Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding User:Baseball Bugs' endorsement[edit]

Bugs, I feel for the sake of transparency that this is the best place to raise this, not your tpage. While you are entitled to your feelings about the username issue, I don't think it's fair to say that there may be other socks. If there is a suspicion of socking, please see WP:SPI and file there. Would you mind removing the statement please, as it generates more heat than light at this stage? → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 23:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patent falsehood in Xander's response[edit]

I have never launched an ANI discussion about Xander. I responded to one as an administrator and closed one as an administrator. This is all documented in his first link: [1]. The ANI was opened by User:Roux and marked resolved by me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You raised an issue about a signature on an painting under the ANI ROUX started, the two being completely unrelated incidents. Technically you had it as a subcatgory of an already existing ANI, yes, but by bringing up a new incident you began a new ANI discussion, regardless on how you list it. I guess on a technicality you can argue you didn't start an ANI, you merely began a new subcategory to an ANI. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. I responded to that ANI as an uninvolved administrator, and my subsectioning what I found by evaluating the concerns Roux raised is no different than Uncle G's subsectioning his later comment about dispute resolution. Just because what I found was a policy problem with your edit does not mean I launched a discussion about you, any more than if I had responded to a policy problem in Roux's edit it would have meant I had launched a discussion about him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing on technicality now? Before you stated you didn't like them. Then again, I saw this sudden change in opinion before when it suited your ends when citing policy. Hardly a patent falsehood, though, more of a technical falsehood. This is a lot of work for you to win a policy discussion. You still have the issue that the other editors who commented didn't take away your same view. One thought it was a suggestion, another a guideline to be decided by editors. Will you start RfC on them, too? I suppose if you block everyone that has the nerve to disagree with you, you win by default, hunh? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I am arguing is an essential difference: you said: "Also Moonriddengirl and ROUX have each created ANIs against me, which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them..." This is absolutely, demonstrably untrue. I did not create ANI against you, but responded to one; no admin found my note to be baseless. They did not comment on it at all, because they didn't need to: I had already taken action. And in fact I am the one who closed the single ANI listing myself. You are profoundly misrepresenting events in a way that I can only presume is deliberately deceptive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to your final sentence, MRG, I was blocked for referring to Xanderliptak's repeated untruthful statements as lies, and for calling him a liar. I fail to see what other possible word is applicable to this behaviour, and have been forced to tie the English language in knots in the section below to avoid getting blocked for the same thing again. You see the problem, I suspect. → ROUX ₪ 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, you are going to accuse me of deception after the summaries you provided that misrepresented the discussion and gave undo weight to arguments that happened to side with your actions now? Or how they ignore that despite how much ROUX and Beyond My Ken talked, that they didn't ever prove or win an argument they set forth despite review from uninterested parties? Or how you cite the image policy as an absolute rule to win an argument and remove images you dislike, only to later say it is merely a guideline and I shouldn't take it to be as absolute as you applied it? Or how you accuse me of relying on technicalities, only for you to argue here how something is technically different? In ANI the "I" stands for "incidents". You listed a completely unrelated incident under ROUX's listing. Different incident. New incident. You found his argument baseless, yes, and you brought up your incident for whatever reason, I really don't know, but no one cared. Whether you want to argue it was a subANI or a new ANI is a technicality, the difference is a couple less equal signs. But to say it is a patent lie it out of bounds here. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I suppose that it is a coincidence that you started this only after a policy dispute arose between us? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it's not a coincidence. In fact, as my "Description" section notes, it's the reason we're here: after I observed your increasing defensiveness, I started looking at your history. I have even linked to the conversation myself in the "evidence" section. You accused me of opening an ANI against you that was dismissed by another administrator; this is patently false (which means clearly wrong). You are either profoundly confused about what happened or you are being deceptive to twist events for your purposes. I have presumed that you were relatively clear-headed, but given that you have just accused Masem of lying to you for something I said, perhaps your recall is not clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you seem to be confused. You want to argue on a technicality here, because technically you didn't start a new one, you listed a new incident under an already opened one. Fine, whatever you want to call it. Oh, and those are your words in quotation, since you can't recognize or remember what you say. I was asking you that question. He said there that the image policy was a guideline, but you were enforcing it as an unbending rule in that quote. Misspeak? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a technicality, and I am done arguing that with you. I trust that all reasonable reviewers will see the difference. Do you have a diff to substantiate my saying here that image policy was a guideline? I'm pretty clear on the difference between policies and guidelines. I used the word guideline once on the RfC: "I believe Xander resists moderation from the community and (purposefully or otherwise) attempts to circumvent policies and guidelines" and not at all on this page. I used the word "guideline" once at [2], ("Note that I fully thereafter explained the difference between policies and guidelines and standards of consensus with quotes from policy") after you accused Masem of lying, and I've used it twice at [3]: "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines notes "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow." and "I don't know who told you it was a guideline; it is clearly marked "policy" at the top." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression there can only be one way to read the policy (coincidentally, you believe your way is the only right one), and the fact that I didn't rad it your way is what prompted this RfC. So, if there is only one way to interpret policy, I wanted to post your idea of the policy next to his, because one of you have to be lying. Either him about it being a guideline, or you about it being an absolute rule. You brought an RfC against me for disagreeing with you, so I would hate for you to think he was being purposely deceptive by putting forward a reading you disagree with. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put out many reasons for this RfC, and as far as I'm concerned, your behavior here is just affirming that it is needful. I cannot believe that when challenged for a "diff" to verify your assertion to me that "You said here that the image policy was a guideline, but you were enforcing it as an unbending rule in that quote." you would alter the record to read, "He said there that the image policy was a guideline, but you were enforcing it as an unbending rule in that quote." Given that, I have nothing further to say to you here at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, I said you when I meant he, and I corrected it. Just like the corrections you make to your typos, and the reductions you guys plead with Fry1989 to make. So what? A one word mistake, you've done it, too. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot pretend to know what's going on in Xander's head, so I am in no position to characterize him as a "liar". This much I have observed, though: He consistently makes false and misleading statements, certainly about what others have said and possibly about what he himself has said. On commons he wrote a little paragraph directed at me, containing 5 or 6 comments, none of which were true. But that doesn't make him a "liar" as such. It's possible he actually believes that what he is saying is true and that his inconsistencies don't matter. So whether he's a conscious liar or he honestly believes what he says, also doesn't matter. What matters is whether his behavior and actions should be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, your language is over the line. Stop being UNCIVIL. You take your discussions too personally. A group pf people felt you falsely stole an image form the Internet and uploaded as your won. And trying to delete my images because I pointed it out was not the way to get back at me, it only brought more attention from editors who speedydeleted your image that you stole and then voted to keep mine despite your futile attempts to delete them. Commons doesn't like editors uploading images under false pretenses, it is considered stealing. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now reported Xander's outrageous lie to ANI and also the admin noticeboard at commons. I'm willing to take a lot from users, but not when they question my integrity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that what happened on "Commons has no bearing here"? Huh. I must have been wrong. Further, Baseball Bugs has to my knowledge never had a thing to do with any of your images on Commons, nor did he ever upload anything, 'stolen' or not. → ROUX ₪ 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, although a number of my photos have been copied to commons in the past, I have just uploaded my first one to commons directly. Not sure if I did it the right way, so we'll see. But it's a photo I took, and unlike Xander, I'm not trying to claim any "moral right" about it. It's free for the copying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think he means me here, although I still DID NOT steal that image, I got it from the German Wikipedia, HUGE difference, and the constant "stealing" accusation needs to stop. Either he has me and Baseball Bugs confused, or he thinks we're the same person. Fry1989 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He positioned his comment right below mine, so until he explains himself, I can only assume (as Roux did) that it was directed at me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blah blah blah. You done? How many people have to tell you that it was a mix up? You two sound the same to me, I can't help mixing you guys up. Just word vomit about how you wish I was nicer to you both, with ROUX directing you like puppets on what to say, what not to say and where to sign. You guys are cute. :-) [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

