Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

. In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
I bring this RfC because of concerns that User:Xanderliptak is disrupting Wikipedia through tendentious behavior and ownership issues. While he is a talented artist with a lot to contribute, I believe he has a “conflict of interest” that is leading him to put his own interests above that of the project, particularly in attempting to control modifications of his work and to secure credit in inappropriate manners. (He has commercial interest; see ). I should hope to see him reconsider his approach and continue to contribute without tendentiousness or ownership, but failing that believe that we may need to set some limits on what he can do in his efforts to control the images he donates to the project. For instance, I believe he should completely abstain from placing his name within any work of art he intends to propose for use on Wikipedia or from watermarking any image. If he creates a work of art that does comply with Image Use Policy, he should not edit war with others to put it into use, but if the image is removed instead seek "dispute resolution", waiting until an uninvolved bystander assesses consensus before putting it back. Other ideas would be most welcome.

Desired outcome
I should hope to see him reconsider his approach and continue to contribute without tendentiousness or ownership, but failing that believe that we may need to set some limits on what he can do in his efforts to control the images he donates to the project. For instance, I believe he should completely abstain from placing his name within any work of art he intends to propose for use on Wikipedia or from watermarking any image. If he creates a work of art that does comply with Image Use Policy, he should not edit war with others to put it into use, but if the image is removed instead seek "dispute resolution", waiting until an uninvolved bystander assesses consensus before putting it back. Other ideas would be most welcome.

Description
I launch this RfC because I am seeing a pattern of behavior from User:Xanderliptak (who is also User:Alexander Liptak and IP 173.24.117.126) that I believe is seriously disruptive to the smooth operation of a collaborative encyclopedia. Specifically, I believe Xander resists moderation from the community and (purposefully or otherwise) attempts to circumvent policies and guidelines by misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions, all in an effort to control the selection and display of his own images, often in a manner that seems self-aggrandizing. Specifically, as I hope to demonstrate below, Xander has repeatedly and through various efforts attempted to retain visible credit to his images and to control how they may be modified; he has also demonstrated ownership issues in which of his images are to be used, edit-warring to retain his preferences when meeting resistance. While this RfC is about behavior on Wikipedia specifically, I believe this style of interaction crosses projects in a way that helps demonstrate my concerns. Although I could not help but be aware of Xander earlier (especially when my talk page was used to host a disagreement in which I did not participate), my attention was really drawn to this matter by an ANI ticket. When I looked at the issue, I saw that accusations of edit warring brought forward by User:Roux seemed valid, across IP and registered account, with Xander reverting several different contributors across Ghana, Coat of arms of Ghana and Template:Politics of Ghana. I realized that both the earlier image and the new image had been created by Xander, but the earlier had been modified to remove his watermark, while the new image embedded his name in the coat of arms of the nation of Ghana. Since this is contrary to Wikipedia’s “Image Use Policy”, I removed the image and suggested to Xander at ANI that he might create an image that complies policy and, if he achieved consensus for the use of the image, use it instead. Following that, I observed Xander growing increasingly defensive of his signed art. (He did eventually remove the signature, but rather than wait for consensus—as the image had been opposed by several others and was under RfC—replaced it again.) His behavior there prompted me to look further into his interactions. It seems to me that he has for some time been disruptive and that this disruption is worsening in spite of repeated conversations at ANI and elsewhere and in spite of several blocks for personal attacks or harassment, edit warring and disruption (block log).

Evidence of disputed behavior, trying to resolve the dispute and failing to resolve the dispute
Evidence is lengthy, and it would benefit those hoping to weigh in to at least scan through the entire conversations here, since a pattern of behavior cannot easily be discerned through individual comments. (Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute is combined with the evidence of disputes, since most of these disputes took place in community fora. Users who have addressed behaviors mentioned here on English Wikipedia alone include but are not limited to User:Roux, User:SchuminWeb, User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh, User:Sarah, User:Georgewilliamherbert, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Baseball Bugs, User:Beyond My Ken, User:Masem, and User:Dcoetzee.


