User talk:Drew R. Smith

Various warnings

This edit wasn't your finest: [1]

1. Don't make controversial edits to others' user pages.
2. Don't repeat a disputed edit. That's how edit wars start.
3. Don't use profanity in edit summaries. If you do, people will assume you are a vandal and rollback your edit.

I hope you take this advice to heart. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck... If it smells like Bullshit...Drew Smith What I've done 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew, you've already admitted elsewhere that you have intentionally been making disruptive edits to make a point. I would caution you that any such edits may result in a block. –xeno^talk 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally unrelated Xeno. Drew Smith What I've done 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, this isn't disruptive. Am I getting in the way of you writing articles?Drew Smith What I've done 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They may be unrelated, but are similar behaviour patterns. I would suggest you reflect on the reasons you became a contributor here and work towards continuing your constructive contributions. –xeno^talk 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I became an editor here because there was a flaw. I fixed it. Now I have found another flaw. I'm going to fix it.Drew Smith What I've done 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take the next 24 hours to reflect on your future as an editor here and whether you want it to be a positive or a negative one. –xeno^talk 13:25, 10 August 2009 (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).

Drew R. Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing disruptive. Please look through my contributions and you will find that I have made plenty of good contributions. I have been blocked because I placed a fact tag on a disputed fact. Per WP:SOAP, even Jimbo is not allowed to spread propaganda on his userpage. For those who don't know, a lie is considered propaganda.

Decline reason:

Users are allowed to describe themselves as they like on their own user pages, which are not articles and therefore do not require {{fact}} tags. You should have asked Jimbo on his Talk page to change it. You continued after warnings, which is disruptive. Insulting the blocking admin isn't going to get you unblocked either. I see no repentance sufficient to justify unblocking. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 10 August 2009 (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.

• Note to reviewing administrator: user was edit warring over a beaten-to-death point of contention, I also note that "founder" and "co-founder" are not mutually exclusive. If you feel that this block should be lifted, please feel free without further consult with me. –xeno^talk 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No edit war here. I only reverted twice.Drew Smith What I've done 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Not an entitlement. –xeno^talk 13:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So? Still not an edit war. I have no history of edit warring. I have no history of anything but good contributions. This block is definitely not your best Xeno. And if I recall correctly, you do have a history of bad blocks edits...Drew Smith What I've done 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your memory seems to fail you, along with your judgment. –xeno^talk 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[2] My memory fails me Xeno?Drew Smith What I've done 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for amending your comment to say "edits" instead of "blocks". I shall not respond to you on any further well-poisoning efforts, but I would remind you that one incident does not a history make. –xeno^talk 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. And I apologize for being a dick. I'm usually an all around nice guy, but being blocked for what seems like nothing really ruffles my feathers. Also, I'm not sure if the "thanks for changing your edit" above was sincere or sarcastic, but my memory failed me. I was under the impression that you made the block. Once I found the page, I realized I had made a mistake. I fixed it.Drew Smith What I've done 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was sincere, and apology accepted.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to edit war over minutia on Jimmy's page. It's a dead and buried horse. If you commit not to make further such edits, I will unblock. –xeno^talk 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Minutia? Not really. I have more sources than I have hair to back up the opposite of what jimbo is claiming. I do not see my actions as disruptive, but yes, I will agree not to edit jimbos userpage. The talk page however, is not off limits.Drew Smith What I've done 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. While you may not see it as such, I would advise against other similar edits elsewhere. –xeno^talk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I recieved one warning, singular. I have not edit warred. Please read WP:UP#NOT and WP:SOAP, and tell me that people can describe themselves however they want. And I did not insult Xeno, or at least didnt intend to. I merely pointed out a history.}}

