Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Randomator (talk | contribs)
131 edits
←Replaced content with 'no u'
Line 1: Line 1:
no u
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
{{Template:Active editnotice}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 200
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
<!--

----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------

-->
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>

== Remove hardblocks from ALL London schools and libraries ==

If you're getting persistent vandalism from IPs, I expect that you'll block them. What I don't expect, is that you would hardblock IPs from pretty much all [[London]] schools and libraries. This is a farce.

What is Wikimedia doing? What is it always doing? It's teaching users about the power of wiki-collaboration. It's reaching out to new users, whether through usability projects, or direct education. Indeed, one of Wikimedia UK's Initiatives is their [http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Initiatives/Schools_project Schools outreach project]. What it shouldn't be doing, is hardblocking hundreds of thousands of users, killing of any write access from public computer terminals which may be the user's only access online. What Wikipedia should be doing, is encouraging these users to become active productive contributors. Not pointing out what beans can be ingested nasally. If the first thing users see when they wish to contribute, is a bit fat [[Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix]] telling them how they aren't trusted, they're not going to take to it kindly.

London schools and libraries access the internet through teh [[London Grid for Learning]], and their traffic is routed through a dozen or so IPs. Given the broad scope of the London grid, it is inevitable that you will receive heavy doses of vandalism. There are ways to mitigate, softblocking, block account creation, heck - flagged revisions. There is no adequate reason as to why this range, and this many people should be hardblocked.

Incidentally, the entire range was blocked because of the actions of [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive479#Avril_Lavigne|one vandal]] who targeted high visibility templates. Maybe you should start protecting those, or maybe lighten up and stop nuking entire ranges for posting "Happy Birthday" messages. Compared to hoax, slander, libel and copyright violations - I'd say it was pretty low on the list of priorities.

Although the block on this IP has expired - there will be many more at [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Checkuserblock-Synetrix]] which are still blocked. [[Special:Contributions/82.198.250.4|82.198.250.4]] ([[User talk:82.198.250.4|talk]]) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*Would support lifting some of these to see if the vandal has given up. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Might as well since the blocks expire in about a month anyway. It wouldn't hurt to run it by Thatcher though. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Meh. The template has specific instructions on how legit users can register and contribute. Still, if you want to lift the blocks early, go ahead. Either the vandal has found someone new to bother or he'll be back. Synetrix and its various clients (London Grid for Learning, etc) has a block of 255 addresses but the template vandal only used the 20 or so addresses that were specifically blocked. I would suggest keeping a list of the IPs so that if he does return, you don't have to block the entire range. The template vandal also uses open proxies, but last year, at least, leaving the school unblocked was too much of a temptation for him. He never used his home IP though, presumably he didn't want his parents finding goatse on his hard drive. And, one final comment, despite all the complaints from anonymous users over the year about this block, no one official, such as a headmaster or IT person, has called us about the block. [[User talk:Thatcher|Thatcher]] 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Hi Thatcher. You can unblock the Synetrix ones, me and [[User:KnightLago|KnightLago]] had talks (ask him if you like) and I don't do that no more, even though ArbCom and Newyorkbrad have still failed to unblock my account even though they promised to. Also, to clarify, I NEVER did the goatse crap, that was grawp. I was Avril Lavigne obsessed (and still am ^_^ but I have better outlets now for my obsessions). Anyway, as I said I don't do that any more. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.43.89.136|82.43.89.136]] ([[User talk:82.43.89.136|talk]]) 23:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I don't see a problem with letting this expire in due time then re-blocking as needed. The template provided is professional, informative and direct. The block is obviously necessary and although a collateral damage exists, it doesn't seem worse net the gains. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::let them expire now. this is the sort of very extensive school block that should be a last resort, and be used for very limited periods. With the abuse filter, we now have a very wide range of alternatives. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
*I agree with [[:User:DGG|DGG]] here, in that the blocks should be lifted. '''[[User:It Is Me Here|<font color="#006600">It Is Me Here</font>]]''' <sup>'''[[User_talk:It Is Me Here|<font color="#CC6600">t</font>]] / [[Special:Contributions/It Is Me Here|<font color="#CC6600">c</font>]]</sup>''' 13:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
*I recall a number of occasions when the AV person has said he'll give up, and didn't. However, I trust that this time either he'll keep his word, or we can swiftly block him again. It's probably worth a try - either unblock them or let the blocks expire. But I would recommend no one unprotects the RefDesk :) -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Well there wasn't much swift blocking last time lol, but I will keep my word. As for the reference desk, I've been trying to help out there since last spetember, answering questions and stuff, to make up for my past :D <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.43.89.136|82.43.89.136]] ([[User talk:82.43.89.136|talk]]) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* I believe there are also rangeblocks outstanding on other Synetrix clients - I know sub-ranges of the EMBC range (92.43.64.0/21) which serves all educational establishments in seven counties, certainly were hardblocked at some point. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 13:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
*Having one admin unblock them all at once will also provide us a useful series of log entries that we can use for future reference. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Some are already expired. Here's the main ones with their block expiry dates:
*{{checkip|82.198.250.2}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.3}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.4}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.6}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.7}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.8}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.9}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.10}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.11}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.12}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.13}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.14}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.15}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.64}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.65}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.66}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.67}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.68}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.69}} 19 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.70}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.71}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.72}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.73}} 20 August 2010
*{{checkip|82.198.250.74}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.75}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.76}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.77}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.78}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.79}} 28 September 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.80}} 20 August 2009
*{{checkip|82.198.250.106}} 28 September 2009
-- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 08:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== Username blocks ==

Can anyone explain as to how the following blocks by {{admin|Nja247}} violates [[WP:Username|username policy]]?
*{{user5|Ihatehorrormovies}}, with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saw_II&diff=prev&oldid=307226462 one edit] that is low-level vandalism, does not warrant an indefinite block of dubious accord based on a username.
*{{user5|M1k3ypwns3}} was blocked for having an offensive username. The user has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badger&diff=prev&oldid=306748368 just one edit].
*{{user5|XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox}} was blocked for much the same, only that there are no edits.
*{{user5|Longlivecommunism}} was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, despite there being only two edits on record.
*{{user5|Bottracker}} was indefinitely blocked because of the word "bot" embedded in the username.

I can list further examples, but I am not too pleased that little or incorrect rationale is being given to these surmised username violations. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:Those are all a little inexplicable. From a read through the talk page of the last one, it looks like there could have been a (better) discussion about the concerns surrounding the name and, if that was the genuine concern, a softblock could have been applied (as the user even suggested). It rather seems that other issues were the real problem and the name issue was what was used as an indef justification which seems like an endrun around dealing with the original issues that the user had. The original block for copyright issues at the top of the talkpage seems on the surface to be a little hasty (unless there are other facts that aren't obvious) and it looks like the situation then got out of control without any real cool down/explanation time. As far as the others go, it appears that the vandalism only account reasoning was used prematurely without an adequate pattern to permit that judgement. None of those names suggest to me a user with no intent to contribute constructively without the associated contributions history to back that assessment. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User_talk:Mfield|Oi!]]) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::It doesn't take more than one edit to make a judgement on a vandalism only account. Really. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Proper protocol does not parse judgment on one edit, per [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]], and then assign a false block summary based upon a vague descriptor. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::(e/c) I disagree, I am sure there are plenty of editors who's first edit was not constructive. I am not questioning the application of a block, but to block indefinitely, as a vandalism-only account, seems like not using that specific justification as it may be intended. Sure, if a user only has one edit and that edit is vandalism then their account is by definition a vandalism-only account. But a 24 hour block would stop the immediate problem and might well prompt them not to continue vandalizing. A second, constructive, edit would then make their account not vandalism-only. I feel it is rushing to judgement to make a block after only one edit, especially if the vandalism does not appear to be overly malicious or could be interpreted as initial messing about from a newbie. How do you make a certain enough assessment on the character of a person you have never met based on one edit without knowing anything else about the person? I am a fairly regular admin patrolling [[WP:UAA|UAA]] and I wouldn't feel comfortable hardblocking a username as displaying an intent not to contribute constructively with that little track record to go on, nor would i feel comfortable declaring an account to be vandalism only with the same short record to go on. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User_talk:Mfield|Oi!]]) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::When I was an admin, I didn't patrol UAA but I blocked vandalism-only accounts fairly regularly. I did not block accounts whose edits consisted of one edit, or two edits, and make broad assumptions that it was therefore a username block. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:Blocking those accounts because of their user names is just plain stupid. --[[User:DroolingVegetable|DroolingVegetable]] ([[User talk:DroolingVegetable|talk]]) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

