User talk:Lar/Archive 1

I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

---

This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from the start of my activities on Meta through about 1 August 2007. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is (the first) part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.

My archived talk Archive 1 — start through about 1 Aug 2007 Archive 2 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Nov 2007 Archive 3 — about 1 Nov 2007 through about 1 Feb 2008 Archive 4 — about 1 Feb 2008 through about 1 May 2008 Archive 5 — not set up yet

---

Boring

Could you spice it up some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) .

Why yes I could! Thanks for asking. Was there anything else? Lar 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

The best to you and yours

Bastique 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Elections

Hello, sorry, of course I voted in the wrong section. I'm going to correct that. Many thanks. Bests, --10caart 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates

Thank you, it was a copy+paste problem ;) --Slade ♠ 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Closure

Thanks for the information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

your vote

Hello, you said on Essjay

Essjay needs access here, whether he's active or not. An exception should be made in his case,

I have no idea what you meant as "needs access". And I think you gave no reasoning about the reason "an exception should be made". Could you provide us the basis of your idea at that page? Thanks. --Aphaia 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition. It was a bitter end but you generalized the reason as "because of the other roles they hold". It is not clear for me however what you think in details and why you think it necessarily. Can you please argue the relevance to local previledges and meta adminship ... perhaps on the talk? Thanks. --Aphaia 06:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. perhaps not right away as it's not as pressing since I don't think we have any other "extraordinary cases" coming up next month (but I ought to check the calendar), but just as a thought starter, I'd argue that Angela or Anthere should have this access even if they never did anything with it, given their other roles. (oh and "needs access here"=="have the sysop bit turned on here") ++Lar: t/c 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Make a sense; I agree on the case of Board members, and I supposed once developers are better to have sysop access (they theoretically need no further access - they can do it on the shell). However your statement was not on those people who are involved into the Foundation matters or global community, but a person who have some access on the local project. That is why I cannot understand your reasoning, and your explanation about relevance between sysop access on meta and oversight/checkuser on a given local project will be helpful for further discussion. --Aphaia 06:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay had more authority than just on en:wp, he was a wikia employee, among a long list of other things. But I see your point, something concrete might be useful... I think a discussion somewhere (other than just on my talk page) around what special criteria are, (with a goal to getting consensus on them from others and maybe even modifying policy?) might be good (we both agree about board members being exempt, we both agree that someone that is say, just a sysop and a 'crat on a local project and nothing else anywhere else isn't "special" and shouldn't be exempt form activity requirements, and maybe we disagree on some others in the middle...)... getting more input might help solidify that. Where do you suggest? (perhaps Meta talk:Administrators/confirm, or perhaps somewhere wider is needed? Thoughts?) Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hiya, Lar. You've been promoted to checkuser on Commons. Please bear in mind Privacy Policy and its corollary, CheckUser policy when performing checks. Also, please subscribe to checkuser-l, and email checkuser-l-owner@wikipedia.org so that the listadmins know you're allowed on the mailing list. Happy editing! MaxSem 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

London weather

No problem - there was a bit of a "drive" on orphaned talk pages today. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism!

We mentioned this topic elsewhere but I thought it might be better to give you my thoghts here - it is a sort of meta issue and it is possible that others may be interested.

Examples of recent vandalism cross wiki over the past couple of weeks that I have seen.

1. I saw this one vandalise here [1] and then I switched to Books [2]. Not exciting but it does show cross wiki views are worthwhile (& I really don't see the point of warning them again on another wiki - they know what they are doing).
2. User:Nintendude & User:Nintendough. The first is here & Books (& other places I believe), the second is Books and not sure of other wikis. Ok I was alerted to this name by Az1568 (we work quite closely) and it happened while I was offline but both accounts were on same IP, what are the odds that that is the case here and elsewhere (I've blocked the IP for a while on Books).
3. Requests_for_CheckUser_information#Meta This is the tip of the iceberg for this one. <ramble>When I started on Books there was a spate of "On Wheels/Mumfum" vandalisim, it was the reason I self nom'd for admin - fed up with dealing with it with both hands tied, it is the reason I self nom'd for CU - one hand tied is still no fun!</ramble>. CUs on Books are happy to use Cu to find the underlying IP of these vandals and block it (bear in mind the limited duration of CU info). Probably doesn't stop it but it sure reduces it. In this last one the same IP was responsible for more than one attack on Books, it was the same IP here (unblocked) & I'm betting it was the same on on Species (they didn't seem interested). I'd be surprised if that was the limit of the vandalism.