Your trolling on Jimbo's talk page

Please stop it. He doesn't care to answer your accusations, so stop pestering him. →javért ^stargaze 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A leader should be available for comment on his past misdeeds. At least thats what we tell our admins. And I do not appreciate being called a troll. I have a long history of article creation and vandal fighting. Any more troll accusations and I will make a case against you at WP:WQA.Drew Smith What I've done 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You will be blocked for disruptive editing if you continue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? I am asking a question! I did not re-introduce text that Jimbo removed from his talk page. I did re-add text that Javert removed from his talkpage, however Javert has no right to remove my question from someone elses talk page. If you block me, there will be an arbcom case.Drew Smith What I've done 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As you were warned numerous times above, blocked for (but unblocked on the premise that you would stop), you decided to continue and thus I have blocked you for 1 week. You may appeal the block by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The block above was for "edit warring" (I still contest that it was) about a fact tag on Jimbo's userpage.

2) I have resorted to using the talkpage, as instructed.

3) I have not continued any action, thus your block is still lacking in a reason.

4) Rjd0060 and Javert have bothed engaged in removal of content, which is not allowed. The only exception to this rule is a user on his own userpage or user talk page.

1) No, I blocked you for disruptive editing. Not "edit warring".

2) Yes, and you're well aware (as he removed your other comments regarding the same issue) that he is uninterested and knowing full well that your comments would be continued to be removed.

3) You continued after your warnings earlier today, after your block, after I warned you. Refer to #1 for reiteration in response to your third point with regards to a block reason.

I think a one-week block length is generous based on your complete disregard to comments and blocking thus far. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, my first bock was "edit warring" on Jimbos user page. You claim I continued that action which I haven't. You also seem to think that I reintroduced text that Jimbo removed. I have not. I have asked a new question. When the new question was removed by someone other than Jimbo, I re-added it, as removal of content (other than from ones own userpage or user talk page) is against our policies.Drew Smith What I've done 03:59, 11 August 2009 (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).

Drew R. Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

based on the above

Decline reason:

You need to leave Jimbo alone. He has the same right to remove your comments from his talk page as anyone else. (Rjd and Javert merely removed what Jimbo has already indicated he does not want on his talk page) When the block expires, leave jimbo alone, and don't cause disruption by repeating what he has already declined to involve himself in. Prodego ^talk 04:05, 11 August 2009 (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 continued the same discussion that he removed. The only way I am unblocking you is if you agree not to edit jimbo's talk page, or attempt to communicate with him elsewhere (on Wikipedia). Prodego ^talk 04:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me! A leader who refuses to answer questions? Someone needs to fire that guy. But yes, I'll stay away from him.Drew Smith What I've done 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked then. Prodego ^talk 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* What part of 'leave jimbo alone' was not clear to you? An arbcom case about jimbo removing your comment, which a) involves jimbo, which was the thing you were supposed to not do after your second unblock b) repeats the behaviour that prompted the (first block) which was the provision of your first unblock, and c) as I have already explained, Jimbo, and every other editor, is free to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. So, I'll give you two choices here. 1) You remove the arbcom case which isn't going to go anywhere anyway - and I'd be happy to discuss this with you more via email (I'm Prodego@gmail.com) or 2) I remove it. Your choice. Prodego ^talk 04:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I said I would stop trying to contact Jimbo.
2. The Arbcom case is about Javert and Rjd0060's behaviour.
3. You can't remove the Arbcom case.Drew Smith What I've done 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can remove the arbcom case, but if you would rather they reject it, that works for me. Arbcom isn't going to accept it because they do not accept cases unless other methods of dispute resolution have been tried. Prodego ^talk 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No you cant. Only members of the ArbCom can remove cases.Drew Smith What I've done 04:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if you would like it looked at formally, go ahead. But it really is not in your best interests, because the case will be rejected. Prodego ^talk 04:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still going to try.Drew Smith What I've done 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Drew, waz-up? Prodego's letting you off pretty lightly ;) Please note that it's a wiki; I'm a bit inclined to go remove yon silly request. And I could; we can edit most anything as long as we're doing the right thing. I expect it gone pretty damn quick and you'll be lucky if you only get the week-long disruptive editing block reinstated. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (sock first class, and all that;)

