Liquidhelium TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count

First RfA

Liquidhelium is a very helpful person. The first time I looked at his userpage was when he beat me to reverting vandalism. I first looked at him as a competitor, someone who was beating me to edits, whenever he was on. Soon after, I realized, it's not about who does it, but about it getting done. Since then, I've started to view him as a friend. When he did his last RfA, I didn't know him very well. I just knew he was a fast editor, but he didn't seem to be ready for sysop then. Recently however, I've been seeing (and admiring) his work more and more. On many occasions, I'll see the "Yoshirocks8 has logged out.", only to see him start editing like a madman on here. He's willing to give up his time and energy to make this wiki that much better. He makes a real difference to the wiki through his counter-vandalism work and just general improvements on articles. He's a responsible and dependable person. I believe he could make very good use of the tools given to sysops. HaloTalk 20:39, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I, Liquidhelium, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realise that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realise that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed, --LiquidTalk 21:02, March 29, 2010 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee

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

I intend to participate mainly in anti-vandal work. Even with the influx of administrators that we've had, from Rich Farmbrough's and Stelercus's passed RfAs, and from the administrators that have returned, the CVU is still often neglected by administrators who do not see a vandalism report in the RecentChanges, thus increasing the time that it takes for a vandal to be blocked. Oftentimes I've had to log on in-game to coax certain administrators to check the CVU. Since I stalk the RecentChanges frequently, I feel that I would be able to combat vandalism more effectively with administrator tools.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?

My best contributions to the Wiki are mainly anti-vandal ones. I feel like that is the area that I've made the most impact in. I'm not the best writer, so I do not frequently create articles from scratch. However, I do look for ways to increase the ease of managing vandals, such as the charm log vandalism templates that I recently proposed.

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?

I've had a few conflicts in the past. Many have occured on controversial subjects with little chance of change by either side. Whenever I feel that the discussion has become overly fiery, I simply remove myself from the discussion and go do something else to cool down, such as play RS, listen to music, watch TV, get some fresh air, etc. I try not to let my emotions get the better of me.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)

  1. Please forgive me if I am not using this properly. While I support this, I think that one very large question needs to be asked here; how would gaining sysop tools change anything? Blocking the occasional vandal does not warrant these, so please enlighten me as to how you think that having access to these tools will improve the wiki. No offense intended, but this is something that really needs to start being brought up in RfAs here.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajraddatz (talk) on 05:11, April 2, 2010.
Sorry for not seeing this when the RfA was actually running. I'll answer this now, since it's better late than never. Gaining sysop tools would help me block vandals before the can vandal again. as I mentioned in my answer to the questions above, I have witnessed many times where users that I reported had gone unnoticed for a long time. Some of the more serious ones warranted me going in-game to beg ask politely someone like Gaz or Ruud to come block for me. Besides, I think you can tell by now how having sysop tools has helped. Lol --LiquidTalk 02:16, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As Nominator. HaloTalk 20:39, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It did not take long at all for him to grow as much as was required for adminship from the last RFA. I can't see him abusing the tools at all, but I can defiantly see him using them for the betterment of the community, be it vandal bashing or the deletion of pages. Xmas07 presentsStelercusSanta hat detail 20:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I know this is quite soon after his last RfA, but it's clear he is the right person for the job. He reverts vandalism constantly, had made a ton of minor improvements to our wiki, and is a valuable voice in community discussions. Besides this, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've been online when liquid was not. He will obviously be a great asset in terms of keeping up with the CVU and its vandal reports. He's a tireless contributor who can make use of the tools. Full support. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:49, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support- He definatly desrves it. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 05:44, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - While I would have preferred for him to wait a little before another nomination, I still support this. His answers show a good grasp and understanding of the extra tools sysops get, and I trust his judgment as well. I definitely see him making good use of the tools. A good candidate. C.ChiamTalk 06:10, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I've definitely seen your work a lot around here and I support you 100%. Lil cloud 9 09:55, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Aburnett, Coaxing? O.O Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 14:43, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else, although he does not follow the style guide and does not admit he is called Liquid helm. --Iiii I I I 14:51, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's because I'm not Liquid helm. <.< --LiquidTalk 14:52, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
You're such a liar, Liquid Helm. >:( (davelopo) 18:56, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
<_< I am NOT Liquid helm. --LiquidTalk 21:54, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Lololololololololololo helm! Per all.   Swizz Talk   Events!   18:44, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Steler and Aburnett, and this is probably the shortest instance between a failed RfA and a (probably) successful one. :o (davelopo) 18:57, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Its to soon (Hover over the words) Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 19:01, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - An excellent contributor who reverts vandalism and participates in discussions often. His large amount of user talk page edits shows that he is either very friendly, welcomes new users, or both. I trust him to make good and full use of administrative tools.  Tien  21:00, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're a very good contributor, with some great community contribs. More than 100 CVU edits <3. Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 21:18, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per pretty much everyone. BerserkHackr 22:19, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - One of those ideal sysop candidates. Smile Andrew talk 02:51, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Liquidhelium is a great contributor. He's very active about vandalism, and he really participates in talk pages a lot, which shows that he is very sociable.Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 03:07, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