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588; see also User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 21
 * This conversation followed upon Xanderliptak’s first realization that watermarks were not acceptable. Since he had granted CC license conditional on those watermarks on most of the images under discussion there (with at least one exception), he asserted that his CC rights were violated by the removal of the watermarks. The images were deleted. Please particularly scan the subsection entitled “Take a second look at this”, where evidence is presented that Xander manipulated templates to change the deletion dates (though he asserts he intended no harm) and where at least in one image he created the impression that a watermark had been present from the beginning where it had not been. In the course of this conversation, User:Xeno here clearly notes: “our image use policy does not permit watermarks”. User:SchuminWeb  here explains "Image watermarks are against the image use policy. All image credits belong on the file description page, and not in the file itself" and "Regarding electronic signatures, watermarks, etc., they are all prohibited in the image itself per WP:WATERMARK." (Xander should, therefore, have known about the credit prohibition from this point, and had opportunity to read the policy, which was linked for him.)  At this point, Xander seems to intend to be reasonable. He noted here that the problem “would be easily resolved on all parts if the images were simply deleted and someone created Public Domain images to replace them”, something that he indicated here he would do, “as time permits”. He recognized here that "Clearly there had to be some issue with the uploads if there were arguments about them” (a view he seems to have dropped in subsequent arguments) and here. But Xander also is in action here with wikilawyering:  see this comment and especially this one: “No where are do the words "signature" or "electronic signature" appear on that page, so you are inferring things that are not there.” (I would draw your attention to a subsequent ANI incident involving him, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642, where he seems to be able “to apply sources that speak in generalities to a specific instance” (see 4th comment down; diff not provided since he wasn’t bothering with timestamps at that point and since he was also heavily engaged in another incident on ANI at the time)


 * Note that after this conversation, he did begin supplying public domain images to Wikimedia Commons. See, for instance, . But in April, he attempts to revoke that license and place the image under copyleft: (no doubt that IP is Xander, both by its edits on Wikipedia and here.  There are more (,, for one instance.) This is worrisome behavior from an ownership perspective.  If the content was his to release (and obviously it was), he released it into Public Domain.


 * The next issue is also at Commons, in a Commons thread "edit war over relicensing". Again, this speaks to pattern of behavior. In brief, Xander wanted to restrict modifications of his images by making their Permissions read “All adaptations, remixes and other derivative works, including their subsequent adaptations, remixes and derivative works, are permitted so long as they meet the approval of the original artist and do not defame, demean or in any other manner reflect negatively upon the original author or his work” This he did broadly over many images, including the one above that used to be public domain. Eventually, acceptable language was derived, but not before he was blocked for edit warring over the issue. This dispute spilled over to Wikipedia at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive643 and onto  my talk page, where I was a bystander merely.


 * The debate above seems to have arisen over Xander’s disapproval of the usage of images he had previously uploaded; see specifically Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Ghana.svg and the section on Similar coats of arms and “Danger Will Robinson! License incompatibility!” on his talk page). This has also spilled over into Wikipedia, both in ANI threads and in the current dispute at the Image Use Policy. It begins with this image, released into public domain by Xander (later under GFDL and then CC-by-SA before eventually returning to PD). On 3 August, it appears that a “secret watermark’ was removed by another editor, here; following which the image was converted to a different format here. (The editor who placed it there failed to give credit, which he should have done but which of course was not required by the original public domain release. It’s understandable that Xander would want attribution, even though he had technically relinquished the right to it. It’s common courtesy. ) After trying and failing to get the image deleted (, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ghana.svg&diff=next&oldid=44762106), Xander replaced it on English Wikipedia with a new version, that displayed his name:, .  (I have this saved on my computer; if it’s deleted on Commons, I can still provide it.)
 * It’s already been demonstrated above that Xander had reason to know that the image policy on Wikipedia forbade the use of credits in an image. In spite of the display of his name, he then placed that image into various articles and a template: Ghana, Coat of arms of Ghana and Template:Politics of Ghana. (By the time he began edit warring to retain the image, it was up for deletion for inaccuracy on Commons. More about this can be read at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive645.) This is where I directly acted as an admin reading ANI, removing the image in accordance with Image Use Policy and leaving Xander a note, here, suggesting that he create an image with image use policy but also reminding him that even if it does comply he should not edit war: “you will need to reach consensus over which image is preferred and not just revert those who disagree with you.” Xander opened an RfC about the image at Talk:Coat of arms of Ghana and asked for clarification of Image Use Policy at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Both of these are proper actions. However, after I noted at the RfC the policy concern, his behavior becomes more worrisome.
 * Examples of “misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities”: Here he focuses on watermarks only, ignoring the fact that the issue with the image is not a watermark, but the plainly printed name of the contributor. He deflected clarification here by introducing a non-sequitur and trying to argue semantics ( “My signature is not a distortion”; “And what is meant by credit?”.} See also: ( “It is your opinion that when the policy says credit it means signature”),  ( “Yes, I use my first and last name, and you could argue that while it is a signature it is also credit. However, not all signatures use first and last names, and some use more abstract symbols, unique marks, techniques and so forth that are a ‘signature’but do not express credit. So to say that 'credit' and 'signature' are one and the same is a fallacy.”) He seems to be arguing on the hopes of finding a way through policy in a manner that seems clearly opposed to its intent.
 * In the image use policy conversation, he would seem to be asking for clarification; he seems to be in fact looking to change it to permit him to display his signature and prevent modification of his images. (, and . In the latter, he says, “It would be much easier if you added in language to better clarify that by credit, that signatures are really meant. Or that while distortions are not preferred, so long as it is a modification approved by the author that the image is still acceptable.” Note that this is the first time that the idea that modifications must be approved by the author of the image has been introduced to this conversation. He brings this up again in his suggested rewrite, , “Distortions or modifications that were made by the author, or that the author gave consent to, could be used in articles because the original author gave his approval of the alterations and the resulting derivative work can not be said to twist, defame or misconstrue the original intent of the image or author.”
 * Several participants in the conversations linked above suggest that Xander misrepresents the words of others. I have seen this personally, here, where he says, “Moonriddengirl has suggested that the no watermark or signature policy must be applied absolutely without exception,” even though I had already repeatedly quoted verbatim the exception, including here and here. Here he says “You say my images should not be on Wikipedia”, which is patently false as I suggested he create a replacement in my first contact. This would seem to be part of the pattern of tendentious interactions.


