Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 25 October 2010

Regarding User:Baseball Bugs' endorsement

Bugs, I feel for the sake of transparency that this is the best place to raise this, not your tpage. While you are entitled to your feelings about the username issue, I don't think it's fair to say that there may be other socks. If there is a suspicion of socking, please see WP:SPI and file there. Would you mind removing the statement please, as it generates more heat than light at this stage? → ROUX ₪ 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 23:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Patent falsehood in Xander's response

I have never launched an ANI discussion about Xander. I responded to one as an administrator and closed one as an administrator. This is all documented in his first link: . The ANI was opened by User:Roux and marked resolved by me. --Moonriddengirl 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• You raised an issue about a signature on an painting under the ANI ROUX started, the two being completely unrelated incidents. Technically you had it as a subcatgory of an already existing ANI, yes, but by bringing up a new incident you began a new ANI discussion, regardless on how you list it. I guess on a technicality you can argue you didn't start an ANI, you merely began a new subcategory to an ANI. XANDERLIPTAK 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I responded to that ANI as an uninvolved administrator, and my subsectioning what I found by evaluating the concerns Roux raised is no different than Uncle G's subsectioning his later comment about dispute resolution. Just because what I found was a policy problem with your edit does not mean I launched a discussion about you, any more than if I had responded to a policy problem in Roux's edit it would have meant I had launched a discussion about him. --Moonriddengirl 23:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Are you arguing on technicality now? Before you stated you didn't like them. Then again, I saw this sudden change in opinion before when it suited your ends when citing policy. Hardly a patent falsehood, though, more of a technical falsehood. This is a lot of work for you to win a policy discussion. You still have the issue that the other editors who commented didn't take away your same view. One thought it was a suggestion, another a guideline to be decided by editors. Will you start RfC on them, too? I suppose if you block everyone that has the nerve to disagree with you, you win by default, hunh? XANDERLIPTAK 23:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• What I am arguing is an essential difference: you said: "Also Moonriddengirl and ROUX have each created ANIs against me, which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them..." This is absolutely, demonstrably untrue. I did not create ANI against you, but responded to one; no admin found my note to be baseless. They did not comment on it at all, because they didn't need to: I had already taken action. And in fact I am the one who closed the single ANI listing myself. You are profoundly misrepresenting events in a way that I can only presume is deliberately deceptive. --Moonriddengirl 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Referring to your final sentence, MRG, I was blocked for referring to Xanderliptak's repeated untruthful statements as lies, and for calling him a liar. I fail to see what other possible word is applicable to this behaviour, and have been forced to tie the English language in knots in the section below to avoid getting blocked for the same thing again. You see the problem, I suspect. → ROUX ₪ 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Really, you are going to accuse me of deception after the summaries you provided that misrepresented the discussion and gave undo weight to arguments that happened to side with your actions now? Or how they ignore that despite how much ROUX and Beyond My Ken talked, that they didn't ever prove or win an argument they set forth despite review from uninterested parties? Or how you cite the image policy as an absolute rule to win an argument and remove images you dislike, only to later say it is merely a guideline and I shouldn't take it to be as absolute as you applied it? Or how you accuse me of relying on technicalities, only for you to argue here how something is technically different? In ANI the "I" stands for "incidents". You listed a completely unrelated incident under ROUX's listing. Different incident. New incident. You found his argument baseless, yes, and you brought up your incident for whatever reason, I really don't know, but no one cared. Whether you want to argue it was a subANI or a new ANI is a technicality, the difference is a couple less equal signs. But to say it is a patent lie it out of bounds here. XANDERLIPTAK 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and I suppose that it is a coincidence that you started this only after a policy dispute arose between us? XANDERLIPTAK 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it's not a coincidence. In fact, as my "Description" section notes, it's the reason we're here: after I observed your increasing defensiveness, I started looking at your history. I have even linked to the conversation myself in the "evidence" section. You accused me of opening an ANI against you that was dismissed by another administrator; this is patently false (which means clearly wrong). You are either profoundly confused about what happened or you are being deceptive to twist events for your purposes. I have presumed that you were relatively clear-headed, but given that you have just accused Masem of lying to you for something I said, perhaps your recall is not clear. --Moonriddengirl 00:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, you seem to be confused. You want to argue on a technicality here, because technically you didn't start a new one, you listed a new incident under an already opened one. Fine, whatever you want to call it. Oh, and those are your words in quotation, sinc eyou can't recognize or remember what you say. I was asking you that question. You said here that the image policy was a guideline, but you were enforcing it as an unbending rule in that quote. Misspeak?

