• David Shankbone (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Hello all. Today, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone was opened, and Alison (talk · contribs) confirmed several sockpuppets. Evidence of abuse with these accounts is highlighted in the sockpuppet investigation itself. I deliberately did not block the master account, with the rationale that discussion here may be more appropriate before blocking the account. In my personal opinion, this is grounds for an indefinite block, but the wider consultation of other administrators is requested before any action is taken. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Multiple_alternate_accounts above.  Skomorokh  03:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Superficially it would seem that a block of some length is warranted, perhaps not an indefinite block, though. I'd like to see what David has to say about the matter. Everyking (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I am thinking as well. LadyofShalott 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to first hear David explain himself. Short of some amazing testimony showing us how this is all a misunderstanding, I think a block of at least a week is needed. I don't think longer than a month would be helpful as this user is a valued content contributor. Something is however needed to show the seriousness of this sort of breach of trust. If sock puppetry continues in the future a much longer or indefinite block would be justified. ^Chillum 03:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block is inadvisable, since it removes any incentive for David Shankbone to refrain from further socking, by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction. Instead, I support a blocking him for one year, which should prove an adequate length to convey the unacceptability of his misconduct, while preserving the opportunity for an eventual return, provided good behavior is demonstrated. Andrea105 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think depriving ourselves of his contributions for a full year would be excessive. We want to impress upon him the seriousness of the matter, a year seems like overkill. ^Chillum 03:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On the converse, only a month for running numerous sockpuppets in a grudge-fest running on and off-Wikipedia and especially trying to squelch discussions involving him (the edit that Alison states in the SPI Close is blatant) seems light. I'd be willing to support anything in the range of six months to a year. SirFozzie (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, you're all claiming he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. Let's not kid ourselves. Grsz¹¹ 03:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just re-read this whole section Grsz11, nobody has said that. ^Chillum 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Consider Special:Contributions/David_Shankbone. Since he's recently been voluntarily absent for nearly two weeks (at least on his main account), a one week block might hardly even be noticed. If blocking Shankbone is to have any corrective effect, then we need to make it hurt. Exactly what period of time is necessary to accomplish this may still be an open question... Andrea105 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Impress upon him the seriousness". He knows the seriousness, and chose to go ahead anyway. Grsz¹¹ 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that statement was to shine a light on the seriousness of the abuse, not to diminish it. ^Chillum 03:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No one gets a license to violate policies. Would be glad to assign an indefinite block per the standard offer: six consecutive months without socking, a promise not to repeat the behavior, and no extraordinary problems in the meantime. Durova³⁷¹ 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit alone is enough to warrant a full ban. There's no reason at all to suppose that DS would come back in a week, a month, or a year and become an angel. Chillum, no one said that but it's the effect that some editors are presenting - "he's a good editor other than the massive sockfarm he was running, let's just block him for a little bit and hope he sees the error of his ways." Pfft. Tan | 39 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I lack perspective. 1 month does not seem like a little block to me. 1 year to me says we are likely never going to see this person again, but if that is what the community wants then so be it. I could support the Wikipedia:Standard offer as it seems to have the goal of eventually re-integrating the contributor. ^Chillum 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets lay this all out. We have an editor who has been using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny. Specifically, those sockpuppets were used to talk about that editor in the third person, to insult and belittle a fellow volunteer, and to edit pages to include or otherwise situate photos created by the editor, while appearing as a third person. In one spectacular instance of poor thinking, this editor also created the account "Fat Jenny" with a picture of a total unknown stranger on the user page.

