User talk:Vianello/Archives/2016/February

Declaring my account 100% functionable
I really appreciate you taking the time out of your day to assist me - truthfully I didn't think anyone was going to. Because of you I can now make edits without being called a sock puppet by everyone who happens to disagree with my edit(s)C-3PO, HCR (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)}}
 * Just please bear in mind that the User:UnbiasedVictory account will need to remain unused, or if you do use it, you will want to make it clear up-front that you're using both accounts. Sorry for the little scuffle of confusion, but I think/hope everything is straightened out at this point. - Vianello (Talk) 07:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory
got an email saying Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory/Archive is back and was told you know what is going on. No clue what this person is asking me...I think they believe i am an admin...I cant unblock them..but they said you did ...I see no activity at the page above. I am not sure if the email I got was from UnbiasedVictory or someone complaining about him--Moxy (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Let me clarify a bit. Basically, UnbiasedVictory, as you can see on their talk page, was unblocked quite a while ago. They started a new account. I mistakenly thought UnbiasedVictory was still blocked, and thus blocked that account, which I then un-blocked when I realized my error. Probably, something in this process tripped some page monitoring that caused it to notify you. I hope that clarifies things. If you still have lingering questions please ask. - Vianello (Talk) 07:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, on a second look, I may have this somewhat confused. I'm going to ask for clarification just to nail this down real quick. - Vianello (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While it's technically true that UV was unblocked in Dec 2014, UnbiasedVictory was then globally blocked by a steward in March 2015 and has been ever since - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/UnbiasedVictory --Noren (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha. Gotcha. Thanks, I will go ahead and rectify that. - Vianello (Talk) 08:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Vianello
There is a widespread lies that is being disseminated by various sources about SANDF mission in CAR under the wiki page named " list of wars involving South Africa". South Africa's mission in CAR was not in any way to fight rebels or stop them from toppling the government of that country. Our mission started in 2007 where we were tasked to upgrade the capabilities of CAR troops through training in accordance with the MOU signed by two countries. Various media seeks to tarnish the name of South Africa by intentionally spreading propaganda that South African troops tried to stop Seleka rebels from proceeding to the Bangui to the president's palace and as well had business interests to protect in that country. That is a green lie, the SA base was just on the way to the city from the Airport and rebels decided to attack and SANDF repelled the attack which cost us 13 soldiers and heavy casualty on the part of insurgents. The South African mission was noncombatant and cannot be judged as a defeat because we had no intention to fight since it was not part of our agreement to stop the coup. If our mission was combatant, atleast we could have deployed with Air force loaded with heavy weaponry coupled with gunships and fighter jets. We withdrew since the government was toppled and thus was impossible to continue with our mission of training CAR troops. I will provide credible sources to prove my claims from one noble writer of war stories titled "Battle in Bangui" by Helmoed. The writer consulted credible sources other than those who are spreading lies. Chukwuike (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And rather than taking this straight to the discussion page, you run straight to an administrator? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's okay to ask an admin for input. But, mine, in this case, was to provide reliable sources for changes. Hopefully this ends there. - Vianello (Talk) 06:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...while edit warring and ignoring the talk page? I addressed the point Chukwuike makes here weeks ago on the relevant talk page. Had this been dealt with the proper way by both sides, the dispute would have been solved in a civilized manner. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of implying that edit warring or ignoring the talk page should take place. It was my impression these edits were facing reversion to begin with because they were entirely unsourced (and probably representative of a personal POV), and my hope that, if this user begins pursuing these edits again at all, they at least bring some kind of reliable source to the table. If your intent is to chide me for not chiding them for these other behaviors, I apologize. Those would have been salient points to bring up, and will remain so if they continue to edit in a combative manner, with or without reliable sources. My primary goal was to clarify to this user in a succinct manner why it appeared to me their edits were facing (and, in my opinion, should face) reversion. If they should resume pushing these without discussion again, WP:ANEW would be a good avenue to pursue. - Vianello (Talk) 07:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My post was entirely directed to Chukwuike, and my criticism was in no way directed towards you - as far as I know, you're not even involved in the dispute. Apologies for the confusion. Hopefully, we'll solve this content dispute by direct rather than indirect communication. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! Sorry, I misinterpreted based on the post placement and consequently misread you completely. I'm really tripping all over myself this evening. Anyway, my hope is the same as yours. I'm going to turn in before I mix up anything else tonight. - Vianello (Talk) 08:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Rationale for block
What is your rationale for resetting the block progression back to a token block for this purely disruptive editor? The day after tomorrow he'll be away again laughing. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a rationale so much as overlooking how far the previous block progression had advanced, actually. I'll rectify that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. - Vianello (Talk) 09:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with some promo accounts
I came across two accounts, and, both created this week, that appear to be sockpuppets (overlap of purpose; overlap of timeline; very similar user pages) that are here solely to promote certain Singapore hotels. Characteristic edits include:


 * Naumi Hotel: created by Crux; added to by Ahmad.


