Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/LiquidGhoul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] LiquidGhoul

Final(77/2/1) Ending 12:25, 2006-07-18 (UTC)

LiquidGhoul (talk · contribs) – liquidGhoul is an exceptionally friendly and knowledgeable user with plenty of common sense and conflict resolution skills. I met liquidGhoul during the nomination phase of frog for Article Improvement Drive, and his work on that article reveals all of his good qualities: strong social abilities (the group of dedicated contributors gathered in response to his advertisements of the article), quiet leadership (I have never known him to be in any conflict), and barnloads of common sense and incisive wit, not to mention great expertise. (Frog was the first FA at as deep a node on the tree of life.)

With many of the same contributors, liquidGhoul went on to bring list of Anuran families and Cane Toad to FA status, and he has current projects that, just as his timing of AIDs and peer reviews has always been impeccable, he will bring to the attention of the world when the time is ripe.

LiquidGhoul is a founding member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, a frequent critical and constructive contributor to Featured Picture Candidates discussions, and the contributor of many photographs, three of them featured (more details on his userpage).

LiquidGhoul can be relied on to show leadership when it is needed, although he never imposes himself. Friendly, reasonable, and competent - everything we need in an admin! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept --liquidGhoul 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Naconkantari 15:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - No worries. Mário 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - Frogs rule. pschemp | talk 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. All my experience with him has been very positive.--ragesoss 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Kermit would be proud! Highway Batman! 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Seems like a really solid user. Themindset 16:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support A really good admin person to have onboard.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Edit Conflict Support. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Yeah, go frogs. Great contribs, plus dedication. -- Banes 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - I've bumped into him numerous times in my herpetological edits, he plays well with others and seems sane. :) -Dawson 16:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support a solid candidate all around. — Deckiller 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support found evidence of vandal fighting, contributed quite a bit to frog related articles. Been here a while too. I'm bought.--Andeh 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support This Fire Burns.....Always 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Great work on featured articles. Dryman 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support per nom. Roy A.A. 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support per nom, Dryman, and many, many others. SushiGeek 18:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Anyone with this level of frog "passion" is ok in my book. TruthCrusader 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. I like salamanders better than frogs but... "More candidates like this one, please!TM" Support ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. I'm hoppy to support this editor. (OK, that was bad. I'll try to toad the line from now on.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support for a myriad of reasons, but I particularly liked the first three sentences of the answer to question one. The nominee summed it all up quite nicely there. Agent 86 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support well, its all been said. I also thought #1 was answered perfectly. --WillMak050389 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support I can't see this RfA "croaking" now. Great editor, no concerns. --Guinnog 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  28. Ribbit. howcheng {chat} 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. DarthVader 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  30. Ghouly Support Yanksox 23:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. You have done great stuff for frogs.--Tnarg12345 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  32. Merovingian {T C @} 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Great candidate, will do well with the tools. Alphachimp talk 00:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Froggydarb 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support--A Y Arktos\talk 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  36. SupportScott3 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. -- Avenue 03:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support -- a valuable editor who I trust with administrative responsibilities. - Longhair 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. I too met this user at the Frog FAC. It was a wonderful article. RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Tawker.Support == True -- Tawker 05:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    Surely, that should be an assignment? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Michael 08:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support: Constructive editor. I hop the jokes don't get any worse though. Stephen B Streater 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support: per nom. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Very useful user and I like frogs. :) - Darwinek 09:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Good, solid, genuine, mature, original answers, which prove you don't have to conform to an off-the-shelf admin identity. You just know this person is going to be an asset in the role. Tyrenius 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support I can definately see a solid admin coming. Good job and good luck. ViridaeTalk 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Really useful to Wikipedia! Great contribs! Good luck ;) Yongblood 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Very dedicated editor and as admin would be a bigger asset in his area of specialty. --Chris S. 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-13 04:15Z
  52. Orane (talk • cont.) 04:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  53. Ribbit. Good user. Bishonen | talk 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
  54. Support. I'm all out of vaguely witty comments to make, so we'll just leave it at that. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  55. Why not?--Tdxiang 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. I have two Southern Leopard Frogs in my koi pond this summer - good omen, and a good editor. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Despite my still being conviced it's a platypus, not a Platypus. Proto::type 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support: --Bhadani 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Easy support. Great contributor. Joelito (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. I find that he's a toadally awesome editor--easy to work with, friendly and knowledgeable. Joyous! | Talk 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Why not?--Jusjih 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support Great Wikipedian. Could bring a good name to Wikipedia. --Tuspm Talk | Contribs | E-Mail Me 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Should make a good admin.--blue520 10:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  64. Pepsidrinka supports. 12:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Joe I 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  68. Jaranda wat's sup 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Why not, he looks like he'd be a positive influence! Knowing Is Half The Battle 07:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support Cool name! :) --Terrancommander 13:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. Certainly knows how to edit, thus will be a credit (awww, it rhymes) to the janitors tearoom. Don't like his username though, it gives me the creeps. Rockpocket 06:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  72. Βρεκεκέξ κοάξ κοάξ. Join-the-frog-choir support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. He has done a good job on our amphibian articles and seems to be a sensible person who will do a good job with the mop. Capitalistroadster 10:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support Excellent work. Abcdefghijklm 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support 172 | Talk 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  76. Strong support More scientists please.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we have too many admins. Ardenn 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I hope you don't want people to take you seriously because directing your personal anger issues at an random innocent editor isn't a very honourable thing to do. pschemp | talk 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Again, it brings up the obvious point there is 0 (nada no) cost to make someone an admin! - We can never have too many admins as the more people we spread the workload across the easier it is for everone. Sorry Ardenn but this is getting a little silly, you know you're making a point and I'd ask that you refrain from doing so and start opening your eyes to the big picture. Is it that much to ask? -- Tawker 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Is that even a valid reason? Froggydarb 05:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Ardenn, with all due respect, some may even claim that your oppose vote violates WP:POINT. Additionally, we do not have enough administrators, primarily due to backlogs and the ever increasing amount of users (and, therefore, violations). May you please give a valid reason as to why you think we have too many administrators? — Deckiller 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Need more admins..--Andeh 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. Actually, I visualize a day when all true wikipedians shall be endowed with the tools, fully or partly, available to administrators. That will be in the truest spirit of wiki. More administrators are surely required as a number of very active administrators involved in “administration” do not find time to contribute to the main contents necessary for building the Project, and its eventual emergence as the best global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't have anything against this editor. I don't even know him (her). I'm opposing on the plain basis that there are way too many support votes here. Like an inordinate number. I find this a tad strange. Shannonduck talk 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Party-pooping eh? Is that valid? Blnguyen | rant-line 05:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
    If your opposing for the mere fact that they have too many supports it looks like you do have something against them. Froggydarb 08:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    My impression now is that you always get a few joke voters. I think we can live with that. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I suppose. But it isn't alright if they cause the failure of a nomination, whether it be RfA, FPC, FAC etc. Froggydarb croak 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral. I like amphibians, and LiquidGhoul seems to be a reasonable, trustworthy person, but I haven't found any of his activity in areas where the admin tools are actually used, so I don't feel that I have enough evidence to support. JPD (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Referring just to the two classic areas where admins are involved, the candidate has participated in a sufficient number of *fD discussions to be familiar with the procedures, and gives "rvv" as edit summary for vandalism reverts (see his contribs). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    The *fD comment is simply not true. I have bothered to look through the contributions list in some detail, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered writing anythign on this page at all. JPD (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username LiquidGhoul
Total edits 3130
Distinct pages edited 1166
Average edits/page 2.684
First edit 02:27, 16 April 2005
 