Does this sound like someone we want around, ever? I'm blocking him for six months, and ask the community to consider a full ban.--Tznkai (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support a Wikipedia:Standard offer-type deal. This is a shame, and I do not support such sanctions with a light heart; David has been a steady and strong contributor to Wikipedia, especially with regards to his photography; though his tenure has not been without its high drama. This sort of abusive sockpuppetry beyond the pale, however, and we should take care that, while our leash for dramamongering may be long, outright abuse of Wikipedia rules should generally not be tolerated. No one is invaluable to the project, as those of us who lived through the Betacommand fiasco will remember, being highly useful does not excuse behavior of this type. I think Durova's proposal of indefinate ban to be reviewed in 6 months is the best way to handle this. --Jayron32 03:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Further thought. Wikipedia is an attempt to create a serious reference work. To that end we rely on community consensus as a metric of articles should say, what policies should function. Abusing multiple accounts seriously hinders that metric, hinders the project. David Shankbone's behavior here suggests that he is not both willing and capable of collaboratively building the encyclopedia with the rest of us.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron that the ban proposal should be reviewed after the block has come to a conclusion. ^Chillum 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova³⁷¹ 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to postpone any ban discussion for six months (the duration of the block), with the following caveat.. if he is caught socking again, I'd consider that reason to pickup any ban discussion at that point. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When people do these kinds of things, we have to try to strike a balance: we want to prevent recurring problems, but we also don't want to lose someone's productive abilities as a contributor—contributors aren't expendable, and David has certainly done some good work. I'd suggest a block of two weeks to a month, with a requirement that he must strictly stick to (uncontroversial) article work for a few months after the expiration of the block. However, I agree that the problems are very serious, and a six month block is certainly not unreasonable. Everyking (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I thought we were waiting for him to comment. Yet everyone keeps weighing in with their 2 cents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was meant they would wait to block until he responded. Grsz¹¹ 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's already been blocked 6 months. I would have liked to have heard from him, but c'est la vie. I suppose he can post on his user talk page and we can discuss him on our own. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm not particularly willing to deal with socking editors, however high the quality of their work is, if they sock to avoid scrutiny, especially when dealing with articles. If this was, (say) a newspaper, and David Shankbone churned out good work for articles he writes and occasionally disrupts meetings with bouts of childish insults and Bob Dole impressions, it'd be a different sort of problem. This is more like someone publishing a journal article, and then peer reviewing it himself. Quality means nothing with that kind of deception. The socking doesn't just have to go away, we need some sort of signal that the entire sort of thinking has changed, or at least been leashed.--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I can support six months, but if David is willing to make some promises to the community, I think we should consider reducing the severity. Everyking (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I'm so disappointed. I've met Shankbone, and he seems like a really nice guy. He's also undoubtedly a huge contributor to Wikipedia. However, socking in this manner is something that is clearly not tolerable. So, unless he has some sort of explanation, I must reluctantly endorse this block, and the Standard Offer. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Others were willing to wait, despite the user being listed as on vacation. I saw no need.--Tznkai (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support a standard-offer type deal. The longest-lived checkuser-confirmed account (of seven alternate accounts) has been editing since late August, for three months. A Knavish Bonded (talk · contribs), who seems likely to be another alternate based on his edits, started editing in February 2008. That's more than a year and a half of abusing the community's trust. I hope that in six months he'll be in a better place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A request for diffs showing clear violations of SOCK

Can someone point me to clear violations of the SOCK policy with diffs? I've had a quick look and can't see any, but it's a lot to look through. SlimVirgin 04:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From [1]: [2] --NE2 04:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He used multiple accounts to edit war to keep David Shankbone-uploaded images in articles where other editors had removed them, see comments here especially diffs already provided by several editors, including Dekimasu. Each of these accounts worked to collude to generate the illusion of support for maintaining articles in David Shankbone's preferred version, usually with regards to giving his images prominent placement. That seems a definite violation of community trust, and an eggregious violation of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Could we please give the accused a chance to reply. We should not assume anything. Let's hear what he has to say first, and then calmly discuss the options. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He's replied. I'm not impressed: starting out a response with a broadside against the CU doesn't indicate that he gets it at all.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, could you please post the diffs here that are clear violations of SOCK so that we can see exactly which posts triggered your block? SlimVirgin 04:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NE2 has posted one diff from October 31. [3] Can someone post the others? SlimVirgin 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside: I removed the File:Childhood_Obesity.JPG image from User talk:Fat Jenny foto fixer. If anyone believes the image belongs there, just revert. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support 6 month block. Clear abuse. Viridae^Talk 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you supply the diffs, Viridae? Lots of people are posting about abuse without details. SlimVirgin 04:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

here is a start. There are numerous diffs, especially those provided by Dekimasu, which show the alleged behavior clearly occuring. --Jayron32 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page, but I'm not seeing the violations of SOCK. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but can someone please post the diffs here? For a six-month block, there should be multiple diffs showing unambiguous violations of the policy, and that's what I'm not seeing. SlimVirgin 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The SPI archiving process is pretty annoying, seeing how there's no link on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed to the archive. --NE2 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I complained at Template_talk:SPIarchive_notice about this, looks like a technical glitch. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I solved that problem, now you can see the links. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What he said. Viridae^Talk 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This contribs list shows the same behavior. Its a short contribs list, as this account only made 5 edits, but as recently as 4 weeks ago he was using sock accounts to show illusory support for keeping his own images prominent in articles. --Jayron32 04:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which diffs are violations of SOCK and how are they violations? SlimVirgin 04:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Every edit by Fat Jenny foto fixer is to an article previously edited by David Shankbone, and the connection between the two accounts was never made overt. This is a direct violation of WP:SOCK, which states under Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts that "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." and "Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." --Jayron32 04:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

yet another throwaway sock doing the same as above. --Jayron32 04:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that he had stopped editing with User:David Shankbone on or around October 30. That account was created after that. Are you arguing that any account not called "David Shankbone" that edits material related to his work—even when it's obvious it's him and even after he stopped using the Shankbone account—is a violation of SOCK? SlimVirgin 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c-riffic)Here are some concerning edits: this was badhanding and these were avoiding scrutiny and questionable otherwise. The implied justification appears to be the lack of a commission of falsified identity, merely an omission of owning up to it. That's too cute by half as far as I'm concerned.--Tznkai (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

this account was active since 2007, and used to edit articles and subjects also edited by David Shankbone, and yet no attempt was ever made to disclose the connection, see [4] where WatchingWhales and David Shankbone make interlaced edits as he switches between the two accounts, creating the illusion of more than one person working on the article. --Jayron32 04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that people stop posting to contribution histories? We need actual diffs of violations. NE2 and Tznkai posted this one from October, which is arguably a violation. Are there any other clear diffs? WatchingWales was known to be David, by the way. SlimVirgin 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