support - per all above  Rune scimitar Ppi802 Coins 1000  18:53, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above, however, be sure that you actually use these tools on a regular basis. Ajraddatz Talk 15:52, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You're active in counter vandalism, maitenance, and the community. White partyhat old C Teng talk 00:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Noob - urrr... I mean Support. bad_fetustalk 14:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Liquid is a very straightforward type of person, and thus will help him become a great sysop.  Ranged-icon Zap0i TalkRune scimitar  15:08, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. You are a very nice person and a VANDAL PWNER!!!! You are always beating me by that ONE second when it comes to vandalism repoting! Anyway, I have FULL Supprot for you. --Abyssal whip Superplayer08Talk HS Log Dragon dagger (p++) 17:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It has been very soon since the last RFA however. Unicorn horn dust Evil Yanks talk 03:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

extreamly strong oppose - it seems as though where ever he goes, pointless spam, joke blocks, etc will follow. Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 22:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

You can't blame him for the actions of other people. As he can't block anyone, I think you should bring up a yew grove thread if you have a problem with sysops, but leave that out of this. HaloTalk 22:35, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? (davelopo) 22:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Er... examples please? --LiquidTalk 01:12, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly the place to bring that up. Behaviour is very important. Runecrafting-icon Stormsaw1 Talk Sign HighscoresRunecrafting-icon 22:06, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While your edits are numerous and your points made well, I see you have a habit with talk pages. Socializing might they be, they are (in my mind) quite minor edits of loquacious spamming (such as 3i+1 and you). While I know that this RFA doesn't have a slim chance in failing, it does bring up a few points. One is why have your second (even though you were nominated) request not even a month after your first request. Secondly the massive edits you have gained make me think you are trying to be a career wikian, that being someone who spends the majority of their time editing a wiki/wiki's during the course of a day over many days (I have seen this said on Wikipedia, but cannot find am actual entry on it). Three is as I pointed out earlier, too much spam between you and other users' talk pages (also worth noting is that many talk edits befall User:Iiii I I I's talk page). Those are the only three reasons I cannot support you. Ryan PM 22:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

People's talk pages are their own space, and they may do whatever they want on them, so long as they don't break any other policies. HaloTalk 22:32, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Talk pages are ones own personal space, however I take issue with the amount of edits associated in that namespace. I do not edit that often, however I cannot compare him to me or me to him. These edits are the bulk of what I see when I do edit. It feels worse than the clan chat when going through their talk, as well how often they archive astounds me. Now you may take issue with me taking a gander and not supporting based on a third of my position. I am alright with this, but I must say that I already know this and while 2,000+ mainspace edits are prevalent, I cannot support this especially when the edit report shows his "milestone" edits revolve around one page. If this hasn't made my intent clear, it wouldn't and possibly couldn't be made clearer. Ryan PM 22:48, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
He intentionally had almost all his milestones on 3i+1's talk page. And all of his mainspace/anti-vandal/forums/ideas/policy changes/other stuff is all really high quality. You have to look at it in a balance, instead of just looking at someone's flaws. HaloTalk 22:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I stand corrected. I am neutral, not opposed. Generally when someone is neutral or opposed, they list faults. I know where he succeeds and fails, however when one makes a point it shouldn't be made where I list more flaws than benefits. I realize that I do have a pessimistic view of the world, however that will not prevent me from knowing when I am wrong. In this case I have not opposed nor supported this user, I have merely shrugged off to the sidewalk and told my position. I am only supposed to give reasons to why I feel the way I do. As for this user wanting his "milestones" on Iiii I I I's talk page, then fine. I say I wouldn't support due to this, but I did not say "I will never support you." Balance, I have looked and see that nearly half reside in userspace. More than half end up in Mainspace, and the rest in various other places. I am not changing position and wish that I do not have to fight to keep my position. I may be taking comments/remarks too literally or ambiguously, this is my fault. Ryan PM 23:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a career wikian. I just edit the wiki when I'm bored, or when I have free time. That has occured a lot more frequently lately. Also, you are absolutely right that my milestone edits are on Iiii's talk. The 1000 edit milestone was supposed to be there also, but that got bumped out due to deleted contributions. And could you clarify your statement about my edits? At the time of writing, I have 47.22% mainspace, 4.15% userspace, and 33.23% user talk. I'm not exactly sure where you got your "half reside in userspace" comment, since 4.15% is certainly not close to 50%. Cheers, --LiquidTalk 01:12, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
halo, its not about if its "against wiki policy" or "can and cant" spam talk pages. its about wether that is how we want our admins to be- and NO, that is not how they should be- idiots have made claims that we arnt robots- but i think admins especially should be as close as is possible. Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 01:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
They aren't idiots. Sysops should have heart. Believe me, you don't want heartless people in charge. No mercy is a bad thing. It's not really spam, they are just having some fun, can't blame them for that. HaloTalk 02:05, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Halo, I'm going to bed now. You don't have to argue on my behalf if you don't want to. I'll see it when I get home tomorrow. --LiquidTalk 02:06, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
And just a quick response to Farcaster: administrators really shouldn't be robots. Administrators aren't special, they're just users entrusted with extra powers. There should be no reason that they have to perform automated tasks to qualify for adminship. Many of the decisions made by administrators require thinking, and cannot be done by a robot. Good night, --LiquidTalk 02:09, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
look at Gaz- he has a heart, but he doesnt screw around all the time. look at Tienjt0- he has messed around in the same way, but rarely enough that its not a problem. look at Stelercus- does he not have a heart because he doesnt spam talk pages? and what the heck does no mercy have to do with this? are you saying every admin that doesnt go around spamming is heartless and has no mercy? why do only <10 out of thousands need to "have fun"? Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 02:14, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
If you want to criticize sysops I suggest you make a yew grove thread, because that's not what this is about. Heartless people show no mercy. And as people are on the wiki be THEIR choice, it's NOT their job, and THEIR talk page are THEIR space, you should let them have THEIR space. HaloTalk 02:16, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
im not suggesting they become robots as in stop thinking for themselves- im asking that they stop thinking about their games and jokes, and start thinking about what they can contribute to the wiki. admins may be only users with special tools, but they should be good, ideal users- "wikis greatest". not just a bunch of kids who want to "have fun".