[Crossposted to User talk:Xanderliptak ]. Xanderliptak, first you upset several people, in a way that is your fault entirely, and none of theirs; then you are unbelievably rude when they don't like it. Your battleground behaviour has no place on Wikipedia. Stop it right now, or I'll block you for pissing everybody off. Or, if you'd like me to be more formal about it, for violating WP:BATTLE. This is the only warning you're going to receive for your disruptive edits. Bishonen | talk 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm surprised you missed his accusation of meatpuppetry, above. → ROUX ₪ 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking in summary style, Roux. Don't confuse me now, I'm still looking for where I tell Xanderliptak his language is too abrasive. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oh. Well, maybe it was when.. no. Or when you said.. no. I don't see you saying that. Perhaps he should provide a diff, or retract it? (He still has not, btw, retracted the personal attack regarding paranoia, below, nor any of the others that currently exist on this page). → ROUX ₪ 12:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned with any of that. I've warned Xanderliptak, and my only interest in him is his conduct after the warning. Bishonen | talk 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Is there any particular reason you are trying to showboat? First of all, considering ROUX and I have had a dispute going for a month, this can not be entirely my fault as you are trying to assert. Clearly he must be contributing something to keep it going that long. You find "blah blah blah" rude? I find your assertions rude, as well as your language. You come to me and tell me to stop "pissing" people off at the same time you tell me my language is too abrasive? Do you understand irony at all? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Thank you for responding. Please see How to Win Friends and Influence People. Bishonen | talk 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Response to Xanderliptak's response - more falsehoods and misrepresentations of reality[edit]

Unsurprisingly, there is a great deal that is fundamentally untrue in this statement. Xanderliptak's original statements are in italics, mine are indented. I believe I have copied the entirety of the first two paragraphs of his response to the RFCU, as well as portions of the last. I do not believe any of the statements listed below have been quoted out of context, and will welcome commentary from anyone except Xanderliptak who indicates that any statements I have quoted or pieces I have snipped have caused the meaning to change via removal of context.

This mostly appears to be a series of Commons edits that that aren't even an issue there.