::Ironically, your username is way more offensive than any of the above. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User_talk:Mfield|Oi!]]) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:Did you discuss this with Nja247 before bringing it here? [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::As a general note, not on these specifically, I have always found the username blocks have been WAY over applied here. Unless the name itself is GROSSLY DISRUPTIVE, the situation could probably be better handled by asking the account holder to file for a [[WP:CHU]] instead of blocking outright. Don't even get me started on the overextension of the "spamusername" block rationale... (AFTER EC with WTWAG). Yeah, I also second WTWAG. Has there been any attempt to get your questions answered privately by Nja247 before dragging him before the [[WP:AN]] tribunal? --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::On that note I was trying to make general comments and points on the blocks in question myself, rather than pass judgement on the actions of the admin in question. [[User:Mfield|Mfield]] ([[User_talk:Mfield|Oi!]]) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

:::No, because it is a larger issue that should merit further questioning and investigation throughout. I've noted other dubious UAA blocks in recent weeks - blocks that should be overturned. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I would say at the very least the last two are acceptable blocks. '''Bottracker''' is a clear violation of [[WP:U]], namely "''your name should not end or begin with 'bot' ''." '''Longlivecommunism''' could easily be seen as a promotional username, although perhaps more edits could have been used to asses the user wasn't trying to promote communism; the vandalism obscured that chance. 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::My take with Bottracker, is that the user was blocked for copyright violations, but before he had an adequate chance to discuss his edits or to potentially take corrective action -- which no one pointed the user to the right direction and decided to template-spam the guy -- he was indef'ed for a username violation. And his talk page disabled. Great way to show a user the welcome mat. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Clear violations of [[WP:U]] do NOT mandate instablocks. See [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames]] which recommends about 6 things you can do BEFORE blocking someone. Unless the username is grossly profane or disgusting, it is far less [[WP:BITE|rude]] to attempt to get a good faith user to use [[WP:CHU]] rather than blocking them. Look at it this way, there are three kinds of bad usernames:
:::::#Borderline cases where the user is a good faith editor: ''start a dialogue and politely request them to request a username change at [[WP:CHU]].''
:::::#Borderline cases where the user is a vandal/spammer/otherwise bad editor: ''block them for the editing, not the username. If you block them for their username, it implies that, and not the behavior, is the problem''
:::::#Eggregiously bad usernames which are grossly profane or disruptive: ''block away''.
:::::FAR too often, admins quickly block ALL of these situations, which according to [[WP:U]], is clearly against ''best practices''. We should try to work with new users to choose a correct username rather than blocking them for an unintended violation. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:I addressed Nja247 privately about M1k3ypwns3 and Zz022 (not on this list). Both discussions are already archived in [[User talk:Nja247/Archive 06]]. He was mildly apologetic about M1k3ypwns3, but brought out the defense that "he was going to be a vandal anyway". He didn't back down on Zz022. I let it drop, because I figured that Nja247 was generally reasonable, the point had been made, and it would be better to try to stop people from reporting these names in the first place. So I'm disheartened to see this list of further unjustified username blocks. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::"He was going to be a vandal anyway", while often a correct prediction, is simply not a valid reason for blocking, especially not under the pretense of a username block.--[[User:Atlan|Atlan]] ([[User talk:Atlan|talk]]) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::: Blocks should not be issued on Bottracker. It's quite clear Bottracker never had the intention to confuse others as a bot account. Who's next to block? Someone that has a username starting with "Bottle" or "Botany"? I see that Nja247 wishes to issue blocks reckless rather than spending time explaining. It's exactly this kind of behavior that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-03/Editing stats|contributes to the decline of new users]]. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I made it a point, towards the end of my adminship, to at least extend an olive branch with the hope that some of these editors could be reformed. While it was a fruitless effort with some, I did manage to snag a few editors to the bright light. Bottracker never, never, never had the intention to be confused with a bot -- it was a harmless mistake, and in his confusion and in his question, there were administrators who refused to answer his questions. Instead, they were dismissed and his talk page was disabled, with a cowardly message left stating that he had to e-mail some list to be unblocked. Good job. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
*It appears to me that the blocks were not just for the usernames, but the usernames and the edit or edits made in relation the username. It seems rather aggressive enforcment, but I think showing restraint towards content contributors would be more beneficial than worrying about extending good faith for a borderline username that makes joke edits. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:: With that kind of reasoning, you can find a reason to block a whole lot of newbies. Many people start out by doing one or two things "wrong", like having a borderline username or making joke edits. There's too much focus on punishing newbies for breaking any of the large number of rules Wikipedia has, instead of explaining the rules and trying to put things right in a way that keeps the editor editing. I'm not promising it will always work, but if we're to stop the declining participation in Wikipedia, ''we need to try''.
::But that aside, what's even "borderline" about these usernames? What rule were they on the verge of breaking (leave out the "bot" one, which is a kind of stupid technicality)? You can't just point at someone with no justification and say "You have a borderline username! That means we don't have to assume good faith from you." [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
*Let me note this is really a bit of a kick in the teeth. I would have appreciated a more direct attempt to discuss the concern with myself, possibly at the username policy, UAA , or my own talk pages. '''Further, an apology would be expected for calling my actions cowardly'''. If these had been brought to my attention ahead of time I would have discussed it. However coming directly here is quite odd, and I have issue with it, and with the attack on me. What's truly to be accomplished from this? [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 08:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:*Note, when actually asked in an appropriate manner I respond. See [[User_talk:Nja247/Archive_06#M1k3ypwns3|here]] for a discussion already done on M1k3ypwns3. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::: You responded, and I even chose not to escalate it at the time, but I can't say I'm happy with your response of basically saying "my bad" and continuing to block newbies for no good reason. Seicer had every right to start this thread, because AN is an appropriate forum for the continued misuse of blocking powers. For comparison, you'll likely come out of this with just a wounded ego, but users such as Bottracker and XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox are just ''gone''. I'll take five new users over an admin's pride any day. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 08:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
*Further, what is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#There_is_currently_no_forum_for_reviewing_username_blocks this] all about? [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 08:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Lacking common courtesy and calling me cowardly is hardly an issue with wounded pride. And again, what's the goal here? If they wanted my attention about concerns they had about the block that's what talk pages are for. This isn't a severe or ongoing pattern and along with the name calling I question intent. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::How is this not an ongoing pattern? I see blocks spanning almost a month from mid-July to mid-August. Can you please respond to the original statement of questionable username blocks, rather than guessing at the intent of other users here? --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::: I have to agree. I think four separate blocks are enough to be a concern. [[User_talk:Nja247/Archive_06#M1k3ypwns3|Your response]] of "you can unblock" plus "what now" doesn't indicate any belief that it was a bad block, or more accurately, it may have been a bad block but it isn't something worth fixing or apologizing to the blocked user for. Do you think it was just a small error, because that's exactly what I'm concerned about. Blocks are a BIG deal, and especially indefinite blocks like that, and it seems others feel the same. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::: I do think it's an issue and I don't discourage discussing the concern, however I wonder what this is meant to accomplish? If it were brought to my direct attention I would have listened. Simply having five others say the same thing doesn't do anything at all for me or those users. I've apologised for the error made when it was brought to my attention and since the discussion on the 8th-10th of this month I've been trying to ensure any username block action taken is within policy. Ricky missed "I'm open to all suggestions you have to make it better and I apologise for this possible mistake in advance." I've done my best to address the concerns, but I do not see how this is meant to be helpful and I think an answer as to the end goal is deserved as well as an apology for the attack. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Okay, you've gotten me to notice something that I think is being overlooked in this discussion: all the blocks Seicer listed are old, and they predate when I talked to you about M1k3ypwns3. After that there were still other users you blocked after very small violations, such as [[User:UnNeggafied]] and [[User:Zz022]], which was the second one I brought up. And since then you've toned it down. I was misled about the chronological order of things, and thought you had ''recently'' made these bad blocks. That doesn't make them okay, but we should move on.
::::::At this point, then, I just want you to realize the severity of blocking ''anyone'', no matter what their status on Wikipedia, and think about the newbie behind each account. The discussions I had with you didn't give me any confidence. I want you to realize that you were pretty clearly in the wrong in the Bottracker incident (unless there are some oversighted edits I'm not seeing?) and I think your actions there could be accurately, if bluntly, described as cowardly. But I seriously apologize to you for perpetuating the misinterpretation that you were still doing this kind of thing. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