 * (additional statement from co-certifier.) I point people at this rather long and tedious discussion, where there was much more ownership and refusal to listen on Xanderliptak's part, and was my first introduction to this user. Not exactly a good one. The short version: Xanderliptak was insistent on using a version of the coat of arms which included significant embellishments not supported by any source anywhere. The very practice of including embellishments was claimed by Xanderliptak to be standard heraldic practice--which it is not--and only provided a cherrypicked and selectively quoted source after repeated requests. I urge commenters here to read the discussion in its entirety, as a summary does not give adequate understanding of the obstinate behaviour on Xanderliptak's part.

I believe that even a summary scan of these conversations should make the pattern clear. Dealing with this contributor has frustrated participants of several projects. Nevermind the situation on Commons--although I see that even as a type, there is fresh controversy brewing there, though personally I find the names similar enough to occasion no concern, even though his goal is a bit pointless since he's already using the alternative account to edit here: )--he is taking a lot of the community's time on disputes and ANI complaints on Wikipedia. It's essential that we find a way to minimize this disruption so that the drama accompanying Xander does not outweigh his otherwise valuable contributions.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Own
 * Disruptive editing
 * Gaming the system
 * I didn't hear that
 * Tendentious editing

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC) (Please note there is a patent falsehood in Xander's response. I have never created an ANI complaint about Xander. I did respond to one as an administrator, which I subsequently closed (as you can see in the very link he supplies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I find nothing whatsoever to disagree with in this presentation of facts, nor in the interpretation of them, though a significant problem has been left out. I point people at this rather long and tedious discussion, where there was much more ownership and refusal to listen on Xanderliptak's part, and was my first introduction to this user. Not exactly a good one. The short version: Xanderliptak was insistent on using a version of the coat of arms which included significant embellishments not supported by any source anywhere. The very practice of including embellishments was claimed by Xanderliptak to be standard heraldic practice--which it is not--and only provided a cherrypicked and selectively quoted source after repeated requests. I urge commenters here to read the discussion in its entirety, as a summary does not give adequate understanding of the obstinate behaviour on Xanderliptak's part. → ROUX   ₪  20:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Not sure which section I belong in, since my involvement with this user has been less direct, although he did succeed in getting me to activate my long-dormant commons account - in which I discovered today that he has announced his intention to use different accounts between commons and wikipedia in order to "make it harder to follow him", which falls in line with his core issue which has to do with "ownership". I initiated a discussion about his behavior at the commons noticeboard, and this announced intention to deceive seems to straddle the two sites. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted, I have previously attempted to resolve issues relating to the subject's insistence on referring to his own authority and not that of appropriate sources per policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I belong here. the user simply refuses to listen to others regarding his files, insisting on his being used, even when they are factually incorrect, using forceful reverts, and heraldic excuses to hammer people over the head into either agreeing with him or giving up in opposing him. Fry1989 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence provided this user is asserting his authority over his images rather than engaging in a constructive dicsussion, he continues insisting that he is right and is preventing others from constructively contributing through his reverting. He insists on coercing others into agreeing with him which is NOT what Wikipedia is about. —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 1:56pm • 02:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had limited involvement with the user trying to resolve his concerns about moral rights. Upon examination of the broader evidence, it's clear this was just another dubious attempt to coerce us into using his watermarked images via a purposeful mischaracterization of the law, just as he mischaracterizes policy and the Creative Commons licenses (particularly since according to his IP, he lives in the United States, where moral rights do not exist - no wonder he never told me his nation). I am also extensively involved in watermark removal at Commons, and there is a strong consensus there against attempts to prohibit removal of watermarks of this sort. We cannot (and should not) force users to omit watermarks from uploads, but neither should those users interfere if the images are modified or deleted because of this. I don't know why he's so paranoid about being attributed properly, but these preemptive efforts will not improve his chances of being attributed - instead he should be more vigilant about embedding metadata in his images and contacting parties who use the images without attribution. Dcoetzee 10:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall coming across this user before, but the evidence presented shows serious problems, and it all appears to be accurate. I am particularly concerned about the users misrepresentation of what others have said as this makes trying to discuss anything with the user much more troublesome (as seen on the talkpage of this RFC/U). Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lupo 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (Just note that it was me, not Mr. Liptak, who openend the RFC at Talk:Coat of arms of Ghana. The behavior Roux mentions above ("versions not supported by any source anywhere") seems to be re-occur there, too: so far, I have not yet seen any source for the blazon of that COA, despite asking several times, here and at the Commons.)