This is not in fact the case. The Commons edits were brought up to show a pattern. This is obvious from everything stated in the initial statement on the RfC/U; I am responding to this because it is standard tactic by Xanderliptak by now: attempt to reframe the discussion as though we are incapable of reading what has been written.

I would like to note that I actually do own the images in question, per the CC license and copyright, so yes, I say things like "my image" because I did create it and I do own it. I do, however, let editors use them in articles and create derivatives, and I have even created derivatives based upon the requests of other editors, so I fail to see an actual ownership issue.

As soon as images are released under CC licencing, or at least under the versions used by wiki*, original creators lose any control of how the images are used and/or modified, as long as the original author is attributed. Attribution of derivations of Xanderliptak's work has never been a problem to my knowledge, and certainly not in the past month; his images include his name as the filename, and derivative works have been very, very carefully attributed according to Commons norms. This is just another example of Xanderliptak's...idiosyncratic...interpretation of policy.

It should be noted Moonriddengirl and I are in a dispute about a policy change. Also Moonriddengirl and ROUX have each created ANIs against me

As noted above, Moonriddengirl has never initiated an AN/I posting regarding Xanderliptak. Again: attempting to frame the discussion in a way not congruent with reality, as though we are unable to read edit histories.

which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them, see here, here and here

Again, these are not statements that are accurately reflective of the real world. No admin found the postings to be 'baseless', nor were they 'dismissed'. Many people commented in the relevant threads expressing concern about Xanderliptak's behaviour. I would like Xanderliptak to please provide diffs of admins stating that the postings were 'baseless' or that they were 'dismissed.' Either provide the diffs, or retract the statement, please.

And as Baseball Bugs himself said, he went so far as "to activate my long-dormant commons account" just to follow me over to Commons to hound me.

Baseball Bugs reactivated his account for several reasons, none of which were to 'hound' Xanderliptak. He--Xanderliptak--appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that 'calling someone out on their poor behaviour' is 'hounding'. I invite Xanderliptak to provide diffs of admins sanctioning the behaviour that BB, myself, and others have complained about.

ROUX has even went to other editor's pages to threaten them into not making edits that might hurt his chances at causing issues, see here

That is, again, not a statement which is congruent with reality. My actual words to DinDraithou can be seen here, in which I asked him or her to please not contribute to disruption, and here where I attempted to explain the principles of WP:BRD and WP:OWN. There is not a single threat in either of those statements, despite Xanderliptak's completely and totally knowingly false assertion to the contrary.

and even requests edits be undone so he could make issues, see here.

Yet again we have a statement which isn't even within shouting distance of the truth. At no point did I request that any edits be undone. I asked for them to be delayed; read on. Of the diffs that Xanderliptak could have meant to use (as the one he did use is incorrect), this explained why I had reverted an image removal, stating that it was part of a larger matter (which I did not know when I made the revert) which was going to be posted on AN/I shortly thereafter. It is possible that he meant this edit, in which I said, quoted in its entirety (minus indentation and my signature), "I find little to disagree with in what you have said. However I would suggest for the sake of maintaining clarity in the discussion that any consensus arrived at here be held off in implementation until the discussion at ANI has run its course. Would you object to this?" Please note that I said run its course; nothing about the outcome, only that in the interests of preventing any further disruption it would be best in my opinion to simply wait until it was over. I then asked whether there were any objections to that course of action. (For the record, there were not).

This seems to be retaliation, as their attempts at ANIs here failed, as did their attempts on Commons, so now they are using the sum of their own failed ANIs to prove an issue.

This is such blatant bad faith that I will treat it with the contempt it deserves. There is nothing here about retaliation. Again, Xanderliptak is under the sorely mistaken assumptions that multiple users' problems with his behaviour are somehow vindictive. Again I invite him to provide diffs of admins, or indeed other users involved in the disputes raised here in this RfC/U, who have supported his disruptive behaviour.

As for IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I provided sources which the other editors ignored, and I kept insisting throughout the discussion that they read the sources. True, I suppose, that it is IDIDNTHEARTHAT when I refused their denials on the grounds that they didn't read the sources and refused to give any sources to support their own argumetns. I gave sources here, here, here, as well as several other times, and they refused here, claiming as long as they say no to what I showed they do not need sources.

Actually no. You provided a few images which you claimed were sources. You were repeatedly asked for sources which proved a) that Roosevelt had ever used those embellishments (which you never provided, due to their nonexistence), and b) that it was accepted heraldic practice to embellish arms however the heralds saw fit (you provided one source which allegedly, when quoted selectively, supported your position for past accepted practice; the source itself noted that the practice was no longer much in use, if at all. Frankly, given the repeated misrepresentations of the tone, tenor, and content of statements made by other editors, I found it difficult to believe the source even said that, but chose not to belabour the issue at the time).
As for this diff, in which you claimed I said I didn't need sources, no such words were used in that edit. Yet again, Xanderliptak makes statements that he knows have nothing to do with reality.