::Username blocks are one of the most worthless activities that can be pursued on this site. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 09:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
*And further, what's [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=0d0e7ae811a7445d109f37d672ed32a6&showtopic=25995&st=0&p=190534&#entry190534 this] all about? "Vote for your favourite!" and seicer "I have nothing better to do, so I started a thread at AN". I'm not amused at the fact that there's a poll being ran as a joke to vote for a favourite of my blocks. Nor would the users who are blocked. Obviously you can't help that it was started, but if you truly had nothing better to do, then why not discuss it with me as I'd like to know about my mistakes and have a chance to address them, rather than be a discussion and/or joke on some back forum. As noted above I apologised and have done my best since that discussion and I plan to move on and possibly take the advice of John Reaves and let that aspect of Wikipedia alone. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
** That WR thread is as ugly as most threads about Wikipedians on WR, but you shouldn't make it sound like Seicer started the thread or said "Vote for your favorite!". Seicer actually did bring it to Wikipedia, which is much better than a bunch of WR people sniping from afar. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
*** Nja247 has pointed out to me that he made an honest mistake in attributing that to Seicer. No problem. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:It seems to me this is bound to happen because of [[WP:U]] itself - maybe we should change it? Maybe we should refine it as much as our blocking over vandalism? It always occurred to me that we're more lenient with vandals than those with the wrong username. Shouldn't that change? -- [[User:Mentifisto|<font color="#800080" face="courier new">Menti</font>]][[User talk:Mentifisto|<font color="#000000" face="courier new">fisto</font>]] 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

*Correct. I only had free time, but yes, I do check [[WP:UAA|UAA]] from time-to-time. I am a ''former administrator'' and did handle some UAA requests -- although I found it to be a most useless endeavor because IMO, there are bigger fish to fry and because the risk of alienating new users is pretty high. Doesn't matter if it was posted at WR, where I rarely post -- and if you note, where I am fairly often criticized for my actions, so it's not as if I am the popular guy around there. In addition, I am not apologizing for the thread being brought up here, and for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seicer&diff=309392995&oldid=308022611 bruised egos].
::I'll survive. It's not so much a bruised ego, as you've put it on multiple forums, but rather dramatising things rather than going straight to the source. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Things happen, administrators make mistakes, you learn and hope to make the best of a situation and go from there. Since you have noted that you are going to pursue other venues than UAA for now, someone should at least review some of those blocks and unblock the users that pose no threat -- e.g. Bottracker, since there is consensus here that he was doing no ill or harm outside of a mistaken name. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

*And yes, there is no oversight over UAA as much as there is over bad blocks sent to AIV. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - it seems to me some of this problem arises from inappropriate use of {{tl|Uw-uhblock}} instead of {{tl|Uw-ublock}}. The former is, to all intents and purposes, "fuck off and don't come back". (Too strong? Imagine getting it slapped on your userpage after your first couple of edits.) The latter says, "hey, listen, your name isn't totally cool, but that's OK, you can choose a new account name straight away or request a username change." The former, obviously, should be used with great caution. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 12:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, the bigger problem is that '''every''' block says to every newbie "fuck off and don't come back". Regardless of the nuances of the template we leave on their talk page when we block them, regardless of how nicely worded it is, blocking is a drastic thing to do to someone, '''especially a new user''', and if there is anyway we can correct or steer a newbie in the right direction without blocking them is ALWAYS preferable to blocking. That's the problem with nearly all username blocks. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::That's also true. Warning messages should be used if at all possible before blocking. At the moment we seem to {{tl|Uw-username}}, which may be underused as it requires a manual reason. Maybe we can adapt {{tl|Uw-ublock}} for a warning/notification message? That would probably help. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Tried a draft here: {{tl|Uw-usernamewarn}}. How's that look? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Bureaucratic. What was wrong with actually telling the user what you're warning them about? [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Nothing. But people who do a lot of this stuff in practice (I do zip) often don't, and perhaps end up blocking instead at least in some cases (block templates are one-shot, and then, with block, it's quickly done and dusted), and if a partial reason for that is that there isn't a one-shot template ({{tl|username}} needs a parameter to explain the reasoning), well then we should have a one-shot warning template. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Then I think we should make some one-shot templates for the different things you could be warning them about (as well as common combinations of policies, like "slightly promotional username + COI" or "slightly disruptive username + vandalism"). Templates should at least ''try'' to sound like a message a real person should leave, so "I'm warning you for one of the following N reasons" is not a helpful template. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Well I slightly disagree - in most cases people will be read the template and know what they're doing wrong. And if it isn't obvious, the warning editor shouldn't use the template! More specific ones might be better, yes, but if we start getting lots of them, it just adds to the stack of templates for people to not quite remember when they need them. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary thought, so bear with me, a concerned editor could take the time to craft a personal note they actually thought through and wrote themselves specificly for the situation, and then could follow through with the newbie to see that any problems they have are easily fixed. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::O we can dream.... Seriously, in the recent past I'm feeling that overuse of templates is becoming a problem - especially the templates which look Official rather than vaguely like templated personal messages. (And how about those welcome templates that take up half a page - way to go overwhelming people...). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Every one of those ought to be unblocked, for reasons thoroughly covered above. Bottracker can be asked to get a new name, NOT because of a three letter string in his name, but because the entire name sounds almost like a sanctioned function of the project, tracking the performance of the various automated processes running here. The entire 'no using 'bot' in a name rule has massive flaws, as the WR points out... Botany for example? Botched, like these blocks? The rule should be that any new user making a name which can reasonably be interpreted as the name of a bot account or other automated process will be asked to change it, not blocked on sight. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

:I've unblocked all five accounts discussed here. We can't undo the damage, but we can't let the blocks stand, either. If Bottracker were to come back, we might want to make a ''very'' friendly suggestion about his name, but it's not that important. If he does miraculously come back and see the unblock message, he deserves to be left alone by the username process. I feel terrible about the way that Wikipedia treated him. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

