Jump to content

User talk:David Shankbone/72.76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard discussion beginning 3/26

[edit]

User:David Shankbone/72.76

[edit]

David's stalker is still going at it. He's moved to my user and talk page yesterday (both now semi-protected) and is leaving messages like this on the LGBT project talk page. Note the implied threat of physical violence, much like this towards Michael Lucas and this towards David. Is there a way a block can be placed on the range this guy is using or is it too broad of an area? This has gone way past stalking and harassment on this site and the police have been contacted by David. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, that's disturbing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added so many frickin IP's to that list. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please protect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies ASAP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but please check me to make sure I did it properly. I set the protection for 10 days. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy's editing from Newark, New Jersey. Time for an abuse report at the very least ... I'll see about doing an anon-only range block. Blueboy96 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blueboy, wow that is down-right frightening. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably for David and Michael — but have they called the police? I probably would. --Haemo (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David has and I think Michael has as well. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-Will someone in the US please contact Mike Godwin, preferably by phone? The level of detail is Not Good. If a CheckUser is about, can they gather the appropriate detail on this for him? This has just stepped beyond stalking and into the level of real-world threat. If we can act over every bloody anonymous suicide "threat" and use of the word "bomb" on a school talk page, we can certainly act immediately over this, at a Foundation level. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, I had an Edit Conflict, and was going to ask the same thing. This is way beyond a troll looking to get a laugh out of making people clean up their mis-deeds, this is terroristic threats and needs to be handled by the proper authorities. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He started harassing me because I've been adding the IP's to the list and placing sock templates on the accounts. The messages he left me were just trying to play with my head, but if there's even a hint of a physical threat I have no qualms with contacting the Washington, D.C. Police Department (where I live) or the Newark Police Department. I'm not going to put up with that and David certainly has not done anything to deserve this kind of psychotic harassment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this for a while, trying to help where I can. I agree with the above: real action is called for in this case. WP/the foundation needs to do whatever it can to protect its editors from this kind of abhorrent behavior. R. Baley (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges are 72.76.0.0/17, 71.127.224.0/20, and 72.68.112.0/20. These are dynamic Verizon addresses. Blocking them would cause some, but not an immense amount of, collateral damage. Black Kite 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can take the hit, in the circumstances. Anybody good at range blocks want to apply one to those ranges (anon only? ACB?) for a week or two? Just to give us some space. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one. He's quick with the IP's. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see many productive anon edits on 72.68.112.0/20, so I've blocked it for 72 hours. Mr.Z-man 21:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same started at User talk:Moni3, so I went ahead and semi-protected for 5 days. Aleta Sing 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All ranges blocked for two weeks, anon-only. Hopefully this will stem the tide. Blueboy96 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blueboy. Much appreciated. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blueboy. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem ... I noticed a few admins had hardblocked the ranges, but there's no reason to lock out constructive editors under the circumstances--especially considering that it's coming from the biggest city in New Jersey. Blueboy96 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a case for Mike Godwin. Newark to the address referenced would take about 45 minutes by NJT, far less than the time needed for most meds to really kick in, or a temper flareup to cool down. Get Mike on it, let him and the cops work together to prosecute the guy for assault (stating that a bullet hole will look nice in his head, then 'confirming' the address constitutes assault by Newark standards) and let him find out about 'fire island loving' in prison. ThuranX (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know if anyone notified Godwin? Aleta Sing 01:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation is aware of the situation. I've exchanged emails with Cary about it. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, Philippe! Aleta Sing 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we've used huge range blocks in the past to deal with this individual. It seemed to keep him at bay for a day or two. See this one, for reference: [1].--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha. Applause for the sarcasm. ThuranX (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get those edits oversighted ASAP? Several of them contain real addresses and contact info. Even if the contact info is not accurate, someone could use it to show up at said addresses and... (shudder to think). Seriously, we need those edits removed from the history ASAP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; I actually mailed Lar for oversight on the diff on WJBscribe's talk page (the one with the address) about an hour ago but had to step away from the computer shortly after so I didn't get a chance to post here. Commons only has two oversight users; should we take it to a Steward instead? --jonny-mt 05:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copy of the post with the address on the page whose name is the title of the thread. If we are oversighting, that should probably go too. Aleta Sing 11:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Verizon to let them know what was going on, and also stressed that we have contacted law enforcement. For whatever reason, it seems the big ISPs haven't been proactive in dealing with this sort of thing on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies for an example--we had to rangeblock a bunck of Houston-area IPs because AT&T didn't seem to want to do a damn thing), but mentioning that the police are involved will certainly get them moving. A pat on the back to everyone who was involved in handling this ... hopefully we can get this (looks at WP:NPA and disregards several sections) moron off the streets for a long, long time. Blueboy96 11:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for moving on this. --David Shankbone 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In related news most likely, a valuable newer editor, AgnosticPreachersKid, has retired. Tis a shame really. Hope he comes back. See User:AgnosticPreachersKid. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Admin Noticeboard beginning 3/22

[edit]

Spring troll festival

[edit]

Ongoing Shankbone stalking has been an issue for a while here. My talk page gives a flavour of it currently as does this.

