While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Drew has been a constructive editor to the project in the past who has run into some problems recently, specifically allegations of operating socks used for vandalism, a dubious "hack" into his account which resulted in some deeply troubling behavior regarding Jimbo's user pages and, most recently, a pretty serious accusation that he forged an image he uploaded as a source, which took hard work by several image experts to finally discover. Please see his talk page for discussion/details about all of these issues. Through all of this, Drew maintains his innocence until cornered with undeniable truth, then conveniently admits wrongdoing and asks that we ignore his bad behavior and allow him to continue... only to have another problem inevitably pop up a few weeks later. Drew has been mostly stoic through all of this, and while admitting his mistakes when he has no other choice, the admissions and requests for forgiveness ring hollow. We have tried to reach out to him, tried to find ways to bring him back into the fold while also assuaging our reasonable concerns about his trustworthiness. So far, I'm not sure these efforts will be successful. At this point, I find that my patience, and perhaps that of the community, has become exhausted. So I bring forth a proposal to implement a community ban against Drew R. Smith, in the interest of preventing further disruption to the project. I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. (I would ask that others who have been involved in this to provide additional diffs, comments and opinions. I would also ask that Drew's currently imposed block be temporarily lifted with the caveat that he only be allowed to comment here in his own defense.)

Respectfully submitted, with a heavy heart, to the community at large, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bare faced liar, cannot be trusted. Support the ban. (but note that the faked image used as a source was done so to win an argument in the ref desk, not in the mainspace, but that doesn't excuse the conduct) Viridae^Talk 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be necessary. I have blocked for a month, and any further violations after that can result in a unilateral indefinite block by whatever admin happens along. The "ban" will happen when no one cares to unblock him. Tan | 39 01:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, really, I'm not sure I am satisfied with a month-long block. Judging from the way Drew is responding to us at his talk page, I'm not sure a month is really going to do anything. I think a more permanent action is necessary, IMO. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably. But starting a thread for a community ban is declaring war when the local police could have mopped up the problem. Tan | 39 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan is right here. Let's not jump the gun on this one. He's under a 1 month block, let him serve it out. If he botches up again, it'll be indefinate, and if no one unblocks him (unlikely that anyone would) we can consider it a fait accompli. No need to drag this out in this forum. --Jayron32 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone install a transclusion template for Drew to comment here? FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will, of course, accept the consensus of the community. No intention to declare war. However, having seen the drama this user has caused recently, and (if you will excuse me) the coddling and additional chances he has gotten from well-intentioned editors in the past, it's gotten to a point where I think the community-at-large needs to be aware and have a say. I warned him after his last block that any further misbehavior would likely drive me here. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I support a ban of Drew. This is unbelievable behavior. Let's just recap:

• user asks a question at the Reference Desk
• Drew replies, but makes a mistake
• Other editors question his reply
• Drew (perhaps honestly believe this to be the the case) cites a book as a source
• Other editors question that source, noting their copies disagree

At this point, the obvious option is to check your book, if you haven't already. It appears Drew did this. But, instead of saying "Oops, you are right, I must have misremembered", Drew claims his book is different, and then forges an image to 'prove' it. The thought of someone going to such lengths to prevent admitting a simple mistake where there will be no consequences for being wrong is stunning. This is not something that someone who can collaborate with other editors would ever even think about doing. Working together sometimes means being wrong. Prodego ^talk 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban. For now, at least. Drew has made some unwise decisions - but I feel that this may have been more a case of him failing to understand the old 'when you're in a hole, stop digging' adage than a deliberate and malicious attempt to introduce misinformation to the 'pedia. He states as much himself. He faked an image to back up RefDesk claims that he didn't think that anyone would bother investigating - then instead of coming clean when editors took an interest, he attempted to talk his way out of it so as not to get into trouble (small lies spiralling out of control and all that). In my book, that makes him someone who screwed up and ended up looking silly in front of his peers - but I don't think that he's beyond redemption. When his month-long block expires, there will be no shortage of admins and experienced users keeping an eye on his every move. The slightest infraction or whiff of wrong-doing and I can't really see him being given another chance here. Let Tan's block run its course, then give Drew the chance to prove himself as a productive editor - or give him just enough rope to hang himself, depending on the breaks. I will unblock Drew temporarily to allow him to contribute to this thread, unless anyone objects to my doing so... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• In my Defence - This is, as kurt says, lies spiralling out of control. I got blocked for the disruptions awhile back, promised not to screw up again, and went on my way. Since then, I have done nothing but help, mostly doing antivandalism stuff. I was in the process of getting a fresh start namechange. Out of the blue, stevebaker APL finds a skeleton in the closet and questions me about it. I made the knee-jerk response of defending myself and the image. Later on, I realised I had screwed up again and come clean. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It was one month ago (to the day + 2 hours). It took a long time to discover it was fake, and you were defending the image's validity as recently as 2 days ago. Hardly a skeleton. Prodego ^talk 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • And the sockpuppetry, the IP vandalism/sockpuppetry and the disruption from you accoutn which you claim is a mysterious hacker? Viridae^Talk 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've admitted to everything I have done. Jehochman AGF'd on the main account disruption when he unblocked me, and since then I have only been constructive. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The "knee jerk" defense of your forged image is most troubling, and occurred AFTER your most recent block/warning. A simple "okay, I screwed up" would've been fine, but you dragged it out until several people had spent a LOT of time digging up proof that you had forged the image. You "came clean" only when forced to do so. This really does NOT give me great confidence in your trustworthiness or willingness to participate in this community in an honest manner. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• This, on top of the "hacked account" and the sockpuppet used for vandalism... there comes a point where I can no longer assume good faith, and can no longer assume you are here to be a productive member of the community. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support community ban. Looking at the whole length of Drew Smith's talk page produces one major disappointment after another. It is hard to accept any assurances now about future behavior. Deception is hard to forgive, and it should be hard. I have no objection to Drew working with Durova offline on images intended for use in Wikipedia, so long as he remains banned from Wikipedia himself. I note that Drew has a Commons account which he might be able to use for image work even while excluded from Wikipedia proper. If he did some work at Commons, his ban might be reviewed in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do? I just tried to log on at commons and none of the passwords I've ever used work there. I'm going to create a new account since I can't log onto the old one. - Drew Smith What I've done 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Creating new accounts in the midst of a discussion such as this is not wise. Jack Merridew 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Commons:User:Ender The Xenocide methinks ;) Jack Merridew 11:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • m:Special:CentralAuth suggests that Drew R. Smith isn't unified, but was created automatically, which is confusing. But I'm not sure I see what the problem is, if you are logged in at en:wp and go to commons your account gets created... as long as you don't fiddle with the password you should be fine, no need for a new account. A rename request at Commons:Changing username to usurp Drew R. from your new ID should get things sorted I would think. That's assuming you can behave yourself at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'm the one who "Dug up" the Darwin image issue. I didn't go back to it intending to prosecute anyone, I just approached it as an outstanding mystery. The Mystery of Drew's misprinted book had bugged me, and when something reminded me of it, I decided to go back and try again to solve the mystery, primarily for my own curiosity. When I'd figured it out to my satisfaction I mentioned it to Steve and Kurt because I knew they had also put a good amount of effort into it and I thought it might be bugging them as well. I didn't mean to start an inquisition. APL (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. Before initiating this discussion, Vicenarian posted a very generous rehabilitation proposal (an opportunity that few editors engaging in such misconduct would receive) on Drew's talk page, and Drew promptly and nonchalantly rejected the offer that he should have been grateful to accept. And just for good measure, he reiterated his insulting, overwhelmingly debunked claim that his account was compromised (yet another instance in which he wasted numerous users' time with a hoax intended to save face).
  Drew has made it abundantly clear that he thinks nothing of the continual disruption that he causes and isn't willing to change. Even now, he's arguing that his blatant lies from the past few days—which led to still more wasted time and effort—don't count because they served to reinforce an "old" deception from less than two months earlier (which he apparently believes to be grandfathered because it preceded his "final" warning).