===Check the facts first, Bottracker's original block had nothing to do with his username===
::I see. I blocked Bottracker for "Disruptive editing: refusal to discuss copyright issues and extreme personal attacks possibly driving another editor away" and he is now told that "The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so. ". What in the world is going on here when an Admin blocks someone for what they think are good reasons, and without even dealing with the reason for the original block at all, or having the courtesy to contact me, he's unblocked? And his username wasn't the basic reason for changing the block so he couldn't edit his own talk page either, which was the only other action before he was unblocked for reasons which had nothing to do with the block. Why is he owed an apology, as Rspeer has said on his talk page? I wouldn't mind being told I shouldn't have blocked him for continued copyright violations, but I'd expect a discussion. It's a shame the other Admin even mentioned the username business as it wasn't the actual reason for the block and that caused confusion. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Note I'm off to bed now so won't be replying. I do think that the apology to him suggests he did nothing wrong, which is simply not the case. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Well Doug obviously I made an error, but I have no comment on the rest of it, though I don't see how your original block is now unjustified. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::I do agree that the edit history there raises ''serious'' concerns that existed (and arguably continue exist) quite independent from any username block. The nature of the hasty unblock does not appear to be as prudent as it should have been. '''[[user:j|user:<small>J</small>]]''' <small>aka justen</small> ([[user talk:j|talk]]) 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, let's establish something here. Is there any evidence that Bottracker's images actually violated a copyright? It looks like he was trying to argue the whole time that the images were his own, but they started being sent through processes to get them deleted (which are bewildering to a newbie). He tried to add the appropriate tags and another user he was arguing with ''removed'' them. The statement that he was "refusing to discuss copyright issues" looks false on the face of it. It looks more like everyone else was refusing to discuss it with him. If there was some solid evidence of a copyright violation and he was pulling an [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]], it's different, but I haven't found such a thing yet in Bottracker's editing history. I do not think that blocking was the correct resolution to that dispute. [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::That, and during the times he was attempting to discuss the issues at hand, he was censored and was told he was attacking administrators -- which wasn't the case. His talk page was disabled and he was essentially told to fuck off. A new user. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::At the point I blocked him, he had never commented on his talk page but had blanked every warning. About 36 of his uploads had been deleted by various editors. Two other Administrators declined his unblock request. He was in a heated discussion with personal attacks with another (leading to that users temporary and newer user with edits such as this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daisy1213&diff=prev&oldid=302351942]. Four Administrators were involved in his block. [[user|Anthony.bradbury]]'s reason for his decline was ""You received no less than twelve messages, still present on this page, relating directly to the copyright issue for which you are blocked. You are, agreed, allowed to blank your talk page, although doing so to remove warnings is not good practice. I suggest that you read carefully our policy on copyright violation, which you have breached on a large number of occasions, before requesting an unblock. At present you clearly do not understand this policy, and it is necessaryt that you do so". Then [[user|Jéské Couriano]] declined a second unblock request, saying ""Your unblock request is disingenuous, as indicated below, and the prerogative is as much yours as it is his, especially where copyright violations are concerned. If nobody approached you, why did you not approach the people who placed the warnings on your page rather than removing them straightaway?". And now he's had a 'sincere apology' for our actions. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::There are two sides to every story, so let me re-summarize from what I see. He started by uploading a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. He got into a dispute with other users who were accusing him of violating copyright. He lashed out once out of frustration, especially given that he did not believe he was violating copyright because ''he had taken the pictures'' in question. The dispute escalated, and administrators piled on him for not following the right procedures. Then, in a glorious example of how not to de-escalate a dispute, they blocked him. So, did he do something wrong ''besides'' being a newbie and not following procedures? [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::But is not the reason you unblocked him. He never responded on his talk page to numerous notices. Several other administrators deleted all the images he uploaded. He didn't get blocked for not following the right procedures, he got blocked because instead of discussing the notices on his talk page he simply deleted them, never responding, and because he attacked another editor. It was an indefinite block and the whole thing could have been over within minutes if he'd started to respond civilly (although given the edits he did to on the other user's talk page, this seemed unlikely). His unblock requests showed no interest in having a discussion or changing his behavior, which is why two other administrator's declined his unblock requests. You are saying they were wrong, but (repeating myself) he didn't respond in a way that would encourage anyone to unblock him. Dealing with copyright violations is a huge pain in the neck, particularly image ones. And then when another Admin comes along and tells him blocking him was unjustified and gives him a 'sincere apology' - what message does that send? You didn't even comment on the issue, just told him in effect that he was right and the other 4 nasty Administrators were wrong. And perhaps all the Admins who deleted his files? [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::1. The other user you mention is one that he was in a heated content dispute with. She was certainly doing her part to escalate the dispute, especially when reverting his edits with edit comments like "OMG ARE YOU EVEN GHANAIAN?". It takes two to tango, yet she's still here, so getting into this dispute can't be the entire reason for a block.
::::::::2. Everything else stems from the copyright accusation, ''which I believe was false''. It's basically the administrators' word against his, but when an established editor fights with a newbie, [[User:Rspeer|I side with the newbie]].
::::::::3. The unblock requests were loud and angry because by that time it was clear that everyone involved was fixating on process details like "removing templates" and nobody was actually listening to him. This is human nature.
::::::::So yes. It seems to me quite likely that Bottracker was a reasonable person faced with unreasonable circumstances, and deserves a sincere apology. One that is largely symbolic because he's probably not coming back. Do you want to revert my apology? Would that make Wikipedia a better place? [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::While you were writing the above, I was raising this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Was_this_a_good_unblock.3F here]. If you think making such an apology and denouncing me without first informing me is a good thing, that's your opinion. I clearly disagree. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A message from Black Kite has established evidence that this user ''was'' actually violating copyright, which is what I originally asked about. Given that, I can agree that the original block was justified. (Maybe a less faceless copyright process could have averted the problem.) Dougweller, I should not have implicated you in my unblock message.

The followup to the first block still strikes me as absurd, though, and the second block should not stand. So how about this: I agree that Dougweller's block was correct, but I leave the user unblocked, and on the off chance that the user comes back, I will try to mentor him and take responsibility.

[[User talk:Bottracker#Unblocked|Here's my new unblock message]], which does not exonerate Bottracker or imply that Dougweller was wrong in blocking him. Okay? [[User:Rspeer|rspεεr]] ([[User talk:Rspeer|talk]]) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:Ok, thanks for that. Your new block messages is very satisfactory and I'm glad to see this concluded amicably. Our copyright policy on images can be difficult to explain to people - I suspect a lot of editors never read it in any case, and that many people assume that if they see no copyright notice the lack of a notice means there is no copyright. The large number of uploads and the small number of Admins and other editors who get involved makes it even more difficult. Mind you, textual copyrights may be easier to spot but still a pain, I spent quite a bit of the weekend rewriting articles because the editor wasn't around and the alternative to rewriting was deletion. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

With some username blocks it makes you think admins have block targets set for them or something.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== Explanation about abuse filters please ==

I was doing my blocking vandal routine, when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=309498326 this] report popped up. Apparently it had triggered an abuse filter. I had a look at the contributions, but there was nothing there (not even deleted). The report mentioned something about a banned user; the IP address was ultimately blocked indefinitely.

I'm not questioning the actions taken against the IP address; clearly an indefinite block was expected (going by the comment left to my query). However, as I have never come across this sort of case before, I thought it best to ask here if someone could explain to me what was going on? Please use words of less than one syllable though... it is late and I am tired! (grin) '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Abuse filter 166 is apparently set to disallow, meaning it stopped the ip from making the edit, repeatedly--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::I'm afraid I'm still none the wiser. I think I'm gonna have to sleep on this, and hope my brain recharges overnight, and can make sense of any explanations! Shame abuse filters were never covered in my admin coaching... LOL! '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Basically, The IP tried to make an edit, and the filter wouldn't let them. But the filter keeps a record of the attempts so people can see whos trying to make edits they shouldn't--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 23:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::So where does the banned user come in to it, and how come the IP address gets blocked indefinitely? '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Don't know anything about this filter in particular, but it seems its set entirely to stop a banned sockpuppeteer, who probably makes distinctive edits. As for the indef block, didn't actually notice that, no idea why that is, could be a mistake--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::My apologies. I started checking diffs and contribs to see if the suggestion (given by the bot) of the IP being a banned user was correct (after the fact), and I couldn't see the similarities. I reduced the block to 48 hrs, for repeatedly setting off the abuse filter. Again, my apologies. And yes, this filter was set to "disallow" those edits, so none of them would show up in contribs or deleted contribs. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|talk]]) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

When processing these sorts of AIV block requests, you can see the attempted edits that triggered the filter by looking at the edit filter log. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=85.75.163.31 Here] is the one for the IP in question. I do not know of an 'easy' way to see the EFlog, so I just click the "contribs" link and then the "filter log" link at the top. — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:Still more questions, I'm afraid! Cluebot automatically reverts suspect edits, and these are still visible on the history. What is it about the edits that trigger the filter abuse that means they are removed from the page history? Also, how can these abuse filter triggering addresses be blocked without apparent warning, whereas all other users (anon and registered) need to go through due process? '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::Cannot answer the second question, but the first is simple: the edits are pre-emptied before they can be saved, which is why they never show up in the edit history. — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 12:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

:::As for the second question, some of the filters are only triggered by sockpuppets or vandal memes, so we know they've seen all the warnings. The list of filters which are reported immediately by bot to AIV is at [[User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js]]. When we see one of these accurately reported, then we generally block the sockpuppets without any further warning. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
::::On exception is 58 where the filter only triggers on the most egregious childish vandalism - being ridiculously vulgar in giant capital letters with exclamation points, etc. Those don't require a lot of due process either IMHO. If someone needs to be ''told'' that such edits are vandalism, then they shouldn't be editing here anyway. <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As a bit of explanation, this particular filter is designed to stop an uncommonly stubborn harassment vandal, whose easily recognised signature is his IP range(s) and the fact that every edit he makes is a random revert of his victim (me). He's been doing this for over half a year, almost every day, and he's quite easy to spot if you know the pattern. Before getting the abuse filter tuned as it is now, the only means of stopping him was to keep large IP ranges permanently soft-blocked, or to semiprotect every page I touched. But of course, the resulting blocks shouldn't be long or even indef; he hops across a large dynamic IP range. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
:Cheers for everyone's explanations; it is starting to make more sense. Is there anywhere where these explanations are written up, and how administrators should deal with it? I've had a look around, and nothing really leaps out. '''[[User:StephenBuxton|Stephen!]]''' <sup><small>''[[User talk:StephenBuxton|Coming...]]''</small></sup> 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::I don't know so much about explanations, but you can get a general description of the filter at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/], that might give you a bit of an idea what they're trying to do. In this case, it would have at least let you know who the banned user was. [[User:Sodam Yat|Sodam Yat]] ([[User talk:Sodam Yat|talk]]) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== User:By78 ==