ROUX had been blocked for incivility in the very diffs he provided the ANI

Conveniently failing to mention both that you were blocked for the very same thing, and that Georgewilliamherbert said, quote, "He's blocked, and I was considering making it for longer." That would be your block he was considering making longer, Xanderliptak, not mine.

another editor was asked to stay away form me and the articles I edit

That editor was requested to enter into a voluntary interaction ban with you, by me, to shut up the noise and allow admins to pay attention to what was going on. An action for which I was thanked by Georgewilliamherbert. To be completely blunt, I only made that suggestion so that the accompanying edit restrictions I proposed for you would not be fuel for you to complain you were being treated unfairly. It is a shame that Prodego closed the entire discussion when BMK accepted that condition; had he not, and had he imposed the proposed edit restrictions upon you, we would not be here right now. Either because you would have seen the error of your ways and ceased your disruption, or because you would have not, and been blocked for it. For those who care, this is the edit in which I proposed that Xanderliptak be banned from making statements about what other editors have said without providing a diff to support it. In addition, that edit includes a point-by-point rebuttal of another of Xanderliptak's posts in which he makes claims which do not reflect the real world as everyone else sees it.

and the other editors were either told to chill or stop with the baseless accusations.

Please provide diffs of these statements. Else we will be forced to conclude, again, that your statements are not accurate reflections of reality. You seem to keep forgetting that other people can read what has been written.

I believe this is all I have to say on the matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons edits have no bearing here. Because Commons has different policies. You can't point to another website and say, "See, if he did that on Wikipedia it would be a violation, I bet he's dreaming of doing the same thing here." That isn't an issue being raised, that is a preemptive strike based off your paranoia that something might possibly could happen. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your editing on Commons does, however, show a pattern including problems with WP:OWN (as forbidden there as it is here), WP:IDHT (likewise), refusal to accept consensus (yup), prohibitions against edit warring (ditto), and so forth. Do note, Xanderliptak, that in reality I said nothing whatsobloodyever about anything that is allowed on Commons but not here, nor the reverse. Not a single thing.
    • Now, two things:
      1. Please provide diffs, as requested above, for various of the statements you have made.
      2. Consider this your only warning against personal attacks--your 'paranoia' comment--and, for now, a polite request that you redact it immediately. I will make only one request, and will seek to have you blocked if you do not redact it soon. You will note that in the section created by Fry1989 below, he questioned your mental fitness and I asked him to redact that as well. Perhaps at some point you will come to understand that none of this, at least not from our site, is about vengeance, retribution, or retaliation. Indeed, at AN/I some time ago I suggested to you quite clearly that you use diffs when alleging other users have said or done certain things. This suggestion was for your own good to prevent you from being blocked for continually making statements about what other editors have said or done that are not congruent with reality as the rest of us experience it.
      3. Sorry, a third thing. If Commons edits have no bearing here, then your statements about Baseball Bugs and his edits on Commons likewise have no bearing here. You can pick one or the other, but you cannot have it both ways. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if the edits concerning OWN are an issue, take them to Commons. Even if it were true, your concern is how I have been editing on Commons, which is not an issue here. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, no. The edits concerning WP:OWN are right here on enwiki. Last chance, please redact your attack above. Please also provide diffs as requested for allegations you have made. Please, again, also note that if Commons is irrelevant, then so are your comments about Baseball Bugs and his use of his account there. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what attack? *scratches head* You probably are speaking to Fry1989 who called me crazy and insane three times, right? I understand your confusion. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your bizarre statement about paranoia. Don't worry about it, I have asked an uninvolved admin to come and take a look, and I have no doubt you will be blocked shortly. Until you are, however, could you please provide diffs as requested above for the allegations you have made. And again, note that if Commons is irrelevant, then so are your comments about Baseball Bugs and his use of his account there. → ROUX ₪ 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paranoia is the "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others"[4], and this whole thing seems to be about what might could happen. That seems fitting, since the arguments being made here are about what could happen if the assumptions being made are accurate. The assumptions are based on nothing, they are just assumptions. And the fact that Baseball Bugs wrote on Wikipedia that he purposely revived an abandon account to follow me there implies he was hounding me here and wished to continue to hound me elsewhere. That is relevant. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a twisting of the facts, as I already told you at commons. You inspired me to revive my 2-year-old, dormant commons account, and I am now getting active at commons, now that the "vector" problem is solved, as I have a number of my own photos I want to move there. There's no question you need to be watched, and you are being watched by many. I'm seeing things in your behavior that are seriously at odds with the way wikipedia is supposed to operate, and others are as well, so the ball remains in your court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have not commented on your motives, but on your behaviour. Either way, it is still a personal attack. This whole thing is about what has demonstrably happened, including your actions since this RfC/U was posted, and the need for these behaviours to stop. The fact that many of your problematic behaviours have continued on this very page is indication enough that you need to change how you behave. And again, please, provide diffs as requested above for the allegations you have made. → ROUX ₪ 01:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have commented on my motives, when you tried to infer what I might be thinking or the reason behind my actions. You have been proposing the OWN issue on the grounds you know what is going through my head. Anyways, you began an ANI that Moonriddengirl found to be baseless, and she clearly isn't a supporter of mine, so if you can't convince her of anything wrong, perhaps it is time for you to just move along. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide diffs showing where Moonriddengirl and other admins--you're the one claimed there were other admins, remember--said that the AN/I post was baseless. Moonriddengirl being a supporter of you or not is irrelevant. For one, she is one of the single most fair-minded admins on Wikipedia. For another, this has nothing to do with you as a person, it is entirely about your behaviour. Please provide the diffs that I am now requesting for the seventh time. → ROUX ₪ 01:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except Moonriddengirl heard about it every time you caused an uproar somewhere, at ANI, on discussion pages as you followed be around, on user talk pages as you followed be there as well trying to draw attention to yourself. Oh, and she is involved in a policy dispute at the moment with me. One of the "problems" she found being I interpreted the policy different from her. Other editors interpreted the policy different as well, but they were not disputing it as fervently as I was. Then, an RfC coincidentally. And if you want me to answer a claim of yours, provide the diff of my quote. I am not your bitch, I don't run around wasting time to answer your requests. You do the work, then I will. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your invocation of the "B-word" forfeits any right you thought you had to complain about the incivility of others. And you continue to be under the mistaken impression that your activities should not be scrutinized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This RfC/U is not about me. It is about your actions. Further, you are the one making claims that admins have said and done certain things. It is therefore incumbent upon your to provide proof that they did say and/or do those things. It is not possible for me to find proof that they did not, as that is one of the most basic of logical fallacies. Please provide diffs showing where Moonriddengirl and other admins--you're the one claimed there were other admins, remember--said that the AN/I post was baseless.→ ROUX ₪ 02:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Fry1989 trying to claim I am being uncivil to myself? Interesting angle. And, no ROUX, provide the diff of the quote you are making reference to. Then I will provide a diff back for you...eventually at my leisure. Provide a diff of my quote so I know which quote you are directly referring to, there are so many it is hard for me to remember... [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's right up there, in that long comment where I rebutted everything you said about me. Either you haven't read what I originally posted in this section, in which case shame on you because you should be reading what people say; we read everything you say, or you have read it and are for some reason stating that you don't know. The 'then I will provide a diff back for you...eventually at my leisure' makes it look like you are merely playing games here. I offer you this advice in all charity and goodwill: the community in general looks extremely dimly on people who appear to be playing games in an RfC/U that is about them, whether or not they actually are playing games. Please note that I am merely commenting on how your behaviour appears and I am not making any statements on what it is. → ROUX ₪ 02:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting diffs which will prove Xanderliptak's claims[edit]