(main) 1545
Talk 281
User 163
User talk 357
Image 109
Image talk 13
Template 10
Template talk 6
Category 63
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 428
Wikipedia talk 132
Portal 9
Portal talk 12
- Andeh 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am first and foremost an editor, and as such, I will use my sysop tools to help me improve the encyclopaedia. After a FA nomination, which is stressful, I am usually sick of editing mainspace for a while. During these times, I think the sysop tools would be most useful. Generally, I have stuck to FPC, and recently FLC, but I would like to branch out into more tasks. Especially those which do not involve copyediting or expanding an article. These are usually "mop" jobs, which are reserved for the admins. These would include image issues (move to commons, copyright issues which are not fair-use etc.) and category moving. Of the times I have needed categories moved, the process was slow; I presume this is due to the lack of admins able to help. I also do a lot of categorisation cleaning and would like to help others with the task. As a small task, I would like to move all my images to Commons (and not annoy anyone by asking them to move lots of images). I also forget to upload to Commons in the first place, so the sysop tools could help when my forgetfulness shines. The quick revert would be useful as I often revert any vandalism on my watchlist.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have gotten three articles featured, all of which I am proud. However, Frog is far and away the best experience I have had on Wikipedia. The whole process is what I believe the ideal Wikipedia should be. There was a team of contributors, all willing to work hard. Constructive disussion took place, and things just charged along. The final result is pretty obvious, as the article is what I consider to be one of the best on Wikipedia.
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: I have had a few discussion about "policies", mainly in FPC and FLC, none of which have caused me stress. They tend to stay civil. I have had to deal with abuse from one user who mistakenly thought I deleted his article. I had removed Striped Burrowing Frog from the Litoria article, as it is part of the Cyclorana genus. This was his response (bad language warning), and this was mine. Unfortunately this was unsuccesful, and he continued to vandalise until he was banned temporarily. That is how I deal with conflict, and how I will in the future. The best way to avoid conflict is through knowledge. Whether I have to learn, or someone else does.

Optional question from Lar:

(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is already recorded...) ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
After reading up on Rouge Admins, I still have no idea what it is about! If someone thinks that I am a "rouge admin", then they can add me, but from the little bit I understood, I don't think I will be. I don't think the other category applies to me. If I do something that causes a significant backlash, and people want me to step down, then I will do so. However, I won't abuse my admin tools during discussion or article contributions, and I won't be abusing my powers in any other context. My main use for them will be janitorial jobs, and if I make a mistake in anything, I am sure it could be discussed and fixed. Thanks --liquidGhoul 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
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.