Hi Jack, I know we haven't had the best runins in the past, but I have tried to be ammicable towards you. However, only Arbcom members are allowed to remove requests for arbitration. Also, what was your reference to Furthur about?Drew Smith What I've done 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point; the right thing to do is to remove it. Someone will, and they have clerks for shit like this. What you are doing is patently obvious disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which in your case is that you're miffed about the Vandalism Patrol. You started off a few months ago doing the talk-like-an-admin thing and when folks started to question stuff, as I did, you turned to a lot of inappropriate behaviors. It's all rather disruptive and you're about to get all sorted out. Oh, links to things like furthur are just to keep the silly pages worth reading; folks will be looking at all of this and the least I can do is provide a few smiles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Vandalism Patrol! Come off it! And I don't know what you're talking about with the "talk-like-an-admin" thing.Drew Smith What I've done 06:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...

I don't know where to begin... Perhaps I should start from the begining... July 5, 2009. My fiance left me (as my userpage has said for some time now) and I decided to take a wikibreak. I left, sorted out my life, got a job (at lowes for anyone who's interested), and read a few good books. I have not looked at wikipedia since that day. Now, the first time I log on in more than a month, and I find my talk page full of crap that I had nothing to do with.

Obviously some (or most) of you will see this as a cop out, but it is not. However, my account has been compromised. I am changing the password, and will attempt to figure out that cryptographic hash thing so this doesn't happen again.

I really don't know what to say. Either you will believe me or you won't. I am deeply disturbed by the events that have taken place under my name.Drew Smith What I've done 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You know that you have a current RfArb against me, Jimbo and, Rjd0060 right? →javért ^stargaze 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

methinks that was some other "Drew" ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I just saw that in "my" contribs". And apparently only arbcom members can close them... Best course of action?Drew Smith What I've done 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

methinks you had better get over there and make your own comment ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already did. ;) Drew Smith What I've done 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

methinks that if that doesn't work, you could try the "dog ate" it one ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm? Either your reference is lost on me, or more likely, you don't believe me. I assure you, I have been working my ass off this past month trying to learn the ropes at my new job. I haven't had time for nonsense like this. You'll see. Nothing but constructive edits will flow from these fingertips. Drew Smith What I've done 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi, Ryan has removed the request ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed.Drew Smith What I've done 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a CheckUser investigation be conducted to determine whether the hijacker can be identified and/or is using other accounts. —David Levy 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess. I don't know that much about it...Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for you to say that you agree to the CU. However, given the circumstances, you've described, it would be warranted anyway ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I agree to the checkuser.Drew Smith What I've done 11:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. It doesn't take too long and doesn't hurt. much. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I'm tough. I can handle it. ;) Drew Smith What I've done 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

relax. breathe normally. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't feel a thing, did you? ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<--hm... I just found this WP:GOTHACKED... Maybe a new account with links to the old one might be prudent? Or should I just wait for the checkuser results?Drew Smith What I've done 12:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news, Drew! You probably don't need a new account, since in the considered judgement of 2 different CU's, your account wasn't actually hacked. Apparently it was you acting silly all along. That's a relief, I'm sure. Except that if you don't knock it off going forward (you've been warned multiple times now), you may well find yourself blocked soon enough. Without a "my dog ate my homework"/"my little brother did it" defense available to you either. So keep that in mind. Spare us the excuses and stories about how your life is hard, and just don't act up. Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it a place to blow off steam. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We're not kidding. You've been given lots of friendly advice, it's time for some more stern talk. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I just indefinitely blocked the account. Jehochman ^Talk 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's part of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. You're not blocked at the moment ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point.Drew Smith What I've done 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my use of humour offended you. However, do put yourself in my shoes. Best, →javért ^stargaze 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I said many times that I understand why you don't believe me. I wasn't offended, but the jokes are getting old.Drew Smith What I've done 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Results of a CU by me are on my talk page. Versageek may have a comment as well, she ran one too. Reproduced for convenience:

