User talk:EdJohnston

User:LLArrow

Hello. I'm coming to you first as you are the blocking admin of this user for the last time they were edit warring. I've seen many instances of edit warring since this block but this time I'm paying close attention and it's clear none of the blocks have worked to prevent them from edit warring. It's currently happening at List of American Horror Story episodes and while they've yet to pass 3 reverts yet, they are currently at 3 and I see no signs of the edit warring ending. Would you agree another block is in order? Or would it be best I fill out a new report at the edit warring noticeboard? Gloss 02:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notified the editor of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly beside myself with these constant attacks by Gloss. They have a vendetta against me and always report my behaviour, when I'm attempting to do the right thing in accordance to regulation, while the true culprits get off scot free. I will not agree to only make edits when consensus is reached on any article on Wikipedia because I only make maintenance edits or add properly sourced info. Yes, I can get into wars with other editors, but that's due to my passion for what I'm contributing to. I would be reporting over half the editors I deal with if I had the time to do so. I'm feeling bogged down and ineffective. I plead that you look into the extensive antagonistic editing history of Gloss, Israeldmo, and Kworbi, all editors who have it in for me. Please don't punish one of the few editors that has great respect and appreciation for this site. Thank you, LLArrow (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User/Talk Page

Hello, there. I'm not sure if you remember me—I was known as Eugene Krabs the last time we even had contact with each other, I'm pretty sure—but you indefinitely protected my user and talk pages and only allowed system operators to move them because I inappropriate moved them at the time when I was still relatively new to Wikipedia. I was wondering if that protection could be removed now? Not that it hurts anything to have it there, but at the same time, yeah.

Let me know. Thanks. (Also, you can check my talk page archives for the particular discussion if need be. It should be in my January 2009 archive as that's when I was blocked for it.) Amaury (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing looks OK. User talk:Amaury is only move protected at this time, it has no semiprotection. If the move protection is lifted what would you be planning to do? My own user page and talk page are protected the same way as yours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm no longer a "bad boy." ;) But yeah, it's not a big deal either way. I wasn't planning on doing anything, but protection of any page is only meant to keep vandalism or disruptive editing away for a certain or indefinite time from what I've read—the latter for more serious issues. However, thinking about it, this is still good as it keeps vandals away. I figured it couldn't hurt to ask, though, and I hope I didn't bother you.

Actually, is there any chance my user page could receive the same protection? Amaury (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• User:Amaury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At present your user page has move protection as well as semiprotection. Do you want to change that? EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Gah. Sorry. I thought it didn't have move protection. I misread your previous message. Amaury (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Recommend declining this appeal."

I know the appeal is withdrawn and all so this is kind of pointless, but why would you have recommended declining it? It was based on a single edit Kyohyi made, which while not ideal, wasn't horrendous either. In the past year their edits have been within policy and if anything far too BLP policy cautious. Am I missing something here that everyone else is seeing? Kyohyi did some good work keeping BLP violations out of the articles of generally unlikeable people. Unlike a lot of SPA's that take that role on Wikipedia, they did it in a calm and productive fashion. While I disagree with them on a huge array of topics, it's a pity to seem them gone. Brustopher (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins have been ultra-sensitive to any alleged BLP violations on Gamergate-related articles. If it had been up to me, I'm not sure i'd have issued the ban, but the edit does suggest a lack of judgment. The standard for appeals is whether the original ban was within the admin's discretion, and it surely is. Hence my advice to decline the appeal. It's better to spare the editor the possible embarrassment of a full-scale review of his change, now he is no longer appealing the topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

In the appeal comments the admin was leaning towards unbanning if it was a one off. But you're right, there's not really a point of discussing this much further. But it's still a pity that Kyohyi seems to have left.Brustopher (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus

Thanks for your advisory Ed. This is going to be tricky, but there are some serious allegations involved, and yes I have a feeling that ARBMAC may need to be invoked. Once I figure out what I think should be done, I will discuss my proposed actions with you - two's far better than one in this situation!! Many thanks again for dropping by. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