  Enough is enough. —David Levy 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wasn't being intentionally ungrateful, I just didn't agree with both the block and the mentoring. Having both seemed like overkill. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Support community ban per Vicenarian and Prodego. While Drew may have been constructive in the past, his current behaviour does nothing but bring the project into disrepute. IP vandalism, sockpuppetry, and faking references to make himself look right; this behaviour is totally unacceptable. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact and Drew has given us many reasons to distrust him. Not the least of these is the "hacking" of his account. →javért ^breakaway 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • My current behaviour? Since my block expired I have been nothing but constructive! I have tried to prove that I am trying to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. While the forgery itself was unexcusable, defending myself really isn't much of a shocker. When confronted with damning evidence, any sane persons reaction is going to be to dispute it. I'm sorry I faked the photo, wasted peoples time and energy, and I regret my choice to continue the lie. If vicenarian is still willing, I won't oppose his/her first proposal to let the block run and then impose mentoring. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, the mature person would react by saying, "You're right, I made a mistake, I am sorry," instead of going on and on defending himself with lies until he was backed into a corner. Honesty and "mea culpa" go a long way, friend, especially if you actually MEAN it. And no, I held out my hand with a carrot and you bit it off, so I'm sorry if my assumption of good faith is out the window. I will leave it to the community to decide what to do here. I wash my hands of this entirely. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The checkuser evidence put forth by Lar on his page is damning, and the fact that he still hasn't completely owned up to what he's done is disappointing. The totality of his actions make me believe that this user is going to be causing more trouble in the future. AniMate^draw 04:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Vicenarian, I'm sorry if you saw my response to your "carrot" as "biting the hand that feeds", but I didn't mean it that way. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your apology. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban As Tan has stepped up here and blocked for one month (unblock for this thread is noted), I am content to trust the judgment of said admin. While the actions of Drew are certainly sanction worthy, a 30 day block does indeed have the effect of a 30 day ban from editing. Another long-standing editor (Durova) has offered to assist in educating Drew, and has a long history of bringing less than exemplary editors into conformity here. We claim to be a project that is open to anyone, and we need to be open to the fact that people make mistakes (a big one in this case). It's quite obvious that Drew would be on a very short leash upon his return, and I would hope that he will learn from this experience. I agree that it would be in Drew's best interests to drop ALL defensive mechanisms, with the understanding that many of us would try to explain themselves when faced with such deplorable actions. I think it behooves the project to stand behind the good faith efforts of our administrative corps, and not start dickering over points that can be addressed in the future. I support Tan's actions, and am comfortable with the sanctions currently in place, with the understanding that further action can be taken at a future date. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• For the record, I never disagreed with Tan's block, which was perfectly appropriate given the circumstances. I have brought the discussion here for the entire community to decide if Tan's block is enough or if further sanction is warranted. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Enough is enough. Drew is only vaguely penitent, has not acknowledged everything, and will be further trouble down the road if allowed. The failure to fess to the "my hacked account filed the AC case" and the other July-bullshit is of serious concern. Two CUs debunked that. Just last week he was using a spurious "Vandalism reversion dance"^diff defense of his reverting non-vandalism. He's not here for much more than game playing. And Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs); hmmm? Just post-block on his talk page he has spurned offers of mentorship with "ain't going to happen".^diff He claims to already know "pretty much everything ... that a mentor would be able to teach." Right. Mentorship is a gift that an experienced person offers and a foolish one snubs. Drew has pending requests to change his user name in order to 'start fresh'. Not-how-it-works. And the forgery? Appalling. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Have checked Drew's talk page. It seems he's long expended the community's good faith in him and his posts- including those in this thread - are not helping his cause. Can't be trusted to permanently reform when he's fouled up every opportunity to do so. If you've been constructive in the past, what made you go off the beaten track all of a sudden? --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Only if it will help end all this drama-queen banter and get everybody back to doing something more productive instead of wasting time and resources dealing with an attention-seeking editor. -- œ^™ 05:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - unless user agrees to mentorship, gets a serious, good mentor, and is straightened around, user doesn't belong here any more. But user doesn't want that, and good faith exhausted, so cut losses, move on. ++Lar: t/c 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Jack Merridew is wrong about the "vandalism reversion dance", as can be seen both from reading the whole of the user talk page discussion at User talk:Drew R. Smith#August 2009 and reading the edit history of Damien Duff, the page that was being edited at the time. Unless one is going to suggest that Bubba hotep (diff diff), Dancarney (diff), Spiderone (diff diff diff), 213.86.244.72 (diff), Morry32 (diff), and Fernandosmission (diff) are all also sockpuppets of Drew R. Smith, since they were all making the same reversions, both before and after Drew R. Smith was making them, the more obvious and straightforward explanation is that this was one editor, 90.192.190.110/90.193.153.214, being reverted by multiple other editors for adding subtle POV-pushing and sports-team-boosterism to an article.

