User talk:Xanderliptak

Editing restrictions and indefinite block

The consensus of the community from the above discussion [1] is both that you should be indefinitely blocked from editing until you request an unblock and convince an administrator that you agree to abide by policy going forwards, and apply a specific set of editing restictions.

As noted, the indefinite block is not permanent, or a community ban. The sense of the community is that you may be able to contribute constructively at some point in the future, and the door remains open for you to convince us of that and return.

The editing restrictions will apply if you return and are unblocked, however.

The editing restrictions imposed are: user:Xanderliptak:

  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.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator reviewing a future unblock request should also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not sure why this account was blocked after it had ceased being used, but it seems to continue to be an issue so I am requesting it be unblocked. The issues seems to stem from when I suggested changes to the image policy, specifically I requested the policy be written in greater detail to avoid what I felt was uneven application by each admin. I felt that the policy was so broad that it allowed each individual admin to apply it as he sought fit, and even manipulate or abuse the policy. It was unfair then, I felt, that an admin could cite a violation of image policy against an editor for actions which were not clearly written in the image policy, but actions that the admin 'knew' violated the 'fundamentals' of that policy. An admin and a few editors grew upset with me during the process. When I began receiving threatening messages on Facebook, I abandoned this account because it was far too easy for these disgruntled editors to locate and harass me offsite. I have no want to discuss policy on Wikipedia again; there seems to be no use in addressing issues or suggesting betterment here. It seems to only cause other editors and admins to be distrustful and suspicious. It is a waste of time and will not be repeated again. I am now aware that all information and restrictions must be uploaded with the image at the time of uploading, rather than uploading the image and adding the information and restrictions to the file a couple minutes later. Though such a major issue is not addressed on the upload form (and so I could not be aware of it before hand), I am now in the know of this great dilemma and can conform to it. I also understand now that summarizing a conversation is also frowned upon, because it does not convey the entire message. I understand that all statements have some indifference and even disagreement in them, and it is inappropriate to give just the main point in someone’s statement when there are small or minor points that were also noted along side the main point. And I now understand the only way a consensus is made is by vote, and will not inappropriately apply the term consensus to things that only gained support of people knowledgeable in the field of topic. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been regularly socking - the last instance was a week ago, see [[2]]. Any further appeal needs to address the socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Where to begin...consensus is not a vote, for starters. You have not addressed, or even mentioned, your sockpuppetry. I also remember some dust-up surrounding licensing issues, which you may be referring to by "no want to discuss policy". I'm not seeing a lot here to work with. Tiderolls 06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not banned from the community, mind you, and this account was blocked after I already ceased using it for a couple weeks. I am fully within my rights to create a new account so long as I cease using the previous account, and that was done. I didn't even know this account had been blocked until a couple months later when my new one was subsequently blocked because of the unresolved issues with this first one. And that was another issue because it had been created after I stopped using this one, but before the sanctions were applied. The editors who were frustrated with this account's sudden retirement insisted that some action be taken against it because they were unhappy that I simply walked away from the arguing. So sockpuppetry is rather disingenuous. And yes, there were licensing issues, which concerned whether or not a copyright holder could add further restrictions and such to a Creative Commons license. I argued I was copyright holder, therefore could add any restriction so wished so long as the Creative Commons license was still applicable; others argued such restrictions were added post upload (by a few minutes, but still post) and could not be modified; others argued the Creative Commons license is absolute as is and no modifications could be added without violating the licensing; one even argued that Creative Commons meant Wikipedia owned the images and on behalf of Wikipedia he was releasing the images to the Public Domain. But how would I address all of that? There was no absolute answer on it, and legal ownership of images, the Creative Commons licensing and editors' opinions did not all align to form any decision on it. The block was asked for because of arguments between me and other editors, the block was given because admins felt that it would appease the editors who were upset, and since then that behavior has not reoccurred. The blocks of my subsequent accounts were because I left this one unresolved, not because of any violation of policy, edit warring, argumentative behavior or any of the like, but simply because of a lack of closure. It's been two years without additional issue, that should be enough evidence that such behaviour is no longer an issue and that enough time has passed for people have moved on. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up your return here at WP:ANI. If you want to respond, you could post it here and presumably an admin will copy it over to ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that while socking, Xanderliptak violated the very first of the editing conditions listed above, I don't see a return in the immediate future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would request then Wikipedia:Standard offer. I had already met those requirements before, avoiding Wikipedia for almost a year when the Offer only requires six months, no issues with editors which shows the interactions ROUX and other couple of editors had with me are not common nor continuous. I do not understand how sanctions could be applied to an account after it was already abandoned, but I accept it. I have long moved past the bickering, it was two years ago after all, I would hope the other editors would have as well. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no six month gap in your sock drawer. Sanctions are applied to you, not your account. Go six months without socking and make a request again, maybe someone will bite on it. Your disingenuous statements above make this less than likely. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Anyone giving even a nanosecond to considering unblocking Xander should be made aware of the successful and thoroughly bogus legal threat he made against the WMF, 14 months ago, in order to get his own freely uploaded images removed from commons.