I'm posting here as a "heads up" rather than requiring attention however I have just placed three range blocks which I feel is important/unusual enough to be brought to the attention of others. Anyone thinks that it is excessive/wrong is more that welcome to say. I have checked those ranges for legit contributions but there aren't any so there really should be any innocent injured parties. I would ask that care be taken with any possible unblocking - not my definition of "nice people"! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the IP edits to WJBscribe's talk page I've now blocked some more ranges. In each case I have user the range contributions tool & the only edits are from this stalker. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herby, Herby, Herby...what's next, blocking all of New Jersey, and then what, the eastern seaboard? Please! The problem isn't me, it's Shankbone: his opportunism in all things Wiki, his cozying up to prostitutes -- and that's only the tip of what he's done here, nevermind what I'm out to get him for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.83.60 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one blocked. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 19:24, 22 March 2008 (GMT)

I have blocked anonymous users on this range on /16 for 3 days, which means unfortunately that many legimate users may be blocked as well. However, I checked and there appear to be no other anons on this range the last few months. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for non-checkusers to see all the edits from a range? Patstuart (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see them all, and I'm not a checkuser. It's a gadget in preferences that can be enabled. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (GMT)
-Drools-. Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for watching. I've done another /24 block (which only affected the poster here). Should mean they spend more time rebooting the router than anything else! The mild irritant is that we have to put up with en wp dramaz here on Commons - ho hum --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Admin Action Alert Board beginning 3/15

[edit]

Userspace semiprotection requested

[edit]

Someone who's been using a variable IP address has been trolling David Shankbone on various WMF projects. The individual has been banned from en:Wikipedia as the "Gay Pornography Vandal"[2] and I recently semiprotected several of David's image uploads at Commons. Please semiprotect his userspace to prevent further problems like the one that happened today.[3] Regards, Durova - (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very sensible request and in fact that post is quite troubling and should be reported somewhere. Cirt - (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I agree that this vandalism was particularly disturbing. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone been notified about that particular edit - WMF, or someone in an official capacity? Cirt - (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David has highlighted this issue in an email to scoop. He also indicates he has contacted the FBI about his stalker. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Admin Noticeboard Discussion beginning 2/28 Part II

[edit]

David Shankbone

[edit]

