Misplaced Pages

User talk:Alarbus: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:23, 12 December 2011 editAlarbus (talk | contribs)7,569 edits →Thanks for a thorough response and invitation: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 20:16, 12 December 2011 edit undoRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators28,295 edits →Please don't inflame things: new sectionNext edit →
Line 79: Line 79:


: Hi. I've done maybe 1500 navbox templates per ]. Others have done a lot more. Over the next few months I expect the majority of templates to be fixed up and people will find the navboxes far easier to update and that pages load faster because the new approach does not require the servers to do as much work generating the pages. This may be slight, but it will be on most of millions of articles, so from the site's perspective, it will be a huge reduction of the load on the servers. Ignore the junk above. It was all bad faith and the blocking admin isn't an admin anymore and has actually requested (and gotten) a block of his own. ] (]) 19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) : Hi. I've done maybe 1500 navbox templates per ]. Others have done a lot more. Over the next few months I expect the majority of templates to be fixed up and people will find the navboxes far easier to update and that pages load faster because the new approach does not require the servers to do as much work generating the pages. This may be slight, but it will be on most of millions of articles, so from the site's perspective, it will be a huge reduction of the load on the servers. Ignore the junk above. It was all bad faith and the blocking admin isn't an admin anymore and has actually requested (and gotten) a block of his own. ] (]) 19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== Please don't inflame things ==

Alarbus, as you are probably aware, I spoke out in favour of reversing your recent block, as it was apparent to me that you were not the editor who made changes to the Van Gogh template. However, given the firestorm related to your interactions with editors in the Van Gogh topic area (particularly in the past), . Even assuming the best of faith, it is hard to see this as anything other than deliberately inflammatory and provocative. Please do not repeat this behaviour. ] (]) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:16, 12 December 2011

November 2011

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Titania, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

That wasn't vandalism. I'm putting it back. Alarbus (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alarbus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already told you that IP is not me.

Decline reason:

That's a side issue. You were found in another checkuser to have used two accounts deceptively. Your querulous and tendentious behavior not only here but leading up to the original SPI argues against letting you back into the community for now. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are clearly using multiple accounts in a deceptive way. The IP happened to run into a dispute about template colors with an editor that you were in a similar dispute with less than a week ago. I block the IP and you log on the first time today and go straight to the IPs talkpage, simulating a conversation with the IP. This is classic deceptive use of multiple accounts, with the sharpening circumstance that you were clearly going willfully after harrassing specific editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional evidence here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus/Archive
and here: Special:Contributions/186.73.132.154·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any "evidence" — just you looking like you're too involved. Alarbus (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll let the reviewing admin be the judge of that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
How about you say off this page? You're not welcome here. Alarbus (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Or alternatively I could revoke your talkpage access - that miht also solve the problem? I have requested a block review at ANI - perhaps someone comes and saves you shortly. Don't hold your breath though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. It will make it funnier. It's not me, so I've no worries. Alarbus (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Your bad faith is showing. It's not me. Alarbus (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You have worked hard to earn it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What? I'm supposed to be uncivil? I'm laughing about this. You and your friends are full of bad faith. Alarbus (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The reviewing admin may also wish to take into account the user contributions for 186.73.132.154 on 10 December 2011, starting at 02:57 (UTC), since looking at Alarbus' user contributions for the same time shows him editing concurrently with the IP. I would have hoped that such an obvious check should have rung alarm bells with the blocking admin who apparently based the block on the timing of edits. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, a checkuser was run on this, and the 186 IP was shown to be unrelated to Alarbus. See the current case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Alarbus. — HelloAnnyong 13:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alarbus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not that IP. I don't know who it is. I'm not in Panama, am nowhere near there, and never have been (closest is Oaxaca, but that was decades ago) The other accounts blocked last week, were "non-problematic", as Maunus said in his initial ANI request for a block review.
When the dispute with Truthkeeper88, Modernist, Ceoil, and Maunus occurred last week, I walk away from the Hemingway Debacle. It was something like a thousand edits ago. It was Modernist that assumed the IP was me, and Truthkeeper88 and Maunus assumed bad faith, too. Now I have a smear in my block log, which was the intent here.

Accept reason:

Given that there is no clear consensus for this block (either here or at ANI), that Alarbus has been cleared of socking with the IP by checkuser evidence, that there appears to be nothing wrong with his edits on templates, and that the blocking admin has agreed that another admin can unblock, I'm employing WP:AGF and WP:BOLD and unblocking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, an admin with more sense. Thanks. Alarbus (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alarbus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please actually perform the unblock? Seems to have not adhered. I'd appreciate a refutation of prior block's edit summary, too.

Accept reason:

Hopefully I've done this correctly. I don't do this a lot. :) If you are still autoblocked, please let me know, and I'll dig about to remind myself what to do about it. Moonriddengirl 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am getting an autoblock, now. It's offering a {{unblock-auto}} to use, which I'm not going to as it includes my IP. Someone needs to rethink that. People need to rethink a lot of things on this site. Alarbus (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have now cleared the autoblock (#3738955) which Moonriddengirl accidentally forgot. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That worked. Thank you. Alarbus (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There must have been some technical error, then, Boing. If you look in the block log, you're not there at all. As for me, mine is less forgetting than not remembering how! I was just reading up on it. Thanks for cleaning up after me, Reaper. --Moonriddengirl 18:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That's because I cleared the autoblock on your IP—your account was not blocked directly. The actual log entry looks like this: 18:25, 12 December 2011 Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) unblocked #3738955. You can see it in the log of my blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I was commenting on Boing's unblock that didn't stick. MediaWiki is buggy. It's all fixed, now. Alarbus (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a thorough response and invitation

You invited me to fix something of interest to me and provided me a script to make it easy to do. Thanks for the time you took to do this. What you told me is still on my mind but I am busy just now and cannot get to it immediately. I am very interested in what you have suggested and I intend to give a good run at doing what you suggested, but I just wanted to check in with some feedback saying so in the meantime. Thank you for your attention - I will report back later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've done maybe 1500 navbox templates per WP:HLIST. Others have done a lot more. Over the next few months I expect the majority of templates to be fixed up and people will find the navboxes far easier to update and that pages load faster because the new approach does not require the servers to do as much work generating the pages. This may be slight, but it will be on most of millions of articles, so from the site's perspective, it will be a huge reduction of the load on the servers. Ignore the junk above. It was all bad faith and the blocking admin isn't an admin anymore and has actually requested (and gotten) a block of his own. Alarbus (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't inflame things

Alarbus, as you are probably aware, I spoke out in favour of reversing your recent block, as it was apparent to me that you were not the editor who made changes to the Van Gogh template. However, given the firestorm related to your interactions with editors in the Van Gogh topic area (particularly in the past), this is not an appropriate first edit after your unblock. Even assuming the best of faith, it is hard to see this as anything other than deliberately inflammatory and provocative. Please do not repeat this behaviour. Risker (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)