By whom? Article histories are useful in showing that both Shankbone and the undisclosed accounts edited the same article. And if WatchingWales was known to be David, now you're going to have to provide a diff. I see no evidence of that myself... --Jayron32 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Watching Wales has been discussed as David many times on and offwiki. I wouldn't know how to find diffs. It's obvious it's him if you look at its edits anyway. For a six month block, we'd need clear evidence of SOCK violations, as judged by entirely uninvolved admins who couldn't care less about David one way or the other. I'm not seeing that evidence here. I keep asking for diffs and so far only one has been provided. SlimVirgin 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC with everything below) Are you calling me involved? Where have I ever once been involved with David on anything? I have never edited any article he has been involved with, never been involved in policy conflicts with him? Seriously, the use of multiple accounts to "split your editing history [so that] other editors cannot detect patterns in ... contributions" is a blatant SOCK violation, and we have evidence that he has been creating new accounts quite frequently to do so. Even if we grant that WatchingWales and the Knavish, both from 2 years ago, were long since disclosed, what about all of the recent throwaway socks used to edit articles that Shankbone edited or put his photos in articles? We can't peer through the internet to see who is typing on the other side, even if in hindsight we can say oh yeah, this looks like David Shankbone, it doesn't mean that he isn't violating WP:SOCK. Lots of users are blocked merely because their undisclosed sock accounts are WP:DUCK-level obvious, but somehow David is exempted from disclosing his sockpuppet accounts because he's easy to recognize?!? --Jayron32 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you go, SlimVirgin: David argues in favour of his own photo, then uses an undisclosed alternative account to insert it twice.[5][6][7][8][9] Hesperian 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hesperian. These are from 2007 and 2008. The last two edits show A Knavish Bonded adding David's photographs to Chihauhau. First, are we blocking him for six months for two edits made 18 months ago? Secondly, were these really SOCK violations? It was obvious that Knavish was him. It's an anagram of his name, I believe. It edited PETA, Chihauhau, David's images, and some porn articles, all David's areas. Was this a SOCK or an alternate account? SlimVirgin 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting questions, for which I have no answers. My gut feeling is that this is not a particularly serious infraction; and, as you say, this particular incident is stale; yet I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this was all entirely innocent and David's conscience wasn't nagging at him while he was doing it. Hesperian 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy the exact comment you were previously directed to:

It seems to me like it would be best to get this out of the way by processing it once, so although I don't have any strong opinion on this, I looked through some contributions to see if there's anything here. If the accounts are controlled by David Shankbone, edits like this or this or this (from different accounts listed here), which displace images in favor of those created by David Shankbone himself, could be construed as violations of WP:SOCK in that they "create an illusion of support." It is not unreasonable to assume that there would be different reactions to (a) User:David Shankbone replacing article images with his own, and (b) an uninvolved user replacing article images with those uploaded by User:David Shankbone because that uninvolved user thinks the image is better or "spices up the section". Also see, for example, Talk:Chihuahua (dog)/Archive1, where David Shankbone argues extensively for a dog photo he has taken. When the photo was replaced, one of these accounts (User:A Knavish Bonded) repeatedly readded the photo, citing agreement with talk page discussions: "Nobody wants this dog photo. You have been told your talk page, and it has been discussed on the Talk page.", "Sorry, changing lead photo should be discussed on the Talk page, as it has been contentious." Another example I found: image of Palestinian boy with toy gun added by David Shankbone, removed by another user, citing "image neutrality", readded by A Knavish Bonded, with the edit summary "restore image". Especially since they are editing some of the same pages, they should at the very least have been disclosed as alternate accounts. (One of these accounts has already been acknowledged as an alterate account on its talk page, but that one doesn't appear to have a tag either.) Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

--NE2 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jayron, here's a diff [10] where he said WW was him, though there are much earlier ones than that one too. SlimVirgin 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NE2, there's no point in copying material from elsewhere. I can't find diff violations in there, and if you're having to copy it, that suggests you can't either. My concern is that this is a pile-on where everyone is assuming someone else knows what the evidence is. But is there real evidence? SlimVirgin 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the evidence, and it includes a bunch of violations, your denial notwithstanding. --NE2 05:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slim, the diffs provided certainly shows the creation of the illusion of greater support than their really is and it is being done in a content dispute. This is evidence of abusive sock puppetry. ^Chillum 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Were these socks or were they (known or obvious) alternate accounts? I think someone entirely uninvolved needs to be the judge of that. SlimVirgin 05:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... a sock is simply an alternate account used improperly. It's clear from the diffs that they were used imporperly. Therefore they are socks. --NE2 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

