Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 27 January 2021 (→Very final warning: Not quite "a year ago tonight", but "on a night like this".). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ANI

The discussion was closed, so I'll post this here instead: NedFausa, uh, he voluntarily requested desysop in November. He appears to simply have forgotten to remove that from his user page. A trip to ANI is ENTIRELY unnecessary and a waste of people's time. Why not just post on their talk page and politely remind them instead of dragging such a minor issue here and accusing them of "falsely" claiming to be an admin? You should then, perhaps, review WP:NPA. You should also review the top of the ANI page which states (amongst other things): "Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:

• Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
• Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page"

Waggie (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Waggie: Before reporting to ANI, I tagged User:JzG in my earlier entry at User talk:K6ka, who in reply guessed that "he forgot to remove references to adminship on his user page." Given that he has been editing Misplaced Pages for almost 16½ years and is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time, it's fair to infer that he left that user box in place deliberately. And I see now that, given his history at this website (search Google for Misplaced Pages Administrator Resigns After Banning Antifa Opponent), that false claim is likely to remain in place despite my reporting it. NedFausa (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow! You really need to AGF, big time. You're violating a fundamental policy with this behavior. Just talk to Guy and remind him to fix this. Don't expect an immediate response. Be patient. There could be many places where such a mention exist, and no one can possibly remember all of them. Be helpful, rather than accusatory. -- Valjean (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Wow! You're right! Once an administrator of such vast experience resigns, he cannot possibly remember to remove the TOP user box at his user page. What was I thinking? NedFausa (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you monitor and curate your user page every day, but not everyone does that. I can go a month without looking at mine. Regardless, stop judging other people. AGF. Why on earth do you even suspect he is conscious of the issue or has bad motives? That's really puzzling and shows a rather nasty mindset. Do you hold some grudge against Guy? -- Valjean (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed if you visit my user page, you'll find some misplaced talk page comments. It actually took me many months, I think once it may have even been a year or more, to notice some of these since I very rarely check my user page. Actually I did so recently because of a problem someone highlighted to me. (It took me days to do so for the reason mentioned below. Thankfully the editor concerned didn't see the need to bring me to ANI.) And I think I added something last year when I went inactive for a month along with adding a notice about emails and I added a comment about something once or twice. But I'm fairly sure there have been times when it's been several years without me intentionally visiting my user page. (I sometimes visit it when getting to my talk page by semi accident.) Also, I don't know if this is a lack of life experience on your part or what, but it's perfectly normal for adults to not remember everything they're supposed to do when doing something. Again an anecdotal example, I was visiting someone last week. Before leaving I was trying to remember if I'd forgotten anything. As I was starting to drive away I remember I'd forgotten by phone charger and cable, and frankly I got lucky because my phone was low on battery so I was thinking about the need to charge it. When I got home, I remembered I'd forgotten a mouse. The next day, person I'd visited mentioned I'd also forgotten a bowl. These aren't unusual for most people. It's perfectly reasonable that JzG would ask to have their admin bit removed and completely forget about the need to update their user page. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's been 50 minutes. He hasn't been online since you posted that. Assume a little more good faith. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously. Not even a fraction of AGF?? Maybe you are one of the folks that obsessively maintains their user page, but I know that I only look at my userpage once every six to twelve months, and I believe this is not unusual among editors both experienced and not. Waggie (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, they're normally very active is nearly always a poor response to waiting such a short time. It doesn't matter how active JzG normally is if they're not active now. I mean did you even check if JzG is normal active during sunday evenings?

Anyway, even if they had been active, a few points: I've been editing for a while as well. I don't think I'm in the list of most active, it's possible I was at one stage, not sure. I've often been very bad at checking my talk pages messages let alone my notifications. Actually I have both notifications and new messages right now. I'm avoiding them because I'm trying to calm down after a dispute at AN that really made me angry, hopefully they're nothing important.

I don't think many are like me but really I have no idea and JzG given they gave up on being admin has more leeway to ignore messages etc for a while, depending on precisely what they're doing. Of course by ignoring them while continuing to edit, I do put myself at risk of being blocked. However even at ANI, there's generally some acceptance of giving an editor a chance to respond even if they're active, depending on the severity of the problem particularly how ongoing it is. This issue is one that does need to be fixed and is sort of ongoing, but it's not severe enough that it matters if it takes days to be fixed.