This to me states some of what I see as the problem. This does not really refer to Wikipedia - there are enough vandal fighers there to deal with it and the SWMT do a great job on dealing with the little ones but I do feel there is more room to be pro active. From a books and slightly more general perspective Az & I exchange tips and notes and "heads up" type stuff which seems to work ok but I am certain that more active use of CU against vandalism would help (I am not referring to sockpupettry here - tho thinking about it the wrestling stuff, for example, has hit Books, Commons and Wikipedia to my knowledge so I consider that vandalism), All the best --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is it we need to do? The CU mailing list gives a way to correlate if mention is made there (but so far anyway it seems more concerned with technical matters, not that it couldn't be used that way), right? If there is a real need for faster action there's always IRC too, right? I think this is an interesting topic but am not sure what's needed exactly, or how to get buyin, as it's an example of a place where cross wiki coordination would be beneficial. Not sure that general problem has been solved... ++Lar: t/c 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Matrix

Hi there Lar! I just wanted to drop you a line to mention how much I like your Wiki Matrix. It's a great table for listing contact info and membership across Wikimedia projects. In fact, I like it so much that I actually made my own, based on your matrix. Hope this is OK, and if so, thanks in advance! If not, no big deal, just let me know. Cheers mate Gaillimh 22:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. in fact you might want to circle back in a bit I want to introduce another template to capture a few more of the common configs of URLs etc... Glad you found it of use as a good starting point but I have to credit Kylu for the original idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! Be sure to keep me updated; I'm looking forward to seeing what you trot out. Gaillimh 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to use this myself. What I wondered was whether it would be a good place to incorporate aspects of protecting identity? Just a thought. Thanks for the matrix idea anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried reading that protecting identity stuff and it made little sense to me so far. I thought just exchanging PGP keys would be better. (but I don't have one so ... : ) Note that I have had my identity verified by the foundation., see my en:wp user page for details. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

Forget the first bit of todays mail - just go here!. The rest would be good to know about. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Info

here on cosswiki vandals. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloot vandal

What is this vandal?? I saw a log entry about him on enwiki. Is this a new Willy on Wheels?? --Ralsurr 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Willy is a page move vandal. this fellow has a picture of a bottle being put in a very personal place which he calls a bloot and which he uploads and places into things. Fairly garden variety really, but does this cross wiki. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Link_templates

re: Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Link_templates

Your approach in this discussion is in serious need of modification. Please assume good faith and do not attack other editors as you did Pathoschild. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry youngster, but the fact is Pathoschild is hounding me across multiple wiki's and attacking nearly five MONTHS of my work, despite loosing several of votes on other sister sites, totally misrepresenting facts and so forth. Time after time I've had to stay up late (or totally skip sleeping one night) and defend a project which hasn't even been fully formed nor even annnounced because of her prejudices against templates.

• I doubt seriously that she also was so upset that she tossed and turned grinding and gnashing her teeth as I did so as to wake with an aching jaw all of Fri-Sat night until finally falling into an unrestful sleep somewhere about five in the morning. Then repeated that again the next night, and even this last one am still fuming, but at least managed to fall off after an hour or so. ANGER doesn't begin to express it, and as someone in their fifties, I can't afford that kind of impact on my health. It might be different if I were a student like you, but even then, I think not.

• One of the key things behind my TSP effort is the firm belief that all the wiki's have to stablize--that we're canibalistic, that we spend far too much time wasting a lot of people's time because busy-bodies nomeniate useful tools and disrespect or don't understand that each human has their own ways of relating to the world, own needs to mentally organized, and that others use of such tools should be tolerated even if we don't use them ourselves. She claims the link templates are "over complicated"... how complicated is it to deduce the use of a template if one can see the link result in the text? Duhhhhh!

• Five months of free time may seem like nothing at your age, but TIME IS THE ONLY CAPITAL people have and can give -- it's a very limited resource. Very very valuable. She's totally disrespecting mine, and either being dishonest (Templates written here or on the commons attributed to wikipedia, templates on a totally different topic, lumped in with TSP issues, which wasn't the topic at all on the commons village pump. I can go on and on...) or IS a total fuck up. And you want 'me' to turn the other cheek so she can shove yet another stick up my ass? I'm being abused here -- these templates aren't costing her anything whatever by existing on Seven thousand sites, nor do they cost the foundation much, if anything. A few kilobytes each of storage, most of them. The way the foundation keeps old records (history), the storage space is so trivial to be a total joke, and that's the only cost, until someone decides to shit on another's time like she's shitting on me.