  As third opinions, we should be careful about the accusations made by some long-time involved editors here, and independently check them ourselves rather than rushing to judgement taking the accusations on their faces. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well this isn't a vandalism revert (end the others are about the same). Looks to me like a whole lot of poor editing and edit warring over it. He was cautioned about the editwarring and made his "VRD" comment. I called it out because it gets to Drew's view of dealing with vandalism as a game (or dance;). Anyway, that incident is small beer ;) There's lots more here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral about an immediate medium-term block, Strong Support for mentoring and a clear statement any further disruption of any kind will result in an unconditional, immediate and permanent block. I'm somewhat convinced that he genuinely wants to reform - and I think we can agree that he's done enough useful work around here to be of some value to the community. We simply have to make it crystal clear that this is quite utterly his last chance EVER. For those who don't believe that he genuinely wants to reform, well, don't sweat it - he's outta here if he makes even one more mistake. For those who believe he can do better - a crystal clear statement that his next mistake will (without debate or doubt) be the last time he ever edits Wikipedia in his entire life - should help to keep Drew thinking of the consequences each and every time he edits. As for a shorter term block/enforced Wikibreak...Meh...he either means it or he doesn't...I don't think a month off will make a difference either way...but on the other hand, there have been serious infractions, and perhaps it sends the wrong message to leave that unpunished. I don't really care either way. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Per Ched. Per Durova. He's willing to admit his mistakes. He came clean (even though it did take him forever). He is willing to make reparations. That is the sort of behavior we should encourage on the part of the people who screw up like this. One mistake should not lead to an indefinite ban, especially when the user is willing to make amends. NW (Talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

One mistake? Lol. Tan | 39 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's multiple events, but all that stem from the original mistake and the lying to cover that up. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you really researched this issue, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course. Tan | 39 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)-

(edit conflict) Well, what did I miss? This is my understanding of events: He misremembered something when answering a ref desk question. When people questioned him about it, he photoshopped a fake quote. When others questioned him about it, he lied and said his edition must be different and dug himself into a deeper hole, because he wanted to save face. He claimed his account had been hacked, similarly, to save face. Tons of people wasted time trying to track down the book. Checkusers wasted time verifying his story. Did I miss anything else major (besides the sockpuppetry, which seems to be unrelated to this case?) NW (Talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a ban discussion, I don't think we should focus on one incident, but rather should assess the editor as a whole. So, the sockpuppetry is, in fact, relevant. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With all due respect, NW, don't forget the CheckUser-verified sockpuppetry, the vandalism under his IP, the filing of a bogus ArbCom case while his account was "compromised"... this constitutes more than one mistake. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the pointy MFD nom of WP:SERVICE and (arguably) DRV after the demise of the the Vandalism Patrol... But at this point that's just icing on the cake. –xeno^talk 15:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - falsifying data on Wikipedia is kind of like cheating on your spouse. It may not be a dealbreaker for everyone, but it destroys any trust you had earned. Given that our readers must be able to trust information on Wikipedia (for variable values of 'trust'), we cannot tolerate at any time anyone who demonstrably falsifies data to, and this is the sad part, win an argument that isn't even in articlespace. If he is willing to do that, whether or not he has done so in articlespace is immaterial; we cannot trust that he hasn't. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, support block. Tan had this just about right from the beginning, IMHO. In the absence of any indication that Drew actually thinks this recent refusal to admit a mistake was wrong, and in light of previous history, I think the 1 month block is a good idea, for Drew as well as Wikipedia. It gives everyone, from Drew to Durova to the rest of us, time to think calmly about what we want to happen in 1 month plus 1 day, instead of making hasty decisions. If he wants to work with Durova, it can be done on Commons, but he needs to get away from this place for a while. If anything untoward happens after the block expires, he's going to get indef blocked anyway, and no one will be lobbying for an unblock, so we'd have a de facto ban. Why go thru the trouble of this discussion, and trying to tease a consensus out of it, when it will be solved with minimal effort on its own? Except for my support of continuing the 1 month block, I agree with almost everything else SteveBaker says at User talk:Drew R. Smith#Modest Proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban. Falsification of data is bad enough to warrant some sanction, persisting in it when caught is worse, persisting in it when the horse is already glue to the point of disrupting other matters and continuing a campaign of denial at that level can only result in a loss of a sense of AGF for anyone who deals with him, leading to disruption and double-checking of anything he does. It does not benefit anyone to have the community shoulder that burden longer. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support It has long been my sense that the net effect on the project of Drew's presence is negative; he seems a nice guy, one whose deep knowledge of, for one, fish is surely a benefit, but his poor judgment prevents him from contributing constructively, a problem that is not readily overcome. Although I am not, contra Tan infra, convinced that this discussion will not produce a consensus for a ban, I endorse LHvU's proposal as a reasonable alternative should the firmer result not command the support of the community. Joe (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if and only if Drew fess up and be held fully accountabilty for his mistakes. I would support this ban if it is discovered that Drew didn't admit everything, or he continued the disruptive behaviour. Although Wikipedia is not therapy, I don't think banning members who go through hard times is the way to show an open editing environment. The original thread that started this was very personal and I believe him when he says things just spiraled out of control. A Wikibreak is the appropriate course of action if one is unable to edit due to personal matters, and weighing Drew's positive contributions against this mess and he's a net asset to the project. I also support the compromise listed below as it seems well thought out. striking, as I didn't see Durova's objection. If one volunteers it is one thing, but editors shouldn't be forced into caring for others. ThemFromSpace 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, until he takes responsibility for his actions, and seeks out the guidance of a mentor. I would have supported LessHeard vanU's compromise, but Durova has made it clear that they will not be monitoring Drew Smith. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise I propose the community ban takes effect upon the next sanction, after this one expires, should there be one. Durova is willing to keep an eye on the individual, and there are those who oppose the community ban for other reasons, so there is unlikely to be the absolute consensus for the ban now, but there is recognition that the next block will be indefinite with little chance of it being lifted. I suggest we formally declare that the next sanction constitutes a ban, therefore requiring consensus to have it removed rather than the de facto indef block/ban, and move on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support this, assuming the one month block is reinstated when this discussion is closed. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• As do I, same provision. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• I support this also, per Lar and Vicenarian. →javért ^breakaway 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support LHvU's compromise with Vicenarian's addendum. I think that Drew has really abused the community's trust, and am leaning more towards an outright ban, but I'm willing to give him one more chance. If someone finds another skeleton in the closet from before the recent kerfuffle, that should also be considered grounds for imposing the ban, unless Drew admits to it before he's caught.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - it took an expert quite some time to find the deception here, and Drew only came clean about all the misbehaviour when forced to by overwhelming evidence. We have absolutely no good reason (and don't bleat AGF at me; we are past that point) to believe there has been no other falsification. → ROUX ₪ 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You seem to be indicating that the editor may have engaged in other falsifications, and saying he shouldn't be banned because of that? Maybe you could clarify a little, please? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's opposing the compromise, not the ban. Tan | 39 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• What tan said. Bad indenting. → ROUX ₪ 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Undeclared falsification? If Drew R. Smith admits to same during the current block then we go forward as I propose. If they do not admit to such matters by the time the block ends and is later found out, then they are blocked and community banned per my proposal. This provides both the necessary incentive in coming clean now, and the consequences of hiding it should they not. As I don't know the editor I can still AGF that they intend to be a positive contributor from now on, and this is the manner in which to ensure it. Of course, they may indeed be no further reason for concerns.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• (three ECs later) Roux: That's a good point. (I'm not opposed to an outright ban. I just support this as well as a way to not founder on lack of consensus, mind you) If I may suggest, perhaps require Drew to come clean now, during the time period of the 1 month block, and anything found afterwards, whether done before or after the block, would be one of the things triggering expiration of Drew's final chance? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's what LHvU said too. :) ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• My issue is the falsification. He didn't actually come clean; he was proven to have done it and then admitted to it after overwhelming evidence was presented. Without going through every single contrib one by one and checking them, there is zero chance he will come clean on anything else (if there is anything else), and there is no reason to believe that it won't happen again in the future unless there is someone checking each and every contribution. Neither of those things is practical, so as a very simple matter of expediency he must be permanently disallowed from editing because none of his contributions can be trusted in any way. → ROUX ₪ 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a reasonable proposal. Endorse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly object. At no time have I offered to 'keep an eye' on this person. LessHeard van U ought to have consulted before attempting to speak on my behalf. He misstates the matter. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• When you said "FWIW, Drew and I are talking right now about image restoration (planning a collaborative FP drive for an Edouard Manet illustration of Edgar Allen Poe). Drew's got talent and may be coachable to be productive an area where the site's most seasoned eyes will be upon his uploads", above, I suspect some read that as possibly an offer to work with the editor and maybe even "keep an eye" on them but given a reread I can see how that's not what it says. Please forgive LHvU for having misconstrued you. I'm sure it was an honest mistake without intent to offend. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• To Lar: in light of this it's a bit of a challenge to extend that much good faith. Durova³⁰⁶ 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I obviously misinterpreted your earlier comments. Such misunderstandings often have regrettable consequences, so I am glad to quickly note I had not intended to cast aspersions upon another editors choice of language. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, was under the apparently mistaken impression that Durova was amenable to something like that, given the repeated offers to help and the lemonade analogy. Like Lar said, "oops..." Tan | 39 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• An offer to coach technical aspects image restoration is nothing like an offer of general mentorship. LessHeard vanU might at least have left a notice at my user talk, to mention what he was proposing. Let's hope the confusion LessHeard caused doesn't further harm Drew's chances of retaining editing rights. Once this restoration is finished we might have a tricky time nominating it for featured picture. In future, please consult in advance before putting an offer on the table. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Durova. It looks like this won't work unless another editor decides to keep an eye on the editor. hmwitht 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• @ Durova (after several edit conflicts) Perhaps I took liberties with your comment here as well - if so, I apologize. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Would it be a fair evaluation to say that you are willing to work with Drew in the future, and perhaps teach him some of the proper methods he should be adhering to here? Hopefully that wouldn't leave you feeling "responsible" or burdened with the task of overseeing his edits in the future. — Ched :  ?  21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - clarified who the comment was in response to after several edit conflicts. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Due to existing commitments such as leading the technical and creative team for the media portion of the upcoming Tropenmuseum exhibit, the commitment you request would be impossible. I would certainly be willing to correspond with a mentor if one steps forward. What Drew has is trainable talent. If he focuses on developing that and putting it to good use, wonderful. Durova³⁰⁶ 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to step on toes here, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, I am certainly an involved admin here. But I think it's clear that we aren't going to have a solid ban endorsement, and any "compromise" won't have much official binding authority. What's going to happen is that Drew is going to serve his month, as there certainly isn't consensus to unblock him. After that, I'm pretty sure that there is enough spotlight that people will be checking contributions, references, etc - and if there's another violation of any kind, he'll get unilaterally indeffed, which will be a de facto ban endorsed by the community as no one will unblock him. None of this needs to be official, and I think the business-as-usual approach to this is the best. Technically, he'll be getting another chance, which should mollify the lenient editors here. There's no need to waste time on him any longer; let's revisit when/if we need to. Who knows if he'll even return. while I don't want to be the one to do it, someone should resolve/archive this. Tan | 39 20:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a lack of consensus regarding a ban. Sure, take with a grain of salt given that I support the ban, but I only see four people opposing it. → ROUX ₪ 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, plus Durova, and probably some others found at Drew's talk page who haven't chimed in here yet. Plus, endorsement of The Compromise makes everything even more fuzzy. I mostly support a ban, too, Roux... I'm just trying to take the route that wastes the least editor time and ends up with pretty much the same outcome, whatever happens. Tan | 39 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, I think a lot more editor time will be wasted if he is allowed back in a month--people will have to be checking all his contribs. If he's not here, no contribs to check. Frankly I am astonished that a discussion even occurred. Falsifying data, abusive sockpuppetry.. what exactly does it take to get banned anymore? → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't have to go through an "admin abuse" merry-go-terror every time I boldly indeffed a net-negative user, I'd do it a lot more often. Tan | 39 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is that. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems many of those opposing the ban were in support of you, Tan, and your original sanction. However, it sounds like you're leaning towards a ban yourself. If I may be so bold, I think there's consensus for a ban, and I would like to ask an uninvolved editor to close this thread and enact the sanction. Enough is enough Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, this has been bugging me since this whole sorry thing started the morning after (depending on time zone differences) the "false" Drew filed an RFArb against several editors (including Jimbo) – a "new" Drew turned up and said the account was compromised before, but "it's OK now, I've regained control". Don't we block indefinitely for that fact alone, pending cast-iron proof to the contrary and if there's any doubt remaining, the account stays blocked and they start a new one to be on the safe side? Why didn't that happen in the first place? How do we know the person who has defended this massive photo fraud is the "real" Drew. How do we know another Drew won't turn up saying "You won't believe this... I've just logged in for the first time in 6 months and..." Isn't it time to say, "Will the real Drew Smith, please stand up"? – B.hotep •talk• 21:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. You have a point. If, well, lying kept him from getting banned once, ... . Or, alternately, if he is in such weak control of his account that it could happen once, there's no really good reason to believe that whoever hacked his account once might not be able to hack it again and create similar havoc. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. The account(s) should be indeffed on that basis alone. However, he should not be allowed to create a new account, due to the other issues.