[[File:Mack Launch 177.jpg|thumb|right|Like this?]]
The user is indulging in disruptive editing with [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/By78|certain pages]] including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=INS_Arihant&action=history | INS Arihant] page. In the [[Arihant class submarine]] page, launch is replaced with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Float-out | Float-out]. [[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
*This is a content dispute, and doesn't require the intervention of administrators. For my money, float out works just as well as launch, though I can see the argument that launching is the figurative activity and floating out is the literal practice which replaced launching. May want to ask the folks at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships]] which term is more common in ship articles. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:: The process was a launch. Then why is getting edited the other way? I don't get it.[[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Literally launched like the picture on the right (or sliding backwards)? [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53210&sectionid=40&secid=0 this source] describes a float out. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::: The sideway launch is done mostly for lighter ships of the U.S Navy and coastguard. The heavier ones are launched backwards. The articles explains about the testing for the launch and about the next event of ''momentous launch''. There is no official ceremony in float out of a ship or sub anywhere in the world. In this case the sub was launched by Smt.Gursharan Kaur, wife of PM Manmohan Singh. The Indian sub launch ceremony is somewhat different. Remember the coconut.[[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 03:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::Also note about the explanation of the reactor on the sub and how the reactor criticality is achieved.

::::Over the next few months, it will commence a series of full system harbour trials. The primary system, a nuclear reactor, generates the heat which drives the secondary system, a steam turbine which spins the submarine"s propeller, are to be tested separately.

::::First, the steam turbine is to be jump-started with shore-based supply. The next significant step will be starting up the submarine"s nuclear reactor where the zirconium rods in the core of the submarine"s 80 MW pressurised water reactor will be slowly raised, allowing the reactor to become critical in slow degrees. It will take around three weeks to go fully critical.

::::Only after all systems are tested, will the primary and secondary systems be mated. If all goes well, the submarine will be allowed to sail out to begin sea trials next year. Weapon trials, including the firing of its arsenal of 12 K-15 short range ballistic missiles, are the last stage of the trials before the submarine is finally commissioned to the navy by 2011.[[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::I should tell you that you don't need to explain to me the details of starting up a submarine nuclear reactor. But there is no way you could have known that. :) I'm only going to say two things. the first is that the details of the launch are a content dispute and should be dealt with through the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]. The second is that what india today seems to be describing is a boat in drydock and the drydock being flooded for the launch, rather than being slid backwards. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

::::: The explanation is from the link you posted. There are a lot of videos on youtube that explains in detail about nuclear reactor refuelling. You can check it out. The launch can be done in any manner. Before the reporters were allowed in the sub has been already launched. So what they saw was the sub in water. This was later towed away to a facility about 1km from the shipbuilding center. Regarding the reactors you must read [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53547&sectionid=4&secid=0|this] that says ''After the first trial of the steam cycle and turbines, the Arihant will be hooked up to the nuclear reactor. The reactor"s fuel rods are currently locked and sealed. They will be unlocked and neutrons will be introduced to start up the 85 MW pressurised water reactor. The reactor will work continuously for anything up to 10 years till the fuel runs out.'' So I just want to point out that the reactor is sealed inside the sub and the ceremony was a launching ceremony which has been altered into something else.[[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::: Please, check it now. It has been rewritten with new inputs and links. [[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 06:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has again engaged in disruptive editing of the INS Arihant page. The users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/By78 all edits] are disruptive in nature removing contents from them, using harsh words against other editors and shows scant regard for others good editors.[[User:Bcs09|Bcs09]] ([[User talk:Bcs09|talk]]) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== Advice please article issues. ==

I am watching the pages of [[Cabuyao, Laguna]] (with major edits done bu [[User: Othanwiki2009]]), and [[Santa Maria, Bulacan]] (with major edits done by [[User:Secaundis]]), for almost months, and I noticed that the Santa Maria article grew into like a directory, list of dining places, telephone numbers, fare matrix for public transportation, resorts, recreational sites, transportation terminals and even directories for schools and emergency concerns. Earlier this day, I removed all possible failures that may not meet with WP guidelines: and put them all on its [[Talk: Santa Maria, Bulacan|talk page]]. I notified the contributor Secaundis about this, and he said on my [[User_talk:JL_09#Sta._Maria.2C_Bulacan|talk page]] (it is in Filipino, I warned him, and I said he should speak in English) that I am biased that I am tagging his pages not instead those long ones. I just want to know if I am doing good so far, and what action are intended for Secaundis. I am also in doubt of the authenticity of the data he inserted on the page, but when I asked him about it (I challenged him that I will insert {{txl|fact}} on each unverified claims, those that need inline citations, but I used a generalized template {{txl|nofootnotes}} instead so the article won't look messy; he on my talk page --still Filipino-- that he is lazy to do inline citations on those claims because primarily, they came from the official site of Santa Maria. What does it implies? Then, I am thinking if the whole article, is a copyright violation, sure plagiarism from multiple sources.)

On Othanwiki2009, he does good, but he is creating articles plagiarized, like [[History of Cabuyao]] (which I tagged earlier). I also tagged [[Imno ng Cabuyao]], because other than the lyrics of the song, it has no information on the composer, the composer's death. Per [[WP:LYRICS]], it falls into possible infringement. He removed the tag, and says on the article's talk page that he will look for the composer. I told him to use {{txl|hangon}} instead, especially that the article is not on CSD but on PROD. Well, [[Cabuyao , Laguna]], his article, turns to be copied from the sites on the Cabuyao's external links, and again, with no citation where it came from. When we say "you add the citation", does it mean that copying directly the statement/whole paragraph from the site then adding a citation falls into plagiarism?

I think they both ignored it. I tagged Santa Maria months before for its multiple issues like no footnotes, etc. but Secaundis removed it. In Cabuyao, too, Othanwiki2009 removed the tag without addressing the concern. I do believe too, that Santa Maria and Cabuyao were copied directly from a site or sites included on the external links section (since it is impossible to add figures-- where those came from?). The articles grow very long, too, and many things unnecessary appears there. I need advice what to do. Thanks.--''<font style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:JL 09|JL 09]]</font><sup><font color="#0B7C08">[[User talk:JL 09|Talk to me!]]</font></sup>'' 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:Secaundis was already reprimanded a few months ago for his use of Tagalog. As for his removal of tags, it may be an attempt to [[WP:OWN|own]], but stripping the tags when their issues have not been addressed is foul. --[[User:Eaglestorm|Eaglestorm]] ([[User talk:Eaglestorm|talk]]) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is a mess and worse seems to have multiple sub-articles which seem to be copyvios - many many eyes needed. --[[User:Cameron Scott|Cameron Scott]] ([[User talk:Cameron Scott|talk]]) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Secaundis says he's quitting and asked for his talk page to be deleted. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== Spam problem ==