In your original post, responding to this RfC/U, you made the following claims:

  • "Also Moonriddengirl and ROUX have each created ANIs against me, which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them"
  • Please provide diffs of the other admins[who?] stating that the ANI posting which I started was 'baseless':
  • Please provide diffs of the other admins[who?] dismissing the ANI posting which I started:
  • Please provide a diff of the ANI posting which Moonridden girl started. Please note, adding to an existing thread because of concerns raised there is not creating an ANI, it is merely following problems as they are raised:
  • Please provide diffs of the other admins[who?] stating that the ANI posting which Moonriddengirl started was 'baseless':
  • Please provide diffs of the other admins[who?] dismissing the ANI posting which Moonriddengirl started:
  • "and even requests edits be undone so he could make issues,"
  • Please provide diffs showing that I have requested edits to be undone:
  • Please provide diffs showing that I have requested edits to be undone so I could 'make issues':
  • Please provide diffs showing what these issues are:
  • "and the other editors were either told to chill or stop with the baseless accusations."
  • Please provide diffs showing that other editors[who?] were told to chill:
  • Please provide diffs showing that other editors[who?] were told to stop making baseless accusations:

Thank you for agreeing to provide the diffs. Since you said all those things in the first place, I trust that it will not take you long to provide proof that all of these things actually happened. → ROUX ₪ 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that I said that admins said something. All I see is what I said. Please provide the diff where I said I was quoting the admins as you claimed. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did. It's right here. Second paragraph on the right side of the diff, second sentence, words 12–13. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And when was roux claiming you quoted admins? Roux is clearly quoting you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't me quoting the admins, that is me summarizing what the admins did. Try again. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK
Nevertheless, there must be diffs supporting what you have said. Please provide them. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, or you can avoid the request for diffs because you were simply summarizing some admins' actions and obviously that's such a minor detail that your claims don't matter any more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the wrong approach. Xanderliptak's repeated and proven misrepresentations of what has been said do not allow us to take anything he says at face value. Diffs are required, or the claims must be fully retracted. One or the other. → ROUX ₪ 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning that, if he doesn't think he needs to provide diffs, we can and will assume the comments were made with intent to mislead and twist the truth. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Roger. → ROUX ₪ 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liptak's actions[edit]

