Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (account on Commons only)
 * (account on Commons only)
 * (account on Commons only)
 * (account on Commons only)
 * (account on Commons only)

Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle
All of the listed accounts are single purpose accounts which edit articles relating to images taken by User:David Shankbone, generally to add an image. Aside from the main account, three of these accounts have been used within the past month on en.wiki. is likely stale, but a review of the contribution history should confirm that it is David's account (and it is fairly poor anagram of "David Shankbone"). does not exist on en.wiki, but is mentioned and relates to the naming of. Please see also this thread at WP:AN. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * According to Wikipedia Review, several of these accounts have been disclosed already. Does anyone have any evidence of that? NW ( Talk ) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through that thread, the rabblerousers at Wikipedia Review seem to be saying that several of those accounts have been discussed there, not disclosed here on WP. The WatchingWhales account is discussed on David's talkpage here and on WatchingWhales' talkpage here, but I am not aware of any of the other accounts being disclosed. I left messages for David asking him to link the WatchingWhales account (and more recently the Fat Jenny foto fixer account), but my messages were ignored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delicious carbuncle - considering that you left the message requesting clarification regarding the Fat Jenny foto fixer account on November 20th, and that David has a banner at the top of his talk page advising he's on vacation and hasn't edited since the 18th (and only very infrequently at all in November), I hardly think it's fair to say he "ignored" your message. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ponyo, the person who controls all of these accounts has not used the "David Shankbone" account since I left that message, but they have used the "Bucktoothed beaver" account and they have made a number of edits using their "David Shankbone" account on Commons. Given that they responded to my earlier message by deleting it without comment, I do not think it is unfair to assume that they are simply ignoring the most recent one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the abusive behaviour that this investigation is aimed at preventing? Have these multiple accounts been used to edit war or do they just add photos to articles? If they just add the photos, I'm having trouble seeing the problem. If I had 5 accounts and used them to edit totally different articles with no overlap, would that warrant an investigation? WJBscribe (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is overlap (see this report). I opened this SPI case as a result of advice obtained at AN. Perhaps your comments would be more appropriate there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, it's not very strong evidence of improper use of multiple accounts by itself. Have you got an example of behaviour that is definitely problematic, e.g. suspected sock 1 adds a photo, another user removes it, then suspected sock 2 restores the photo? WJBscribe (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a bit; see below. (Sorry for threaded discussion.) Dekimasu よ! 00:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw no evidence that the accounts listed as suspected sockpuppets had been notified of this page, and have now notified all of them except for User:Fat Jenny which is apparently not a registered account (as DC states above). Lady of  Shalott  22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The behavioural evidence is so mind-numbingly obvious, I saw no reason to notify anyone other than the main account but I probably should have done this for completeness. Thank you for fixing my oversight. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * : A couple of points.
 * This section isn't for threaded discussion, please contain your comments in the relevant section.
 * A checkuser request hasn't been posted; if its intended that a checkuser is performed, please add the template or ask a clerk to do that for you.
 * In order to justify a checkuser request, you will need to provide evidence that the accounts are (a) linked and (b) have violated the WP:SOCK policy. So far, some evidence for (a) has been provided but none for (b). Thanks. Nathan  T 23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'll just leave the questions unanswered then. I wouldn't want to post in the wrong section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)/Archive 1, 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)

- I was going to decline this case due to lack of evidence, but the detailed list provided by Dekimasu above gives ample cause for concern. While yes, using multiple accounts to "create an illusion of support" is a violation of WP:SOCK, so is "avoiding scrutiny" and I'm also seeing this detailed here. In the list above, there appear to be multiple accounts created just for single (often controversial) tasks and then abandoned. Some of the accounts appear not just on the same page, but in the same discussion (such as Talk:Hardcore_pornography) without any acknowledgement whatsoever.

Based on the above, I checked the accounts mentioned and the following are ✅ as being socks of :



This edit in particular concerns me, as it's a blatant denial of his being David Shankbone whilst editing in his own interests (and getting in a personal attack at the same time).

Also :



I cannot comment on the account, as it does not relate to this project and is beyond our remit -  A l l i e  ❤ 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Sock accounts blocked and tagged by PeterSymonds. The question of what to do with the David Shankbone account will be turfed to WP:AN. Marking this case as closed. Nathan  T 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me cross link to Commons:Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/David_Shankbone for reference... the connection to Fat Jenny has been established there. Although some of the accounts are not SUL it's unlikely that the same user isn't behind the entire list provided there. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)