( 2 x ec) Yes, you're right, if and only if he was pretending it wasn't him. But was he pretending? Watching Wales was clearly him and known to be. The same with A Knavish Bonded. And the other accounts mentioned made almost no edits and were created after David retired as David Shankbone. SlimVirgin 05:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that some people knew "A Knavish Bonded" was an anagram of "David Shankbone" and that the account was controlled by him, but I do not believe that it was readily evident to most editors he worked with under that name. David Shankbone did edit from his account on November 19, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So David retires his main account, and then immediately starts creating multiple, undisclosed accounts which start editing his favorite topics? How is that not "avoiding scrutiny" again? --Jayron32 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, once a legitimate account is used to avoid scrutiny or create the false illusion of greater support then it is by our definition a sock puppet. I don't get the question. For the record, I am not involved in this at all, and that is how I have judged it. ^Chillum 05:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC x2 respond to SV) I'm entirely uninvolved; unless you count contributing to this discussion somehow makes anyone retroactively involved forever into the past. As I stated above, I have never interacted with David in any meaningful way, and I find the recent use of throwaway socks to disguise his editing to be eggregious violations of WP:SOCK. --Jayron32 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is he was harassed and used alt accounts to avoid the harassment. That he veered into also using one or two, at times, at odds with teh spirit of transparency is indeed regretable but also understandable in the light of a harassment campaign that has gone on for a very long time. This is an opportunity for those who are left behind to decide how much we reward abuse of editors. We seem eager to pillory him but these events were not in a vacuum. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's at least a reasonable explanation of the problem. Thank you Benjiboi. I was unaware of any recent harassment problems, but if you are correct, that would at least go some distance towards him wanting to disguise himself. Being that I have never once even looked at Wikipedia Review, I may have missed anything which went on there that may have lead to his feeling harrassed to the point of abandoning his main account. Is there anywhere one can see evidence of this harrassment? --Jayron32 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32, his life was threatened at one point and David Shanbone was created, IMHO, by someone masking as him to discredit him. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, David suggests in today's comment that the checkuser in the case was involved in disparaging him on Wikipedia Review where much of this effort, including Delicious carbunkle. Not sure if the results would be any different but the interpretation of those results suggest a COI may have impacted all of this. -- Banjeboi 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table". It sounds like there's pounding of the table going on. I don't see as how another checkuser will be necessary, as David has admitted it on his talk page, but if you think Alison has somehow misused her powers as a checkuser, you can always take it up with the Audit Subcommittee. Also, I have no problem with him starting an alternate account, but without disclosure (even privately) and using it in ways SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by the policy, to unduly influence consensus, is a complete and utter no-no. And I understand that Mr. Shankbone has gone through a difficult time here, not entirely of his own making, but "He's been harrassed" isn't a get-out-of-rules free card. SirFozzie (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good grief! Attack the messenger time? Well, as I stated on David's talk page, I fully welcome any other checkuser on the project to re-run the check and come to their own conclusions. To be honest, I'd not even seen WR until the case was concluded & I only just got back here earlier today from being out of state - Allie ^❤ 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David writes Alison, who has continually expressed extreme dislike (often involving throw-up emoticons or those sticking their tongue out in disgust after my name :-)) for me both on- and off-wiki for years, was hardly a neutral Checkuser when it comes to me, but no matter. I assumed he was referringto Wikipedia review but if you're not active there so be it. -- Banjeboi 05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nono. I didn't see the WR thread before running the check. I am actually a regular contributor to WR (it's on my userpage). Sorry for the confusion - Allie ^❤ 07:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This initial spin notes a personal attack which he denies was his intent. A more NPOV reading may have resulted in less alarm with pitchfork-wielding villagers is all I'm suggesting. -- Banjeboi 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think we have a big problem with the SOCK policy. It encourages the use of alternate accounts and tells people they don't need to make the explicit connection. Then when people get it wrong, we clamp down on them. What I'm seeing here is a similar situation to Geogre, where an account is widely known to be him, and he thinks he's not violating SOCK, but apparently it's not widely-enough known, and so he screws up. If we have that situation here, I feel a six-month block is very unfair. SlimVirgin 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Comparing this to Geogre is not exactly an implication of innocence, I would say both were in clear violation of the sock policy's letter and spirit and did so on purpose. ^Chillum 05:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which page you are reading , but WP:SOCK does not encourage creation of multiple accounts. It actually states, in the very first sentence, "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only" It then goes through a long litany of reasons why using multiple accounts is a Bad Idea (tm). It does give a narrow list of allowable uses of multiple accounts, but this is not the prominent part of that policy page. --Jayron32 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, please read the policy. I have tried very hard to tighten it to stop these misunderstandings, but I've been stopped at every turn by editors who want it to remain loose, and situations like this are a direct consequence. SlimVirgin 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am reading the policy right now. It also says "Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy." He created no less than 3 new accounts in November and edited with all of them. Look, we can only apply the policy as written. That you have a particular opinion on how WP:SOCK should read isn't exactly germaine here. The policy is what it is; and I don't see where creating multiple new accounts in a rapid fashion and using them as throwaways isn't somehow a violation. --Jayron32 05:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The widely known thing is clearly a misnomer - there is a difference between widely known (among your circle of acquaintances, and up-front declared on user and user talk pages so ANYONE can know) Viridae^Talk 05:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to show clearly that he was known to be A Knavish Bonded. So I'm now completely confused as to why edits from that account are being used to block him. SlimVirgin 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That still requires regular editors to be psychic. Viridae^Talk 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's known to the ArbCom, then it's known, Viridae. SlimVirgin 05:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Cool Hand Luke was not on the ArbCom at that time. Nor does notifying ArbCom of an alternate account mean that it can be used to edit the same pages as the main account in a way that would suggest to normal editors that they are different people. Dekimasuよ! 05:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that the diff immediately above, plus the fact that ArbCom knew, plus the fact that the user name is an anagram, adds up to compelling evidence that that account, at least, was not created to deceive. It might have been created to avoid scrutiny, but that is perfectly acceptable when scrutiny equals death threats. Whether there was a letter-of-the-law breach of WP:SOCK is not of interest; like every other policy, sock must be read in its spirit, not its letter. Hesperian 05:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You're right; I didn't realize Luke wasn't on ArbCom at the time. But I disagree with your second point. If an alternate account is known as that person, they can of course edit as they see fit. The thing to avoid is active deception, so we get back to the question: was he really pretending to be someone else? A Knavish Bonded was clearly him, as was Watching Wales. SlimVirgin 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see evidence that the alternate account was known as that person. To a normal editor not versed in Wikipolitics who visited the userpage and talk page of User:A Knavish Bonded, there would have been no connection between the two editors. My point was that notifying ArbCom of an alternate account is not a license to use that account in ways that would otherwise violate WP:SOCK, which remains the case. Dekimasuよ! 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Lets refocus here. Throw out Knavish and WatchingWales; those clearly were known to ArbCom, which is enough for me, so lets stop defending those. What about this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one all created and used and discarded within a 30 day period, two of them on the same day (November 14). This is clearly not an allowable use of multiple accounts; rapidly and repeatedly creating a string of multiple accounts does not seem to be anything other than a sockfarm. I don't see any other way to read this. How is THAT not a WP:SOCK violation? One new account is "avoiding harassment". Six in a 4 week period is avoiding scrutiny pure and simple. --Jayron32 05:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(I have not seen any evidence that Knavish was known to ArbCom. I ignored WatchingWhales because I saw that it was known to ArbCom. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

