User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 18:12, 29 January 2015 editLesVegas (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,736 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:47, 3 February 2015 edit undoShii (talk \| contribs)21,017 edits →Edit warring: new sectionNext edit →
Line 34:		Line 34:
	For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)		For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=642142600 -->		<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=642142600 -->

			== Edit warring ==

			I've noticed your response to the RfC close at ] was . Please consider that if the discretionary sanctions discussed above are enforced in the future, behavior like this will be taken into consideration. ] ] 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:47, 3 February 2015

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages.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".

Arbcom

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've noticed your response to the RfC close at Traditional Chinese medicine was edit warring against the RfC consensus. Please consider that if the discretionary sanctions discussed above are enforced in the future, behavior like this will be taken into consideration. Shii (tock) 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)