Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Snake Liquid

message: While ignoring someone is, of course, usually an option, I'm not sure if it's the best one here: Snake Liquid will continue to make edits, and so long as he continues to do so, everyone with an interest in the edited articles will have to deal with him in some fashion.
And while I will consent that this process is taking a good bit of time, I don't think it's a waste of time, and I don't think Snake Liquid is a run-of-the-mill vandal/troll.  I think he is a fellow user who happens to subscribe to principles which are quite different from the Wikipedia norm, and deserves a fair shake.  While I don't want to create a soapbox for him to rail against elitism and such, it's pretty obvious that he will do so elsewhere regardless.  I think it's worth spending some time dealing with this, come what may, rather than to allow conflicts to boil over in various places.  I don't know whether Snake can "fit in" around here, but I'd certainly like for things to end peacably.  I certainly don't want this to be a lynch mob; Snake seems to potentially have a lot to offer to Wikipedia, and since he hasn't left after what's happened so far, it seems like he intends on staying and contributing. --Emufarmers(T/C) 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made those same arguments before, that Snake has made.  Then I realized that what goes around comes around.  Sure, administrators may do something ridiculous and unfair.  They may block me, they may warn me, they may revert me, they may warn me and not warn someone I'm debating with for the same thing, may do something that I can get really offended over... but when the day is over, it really isn't a big deal.  It's just a web site, and anyone (including me) is still free to edit.  I may take the position like I think Snake has, that I want the administrator to admit that he was wrong.  Maybe I'll get it, maybe I won't.  Maybe Snake can fit in, maybe he can't.  Whether the result of this RfC exonerates Snake as an angel or condemns him as dirt, he will be back tomorrow, perhaps under a different user name, perhaps completely civil and contributing to articles, or perhaps whining more, you never know.  Maybe he will be extremely happy if someone says to him "I'm wrong, I'm sorry", and tells him whatever he wants to hear for him to think this place is "fair" in his eyes.  Or maybe no one will say it, and he'll consume himself for days in frustration.  I guess all I'm saying is this RfC and all the discussion is just a waste of time.  I say ignore what he does on his own talk page (delete it if necessary), and revert or block for any inappropriate edits elsewhere, and drop the whole discussion!  Like, the time spent cutting and pasting the URL's to those 20+ diffs was finger exercise, and not much more.  Reswobslc 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me? One final chance? Typical, as if none of you have ever screwed up and been given another chance on more than one occassion. Bollocks. I'm not the real problem here, don't even try to make a scapegoat of me. Those who are wrong know who they are, they should come forth and admit it.--Snake Liquid 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: How about no? Just because he says what you want to hear and that his username is Arbiter of Truth doesn't mean it is in fact the truth. I still stand by my argument. Now you can move on.--Snake Liquid 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Now you can move on." Okay, done. Discussion closed. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: >.> I wasn't trying to... go ahead and take it. :P --Targetter (Lock On) 23:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Reswobslc