User talk:DHawker

Please read WP:3RR and stop edit warring the disputed content back in until you have some semblance of consensus on talk. Also, be careful with accusations of vandalism - read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Vsmith (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colloidal silver. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Colloidal silver. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DHawker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block was meant to be for 24 hours but it now says til Dec 2. Thats a bit tough for a 3RR first offence isn't it? The other 'crime' (using an alternate address to avoid the 3RR) was purely accidental. When it was pointed out I immediately logged back in and paid the price.

Decline reason:

Block modified per checkuser evidence of block evasion. —Travis ^talk 03:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is a checkuser block enacted after the original block. See here— Ѕandahl ♥ 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It seems quite likely that being logged out for the fourth revert may have been an accident; other than that, there is no reason to have extended the (justified) 3RR block beyond the original 24 hours - and that time has passed.

Request handled by: עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm fine with an unblock as long as DHawker refrains from edit-warring, which was the root of the problem here. You need to understand that you're not going to force your viewpoint into the encyclopedia in the face of numerous editors who think you're incorrect. You need to either a) make more of an effort to convince other editors on the talk page, or b) pursue dispute resolution, particularly the solicitation of outside input. I'm fine with an unblock - I can accept that the IP thing was a mistake rather than intentional evasion, and 24 hours is usual for a first 3RR violation - but you need to stop edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 04:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current block could be due to accidental use of an IP, so no problem there. I'd still like to hear from DHawker as to where he hopes to direct his energies after the block is lifted. When an editor jumps right in with a strong POV and starts edit warring when his account is very new, it causes concern. (Account created October 1). Though as the admin who blocked for 3RR, I don't have much jurisdiction over content matters, the material he was adding at Colloidal silver looked very fringey. Unusual claims should have exceptional evidence and so on. I wonder if he is sensitive to that aspect of our policies, and I wonder if he plans to respect it if the block is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin, I think we should treat this case as if that fourth revert was done by the account. This would mean restoring the original expiry of the block to the one set by EdJohnston. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. — Athaenara ✉ 06:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the best way to see how I 'direct my energies' is to PLEASE watch this CS article more closely and see how it goes. I believe MastCell is a biased editor. For example he has removed every single reference that informs the reader that silver ever had any medical legitimacy. And he has trawled PubMed to drag up and load the article with every negative reference he can find. To read the article now you would get the impression that drinking CS as an antibiotic is as insane as drinking weedkiller. Hundreds of thousands of people drink CS every day but to read this article now you would simply have no idea why. There is an interesting history behind the use of CS, but according to Mastcell's POV its nothing more than an internet scam that preys on the gullible. Furthermore I don't think the claims I made were exceptional. In fact I have made no medical claims. I have only tried to input background information on the antimicrobial properties of silver. I believe Mastcell deleted these on 'technical grounds', not because he thinks they were exceptional. Mastcell starts the edit warring by wholesale deletion of anything that does not suit his POV. He does not try to correct, improve, or start a discussion to reach a consensus on the talk page. He just slashes anything that disagrees with his POV. The bottom line is that I have no problem with UNBIASED administrators reviewing my involvement with the colloidal silver page. DHawker (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]