User talk:Xanderliptak

Editing restrictions and indefinite block
The consensus of the community from the above discussion 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.
 * 1) is forbidden, indefinitely, from summarizing any discussions held elsewhere, and is restrained to direct comments supported by diffs only.
 * 2) All of the above to be very broadly construed.
 * 3) Violations to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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)


 * Any administrator reviewing a future unblock request should also note Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Tide  rolls  06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)

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.. 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. 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)


 * "2 years" - a lie
 * "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)

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)


 * 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)

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

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, 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Also, you should not strike unblock review comments -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you should not alter any other people's comments to make them say something they originally did not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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.. 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)

Possibly unfree File:Tyler Clementi.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tyler Clementi.jpg, has been listed at 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fiddle  Faddle  15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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


The file File:Niall Noigiallach remix.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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:
 * File:ONeill of Ulster coat of arms.png

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)

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


The file File:ONeill sept coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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)

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


The file File:ONeill of Tyrone coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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)

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


The file File:ONeill of Clanaboy coat of arms.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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)