Perhaps more importantly, when you opened that ANI you notified JzG on their talk page, as you are required to do by the big warning boxes. These boxes specifically say notifications aren't enough. There's a reason for that. Notifications can fail for a variety of reasons and editors can also turn them off. That's why any case where it matters, you must notify an editor on their talk page. So "I pinged them to the discussion" is not adequate if you want to alert JzG to a problem on their user page.

Frankly while I probably some will disagree, you would have been better off just removing user box than opening that ANI. To be clear, please don't do that. I see no good reason to not just wait for JzG and editing some other editor's userpage is generally verboten. I'm just using this to demonstrate how spectacularly bad an idea it was to open that ANI that even something which is normally a terrible idea, was a better idea than what you actually did.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne: Trust me, I get it. User:JzG has no shortage of apologists who will strain their own credibility in defending him. But loyalty, however gained, is no substitute for honesty. And his false claim has remained undisturbed since 26 November 2020. That reflects disgracefully on Misplaced Pages. NedFausa (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. If that's all you have to worry about, life must be good. And you still don't get it after all the feedback. SMDH. And the personal attacks in this thread really astound me.19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ned, now you're accusing all Guy's defenders of dishonesty. That's got to be blockworthy in light of all the advice you've refused to heed. This must have consequences. -- Valjean (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Please let me clarify what I wrote. Obviously I worded it poorly, but I meant that User:JzG had gained loyalty without himself being honest about no longer being an administrator. I apologize for the misunderstanding. His defenders, including you, are not dishonest. NedFausa (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have zero loyalty towards JzG. Frankly, I have very little opinion about them in any regard as I haven't interacted with them much before or after they gave up the bit. However, when I saw making rather blatant personal attacks at ANI, without even bothering have a discussion with them directly (contrary to the guidelines for submitting complaints to ANI) on their talk page and not even giving them more than a few hours to respond to a discussion elsewhere, I felt compelled to speak up. In fact, you are continuing your accusations against them now, even after so many people have told you that it's highly inappropriate. Now Bish has blocked you for 48 hours, and rightfully so. Please learn how to edit and collaborate in a collegial and professional manner before you come back. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Why did you omit your signature? NedFausa (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I have essential tremors and sometimes tilde x 5 instead of X4. Thanks anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Being unaware of your disability, I did not intend my reply as a personal attack. If I offended you, I apologize. NedFausa (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@NedFausa: On the one hand, I would say, "no problem", but on the other, throughout this discussion, I see a deeper issue of you not WP:AGF. I invite you to work on that. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't some great con. There is nothing accomplished by him having it there or not having it there. The topicon itself doesn't give him magic sysop powers. You should probably just drop this and go find another hill to die on. CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Except that I'm far from a defender of JzG. For example, I fiercely criticised them over that essay and other things I cannot remember. Also, JzG hasn't touched their user page since October. BTW, I had a look. Since it was created in November 2005, not by me but my a user posting a comment to the wrong place I might add, my user page has had a sum total of 53 edits. And about half of these edits weren't by me, they were by others whether posting comments to the wrong place, vandalising it, reverting either of those, fixing errors or making needed changes by bot and by human. Since yours was created back in November 2019, yours has had 56 edits. Only 3 of those weren't by you. In other words, you've made the same number of edits to your userpage in about a year, as I have in total from all editors only about half of which are from me in over 16 years. BTW, I think I saw that vandalism before since I believe I did check the history at some stage. But I was surprised to see it when I checked the history just now. And it was probably years before I knew it happened. Yes this is partly because it was reverted so quickly but again per my comments earlier, I have no idea how long it would take me to have noticed that vandalism if it hadn't been reverted, it could easily have been years. I'm not complaining about how often you edit your user page or how much you care about your user page, but plenty of us aren't like you. It looks like JzG does edit their