Not sure if this is the place(never been in a RFC before), but I seriously question Liptak's ability to behave. His actions and the way he discusses things leave much to be desired. He begins or enters into revert wars, riotous arguments, and is absolutely rude. He assaults people's discussion pages, such as mine, not leave them alone until being reported to admins, and then tries to play it as if he's the victim, often stretching the words of others to make it seem that way, when it's far from fact. He routinely blanks his pages so that nobody can see his discussions, and now is even runnig several accounts. As mentioned before the similarity of their names brings into question where they're a rouse to throw off any sockpuppets. Even if his intentions with having multiple accounts is good, I do believe that his IP should be investigated, especially considering that he said on his Commons page that these multiple accounts are to make it "a bit harder to follow me"(disturbing language). His does not accept when he makes mistakes, until he is forced by others to see his faults, and even when he does try and fix his problems, if he doesn't do it properly he then claims that those of us who bring up such issues "are trying to get rid of me", as if we are all in some conspiracy. He even complains when people harass him, not several days after he does it to others, such as myself. In closing, I truly believe this user has trouble accepting when he's wrong, that issues brought up are not meant to be personal, and believes himself to be above rules, with the threat of the block being the only thing that ever stops him in his steps. Fry1989 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should redact portions of the above statement, the bits where you comment on his state of mind. We are discussion actions here. → ROUX ₪ 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to me by username, you do not know me and have no reason to assume you can call me simply by "Liptak". And what do you mean by "I seriously question Liptak's state of mind"? [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, you are welcome to join the discussion on the main page. If you concur with the concerns that Roux shares with me, you are welcome to endorse them. Otherwise, you can certainly comment at outside view. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem(to ROUX) is, his state of mind reflects in his actions. He simply does not respect all rules(or other users), until threatened by the ban. I probably could word and direct my views better(again, never been in a RFC), but I think my thoughts come across. And for Xanderliptak, you're hardly in a place to be making demands and assumptions about how I address you, when you use multiple user names. Lastly, for Moonriddengirl, I don't quite understand the main page or where I would address my concerns. Fry1989 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, again, redact those statements. → ROUX ₪ 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you stop telling editors what to say and not say? He clearly wants to tell everyone how insane and crazy I am, so let him. He should have a chance to prove it to the world. If he can. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not when those statements are personal attacks, no. I have asked both him and you to redact your personal attacks. He has done so; you haven't. I shall now find an uninvolved admin to decide whether you should be blocked. → ROUX ₪ 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions and language speak for itself, I have no need to prove whether or not you are insane, and my personal opinion is just that, an opinion. Others can form their own opinions regarding that themselves. Fry1989 (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, I can say that you don't know me, it is hardly an assumption, so don't refer to me by a personal name that would only be appropriate in a social setting. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak's comment on Fry1989's endorsement of the summary[edit]

This was originally posted by Xanderliptak in response to Fry1989's endorsement of the summary. I have moved it here in its entirety minus indentation, where it belongs, as Xanderliptak being new to the RfC/U process was unaware that responses to endorsements are kept only on the talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 01:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • While Fry1989 might find his single interaction with me abrasive, I at least remained civil. His language is completely unnecessary and is personally offensive, see here, here and here. Please refrain from using such language. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 9:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • For the first one, I redacted, realizing I went a bit far. The second, how is stating that my personal opinion is just my personal opinion and what opinions others form is theirs to form harsh? For the third, read into that whatever you wish. Fry1989 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You redacted belatedly after being asked twice to redact. You did not do it on your own accord, ROUX asked you to because it would jeopardize the RfC. And even then it took some time for you to do this even when you wer told twice exactly what to do. Also, there is little difference between saying "he is crazy" and "I think he is crazy". You are not absolved by saying "I think" or "in my opinion he is" because it is understood anything you write is going to be your opinion. The language is unwarranted. You clearly took personal offense to our disagreement over the legal issues of heraldic devices. Sorry, dude, it wasn't personal, I was just pointing out how it was a flawed reasoning. Other editors agreed, I hope you don't take each one as personally. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for God's sake could you please make just one statement that actually reflects reality from start to finish? I asked Fry to redact because it was a <blink>PERSONAL ATTACK</blink>, exactly as I stated above. Exactly as your statement about paranoia is a personal attack. Exactly as I asked you to redact it. → ROUX ₪ 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add, I didn't know what redact meant(not frmiliar with that term) and it wasn't until the second time I was asked that I realized it must be important and looked it up in the WikiGuidlines. And no, other users DID NOT agree with you, nobody has commented on my page regarding that discussion other then you, and you were asked to stop by an admin after I asked you to leave me alone 3 times and you wouldn't. THAT is the reality. Fry1989 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, your talk page? You asked twice. And I only replied the first time because you asked what would have been the appropriate license to upload images with. I answered, then you screamed that I was harassing you for answering. Blah blah blah, then you ran to an admin and an hour after I stopped talking to you I got this thing about harassing you and to stop talking to you. Very speedy you are, and the admin said he wasn't told by you that I had already stopped commenting. So you might want to avoid doing that in the future. As for not agreeing with me about you stealing the image, your image was speedy deleted for being a blatant copyright violation, they knew it wasn't your image and you lifted from somewhere. And you didn't know what redact meant? That's perfect, that means you thought it was fine to go around calling people insane crazy liars. It's not. I am sorry our first interaction included me deleting a file you uploaded, but it wasn't perosnal. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that if you had a better license I could have used, then to suggest it. You didn't do that, you just when on about how I "stole" the image and that I need to fix my standards. Fry1989 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I explained how you couldn't use the license you did use and what it implied, because you still were arguing that what you did was the best option. There are several licenses to have chosen, which is a moot point since the image was long deleted. Anyways, when you go to upload an image, there is a prompt that asks whose work you are uploading. Just read through the prompt and as you go through the proces it will narrow down the licenses most appropriate. Unless you can prove, however, that the image you found was printed prior to 1923, it isn't a good idea to upload the image because of complex copyrights. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding non-confrontational editing[edit]

Xanderliptak -

This is a general request, that I would like to ask that you address in a statement on the RFC page.