There could be over a 100 articles under [[:Category:Internet television series]] and it's sub categories which are not notable/spam. If any admins could go through and delete some, it would save me flooding afd.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:If they qualify for speedy deletion, can't you just tag them?--[[User:Atlan|Atlan]] ([[User talk:Atlan|talk]]) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::There's ''a lot'' of articles, too many for one user.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 17:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::A lot of these are not notable, such as [[Laugh Out Loud (web series)]], and probably would not survive AfD. However, judging by the twenty or so pages that I looked at, very few, if any, could be speedied under [[WP:CSD#G11|G11]]... [[User:The Earwig|<span style="color:#008800">The</span> <span style="color:#004400">Earwig</span>]] <span style="font-family:Verdana"><small>([[User_talk:The Earwig|Talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/The Earwig|Contribs]])</small></span> 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Perhaps a Mass AfD then? All the Best, [[User:Mifter|Mifter]] ([[User talk:Mifter|talk]]) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::The problem with Mass AFDs is that if someone finds one or two on the list you nominate to be actually notable, it will sink the whole mass of them. The best thing is to speedy the ones that lack any indication of importance, and AFD the ones that discuss their own importance, but lack secondary, independent sources required for notability. Of course, you should always do certain things [[WP:BEFORE]] nominating for deletion, so please do the due dilligence on each of these, and do not automatically assume that EVERY we TV series is automatically non-notable. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Go with a mass of prods, watchlist them, and in the small chance someone cares, AFD then. No need to flood AFD either. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:Please take into account how many articles link to it when making your decision to delete. If you take the time to check 'What links here' first you won't run the risk of leaving behind a mess of redlinks in other articles. [[List of Web television series]], to name the most prevalent one, would need cleanup after a mass delete. Anyways, I don't disagree that many of these aren't notable and don't deserve articles, I just want other editors to take their time with decisions to delete, take it case-by-case, and first take into account several other factors that may actually help in improving Wikipedia, like whether a topic needs coverage or would be of interest to readers. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<font size="5">&oelig;</font>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dislike sending articles like this to AfD, as most of the people who participate in them are the only ones interested in them. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last|Case in point]]. So even if they fail all guidelines they don't get deleted unless a bold admin decides to do it.--[[User:Otterathome|Otterathome]] ([[User talk:Otterathome|talk]]) 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
::a check of the AfD log for Aug 14 (selected as a slow day with a small log) showed: 44 delete, 23 keep, 19 merge/redirect/relist. My advice is to consider each article, look for refs, and then do what is appropriate for it, and not too many at a time--mass actions of any sort get complained about, on the assumption that one might not be giving them full consideration. Additionally, the fate of the first few is a guide for the others. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== Close AfD ==

{{resolved}}
Can a admin close this AFD? [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia ]] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Junkcops|Junkcops]] ([[User talk:Junkcops|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Junkcops|contribs]]) 07:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Incorrect link given, that AfD was from 2006, correct link is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia (2nd nomination)]]. '''''<font color="#FF0000">[[User:Hut 8.5|Hut 8.5]]</font>''''' 09:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
::Oh sorry.... [[User:Junkcops|The Junk Police]] ([[User talk:Junkcops|reports]]|[[Special:Contributions/Junkcops|works]]) 07:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::Closed as delete, with a narrative verdict. ➲<span style="font-family:arial narrow;"> '''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]''' <sup><u>[[User:Redvers/Say no to Commons|It sucks to be me]]</u></sup></span> 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== Looking to close [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates]] ==

Can we get an uninvolved admin to close this centralized deletion discussion? It's been going on for about 20 days now, and seems to have winded down. Thanks. [[User:Equazcion|Equazcion]] ([[User talk:Equazcion|talk]]) 15:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== Abuse of admin privileges by [[User:Hu12]] ==

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident, and belongs at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. Please read the text of the edit notice when posting here. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

== External links noticeboard ==

Hi, I'm trying to start up an external links noticeboard, so I've set up a draft [[User:Themfromspace/External_links_noticeboard|in my userspace]]. If anybody here is interested in issues regarding external links feel free to comment on the draft on its talkpage or edit it directly. For a noticeboard to work it needs editors to watch it and participate in the discussions on it, so I'm posting this around to try to probe if there are enough editors interested in this to get it started. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:I think it would make more sense to link to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_External_links]] like the spam noticeboard. They already have a group of editors who are involved. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Participants]]. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 07:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

== Proposed Community Ban for [[User:Drew R. Smith]] ==

{{archive top}}
'''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.''' <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

{{user5|Drew R. Smith}}

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&oldid=309892145 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, <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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) [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|306]]''</sup> 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&diff=309749711&oldid=309643487 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... --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] ([[User talk: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, <s>stevebaker</s> 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 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. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 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? [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*** Creating new accounts in the midst of a discussion such as this is not wise. [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 11:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*** [[Commons:User:Ender The Xenocide]] methinks ;) [[User:Jack Merridew|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:Commons:Changing username|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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 19:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*For what it's worth, I'm the one who "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SteveBaker&diff=prev&oldid=309374578 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. [[User:APL|APL]] ([[User talk: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).<br />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).<br />Enough is enough. —[[User:David Levy|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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 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. [[WP:AGF|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. →<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>[[user talk:Javert|<font style="color:#50C878">'''breakaway'''</font>]]</sup> 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. [[User:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate</font>]]<small><sup><b>[[User talk:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw</font>]]</b></sup></small> 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
**Thank you for your apology. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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"<sup class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&diff=prev&oldid=308696901 diff]</sup> defense of his reverting non-vandalism. He's not here for much more than game playing. And {{user|Larry Sanger's revenge}}; hmmm? Just post-block on his talk page he has spurned offers of mentorship with "ain't going to happen".<sup class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&diff=prev&oldid=309889917 diff]</sup> 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 <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Changing_username&oldid=309916620#Drew_R._Smith_.E2.86.92_Andrew_Wiggin pending requests]</span> to change his user name in order to 'start fresh'. Not-how-it-works. And the forgery? Appalling. Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|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? --[[User:Eaglestorm|Eaglestorm]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:OlEnglish|<font size="5">&oelig;</font>]][[User talk:OlEnglish|<sup>&trade;</sup>]] 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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 [[User:Bubba hotep|Bubba hotep]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=309270897&oldid=309270665 diff] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308710827&oldid=308709917 diff]), [[User:Dancarney|Dancarney]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308698796&oldid=308696739 diff]), [[User:Spiderone|Spiderone]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308704799&oldid=308704758 diff] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=prev&oldid=308704758 diff] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308702555&oldid=308702452 diff]), [[User:213.86.244.72|213.86.244.72]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308708003&oldid=308706336 diff]), [[User:Morry32|Morry32]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308912026&oldid=308907435 diff]), and [[User:Fernandosmission|Fernandosmission]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308750257&oldid=308734025 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, [[User:90.192.190.110|90.192.190.110]]/[[User:90.193.153.214|90.193.153.214]], being reverted by multiple other editors for adding subtle POV-pushing and sports-team-boosterism to an article.<p>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. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 12:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*: Well <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Duff&diff=308695975&oldid=308695891 this]</span> 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 [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol|vandalism as a game]] (or dance;). Anyway, that incident is small beer ;) There's lots more here. Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|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. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ban''' - Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=309916176&oldid=309915629 Ched]. Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&diff=309802590&oldid=309787892 Durova]. He's willing to admit his mistakes. He came clean (even though it did take him forever). He is willing to make [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drew_R._Smith&diff=prev&oldid=309807185 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. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::''One'' mistake? Lol. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't think you really researched this issue, but you're entitled to your opinion, of course. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)-
:::::{{ec}} 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?) <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::{{ec}}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. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#801818;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#801818;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
*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]]. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] ([[User talk:Jahiegel|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. <s>I also support the compromise listed below as it seems well thought out.<s> 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. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 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. &ndash;[[user:blurpeace|'''blurpeace''']]&nbsp;[[user talk:blurpeace|'''<sup>(talk)</sup>''']] 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

===Compromise sub-proposal===

'''Compromise''' I propose the community ban takes effect upon the next sanction, after this one expires, should there be one. <s>Durova is willing to keep an eye on the individual</s>, 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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:*I support this, assuming the one month block is reinstated when this discussion is closed. <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:*As do I, same provision. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:*I support this also, per Lar and Vicenarian. →<font style="color:#4682b4">'''javért'''</font> <sup>[[user talk:Javert|<font style="color:#50C878">'''breakaway'''</font>]]</sup> 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.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk: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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
::*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? [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::*He's opposing the compromise, not the ban. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::::*What tan said. Bad indenting. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
::*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.[[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk: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? ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::* Yes, that's what LHvU said too. :) ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
:*Seems a reasonable proposal. Endorse. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|306]]''</sup> 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::*To Lar: in light of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LessHeard_vanU&diff=310049946&oldid=310049737 this] it's a bit of a challenge to extend that much good faith. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|306]]''</sup> 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::*I obviously misinterpreted your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=309896386&oldid=309896271 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. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk: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..." [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|306]]''</sup> 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. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">t</span>]]</font>''' 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:* @ Durova (after several edit conflicts) Perhaps I took liberties with your comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrew_R._Smith&diff=309807185&oldid=309807043 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. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - clarified who the comment was in response to after several edit conflicts. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 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. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|306]]''</sup> 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Thread closure proposal ===

