Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Psy guy


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

Psy guy
Final (51/1/2) ended 02:55 12 November 2005 (UTC)

– Psy guy has been here since July 19th and he's amassed two thousand something edits. A chunk of these are in the user talk space, which is a Good Thing as the number one quality for an admin in my opinion is the ability to interact. He can be seen closing AfD's too, and so far every close he's done has been fair game, so we know he does some of the admin side of things... He has over 500 article edits, so he's contributing to the main goal of the wiki, and he's a very active member of the welcoming committee. Psy guy is never afraid to ask for help, and won't charge ahead blindly when he doesn't know what he's doing. But when he does know what he's doing, he does it... There is nothing in my mind telling me he won't make a great admin. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am very flattered and truly honored. I accept. -- Psy guy (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Totally deserves it, great vandal slayer. My interactions with him have been nothing but positive. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I thought he was a admin already --JAranda'' | watz sup 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Suport- Good vandal-whacker.--Sean|Bla ck 03:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Cool. JuntungWu 04:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Toh. Tuh. Lee. Good luck, sir! These tools will keep vandals at bay, and I know you'll use them wisely. -User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail]]05:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support vandal whackers. Tito xd (?!?) 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8)  Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Week Support - I dont know this user to well. But I am pretty certiant that they remove vandalism a bit -- A dam1213   Talk +  06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. A solid Wiki-contributor. Brisvegas 08:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Month support OK so he doesn't write many articles? But if he's happy to clobber vandals and let others get on with writing articles in peace - that's fine with me. --Doc ask? 09:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I've had nout but good experiences with this user - vandalwhacking makes a great pastime as this user hs found out. --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - different people contribute different things, and vandal-whackin' is a contribution that merits (and would be assisted by) an award of admin powers. BD2412  T 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I like that he welcomes newbies and removes vandalism. However I suggest some more article contributions. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Privat  e   Butcher  17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support; am convinced that he would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Fir  e  Fo  x  18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support GraemeL (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --pgk( talk ) 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Absolutely no reason to deny him tools that will make him more effective at working for us. But be careful to use the blocking option with restraint and discretion :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - I've seen him in action. A good vandal-fighter. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support --Rogerd 04:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Certainly. -- Essjay ·   Talk 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. - A solid Wikipedian. Brisvegas 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Never let it be said I can't jump on a good bandwagon as it comes thundering by. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) A good guy. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support; I see him on vandal patrol a lot. Nice work, apt to be a good admin.  In addition he works well with others.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, seems to handle tasks well that could be boosted even more with admin tools. -- M P er el ( talk 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Yes. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. No cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Keep whackin those vandals! --VileRage (  Talk  |  Cont  )  05:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support - excellent contributor. --Ixfd64 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Super-duper extreme support. I like vandal whackers! Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support MONGO 02:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support as per Linuxbeak ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Not all users are going to be doing article revisions, and in my mind as long as a user has found himself/herself a niche within the community and does well in that niche, they should have no reason to be prevented from becoming an Admin. --Martin Osterman 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. the wub  "?!"  14:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk |  WS 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Support very much as per Martin Osterman.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Jumping on this bandwagon. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) SupportSeems a good choice and he could use the extra tools to vandal whack.-Dak ota  t   <font face=" arial narrow"><font color="#66CC00">e   22:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Support, love the peeps that do the stuff I never want to. Alf <sup style="color:green;">melmac 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. I was convinced he was one already. - RoyBoy 800 06:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) weak support Originally I was opposed but conversations with several users have convinced me perhaps I have been too hasty. Changed to weak support, I'm not sure your ready for it but I'll give you the chance to prove you are.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 07:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Given his other activity, the lack of article edits is no problem for me. Psy guy has also kindly reverted vandalism on my user page (from an anon I reverted myself :D). I'm convinced his adminship will serve the community. Karol 17:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose He seems to eager to please, will he be able to go counter to the admin culture of deference to other admins when it is the right thing to do?