Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parsecboy Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Parsecboy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (63/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy (talk · contribs) - This user has had plenty of experience fighting vandalism. This user has also help expand numerous articles as well as start numerous others. From what I've have seen of this mans work, he would be a excellent addition to the ranks of administrators Pewwer42  Talk  20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across Nate at WP:SHIPS, and was quickly impressed by him. He has been diligently working along with a few other editors (myself included) to eliminate the backlogs of unassessed articles in our scope. He has identified a need for the tools on many occasions, most recently here for housekeeping measures within the project. He also has created and expanded a large number of articles related to maritime history, as seen on his userpage. This isn't to say he hasn't had some problems ... although he can better explain, Nate has two "friends" who have been responsible for his two blocks, which were quickly overturned, but nevertheless are a blemish. He could use the tools to combat this problem far better than having to pester another admin for help. He has a close to perfect overall edit summary usage record, and for those with editcountitis, 11,500 undeleted edits, spread across many namespaces (including 6000 mainspace). Overall, I believe he will be an excellent admin, and hence tender this, my first co-nomination. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A:I plan on helping to monitor WP:AIV, WP:RFPP WP:AN, as well as the WP:AN/I. Having made numerous reports to these pages, I notice there is often a backlog; I would like to help keep these pages running as smoothly as possible, so the editors requiring assistance get help as soon as possible. I would also help with XfD, probably initially in more clear-cut speedy-delete cases, at least until I become more experienced. As I get more experienced as an administrator, I will likely branch out into other areas that might require an extra hand.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've created/worked on a few dozen articles relating to the German Imperial Navy. I've turned many of the links on this list blue (hopefully at some point, they'll all be blue :) ) I'm also proud of my contributions with WP:Ships, especially tagging and assessing quite a large number of articles, converting deprecated infoboxes, and other general house-cleaning tasks. It's something I enjoy doing, oddly enough.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:As mentioned above by MBK004, I do have a couple of "friends", two banned users who have habit of stalking me here on Wikipedia. One, with whom I had a run-in just the other day, has a penchant for following me around and reverting my edits, often with incivil edit summaries. He's the one responsible for the two 3RR blocks I've been hit with (and as noted above, both were lifted early when the facts of the situation came to light; i.e., reverting edits of a banned user). Given the nature of this harassment (the stalker uses dynamic IPs to avoid blocks), I just revert his edits, and if he concentrates on a specific page, request semi-protection, until he gets tired and leaves. My other friend enjoys creating impostor acounts (not to mention off-wiki harassment). In his case, I just reported each account as they were created and came to my attention, culminating in a checkuser case that resulted in the stalker's IP being blocked. I thankfully haven't seen him on Wikipedia since. It has been at times rather stressful, especially when the second stalker started posting personal information on Wikipedia, but I was able to get the assistance of admins who were familiar with the situation to delete the edits. If granted administrator tools, the only thing I would do differently in dealing with the first stalker would be to block the IPs being used for a short time (a couple of hours at most), or if necessary, semi-protect a targeted article for a similar duration. Given that the second stalker hasn't appeared since his IP was blocked, I don't think he'll be a continued issue.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. If somehow, regrettably, you found yourself in a fist fight with RuPaul, who do you think would win? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A:That would indeed be regrettable, and I think that I would at all costs avoid a throwdown with RuPaul. However, if, as a last resort, I had to partake in some pugnacious pugilism, I do think I would win. In fact, I think I would make mincemeat out of him. Who knows, there may even be some floor-mopping going on as well. Why? Because I'm just that good. I hope that answers your question ;) Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Parsecboy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Parsecboy: Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Parsecboy before commenting.

