User talk:Six and Four

Hello Mario, please check the FOF talk page. Wine-in-ark 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone edits the page, and the edit is not constructive, revert the edit and leave a message to the person who made that edit saying that the edit was not constructive. Leave me a message for more information. Amos Han ^Talk 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If someone is vandalizing an article, you should warn them with one of the warnings at WP:WARN and then report them to WP:AIV if they continue after a final warning. However, your edits at Fellowship of Friends appear to be over a content dispute rather than simple vandalism. Can you explain what is happening? Leebo ^T/C 15:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if it's a content dispute, you've both gone well beyond the three revert rule. I suggest not editing again until it's sorted out. Leebo ^T/C 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone vandalizes, first, leave a warning on the vandal's user talk page. If the same person vandalizes after final warning, report it on WP:AIV. Amos Han ^Talk 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

I had warned you that you and Veronica were already past the 3-revert rule. This edit after being warned could get reported. I'm not going to report it, but seriously cease edit warring for the time being. You can't endlessly revert someone's edits unless they are simple vandalism. This is a content dispute. Leebo ^T/C 04:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was not entirely clear about that. The three-revert rule applies to any edit that restores a page to a prior version in whole or in part, or one that simply undoes the edits of another person repeatedly. You are a relatively new user, so just keep it in mind for the future. Having other editors who back you up is a good thing, because it means you are closer to making a consensus as opposed to two edit warring users. Leebo ^T/C 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends

Hi Mario

On the talk page of Fellowship of Friends, I offered Wikipedia's best way for how to resolve these disputes (basically WP:RS); sadly, this was basically ignored and very obvious sockpuppetry was resorted to instead, by people who held the high ground in the dispute. This led to the page being unprotected at your request and the edit war kicking off again, as it would when underhand methods are being used.

For that reason, I don't feel able to help with containing the renewed edit war. Dispute resolution when the party who are in the right resort to disrupting Wikipedia is not my forte. You will need to seek help from the various formal and informal dispute resolution facilities that Wikipedia offers. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about these sockpuppeteers. Wait until Redvers write back. Amos Han ^Talk 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've only recently written to Redvers, it could be helpful to wait a little longer and see if he will answer your questions. In order to confirm suspected sockpuppetry, you can post a request here. Remember to provide diffs that indicate the existence of illegal sockpuppetry, as explained in the instructions at the top of the page. Regards, Redux 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppetry at the Fellowship of Friends page

Hi, I can't comment on a Checkuser case, being only here to assist users and checkusers in the listing and formatting. If the sockpupetry is obvious and disruptive, you should ask an administrator to review and block the sockpupets. Checkuser is more for difficult and non obvious cases. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I must admit I am a bit lost on how to list all the cases you filled, I delisted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wine-in-ark and put the user names you provided there at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nixwisser. Was I right doing so? Remember, I won't comment on the case, but I can help you listing it. Were these users reverting your edits (I see the 3RR warnings on your talk page)? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]