| |
|
  |
 Global blocklist request, - shankbone.org in trouble again .... |
|
|
| Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
I was just on Meta a few mins ago, renewing my sysop status when I noticed the following being requested at Talk:Spam blacklist; QUOTE shankbone.org
Links to this blog are being inserted by David Shankbone, the owner of the blog, to promote it. For every image David uploads to Wikimedia Commons, he adds a link to his blog; in other words, he is a shameless self-promoter who wants to increase the number of visitors to his blog and its PageRank. This should be added to the spam blacklist. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...it=500&offset=0...and this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...g.shankbone.org (1166 pages) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ael+Lucas&go=Go (Note that he is also part of an effort to promote pornographer Michael Lucas, who he knows in real life, and his "works".) J. from Nevada 216.241.55.204 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) It should be interesting to see how this pans out on Meta (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 1:26am)  I was just on Meta a few mins ago, renewing my sysop status when I noticed the following being requested at Talk:Spam blacklist; QUOTE shankbone.org
Links to this blog are being inserted by David Shankbone, the owner of the blog, to promote it. For every image David uploads to Wikimedia Commons, he adds a link to his blog; in other words, he is a shameless self-promoter who wants to increase the number of visitors to his blog and its PageRank. This should be added to the spam blacklist. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...it=500&offset=0...and this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...g.shankbone.org (1166 pages) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ael+Lucas&go=Go (Note that he is also part of an effort to promote pornographer Michael Lucas, who he knows in real life, and his "works".) J. from Nevada 216.241.55.204 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) It should be interesting to see how this pans out on Meta (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) This link should provide a little insight. |
|
|
|
|
|
| FreiheitBaguette |
|
Neophyte
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 17
Joined:
From: USA
Member No.: 14,098
|
I believe it's time that I reveal that I use the IP 216.241.55.204 (all posts signed as "J." or "J from Nevada"), Nevadawp, and Nevadawp2. Mr. Miller is absolutely correct, and let me give a simple explanation as to why he knows that.
I posted a comment on one of his blog posts, giving my e-mail address and name. He knows, because he has targeted me with attacks on Encyclopedia Dramatica. He logs in, checks the comments on his posts, and realize that I've commented. He sees my IP. Meanwhile, he was aware of the fact that this IP has edited on Talk:Men of Israel, an complete propaganda piece which he basically owns and protects. He decides to use the fact that I'm "Banned" as an excuse to revert my edits. Which is more harmful: me stating my opinon of an "article", or a pornographer's friend who uploads his "work" to an "encyclopedia" site, and then goes to speak at a school? (Ask the editor-in-chief of EB [not ED] if he would publish a puff piece about a pornographic film that promotes tourism to Israel, written by the director's friend no less)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike R |
|
feo pero que bien baila
Group: Contributors
Posts: 111
Joined:
Member No.: 10,394
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 2nd October 2009, 8:26pm) I was just on Meta a few mins ago, renewing my sysop status when I noticed the following being requested at Talk:Spam blacklist; QUOTE shankbone.org
Links to this blog are being inserted by David Shankbone, the owner of the blog, to promote it. For every image David uploads to Wikimedia Commons, he adds a link to his blog; in other words, he is a shameless self-promoter who wants to increase the number of visitors to his blog and its PageRank. This should be added to the spam blacklist. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...it=500&offset=0...and this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:...g.shankbone.org (1166 pages) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...ael+Lucas&go=Go (Note that he is also part of an effort to promote pornographer Michael Lucas, who he knows in real life, and his "works".) J. from Nevada 216.241.55.204 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) It should be interesting to see how this pans out on Meta :blink: :grin: It was posted under "removals" rather than "additions". Expect to see it removed by some bureaucratic knucklehead, ostensibly for that reason, shortly. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 4:27pm) So what's the problem? In addition, almost every image he uploads is ...by_david_shankbone.jpg. There is no more single individual who has exploited the Pee-dia for their personal interests (except, of course, Jimbo) than David Miller. Imagine how awful it would become if everyone was follow his example? For example, what if I sign off everyone of my edits with '... by_cock-up_over_conspiracy' and include a link to my blog? Imagine if everyone was elbowing each other ... and the content ... out of the way to promote themselves in such a gauche manner. And then there is the further context of accepting multiple payola from the Israeli Consulate and professional privileged government in order to promote its interests on the Wikipedia. Do we know how much he actually got off them in cash, airtickets and hotels etc? has that ever been made public? You have a good case FreiheitBaguette but I think you need some help in framing and presenting it. That you speak out here will probably beheld against you ... so you may as well link back to all the thewikipediareview.com topics if you cannot put in proper complaints and have some fun with it. It is a bit like going to court. However "good" and "right" you might be .... it is of no use unless you go to the right court, with the right papers, looking just right. There is a risk if this is not done well it might actually sink the best chance to address these issues. I cannot help you unfortunately ... except for what has been posted here. This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 12:27pm)
He contributed some photos. He included a link back to the his website on each page. His website has no ads or content that would be found objectionable. This is done for hundreds of other photo contributors without controversy.
So what's the problem?