Response to Xanderliptak's response - more falsehoods and misrepresentations of reality

Unsurprisingly, there is a great deal that is fundamentally untrue in this statement. Xanderliptak's original statements are in italics, mine are indented. I believe I have copied the entirety of the first two paragraphs of his response to the RFCU, as well as portions of the last. I do not believe any of the statements listed below have been quoted out of context, and will welcome commentary from anyone except Xanderliptak who indicates that any statements I have quoted or pieces I have snipped have caused the meaning to change via removal of context.

This mostly appears to be a series of Commons edits that that aren't even an issue there.

This is not in fact the case. The Commons edits were brought up to show a pattern. This is obvious from everything stated in the initial statement on the RfC/U; I am responding to this because it is standard tactic by Xanderliptak by now: attempt to reframe the discussion as though we are incapable of reading what has been written.

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.

As soon as images are released under CC licencing, or at least under the versions used by wiki*, original creators lose any control of how the images are used and/or modified, as long as the original author is attributed. Attribution of derivations of Xanderliptak's work has never been a problem to my knowledge, and certainly not in the past month; his images include his name as the filename, and derivative works have been very, very carefully attributed according to Commons norms. This is just another example of Xanderliptak's...idiosyncratic...interpretation of policy.

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

As noted above, Moonriddengirl has never initiated an AN/I posting regarding Xanderliptak. Again: attempting to frame the discussion in a way not congruent with reality, as though we are unable to read edit histories.

which other admins found to be baseless and dismissed them, see here, here and here

Again, these are not statements that are accurately reflective of the real world. No admin found the postings to be 'baseless', nor were they 'dismissed'. Many people commented in the relevant threads expressing concern about Xanderliptak's behaviour. I would like Xanderliptak to please provide diffs of admins stating that the postings were 'baseless' or that they were 'dismissed.' Either provide the diffs, or retract the statement, please.

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.

Baseball Bugs reactivated his account for several reasons, none of which were to 'hound' Xanderliptak. He--Xanderliptak--appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that 'calling someone out on their poor behaviour' is 'hounding'. I invite Xanderliptak to provide diffs of admins sanctioning the behaviour that BB, myself, and others have complained about.

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

That is, again, not a statement which is congruent with reality. My actual words to DinDraithou can be seen here, in which I asked him or her to please not contribute to disruption, and here where I attempted to explain the principles of WP:BRD and WP:OWN. There is not a single threat in either of those statements, despite Xanderliptak's completely and totally knowingly false assertion to the contrary.

and even requests edits be undone so he could make issues, see here.

Yet again we have a statement which isn't even within shouting distance of the truth. At no point did I request that any edits be undone. I asked for them to be delayed; read on. Of the diffs that Xanderliptak could have meant to use (as the one he did use is incorrect), this explained why I had reverted an image removal, stating that it was part of a larger matter (which I did not know when I made the revert) which was going to be posted on AN/I shortly thereafter. It is possible that he meant this edit, in which I said, quoted in its entirety (minus indentation and my signature), "I find little to disagree with in what you have said. However I would suggest for the sake of maintaining clarity in the discussion that any consensus arrived at here be held off in implementation until the discussion at ANI has run its course. Would you object to this?" Please note that I said run its course; nothing about the outcome, only that in the interests of preventing any further disruption it would be best in my opinion to simply wait until it was over. I then asked whether there were any objections to that course of action. (For the record, there were not).

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.

This is such blatant bad faith that I will treat it with the contempt it deserves. There is nothing here about retaliation. Again, Xanderliptak is under the sorely mistaken assumptions that multiple users' problems with his behaviour are somehow vindictive. Again I invite him to provide diffs of admins, or indeed other users involved in the disputes raised here in this RfC/U, who have supported his disruptive behaviour.

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.

Actually no. You provided a few images which you claimed were sources. You were repeatedly asked for sources which proved a) that Roosevelt had ever used those embellishments (which you never provided, due to their nonexistence), and b) that it was accepted heraldic practice to embellish arms however the heralds saw fit (you provided one source which allegedly, when quoted selectively, supported your position for past accepted practice; the source itself noted that the practice was no longer much in use, if at all. Frankly, given the repeated misrepresentations of the tone, tenor, and content of statements made by other editors, I found it difficult to believe the source even said that, but chose not to belabour the issue at the time).

As for this diff, in which you claimed I said I didn't need sources, no such words were used in that edit. Yet again, Xanderliptak makes statements that he knows have nothing to do with reality.