[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat humorous that someone is asking for the standard offer having been blocked for a sock mere weeks ago. Ravensfire (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above sanctions were applied to a dead account, which would be like notification by mailing a letter to a former address. This account was never blocked for sockpuppetry, but for arguments editors had with me. I first learned of the sanctions when my new account was blocked as a sockpuppet of this one, though I disagree with that discussion because I closed this account to make a new one in accordance to policy.[4]. I have spent two years with my new accounts without abrasion, disruptive editing or interaction with editors with whom I had arguments, which shows I understand the issues that led to the block and have shown for an extended period of time that I am capable of maintain civil behavior, and eligible then for a variation to the standard offer.[5] Addressing some of the statements the begrudged editors made, the drawings referred to were uploaded with a signature, which is standard on artwork for an author to sign his work, and were not watermarked; I sign my work with my first name only, so there is no way that my signature could be construed as an advertisement for the blog where I post my work; it was the WikiMedia Foundation, the owners of Wikipedia and WikiCommons, that directed me to send in the DCMA take down to stake my claim on the artwork; the DCMA take down contained no threat, but only asserted my copyrights; images were not deleted as copyright violations, but because editors with no claim on the images were inappropriately editing the licensing and copyright information making them invalid, these issues occurred outside the purview of the English Wikipedia, and there is no reason to drudge up two-year old issues from other websites. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  1. "2 years" - a lie
  2. "first learned of sanctions" - also a lie; if you look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xanderliptak you will note they all had contribs and block logs starting after Xanderliptak was unequivocally aware of both the block and the conditions by which he was permitted, by the community, to return to editing.
Xanderliptak will, naturally, remove this from his page.
→ ROUX ₪ 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC) edited to add: removed strikethroughs placed by Xanderliptak. Do not edit the comments of others. → ROUX ₪ 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you remember so much about me but can't remember the no-indent-then-indent pattern I like on my talk page. Anyways, to your first point, I killed the account in 2010 and now it's 2012. That's two years, buddy. If you are counting the exact number of days and trying to find some hyper-technicallity, you need to relax. As to your second point, the sanctions came down in November of 2010 and you've shown that when I learned about them I came back and blanked the page in January of 2011 and therefore I knew since then. Yep, you are right. That's why I already said the exact same thing yesterday, "I didn't even know this account had been blocked until a couple months later". And it's still there, buddy, but I will strike it. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked, you only have access to this Talk page for working towards an unblock. Using it for anything else (like posting images) is an abuse of that privilege, and your access will be revoked if you continue. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that policy? I see it not at Wikipedia:Blocking policy or Wikipedia:Blocked users can edit their own talk page. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty obvious why you are still allowed access to this Talk page - you are BLOCKED, you see, which means you are otherwise not allowed to edit. It's standard practice to revoke Talk page access of a blocked user who abuses that privilege by using it for purposes other than unblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options, "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, it will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option should not be checked by default; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand abuse of the talk page can resort in even this page being blocked, and as such there is an option to allow for that policy to be implemented. However, it does not state in the policy that posting an image while blocked is an abuse, or even state that it is inappropriate; that button you linked also states nothing about the posting of an image qualifies an editor to be blocked from his own talk page. The general guidelines for talk pages lists abuses at [6], and there is nothing about images being inappropriate found there either. You may personally believe it inappropriate or a waste of time, but that does not make it an abuse or violation of policy. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That list is of general abuse, not misuse/abuse while blocked. The latter is down to the discretion of the blocking/reblocking admin. Please note that I would consider continued wikilawyering over whether you can still post images here to also be abuse of Talk page access. It is allowed *solely* for you to appeal your block or work towards an appeal, and I will revoke it if you use this page for anything else. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove other people's comments from your talk page, but you cannot refactor them by striking them or parts of them. For refusing to listen and continuing your misuse of this page, I have revoked your access to it. If you wish to appeal your block now, see WP:BASC -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Curious cat barnstar medal.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Curious cat barnstar medal.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User is back as IPs

The user has created a new account on Commons, commons:User:Alexander on Commons, is uploading files with watermark restrictions and "This original file which has been provided by the author is that which is to be used in Wikipedia articles; a derivative, modified, remixed and/or subsequent work work may not replace the original file in Wikipedia articles.", and is pushing these files over all the Wikimedia projects, including here, e.g. [7]. IP:50.40.xx.xx is probably way too broad to block, but that's where he's coming from--as if pushing his own images into articles isn't signature enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Tyler Clementi.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tyler Clementi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox emblem

Template:Infobox emblem has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox coat of arms. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Proposed deletion of File:Niall Noigiallach remix.jpg

Notice

The file File:Niall Noigiallach remix.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ONeill sept coat of arms.png

Notice

The file File:ONeill sept coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ONeill of Tyrone coat of arms.png

Notice

The file File:ONeill of Tyrone coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:ONeill of Clanaboy coat of arms.png

Notice

The file File:ONeill of Clanaboy coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]