I'm trying my best to avoid reporting an editor. He doesn't believe me when I claim/assert/state that he has broken the IR rule. See User:Debresser here, who has a long history of being warned this,this this for the most recent examples). On reflection I always require a tutor to clarify this to me when the charge is laid against myself. To avoid AE or some other forum, and the inevitable to-and-fro of argufying from interested parties, and also punitive measures, I wonder if you could do me the courtesy of glancing over the diffs there, and either advising me I am wrong, or informing Dovid that the rule has been broken, as the case may be?. Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not take this to User:NeilN. He is the admin who most recently applied full protection to Jewish Israeli stone throwing. I can see arguments both ways, so I don't know about the 1RR violation. But there is clearly a dispute. If somebody took this to WP:AN3 the article would most likely get protected again, unless we had an offer from each party to pursue dispute resolution before reverting. (Or, as an alternative, a different admin might say it really is a 1RR violation). EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thank Ed.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

administrator action requested

See talk page of 2015 Thalys train attack and see the RFC. It has been weeks. Please incorporate the RFC results in the article. This requires administrative action because non admins can't do it. Thanks. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was fully protected for a month on October 1 per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Sandra opposed to terrorism. At present there is no open RfC on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack and no edit request. If you have a specific idea of what to do, why not ask User:HighinBC, who indicated on talk that he was prepared to help. Anyway the protection expires in two days. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see that there is a concluded rfc where the decision was to use the compromise? (About the train crew running away) Would you make the edit to enforce the decision. This would avoid an edit war since you are a neutral admin. Thank you. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Libesruinssineced is back at "List of multiple discoveries"

Libesruinssineced, ignoring your warnings, is once more back at "List of multiple discoveries" (please see [1] here).

Is there any way to definitively stop his wrongheaded tampering with the article?

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Relisting Process for Page Moves

Ed, since you have participated in discussions regarding Page Moves and the relisting process, I invite you to share your own comments over at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - there is an existing discussion regarding formally banning relisters from voting. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Commented at WT:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:RCU on WP:FR

Hello,

It doesn't matter much but:

• S’il y en a un de ceux mentionnés ci-dessus qui est à rapprocher de RodriguezWissam, c’est Anticyclone à banias ; même FAI, et certaines caractéristiques techniques en commun. Après, comme ce sont des plages dynamiques, difficile d’être formel. schlum =^.^= 30 octobre 2015 à 11:37 (CET)

means:

• If there is one of those mentioned here above who is to be linked to RodriguezWissam [a banned account], it is Anticyclone à banias ; same FAI and some other technical caracteristic in common. After, these are dynamic ranges [of IP], difficult to be sure. [signature]

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi)

Note: Original WP:AN/EW discussion is likely to be archived to 298 or 299 soon.

Begin text copied from WP:AN/EW[2]

Is there anything I should have done differently?

What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

End copied text

Okay, I've opened the discussion here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My view:

Diploma mill is a subset of unaccredited; the two should not be confused.

In my opinion a list of unaccredited institutions divided by country would be more useful if it includes both those unaccredited in their own country. and those in that country that have been explicitly refused accreditation elsewhere. The problem of course is that most institutions do not apply for accreditation in every possible country, and therefore such a list would need to be selective, and include those for which there are references that they have been explicitly refused accreditation in a major country, or that have been so reported in very reliable 3rd party sources. They have to be indicated separately to avoid confusion. To make the scope manageable that aspect could reasonably be mainly concerned with those schools refused accreditation by any of the major English speaking countries.

A list of diploma mills would be those so considered by reliable 3rd party authorities in any country. We do not currently have so a list. It could reasonably be written & I think it should. The country -by-country descriptions in the Diploma mill article are bad in several respects: first, they confuse unaccredited with diploma mill--the list of hwat each country counts as an accredited institution belongs in an article on that topic. Most countries do not define Diploma mill exactly, so a list of those definitions would be appropriate, but it would be much shorter. Second, the inclusion of institutions here is erratic and arbitrary, and gives excessive weight to the onres that are included. that information belongs in a List of Diploma mills/List of unaccredited, depending on what they say.

In general, ambiguous or disputed situations for a particular school need to be explained--they can not always be summarized in word or two. Th efull description belongsi nthe article on the institution. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

These sound like good ideas. Any objection to linking to this discussion from Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education?

Also, in some if not most disputed cases where the article doesn't clearly show that the institution meets WP:CORP (absent the "nearly free pass" that is given to meaningfully-accredited schools as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES), there will be no article about the institution because it will be PRODded away or will fall to RfA (sidebar: whether a "disputed case" school's article falls to RfA or not may depend more on the RfA participants than the content of the article and its references or the reputation of the school). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection to making links. Not sure what you mean by 'RfA.' Did you mean to say AfD? EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)