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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#4B0082;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
::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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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? →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::There is that. Sigh. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
{{ec}} 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 <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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) &ndash; 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''"? – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •[[User talk:Bubba 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. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk: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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::*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. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 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? →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::::If I recall correctly, he was extended a "last chance". –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 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. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;22:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
: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.[[User:Heironymous Rowe|Heironymous Rowe]] ([[User talk: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.--<span style="font-family:Arial"><sup>[[User:Sky Attacker|<span style="color:red">'''''The Legendary'''''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Sky Attacker|<span style="color:blue">'''''Sky Attacker'''''</span>]]</sub></span> 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 00:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:How does one accidentally create a secondary account? (I note this was today, 8/25). [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 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. - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 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? <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

===Post closure===
Well, this has been closed... but what's the resolution? <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:It appears that [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=310081095&oldid=310078005 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 02:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::So... since you are an admin... volunteering? <font color="blue" face="georgia">[[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]]</font> <font face="Georgia"><sup>([[User talk:Vicenarian|Said]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|Done]])</sup></font> 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|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". - [[User:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''D''</b>]]rew [[User talk:Drew R. Smith|<b style="font-size:bigger;color:#900">''S''</b>mith]] [[Special:Contributions/Drew R. Smith|<i style="font-size:smaller;color:#ccc">What I've done</i>]] 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Or you could jus not lie and sock in the first place... [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::What a shocking concept. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
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. [[User:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate</font>]]<small><sup><b>[[User talk:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw</font>]]</b></sup></small> 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. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::This really shouldn't have been archived. Strong support for ''a'' ban, maybe, but ''what'' ban? [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 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. [[User:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">AniMate</font>]]<small><sup><b>[[User talk:AniMate|<font face="Segoe Print" color="black">draw</font>]]</b></sup></small> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&action=view&ip=Drew_R._Smith reblocked] for 30 days. I'd like to again point to my [[User talk:Drew R. Smith#Modest Proposal|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. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]] ([[User talk:Vicenarian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|contribs]]) 04:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{archive bottom}}

== Vandalism of a page that is likely to continue by many IPs ==

{{main|Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Will Buckley}}
The [[Will Buckley]] page has been repeatedly vandalised. Thanks to the subject being in a controversy at the moment this is unlikely to stop. I've been monitoring it but am about to go to work!

* {{La|Will Buckley}} - a BBC/Observer sports journalist

[[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:I semiprotected for a few days, hopefully the folks who are vandalizing will have seen a shiny object and been distracted by then. In the meantime, maybe you can turn up some sources and expand the article? =) [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. Actually I'm of the opinion that the subject is pretty non-notable, just a hack. Why I cared about the vandalism, Lord only knows ;-) [[User:Almost-instinct|''<font color="#FF2400">almost</font>'']]-[[User talk:Almost-instinct|<font color="#007FFF">instinct</font>]] 22:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikimedia UK announces flagged revisions ==

As reported by the BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm]. Now call me old-fashioned, but shouldn't that be announced prominently on-wiki? Or has it been announced prominently in a place that no-one will notice? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 15:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:I think the bbc is exaggerating slightly, all that's happened is they've added flagged revs to a test wiki, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-24/Technology report]]--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 16:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::No, Mike Peel (who he? - ed.) told the BBC it would start in the next couple of weeks. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Missed that, [[User:Mike Peel]] apparently. Seems unlikely they would start the trial when they haven't even run it on the test-wiki yet. It probably is just the bbc misinterpreting, I'll ask Mike--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]][[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] 16:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:This was in [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?_r=1&hp NY Times] as well, and reported by many other news outlets.[http://news.google.com/news?q=wikipedia&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn] [[User:Siawase|Siawase]] ([[User talk:Siawase|talk]]) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::And the NYT is attributing it to Foundation officials - do the Foundation not realise that they can talk to us here, instead of having to rely on the press to let us know what they are doing? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::[http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/weekly-wiki-tech-update-pre-wikimania-edition/ Wikimedia techblog notice], which I suspect would be considered more or less official. This might be a good chance to see how they work and provide constructive critique. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Ahh, they ''did'' announce it prominently where no-one would notice it. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an old story that's cropped up again due to the NYT article (which was unprovoked by the WMF, as far as I can tell). Wikimedia UK have certainly not been pushing it, or announcing it - the press have been coming to us. As I've been saying, the trial 'will start in the next "couple of weeks"' (based on information from Brion on wikien-l). [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 16:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:Could I ask that next time you give a quote like that to the BBC you could mention it on-wiki as well? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::Could I please second this? It is not particularly helpful to get these announcements in the press, filtered through so many levels of abstraction that one is left guessing what the original announcement was, when the press statement (or some equivalent announcement) could have been made available here. I'm not singling you out specifically, Mike - but too often I read in the press that "Wikipedia WILL be doing X, according to Wikipedia", when I've never seen X discussed onwiki in the slightest. Far too often, in fact, it is specifically on the subject of flagged revisions. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::: Sure. Where? [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} I suspect that might not be practical -- how often would such a notice have to be given, and where? Sounds to me like the media took a quiet "we're sorta testing this" and turned it into "WIKIPEDIA ROLLING OUT FLAGGED REVISIONS TOMORROW"... admittedly, the latter is a more eye-catching story, even if it doesn't seem to be the case. Testing of technical features is not a policy announcement; even if ''we'' don't want flagged revisions, there are doubtless other MediaWiki wikis that do. Granted, of coruse, that I could be missing something and haven't been interviewing any "officials" lately. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Have you thoroughly read the thread and links above? The Wikimedia techblog notice (something of which I was previously unaware) says "...before we prepare to deploy these extensions on English Wikipedia in the coming weeks". [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::...good point. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I should explain that nothing I've said today is new - it's all been based on what information I've gathered from on-wiki, and also from the mailing lists. There was no announcement of any sort. I've also basically been fire-fighting - the press have been phoning the UK press phone, and I've been answering their questions to the best of my ability (and coping with their various misunderstandings as to what role I have/WMUK has with Wikipedia). I'd also add that the decision to trial flagged revisions is [[Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll|an en.wp decision by the community]]. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:So the techblog announcement isn't an announcement? Could it be that careless wording ''there'' triggered these stories and enquiries? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::Sort of. Brion has been periodically updating for a while now, saying that things would be rolling toward implementation around this time (it actually fell a bit behind schedule). So in that context, the meaning was clear; the community made the decision a while ago to do a trial, so it's just an announcement that it's actually going to be implemented soon. But much of the press seems to have the idea that this was a top-down decision.--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] ([[User talk:Ragesoss|talk]]) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:The community has approved [[Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions]] (almost) as written, that is: globally passive and 'active' (i.e., with precedence of the latest flagged version) only when admins specifically 'turn it on' (flagged 'protection'), which is subject to the protection policy, and nothing more: no flagged revs for all blps as much of the press says. Maybe a communication glitch ? [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 23:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:Mike, sorry about not answering your question ("Where"?) earlier. Needless to say, there are about a dozen random "announcements" pages scattered around, almost all of them are totally obscure, and most are unmaintained and unwatched - which makes your question tough to answer at present. Probably we need someone to start a new page for such announcements, and since I am someone, I'm going to see about mocking up a suggestion for an appropriate noticeboard. I'll make a prominent announcement when I've got something worked up. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 18:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::Where will you make this announcement? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::Might I suggest the ''Signpost'' suggestions page a good place to announce breaking news?--[[User:Ragesoss|ragesoss]] ([[User talk:Ragesoss|talk]]) 18:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

