Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Shankbone

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Shankbone}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

David Shankbone

[edit]

Status: open • view • edit • history • watch • talk
Filed: 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Rationale

[edit]
  • Reason: Per en:Wikipedia:SPI#David_Shankbone, Bucktoothed beaver and WatchingWhales are confirmed sockpuppets of David Shankbone. The Fat Jenny account could not be checkusered on that project because it was not active there, but is active here at Commons. Multiple accounts were used in violation of policy at sister project. Possible sleeper accounts may exist here, due to the editor's prolific history. Durova (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and blocked all three of the sockpuppets as they are all quacking (and two have already been confirmed by a en.wiki CU). I am going to hold off on taking action against David until a CheckUser has had the chance to comment. Tiptoety talk 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

Findings: It is Confirmed that

I leave it to others to review contribs and block as appropriate. Note that there was a question about Fat Jenny on en:wp ... this may help. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I'm not here really - honest :)
I reckon well over a year ago I had reason to run CU on this user, found some of the above (the names kinda stick in your mind). While my inclination might be to block in this case I felt it politic to ask the user.
I was given some (im)plausible explanations and an assurance that there would be no more editing by those I'd queried. Much CU work is about not trying to make waves/cause issues and I merely discussed it with a couple of other CUs so they were in the picture (possibly Bryan tho it is a while ago!).
For me this is abuse of multiple accounts after an assurance that it would not continue. Had I the rights blocks would ensue. --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my view as well but I would welcome views from others. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best if I recuse from using the tools. Agree with Herby and Lar in principle. Durova (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I went ahead and blocked the other now confirmed accounts. After reviewing some of the accounts edits, this one did raise some concern. As for the David Shankbone account, I have still taken no action against it pending further discussion. I feel that it may be appropriate to issue a 3 month block or so with the agreement that further socking would result in an indef one. Tiptoety talk 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a close to me at this point unless there is anything else? ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see Shankbone is not blocked. Given his assurance to me from a year or so back (email) that this would not happen again I wonder why not? --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, which I overlooked. I think we should reach consensus on that before we close. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given it is not the first time I think some signal should be sent in the form of a shortish block? --Herby talk thyme 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly uninvolved enough to block, but I'm having trouble seeing how this wouldn't be a "punitive action". This mostly seems a wikipedia issue (unless I missed something about his disruptive use of the puppets here, as opposed to there. Naturally I disapprove of using multiple accounts on commons to create disruption on one of the projects we serve, so with that in mind I'd be tempted to match the block here to the block there. On the other hand, well, here is not there.
Thoughts? --SB_Johnny talk 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matching the block on en:wp would be preventative. Making it longer would be punitive, I think. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on this discussion except to point out, as I already e-mailed Herby our conversation from April 2008, there was no agreement nor did he even hint that he had a problem with other accounts. He did not request I stop using them so there was no "assurance...that this would not happen again..." We only e-mailed three times (March, April and September 2008) unless I inexplicably deleted this e-mail (then hopefully he can forward it). Otherwise, he mis-remembers. I'm unsure why people care under what name I upload free-use, original images of authors, actors and such, but oh well I won't bring such problems upon you again. Best of luck to you all and enjoy the holiday season. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty simple as I recall. I mailed asking why other people were on his IP (Fat Jenny was so obvious but at the time i think there was another). He stated that she was his "neighbour" and she no longer edited and it would happen again (tho not why she happened to be on his IP).
I agreed off line with other CUs that the idea that someone would actually call themselves "Fat Jenny" & upload the image of themselves as they did was laughable however it had stopped and checking for a while afterwards there was nothing more.
I considered that a discreet warning (CUs should not wander around with heavy boots on unless necessary) that had been heeded. I was obviously mistaken.
I guess that I would now feel a block (intended to prevent further disruption) would be rather silly. Any repeat performance would be treated differently I guess. As I hold no rights any of my views can be safely ignored! --Herby talk thyme 09:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying basically, that David lied to you and your colleagues, yes? - Alison ❤ 09:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be fairly careful with the words I use Allie... I consider myself misled but that was the case at the time. Take a look at the fat jenny image - would you call yourself that, upload it and tell your neighbour? Ok - folks have differing views on what is good for them but it is fair to say we saw no point in taking it further at the time as it was not disruptive and we felt we had made the point.