Can you please list out articles that you have been working on where you feel that you have not gotten caught up in confrontations with other editors?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to BMK[edit]

While I agree in general with everything that has been said, as I have experienced it, I think you need to provide diffs, BMK. Even if the diffs have already been used on the page, linking to examples of the behaviour is necessary, for the same reason that Xanderliptak needs to provide diffs of what he is claiming. → ROUX ₪ 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principal but am inclined to disagree in this specific case only because he is drawing conclusions about Xander's behavior and Xander's behavior is documented extensively in the prior conversations that have already been linked. If he was making specific allegations, I'd be with you, but he's speaking to a pattern of behavior. If his views are challenged, he's offered to provide diffs, but so far those who have read the material above have agreed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is WP:BEANS-related, if you follow me. → ROUX ₪ 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that. Perhaps the simplest solution is to provide links to some of the discussions that best model the concerns? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought as well. I'll see what I can do later today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DinDraithou[edit]

DinDraithou is currently alone in her unequivocal support for Xander - she says "these drawings are his and Wikipedia may eventually have to be fixed to allow ownership in certain cases. For example, there are thousands of scholars out there who would love to use it to publish in but this is not yet possible." While I can imagine an encyclopedia project in which content ownership is allowed or encouraged (for example, one where each contributor gets to write "their own version" of an article with minor edits by others), it's antithetical to any sort of collaborative work, and I don't believe Wikipedia can or ever should encourage an attitude of possessiveness. Dcoetzee 18:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like this could be a fun discussion. But I'm unwatching all of this, because I just don't care. DinDraithou (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems redundant, but I support Dcoetzee's statement. Obviously collaboration is essential, and if it is to be maintained we will have to continue to decline original research (no matter how good or correct), and we will have to continue to decline images with watermarks and signatures that may promote some entity (and we are clever enough to know, for example, that Picasso's signature is ok). Collaboration means we cannot have certain contributors with a special status such that their efforts are somehow owned by them, or subject to their personal preferences. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Xan and Din have a fundamental misunderstanding of what wikipedia is about. It's primarily about "free content" and "anyone can edit". "Ownership" is not compatible with those axioms, and users who admit they "don't care" about the rules might start to care once the Indef Angel comes knocking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. DinDraithou has in fact stated that as a descendant of a notable Irish figure, she should therefore have more say in related articles. I couldn't facepalm hard enough when I read that. on top of which, DD indicated in her statement that she doesn't really know what's going on. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 02:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanderliptak seems to have retired[edit]

Discussion moved to WP:AN [5]

Xanderliptak has either retired or gone on unannounced Wikibreak, not having edited for a week.

Comments have also tapered off.

We're not quite in the situation that this RFC/U can be closed quite yet - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. However, parties who are interested should review that and the RFC/U and consider what might be appropriate resolutions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend indef block for all 3 accounts, which he can appeal if he returns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An indef block seems a bit dramatic when his conflict concerns only watermarks. Maybe we can prohibit him from editing image descriptions or making edits that remove or replace his own images, subject to a ban if he doesn't comply. I'm open to ideas though. Dcoetzee 03:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dcoetzee, please read the entire RFCU. Watermarks are far from the only issue. → ROUX ₪ 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any specifics, he doesn't need three user accounts, so two of them ought to be blocked. Given that he's best known for editing under the Xanderliptak account, it's probably the other two that should be blocked. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good. And then keep an eye on the Xanderlip account, as unless he's actually left, he's probably waiting for the fire to be switched off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the summary I presented, I think that an indef block of Xanderliptak's account is warranted, as long as it's understood to be in effect until Xanderliptak presents some evidence that he understands that his behavior has been antithetical to the basic tenets of Wikipedia, and awareness that he is expected to edit collegially and collaboratively, to the benefit of the encyclopedia, and not simply to his own aggrandizement. To this point, he's not presented any indication that this is the case. He still may have value to impart to the project, so the door should be left open to him, but it really does seem necessary to send a strong message at this point, since nothing else seems to have gotten through to him. (I agree also that only one account -- of his choice -- shoudld remain open, the other(s) should be permanently shut down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that he's just waiting for the heat to turn down so that he can come back and resume what he's been up to for the last year or so. His account could be indef'd with the caveat that if he owns up to the issues he's caused, he could be unblocked. That would force him to confront the problem instead of just sneaking back in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with Bugs in that it seems clear that Xanderliptak is merely waiting for the heat to die down, and will then resume his disruptive behaviour. Note, for example, that he did edit recently under his IP [6][7], which indicates that he was still around on 27 October. To be perfectly frank, I would be flabbergasted if Xanderliptak isn't already using another account or IP. But there is not enough evidence (apart from sheer common sense), and so I cannot make the accusation directly. It is merely a suspicion. Or maybe GWH is right and he actually has retired. I find this incredibly unlikely. So I have three proposals, which can be applied together, separately, or in various permutations thereof:

Proposal 1: RfC/U on hold[edit]

Suggest we simply put this RfC/U on hold, and when--not if, let's be honest here--Xanderliptak returns under his current username or another, we revisit it to finish it up, implementing Proposal 2 or 3 at that time.