:::If it's ''breaking'' news, it should go on a wiki-wide Watchlist notification or top-banner. Not that many people read the Signpost compared to the number of editors or even active editors. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Don't know if we something like this or not, but it might be nice to have a page (similar to the ArbCom announcements page) for announcements from Wikimedia Foundation folks. These could include formal announcements like "We are now doing X...", but also responses to press reports that might confuse editors here. Obviously press stories about Wikipedia (and a lot of other things) can sometimes be a bit "off" (for a variety of reasons), and it might be good to offer a space on en.wikipedia where Wikimedia spokespeople can weigh in and/or clarify certain press reports. Lots of people would watchlist such a page, but we could also obviously cross-post important announcements to this noticeboard, the village pump, etc. Just a thought. --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::I agree. I think that it's a fine use of a site notice. Although I never miss an issue, The Signpost isn't read by most. '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background:#999;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">hmwith</span>]][[User talk:hmwith|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">t</span>]]</font>''' 21:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::For community announcements that aren't important for readers, I think a [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Talknotice|talknotice]] would be optimal. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|talk]]) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions was approved by "80% of 259 users" according to the BBC piece. That's 207 users, ''out of thousands'', who are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia. Just saying... -&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Allstarecho|<span style="position:relative;display:inline-block;color:#222;line-height:1.3em;border:1px solid #bbb;"><i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:7.4em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>&nbsp; '''a'''llstar<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span><span class="Unicode" style="color:blue;">'''e'''cho &nbsp;</span></span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>&nbsp;01:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
:Thousands of users are responsible for mucking up Wikipedia? More like hundreds of thousands, or millions, actually. Yes, we have that many vandals. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At the very least someone official could have put it up on [[Template:cent|<nowiki>{{</nowiki>cent<nowiki>}}</nowiki>]]. And when exactly did the community agree to this? I thought we only agreed to a trial run. Maybe there was something in the mailing lists. I don't watch those :( . [[User:Bsimmons666|'''Bsimmons<font color="#990000">666</font>''']] ([[User_talk:Bsimmons666|talk]]) 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:What is being discussed in the press is in fact a trial run, as J. Wales remarked [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/technology/internet/25wikipedia.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print here], "It is a test." There is a lot of support for flagged revs being implemented in at least some form, so presumably if the test is at least somewhat successful we will continuing using them in some fashion. If, for whatever reason, it proves a major or medium-sized disaster, I don't believe there is anything which precludes the en.wikipedia community from saying "this is absolutely terrible, shut it down now." I'd say the most likely outcome is that flagged revs won't end up in the trashcan, completely unused (as some editors want), but nor will they be turned on for the entire project (as some other editors want). We'll end up somewhere in between those two extremes, but there will be a lot of debating, anger, and doomsday predictions before we get there. I'm sure it will all be perfectly goddamn delightful! --[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 06:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::It doesn't matter if it's a test. FlaggedRevs is still an affront to IP users and new users alike and isn't going to do anything but provoke more "vandals", who were formerly good-faith users whose sourced information is now being obligated to run thru Azorius-style crap before it gets made live, thus acting as an effective discouragement for new editors. Flatly, there isn't gonna be enough editors to make FlaggedRevs viable on large projects (such as en.wp). -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jeremy]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Tear him for his bad verses!]])</sup></font> 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::How is allowing IP and new editors to edit pages that they can't current edit (semi-protected/full-protected pages) an affront to them? Have you read the proposed configuration, which is simply to replace or augment current protection with a flagged protection system? This is why it's been so long coming, as I understand it, because the extension has had to be rewritten to work in the way we've asked for it to work. It's just a trial, it isn't (zOMG) FlaggedRevs in its conventional sense - don't really see the issue. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 07:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/flaggedrevisions}}
:I've added the Signpost series template to the right for those editors fuzzy on what happened when.
:Note that [[Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions|the proposal]] presented to the community states "there is no consensus to use an active implementation (in which new edits are not shown to readers unless made by or flagged by trusted users) for all biographies of living people or an arbitrary subset of them, preemptively." It certainly sounds to me from the media coverage that someone in the Foundation is intending to 'use an active implementation for all biographies of living people, preemptively.' If that is the case, then the community has been deceived and the Foundation is simply hiding behind the poll to do whatever it wants. But let's see what the actual implementation is before we break out the pitchforks. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== Way too much of a burden! ==

[[User:God]] &mdash; ''"Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:God. If in doubt, please verify that "God" exists."'' [[User talk:harej|@]]'''[[User:harej|harej]]''' 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:But well...God has been blocked indef:
::<tt>20:10, 27 January 2006 Xy7 (talk | contribs | block) blocked God (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (username) (unblock | change block)</tt>
:So we won't see Him (or Her) edit Wikipedia under their name I guess {{=)|wink}} '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #35628F">Why</span>]]''' 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:: Is blocking God a form of sacrilege? [[User talk:harej|@]]'''[[User:harej|harej]]''' 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::: No, because She can still edit anonymously. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::You can't block someone that doesn't exist. ➲<span style="font-family:arial narrow;"> '''[[User talk:Redvers|REDVERS]]''' <sup><u>[[User:Redvers/Say no to Commons|It sucks to be me]]</u></sup></span> 09:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::This block appears appropriate under both [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names]] and [[Ten Commandments|the Third Commandment]] (second for those of the Catholic or Lutheran faiths). --''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 09:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::: And also the 2nd Commandment (Catholic 1st) if you consider a [[User:God]] to be idolatrous. [[User talk:harej|@]]'''[[User:harej|harej]]''' 09:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
MediaWiki is too wishywashy on the topic. Cygwin is much more authoritative:
$ su god
su: user god does not exist
++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
: But my compiler tells me that [[Fortran language features#Implicit and explicit_typing|GOD is real]]... at least unless I use <tt>IMPLICIT NONE</tt>. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

== Speedy deletions requested ==
{{resolved}}
Today, I marked four images for speedy deletion under G8. All the images in question were used on articles that relate to a non-notable band made up of teenagers at a school. The band and related articles have been repeatedly deleted, and the creator was even blocked once for re-creation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ABsbfan See editor's block log]. Examples of repeated deletion of articles: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BLADES_%28band%29&action=edit&redlink=1 example 1] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fear_That_Gives_Men_Wings&action=edit&redlink=1 example 2]. You can see a slew of deletions and other warnigns at [[User talk:Bsbfan]].

After tagging these images for G8, administrator [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] declined the speedies ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABladezhero.jpg&diff=310183869&oldid=310183391 example]) saying the images were not entirely dependent on the deleted articles. I fail to see how these images could be used on any ''other'' articles, and any non-article use would be self promotion. So, I queried Xeno on this, and he suggested I take it to IfD. The action of taking it to IfD seems silly, overly bureaucratic and pointless. It's a foregone conclusion these images should be deleted.

Would another administrator please step in and delete these please?
* [[:File:BLADES 2009.jpg]]
* [[:File:Jadujadu123.png]]
* [[:File:Soldierblades.jpg]]
* [[:File:Bladezhero.jpg]]
Thanks, --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:[[WP:DRV]] is thataway. "''Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.''" →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#00009C;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;16:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
::*I know what DRV is. This isn't about DRV, but thanks anyway. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::I think DRV is not for declined speedies, that's what xFD is for. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:Why didn't you simply go to IFD as I suggested? That's the correct venue for having an image deleted outside speedy criteria (G8 doesn't apply as far as I can tell) and would've taken less time than making this thread. Note also [[:File:BLADES 2009.jpg]] has been declined twice before (once by me, once by [[User:Woody]]). –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
*Xeno, thank you for your time and attention to this. But, I was looking for input from another administrator? Thank you, --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
**And I'm sure you'll get it. My question remains... –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::Seriously, this is probably more "bureaucratic" than taking to IfD. Here, we'll have some six-hour drag-out discussion about what rationale to use for deleting some pictures of kids trying to act cool. Look at that first one, by the way - the kid on the left. Awesome. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::I don't have any need of answering your question Xeno. I'm not looking for your input. Thanks, --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::An admin's declining a speedy suggests that there is some dispute over whether a page meets with the CSD; because our presumption is against speedy deletion, which the community requires be construed strictly, the proper venue when established editors disagree about whether a page is speediable is XfD. (In any case DRV is probably inappropriate; it has long been our practice that declined speedies go to XfD, not DRV [with the exception, I guess, of BLP1Es on which G10 is sought; I recall two that went from decline to DRV straightaway].) [[Special:Contributions/99.154.83.106|99.154.83.106]] ([[User talk:99.154.83.106|talk]]) 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
*I think the photos could probably be deleted per [[WP:CHILD]], given that we only have explicit permission from one of the minors (the uploader).
*For the record: I have no issue with an admin deleting these per this, or another reason, without further comment from myself. –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
::Done, you policy stickler. I was kinda sad to delete that first one. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::WEST SIIIIIIDE !! –<font face="verdana" color="black">[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']]</font>[[user talk:xeno|<font color="black" face="verdana"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:40, 26 August 2009

no u

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=310202552"