This is a request that the IP ranges found here User:David Shankbone/76.72 be blocked. The first IP range has been engaged in libel on Wikipedia against me, and I supply the diffs that show that. Additionally, they continue to edit-war, disrupt and troll the project as it deals with me and my work. Since this has been going on for a few weeks, and since the activity is illegal, I'm asking for a project-wide ban on the first IP range. The second IP range is an accomplice (they at times edit simultaneously) who engages in edit-warring, but not the crime of libel as the first IP range has. The things they are writing are illegal, I will be filing an abuse report with Bell Atlantic, and I have already contacted an attorney to look into criminal prosecution for smearing my reputation, the evidence of which is more than provided on User:David Shankbone/76.72. We will first see what Bell Atlantic can do in terms of providing help in finding out who is behind the libel. --David Shankbone 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the evidence, IP ranges, etc. I supplied are by no means exhaustive. --David Shankbone 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you possibly in violation of WP:NLT here? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I will let other editors decide after looking at the evidence, but regardless it's time to say enough. --David Shankbone 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David - relax, lay off the legalisms, and the admins handle it.
Checkuser shows that range is pretty active, so blocking the whole /16 block is probably not a good idea. When I have more time later tonight, I'll do the back of the envelope calculations to find the minimum CIDR to block. Raul654 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will heed your advice. --David Shankbone 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime the campaign continues, see diff. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a content disagreement over image inclusion an illegal smear? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the content disagreement is just one tiny related matter. . .there's the smears + the content removal. Two prongs on the same fork. R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image removals aren't illegal smears; they are edit-wars against multiple editors, completely rejecting consensus. R. Baley is right - there are several prongs to this person's hate: First, illegal smears; Second, edit wars against consensus; Third, multi-forum disruption. I thought the evidence page fleshed that out clearly. --David Shankbone 01:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove or strike the legal threats/rhetoric. ViridaeTalk 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating someone has done something illegal, calling a spade a spade, is not the same as threatening to take action against them, which is a legal threat. I have struck out the legal threat, but if you would like to play with the wording to hide what is clear then you are welcome to do so, but I feel I have already complied with policy. --David Shankbone 01:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum CIDR to block all the currently listed IPs in the 76.72 is /17. Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, a large block. But it may be that a brief exemplary block will suffice to show that we mean business and we can, should we choose, stop this festival of stupid. It is a large range to block to stop one abuser, but they are pretty determined. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a brief block is a good first step, although I think Guy has been on the money in his observations. This person clearly shows some sort of obsession disorder that I think will prove any brief block futile, but I don't like the idea of blocking such a huge range for a long time. Does anyone know how they are tag-teaming with the other IP range? I have alerted Verizon/Bell Atlantic; I've always been curious how that system works. This would not be a big deal if we didn't have good-faith editors on the talk page questioning the legitimacy of this IP's harassment, which is what makes it defamatory. If nobody was listening and taking up the IP's arguments (say, by researching over-exposed, over-photoshopped PR shots of people to say 'Wow, they look nothing like these other photos'). --David Shankbone 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out on my Talk page, the IP's obsession has been self-defeating, since when this IP started trolling in February he doubled the traffic to 800 hits a day on Lucas' article. So if the goal was to get people to not learn and think about Michael Lucas, they clearly have failed; if the goal is to say he has views that some people may find distasteful or even offensive, I don't think that comes as a surprise for anyone when they find out his career. --David Shankbone 18:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(trolling removed) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the comment above was posted by the harasser in question. It's a shame if David's "retirement" was hastened by admins' technical inability to block this person.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh. The anon is only one of many who have been in dispute with David, and David has in the past been somewhat abrasive in his dealings with people who don't like his pictures. Range blocking is never done lightly, and WP:RBI can be applied uncontroversially to this particular anon, so the contribution of one obsessive idiot is not IMO that much of a big deal in the overall scheme of things. David's certainly shown himself more than capable of holding his own before now. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More people should take breaks from wikipedia. It is emotionally healthy. When it is right for David to unretire, he will. Meanwhile, I'm sure we all wish him well. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment continues, even after David's latest retirement. I'm going to request protection.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have semi-protected his userpage. Woody (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We really do need some sort of rangeblock here, or this IP is quite obviously going to keep it up. Playing whack-a-mole is going to get tiring after a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the ANI thread that was discussing a ban on the IP vandal? I can't find it on the board or in the archives. The IP has been posting absurd claims such as this. Enough is enough. Let's choose a nickname for this person and file it under long term vandalism. Suggest Gay pornography vandal. DurovaCharge! 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the thread here. I'm going to let someone else bring it back up (not sure if it should be a sub section here or brought back to ANI). R. Baley (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ban discussion is unanimous, but nobody closed it before it got bot-archived. Would an uninvolved administrator please review R. Baley's link and make this formal? DurovaCharge! 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User was already blocked, but I added a notice, and put 'em on the list. Considering that David Shankbone seems to believe I'm his sworn enemy, I think this troll got the most favorable review he could ask for. This behavior is simply intolerable. Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Luke. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for rangeblock

[edit]

The IP came back and vandalized the section again a bit ago. While that specific address is now blocked for a bit... Is there any interest in blocking the ranges? Seen as too severe? Possibly acceptable? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep in mind, these are big ranges we're talking about, we don't do /16-ish blocks for giggles. If it's felt to be appropriate I'll do one, but I want input first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support a rangeblock if possible. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 12:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to measure how great non-vandal traffic has historically been within that range?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If s/he edits again, I would support a soft range block on anons only for about 2 hours. Maybe repeat as needed? No guarantee a /16 will work though. . .seems like when I ran the range calculator on the IPs used a few days ago, it came back with a /12. . . R. Baley (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a couple /20 range blocks that seemed to slow things down a bit. If it makes the banned user have to reboot the modem three or four times to find an unblocked range, it's probably worth it.71.127.224.0/2072.68.112.0/20 —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear to have worked, and with minimal collateral damage, thanks Wknight. R. Baley (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard range block support beginning 2/28 Part I

[edit]

