Talk:Domaine de la Romanée-Conti and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Charlie.somerville: Difference between pages

Revision as of 01:53, 11 April 2007

Revision as of 00:37, 27 June 2007

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #FFF5F5; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

{{wine|class=start|importance=high|needs-photo = yes}}

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry/Notes_for_the_accuser|read this]] for detailed instructions.''

===[[User:Charlie.somerville]]===

;Suspected sockpuppeteer

{{user5|1=Charlie.somerville}}<br>

;Suspected sockpuppets

==Merge with Romanée Conti==

{{user5|1=Bradlow idiot}}<br>

*'''Support''' Given that the vineyard article is 50% repeating the DRC article, and the unique content applies equally to DRC, I don't think there's much point in having a separate article. My preference would be to call the combined article DRC, but wouldn't argue too much with simple Romanée Conti, as that's perhaps what the ordinary Wikipedian would use. [[User:FlagSteward|FlagSteward]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

{{user5|1=58.107.252.48}}<br>

;Report submission by

*'''Oppose''' If merging would be a good idea then keep the Domaine but drop the two monopole wineyards). Burgundy wineyards and wineries is a matrix: both axes needed (.. - maybe besides of the monopoles..) And in case of the monopoles the domaine itself is of higher importance than the single wineyards. -- [[User:217.191.239.236|217.191.239.236]] 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'''[[User:AAA!|<span style="color:red">AAA!</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:AAA!|<span style="color:green">AAAA</span>]])</small> 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

;Evidence

*'''Oppose''' The DRC article should be about the whole estate and then La Tache and Romanee Conti should have their own enteries as well with reference to this article. [[User:Dancingredshoes|Dancingredshoes]] 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bradlow Idiot's {{contribs|Bradlow idiot|contribs}} on my user page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AAA%21&diff=next&oldid=139874179 diff]) practically match the vandalism [[User:Charlie.somerville|Charlie.somerville]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AAA%21&oldid=137551894 made] on my user page. [[User:58.107.252.48|58.107.252.48]] also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AAA%21&diff=139877136&oldid=139875559 vandalised] my user page in the same pattern. If they are not sockpuppets, then I suspect them to be [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]].

;Comments

** There's no particular reason '''why''' the vineyards need their own articles. If they are sections within a more encyclopaedic DRC article then you get the full context of the history (and in future maps?), as well as saving repeats of viticulture etc. At the moment the vineyards are looking like stubs that will just repeat stuff that's in the DRC article - to me it makes a lot of sense to consolidate the stubs into a single decent article. Obviously the vineyard articles won't disappear, they will just be made into redirects tothe DRC article.[[User:FlagSteward|FlagSteward]] 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a match. Charlie last edited under his own name more than a week ago, and he left an apology note, so blocking his account would be pointless IMO. Bradlow idiot should be indef-blocked as a sock/vandal-only account. The IP has been firmly warned by Fram, and that should be sufficient. [[User:YechielMan|Yechiel]][[User talk:YechielMan|<span style="color:green">Man</span>]] 08:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

<br>

<br>

It isn't me. Must be one of my cronies who were around me while I was vandalising your page.<br>

Go ahead and block [[User:Bradlow idiot|Bradlow idiot]] but don't mark it against my account.

[[User:Charlie.somerville|Charlie.somerville]] 03:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

;Conclusions

==Merge with La Tache==

I took a closer look, and I believe that Charlie is innocent. A friendly word of advice to Charlie: it's not a good idea to edit other people's userpages without their permission to write dirty jokes. Even though you reverted it without a fuss, you should not have done it in the first place.

*'''Support''' [[User:FlagSteward|FlagSteward]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked Charlie's editing pattern in the contribution log. He tends to make a few edits in a day, then disappear for two or three weeks, then return for a few more edits. His last edit had been on June 12. Then he returns on June 26, makes three ordinary edits as if nothing happened, and comes to defend himself in this case.

*'''Oppose''' [[User:217.191.239.236|217.191.239.236]] 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bradlow idiot came along on June 22 and made a throwaway edit to revert to the last vandalism version by Charlie. In order to do that, he needed to be a sockpuppet of ''someone'' - newbies don't know how to navigate page history and revert on their first edit - but that doesn't establish ''whom'' he is impersonating. It could be someone else.

*'''Oppose''' [[User:Dancingredshoes|Dancingredshoes]] 18:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to me that Charlie would vandalize as a joke, ''revert his own vandalism'', apologize to [[User:AAA!]] on his talk page, and come back ten days later to revert to the vandalism version. It's totally irrational on many levels.

Charlie, I'm willing to give you a free pass on this as long as you behave yourself and avoid vandalizing pages, even if it's just a joke (unless you wish to fool around in the [[WP:SANDBOX]]. I suppose we could do a checkuser, but I don't think it's necessary.

{Disclosure: I am YechielMan above. I changed my usernaeme.) [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ^{[[User talk:Shalom|Hello]]} 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:The friend explanation actually makes sense here, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt this time around, given that Charlie.somerville has been editing constructively. Charlie, if you just want a page to screw around with, you can create a subpage in your userspace (such as [[User:Charlie.somerville/sandbox]]) and do whatever test edits you like to it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small>^{[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]}</small> 00:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This can make sense actually. You might not know, but me and Charlie know each other in person, and we also go to the same school. I saw Charlie on Wikipedia, and he had the vandalised diff on a separate notepad document (this was before he apologized to me, by the way). It is possible that he may have given that to his friends, and they created accounts, edited the page, and replaced it with the vandalised edit that was on the doc. So it's possible that they could be [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]] or even just [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]. Hope that shined some light on that.

And Charlie, I'd like to let you know that I'm not doing this for revenge; I'm doing it because you broke some of Wikipedia's rules, such as [[WP:VAND|this]], [[WP:NPA|this]], and possibly [[WP:SOCK|this]]; and it alerted my suspicions since those edits on my page were practically the same ones you made. Heck, if it was someone in Canada who did the exact same thing on my user page, I'd still have taken the same measures that I took against you. If I wanted revenge, I would've talked to you in person or something similar, and not get Wikipedia involved (because there's no point to do it on Wikipedia when we can simply do it in person). Hope there are no hard feelings between us. --'''[[User:AAA!|<span style="color:red">AAA!</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:AAA!|<span style="color:green">AAAA</span>]])</small> 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

----

</div>

<!-- DO NOT EDIT THE "----" NOR THE </div> KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE. REMEMBER TO SIGN! USING FOUR TILDES -->