I am refering to the latter part of the page, where he discusses the article with people.  It should be pretty easy to find. Kevin Baas 16:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ***Honestly, all I see there is someone arguing firmly on a highly technical discussion. Perfectly decent people knowledgeable in arcana tend to do that. I'd have to see something more than that to reconsider my positive vote.Cecropia 16:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) ****Clearly, there is a debate. This was never disputed. A debate doesn't neccessarily imply anything "negative";. (-Or "ositive", for that matter.) This was never suggested. I cannot point you to anything but words on a page, i.e. "discussion". I'm sorry if this is not enough for you. I can't fathom how one could possibly operate on wikipedia with such a threshold.
 * 10) ****As I feel I have made fairly obvious, I am pointing out a discussion that may be informative for people to examine and critique on the basis of the interpersonal communication and critical thinking skills used therein. This can always be done. Empty rhetoric aside. Kevin Baas 19:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) ****At risk of being ostentatious, let me clarify what I think the difference in assesment strategy between me and Cecropia is. In a word, I'm more conservative when it comes to putting people in power. I will in general vote "no" more often than "yes", and often for subtle reasons.  Issues can always be brought to an administrator's attention, but it is much more difficult when an administrator is an issue, which, without sufficient selection pressure, is just as likely (given that issues are generated by people).  I.e. rather a few really good administrators than a lot of not-so-good adminstrators. Kevin Baas 22:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) *****Guidelines above says: "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better." I'm not arguing your point, and of course you can vote for or against for any reason, but do you feel that policy should be discussed and maybe changed? Cecropia 23:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) ******I feel that the situation is not as straightforward as the guidelines are worded, namely, that there are functional and political forces which should be taken into account. I will discuss it on the proper page.  Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Kevin Baas 09:51, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) * Also see User talk:Zero0000, discussion with Stevertigo (sv) regarding revert wars.
 * 15) Oppose. Involved (rightly or wrongly) in lots of edit wars and such. We need admins who are upstanding non-controversial wikipedians, regardless of what swell guy people think he is. Maximus Rex 01:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other:
 * 1) Neutral - but I do want to say that I think Hfastedge has it quite wrong. Charles Matthews 16:15, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * 1) Has a highly specialized editing pattern and  Too new. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Zero0000&limit=500&offset=0 128.83.101.111
 * 2) * Anon - void. L UDRAMAN | T 01:47, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Hmmm.....I've heard good things about Zero0000, but everytime I've seen him in action, I see a user who seems to be working behind the scenes to "rally troops" and coordinate efforts in order to win edit wars/discussions.  Now, I know that can happen for innocent reasons (sometimes a troll needs to be handled collectively), but it makes me nervous to see it as what I perceive to be a natural state of affairs for Zero.  I'd like to see some examples of cool and calm behavior?  I can see myself being convinced, but I need more than normal "great guy" comments to commit -- I'd like it if both sides pointed to instances.  Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I haven't decided on my vote yet but isn't building a concensus what we want to happen? What has Zero done when his rally failed?  Fought on his own or stepped back to accept the will of the majority? (I don't know - this is a real question) - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 14:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I hope this isn't going to be a case where the nomination hangs for a week because (at end time) it was one vote short of 80% (19/5/1) Cecropia 05:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
 * Admin ratio was, if I count correctly, 10-2 (83%). -- Dissident (Talk)  13:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like a Bureaucrat needs to look this over, or maybe the 'crats should huddle with one another. There obviously needs to be some kind of discussion or evaluation. Deja vu all over again. ;-) Cecropia 16:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats trying to reach a consensus on whether this is a consensus? Interesting. -- Dissident (Talk)  16:59, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... somewhere back in my spotty education I seem to recall the statement to the effect that "the heart of management is not in always making the right decision, but in being able to make any decision in a timely manner, and then being able to stand by it. If close calls are going to cause crises of bureaucracy, perhaps we'll have to spell out guidelines more clearly, or else have a second process to decide close cases. Cecropia 20:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to think up an admin promotion policy which is more rigid, but still leaves a healthy amount of wiggle room. I came up with the following:
 * Everything below 75%: reject unless there were irregularities (sock-puppetry, etc.).
 * Not below 75% and not above 80%: judgement call by bureaucrat.
 * 80% or above: accept unless there were irregularities.
 * -- Dissident (Talk)  20:18, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable enough to me, but it doesn't address Bureaucrats' concerns that they shouldn't have to make judgment decisions. I have some thoughts which I will post to talk anon. Cecropia 21:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, then change the judgement call to 75% approval rate of admins (again barring irregularities). -- Dissident (Talk)  11:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Seriously, people, are we starting to get too touchy on these adminships? Looking over admins made just this year, I see several who were unopposed but received a total of 4 to 6 votes. We have a promotion with 7 positives and 1 negative. Is this more consensusy than someone getting 21 positives and 6 negatives? I mean, are we going to start counting hanging chads? Either we have to lighten up a bit or else (1) give our bureaucrats very strict guidance or (2) have some kind of secondary process. I mean, the Supreme Court has enough on its hands as it! ;-) Cecropia 03:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)