This user edits from one IP. Although there is evidence that this user edits logged out, and edits from another userID (sock), already blocked, I find no evidence that any other IP was used to log in as this user. That means it is extremely unlikely that the account was hacked by someone not in the same physical location as this user, and further, extremely unlikely that the user's claim that someone else was making the recent edits he is denying responsibility for is true, unless he switches to "my little brother did it" style explanation.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what to tell you. I haven't done any of this. I'm sure no one will believe me now, and can't say that I blame them, but I maintain that I didn't make the edits. I have undone, to the best of my ability, the malicious edits, and my future behavior will prove that I had nothing to do with this.Drew Smith What I've done 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on? Everytime I open the edit window I get logged out!Drew Smith What I've done 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indef block

Enough games have been played with this account. I have blocked it indefinitely. Please do not remove this block without consulting me first. The block reasons are disruptive editing, WP:POINT, and block evasion. See Lar's comments for additional evidence.[3] Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 11 August 2009 (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).

Drew R. Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What disruptive editing!? I haven't been able to get a word in edgewise! I get logged out everytime I try to make an edit!Drew Smith What I've done 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea whats going on anymore. Everytime I try to make an edit, I get logged out. That particular problem seems to be fixed, but now I'm blocked for disruptive editing. What disruptive editing?

Decline reason:

Two CheckUser investigations were conducted, and both showed that your account has not been compromised. Furthermore, you just revealed your IP address, which was used to commit numerous acts of vandalism. This includes several edits to User:Jimbo Wales in June (long before your wikibreak), which happen to directly relate to the allegations against Jimbo made via your account. —David Levy 12:47/13:08, 11 August 2009 (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.

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).

Drew R. Smith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been here long enough to know that "someone else did it" isn't going to work, even if that is the case. I have already stated that edits like that will not occur again, and take responsibility for the edits, as I did not maintain adequate security of my account. I would like to return to constructive editing, even if that means going through mentoring, or waiting for a block to expire. Indef seems a bit long to wait though.

Decline reason:

Nope, this is not the first time you have made similar edits. Evidence forthcoming. Viridae^Talk 13:01, 11 August 2009 (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.

For the record, I didn't mean to edit war. I dont mind the otherstuff being there, I just wanted mine there as well.Drew Smith What I've done 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jehochman beat me to restoring your latest unblock request. →javért ^stargaze 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced this block to a week as a gesture of good faith. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman. Again, I apologize for the malicious edits, but maintain that I did not make them. Once I return from my voluntold wikibreak you'll see from my contributions that I only intend to improve the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I'll be doing an investigation of my own, within my home...Drew Smith What I've done 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so now you are moving on to the "my little brother did it" defense? —David Levy 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Drew has not even acknowledged that he performed the disruptive edits and fabricated the claim that his account was hijacked. —David Levy 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)David, you seem to be kicking a man when he's down. I understand why you removed my rollbacker priveliges, but as I am blocked, I can't really use them can I? When I come back, I intended to do anti vandal work, as I had done before my wikibreak. Loss of those priveliges will make it much more tiresome. Besides, I have never misused the rollbacker priveliges. Had a misunderstanding awhile back, but never intentional misuse.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) David, that really isn't helping. Please accept good faith as Jehochman has done. I really do intend to improve the encyclopedia, as I have always done.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also David, I am checking to see if the "my roomate did it" defence is even viable. I am editing from a shared computer. I never said that is what happened, but that I am going to investigate.Drew Smith What I've done 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We need a CU on Drew's dog, methinks ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew, you're going to have a much easier time just coming clean than trying out various excuses. (Noting the obvious similarities between word choice, style, lack of space between end-of-comment and signature, etc.) between you and this individual who has been editing from your account. –xeno^talk 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Drew, you're just adding insult to injury at this point. —David Levy 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record; I've had a fair amount of dialogue with Drew — over several months and with, ah, both "Drews". There is only one voice here. I'm not buying any of it. There is also the blocked sock Larry mentions, the anon edits, and whatever the other 'shoe' is that Viridae's referring to at User talk:Lar#Email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On one hand I'm glad to see that you realized that ArbCom wasn't the way to go. On the other hand, it is quite disappointing to see that you are still claiming innocence. If you're not familiar with CheckUser perhaps you'd be interested in knowing that users with CheckUser access can determine whether or not multiple edits were made from not only the same IP address, but the same computer. I'll just echo what everybody else is already telling you; enough with the excuses. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not going to own up to something I did not do. And xeno, I'm not trying out different excuses. I maintain that I did not make the edits. If I find out that someone within my home has made the edits, I will make no mention of it here, and let the matter die peacefully. I will still investigate for my own benefit. Also, I alternate between putting a space between my comment and sig, and leaving it out. If it bothers you so much, I'll add a space to the sig subpage once my block expires. Jack, please leave the jokes elsewhere. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and you are bordering on incivility. I understand that you don't believe me. But m:don't be a dick about it.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew: I would like to state, as a mostly uninvolved observer, that it is VERY hard for us to believe the story about your account being compromised based on the technical evidence the CheckUsers have presented, and from the previous behavior on your account and your IP AND your sock. Though we can't peer through your computer and actually see who is sitting at it, for all intents and purposes, it seems like all the edits in question are coming from the same person. Regardless, it looks like the community is going to give you another chance. All I can say is: Don't screw it up. Keep your account secure. Keep your edits in line. I can promise you that any further misbehavior not only will result in a indefinite block, but a thread at WP:AN requesting consensus for a community ban. You have another chance. Don't betray our trust, because this is it. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've stated before that I don't intend to screw it up. I also completely understand why no one believes me. I'm not really asking anyone to, just asking for a chance to prove myself (which I will get in about a week it appears). I really am sorry for the edits that have happened in my absence. Can we let it go now?Drew Smith What I've done 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The "in my absence" part is downright insulting. Frankly, I don't understand why the community would give you another chance while you continue to make such claims.