David Shankbone

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

David Shankbone's attitude toward authors who don't like the photos he's taken of them is bossy and bullying. He takes disastrous photos of authors. Taking more unflattering photos could hardly be possible (See Edmund White, A.M. Homes, Francine Prose, Kathryn Harrison, Mary Gaitskill). It's gotten to the point that authors he hasn't assaulted yet with his camera are afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia, but when I come upon an author's page with a terrible photo, I now know it's been taken by David Shankbone. I became curious about how these authors felt about the photos he'd taken of them, so I went and looked back in the history of a couple of them. First I checked in the history of A.M. Homes, and sure enough, someone tried to take down the Shankbone photo (possibly even A.M. Homes herself or someone close to her), saying it was not a good photo, and he repeatedly put it back. I also looked in the history of Sharyn November, and she herself had an exchange with him on one of their talk pages saying she preferred another photo of herself instead, but he would not let her have her way, and I don't remember the details, but his attitude was unpleasant and bossy. She quickly backed down sweetly.

A few days ago I came upon yet another disastrous author photo by David Shankbone and decided to Google his name, because I've been thinking that sooner or later an article will inevitably come out in the print media about authors' frustrations with this offensive photographer. I wanted to see if any articles had been published yet about it. I didn't dig very deeply but did find that on February 18th, 2008, lots of Wikipedia editors wrote about their frustrations with David Shankbone (in a section called: Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?), to the point that he promised he'd leave Wikipedia (he shouldn't make promises he won't keep-he didn't even leave for one day, as far as I can see from his list of contributions). All those posts from upset people have been deleted from Wikipedia, but I was able to find them by going into the history of the page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Authors are not the only celebrities Shankbone has upset. I came upon discussions (on Wikipedia) about the actor Mike Farrell, who was upset by the photo Shankbone took of him, but Shankbone insisted his photo stay up on Farrell's page (it has now been replaced by a much better photo taken by someone else). And I'm sure it's happened to countless other “notables”. Many notable authors who are distressed by their photo will just remain quiet and try not to look at their Wikipedia pages, either because they don't know how to take down photos and post messages on Wikipedia, or because they fear that fighting David Shankbone will be futile and will only increase their distress. Authors are often shy and insecure about their physical appearance. Why make it worse? And why be stubborn and nasty about it to the few authors who do muster up the courage to request that an unflattering photo be taken down?

As with any contributor to Wikipedia, David Shankbone should have no right to assert that his photos take precedence over the photos of others, especially when more appropriate pictures are available and copyright free. He claims that he has allowed better pictures to take the place of his, but this is clearly not true in many instances, given the way he fights to retain his pictures even in instances when any reasonable third party observer would agree that another picture is either better or more appropriate for the article.

David Shankbone might be using Wikipedia to try and make a career for himself, and maybe that's okay, but he's hurting a lot of people along the way.

I am an author, with a few published books, and there is a page on me on Wikipedia. That's why I care about this issue. I'm appalled at what David Shankbone is doing to authors.