It is also worth noting that those supporting LHVU's compromise were (apparently) doing so on the basis of Durova's involvement. Since she is not involved, there seems to be little/no support for that. → ROUX ₪ 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just FYI, I don't think a single administrator on his talk page believed his "account hacked" or "my brother/housemate/dog did it" excuses, so that certainly isn't what kept him being indef'd at the time. –xeno^talk 22:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why wasn't he indeffed for the abusive sockpuppetry? Seriously, what does it actually take these days? Death threats against Jimbo? → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, he was extended a "last chance". –xeno^talk 22:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which based on my reading, was approximately the eleventy-billionth 'last' chance extended. At what point will we learn? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. → ROUX ₪ 22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse ban-can't be trusted to be a good editor, even with a mentor. I don't think time alone with a mentor is going to give hime an ethical compass to follow, and this seems to be what he's lacking.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support of the ban per Heironymous Rowe. No mentoring, no time restraint or anything of the like is likely to change this user. He's finished here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Full Disclosure I created an account at commons the other day. Today I went to en.wp and found myself logged on as the name I used at commons. I have accidentaly created a sock, User:Ender The Xenocide. Any sanctions that happen to me need to happen to that account as well. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How does one accidentally create a secondary account? (I note this was today, 8/25). Tan | 39 00:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my creation of an account at commons automatically created one here. After creating the account at commons and uploading some pics I went to sleep. This morning the account was logged in here at WP. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This thread is going on and on and off into tangents. Any possible way we can resolve it to everyone's satisfaction? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You might consider posting a new thread at the bottom of the noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin (who has not participated here) to close the discussion and state the result. I think the opinions are in general not satisfied with only a one-month block but there are several votes against a complete ban. I do not see any consensus for an immediate unblock. If the closer were to read all the votes and average all the desired block lengths, it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been closed... but what's the resolution? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Tony Sidaway closed the thread, and asserted that consensus exists for the ban. Per EdJ's comment, I think he's previously uninvolved, although he's not an admin. I guess if no one reverts that close, it was a good call, and some admin needs to go reblock. If someone does revert it, then off we go again? That's my guess. Me, I think it's as good a call as any. After factoring out the mentorship proposal I think we're left with many more folk feeling a ban was justified than those feeling that one last last last chance needed to be given. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So... since you are an admin... volunteering? Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one else wants to do it, I suppose. I'm pretty involved though. Might make sense to wait a few minutes/hours to see if the close sticks. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was damned if I did, damned if I didn't I guess. If I continued lying, I would've been blocked. I tell the truth, I'm blocked. And there was one final warning, one. I don't know why people keep saying things like "last last last warning". - Drew Smith What I've done 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or you could jus not lie and sock in the first place... Viridae^Talk 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What a shocking concept. → ROUX ₪ 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see consensus for the ban, though I do support it. I've blocked the admitted sock, but certainly don't feel comfortable enacting the ban. AniMate^draw 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked for thirty days; if someone feels like being bold and indeffing, have at it. I've kinda had enough of this for now. Tan | 39 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This really shouldn't have been archived. Strong support for a ban, maybe, but what ban? Prodego ^talk 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I see strong support, but I also see reasonable objections. We're in no hurry here, as Drew wasn't editing outside of this thread. I agree with Tan's move, for the record. It seems the least controversial, though I'd like to see Drew under the watchful eye of a mentor if the block length isn't changed. AniMate^draw 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's where we are, and here's where I'd like to close this out. We can't come to an agreement on a ban/indef block, but we are in agreement a substantial block is in order. Consequently, Drew has been reblocked for 30 days. I'd like to again point to my proposal. Drew is encouraged to admit any past transgressions that have not come to light on his talk page, if there are any. Upon the expiration of his block, I (and I'm sure a number of others) will be watching Drew very closely. He is strongly encouraged to seek mentorship, but that is up to him. I think we have consensus that ANY further misbehavior will result in an indef block/de facto community ban, and any past misbehavior we find that has not been admitted to will have a similar result. However, until the expiration of the 30 day block, if there are no objections, I consider this matter closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)