userpage a bit more than me, still it doesn't mean they'll notice dumb crap like that and in any case they haven't edited it since they were desysoped like I said. Note that AFAICT, JzG didn't leave under a cloud so they could simply ask to be re-sysoped and it would be granted without comment. So really there's even less reason why it's something to get worked up about. As I said, I don't disagree it should be removed, but it doesn't matter one iota if it takes days or heck even weeks for this to happen. Also have you looked at JzG's recent contribs? Because I just did and guess what? The last edit in the first 50 results is on 14 December. Over a month ago. JzG's user talk page also has a wikibreak notice. True JzG did have a burst of activity, but emphasising my earlier point, just because they've been very active in the past doesn't mean they are now. Clearly they're not. So the fact they haven't noticed this is hardly surprising. You need to learn to differentiate between long term history and recent history. They are plenty of editors who edit a lot then slow down or even stop for a variety of reasons. If you've been here for long enough, you'll probably have seen it a lot of times. Note that while these are anecdotes, they're anecdotes you are able to check yourself. Check my user page if you don't believe what I say. Check JzG's contributions. If you don't believe my mouse story, that's your choice I guess, but I'd suggest you read around and you'll easily find that many many people have had similar experiences. I expect over time you'll have similar experiences too. That's life, you don't always remember stuff even if you true, and it can easily be something far more important than this. (Actually there are probably people who die every day because they forgot to take their medication, and I'm referring to people in their middle ages or earlier without significant memory problems.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: User:JzG remains active on Misplaced Pages. He has during the past three weeks made 46 edits, including four today. If one of the three users he reverted during that span wondered what level of user was undoing their contributions, and went to his user page to find out, they'd have seen straight off his false claim of being an administrator, and likely be discouraged from disputing his actions. NedFausa (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't know how Misplaced Pages works, do you? There are about a half dozen ways to check whether one is a sysop or not. Including using CentralAuth. Drop the fucking stick, dude. CUPIDICAE💕 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely disingenuous to look at Guy's 2020-21 edit history and say he "remains active" (especially if you strip out the 20 edits to one talk page discussion). I'll presume you hadn't checked that, but that's exactly the sort of context we're all saying is necessary in this situation. Ned, you're an incredibly sharp editor but you consistently show so little interest in actually understanding the culture of WP. Repeating policy ad nauseam is not a substitute for actually treating other editors with respect. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alyo: I don't understand what you mean by Repeating policy ad nauseam. Where have I done that? NedFausa (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This is close to boomerang worthy. The lack of AGF is staggering, including the snarky comment against Deepfriedokra for accidentally typing the wrong number of tildes on this user talk. -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks, when one has a less than perfect body/nervous system, one gets used to it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly, this is getting out of control. NedFausa, I very strongly advise you to drop the stick, it's really in your best interest. Waggie (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ferret: Well, at least I learned something new on Misplaced Pages today. Personally, I always click the Sign your posts on talk pages button to insert the correct number of tildes. I had no idea that adding an extra tilde would remove one's signature and leave only the time & date stamp. Thanks for educating me. NedFausa (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that! This is an example of why WP:AGF is a powerful editing mode. There might often be something one has overlooked or wasn't aware of when it comes to other editors' motivations. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I used to use three tildes to get a name, a date, a time, a userpagelink, a usertalklink, a link to the current year and the same day. Few knew how, fewer cared why. But with great power came great responsibility; I don't fully understand this confusing situation, so I wish Ned and Guy good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for recent personal attacks and abysmal failure to assume good faith, especially here, ("False claim of administrator rights"), here ("User:JzG has no shortage of apologists who will strain their own credibility in defending him. But loyalty, however gained, is no substitute for honesty."), and here ("I meant that User:JzG had gained loyalty without himself being honest about no longer being an administrator"). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC).