ROUX had been blocked for incivility in the very diffs he provided the ANI

Conveniently failing to mention both that you were blocked for the very same thing, and that Georgewilliamherbert said, quote, "He's blocked, and I was considering making it for longer." That would be your block he was considering making longer, Xanderliptak, not mine.

another editor was asked to stay away form me and the articles I edit

That editor was requested to enter into a voluntary interaction ban with you, by me, to shut up the noise and allow admins to pay attention to what was going on. An action for which I was thanked by Georgewilliamherbert. To be completely blunt, I only made that suggestion so that the accompanying edit restrictions I proposed for you would not be fuel for you to complain you were being treated unfairly. It is a shame that Prodego closed the entire discussion when BMK accepted that condition; had he not, and had he imposed the proposed edit restrictions upon you, we would not be here right now. Either because you would have seen the error of your ways and ceased your disruption, or because you would have not, and been blocked for it. For those who care, this is the edit in which I proposed that Xanderliptak be banned from making statements about what other editors have said without providing a diff to support it. In addition, that edit includes a point-by-point rebuttal of another of Xanderliptak's posts in which he makes claims which do not reflect the real world as everyone else sees it.

and the other editors were either told to chill or stop with the baseless accusations.

Please provide diffs of these statements. Else we will be forced to conclude, again, that your statements are not accurate reflections of reality. You seem to keep forgetting that other people can read what has been written.

I believe this is all I have to say on the matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Commons edits have no bearing here. Because Commons has different policies. You can't point to another website and say, "See, if he did that on Misplaced Pages it would be a violation, I bet he's dreaming of doing the same thing here." That isn't an issue being raised, that is a preemptive strike based off your paranoia that something might possibly could happen. XANDERLIPTAK 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Your editing on Commons does, however, show a pattern including problems with WP:OWN (as forbidden there as it is here), WP:IDHT (likewise), refusal to accept consensus (yup), prohibitions against edit warring (ditto), and so forth. Do note, Xanderliptak, that in reality I said nothing whatsobloodyever about anything that is allowed on Commons but not here, nor the reverse. Not a single thing.
  • Now, two things:
    1. Please provide diffs, as requested above, for various of the statements you have made.
    2. Consider this your only warning against personal attacks--your 'paranoia' comment--and, for now, a polite request that you redact it immediately. I will make only one request, and will seek to have you blocked if you do not redact it soon. You will note that in the section created by Fry1989 below, he questioned your mental fitness and I asked him to redact that as well. Perhaps at some point you will come to understand that none of this, at least not from our site, is about vengeance, retribution, or retaliation. Indeed, at AN/I some time ago I suggested to you quite clearly that you use diffs when alleging other users have said or done certain things. This suggestion was for your own good to prevent you from being blocked for continually making statements about what other editors have said or done that are not congruent with reality as the rest of us experience it. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Liptak's state of mind.

Not sure if this is the place(never been in a RFC before), but I seriously question Liptak's state of mind. His behaviour and the way he discusses things leave much to be desired. He begins or enters into revert wars, riotous arguments, and is absolutely rude. He assaults people's discussion pages, such as mine, not leave them alone until being reported to admins, and then tries to play it as if he's the victim, often stretching the words of others to make it seem that way, when it's far from fact. He routinely blanks his pages so that nobody can see his discussions, and now is even runnig several accounts. As mentioned before the similarity of their names brings into question where they're a rouse to throw off any sockpuppets. Even if his intentions with having multiple accounts is good, I do believe that his IP should be investigated, especially considering that he said on his Commons page that these multiple accounts are to make it "a bit harder to follow me"(disturbing language). His does not accept when he makes mistakes, until he is forced by others to see his faults, and even when he does try and fix his problems, if he doesn't do it properly he then claims that those of us who bring up such issues "are trying to get rid of me", as if we are all in some conspiracy. He even complains when people harass him, not several days after he does it to others, such as myself. In closing, I truly believe this user has an altered state of mind, believing himself to be above rules, with the threat of the block being the only thing that ever stops him in his steps. Fry1989 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should redact portions of the above statement, the bits where you comment on his state of mind. We are discussion actions here. → ROUX ₪ 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Refer to me by username, you do not know me and have no reason to assume you can call me simply by "Liptak". ANd what do you mean by "I seriously question Liptak's state of mind"? XANDERLIPTAK 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Fry, you are welcome to join the discussion on the main page. If you concur with the concerns that Roux shares with me, you are welcome to endorse them. Otherwise, you can certainly comment at outside view. --Moonriddengirl 00:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)