User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:49, 24 December 2014 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Please do not make unbacked accusations: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:49, 24 December 2014 edit undoKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 editsm →Please do not make unbacked accusations: ABFNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	== Please do not make unbacked accusations ==		== Please do not make unbacked accusations ==

	Such as the one you did here. Fergus was banned from the e-cigarette article for 6 months starting April, and the request on Elance was in May... The Elance request is also not for Misplaced Pages. Yes, he is now banned, and rightfully so, but do not make unbacked or false accusations such as that. While ] is not a suicide-pact - it is also not a blanket check to ~~use~~ ~~when~~ someone has been banned. --] 03:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)		Such as the one you did here. Fergus was banned from the e-cigarette article for 6 months starting April, and the request on Elance was in May... The Elance request is also not for Misplaced Pages. Yes, he is now banned, and rightfully so, but do not make unbacked or false accusations such as that. While ] is not a suicide-pact - it is also not a blanket check to ] once someone has been banned. --] 03:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:49, 24 December 2014

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru.

User:John is an WP:INVOLVED admin

Interesting diffs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead." I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page. In June, I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page. In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. I previously explained that any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic". In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice. User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN." John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them. John appears to be WP:INVOLVED in edit warring on this talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions. User:Doc James wrote on December 4, 2014 "Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved".

Interesting diffs.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

John was edit warring on my talk page to restore comments made by other editors. In May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page on 19:14, 29 May 2014. He then immediately blocked me on 19:18, 29 May 2014. This was only four minutes later he decided to block me. He wrote "Very well, I will not restore any more items that you delete from your talk page. I will block you instead." I was involved in a dispute with him in regard to comments made by other editors on my talk page. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. An admin should not block an editor because they did not like being warned to not restore comments on an editor's talk page.

In June, I was in a content dispute with John. I reverted the original research he added to a BLP. I even explained it to him on John's talk page.

In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. I think this was a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. I previously explained that any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Then the admin John suggested there should be further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog without a logical reason. User:Kww explained John's comment was "problematic".

In November, User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice. User:Phil Knight replied on November 15, 2014 that "I'm somewhat concerned with actions of John (talk · contribs), and think we would should perhaps consider a WP:RFC/ADMIN."

John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later in November 2014 John restored comments after I deleted them. John appears to be WP:INVOLVED in edit warring on this talk page on two separate occasions. Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions.

User:Doc James wrote on December 4, 2014 "Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved".

Please do not make unbacked accusations

Such as the one you did here. Fergus was banned from the e-cigarette article for 6 months starting April, and the request on Elance was in May... The Elance request is also not for Misplaced Pages. Yes, he is now banned, and rightfully so, but do not make unbacked or false accusations such as that. While WP:AGF is not a suicide-pact - it is also not a blanket check to WP:ABF once someone has been banned. --Kim D. Petersen 03:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)