 * Only have encountering Xander at a discussion on image use policy, there's definitely evidence that he is attempting to thread the needle and find what loopholes he could use, wikilawyering to a great degree while accusing others (incorrectly at times, as noted on this RFC/U's talk page) of the same. Very difficult to work towards any consensus with. --M ASEM (t) 13:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Jeff G. ツ  17:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this user is using Wikipedia as a personal promotional tool for moneymaking purposes, it's pretty clear from the above (and even moreso from the response below) that they just don't "get" Wikipedia. It may be best for Xander to find other areas in which to contribute that don't involve images, or, failing that, to move their work to another site where watermarking is acceptable, such as DeviantArt or similar. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually been watching some of this stuff while it happened, though I was never directly involved. It seems to me that something definitely needs to be changed, as Xander clearly needs to better understand how the image policy works and not understand it only in "his" interpretation. Silver  seren C 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor has escalated a small dispute (whether the Ghanaian arms should be shown as currently used by the Ghanaian government or by a markedly different representation incorporating his signature) to the point of disruption, seemingly setting a particular interest higher than respect for the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. The arguments he has presented appear to have the same logical force as the statement on www.alexanderliptak.com that "everyone sharing a surname is not related". NebY (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is not helping Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it the same as Moonriddengirl. Agree with Andrew Lenahan's comment.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Response
This mostly appears to be a series of Commons edits that that aren't even an issue there. Commons allows me to upload images with my signature, and the rights I assert with my images are all protected by the CC license, and this was upheld by the Commons community. They are my images, so yes, I try to protect them as much as possible. Part of that is signing my work so that no one else can lay claim to it, and requiring attribution to me. However, all of this is quite common and the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licensing were created for that purpose. 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.

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, which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them, see here, here and here for examples. 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. 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, and even requests edits be undone so he could make issues, see here. 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.

The issue with SchuminWeb was that he tried to make small edits to my images and release them into the public domain as his own work, and when I protested he blocked me. He was convinced by an editor after the images were deleted that I had uploaded images originally without a signature, the deleting admin confirmed that was not the case, the images were uploaded with signatures. The admin even rebuked SchuminWeb, warning him not to block editors he is engaged in a dispute with, see here, where even he admits he made an error, saying in response, "Oooooh, good point, I overreached. I was a shade too close to the matter. Thanks for the reminder." I was completely new to Wikipedia then, I am still relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but Xeno was/is a good admin who actually takes the time to help and understand editors when they make errors, and she helped out instead of turning her back on me and saying "tough luck" as others were doing.

The only issues concerned concerned with Wikipedia and not under Commons' jurisdiction is the idea I might be misinterpreting the image policy and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which itself are minor issues if even correct. However, the policy in question is rather vague, and as the discussion seen here shows, every editor that came to the conversation had a different interpretation of the policy. Yes, while I interpret the policy separate from Moonriddengirl, and she different from VernoWhitney and he different from yet others, that is not a reason for such an action as is taken here. It merely shows that the policy needs to be cleaned up and clarified. While I am certain Moonriddengirl feels strongly on her beliefs, that is hardly a reason to continue on in this manner. 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.

