A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
. In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 06:43, 18 May 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.
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 [1]). 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.
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.
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 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.
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: [16])--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.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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, April 2010, "un-PDing" his work with an IP to avoid scrutiny, October 2010, applying terms not consistent with the irrevocable CC license chosen yet still insisting on an additional "compromise" wording).
He has very recently also been uploading images with signatures 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 roux (talk · contribs) in an attempt to belittle roux's comments).
Furthermore, he has accused roux (talk · contribs) 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 (DinDraithou (talk · contribs)) 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:
(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:
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 [18].
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.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.
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 [19]), and put those images all up for deletion on the Commons.[20] He put up his 'personal category' up for deletion with the following statement [21].
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: [22] (boldface is his).
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 [23] to [24]). 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 [25]. 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.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.
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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.
Proceeded to Administrators Noticeboard wherein sanctions were enacted as set out here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]