As I don't know the best place to post this message, I'm posting it in three places: David Shankbone's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Anonymous 374 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything of substance to the statement? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly encountered situations where David edited vigorously to keep an image of his that was, on even casual inspection, markedly inferior to the alternatives into an article (most recent example I'm aware of: [4] [5]). Extending good faith to David, there are also times when he has reverted to his images when they are superior (eg, here). My experiences with him in this regard -- well documented here on AN/I -- is that he is not terribly detached when it comes to evaluating his own work, and is fairly quick to attribute bad faith to editors who are simply trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I can certainly see how a less tenacious editor might be intimidated by this. I have no comment on the issue of authors being unhappy with photos taken of them by him, because I haven't been involved in any of those discussions. David is a valuable contributor with thousands of high quality photos here, but I don't think that those contributions entitle him to any presumption of quality for any specific photo, any more than those of us who have written thousands of words deserve to have our words protected from good faith editing by others. Nandesuka (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harassment of DS continues, multiple postings to multiple forums, disparaging and insulting subheaders, nothing new here. This thread should be nuked, it's really getting tiresome. R. Baley (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to find myself agreeing with a SPA account, but I do see a kernel of valid complaint in there among the hyperbole and ranting. The accusation that authors are "afraid to go to readings for fear he'll be there, waiting for them" is ridiculous, and there's no cause to assume Shankbone's contibutions aren't wholly in good faith: as has been pointed out, he's contributed many, many quality images. But some of those cited above are unflattering past any bounds of reasonability. Compare our Francine Prose with an official portait (and yes, I know we can't use it): it's barely recognisable as the same person, and in "our" picture she's clearly distracted and caught offguard. Compare our Kathryn Harrison and a press photo. Again, barely recognisable, seems annoyed and/or startled. Our Mary Gaitskill vs. press photo. Again, I stress that I don't consider any of these to be bad-faith contributions, but I feel extremely unflattering portraits, especially of BLPs, can be worse than having no photo at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably quite difficult to get a good picture of an author at a reading. They don't really have the time to pose if they're busy signing autographs or speaking about their book. --clpo13(talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plus, if any subject doesn't care for the best "free use" photo that Wikipedia has, they can always freely supply one that is better. AgneCheese/Wine 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that, printed the crap photos 'cause they were all I had. It's not really easy to compare a photo shot under studio lights with great makeup and perfect conditions to one shot under fluorescents after the subject has been signing books or talking for some time. Most of the time, people don't look like they do on TV or in the magazines, and these pictures reflect that. As Agne27 says, if the subjects want to supply a free use image to work with, they're free to do so. I can't really speak on the accusations that David Shankbone is scaring people off (though I doubt that's the case without firm documentation of it), but the level of hyperbole involved in these continuing complaints seems to be really overboard at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Studio photos are quite often virtually unrecognisable as the person you meet in the street, it's a bit strange to suggest that the everyday look is somehow less "correct" than the studio portrait. The repeated insertion of the baseless Michael Lucas dispute doesn't help, either, especially since the anon ios block evading to do it. I searched OTRS and found four threads that might be construed as complaints about David Shankbone. Two were people who sent in better pictures to replace ones they didn't like, one was a fact-free rant about some editing dispute on Wikinews, and one appears to be a complaint from a PR firm that David Shankbone wouldn't let them whitewash the article on a client (my heart bleeds). If the problem were anything like as it is being made out here, I think we'd have seen a lot more than this. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Actually this SPA IP admits to being the same person who posted obscene and graphic insults against David Shankbone in the recent past.[6] I know this person has been blocked before on previous roving IPs. When the person approached me, I found myself assuming good faith and supposing there might be meritorious concerns and a little trouble adjusting to site standards. Then I saw the personal attacks. Intolerable. If the behavior doesn't cool down then a community ban might be in order. DurovaCharge! 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If any specific individual has a problem with what photo we are using there is an easy solution; release a better photo under the GFDL or appropriate creative commons. Can we move on? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also point out that the title of this thread is rather unfair to David and somewhat inflammatory--especially since it is so unsubstantiated. I know we wouldn't tolerate a similar claim in a BLP article and I see no reason why we should in an AN/I thread about a fellow Wikipedian. At the very least the title should be refractored and shortened to just David Shankbone. AgneCheese/Wine 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just for the record: I posted the original post in this thread and I am not any of these other IP addresses or people I'm being accused of being, and I don’t know any of them. I am an individual who has never before written anything about David Shankbone. The topic of his awful author photos is the first time I’ve written about him. I’d been thinking about it for a long time, but kept trying to talk myself out of it, not wanting to waste the time. The urge became too strong when I saw yet another awful author photo taken by David Shankbone. I’m sorry that he seems to coincidentally be having problems with other IP addresses. I have now seen some of the insults that were directed at him (I hadn’t seen the insults over the topic of the porn star when I wrote my first post) and I completely disapprove. But even though I am sorry he is going through this stress, I feel even more sorry for all the authors he is hurting, many of whom will probably never even speak up about it. But you can be sure they’re not pleased about what he’s done. As I mentioned in my original post, I witnessed two of them on Wikipedia object to photos he insisted to put on their pages (and I wouldn’t be surprised if many more authors