User talk:Xanderliptak: Difference between revisions
Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> |
||
{{unblock|I am not sure why this account was blocked after it had ceased being used, but it seems to continue to be an issue so I am requesting it be unblocked. The issues seems to stem from when I suggested changes to the image policy, specifically I requested the policy be written in ''greater'' detail to avoid what I felt was uneven application by each admin. I felt that the policy was so broad that it allowed each individual admin to apply it as he sought fit, and even manipulate or abuse the policy. It was unfair then, I felt, that an admin could cite a violation of image policy against an editor for actions which were not clearly written in the image policy, but actions that the admin 'knew' violated the 'fundamentals' of that policy. An admin and a few editors grew upset with me during the process. When I began receiving threatening messages on Facebook, I abandoned this account because it was far too easy for these disgruntled editors to locate and harass me offsite. |
{{unblock|I am not sure why this account was blocked after it had ceased being used, but it seems to continue to be an issue so I am requesting it be unblocked. The issues seems to stem from when I suggested changes to the image policy, specifically I requested the policy be written in ''greater'' detail to avoid what I felt was uneven application by each admin. I felt that the policy was so broad that it allowed each individual admin to apply it as he sought fit, and even manipulate or abuse the policy. It was unfair then, I felt, that an admin could cite a violation of image policy against an editor for actions which were not clearly written in the image policy, but actions that the admin 'knew' violated the 'fundamentals' of that policy. An admin and a few editors grew upset with me during the process. When I began receiving threatening messages on Facebook, I abandoned this account because it was far too easy for these disgruntled editors to locate and harass me offsite. I have no want to discuss policy on Wikipedia again; there seems to be no use in addressing issues or suggesting betterment here. It seems to only cause other editors and admins to be distrustful and suspicious. It is a waste of time and will not be repeated again. I am now aware that all information and restrictions must be uploaded with the image at the time of uploading, rather than uploading the image and adding the information and restrictions to the file a couple minutes later. Though such a major issue is not addressed on the upload form (and so I could not be aware of it before hand), I am now in the know of this great dilemma and can conform to it. I also understand now that summarizing a conversation is also frowned upon, because it does not convey the entire message. I understand that all statements have some indifference and even disagreement in them, and it is inappropriate to give just the main point in someone’s statement when there are small or minor points that were also noted along side the main point. And I now understand the only way a consensus is made is by vote, and will not inappropriately apply the term ''consensus'' to things that only gained support of people knowledgeable in the field of topic. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Xanderliptak|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''[talk]'''</span>]] [[User:Xanderliptak|<span style="color:black">XANDERLIPTAK</span>]]</span> 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)}} |
||
I have no want to discuss policy on Wikipedia again; there seems to be no use in addressing issues or suggesting betterment here. It seems to only cause other editors and admins to be distrustful and suspicious. It is a waste of time and will not be repeated again. |
|||
I am now aware that all information and restrictions must be uploaded with the image at the time of uploading, rather than uploading the image and adding the information and restrictions to the file a couple minutes later. Though such a major issue is not addressed on the upload form (and so I could not be aware of it before hand), I am now in the know of this great dilemma and can conform to it. |
|||
I also understand now that summarizing a conversation is also frowned upon, because it does not convey the entire message. I understand that all statements have some indifference and even disagreement in them, and it is inappropriate to give just the main point in someone’s statement when there are small or minor points that were also noted along side the main point. And I now understand the only way a consensus is made is by vote, and will not inappropriately apply the term ''consensus'' to things that only gained support of people knowledgeable in the field of topic. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Xanderliptak|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''[talk]'''</span>]] [[User:Xanderliptak|<span style="color:black">XANDERLIPTAK</span>]]</span> 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:03, 26 March 2012
Editing restrictions and indefinite block
The consensus of the community from the above discussion [1] is both that you should be indefinitely blocked from editing until you request an unblock and convince an administrator that you agree to abide by policy going forwards, and apply a specific set of editing restictions.
As noted, the indefinite block is not permanent, or a community ban. The sense of the community is that you may be able to contribute constructively at some point in the future, and the door remains open for you to convince us of that and return.
The editing restrictions will apply if you return and are unblocked, however.
The editing restrictions imposed are: user:Xanderliptak:
- is forbidden, indefinitely, from uploading images which are in violation of WP:WATERMARK.
- 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.
- is forbidden, indefinitely, from participating in any discussions about image policy.
- 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.)
- is required, indefinitely, to provide accurate diffs of any allegation he makes about another editor.
- 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.
- is forbidden, indefinitely, from summarizing any discussions held elsewhere, and is restrained to direct comments supported by diffs only.
- All of the above to be very broadly construed.
- Violations to be met with the usual series of escalating blocks.
- 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.
- 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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xanderliptak. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Xanderliptak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Change
{{unblock}}
to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}