I'm really only colouring in some background which might have been lost had I not still had one or two pages watchlisted. --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think invoking the holiday spirit is particularly appropriate here. The reason people care about what account you use is because you have used these multiple accounts to disrupt one of the other projects, and you have used your accounts here on commons in that pursuit. Which actually answers my question as well, since a block seems in order to prevent the use of commons as a platform to continue this while the en.wp block is in place. If there are no objections, I'll set it for 5 months. --SB_Johnny talk 11:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no ongoing disruption here of any sort? I understood that was what blocks were for?
If there are some issues elsewhere (not interested enough to look) so be it but 5 months seems pretty excessive to me unless disruption is expected. --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going with Lar's comment, above. The block on en.wp was 6 months, applied Nov 30.
Alternatively, we could just leave the block out of the picture, but rather monitor for additional socks. --SB_Johnny talk 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as a drama-reducing solution? David is limited to one account on this project (officially and on-wiki without wiggle room) and warned against using his uploads as a springboard for disruption on other projects (such as edit warring to keep his photos on articles). So long as he abides by that he can remain unblocked, with the understanding that something like a six month block will ensue if problems resume. After all, he's one of our most prolific editors according to this report. Productive work earns a few chances--not an infinite number, but a few. Fair enough? Durova (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much better to me. Again, my question and suggestion above was aimed at those who stated that a block was appropriate. The question was what it would be preventing. Since the issue seems to be that he was using socks here to cause issues on one of the projects we serve, the only way the block would be preventative (rather than punitive) would be if it were aimed at stopping this cross-wiki behavior. I think any block length arbitrarily decided by us on commons would be a punitive action. --SB_Johnny talk 21:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't appreciate being lied about, and this discussion is stunning considering how much work I put into contributing to Commons. All original. I have done nothing abusive here except I have other accounts that gave free media, none of which were used to edit war over anything on Wikipedia. So if it assists with figuring out what to do, I am retired and will not contribute in any form on any Wikimedia project. If I ever contribute anything again to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia, I will send Greg Kohs $50 to be transferred to whomever to help with the costs of maintaining Wikipedia Review. I've moved on. I wish you all happiness, health and success. --David Shankbone (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, see this discussion and in particular the diffs provided by Dekimasu regarding use of multiple accounts to create an illusion of support for using David's image uploads in articles, and for sock accounts that were used to restore David's images to articles after removal by other editors. David, it'd probably be simplest to get directly in touch with Somey regarding that donation. With permission from either of you I'll share emails to put you in touch. Regards, Durova (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, Durova, that account was w:User:A Knavish Bonded, an anagram of "David Shankbone" I adopted when I was trying to allude my stalker, and I ditched in July 2008 when I went back to using David Shankbone. Last May I was using it as a scratchpad to re-design my user page. That "evidence" is from the first half of 2008 during the stalking period, and we are now entering 2010. You can't show evidence of anything abusive in the last year and a half, except an impolite comment to you. --David Shankbone (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to interject. David forwarded me the email thread between himself and Herby. I have not followed this issue closely, and have no opinion about blocking, or any of the specifics. However, I would say that Herby's characterization of the 2008 email thread is heavily skewed (and to whatever extent that is influential in the decision here, I'd ask that you all reconsider your conclusions).

  • David stated in the emails that his neighbor, Fat Jenny, was acting on his behalf. Herby's summary states that David did not explain why Fat Jenny happened to be on his IP, which is not consistent with the emails I saw.
  • David also addressed another account, Sam the Sherpa; he readily admitted that was his own account. If Herby's memory of these emails is to be used to draw conclusions about David's motivations, that's a pretty significant detail to leave out.
  • David explained that the use of the accounts was part of his "lying low" to shake off a stalker, and Herby expressed sympathy and understanding about using multiple accounts in that context.
  • Herby suggested, "in the interests of transparency," that at some point in the future, David should disclose the connection among the accounts. (For whatever it's worth, I happen to agree with that piece of advice.) However, it was most certainly not a "warning," discreet or otherwise.