(ec to Jayron) Remember that User:DavidShankbone had gone into retirement on October 30, and the diffs you show are from after that. Was it a violation of the policy for him to create throwaway accounts after his main account had publicly retired? Are there diffs showing that the throwaway accounts acted in concert with each other in a deceptive way? It is not a sockfarm unless there was active deception involved, or the operator was evading a ban or block. SlimVirgin 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please. This is beginning to look like williful ignorance here. I keep quoting the lines from WP:SOCK where it is an obvious violation. "Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy." is right there. In English. I am not unwilling to be convinced that David should be unblocked, but somehow claiming its OK to create multiple throwaway accounts is OK because it's "David doing it, so that's fine" doesn't cut it. I am also fully willing to WP:IAR and WP:AGF here, but you are going to have to show me how this is somehow justfied. I am not seeing it... --Jayron32 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, please ask yourself: if you were to retire today publicly—not under a cloud just a retirement—and therafter you set up User:X to make a few edits to articles you'd edited before, then User:Y, then User:Z -- all throwaway accounts that otherwise didn't interact with each other -- are you saying your Jayron account ought to be blocked for six months for doing that? SlimVirgin 05:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't set up strawman arguements. I have done no such thing, and redirecting the arguement in this way is unbecoming of you. --Jayron32 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a strawman argument, it's a question. It's what's happening here, and I'm asking if that's what you truly support. SlimVirgin 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never done any of these things, and so its a bogus misdirection. David has done these things, so its David we are discussing. Not me. Not hypothetical "User X". David. A real editor with a real history that must be taken in context, not seperated from context by some false analogy to a hypothetical situation that does not exist. --Jayron32 06:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, David Shankbone used his main account on November 19. I am unaware of any retirement message. There is a message on his talk page stating that he is unavailable due to a vacation, if that is what you are referring to. This does not seem to have been the case, considering that he was using the other accounts. I have never really interacted with David Shankbone and I think it's somewhat unfortunate that the block result here turned out to be one on the order of six months with hints of a ban discussion. However, I do not believe the edits from the sock accounts were within policy. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

SlimVirgin seems to be a hunt for a specific diff showing a clear and substantial violation of the letter of the sock policy as written. Or, perhaps, multiple ones over a long time, with some recently. This is all as if there was some objective criteria that we could measure against on a WP:SOCK violation to block length table. I appreciate the desire for such "hard evidence" and black letter wikilaw, but there is no such thing. Blocks are done as a judgment call, usually the administrators' and often buttressed by the general inclination of the community.