--Silverback 16:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *If he defers to other admins when it is the right thing to do, how would that be a bad thing? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose hasnt been here long enough yet, while his vandalwhacking is a good start, I just dont feel ready supporting this user at this time, definately in the future tho. changed to support  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 05:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Neutral. A majority of his edits are welcoming new users and to his own user page. Looks like he has a done a lot in the way of attacking vandals.  Would like to see more contributions to articles.  --Holderca1 04:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd want to see more of your edits.Yes,you're more experienced than I am, but I hope that you can do better.Thanks.Maybe then I'll change my mind.--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel that I should add that I am a "previewist" in that I use the preview button extensively. Therefore, many of my article edits are under-estimatedly because I may make several changes to articles in only one edit.  -- Psy guy (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment lot of edits to user page. page vandalized by logged in users with few or no contribs,Bobzombi22 (who also has a font emphasis habit,Crypt-Out (really suspicious only interacts with Psy guy) . check user page history. smells like a sockpuppet. plain enough to see.-163.20.85.7 07:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I confess! I do make a good number of edits to my user page.  It it pretty much my sand box.  If I am learning how to do something new, I try it in my user space first.  I have a proper sandbox that I use to hide things or just work on things before I put it on my user page.  Also, my user page has a lot of very useful links that I refer to commonly.  I ususally keep a tab open to  my user page when I am on just in case I need something fast. To the other comment, I haven't thought about Crypt-Out in a long time.  That was when I first really got into RC. It was actually kinda fun: He would blank a page, I would revert it back, warn him, then he would blank my page.  Aww ... memories. :-)  -- Psy guy (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MarkGallagher deleted my comment. The ip's can make comments but of course cant vote. This user violated policy when he reverted my comment.163.20.85.7 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted his comment. I was under the impressions that anons weren't allowed to vote/edit/anything RfAs.  I have since been told that this impression was incorrect.  Fortunately this fellow has reiterated his comment, so I've not had to dig it up and restore it.  I am sorry. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a few comments after spending some time looking through your contributions: First, nearly 400 of your edits (385, to be exact) have been welcoming users. While not necessarily a bad thing, they can make the number of edits (which, by the way, I can't tell, since WP:KATE seems to be down) seem inflated. In addition, many, if not the vast majority, of the other user talk comments are either warnings or have an edit summary of ~ (see ) &mdash; in the future, would you mind using a more descriptive edit summary? Also, I don't mean to be critical, but with the large amount of warnings and welcoming, your user interaction level doesn't seem to be exceptional, though it seems to be adequate. You have recieved 83 comments on your talk page, which isn't exceptional, but enough for an admin candidate (my opinion, of course). Second comment &mdash; it doesn't really matter, but I note on your edits and on your monobook that you've been using the rollback Sam has developed. Just out of curiousity, where did you first hear about it, and why did you decide to use it? Third comment: you've been closing AfDs as keep. In the future, would you mind placing a notice on the article talk page that it survived an AfD? Thanks. Finally, my apologies for grilling you &mdash; I had an impulse to look into your contributions more deeply than I do normally for RfAs in which I vote on. :-) Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk |  WS 00:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it that you bothered to look so closely at my contributions. It is truly noble.  I do tend to use the 5-tildes to create a heading when I warn users.  If have found that most do as a way of categorizing warnings for IPs.  In the future I will try to use "Edit the page" rather than the "+" tab.  That is why the heading reads as the edit summary.  I don't use the talk pages a lot since I discovered IRC.  I am frequently in #wikipedia-en-vandalism where I am a Channel Op.  I have found it to be much more efficient to jump into a channel and ask a question rather than through a talk page.  I decided to use godmode because it was much more efficient. Angela let me in on the secret!  Lastly, it never really occurred to me to leave a message on a keep article from AfD.  I will do that from now on.  I was more concerned about making sure that what I closed was an "unambigious" keep.  If you have anymore questions or concerns, do not hesitate to ask.  However you decide to vote, I fully respect your decision.  Thanks.  --  Psy guy (talk) 03:03, 9 November 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. Firstly, I have really enjoyed RC Patrol, so I want to continue with vandal whacking! The block tool will certainly come in handy with this. I am sure that the guys (sic) in IRC are tired of me asking them every 10 seconds to check a vandal for blocking.  Secondly, I enjoy closing AfD.  Right now, I am trying to be careful to only close those that are for sure keeps.  Being an admin should allow me to work more efficiently in AfD.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I confess that I have not done a lot of article work. I am proud of Pathological gambling since that was were I started when I joined Wikipedia.  I am working on the article off site a little at a time, but it is slower than I like.  I am very proud of some of the vandalism that I have rolled back.  Coming to the aide of the Almighty Jimbo is an ego boost for sure!  If I can speak of "contributions" in general, I would say that I am most proud of my rollbacks. (None have been contested by legit users!)


 * 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. Not really.  I try not to let things get me.  I try to get advise from other users and maintain NPOV.  In the future, if I am faced with great conflict and stress, I will try to continue as I have and back up, take a breath, and deal with it diplomatically.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.