User talk:Etcetc

Regarding your edit on the "anarchism without adjectives" page, while I don't necessarily disagree, with your edit, could you please give explanation on the talk page. Looking at what you removed, it doesn't seem that bad. If this is a fight coming in from another article (which I doubt 'cause this is your first edit) then please state that. You can respond either here or on my talk page. And if I don't sign this, the stupid bot will leave another message telling me so. AFA http://revleft.com

hey

Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your attempts to correct POV on various anarchism-related articles, and I think you're doing a good job of it. :) If you have time, could you also have a look at Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism? There's various bits of POV floating around like "ancapism is a form of ind-anarchism" when I had a look at it, but I'm not sure how to correct all of them. -- infinity0 17:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you too :) but careful not to get dragged into this site too much. :) -- infinity0 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

hah i remember

Welcome back. i do keep an eye out for folk. infinty and others are obviously still chirpy! -- maxrspct ping me 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Your comments at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism are inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page. I would strongly encourage you to remove your own comments from that page. If you feel someone may be a sockpuppet, you should report the issue at WP:SSP. However, you should not make accusations nor disparage other editors on an article talk page. Also, regardless of your suspicions about another user, you should not revert without comment and you're still required to follow the revert rules. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You posted your accusations along with uncivil comments towards that editor. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for what is considered unacceptable. Inappropriate behaviour by others is not an excuse to engage in inappropriate behaviour. You can have your accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry reviewed at WP:SSP. If the person is a problem editor you may wish to file a request for comment or seek sysop intervention. However, none of these options are a replacement for dispute resolution. Just because you're convinced someone else is violating the rules and mores of Wikipedia does not give you free reign to do so. Contrary to your assertion, that does not improve Wikipedia, but rather leads to edit wars and disruption to the wiki. Instead, I implore you to act in a civil fashion and use the appropriate venues for this dispute. I will again politely but strongly request you remove your comments from the article talk page. The venom is distinctly unhelpful to the editing climate. Vassyana 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you to please reconsider your actions. What steps have you taken to resolve the issue? When have admins reviewed your concerns? I will be removing your comments from the article talk page. While I appreciate your good intentions, you should well know that sort of post is highly inappropriate. Please address the situation appropriately. Vassyana 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Turning to disparaging comments against me will not improve the situation. I understand your frustration, however insults and attacks are simply not acceptable. Those questions should have made you reflect. If what you provided is the whole of what was done, you have not tried very hard to resolve the situation. You linked a couple checkuser cases which showed that Vision Thing was unrelated (by checkuser standards) to Billy Ego, and also bafflingly linked to the sockpuppets of Billy Ego category, which does not include Vision Thing. The only thing you linked that was directly relevant to my question was the AN/I post. A couple failed checkuser attempts to get VT associated with a banned account and a nearly year old single attempt to seek sysop attention on AN/I nearly a year ago don't add up to much of an effort to resolve the issue. If you want sockpuppet allegations investigated and considered, please post them to WP:SSP. If there are ongoing behaviour concerns with the editor report those kinds of concerns at WP:AN/I. Have you made any attempts to resolve the content disputes with VT through dispute resolution? I have faith in our various processes. However, in order for them to work, they have to be used. You have yet to exhaust the options openly available to you. Vassyana 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Continued incivility after warning. Canvassing sock/meatpuppet accusations.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Diffs: Incivility.[1][2] Canvassing.[3][4] Vassyana 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

VT

FWIW, I would say, based on editing style and habits, that VT is not a Billy Ego sockpuppet. Libertatia 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Etcetc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

At no point was I made aware by Vassyana that talking to other editors on their personal talk pages and sharing evidence concerning my suspicions about a user was against wikipedia policy. Giving that as a reason for banning me without ever warning me or even supplying a link to the applicable policy, before or after the ban, is highly inappropriate. In addition, Vassyana never made clear to me where wikipedia policy indicates that an accusation of sockpuppetry constitutes a personal attack. He seems to think this is clearly supported by policy, but no such indication is given on either the NPA or CIVIL pages he referred to. I feel I should be made fully aware of policy before it is cited against me. Finally, Vassyana chose to ban me rather than make any formal requests for mediation or arbitration, and before VT had made any such requests, despite the fact that the NPA article clearly indicates that a dispute resolution process is in order first. Vassyana has classified my claims as disruptive personal attacks without making any distinction between non-disruptive and disruptive personal attacks, even though the NPA text clearly indicates that some personal attacks are non-disruptive and should be dealt with first and foremost through dispute resolution. If my personal attacks where of the disruptive variety, I should be informed as to how they are different than the non-disruptive type. For all of these reasons I consider my block to be highly unjust. I'm requesting an unblock simply to clear my name on this issue, I'd be happy to voluntarily cease to edit wikipedia for any given time if any admin was simply polite enough to ask. Etcetc 06:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your incivility, your disruption and your refusal to listen, I believe this short block to be entirely justified — Alison ☺ 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Having coming back from a block for WP:NPA, this is not a good sign. Are you looking to get blocked for a week to re-consider the way you engage other editors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Editwarring

You are also editwarring, and misusing edit summaries. Do not use edit summaries for anything else that to explain the edit. Please follow dispute resolution if you cannot find common ground with fellow editors. I will place a similar notice in other editors' talk pages that are editwarring with you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

hey

hey, just for the record, I don't think Vision Thing is a sockpuppet. But that doesn't mean he's not editing tendentiously - see the email i sent you. -- infinity0 18:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence and activism of J. K. Rowling

Help I'm being railroaded by user:Jossi. Can you review this and see if it is OR or just a biased admin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influence_and_activism_of_J._K._Rowling Thanks, Libertycookies 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. I've asked an arbitration case to be started related to Vision Thing's editing. Your input is requested. :) -- infinity0 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

sock

I have had the same suspicions since he started editing, due primarily to his very account name, amongst many other things. However, I've talked to several admins and they aren't willing to take any action unless more explicit evidence comes forward. He's not being too disruptive at the moment, I don't think. There's a good number of other editors editing articles at the moment, might you consider coming back, perhaps in occasional bursts like I'm doing at the moment? -- infinity0 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vision Thing dismissed

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to dismiss the Arbitration case entitled "Vision Thing". This has been passed with the rationale that there is a lack of usable evidence. For the arbitration committe, Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticisms of libertarian socialism

Criticisms of libertarian socialism, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Criticisms of libertarian socialism satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of libertarian socialism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Criticisms of libertarian socialism during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 15:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Firing squad.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Firing squad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)