Very final warning

NedFausa, I want to make it clear that I take a dim view about how you needlessly escalated this pronouncedly non-urgent matter. I think Bishonen was especially lenient (perhaps she just isn't as familiar with your editing history as I am) — because I would have blocked you for a lot longer. I'm letting you know right now that you are placing your long-term editing privileges in considerable jeopardy with this behaviour. There's only so many 2nd, 3rd, etc. chances that you should reasonably expect. Definitely from this point forward. El_C 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Is it technically possible for you to permanently block me from posting at Misplaced Pages talk pages? I mean to include not only article talk pages but also user talk pages—even my own. If you can, please do so. I love editing Misplaced Pages articles, and believe I am good at it, but talk pages are a minefield of contentiousness for me. Thank you for considering this request. NedFausa (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Ned. Hope this isn't unwelcome. I just wanted to affirm that I do think you edit articles well, and that it's talk pages, including your own, where for whatever reason you get into trouble. While it is technically possible to block from talk pages, as a practical matter it means you can never communicate with other editors except via edit summaries. I think you'd basically have to agree to never reverting anyone, probably. I'd be willing to discuss with the community giving that a try. Just my two cents, and again, hope this isn't unwelcome. If it is, just delete. —valereee (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes, if blocked as I have requested, I agree to never communicate (including by email or other off-wiki channels) with other editors except via edit summaries. However, I reject the additional prohibition of agreeing to never revert anyone. I often undo vandalism with appropriate edit summaries requiring no follow-up discussion at talk pages. If you accept my single proviso, I will appreciate any help you can provide in making this happen. NedFausa (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ned, the problem is that without being able to discuss at talk pages, how do you communicate reasons for a revert to other editors and discuss those reasons with them? That was why I was imagining you wouldn't revert. I'm open to creative solutions. (No promises on whether the rest of the community is!) —valereee (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

for instance: You make an edit. Someone reverts and posts to article talk or your talk about why they think it was wrong. What do you do? —valereee (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I propose to at most 1RR with an edit summary explaining my reason for undoing another user's contribution. If that individual or any other user disagrees, they are free to revert my edit. In all such cases, I pledge to not edit war—even though such removal may be required immediately, as with serious BLP violations. As for editors who revert my own contributions, I vow to not dispute their actions in any way. I'm grateful that you are helping me think through the various contingencies here. NedFausa (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't thank me yet. This could totally be seen as "Val's got another wild hare (hair?)" @El C, do you see any possibility for this? —valereee (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In principle, any Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Voluntary would be a positive step forward toward addressing the various concerns raised. El_C 20:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then. So here's what I'm thinking as an experiment. I block you from article talk and user talk pages. That allows you to still bring issues to places like AN or RFPP. You agree to 1RR. And before I block you from your own talk, archive and place a prominent message explaining all this and referring concerns to AN. Ping me when you've done that and I'll place the blocks. Best wishes to you. Email me if you think it's not working. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Since I don't know how to archive my talk page, I ask that you please do that for me and place a prominent message explaining all this and referring concerns to AN. NedFausa (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, not sure how much sense that makes, Val. To block someone from their own talk page — I don't think that's ever been done (or is appropriate). Also, the block was, in part, due to an ANI post, in the first place... El_C 20:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It was done to me last January and it sucked, but it worked and all was forgiven (merely never forgotten). To be fair, I didn't literally ask for it. But multiple community members alleged I did, I respect that consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's fine! I'm just trying to come up with something that works, thought you were indicating you supported the idea. Let's discuss. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Val, I'm probably good with anything voluntary, but I am wary of partially protecting any other namespace except for the project and project talk ones. El_C 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C, so, this to me looked completely voluntary, but maybe we're talking semantics? Ned Fausa is asking for a block from spaces he doesn't feel like he can resist. Obviously it's not ideal. I have no objection to including AN/ANI project space/talk, but I feel like maybe that's not your major concern? I was only trying to reserve some place Ned Fausa could actually bring an issue that they thought was valid. Maybe I'm not understanding your point, here? Sorry if I'm being dense. —valereee (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Val, maybe I mispoke when I said anything voluntary is good. It isn't, actually. I'm not sure avoiding communication on talk pages (at least article talk pages and his own talk page) is desirable. Communication is required. Anyway, as soon as Ned signs up for whatever respective restrictions — once these are logged at WP:RESTRICT, they become binding. So, if Ned were to violate them, they will face sanctions (think GPinkerton). Obviously, there's no way to technically compel Ned to observe WP:1RR and so on, but again, once he formally signs on to it, he faces sanctions for any subsequent violation. El_C 23:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not proposed nor would I agree to a voluntary block from any noticeboard. Obviously, if someone reports me for violating the rules, I should be able to respond. Apart from that, I understand and accept that restrictions are binding and that any breach by me will result in my being blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. NedFausa (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ned, said restriction could be constructed to explicitly exempt you from any noticeboard (or project space, overall) prohibition, so long as it has anything to do with you, specifically... El_C 23:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming a lot more complicated than I anticipated. I'd have to see the language before signing off on that. NedFausa (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, you'd be the one drafting it, so...? El_C 23:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I am not qualified to draft Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. I request that you or Valereee proceed based on the assurances and reservations I have proffered in this thread. NedFausa (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Ned, I mean, you draft a proposal here. We refine it. Then, once you agree to it, an admin can record it at RESTRICT. El_C 23:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If Valereee likewise refuses to draft an agreement, I will withdraw my request. NedFausa (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay...? Anyway, I don't really know what restriction would be effective to curtail, say, the latest misconduct that saw you face the current block. If you don't know, either — fine. It is what it is. El_C 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C and Valereee, apologizes for butting in, but I don't believe this is a good idea. I think some discussion is warranted before going through with this, as I, and likely many others, don't think this type of block would be constructive. Perryprog (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, User:Valereee, can I just throw in my bit? I've seen the good and the bad from this editor (I think I thanked them just a few days ago for something), and of course I have opinions (Ned knows I do). I do not think we should block an editor from editing talk pages: it goes against everything that I'm teaching my students right now about Misplaced Pages. I think we're much better off, since Ned admitted to sometimes losing it, figuring out what the problem areas are--and I am pretty sure it's in the overlap between BLP and AP. I'm actually loath to propose a BLP ban since I think (I think I remember) Ned does good BLP stuff too, so maybe an AP topic ban is better--though I'm going out on a limb and say Ned won't like it much.

