Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snake Liquid

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Snake Liquid (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Snake Liquid has repeatedly removed warnings and messages from his talk page, and has made numerous personal attacks against other users. He has refused to compromise or modify his behavior, despite the efforts of several others.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Begninning with apparent disputes over Solid Snake and British Shorthair, Snake Liquid has become embroiled in a conflict with the users who have posted on his talk page (User:RandyWang, User:Ptkfgs, User:Targetter, and User:Gwernol in particular). Two Wikiquette alerts have been posted in the last few days on his behavior (29 July 2006 and 31 July 2006), both of which he has responded angrily to. I (Emufarmers) have also posted on the help desk and then the Administrators' noticeboard.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

His talk page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

His user page: [15] [16] [17] [18]

Randy's talk page: [19]

Targetter's talk page: [20]

The Bread's talk page: [21]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:Talk page

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 04:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. —ptk✰fgs 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 05:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
4. This user has acted with a total lack of civility, in almost all his dealing with other users. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Let's review the biased odds.

You've got nothing on me as far as my User page goes. You cannot deny the way certain people act on here and go unnoticed without blatantly lying about it. And, should you choose, you will find on several talk pages that I have made the same complaints against users such as A Man in Black and Gwernol as others have in the past. It's not as though I simply arrived out of nowhere and started trouble. Actually, I fell in with the rest who were pointing out contradictions and elitist behavior displayed by other users. See also Discussion on Solid Snake, starting from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Solid_Snake#Pictures.3F His reasoning is ridiculous for some of his decision, such as saying he wouldn't use a picture because it's unknown whether or not the game is good. As for Gwernol, look at his discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Here.27s_an_Idea:_you_suck and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwernol#Please_argue You can clearly see that his reasoning has been questioned.

As for Randy's page, I'm simply asking him not to insult my intelligence by posting cookie-cutter answers on my page repeatedly. I'm not a moron, I can read it once and remember it, which is why I took them off my talk page in the first place. I don't need to see the same thing posted all over my talk page, and continuously putting it there only frustrated me further. Try that for a rule, not insulting people's intelligence. I'm not sorry for removing it.

As for Targetter, he, like A Man in Black on the Solid Snake page, acted as though he was policing the page. I was pointing this out as a reason why YTMNDers were targeting him, as per the now absent message on the top of his user page. As I said before, you can't deny people act "my way or the highway" about some articles, completely ignoring other people's input on the matter. When it came to the slight mention of the NEDM internet joke on the British Shorthair page, he started a support/opposition debate that ended even, and the support input was denied anyway.

..What are you indicating with The Bread's page? Seriously, are you kidding me? No personal attacks made there. What I said, about the world winning when one gives up, and the two cents part, is a fact of life. If you don't like it, that's your problem, because I don't know what to tell you there. I was giving him advice, not attacking a person, but the conduct some choose to follow here, which, as I've previously stated, is undeniable without lying.

Do me a favor and precisely explain your definition of a "personal attack," because the way this term has been thrown around is utterly ridiculous. I have no bad blood with PTKFGS. As for what I said to him, that's the real problem here, not me. The fact that the conduct and behavior I've been speaking out against on both my user page and talk page goes unnoticed and unpunished is both ridiculous and unfair to other users, and that instead of focusing on this issue you're pointing your guns at me is only making it worse and further pushing the elitist image that I surely did not invent upon my coming here, but existing among user talk before that. When you were accusing me of personal attacks made on my user and talk pages, you must have forgotten to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks

What purpose do the rules of wikipedia serve if they don't go both ways? You must explain your definition of a personal attack, because clearly, it's too broad, and both easily and unfairly tacked on to people as an offense. In my book, it's either an obvious derogatory statement directed at someone who's name is mentioned, or a derogatory statement made on someone else's talk page. Calling someone a robot, and saying people think they have 10 cents over people that have 2, and pointing out that there are people who do act in an elistist manner on here to others, is not a personal attack on a person. That might not matter to you, but that's what happens when a term is used in too broad a manner.

Furthermore, to support my recent behavior, I chock it up to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR A Man in Black was policing the Solid Snake article, Randy got involved and wouldn't stop polluting my page with pre-written paragraphs that I expressed a disliking towards. Then, my attention is brought to the Happycat page. I notice Targetter has been exposed to vandalism by YTMNDers, and upon reviewing his recent actions and words toward them, suggest why. To wrap all this up, I post about what it is I'm upset about on my user and talk page, only for Gwernol to come in and try editing what I said. I don't care that Wikipedia isn't a practice of democracy. It was created in America, therefore I chose to protect my freedom of speech and restore what I originally posted. As I earlier stated, my behavior is in reaction to the elitist behavoir and conduct displayed by many people on wikipedia, including admins and normal users. It goes unnoticed, ignored, and unpunished. When the rules, which are merely suggestive policies not enforced, are contradicted and twisted, or in this case, ignored, by a person or group of people, I followed the example, and chose to ignore all rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Snake Liquid 06:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --The Bread 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. First, all this bussiness began when the Solid Snake article was totally re-written and I began discussing the fact that the picture of Solid Snake had been changed to the old picture of Snake as opposed to Old Snake. Needles to say the whole thing got very very heated and personal attacks were exchanged both ways from me, SL and Man in Black. Secondly don't use my talk page as a justification for an argument that I disagree with, the only discussion there was between me and SL, no-one else. I also got the civility notice as well from Randy. This part of the issue (The Solid Snake half) has been blown way out of proportion, It was a heated argument that has now stopped, a new image of Snake is up, although i'm not happy about it, I accept it and SL's behavior while not acceptable was no different than my own or Man in Black's, however i don't know if MIB got a civility message, which seems a bit rough.