I am not interested in the perilously subjective by diving into David Shankbone's mental state and trying to judge how illicit his intent was, nor am I going to give into the fantasy of uncontroversial objective criteria. I implied it above, and I'll say it plainly here, David Shankbone's use of multiple accounts are incompatible with a consensus driven collaborative encyclopedia project. As an administrator, I am charged with using good judgment and sense in exercising my discretion to protect the encyclopedia and its working environment from damage. The very act of using multiple accounts is deceptive on its face. Using deception while working with material you authored, without it being obvious you had done so threatens to cripple the consensus driven editing process. If WP:SOCK doesn't have that principle (that is, the actual policy) buried in its many kilobytes of text (I'm sure it does), throw out what is written and rewrite it until its right.

We can argue about minutiae until the cows come home, but lets not.--Tznkai (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone else see any kind of potential for an actual resolution coming from this discussion? It's quickly devolving into a traditional dramafest; might I suggest that if someone has an issue with the actions of the admins here, this is probably something to take to ArbCom? Tony Fox (arf!) 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that is was a violation of the sock policy. I think there is also general agreement that the "standard offer" be followed. It is lamentable the Slim disagrees, but the agreement of those not involved with David in any way is that the block is needed. I would have preferred a shorter block, but I cannot dispute the block that stands as it is in line with policy and well within admin discretion. Short of a drastic change in consensus, this seems resolved. ^Chillum 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock After reading through this discussion, the checkuser report, and the discussion on David's page, this seems relatively minor to me. I think a voluntary agreement to a 1 month break and an agreement to use one and only one account in the future suffices. This isn't all its cracked up to be. Some of the edits promote his photos, but he's adding photos to improve articles. I can't really find anything horrendously insidious in any of the diffs. Using socks to win disputes or to sway an election would be a very big deal. This is a bit unseemly and inappropriate, but not really the end of the world. He set up undisclosed accounts to do some photo work after "retiring". Let's show that we're bigger than engaging in punitive punishment because we can. There's nothing here that's really outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Abuse of multiple accounts = sockpuppetry = ban. He got off lucky with a time-limited block. The same standards ought to be applied to all disruptive editors, whether with a history of positive contributions or not.  Sandstein  06:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef - Sock Puppetry is one of the worse problems that Wikipedia can ever face, especially when it is done to hide edits, to fake consensus, and the rest. A later ArbCom appeal of an indef would be appropriate, but not a 6 month block. Otherwise, we are just turning our backs and allowing him to possibly go on with another account for the time period that would be dropped and not traced to him. We need a solid statement on sock puppets and sock puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - I explicitly endorse Tznkai's view as written at the top of this subsection as well as the block itself. SlimVirgin widely misses the mark here, but that notwithstanding, I see consensus. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to the "blocks are not punitive" manta we always hear when certain other troublemakers get caught. I have come to suspect that we might need punishment blocks after all, but then we should be consistent about it. Now, it depends too much on whether influential people like you or not. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Is David Shankbone a helpful contributor to the encyclopedia? He is. The only problem he has is that he has a problem with WP:OWN with his images, which became a sockpuppetry problem now unfortunately. But he’s still a valid contributor, and it’s counterproductive to the project to lose him. There needs to be a better solution. I rather do a shorter block, maybe to a month so he could learn his lesson, and a extremely strong admonishment, saying if you sock again your block would be longer. After his block ends, form some kind of mentorship for him. That would be the best solution to this problem. Secret ^account 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, why doesn't Wikipedia have a formal admonishment system outside of ArbCom? Doling out blocks to satisfy upset people is an obvious bad idea. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • One should be created, but that would be almost impossible to form consensus on it. Here it seems like the community can't settle this dispute easily, I'll endorse this case going to the Arbitration Committee. Secret ^account 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• 6 months seems excessive. This user has been harassed on and off Wikipedia for a very long time and that organized efforts to bait and wikihound are dismissed as irrelevant as is his life being threatened speaks more about those who remain than his actions which he admits were not well thought out but also not quite as evil as his detractors would want us to believe. His actions did not occur in a vacuum and his own statements show he indeed did not understand some of the non-controversial sock uses. This is hardly the first user that has had that issue. Given his rather lengthy and substantial record as a good Wikipedian it seems overkill to make an example of him when heated debate here even suggests this was more about personalities that actual problems. His detractors wanted and got a public flogging, I'm sure a quick look at Wikipedia Review will show the keen attention heaped on him for some time. In short the punishment does not fit the infractions and we are emboldening those who have worked to harass him that this will be the new status quo for outing, harassing and subduing any perceived "enemies" ultimately driving otherwise productive editors to desperate means. No socking problems should not be readily dismissed but neither should we dismiss the ongoing harassment that led to the need to use alternative accounts. What remains lacking is a constructive way forward that the user can somehow edit here productively without harassment whether in six months or sooner. -- Banjeboi 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll agree with Banjiboy, almost any other circumstance I would have endorsed an indef block wholeheartedly but Shankbone has been harassed so contently, that his behavior changed as a result. A six month block is clearly not the solution. We let worse violators of WP:SOCK go with little harm, and his violation wasn’t that severe (no harassing, not use to gain an advantage to edit wars, etc). Secret ^account 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On the other hand I think the stalking/harassment card has been overplayed here. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - extend indef. There are ways to deal with alleged harassment other than sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal

[edit] Shankbone accepts the block, so can we go home now?

