User talk:So much for anyone can edit

Could you list some examples? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Protection policy if you wonder why some pages have no edit link. You can edit semi-protected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed which only requires 4 days and 10 edits. There are few fully protected pages and you can still make suggestions to them on the talk page with editprotected. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Spore for starters! --So much for anyone can edit (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not the point though. It's obvious that the policy has changed, the issue is that it's not right. It's limiting a lot of things to the version of events of "established editors" rather than the public. --So much for anyone can edit (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

— Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Placing your signature as a heading without adding anything meaningful is not considered useful. How can we respond to a non-query? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never saw anything that said it's for asking questions, I thought it was for discussion.


 * I think it's disappointing how much Wikipedia seems to be veering away from it's stated conventions... --So much for anyone can edit (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is it stated that we tolerate trolling. One click to revert, two to block.  I recommend you not waste your time.  Postdlf (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not "trolling", I think it's a serious issue that should be discussed. You seem to think that no one should be allowed to discuss it. --So much for anyone can edit (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unban request
I did not vandalise anything, in fact an administrator kept vandalising a perfectly reasonable comment (though dissenting with his point of view clearly.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

I was not even warned before being banned, he left a message on my talk page after I had edited with a comment asking for him to explain why he is doing this, then banned me. The flippant remark above "One click to revert, two to block. I recommend you not waste your time" suggests that he's just throwing his weight around as an administrator because he can in the knowledge that not many established Wikipedia editors are going to agree to the view, so will agree with censoring it.

All I wanted was for a sensible discussion about the policy (and I came here as a journalist to research this fact), and how it conflicts with the image that Wikipedia is giving to the public - and Wikipedia seems to be determined to not allow any disagreement. Whether I get unblocked or not, it's interesting to see how little administrators are apparently vetted (or if indeed this kind of thing is even considered acceptable by Wikipedia standards). It seems that all you have to do is say one thing "wrong" and on goes the "troll" brand. It's reminiscent of "gooks" in the way it's used to dehumanise dissenters.

--So much for anyone can edit (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}}
 * One way to help would have been to use a less inflammatory username - "So much for anyone can edit" is an insult to all of us volunteers who try and make sure anyone can edit. The other way would have been to make a proper query - name of thread and the questions you wanted asked.  Simple as that.  While I sympathize with what you were trying to do, you went about it in such a manner that put your apparent motives in a negative light.
 * I would be willing to unblock you, however, under a few provisions: 1) Please change your handle to something less provocative. As it sits your current username is read as trolling because its tone is accusatory. 2) When you post in Village pump (policy), please add in the questions you want to ask.  Editors are more willing to answer questions if they do not have to guess at them. 3) Do not use your signature as the section header.  On pages such as the Village Pump, posts are automatically archived after a certain amount of time lying fallow, which is determined by the timestamp.  Besides, it's confusing as signatures are used to state who made which comment. Are you willing to accept these terms? -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Call me Mr. Bonaparte! ) 03:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why must he change his username? We don't need to censor it; the name does not personally attack an individual, nor campaign for some political cause. I think it would show Wikipedia's openness to criticism if we accept names like this, that make jabs at the project itself. And if you unblock him with the assumption that he will be a good editor, then this may become an ironic, laughable name (imagine an admin with such a name…), yes? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The username is indeed critical, but it also violates Username policy:

"Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."
 * The reason for this is because the name itself is an assumption of bad faith. I don't mind that a name is critical, but if it's violating a behavioral policy, I tend to be a bit concerned that he might end up scaring people away from discussions. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Ed, a cafe facade! ) 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't, then, any name that is critical violate Assume good faith? The username doesn't attack anyone personally, which is what AGF deals with—"Assume good faith" means "assume other editors are trying to help", not "assume Wikipedia is a good thing". We could assume good faith in this case, that the name is not meant to be harmful. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between WP:AGF and WP:NPA, which you appear to be conflating. The name practically says that administrators and above (i.e. anyone tasked with the mop, Dust Devil, or Servpro Squad) are evil and assumes that they are out to do them wrong.  Thus, the username assumes bad faith from the word go. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Ed, a cafe facade! ) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't block this user because of their username; I blocked this user because their only edits constituted repeated trolling. Posting their signature, and nothing else, four times to the village pump, notwithstanding talk page requests for the user to actually post a real question or comment, then crying "vandalism" when it's removed.  I don't care if their username was "Wikipedia is the best thing since jam sandwiches"; this was textbook trolling: causing disruption under the pretense that it is not disruptive or is completely innocent, and instead accusing those who remove it of disruption, yet displaying a beyond-novice understanding of how things actually work.  Postdlf (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about the block, just the unblock. I agree with the block, and actually don't think this user should be unblocked. Ever. If the person behind the account wants to be constructive, they can create a new account and try again. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)