  Ned, I apologize for talking about you here, and not with you, but I wanted to comment on what the admins are talking about. Next time, we'll just chat again about Alabama football and beer--the good things in life. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies, same. I, too, am all for figuring out what's what and going from there. El_C 23:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies: That is outrageous. I have not appealed administrator Bishonen's block of me, but if you ban me from American Politics, I will fight it tooth and nail, however futile that may be. NedFausa (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, never mind. I thought something might be salvaged here, but given that immature response I'll just chime in with El C's first comment here, the one marked "Very final warning". No need to ping me in a response; good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't reviewed your history. I came here because of the ANI post. Based on what little of what I've seen, I don't think you need to restrict yourself to the extent you are asking for. I think it's important to be able to communicate with other editors. You thanked me for my edit, above. That made me happy, and I meant it too. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to comment that in my interactions with User:NedFausa, I have found him to be a neutral editor whose comments are a voice of reason among heated disputes. Although I do not know the complete story behind what caused User:NedFausa to get blocked, I think that if User:NedFausa agrees to be civil in their future interactions with other editors, he should be able to continue to edit without any topic bans or similar sanctions as he has been an asset on several articles. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 00:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think a block of anybody from specifically talkpages is a terrible idea. Misplaced Pages editing is all about communication. As for El C thinking me overly lenient with my 48 hour block, you may be right, El. But it was the first incursion on their previously clean block log, and considering that, I thought 48 hours would do it. I am reasonably familiar with their editing; I warned them sharply three months ago about using white power dogwhistles on talkpages. So, yes, I guess they have a problem with talkpages. But it's IMO one they must address on their own responsibility, as (I presume) an adult. We shouldn't offer hobbles or bridles. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

• Bishonen, oh, I see. And also, eep. Anyway, maybe because I've already given him like a million warnings (mainly IPA and AP2), I assumed he'd already been blocked a bunch of times. Guess I should have checked the block log.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I hope that doesn't take away from the potency of my warning, though. It really shouldn't. El_C 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree. Hey, I've used the shruggie a few times, but I didn't know it came as a template! (Makes note to self.) Bishonen | tålk 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC).