objected, too, to his photos of them, but I didn’t dig very deep). He acts like a tyrant. He should be a little more sensitive, a little more human, and not ruthlessly use the following arguments I’ve seen him use: but my photo is bigger, my photo is more recent, my photo is better than your photo, the fact that you are even writing here is questionable regarding neutral point of view so don’t you dare object to the photo I took of you or you may not be allowed to write at all (I’m paraphrasing this from memory, but he gave this kind of argument to Sharyn November (she's an editor at Viking and has a Wikipedia page on her), which seemed to scare her because she immediately backed down). Perhaps his arguments are valid according to Wikipedia rules, but if an author prefers a more flattering photo, or no photo, rather than a hideous photo that Shankbone took of them, it seems right that their feelings be taken into account. These are living people, and they are being made miserable when they are told: no you cannot use your preferred photo, I will use my hideous photo of you because it’s a little bigger, or a little sharper when blown up to gigantic size, or a little more recent, or whatever… Thank you to the people who have posted message here or on my talk page saying they agree with me. I hope I will not feel compelled to keep writing about this because I didn’t intend to spend much time on this (I also didn’t realize I wouldn’t have free-speech on Wikipedia and that my posts would be erased (as it was on Jimbo’s page, and as it was here, partially) or altered (as my title was) as soon as I’d posted them). But if I keep seeing terrible author photos popping up, I may be unable to resist voicing my distress again. I know many of these authors personally. Perhaps that’s why I feel sorry for them. It pains me to see them portrayed at their absolute worse. But most of all I’m sad about how it makes them feel.Anonymous 374 (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sad about how cowardly you appear to be be in not using your real account here; hiding behind this SPA account in order to make attacks on a good editor (and great photographer) is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. I wonder why anything to do with images on Wikipedia is always poisonous? What is it about images that brings every troll and sociopath out on the noticeboards? ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 08:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With crowds like these at the Brooklyn Book Festival (or a Barnes & Nobles, or whatever) authors look the way they want the public to see them. WP:NPOV should apply to photography, not just edits, and I see no need to have photos that whitewash what a person looks like, especially if they are going to big events looking that way.
The argument by the Anonymous 374 above is so stupid, I wasn't going to address. First, Sharyn November and I did not have a bad exchange, she actually asked me to send her the other photos I took of her, and deleted the one that she had up.[13] In the end, writers and authors are not starlets and celebrities. They typically do not care what they look like because they are not "sold" by their looks, but by their thoughts and words. But if they are concerned, then why is Francine Prose, or A.M. Homes, or any other author appearing at one of the largest literary events in the country, the Brooklyn Book Festival, looking the way Francine Prose does in that photo? Because she didn't expect to be seen or photographed by the press at a gigantic event with over 200 authors? Yeah, sure. And yes, just like we don't take into account that subjects don't like some of the things that are found about them on their Wikipedia profiles, some subjects may not like that a photo might look like they really look in real life. My heart bleeds. So we shouldn't have NPOV in photos? We should hide what people really look like? Should we do the same for our text then, or will the Anonymous user next be complaining aboutBut we have an Anonymous user, most likely the IP range (can someone please perform a WP:Checkuser?) upset and sad that a site full of volunteers don't hire out studios to do our photos. Next, Anonymous will be "sad about how it makes them feel" when we report things that are unflattering and bother the subject. Perhaps we should whitewash the whole site, and not just the photos, ay Anonymous? --David Shankbone 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, some sites take my photos and make comic strips out of them. --David Shankbone 09:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those illustrations are laughable. Aren't there child labor laws in this country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing unusual about that cartooning style, and it's a funny cartoon. Keep in mind that cartooning standards have dropped a tad since the days of Prince Valiant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, accept mediocrity and low-brow content because things have gotten so mediocre and the culture has been dumbed down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a funny cartoon that effectively makes fun of its subject while citing a time-honored joke. Its style doesn't matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, in case it hasn't been pointed out somewhere that I'm not aware of, the IP two comments above appears to be another sock of the accused vandal. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That figures. I'm at a loss as to what the real issue is here. It sounds like some folks don't like some of David's photos. I'd like to know what the issue is with, for example, the crowd shot just above. What's the problem? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-Bugs, it takes something from nothing and makes something mediocre out of it. Style doesn't matter?? -- man you are a card-carrying member of this culture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.12.139 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for you to call it "sophomoric". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's been blocked, so he can't say anything just now. So I'll respond anyway: "'Sophomoric' is an elitist code word for 'funny'." Paraphrasing P. J. O'Rourke. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bugs, you jumped in front of Will. Did you say "excuse me?" I don't hafta 'cuse myself, 'cuz I'm a Noo Yawker, oh, I mean, a Newarker (accordin' ta Shankhead). I don't know about your contemporary take on "elitist code words" -- sounds more like resignation to mediocrity on your part. The "comic strip" is more soporific for me. Kisses all around, Ban this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.227.212 (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he found another IP to use, not blocked yet. And an obvious troll. See ya. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban of Anonymous, agree that the subject can always provide a better picture. Will (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should always be made clear to them first and in the most polite manner possible. I'd like to direct everyone to Talk:Martha Nussbaum for a revealing conversation on the subject. Relata refero (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Shankbone/72.76&oldid=1136195472"