So again, while there are some minor infractions, nothing that was ever serious enough for admins to intervene. The numerous attempts of the editors here to file ANIs all failed because they were baseless. Now, they are attempting to say that because they have filed so many ANIs, that there must be an issue, even though those ANIs failed. ROUX had been blocked for incivility in the very diffs he provided the ANI, another editor was asked to stay away form me and the articles I edit and the other editors were either told to chill or stop with the baseless accusations. An admin who blocked me for edit warring later apologized to me after realizing how editors were actually operating. I realize I may come off as rough at times, it is not intentional, it is not meant to incite editors. I merely try to keep things concise and to the point, I do not treat Wikipedia as if it were a social website. And I do apologizing for unintentionally offending these editors, as it was nothing personal, but they seem to have taken it that way.

I hope I did this right. [talk]  XANDERLIPTAK  22:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by Fetchcomms
I commented a a couple times at one or two of the early ANI threads Xanderliptak was involved in as an outsider, so I am very slightly involved, but I think I am still an outsider at this point. This is the main issue: Xanderliptak is often wrong, but refuses to admit it.

He has been using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, but has not actually listed it as a legitimate sockpuppet. There has been a 10-month long pattern of misunderstanding copyright and trying to twist licenses to his wishes (December 2009, false claim about CC licenses,, October 2010, applying terms not consistent with the irrevocable CC license chosen yet still ).

He has very recently also been in them even though the image policy specifically prohibits watermarks, then continues to argue about the different between signatures and watermarks. The absurdity of that his argument over semantics and his wikilawyering was completely against consensus and was, quite bluntly, such a waste of everyone's time that blocking him may very well have been justified.

Xanderliptak also has a pattern of blatant misrepresenting others' comments (such as this one as well), has been sneakily changing his comments, making false accusations against others, and simply not getting the point. He must have forgotten to mention his own block for incivility (or maybe he did it on purpose, to mischaracterize in an attempt to belittle roux's comments).

Furthermore, he has accused below of going "to other editor's pages to threaten them into not making edits that might hurt his chances at causing issues" when it is clearly the other user  who is simply acting as a proxy for Xanderliptak to remove those images against consensus. Xanderliptak is calling this RfC/U "retaliation" (see below) even though it is clearly him who has been twisting the truth to retaliate against pretty clear consensus, and it is he who continues to make controversial edits and wikilawyers over technicalities.

I am now questioning Xanderliptak's competence: if he claims to "get the point", perhaps he does not understand how to define "baseless", or read the part about WP:OWN issues here, or that Commons behavior issues may very well indicate behavioral patterns here, or realize who is being quoted where.

Lastly, I see continuing lack of civility or willingness to cooperate. Regardless of who is the "bitch" (if he insists on bringing in that sort of language), this attitude only strengthens the need for this RfC/U.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  04:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Cirt (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Fridae&#39;sDoom.alt (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) In its entirety. Xanderliptak's behaviour in this RfC/U--less than 24 hours old!--is emblematic of his behaviour in general, most egregiously his repeated actions in thoroughly misrepresenting the tenor, tone, and content of what others have said, and the accompanying refusal to provide diffs off the behaviour. Where diffs are provided, they largely simply do not say what he says they do. → ROUX   ₪  11:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) — Gavia immer (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Having just had a look at the RFC talk page after signing based on what I saw on ANI, article talk, and this RFC, I want to add that Xanderliptak's fightiness has gone well beyond what I would generally expect the community to stand for, and that it continues to degenerate, even after multiple users have bent over backward to explain in minute, easily-comprehended detail why his methods are not constructive or acceptable. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  Jeff G.  ツ  17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) "not getting the point" is an apt way of putting it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Especially the points about the wiki-lawyering.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Beyond My Ken
(I am outside the specific dispute that engendered this RfC/U, but I have had conflicts with Xanderliptak, which lead to me accepting a voluntary editing restrictions regarding him. I am commenting here on the basis of this discussion and the opinions and invitations of three uninvolved admins.)

I have read the presentations of Moonriddengirl and Fetchcomms, and find nothing to dispute there. The evidence they present is clear and convincing. Nevertheless, I would like to add some summary thoughts of my own about Xanderliptak's behavior:

Xanderliptak has a bad case of "I didn't hear that" - No matter how patiently or explicitly it is presented to him, Xanderliptak persists in rejecting any information which contradicts things which he knows to be true. Even if presented by multiple editors, each with a different method of trying to explain things to him, Xanderliptak never accepts anything is not in accord which what he has already decided to be true.

