Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xanderliptak (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 25 October 2010 (→‎Other users who endorse this summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 05:42, 24 June 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 [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.


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.

  • 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, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Xanderliptak, 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, [2]. But in April, he attempts to revoke that license and place the image under copyleft: [3] (no doubt that IP is Xander, both by its edits on Wikipedia and here. There are more ([4], [5], 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.
  • 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: [10] ( “It is your opinion that when the policy says credit it means signature”), [11] ( “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. ( [12], [13] and [14]. 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, [15], “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: [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.

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Own
  2. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
  3. Wikipedia:Gaming the system
  4. I didn't hear that
  5. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. 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))[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. 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",[17] 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  • While Fry1989 might find his single interaction with me abrasive, I at least remained civil. His language is completely unnecessary and is personally offensive, see here, here and here. Please refrain from using such language. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Xanderliptak&oldid=392701102"