are you saying- yes or no to this question- that gaz, tien, steler, and all other admins who dont spam are heartless and show no mercy? if not- yes or no to this also- why dont they spam like rwojy, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, liquid, etc seem to? Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 02:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Reason why is due to Liquid is fun loving like quite a few wikians Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 02:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment For Liquid [Edit conflict(s)] - Erroneous my statements are. I proofread poorly and lame excuse on my behalf, however I meant user talk when I said "nearly half reside in userspace" as I always clump userspace with talk in my mind. I can see how just looking briefly did me poorly on writing that comment, but I still must say, that's quite a lot of edits that could have been done at once (when applicable). I meant the majority of edits still exist in mainspace as well to fix that comment. Career wikian you claim not to be, but I still feel the point is valid however wrong I am. Albeit you would be a fine administrator (and I agree with User:Degenret01 that new administrators helps keep the pool mixed) assuming the joking that User:Azaz129 aforementioned on Degenret01's talk page doesn't ensue with you. Seriously though, I cannot see why a "joke" block is even mentioned between people on any Wiki, those blocks follow you throughout Wikia and Wikipedia. I meant to do this a week ago and wonder why RFA's are becoming a weekly event and those that are shown are not always given full reasons to support their support vote, even though votes don't really exist on this, or any, Wiki (remember Forum:'Per' votes do not help?). Ryan PM 02:31, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

yea- and untill he takes his fun elsewhere, i will continue to oppose. i would bring it up on the grove, but as discussions that "drain peoples emotions" are not allowed, im sure it would be locked too early for me. Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 02:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
If you have a viable reason, I'm sure it won't be locked. There is nothing wrong with people doing whatever they want on their own talk pages as long as it doesn't break any policies. And if that is your only point, I ask your vote to be removed. HaloTalk 02:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
me opposing because i dont like their attatude is much more valid then opposing because you wish to blindly follow rules that should exist, or "because you can". Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 03:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
We are here to discuss Liquidhelium's RfA. If you have other problems with me, you may address them on the yew grove and I will be happy to voice your complaints there. But otherwise I would prefer it if you stayed on topic. I still request your vote to be removed, as you have no valid reason for opposing. Only saying that it is relatively better than my reasons to oppose. Relativity is nothing to base an argument in. HaloTalk 03:10, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Please keep in mind that RfAs are not the places for personal vendettas or any other disputes, any further discussion of this is to be brought to each user's respective talk page. (And please be sure to keep it civil, RS:UTP still applies).-- 03:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I really don't see how this could have evolved into a heated argument, but I'm glad it's over. However, I do feel that I should clarify my viewpoint on "fun". I found a few quotes here that describe my view of it.