I am unable to comment at this time on the other article n question

(The Bread 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --The Bread 07:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
2. --Snake Liquid 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

• To Snake Liquid: I don't understand why you care so much about this. Unfairness and elitism as you call it are everywhere, and if you have so much energy to fight it, why not fight the unfairness that really affects people in society rather than on a privately owned website whose rules are ultimately up to its owners? It sounds as though you wish to have it acknowledged that you think people are unfair here. Let me grant you your wish. People are unfair sometimes, it happens, people do unfair one-sided things to save their face and often would rather look good than be good. So what - who cares - same thing happens all around us - pointing out that Wikipedia has hypocrites for editors and admins will do no good, as everyone's a hypocrite in some way or another. What would you like done about it? The wiki software and all the Wikipedia content are free - go copy it onto a new URL and run it yourself if you think you have a better way.
• To everyone else, who cares? Why on earth a RfC for a username that's only been around for 3 days? If this guy is a troll, then he is doing an excellent job of yanking your chain. It's like a tribunal and lynch mob for a mosquito. When you lynch him, it will take him no time to come back under a new name, civil or not. If he is incivil on his talk page, how hard is it to just delete the content and ignore it? Why does he need this sort of due process for that? Vandals come to waste everyone's time, and if he is here to waste your time just like one, then he is sure succeeding.
• Reswobslc 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reswobslc, you've just given the perfect reason as to why the world is screwed up the way it is: it's not because it was screwed up to begin with, it became screwed up because a select few humans came along and did things which people, like yourself, knew was happening but did not do anything about. Yes, elitism, bigotism, and several other 'isms' are rampant in the world, but does that make it "right" for it to be there? The answer for that is 'no'. Just because it's all around us doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. Looking over the argument, I believe our friend Liquid has a right to stand up and say "what is wrong with this?".

For example, the Solid Snake picture. This generally started with the very clear and detailed MGS4 picture of "Old Snake" getting replaced by a grainy, blurry and otherwise "old" (with a dull background no less) of Snake during MGS1 by or caused by A Man In Black. His reasoning behind it is "We don't know if the game is good or not." Now tell me, what kind of logic do you find behind this? You take down a better quality picture that shows the current Solid Snake and replace it with a worse-for-wear one because nobody knows how good the game is? By that logic, then better clear out the sections and pictures from Devil May Cry 2 and Xenosaga II, because those game are unanimously frowned upon. The second reason is because it's "Snake's original form" and all of Snake's outfits in the following games are just "copies" of his first suit. Even if that were true (which it's not; the protagonists of Metal Gear Solid always wore different outfits from before), it's a poor reason. That and why only the Solid Snake section? What about Revolver Ocelot, Meryl Silverburgh, Otacon and so forth? Why do they have their MGS4 forms up still?

Besides all that though, looking over the comments exchanged between both parties, I have yet to see any form of personal attack on the part of Liquid which everyone is assessing to. Then again, my description of a personal attack is a response that goes past the subject at hand and attacks the user on the otherside of the computer screen. The closest Liquid gets to doing that is calling people on their behavior, no different than what you'd see in a Political Debate (in fact, this has a lot less colorful language to it). If Liquid called A Man In Black a n***er for example, that would be a personal attack. If he threatened legal action Jack Thompson style, that would also be a personal attack. Stating that someone is acting like or being a hypocrite or an elitist on certain matters does not fall into attacking the user's personal life.

As for his being a troll or not, who knows. All I can see is that some people on wikipedia seem to be super touchy, and others seem to have way too many online priviliges and things to do with their time. If whatever authority chooses to edit this, go ahead; I've got this message saved already and you'll only be proving Liquid's reasons true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.0.95 (talk • contribs)

After reading through all this, I got the feeling that Emufarmers and several others posting to his talk page are really just yanking Snake Liquid's chain because they know he will call them on it (perhaps not as by the book civilly as they would desire) and then they can post more warnings on his page which increases the cycle of chaos. I think rather than filing an rfc on a new user like this you all should learn to be just a little more tolerant. I've noticed that with the advent of tools like Vandal Proof, Wikipedia has become a much less friendly and much less tolerant place, with some users treating it like their own personal police state. Mellow out people and let some so called "incivility" go unpunished for the good of the greater civility. We've all wasted too much time on this already Cshay 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Snake Liquid's action, although provocative, does not need extremely drastic action. I do agree with previous statements that certain people will be touchy, and others won't. Wikipedia is an endeavor that is participated by real people, and not droids, so obviously, emotions will flare (I had that happen to me last month as well). I'd say we should give Snake Liquid a fair, but stern warning, and watch his actions. If he decides to act up again, we can then move to a RfA. Let's give this person one final chance. He screws this up, it is his fault, not ours. Arbiteroftruth 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.