Xanderliptak does not recognize consensus - Central to Wikipedia's working methodology is the idea that when consensus has been deteremined through discussion among editors, that consensus must be accepted and adhered to, at least until a broader discussion brings about a more general consensus that is perhaps more indicative of the will of the community at large. Xanderliptak has, as far as I have seen, never accepted as consensus any decision that opposes his will, no matter how many editors have agreed with it, and no matter how the consensus is explained to him. On the other hand, even the smallest number of editors agreeing with Xanderliptak will be sufficient for him to announce that a consensus has been reached. "Consensus", according to Xanderliptak's behavior, appears to mean "An agreement in my favor".

Xanderliptak does not edit collegially - Xanderliptak is consistently uncollegial is his interactions with other editors. He almost never adopts an attitude that accepts the opinions and ideas of other editors on a good faith basis, nor does he attempt to find compromises or work through disagreements to reach a potential middle ground that all parties can live with. While his comments are not generally flagrantly uncivil, his combatitive attitude and apparent lack of empathy for the concerns of other editors makes dealing with him difficult, time-consuming and, ultimately, unrewarding. His tendency to accuse editors who oppose him of harrassment and hounding unnecessarily complicates the circumstances of a dispute, making it that much more difficult for a resolution to be found.

Xanderliptak edits from a stance of expertise - Regardless of what the subject of discussion is, Xanderliptak's comments are made from a stance of his being expert and knowledgable about that subject matter. While this may well be true of heraldry – although his judgment on this subject has been challenged as well by other editors with heraldic knowledge – Xanderliptak takes this stance about other subjects that he clearly knows little about, or about which his "knowledge" is faulty or spotty, including copyright law, Creative Commons licensing and Wikipedia policy.

Xanderliptak exhibits extreme ownership - While I have been critical of Wikipedia's policies not recognizing that editors who work hard on researching, writing and editing article will naturally feel a sense of protectiveness and stewardship towards them, Xanderliptak nicely illustrates the reason that "ownership" is discouraged. As a visual artist, Xanderliptak obviously has a strong attachment to his work, to the extent that he attempts to control how that work is used in every aspect. He clearly does not understand or agree with the rights other editors have to use his images once they have been uploaded under GDFL and Creative Commons licenses, and he has attempted to alter those licenses after the fact in a way that would give him control over their use which is antithetical to the purpose of a copyleft license.

Xanderliptak misrepresents previous discussions - Whether from a deliberate need to shape previous discussions into something that supports his contentions, or from a basic misunderstanding of what has occured, Xanderliptak consistently misrepresents not only the specific statements of other editors, but also the tenor, tone and content of entire conversations.

Xanderliptak creates battlegrounds - The combination of a stance of superiority, a combatative attitude, the inability to recognize consensus when it is reached, the refuseal to accept what other editors say when it disagrees with his previously held ideas, a lack of collegiality, a propensity to mispresentation and an overwhelming sense of ownership is (it will be no surprise) that every conversation with Xanderliptak will, eventually, and no matter how innocuously it begins, turn into a battleground. A long, discouraging, enervating, annoying, ultimately unrewarding conflict between Xanderliptak, and (generally speaking) everyone else involved.

Xanderliptak does not understand Wikipedia - It's quite clear to me that Xanderliptak really has no conception of what Wikipedia's culture and working methodology is all about. He rejects, as exemplified by his behavior, fundamental Wikipedian concepts such as collegiality, consensus, the meaning of original research and ownership, and edits with only his ideas and desires in mind. He does not seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia, but instead to promote himself and his heraldic work, and everything else takes a backseat to that.

Xnaderliptak is not suited to edit on Wikipedia - Whatever his personality and behavior may be in the real world, the Xanderliptak that we can see through his editing on Wikipedia and on Commons dos not exhibit the personality traits of someone who can edit here successfully. He is inflexible, demanding, lacking in empathy, self-centered and uncollegial. It may be possible for Xanderliptak to change, to adapt himself to the behaviorial norms expected here, but I have a difficult time, given my close observation of his past behavior, believing that this will be the case. The necessary first step is for him to recognize that these faults exist, and to begin to make an effort to correct them. If that does not happen as a result of this RfC/U, I can foresee nothing in his future except continued problems and, eventually, an indef block, or possibly even a ban, once he has exhausted the patience of the community as a whole, as he has exhausted many editors who have had interactions with him.