Proposal 2: editing restrictions for Xanderliptak[edit]

:
  1. is forbidden, indefinitely, from uploading images which are in violation of WP:WATERMARK.
  2. is forbidden, indefinitely, from attempting to change licencing conditions after upload of artwork he has created. The sole exception will be removing licencing conditions; any attempt to add or further restrict the licencing he agreed to at upload is forbidden.
  3. is forbidden, indefinitely, from participating in any discussions about image policy.
  4. is required, indefinitely, to prominently link all accounts he uses together at the top of each user page. (Note that on Commons such linking ended up having to be done by administrators who then had to fully protect each user page to prevent Xanderliptak from removing the linking. This may need to be done here.)
  5. is required, indefinitely, to provide accurate diffs of any allegation he makes about another editor.
  6. is required, indefinitely, to provide accurate diffs of any claims that another editor has said or done something.
    In regards to the above two requirements, any user may remove allegations/etc which Xanderliptak has made if he fails to provide diffs in a reasonable time.
  7. is forbidden, indefinitely, from summarizing any discussions held elsewhere, and is restrained to direct comments supported by diffs only.
  8. All of the above to be very broadly construed.
  9. Violations to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks.
  10. Restrictions to take effect on Xanderliptak's first edit (with any account) after this date, or upon granting of an unblock as listed in Proposal 3, whichever is later.
  11. May appeal these restrictions six months after implementation, or six months after the end of the most recent block for violation, whichever is later.

Proposal 3: Indefinite block[edit]

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs) and all related accounts are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. He may request unblock only from the Xanderliptak account, and must show understanding of what he did wrong and how he will change. Note that such an unblock request must include accurate summaries of past events. More misrepresentation of the truth will not be tolerated.

→ ROUX ₪ 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • I personally support 3 to be implemented immediately, followed by 2 to be implemented if anyone ever unblocks him. I included proposal 1 for fairness, but I think it (WP:BEANS). → ROUX ₪ 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time he used any of his three known ID's on commons was the 25th. I've asked there whether discussions here can also be applied there for the sake of uniformity. Any of these proposals seem reasonable, given the circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal 1 simply postpones action. I believe #2 is impractical, because Xanderliptak has shown no capacity (or interest) in modifying his behavior in that way, and I have difficulty believing he would hold to it. Support #3, with #2 to be considered for imposition as conditions if Xanderliptak applies to have the block removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond My Ken's position makes sense to me. In the absence of any recent participation from Xanderliptak in this RFC, the wise thing to do would be to block his account to avoid him returning without re-engaging with the community regarding his problematic behavior. If and/or when he requests a removal of that block, the set of restrictions in #2 can be presented to him as conditions for his return. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think Beyond My Ken has it right. Proposal 2 is a good draft of the restrictions we might impose if we thought Xanderliptak would follow them, but right now there's no indication that he would, so a block until he acknowledges his responsibilities as an editor of a communal enterprise is correct. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the restrictions are important, whether or not he shows an indication that he would follow them (and I agree that he has shown no indication that he will follow even established community norms). Basically such restrictions are drawing a line in the sand and saying "if you cross this completely unambiguous line you will be blocked repeatedly, and eventually permanently." That then makes the (inevitable, to my mind) series of blocks entirely his fault for behaviour he was specifically forbidden. No wiggle room, no wikilawyering; clear and concise 'you may not do these things.' At that point, his continued participation here is entirely up to him. → ROUX ₪ 19:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do find indeffinate blocking a bit harsh, and only like it used when really warranted. Sadly, in Xanderliptak's case, that looks like the best solution, which is sad, because he has much to offer, and his artistic skills are very good, but he simply refuses to accept when he is wrong, and forces upon us his work even when it is not acceptable, either due to watermarks, or being incorrect in certain ways. For that reason, I support prop 3, perhaps with the addition that if he owns up to his actions and learns to behave in a manner which is expected here, that he can return. Fry1989 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that procedurally, community sanctions need to be taken up on the administrators' noticeboard - I am going to copy this over there and will provide a subsection link to there once copied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed - I'm going to suggest a permanent block on the two accounts he has not used much recently, and an indefinite block on his main account with the opportunity for returning under strict terms if he promises good behaviour and has a mentor to watch him. I don't know if I'd use exactly the terms in (2) above - for example allowing him to remove restrictions from licenses could be misinterpreted and abused, and some of the terms seem unnecessarily harsh - but such terms could be revisited if and when he is unblocked. Dcoetzee 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to copy the above comment to the WP:AN discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Xanderliptak&oldid=395881715"