User talk:QuackGuru

User:John is an WP:INVOLVED admin ==

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. He then immediately blocked me. This appears to be a violation of WP:INVOLVED.

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".

User:Roxy the dog was asking User:PhilKnight for advice.[1] 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."[2]

User:Doc James explained on December 4, 2014 "Yup. Likely we need someone neutral / not involved to look at this. John and QG are involved".[3]

John was previously warned not to restore comments on my talk page. John agreed. Later John restored comments after I deleted them.[4][5] Please remember that John has been notified of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@QG, I realize you have had a bad experience with User:John, but he has given you a lot of good advice in an administrative role. You would do very well to read and follow his advice. In fact doing so will be a lot better for you in the long run than ignoring his advice and attacking him. Just my perspective. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an attack, it is a defence. There is a huge difference. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would expect a defense to say something along the lines of "I, QG, didn't do everything that John said I did because of XY & Z." Most of the above seems to be talking about John, not QG. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)