P.S. I have not presented any links in this summary, believing that the evidence presented above suitably supports my statements. If any editor whould like supporting diffs about specific issues, I will be glad to provide them.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support in its entirety, particularly the final statement, as I have witnessed all this firsthand. I understand the lack of diffs but I think in the interests of both completeness and fairness, diffs should be included for the above allegations. →  ROUX   ₪  02:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I particularly agree that whereas Xanderliptak may be very capable of excellent work in some areas, those areas do not include Wikipedia because collaboration and listening are essential here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) I endorse both the view by Beyond My Ken and the comment by Johnuniq above. Evidence suggests that Xanderliptak is focused on how he can win Wikipedia, not how he can contribute to it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) exhibits extreme ownership;  has a bad case of "I didn't hear that"; creates battlegrounds.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Cirt (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Well said. And I'm inclined to agree that the diffs above support this and would also offer the talk page discussions here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 10:02pm • 11:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Of the various views given, and all much restating the same points, this is both the most comprehensive and yet concise - the other editors do much in providing examples by way of diffs - and is thus the one to which I will sign. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Brianann MacAmhlaidh
Support Moonriddengirl 100%. Alexander Liptak's behaviour is the definition of tendentious editing. A continuous theme with Liptak is that he uses his artwork as a shield, as a hostage. Way back in December of last year he pulled that stunt at ANI. "I am merely looking to delete my images from Wikipedia now. I do not plan to continue editing or contributing, so I am not here for any retribution or sanctions against SchuminWeb. I merely want my images deleted and remain deleted so that I can be done with the whole mess and nt worry about people uploading and licensing my work against my wishes again. I do not know what to do without SchuminWeb blocking me again, as marking the images only gets me blocked. I am hoping I can achieve some assistance here." Even though he gamed the system to get his work speedily deleted here, so he could upload it on the Commons with licenses and conditions of his choice along with his favourite watermarks, the admins decided to be lenient so he would agree to stay on with the project.

Fast forward to October 2010. Following various squabbles with numerous editors here and on the Commons, Liptak removed dozens of his images from totally unrelated articles on Wikipedia (see his edits on 15 October ), and put those images all up for deletion on the Commons. He put up his 'personal category' up for deletion with the following statement. "I am the original author of the images, they were meant to be temporary until I could create more detailed images, but are causing quite a few issues so I thought I would just petition to delete them all."

So something has to be done. Alexander Liptak's behaviour here and on the Commons is demoralising to the everyone involved. We're supposed to be writing and improving articles, not wasting our time debating and dealing with a lone eccentric editor. Obviously what happened a year ago didn't solve the problem, because he's still fiddling and switching licenses, adding extra restrictions into his clauses over there. And it spills over into his disputes here. For example this from 3 days ago; apparently we aren't allowed to remove his watermarks/signatures, or create derivatives of his work without them, because that goes against his newly updated license terms: (boldface is his). "The original author's signature is required to remain intact in all subsequent adaptations, remixes and derivative works to properly attribute and identify the provenance of the work unless expressed permission is received from the original author, or if the original author demands, to have the attribution and/or signature removed from the derivative work." What makes this hard to sort out is that it spans across here and the Commons. But it's all related. It's the same attitude. The Commons is sorta like the Wild West compared to here. Not as many people notice when you switch licenses from public domain to a license with conditions (from to ). The sad thing is that Liptak was doing the exact same thing a year ago. We should have nipped it in the bud then, it's still going on, he's still nominating his stuff for deletion. Spiteful. Petty. Tendentious. That's how I see it. Unfortunately he's incivility covered in the statements of others here is intimidating some, winding up a few, and demoralising many others. So something needs to be done. He's a detriment to the project.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) — Gavia immer (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed, particularly noting Xanderliptak's repetitive attempts to impose (and usually retroactively) licencing which is incompatible both here and at Commons. The repeated bites at the apple, after being told in no uncertain terms that it's not allowed, indicate any or all of a basic incompatibility with Wikipedia, an inability to comprehend what other people are saying, a refusal to accept what other people are saying, and/or a duplicitous series of actions which appear as though the thinking behind them is "Mum said no, so I'm going to ask Dad, when he says no I'm going to wait a bit and ask Mum and hope she forgot." Given Xanderliptak's repetitive behaviour of misrepresenting the content of discussions, I am forced to conclude that he simply does not understand that people are able to look at the actual edits in question and see how unrelated to reality his statements are. That, or his actions appear to indicate that he thinks that simply because he says something we should accept it. Or, disturbingly, he does in fact actually believe what he is saying, in which case there is a severe competence issue related to inability to understand. Frankly, given Xanderliptak's repeated misrepresentations, we should look very carefully at each edit he has made, particularly those without citations, to examine their veracity. → ROUX   ₪  06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Cirt (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree wholeheartedly. For the record, I have now identified eight different images he released into public domain and later attempted to reclaim. See  for the current list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 10:03pm • 11:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) This is a good summary because it speaks to his goals as well as the manner in which he goes about them. I'm going to suggest that in the future we take a hard line stance in not allowing him to revoke license or delete any of his images by user request, and perhaps we should even restore the images we once deleted as a courtesy, since that courtesy was rewarded with duplicity. Dcoetzee 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside View by Malke2010
Moonriddengirl's being here says a great deal to the community because she's like the U.N. here on Wikipedia, so we know that if she's finding a problem, and being this firm about it, then a problem indeed exists. Clearly, and by his own words actually when he says this is not a social website, Xanderliptak sees Wikipedia as a place to contribute his work. And having read through all of this, and it took some time, everybody is having issues with how he contributes, how he interacts, the feelings he's generating in others. Because Wikipedia is, at the end of the day, people. And what really matters is how we as people interact to accomplish the goal of building this encyclopedia. But what really matters with people themselves in these interactions is how we feel about each other. It's not really a question of what we have to contribute, but rather how we interact and bump up against each other when we're contributing. This is what makes a community. Our feelings are colored by many things, such as point of view, and the subject matter, and the quality of the writing. But the biggest thing of import is how we respond to what others are suggesting we do.