If you truly wish to regain people's trust, please come clean. The longer you delay this, the more your credibility will suffer. —David Levy 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note Viridae's "Evidence forthcoming", above. Folks need to get on the same page, which takes time. See the bottoms of Larry's and Jonathan's pages, too.

Drew, no one's buying the excuses. It's getting late for me, and it's ridiculously late for you. For others, it's day and they're busy with other things. All will sort soon enough. I've stricken the dog bit for you. G'night, Jack Merridew 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best if everyone just stopped editing this page for 6.5 days? I don't see anything constructive emerging, on either side, and everything that can be said to Drew seems to have been said. I've no horse in this race, so giving me the last word wouldn't be conceding anyone a point. Y'all can signify acceptance of this idea by... not posting to this page for 6.5 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll find no such acceptance from me. Drew is actively attempting to deceive the community, and this should not be ignored.

Despite my obvious distaste for Drew's conduct, I'm actually trying to help him (and I believe that others are as well). If he truly wishes to "prove [him]self" an asset to the encyclopedia, it's in his best interests to drop the charade and issue a sincere apology. Otherwise, this cloud will hang over him for the foreseeable future (whether we mention it or not). —David Levy 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but as a courtesy to the user, who is currently restricted to this page only, would you please refrain from making the same arguments that have already been stated, and wait for further evidence. My own feeling is that the editor has shown capacity for constructive involvment, and also capacity for socking and disruption. It is better to encourage them to go in a good direction (with a fixed term block) than to encourage more socking and disruption (with an indefinite block). If my leniency is met with more socking and disruption, then there is no downside to an indefinite block, and that's what will follow. Hopefully we won't go in that direction. Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue Drew's guilt. (The facts speak for themselves.) I'm urging Drew to do what's best for everyone involved (including himself).

I'm entirely willing to give Drew another chance, and that's precisely what I'm doing. But unless and until he decides to be honest with the community, it's my opinion that he's blowing that chance, and I see no reason to trust him. (I assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)

Having said that, I share your hope that Drew can "go in a good direction." He just isn't off to a strong start. —David Levy 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

I mentioned evidence, and wrote this up last night.