There's a difference between joking and making a mockery of a duty. Blocking someone as a joke would be the latter. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 20:31, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Do I promise not to joke around when there will be real consequences for my actions? Yes. Will I promise not to joke around when no harm can come of it? I cannot and will not. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:03, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Now, I completely agree with Psycho that joking around is fine, as long as it is limited to the channels that are set aside for user interaction (namely the user talk pages). After all, we are not robots here, and no sysops that we have ever will be. If you look through my contributions to User talk:Iiii I I I and 3i+1's contributions to User talk:Liquidhelium, you probably wouldn't find very many "serious" edits. But, the user talk namespace is designed for this. It is not intended as an "official" namespace, where the only business allowed are wiki-related things. If you look through my mainspace contributions, you will find very few, if any, joke contributions. I hold the mainspace as the official encyclopedic (is that a word?) part of the wiki, the part that should be free of humor, and the likes. However, I cannot commit to ceasing my discussions on in user talk, simply because interactions between members of the community is what user talk is intended for.

As for my views on "joke blocks", I unequivocally oppose them. As the recipient of my fair share of joke blocks, I can testify that it is not fun and not amusing, especially if the recipient lacks the tools to unblock him or herself. I do not view sysop tools as something "special" that entitles me to use on my whim. I see them as ways of facilitating the normal activities that I do, namely vandal-busting. I despise the "mockery of a duty", to quote Psycho, and will not perform such actions with sysop tools. Sysop tools are intended for use on official wiki business.

In short, I have clear separations between official wiki business and from regular interactions with other users. Sysop tools fall in the former, while humor belongs in the latter. This has turned out to be longer than I expected, so sorry if I bored anyone! --LiquidTalk 19:35, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Endasil (Talk) @  19:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support: The only thing I would say is know your "jurisdiction". You recently asked to change some marginal grammar on my user page and I said no since user pages are for personal expression. That in itself is completely harmless and not against any rules, but it highlights the one thing I would caution you about: have clear idea of what is, and what isn't, any of your business as a sysop. Endasil (Talk) @  19:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support, all your edits are well intentioned and well written, and you do good work on anti-vandalism.

Strong oppose Liquidhelm has clearly shown that community processes only apply in cases where he wants them to, and ignores them when they do not help his agenda. In Forum:Ban_Name_Highlights he says "But, now that there is a discussion going on with the consensus (so far) being oppose, you cannot overrule the community". Fine, thats a good statement in and of itself. The problem is in Forum:Edit_report after the discussion began he implemented only the changes he wanted even though there were clear opposes to that happening at that time. He did not wait for consensus or further discussion. But discussion should finish on another thread when his stand is oppose? He was informed after he made the change that it should not have been done as the discussion was ongoing, and he did not undo his change. I have been waiting over a week for him to fix it and he has not. I can not trust an individual of this nature.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Degenret01 (talk).

Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I do believe you removed it WITHOUT consensus, and he was just restoring that. HaloTalk 01:11, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
It was ADDED without any discussion, I removed when I found out how. I removed it for reasons you will see if you read the Edit report thread. Your forgiven.--Degenret01 01:23, April 10, 2010 (UTC) I get it. I read it, but I didn't know it wasn't originally on the template. I see your point, but I still think all the instances of good outweigh something (that could possible be justified through RS:BB or RS:UCS). HaloTalk 01:28, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
About the edit report thing: my understanding was that it was always there, until Degen decided to remove it. Thus, I felt that the status quo should be maintained until the discussion was over. I didn't know that it was only a recent addition. --LiquidTalk 01:53, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Always there? Q just made the thing last year. My distrust of you grows sir.--Degenret01 01:59, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
So, that doesn't mean he knew it had NOT been in the template before hand. You can't assume things, unless you want to be a donkey... HaloTalk 02:04, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Always there probably wasn't the best wording. More artful language probably would have been: I cannot recall it ever lacking an edit report template. I have been active on the wiki since mid-December of 2009 (check my contribs). --LiquidTalk 02:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Once it was removed the second time AND you knew WHY it was gone, AND the thread was up to re-add it, THEN re-adding it was wrong. I TOLD you this and you acknowledged that you understood, yet did not remove it yourself. 1 2 3, points are in order. And the only reason I am bringing it up is like I said, he showed in the hilite thread he is fully aware of procedures. And disregarded. The histories are clear.--Degenret01 14:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was merely trying to re-establish the status-quo by re-adding it. I'm not a fan of taking action prior to the thread's closure. For example, I moved the RS:IAR back to RuneScape:Ignore all rules after Aburnett moved it to RuneScape:Use common sense after only 21 hours of debate on the Forum:Ignore All Rules thread that I started. As I saw it, the status quo included the Edit report link, so I put it back in there. From my perspective, all of my actions were in accordance with policy. I apologize if you were offended because you had a different perspective. --LiquidTalk 21:17, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Liquidhelium has been sysoped. --Whiplash 18:22, April 12, 2010 (UTC)