• Linking things so people can find them--where's the F***ing harm?
  

• Writing documentation (A loathsome and tedious task! Boring at best!) so lay people can be empowered and use such is all a cost to US, as volunteer editors.
  

• Ditto the desire of putting together a manual. This helps people use their time more efficently and effectively for the benefit of the foundation, aids retention of people, etc. -- if she's a steward (And 'THAT' scares the HELL out of me) she ought to be aiding and abetting these goals with every ounce of strength--not hounding someone mercilessly across four or five sister projects.
  

• If a template is unused, it's one thing, but she belongs to a camp founded on ignorance of the realities of string processing and believes templates are bad--because she's too damn lazy to look one up if it's unfamiliar. So she thinks wikilinks (which are costly to people! Volunteers at that!) of sixty plus characters are best. Sorry-- that's disrespectful of MY TIME when a computer macro (template) can do the work in a few nanoseconds my big fat clumsy fingers shouldn't have do type the same thing over and over--when computers are real good at copying strings. Bottom line, I've never been comfortable with the exploitive attitudes of the foundation towards volunteers times, I've even traded a few emails with Jimbo on the topic.
  

• Yet we still have institutions which tolerate a few "Tuned In" people who happen to be a clique, or butt kissers who can totally discard the HOURS OF WORK and SACRAFICE (in many cases) people put in without A) having the respect of a mandantory email notification that something is up for deletion and B) having a quorum requirement in such decisions, and C) having a reasonable minimum consensus level requirement before deleting such efforts.

• If this sort of elitest ignorance is tolerable to you, may God bless -- but stay clear of me. I'll have nothing to do with a mentality that burns books, and blocks dissemination of information--worse, it's directly contrary to the mission of the foundation. And I certainly won't stand still for people abusing MY TIME! Hope that helps! // FrankB 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to change your approach. There isn't much more than I can say than that but you will be blocked here on Meta if you do not remain civil and collegial and work within the project rather than acting disruptively. You're assuming a lot of things that are not true. ++Lar: t/c 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's easy for you to say when you're not the one loosing the sleep due to the machinations. This is the third site where your buddy has cost me at least six or so hours of damage control. I'm supposed to like that? Did you see the little gem where he copied your words to the page? The person is playing a tune and you're dancing to it! // FrankB 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping reply here // FrankB 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex

I have set up the bot here, and it appears to work. You can now create Meta:Discussion index, or whatever you want to call it, following the instructions on User:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex. See an example on User talk:BryanBot/DiscussionIndex. Bryan 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

awesome, thanks Bryan!!! ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It works. Bryan 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Working well & useful. However Meta's heading levels are not the same as commons so, for example, in Meta:Requests for deletion the bot reports on edits to "Article" rather than the deletion request concerned? Not sure - important, not, fixable, worth it? Thanks anyway --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure.. would it be better to show individual articles in that area? Should I list the entry as ..#Article and set the HL one lower? Would that sort it or ? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried tweaking a few to next lower level to see what that does. Herby, if you fiddle, wait till the bot runs at least once first ok? So I can see the effect... ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia

Good morning, Lar. I am writing to let you know that I have read your comments on the English Wikipedia (at en:WP:ANI), and how you have considered giving me one last chance on the EnglishEfternamn account. That would be a great thing if at all possible because I was always hopeful that I wouldn't have to give that account up. I am letting you know that my past behaviour is by no means irredeemable, at it is for that reason that I sincerely tried to make the Kensington account at EN work. All I can say for now is that if you can find it in your heart to give me one and only one last chance to show my good intent towards this project, this type of good grace would be immensely appreciated. I really don't want to leave Wikipedia, and I could show everyone in a matter of one month that it pays to have me contributing. Thank you for your consideration.The Kensington Blonde T C 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We have a defacto informal policy about socks of blocked users... if we can't tell it's a sock, and it's not editing disruptively, it doesn't get blocked. Your KB ID got blocked because we could tell it was you, and or, it was editing disruptively. Perhaps some of both. I think wanting to put your past behind you and try again is commendable. But for it really to be successful, the community needs to be convinced that you understand why you got into trouble, and how you are going to avoid it in future. Perhaps you should spend some time writing up something that shows you do understand what the issues were, and how it is you are going to avoid letting them be issues again. Not the simple vandalism stuff, but the more insidious behaviour patterns that got you into trouble. I really thought you had turned things around after Dec/Jan and was surprised to find out that you were back in the soup. Why? What happened? Perhaps you should also try to identify all the things about you that rub people the wrong way and change them too... for example you were counseled not to use images in your signatures, but here you are on Meta, using one anyway. Why is that? You need to understand yourself well enough to know why you do things you were counseled not to, when you KNOW they will set people off. Another thing that would really help is to look deep within yourself and understand enough about yourself to really know why it is you felt it necessary to send so many harassing emails to Ryulong. I suspect that until you've made amends for that to him, he is going to be implacably opposed to unblocking you. And I can't really say I blame him. I don't know if that helps, I hope it does. Don't be in a rush here, hm... take some time and think about things. What I have outlined is not at all easy to do. And if you blow it, because you rushed, you'll have created more people who will never ever support unblocking you. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I should begin by stating that I thank you that you have even thought of hearing my perspective on things. By perspective, I am of course referring to my present one, as I am not attempting to make excuses for my past behaviour. I acknolwedge that it violated the rules, and again, I offer my humblest apologies. With that, I will answer the questions and address the issues you have brought up. I hope that my response adequately explains why this happened in the first place, and why this will never happen ever again.