1. Support as co-nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. – Steel 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Excellent user. Acalamari 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as co-nom. that would be odd if I didn't wouldn't it--Pewwer42  Talk  22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support An excellent user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support on a recent contribution on which I was confused, I turned to Parsecboy. He was immensely helpful, considerate and contributed much more than I had asked him to. I asked his help because I thought he was an administrator. He ought to be. Roregan (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Good track with over 6000 mainspace edits and no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support nice, well-rounded user. Spencer^T♦C 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Make that Strong Support because he's also a Buckeyes fan. Spencer^T♦C 03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support 100% edit summary usage, been here a while, and with over 11000 edit should be trusted. I also hope you learned from breaking the 3RR rule back in September. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment I'd like to clarify that I didn't break 3RR in September, based on the exemption for reversion of edits of banned users, the aforementioned stalker I've picked up. Thanks for your support. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Weak Support - You seem trustworthy and all but, looking at your editcount I don't see a conclusive amount of experience in the wikipedia-space (such as WP:AIV) and after reveiwing your talkpage, I beleive you could be more WP:COOL.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments. No, I haven't made a lot of reports to things like AIV, mainly because my focus has been more in article creation and editing, as opposed to fighting vandalism on a broader scale. I generall prefer to revert and ignore vandals who only make an edit or two; my philosophy is that they're not worth wasting time on unless they've shown a pattern of disruptive editing. What in particular on my talk page makes you think I should cool down a bit? Are you referring to the bold/italicized note at the top? If so, I do admit putting it up in a bit of an aggravated mood, and if you think it's best to remove it, I will do so. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Support If he can take RuPaul, I am sure he can oversee Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Looks pretty good. Good history. I like what the user has been doing and how these questions have been answered. Doczilla _RAWR! 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - a good history of article improvement combined with extensive experience in "machinery" and cleanup activities. The explanation for the 3RR blocks seems fine by me and the edit record is excellent. Euryalus (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yup Jmlk17 08:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - seems trustworthy, reliable and dedicated --Calabraxthis ^(talk) 09:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - I see no issues of concern. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, I see no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
19. Support per nom(s). I, too, am a little concerned about a lack of participation in the Wikipedia space, and urge the candidate to tread carefully once the mop is granted, as I am confident it will be. Spend a day or two wading through new admin school before getting into your heavy-duty mopping. No real concerns about the candidate, otherwise. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I am planning on working through the NAS if granted the mop. I also don't intend on doing too much too soon; you've gotta crawl before you walk and all that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. Yes, good encyclopedia builder, that's what matters the most. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Oppose Likes the Buckeyes. Support. Looks like a great editor to me. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as per excellent experience with this editor in WikiProject Ships. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. support. Looking through your talkpage, I don't see any evidence of incivility. In fact, you seem to handle yourself very well, especially during the recent 3RR block on your account. IMO, you kept your cool there. As for your talkpage, I would say leave the notice on top, as it is informative and not at all incivil. Remove it of course when you're an admin. Once an admin, replace it with a really nasty one because you will be untouchable! Mwa-haha! I'm of course using a highly sophisticated level of sarcasm here. Don't do what I just said. What you should do though is go really slowly with the tools, especially reverting/blocking/protecting. Now that you'll have the block button, it will be very easy (and very tempting) to start blocking accounts that edit articles that you are involved in through your WikiProjects. Don't do it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your comments. Yes, I picked up on your sarcasm :) Like I said above, I do plan on working through the admin school, and taking my time with using the tools. As for those who edit articles in which I'm involved, I always welcome positive contributions, no matter who's adding them. I don't plan on blocking anyone unless they're exceedingly disruptive, they've been properly warned, and continue disruptive editing afterwards. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support No probs here. Twenty Years 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Got back up immediately after a block - a great feat. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose like the buckeyes!Support - meets my criteria. --Chetblong^{T C} 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. An appealing candidate. Good general experience, with neat touches of excellence partially mentioned somewhat in the nomination statements. Parsecboy appears to display what is needed in a administrator, and so I am therefore willing to contribute another support to this request for adminship. Rudget. 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. --Jason 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

    This user has been blocked as a confirmed sock. Sarah 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support - Would make a great admin. Soxred93 | talk bot 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Appears to be an excellent candidate and I agree with Keeper76’s comments about the block. —Travis^talk 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Changed to support per my comments below. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - Yep, No Probs. PookeyMaster (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Seems like a really good user. Just the kind Wikipedia needs to do the admin tasks dealing with vandals. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Good answers, by the way. B110 _{communicate (that means talk)} 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. A strong candidate. Understands policy, works well with others, and great article writing and collaboration experience. He should make a good admin. Majoreditor (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. sounds good, you go boy Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support per answer to Q3. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - comes across as a level-headed guy. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support seems to know what he's about. David Underdown (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Nice answers. MrPrada (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. A good candidate. Axl (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Will make a wonderful admin. Plus, his response to criticism is enviable. нмŵוτнτ 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Dlohcierekim Deleted? —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support A long time coming too; an excellent editor. Oberiko (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Per above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Per above; looks good. Midorihana^~iidesune? 07:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Nominators signature reassures me :) - Seriously, great all rounder and very very civil. Pedro :  Chat  09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Calm and level-headed. Seen them around at Ships, no problems here. Woody (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - looks like a good candidate to me. - Philippe | Talk 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Endorsed. --Bhadani (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - prolific editor. No concerns. Meets all my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - Trust with tools. - Shudde ^talk 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Of course. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support No problems here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, per requirements. Strong, trustworthy candidate. AGK (contact) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Definitely. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Orpy15 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Maralia (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Pundit|utter 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Good candidate, he will make an excellent admin —^ossmanntalk 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - seen the user in action and likes what I saw --MoRsE (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. He recently violated WP:3RR and abused his rollback tool, so was blocked and his privilege of having the tool was stripped.[1] Administrator should be calm but he blocked two times for 3RR violations as well. Do I expect so high standards for admins? Parsecboy said he is interested in Liancourt Rocks and the controversial article seriously needs more objective admins but I read his comments from it, he lost NPOV a lot. --Appletrees (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Because he was reverting edits from a banned user, (see: Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions), those reverts are exempt from 3RR regulations. Accordingly, the blocks were overturned and rollback was reissued. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me point out that I didn't violate 3RR (in either instance), because I was reverting edits made by a permanently banned user, which is one exception to 3RR. I never said anywhere or at any time that I'm interested in the Liancourt Rocks article. My participation in one discussion, which happened quite some time ago (nearly a year ago), based on a post at WP:RFC/HIST is irrelevant. Likewise, if anyone thinks that my stressing that the article name should adhere to article naming conventions (i.e., the name used in English should be given preference) is a violation of WP:NPOV, I'll be surprised. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The first block was not exempt for 3RR regulations. Yes, we should regard the naming convention and that's why the poll was set up. But as I was reading the past discussion, I was so surprised at your personal expressions toward editors who disagreed with your opinion. Without proof, you alleged that the poll was ruined and yes maybe, but in my opinion you didn't act civil. That was long time ago, but every contributions in Wiki should be addressed here as well. --Appletrees (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, both blocks were exempt, as they were both for reverting edits made by sock-IPs of a permanently banned user. If you really feel like checking, look through my edit history at the time of the first block, and compare the edits being reverted with this list of IPs used by my stalker. As for the Liancourt rocks poll, did you actually look at the poll at the time I made the comment to which you are referring? In the short period after the move proposal was linked to by several South Korean news websites, some 55 SPAs advocating Dokdo, 10 SPAs for Liancourt Rocks, and two for Takeshima. I am curious as to where you think I was being incivil in the discussion there; in scanning through the archives, I don't see any instances of inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, use of profanity, etc. You state that the discussion there was a long time ago; my point is that people often change; I'm not the same editor that I was 6 months ago, which wasn't the same editor that participated in the move proposal, which also wasn't the same newbie editor in my initial edits. Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't participate in the poll but recently begun reading the discussion because I get to know that several Japanese socks also participated in the poll. People didn't catch it at that time. However, regardless of how ruin the poll was, your comments are the most conspicuous to me for your incivility. That's why I remember your name clearly from all people in the poll and decide to voice my concern about your nomination. Well, I do think that people don't easy be changed from my experiences in Wikipedia and real life. You complain that I'm digging up your old contributions but you stand on your current activities and past as well. --Appletrees (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - No one finds it strange that this candidate has over 11,000 edits and only 200 in the Wikipedia namespace? That's a little low for me, and not especially balanced with regards to overall wikipedia activity. However, I might reconsider after I hear more from the candidate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I do have a fairly low number of edits to the Wikipedia namespace. In regards to WP:AIV, I generally prefer to revert and ignore most vandals, because they might make one or two vandalistic edits, and then be done. Usually, if I do encounter a determined vandal, I will issue a warning(s), and if they continue, I'll report them to AIV. I will state though, that if the vandal has been warned by another user for the same edits, I'll let them handle it. This is often the case, so I don't have much opportunity to make these kinds of reports. As far as other areas, such as XfDs, that hasn't been my primary focus, and I've really only participated in those that I'm at least somewhat familiar with. I do, from time to time, look through the various XfD pages, but unless I have something important to say, I feel a little silly typing "Delete per nom" a half dozen times. I am, however, aware of the processes and requirements for many of these areas of Wikipedia. Also, I have done quite a few of these things, at least once or twice; I've speedied and prod-ed pages, made reports to AIV, checkuser, suspected sockpuppets, and so forth. I hope that addresses your concerns. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your response, candid and illuminating. Generally I prefer a higher number of wikipedia namespace contributions, however I was leaning on the fence on this one, and this pushed me over to support. I like your attitude. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't find it strange at all that Parsecboy has a low number of wikipedia namespae edits. It is not a red flag for me. Kingturtle (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.