In late June I blocked an account called Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs), shortly afterwards Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs) requested that an autoblock that was affecting him, caused by my block of LSR, be lifted. He claimed to not have any knowledge of LSR. I lifted the autoblock, but contacted a CU and asked them to check for any similarities. Turns out that LSR and Drew shared a common (static) IP. Drew is(was?) on two geographically co-located ISPs, both with static IPs, LSR was on one of those. Both Drew, LSR and the underlying common IP shared the same browser/OS configurations. The IP and LSR shared all of Drews, but Drew had more besides. The IP had been blocked in the past for the same reasons LSR had been blocked. Indications are that Drew, LSR and the IP are one and the same. At the time, I decided that being caught would probobly have been enough to deter drew from repeating that behaviour so let it lie. Circumstantially, but I think it bears mentioning, until recently Drew had a quote on his talk page, (old version, at the top: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drew_R._Smith&oldid=297678634 ) which is attributed to someone on Citizendium. On the basis of repeated disruption and and abusive sockpuppetry I believe Drew should remain blocked indefinitely. Viridae^Talk 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the least swayed by the users' intent to 'investigate in his household' to explain away all of this, but find Jehochman's comments above at 20:27 convincing. I would say let the week block in place run its course and hope the user chooses the path of constructiveness. –xeno^talk 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No that's fair enough, as I said, I wrote that up last night, sent it to Lar to check the details and then went to bed. I should add though, that since that last CU, the 1 drew only was onhas dropped off, and now there is a single shared static IP for LSR and Drew (and the IP has been similarly blocked as mentioned above) Viridae^Talk 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, Viridae. I can hope (and I'll assume) that now, since there are at least 6 administrators and 3 checkusers watching Drew, that we won't have any more issues once the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IP crap was me. Never heard of LSR. Yes, I am a contributor at citizendium. My user page is here. I assume that will not be a factor in whether I stay or leave wikipedia. As I have stated before, I intend to be constructive.Drew Smith What I've done 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, don't believe you and I doubt anyone else does either. Same MO/hobby horse as the IP and the edits which caused the most recent brouhaha. Viridae^Talk 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew: Your denial (denying that you are LSR) is not credible, unless you're using the "my little brother did it" defense. The technical correlation is just too strong. That account probably should be tagged as a confirmed sock of yours. ... that Viridae didn't do it back then was just because he was cutting you a break in hopes you'd straighten up and fly right. Stop with the denials, and do just that. Straighten up and fly right. Don't just tell us you will, do it. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me?

Thanks for offering me adoption now what happens next? Metrolink-Boy (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh. Nothing. I'm currently blocked for a week. I would suggest you find a new adopter, as having me adopt you may be more of a stain on your record than anything else. If you still want me to adopt you when I am unblocked, I am willing. Again, I think it would be in your best interests to find someone else...Drew Smith What I've done 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heard there were some vandals about

Even though I'm bocked, so I can't use huggle, and somehow lupins anti vandal tool is missing from my monobook.js, I can still go through recent changes and do my part. Here is a list of things I've found that may need reverting/tagging

Possible Speedy delete

• A.L. Williams-New article. IMO hasn't established notability.
• Hikitia-New Article. Simple google search proves the claim to notabiliy wrong.

Revert Vandalism

• HAI‎; 06:35 . . (-1,169) . . 68.44.175.30 (talk) (←Replaced content with 'OMG HAI WIKI!!! WUT UP?') (Tag: blanking)
• Touch typing‎; 06:34 . . (-9,229) . . 68.44.175.30 (talk) (←Replaced content with 'OMG HAI WIKI!!!') (Tag: blanking)
• Short Stack‎; 06:14 . . (-10,399) . . 218.215.52.123 (talk) (←Replaced content with 'FAGS') (Tag: blanking)
• Disc jockey‎; 05:43 . . (-36,151) . . 67.175.90.97 (talk) (←Replaced content with 'A dj is the best a person could get.') (Tag: blanking)