1.The sockpuppet behaviour started out for no other reason than that I thought it was kind of funny. That's all I can really say. I am more than aware now that it was a clear violation of the rules and I am more than regretful about these actions. Believe me, I've never wished more at this point that I hadn't created those accounts, because if not, I would still have my EnglishEfternamn account intact. I know I've been my own worst enemy here. Truth be told, I didn't know CheckUser even existed at the time and was under the impression no one would find out. This does not mean I don't care about the progress of Wikipedia (but I know many of you may say it does), because I know how well disruption prevention works here, as I was a part of VandalProof and all. Simply put, I was only trying to have a good laugh. This is something I've not done again since I created the KB account and something I will never do again if I am re-instated as EE. What I was doing gets boring after just a short time and I am through with unproductive contributions.

2.What changed everything was when, while on Wikibreak, I discovered that my EnglishEfternamn account had been blocked. I was shocked and as soon as I requested an unblock on my talk page, the page was protected immediately by the administrator, Ryulong. I could see why he did this, but I felt at the time that the page was protected prematurely. I was so angry because this account had been registered for over one year, had a considerable amount of edits, had VandalProof membership, and was possibly bound for adminship (thought this would have taken a long time since I had a strong opposition at my Rfa). I tried to contact Voice of All and other checkuser members for help but I did not receive a response. I guess you could say that I held Ryulong responsible for what happened. I felt like his actions had basically ensured that my hard work of the past would be forgotten, even discredited while he, a user in very good standing, continues to build edits every day. and when he referred to my contributions as "trash" (though I think he was talking about the sock edits) via email, it made me so upset that I simply wanted to cause inconvenience for him. This is why I did all I could to continue flooding his inbox. I didn't seem to realise that the only one responsible for what happened was me and me alone. Had I just stayed on task while I was in good standing, I wouldn't have even had to type this explanation in the first place. Ryulong: if you are reading this, I want to let you know that I am very sorry. I know that you were only doing your job as an administrator and if you can forgive my actions I would be in a mood of immense appreciation.

3.As for the image in my sig, I used it because I was not aware that they were prohibited on the English Wikipedia. I thought they were discouraged, but still allowed. As soon as the subject was brought up, I removed it. The only reasons I kept the image in my sig on the Meta Wiki are because I don't edit here very often, and because I was told that images in sigs were allowed on other Wikimedia projects. I thought this project was one of them. I will remove the image in this sig immediately.

4.I have been asked to explain the psychology behind my behaviour. To start, what hurts me in my editing practices is my tendency to take it personally when my work is reverted. I often see this as a negation of my work on the grounds that it is "not good enough", and thus respond with a follow-up reversion. This is what got me into trouble in the early days of my editing activity. After being blocked for the third time, I began to realise that this approach was simply put, not worth it. I have found that the best course of action here on Wikipedia is to avoid content disputes at all costs. Consensus is usually effective in weeding out bad contributions anyway. The only way I can assure you, besides giving you my word, that this will never happen again would be to encourage you to review my contributions to see that I have gone out of my way to avoid edit conflicts since the creation of my KB account. This is my promise to the Wikipedia community, the benign approach I have attempted to convey in my KB account is the only approach to editing you will see from me for the rest of my editing days here.