David Shankbone's comments on the situation, which have not been discussed, are pretty relevant. He first noted "Ultimately, if I'm blocked for this kind of stuff it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other" and then, more directly, "I accept my six month ban."

So he clearly violated the sockpuppet policy (I must say that the edit to Jake Wartenberg's talk page referenced several times above was completely ridiculous and just is not excusable), was blocked for it by an admin, a number of other admins and editors have supported that (add me to the list), and then Shankbone himself says he accepts the block. So what is there to talk about? If Shankbone wants to appeal the block and/or come to some kind of agreement with the community that's totally fine, but if he's okay with the current situation I can't fathom why we would continue to debate a block that is only being objected to by a couple of people, and not the person who was blocked. If anything this discussion should be closed at some point in the near future and then re-opened if Shankbone seeks to change the status quo. We have little or nothing to gain by continuing this conversation right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A note about ArbCom

It is not true to say that these socks were known about by ArbCom. It appears that one member of ArbCom (who was not a member of ArbCom at the time!) knew about it a long time ago, before joining ArbCom. (It would be unreasonable to expect new ArbCom members to disclose every single thing they know about everyone on Wikipedia, of course.) Several ArbCom members and I were first told of this ("A Knavish Bonded") on November 4th. (And the other one a bit earlier, but I'm not sure when exactly at the moment.) I only post about this because I sometimes get email complaining that David Shankbone is under some special protection by me and/or ArbCom. That's simply untrue. These socks were not approved of by ArbCom, nor even known about by ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A note here to confirm what Jimbo has stated. No alternate accounts of David Shankbone are registered or known to ArbCom, I have not heard of any, and they have never been discussed by ArbCom (and thus certainly not approved in any way). — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone still feel that six months is too long? Cla68 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, it doesn't appear that Geogre was blocked at all for basically the same thing. [13] Not that I don't think there should be a block involved, but this seems a little harsh (and to some degree motivated by personal disagreements). He lost his admin status over it, but that's still a step short of this kind of block. RxS (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think having your admin bit removed is a few steps beyond a 6 month block. I suppose it depends on how one views the position though. Perhaps Geogre should have been blocked as well, Jossi was blocked indefinitely for this sort of thing and lost the bit. I guess what I am saying is that different situations call for different responses. ^Chillum 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Jossi resigned and retired very shortly after evidence was posted against him in an arbitration case. He said the retirement was for personal reasons unrelated to the evidence. ArbCom called it a controversial circumstances resignation and required contact if he started editing under another account. Afterward he was caught using a sockpuppet account to disrupt a featured article candidate related to his COI, which was the sort of thing he had done before. That's when the indef happened. Durova³⁷¹ 16:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's official, adminship gives an extra life in the Wikipedia game. Checkuser/Oversight and ArbCom membership each gives one more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That witty sound bite doesn't reflect well on the poster. People put a lot of time into addressing all three of the situations that are being discussed as examples. If one rolls one's sleeves and does the work then a bit of frustration at the end is understandable. In this instance the comment just looks snarky. Durova³⁷¹ 17:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was intended to be snarky. Wouldn't you agree that it is a problem that Wikipedia officially doesn't do punishment, by we do it anyway in a rather arbitrary way? It wasn't aimed at you personally. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you approach Wikipedia like a game, with winners and losers, (though no one has ever explained what the win and loss conditions are) then I suppose in sort of abstraction being an admin does give you some extra level of protection. In practical terms however, who cares? The machinations and unfairness of "the game" don't matter to you unless you play and they matter only to Wikipedia in the collateral success and damage that is created by it. When the game players (whoever you imagine them to be) churn out articles, good administrative work, successful mediation, or what not for whatever bonus points, let them have their hollow pat on the back, and smile. Just because they're operating for some sort of extrinsic pursuit doesn't mean we don't collectively gain benefit from it. When the game players start goofing off, it is perhaps irritating, but it isn't really a big deal. When the game players start causing actual damage, then we worry, and hopefully we manage to act.