Yeah, I wasn't sure how it would work, either...the idea was that if anyone disputed anything Ned Fausa did, they'd just have to let it go because they literally wouldn't be able to have the necessary discussion to keep editing there. Thought it might be worth a try. But Ned, you could totally decide that on your own: I'm not good at productive discussion/debate/argument, therefore if something needs discussion/debate/argument, I should just move on and let someone else do it. There are likely thousands of editors who pursue that strategy, just informally. You don't have to answer every ping; you just can't not answer a ping and then keep reverting. You don't have to open a discussion every time you get reverted; you just can't revert again. Consider someone opening a section or reverting you as your cue to move on to the next article.

The statement that you'll fight not being able to edit in a particular area tooth and nail no matter how futile it is to do so is getting really close to WP:NOTHERE. Just my opinion, but if you think your edits are that important to the editing of American Politics, you've probably got a POV that is counterproductive to neutral editing there. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Val, maybe this is a bit nuanced, but in fairness to Ned, I don't think WP:NOTHERE, as a narrow subset of WP:DE, applies here. If there is a sanction, it may be a DE one, or failing that, an WP:ACDS one. But not a NOTHERE one. Because it's obvious that Ned has made numerous valuable contributions, so the suggestion that he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia is a statement I would disagree with. El_C 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C, I came in here ready to help figure out a creative solution (after Ned asked me not to post here after the dogwhistle thing), but the 'fight tooth and nail' just reminded me of Talk:86_(term)/Archive_1#Plan_to_Resist_Election_Day_Misinformation. I dunno. I don't have a strong opinion, but I dunno. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Val, just a point of clarification about proper procedure — I seem to be an annoying pedant on that front today, in an unrelated-related way. Incidentally, I was unware of that exchange you've just linked to, which I agree, does not inspire confidence. I'd like to be optimistic, but it's probably important to also be realistic. In any case, I would suggest that we leave things as they are, for now, and go from there. If you wish to followup on any of this, you're always more than welcome on my talk page (even if only to say hi), but otherwise, I would advise that Ned's talk page has seen enough traffic for the moment. El_C 19:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you OK?

I'm aware of the temporary block and maybe that means the answer is automatically "no" but I'm honestly asking this question. I may not be as familiar with your editing as others but I've seen you around in the last year or so. Each time I've interacted with you has been pleasant and usually we are agreeing on whatever question we are both commenting on. This issue seems out of character based on that limited familiarity and I am hoping that the reason is explicable. If you are indeed suffering in some way outside of Misplaced Pages, I urge you to obtain whatever help is appropriate and to take some time off from editing. If not, then you have been here long enough to know not to engage in such a course of attacks, especially after many fellow editors pointed out in detail why it was not advisable. I would rather believe that it wasn't simple stubbornness and pique that motivated this. Please feel free to contact me if there are any resources that I can help point you to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thanks for your kindness, which is a quality I have seldom encountered in Misplaced Pages editors. Rest assured, I am OK and not suffering. Best wishes to you as well. NedFausa (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and kind wishes. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm also assured, good stuff, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please clear autoblock

NedFausa (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

Block ID: #10330416 (BlockList • unblock)
Blocking admin: ‪Bishonen‬ (talk • blocks)
Block message:

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=NedFausa}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=‪Bishonen‬ | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NedFausa". The reason given for NedFausa's block is: "recent personal attacks and abysmal failure to assume good faith, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NedFausa&diff=1002530102&oldid=1002526651".</nowiki> | 3=127.0.0.1 | 4=10330416 | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NedFausa". The reason given for NedFausa's block is: "recent personal attacks and abysmal failure to assume good faith, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NedFausa&diff=1002530102&oldid=1002526651".</nowiki> | 3=‪Bishonen‬ | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "NedFausa". The reason given for NedFausa's block is: "recent personal attacks and abysmal failure to assume good faith, see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NedFausa&diff=1002530102&oldid=1002526651".</nowiki> | 3=‪Bishonen‬ | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Bishonen: Please clear the autoblock that is unfairly extending your block of me. NedFausa (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock
• Requests for unblock-auto