In conclusion I ask that my EnglishEfternamn account be considered for unblocking, even if it is done so only under the strictest terms. Even if checkuser is used on me each week to ensure I am not creating socks (which you will only find again and again that such will no longer be the case), even if my contributions are watched daily. I will do what is required of me to prove my intentions to contribute productively, and if this request is given consideration, I will be infinitely thankful. I am more than hopeful that I may be given another chance, and will be more than eager to demonstrate that I will use my time here well. Thank you.The Kensington Blonde T C 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to think about in what you write. I've pointed here from the AN/I discussion so perhaps others will comment as well. I'd prefer to mull some of this over. There is no rush. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See w:User_talk:Ryulong#I.27m_a_softie... ... you are going to have to figure out how to get Ryulong to reconsider. You really got under his skin and it may take some time and effort. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot dialogue with him via the English Wikipedia, at least not easily as I am blocked. Where would you suggest I speak to him? Please tell him, if it isn't much trouble, that I will give him the highest degree of an apology he wishes. Even help him in his editing efforts in some way if he so requests. Anything to prove my intent to reform and regain editing abilities. I don't see why something cannot be worked out.The Kensington Blonde T C 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have no way of contacting him as of yet, because the E-mail feature on my account has been disabled. I'm not asserting that this wasn't done as a precaution, but you are basically the only one that can get a hold of him. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help, and I am convinced a resolution can be reached.The Kensington Blonde T C 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to harass him. I've already told him that you are sorry. I will forward one message for you... after that it is up to him whether he chooses to contact you or not. I suggest you really think hard about what you want that message to say, because you have to convince him that a dialog isn't just going to result in him getting upset and feeling harassed... I wouldn't just dash it off quickly... write it, sleep on it, maybe even share some of this with your real life friends and see what they have to say... then when you are happy, send it to me via my email link and I'll see that he gets it. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Give me a day or so, but you basically suggested I spend some time on this already.The Kensington Blonde T C 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the situation report at en:WP:ANI archived? This has not been resolved either way and it makes it a lot harder for me to get my messages accross.The Kensington Blonde T C 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuff gets archived there VERY fast if it doesn't get any new comments. Apparently no one had anything more to say so as it got to be a day or so old, the bot archived it. I am sorry I'm not sure what further to suggest at this point. I contacted and forwarded your message to Ryulong, it's up to him to decide what to do. I counsel patience. Wait a week or so and then I'll consider prodding him again but I am not going to want to be bugging him about this with high frequency. You can also make your case to the unblock-en-i mailing list. Make it calmly and respectfully, point to the various discussions, and ask that other administrators give it some consideration. Only do that once, though. so if you did already... not sure what to suggest. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Without Ryulong's say, I doubt they'll listen. I guess I'll just check back in a few days or so. Thanks for your help, and have a good weekend.The Kensington Blonde T C 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New evidence has come to light that you are still mailbombing people with torrents of emails, even AFTER you wrote Ryulong that you have realised it's a bad approach. In view of that I can no longer support a second chance. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What mailbombing?

All I can say at this time is that no such mailbombing took place. The administrators John and Ryulong are attempting to get me kicked off Wikipedia for good and they have admitted this to me. I can supply you, if you wish, with a screenshot of the email where John (aka Guinnog) admits he and Ryulong's goal was to make me look worse. He then continues by referring to me as a "dumb fucking idiot". Who is taking the bad approach here?The Kensington Blonde T C 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

John/Guinnog shared several different mails that had every indication of being from you, which were dated after your note to Ryulong. They don't reflect well on you. He indicated he had received a LOT more. I'm sorry, but at this time I am not going to take any further action to try to make your case. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I did no such thing. And I don't want the help of someone who is going to sit there and call me a liar. In short, go fuck yourself. I'm done with this shit.The Kensington Blonde T C 21:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for CheckUser information

A barnstar for this one!

You've done well there, rooting out a sockpuppet farm.... and as for that IP address, well, when I was sysop on the Akan Wikibooks, I blocked it for a fair bit, seeing as it claimed to be a shared IP.

Unfortunately I'm no longer a sysop there, so I can't extend the block.

However, that IP seemed to make positive contributions on mediawiki.org only, which is odd (see mw:Special:Contributions/84.45.219.185. Vandalising elsewhere, but not there. Seems odd.

Anyway, you've done well running that CheckUser. Keep the good work up!! --WiganRunnerEu 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! My first barnstar on Meta, I believe :) ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)