Complaining about the game playing only makes the game stronger. It moves your focus and the focus of your audience. Accusations of gameplaying are just another move, and its not worth it. Try to do whatever on you can on Wikipedia that genuinely satisfies you, and you'll usually find yourself happier.--Tznkai (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the rules, as they are applied, do not facilitate writing the encyclopedia. In theory, anyone can edit unless they keep disrupting and refuse to stop, adminship is given to those who can be trusted with it, and the same with oversight, checkuser, etc. In practice blocks, desysoping and removal of privileges happen when enough powerful people are really angry at you at the same time and you have done at least something provably wrong. Either we should be serious about the philosophy of prevention not punishment, and then we need to stop having mob trials of against individuals on noticeboards. We need some kind of lower courts that take on smaller cases before ArbCom. Alternatively, we could admit that we do punishments, and then those punishments should be designed to deter negative behavior while allowing the punished to continue with valuable contributions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec'd) Great post, Tznkai. Durova³⁷¹ 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Durova. Apoc, we've gone completely off topic and the reply I typed up (which I'm sure is not as great) only goes further, so I'll continue on your talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, this is rather meta. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, a link to the Geogre motion: [14]. It is worth noting that that situation and this one are different in a number of respects — this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. (For example, Geogre was an admin – and desysopped for his conduct – while Shankbone is not. On the other hand, Geogre only operated one alternate account, while Shankbone created at least five new accounts just in November of this year.) One can examine all manner of both mitigating and aggravating circumstances in both cases; it's up to the community to decide how to weigh those factors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that different situations can call for different responses, nothing happens in a vacuum. Jossi violated arbcom sanctions in the course of the violation which would be an aggravating factor. I'm not engaged in this at all, but from a distance it looks pretty harsh. At least Geogre can still edit here if he wanted, though he doesn't seem to want to. David has few friends here, and even fewer off-wiki which makes a fair outcome difficult. RxS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I would have chosen a shorter duration myself, however I cannot argue that 6 months is outside of our common reaction to this sort of thing. Perhaps we can revisit this in 3 months as has been suggested before, block lengths are not written in stone after all. ^Chillum 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that there had to be consequences for his actions, I think that revisiting the block in 3 months (if David requests) is an entirely reasonable solution. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think 6 months is too long - there seems to have been quite little actual disruption or manipulation as a result of the socking. Balancing the good and the bad, I think a shorter block would have been more appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am the ArbCom member referred to by Jimmy Wales. I knew about User:WatchingWhales (but did not follow the account and did not know until a few months ago that it continued editing after the THF arbitration, where I observed it in 2007). I also knew about User:A Knavish Bonded (although I did not realize that the account continued editing after my talk page message to him—when I noticed A Knavish Bonded, it appeared that David was transitioning to a new account due to stalking on User:David Shankbone). It should also be noted that I had an adversarial relationship with David Shankbone at the time I noticed these accounts, and I was certainly not trying to protect him. We made peace before last year's ArbCom election, but I was unaware of any other accounts until told by third parties via email. There is no discussion about these accounts in the arbcom-l archive, and they were not approved by ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a clear direction somewhere how and where alternative accounts/socks are logged? I was under the impression that reporting these was voluntary except under previous Arbcom cases where directed to do so. Has that changed? -- Banjeboi 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SOCK policy is pretty clear, see here, though I'm not sure how long that has been there. But that's a side issue. The point is that Shankbone's socks violated the sock policy, specifically aspects like WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH (the latter with respect to an edit of User:Jake Wartenberg's talk page).

But again, why are we talking about this? David again (see the section I started above) confirmed that he does not mind the six month block (and that he doesn't mind making it longer or shorter, but if he's fine with the status quo let's keep it there). He seems quite happy to take a break. Benjiboi you might want to avoid wasting further effort here when Shankbone perhaps does not even want the help—maybe this is a break he needed. Unless there is nothing else to work on here on en.wikipedia or in our real lives I highly, highly recommend that an univolved admin close this entire thread and we move on to other things. If David changes his mind and wants the block removed or shortened at a later date then of course we can revisit it. Further discussion when the blockee (and the majority of those who have commented here) is fine with the block is quite pointless, and it's a bit bizarre that folks seem to be studiously ignoring that fact. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Durova³⁷¹ 17:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If he agreed with the block, I guess it's pointless to keep on discussing it. So I would close this discussion. Any objections? Secret ^account 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch that he is resigned that as much as he has had some positive experiences here the harassment has made things less so - this is exactly why - in theory - we forbid harassment/ Yet here is a case that it has been largely ignored. That those involved were/are/turned toxic doesn't diminish that (i) the harassment is what led to the alt accounts (ii) they started just being alt accounts (iii) the socking was largely inconsequential (iv) even if you don't like him his good work here is indisputable and is actively being discredited by a somewhat organized effort on at least two outside websites (v) in theory we try to keep good editors while showing those who seem to only want to stir up drama the door - we seem to be doing the opposite here; and (vi) there likely are better options. Does this really represent the best we can do here? -- Banjeboi 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to call balderdash on this: (i) Again, if he had created ONE account and edited away, that's understandable. Seven, not so much. (ii) Yes, they just started, but they were all being used in ways forbade by policy. (iii) No, the socking was NOT inconsequential.. they were being used (without acknowledging who they actually were) in an attempt to discredit an administrator who had the "temerity" to delete the article about David Shankbone. (iv and v) His good work is the only reason this thread has lasted so long.. if it was someone without his record of good work, he would have been quickly indeffed within 15 minutes of the SPI report coming back as confirmed. (vi) Giving David credit for what he did, he left a message on his page, and has said he will serve out his block quietly, which is the proper response, and we can review this down the road, should he still wish to contribute. So yes, this is the best we can do here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)