Any of you who are using Herby's summary to draw conclusions about David's motivations should pause and reconsider. I would say this especially to Alison, with the completely unnecessary escalation of the summary to questioning David's truthfulness.

In closing, I have never participated in a discussion about blocks on Commons, and I'm not about to weigh in on this one. I don't know anything about what it takes to protect this site, and don't care to delve into the details. I'm not making any recommendation on what the best course of action is, though I must say that I'm rather disappointed in the quality of reasoning I'm seeing in this one aspect of the discussion. -Peteforsyth (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot the most important bit: I saw nothing, absolutely nothing, that could be construed as an "assurance" from David about his future behavior. That simply wasn't the nature of the discussion. Herby did not ask David for an assurance of anything, and David didn't volunteer anything. -Peteforsyth (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great - & people wonder why volunteers stop volunteering... Anyway - when I dropped my rights I deleted CU related mails so I apologise sincerely for any mistakes I may have made in the above summary.
My recollection is as stated above.
That someone called Fat Jenny who uploaded the image "she" did was acting on this users behalf was not something I believed I'm afraid. If others do - fine.
I assumed having raised the issue that there was an understanding - given the user's experience across projects - that they realised it was not the right way of doing things.
I have no recollection of Sam the Sherpa
It is highly likely I would do what I could to assist anyone who was being stalked. It is highly likely I would state that the accounts should be acknowledged. I note that, 12 months later, that is not the case.
If folk think that 8 accounts for this user are appropriate - fine.
So - folk on Commons can make up their own minds about this I am sure. It merely reminds me why I dropped the rights and why Commons would probably be fine if Wikipedia didn't exist ;) If further apologies are in order I am sure someone won't hesitate to point it out to me but I will not appear on this page again. --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to have to choose between your participation and David Shankbone's... If, however, I'm forced to choose between you two, (on the basis of trustworthiness, or drama production, or of overall contribution to Commons, or on any of a number of other criteria I could name) even after taking the many pictures contributed by David into account, the choice remains blindingly obvious to me. But I'd rather not choose. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much for drama-reduction. David, will you agree to stick to just this account or not? --SB_Johnny talk 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a compromise: that we leave the main account unblocked for now, but at the first sign of use of any socks, new or old or whatever, the socks and the main account be blocked indefinitely. If David really has left and isn't coming back, there's no need for a block to enforce it, he's not coming back. If he changes his mind, as he has before in the past (returning after things "blew over"), that's fine. he remains welcome to contribute using his main account once whatever blocks are imposed, if any, are over, but I think it's clear that he needs to discontinue use of any alternate accounts. Their use is disruptive here, as it is on en:wp, and needs to be prevented. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable solution. Tiptoety talk 16:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me as well. I would have preferred Durova's suggestion (in the sense of an agreement involving David), but this achieves the same result. My main concern is to try to minimize the penetration of wikipedian high dramas into this project, and I assume all of us (even David!) would be on the same page with me on that count.
For the record, Herby, I rechecked this morning, blocked the one remaining alternate account, and am reasonably sure that no new accounts have been created since this issue came up. --SB_Johnny talk 17:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am willing to accept either compromise. Anyone who has remaining concerns is welcome to discuss them via user talk or email. The primary issue appears to be handled. Durova (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Let's make it official then:

(←)While his generous and prolific contributions to this project are greatly valued and appreciated, User:David Shankbone has been found to have used alternate accounts in an unacceptable fashion. From this day forward he is forbidden from using alternate accounts unless they are clearly linked to his main account both on the user and user_talk page in the alt account's first edit. Should he be found to have used an alternate account without making it publicly clear that he is doing so, he will be blocked indefinitely. --SB_Johnny talk 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really no need to vote on something that has already gained consensus above. As such, I am closing this case. Tiptoety talk 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/David_Shankbone&oldid=32910401"