 * Crux removed a number of hotels from List of hotels in Singapore while describing the removal as: "Removed schools that are included in this list."


 * Surya jhunjhnuwala: a page about the founder of Naumi Hospitality. (The page was created by Crux; Ahmad had a draft in his sandbox which he blanked after I mentioned that it showed he was probably socking through Crux.)


 * Ahmed uploaded three Naumi-related images (all supposedly made by him) to Commons.

Is this against policy? I'm honestly not sure. I'm uncomfortable reverting Crux's possibly-useful changes to other articles; there's just enough support for Naumi Hotel that it might be article-worthy; and I'm not clear on whether the Commons activity is forbidden. I'm sorry to dump this on you, but I'm not sure where else to put it, and I don't want to overstep. Thank you! —  Rebbing    talk   05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! Well, you needn't revert. If you want to suggest it be looked into, WP:SPI is the place to take suspicions of sockpuppetry. If you should decide you wanted to move forward with that I'd be glad to answer any questions. - Vianello (Talk) 07:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. At this point, I see no need to pursue sockpuppet investigation if the underlying behavior isn't a serious problem, but, if I change my mind, I'll know where to go. Again, thanks. —  Rebbing    talk   08:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi and  I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, and am editing and adding content across different profiles and companies, starting with what I am knowledgeable about and interested in. and I are not affiliated nor here solely to promote certain Singapore hotels. Let me know if you need more clarification? Not here to spam or advertise...please don't delete me! =D Crux83 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mean to antagonize you, especially if you are, as you say, merely adding what you know. I have nothing against you, and I'm all for new people writing about the things that interest them.


 * However, I find your explanation difficult to square with your history: nearly every edit you've made adds or creates promotional material related to the Small Luxury Hotels brand, its owner, its hotels, or removes its competitors from lists. And by "promotional," I mean that I'm concerned that a lot of what you're adding is focused on touting the SLH brand or selling tourists on specific SLH hotels (not to mention the presumable SEO benefits) rather than providing neutral information on locations, history, or anything else.


 * As for Ahmad, I find it interesting that he has access to SLH properties and personnel and designed the logo used by Naumi hotels. (Trivia: the camera used to take his hotel room photograph, a Phase One's P25, cost about $30,000 (USD) new.)


 * —  Rebbing    talk   08:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Vianello
It is really so sa§d that the encyclopedia that you worked so hard to create has now been reduced to a machine of propaganda. I just don't know how on earth would we believe authors who have never interviewed any of us and come to the conclusion that our battle in Bangui was to save the CAR from falling in the arms of rebels. That is the propaganda that is spread by one of your trusted editors by the name of Mikrobølgeovn. This man does not even live in South Africa and does not even know where Johannesburg is. This man is not even in military yet he is parading as if he is Mr Know-it-all. I wonder who will really believe this kind of dishonest man and his sources for that matter. Go and read the work of Helmoed through his book titled "Battle in Bangui: The untold stories" and you will know the whole truth and not propaganda that is being spread by the so called Mikrobølgeovn and his sources which have never even talked to one of the Seleka rebels nor SANDF members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukwuike (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have information from alternative sources to provide as contrast, so long as those sources fit WP:Reliability criteria, feel free to bring them up on the talk page of the relevant article and obtain consensus (see: WP: Consensus) for a change or addition to the article. As an administrator, my role is only to check adherence to policy, not make ultimate decisions about what the truth of reality is. Convincing me makes no difference one way or the other. - Vianello (Talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please do provide alternative sources. So far, all you've been doing is removing sources (which all claim the SANDF mission aimed at saving Bozizé). If Helmoed disproves this, I'll be the first to back down. As you correctly point out, I don't live in South Africa (although I do know where Johannesburg is), nor do I claim to be an expert on the subject. If you had discussed with me rather than just edit warring, perhaps we would have solved this weeks ago. Come to think of it, the Battle of Bangui should probably have its own article - perhaps Helmoed would be a good place to start? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)