User talk:Richwales/Archives/2014-05

217.118.95.109

Hi Rich. How are you? I hope everything is well. FYI this is one sock IP out of a group of three dynamic IPs. I think the master is this user. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the three IP's are almost certainly the same person. This might be someone attempting to confuse us — or it could be a newbie who isn't even noticing that he's getting a different IP address every time he edits, and who might not even realize that people are trying to engage him on talk pages he's not aware of anyway. IMO, the best we can do is to try to get him to talk to us — and if he simply won't, at least no one can say we didn't try. If this happens again, possible actions could include blocks (maybe an IP range block), semi-protection of the article, or "pending revision" protection. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already left a message to Liallis who appears behind this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I overlooked that reference in your original post. I'm not sure I see enough of a connection between Liallis and the IP's, though. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I can open a formal SPI but I tried to give the user a chance to avoid it. 217.118.95.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has few edits but all are coincident with Liallis's. It also originates in Russia and Liallis writes in Russian. The quacking is rather strong and there is also more evidence. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what (if anything) he says. An SPI might be necessary to make it all clear to others. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you Rich. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It got worse since yesterday, so I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liallis. Just fyi. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight again!

Hello Rich,

This user is back to his disruptive and vandalising editing. He was blocked for it but he continues to do the same as he seems he learned no lesson from it. Now he is vandalising the articles of the members of the Georgian noble family of House of Mukhrani which is noble and non-dynastic branch of the Bagrationi dynasty. He is removing the important details out of the articles and vandalises them as he did in the past. He was warned in the past many times but he still continues so. Please do everything possible to avoid Wikipedia by his disruptive editing on the articles of the Georgian nobility or royalty as I feel it will lead to an edit war again. In the past no result was made concerning this user and his behaviour and I hope your involvement would tell this user to stop his vandalising and disruptive editing, at least on the Georgian royal or noble families. Jaqeli (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked repeatedly and at length for edit-warring, you've seen Jaqeli's m.o before: to accuse others of imposing a POV, while he's imposing one. On the issue of his attempting to minimise WP references to the House of Mukhrani as dynastic princes, here's what he was told by his self-adopted mentor. Jaqeli and I disagree about the dynasticity of the Mukhrani in Georgia, which is why instead of substituting "dynast" for "nobleman" as I think it should be, I've compromised, restoring NPOV by simply omitting "nobleman" and leaving "Georgian" -- a term on which we both agree. The fact that "Mukhranbatoni" is standardly translated in English as "Prince of Mukhrani" offends his demotion that family as part of his efforts to have Wikipedia reflect his open advocacy for another dynasty. FactStraight (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

He has just removed the sourced information here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Please take some action for stoping his behaviour. Jaqeli (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: "Prince of Mukhrani" shouldn't be repeated with every mention, and there's no need for it in the bolded name. Also, calling them "a Georgian" is a bit silly: We don't have articles on people just because they're Georgian, or even because they're in the Mukhrani line. It needs to be a Georgian something – prince, noble, whatever. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there is a dispute over the use of "noble" vs "dynast", I propose that neither be used. "Georgian" is as much a noun as an adjective, and one can certainly say that someone is a Briton, an American, a Frenchman, etc. What makes this family notable is that they were the Princes of Mukhrani, a branch of the royal Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia. But Jaqeli wants their membership in the dynasty downplayed (to be consistent with his objections to their current claim to the Georgian throne: "noble" is being used here to imply "non-royal") while I consider their dynasticity integral to their notability, and exclusion thereof POV. I support efforts to write around the conflict -- but you can't ignore it by saying "Don't use the relevant title" and "describe them based on what they're notable for" when that is the very issue in dispute. FactStraight (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)