From everything being presented here, it's apparent where the community, early on, attempted to socialize Xanderliptak in a way to get him to fit in. It's also apparent where he felt he didn't need to make any adjustments to fit in. And this created the AN/I complaints and other noticeboards mentioned, and the reasons they had mixed outcomes was because a lot of the time they were being brought out of frustration rather than real policy problems. This frustration is very real, very vexing and exhausting for the editors involved here. They were frustrated because no matter the discussion, no matter the attempts to resolve disputes, Xanderliptak didn't show signs that he was making attempts to modulate his behavior, yes perhaps in the short-term, but not the long-term. Editors began to feel he was simply agreeing in the moment, but then continuing the behaviors.

Continuing like that is not an option on Wikipedia even though his contributions can benefit the project. Given that it is a community of people, unless there is a real change, a real commitment to change, then a ban is inevitable. But given that he's really the lone voice in the wilderness here, as there are no supporters for him, it behooves editors, as a community, and as individuals, to consider that given the circumstances, if it were one of us in his position, what would we like to see done for us? Because at this point, the door is being held open and Xanderliptak's being shown his way to it. And it's time for the community to remember that not all remedies we seek in the short-term are good in the long-term for us as individual members of the community.

Clearly, the behavior can't be allowed to continue but rather than an immediate outright ban, moderated editing privileges with a mentor should at least be tried for a period of time, if only to demonstrate to the wider community here that as upset and frustrated and as at the end of one's rope everyone has become, they haven't forgotten what really matters here. It is a community of people who are here to build a project in a cooperative way. Not every contributor who comes here is immediately skilled at that, so those who are skilled need to help those who are not. Make that last effort. Put aside the ill will, the rancor, and view him anew, one last time, one last chance. That's all anybody in a bad situation ever asks for. So give it to him. Show him how to behave, how to respond to our suggestions, so that he can become a useful contributor. And then if that fails, then yes, the door is opened and then closed because everything else has been tried. But what's left is that everybody did give him that one last try.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed with everything except the suggestion for mentorship. Xanderliptak has been shown and told many times how to behave, has been shown and told many times that his approach is completely unacceptable. → ROUX   ₪  21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I still don't understand what is going on, but I have had nice experiences with Xander and with Malke, so I support him and agree with her, whatever this is all about. Personally I don't care much for policy because the way it coalesces as an entity it acquires some sovereignty which anyone with half a brain can use. All you need to feel is frustration and there the divinity is. So I enjoy Xander's disregard and simultaneous ownership of this curious creature. And yes 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. DinDraithou (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм  •  Champagne?  • 12:30pm • 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Summary
Proceeded to Administrators Noticeboard wherein sanctions were enacted as set out here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)