User talk:Berby

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ovlem for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Traditional unionist (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a sock? Can you explain what I'm being accussed of please?Berby (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links above provide you with all you need to know. Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm still a bit confused. What deceptive work am I doing? I'm just reverting to proven fact and using Wikipedia policy to back it up.Its not as if I'm vandalising or putting in POV or something.Berby (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what you're using these socks for, as there are only a few legitimate reasons for having alternative accounts. And constant reverts, baiting and generally being disruptive are definitely not included. Further, you state "proven fact", but ignore that the sentence in question needs to make it absolutely clear that NI athletes can declare for another country. And your edit confuses that fact - it doesn't help readers fully grasp the issue. So don't claim that you are doing anything based on "fact". Your little SPA sockfarm is a travesty of mis-guided counter-productivity and disruption that has no place on this project. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockfarm? I'm really confused to as what some other editor has to do with me? Really your jumping some gun here.Berby (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. The FIRST edit of this account included complex syntax in the edit summary that referred in perfectly formed Wiki-syntax shorthand to two complex wiki-policies (which by the way have nothing to do with the issues). Do you really expect anyone to believe that you're some naive newbie? Further, this first edit followed *precisely* on from the 3RR limit of another suspected sock, and *miraculously* from an account created 5 minutes later. Seriously. Even a newbie would realise why this account is seen as anything other than a sock of some form.

Now *cop-on* with this sock nonsense, and work towards PROPER consensus building. (Which by the way is the ONLY way to move forward. This socking and 3RR crap may give you the impression of successful defence of your position in any 2 hours span. But in the longterm will prove TOTALLY counter productive. Reword if you've got a problem. Don't blank and revert). Guliolopez (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great Britain at the Olympics. 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. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]