His website has notoriously hosted personal attack content, including promotion of a page that insulted my four-year-old daughter, and it continues to host attack material. We now have evidence that he's also using the website to harvest IP addresses for retaliatory purposes on Wikimedia projects. Personally, I'd rather have a peaceful site with ads, than this particularly fulsome alternative. Chris, if you cannot detect a problem here, then you may be beyond hope. Fortunately, even with all of Shankbone's efforts to back-link, Shankbone.org remains buried by about 875,400 more popular websites, according to Alexa.com. Indeed, Wikipedia Review reaches about 8 to 10 times more people per week than does Shankbone.org. This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chris Croy |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 128
Joined:
Member No.: 1,650
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 8:48am) His website has notoriously hosted personal attack content, including promotion of a page that insulted my four-year-old daughter, and it continues to host attack material. We now have evidence that he's also using the website to harvest IP addresses for retaliatory purposes on Wikimedia projects. I was checking more for "Does he post pics of his dick on the front page?" than anything else. I had been given the impression the answer might be "Yes". As for your links, neither one is close to what I'd consider grounds for blacklisting. If we considered the first link grounds for blacklisting, we'd also have to blacklist almost every newspaper in the country. Calling out a public figure for being inconsistent is absolutely in the domain of journalism. The second one is just attacking people on WR. As we all know, WR posters are worthy of only the greatest derision and no holds are barred when dealing with Them. I have no idea what anyone's babbling about with regard to IPs and banned users. It would be helpful if someone would explain what exactly FreiheitBaguette was banned for or if they were at all or how what Shankbone did was in any way out of line. I'm assuming it was ED that attacked your daughter or did someone submit her artwork to Maddox for critique? --- QUOTE('Cock-up-over-conspiracy') For example, what if I sign off everyone of my edits with '... by_cock-up_over_conspiracy' and include a link to my blog? If you see a picture and click on it, you can see a link to Shankbone's blog. If someone sees your name and clicks on it, they can see a link to your blog on your user page. Again, there are many, many photographs that link back to the photographers personal website. This has never been a problem before. Why do you think this is a problem now? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Achromatic |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined:
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185
|
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 10:41am)
I have no idea what anyone's babbling about with regard to IPs and banned users.
Not entirely sure what's so difficult to understand. An IP address has an issue with Shankbone on Wiki, so he goes trawling through access logs or similar on his own site, says "A-ha! This is a banned user, because I interacted with him on my own site and he's using the same IP address, ergo, on WP, he should be dealt with as such." The issue isn't whether or not the IP is blocked (that should be per normal procedures and processes, whatever you may think of them), but of whether or not you think it's moral or ethical to utilize such resources to further your agenda on WP. To put it bluntly, it was a similar /type/ of thing that was one of the reasons Judd Bagley (WordBomb) was crucified for his role in Weissgate. (He put an image hosted on a webserver in an email he sent to SlimVirgin - then checked the access logs to see who had accessed that image, only to find that moments after SV's IP address accessed the image, so too did what was believed to be Weiss's.) This was (incorrectly) described as spy/malware, etc, etc, and/or immoral/unethical at best and was used as a reason why Wordbomb was Satan himself. (SV protested innocence, and until now has 'no idea' how it happened that GW read the same email she was sent, minutes after she got it). Good for the goose, good for the gander... |
|
|
|
|
|
| One |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 2:10pm)
It is no surprise to me that David Shankbone uses IP info collected by his blog to mete out vengeance on Wikimedia projects. This suspicion was one of the reasons why I advocated on the Meta Wikimedia site for the removal of Shankbone's blog from the Planet Wikimedia aggregator.
Many site owners do this. Consider, for example, how this tactic was successfully used in the Mantanmoreland wars. On the rest of the internet, IPs are just a fact of life. Anyhow, I thought practically everyone on Commons linked to their own site for image credits (and they pretty clearly do it as promotion). Wouldn't a meta blacklist wipe out those Commons links? Image credit promotion doesn't seem like a good reason to blacklist the site--it would be a revolution on Commons, as I understand it. QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 5:41pm)
I'm assuming it was ED that attacked your daughter or did someone submit her artwork to Maddox for critique?
Heh. I was just thinking of Maddox as an example of a blogger who has used traffic logs. Some examples in his hate mail. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Chris Croy @ Sat 3rd October 2009, 1:41pm)
As for your links, neither one is close to what I'd consider grounds for blacklisting. If we considered the first link grounds for blacklisting, we'd also have to blacklist almost every newspaper in the country. Calling out a public figure for being inconsistent is absolutely in the domain of journalism. The second one is just attacking people on WR. As we all know, WR posters are worthy of only the greatest derision and no holds are barred when dealing with Them.
...
I'm assuming it was ED that attacked your daughter or did someone submit her artwork to Maddox for critique?
Yes, ED attacked my daughter. A couple of weeks before that, Shankbone announced his financial donation to ED. Then came the ED piece about me, and on the same day, within hours, Shankbone blogged extensively about me, full of falsehoods, and promoting the ED piece within his blog post. I was admonished to assume good faith and swallow that this was all a big "coincidence". Shankbone was actually compelled to bring down that particular blog post, and others he later wrote about me, because it was either that ultimatum or his blog feed would be removed from the Planet Wikimedia RSS aggregator. You're really not very educated on the background between David and me, Chris, so I would politely suggest you not try to engage on this particular front until you've better informed yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
