[[David Shankbone]], A biography appears Options

[carbuncle]

Someone seems to have created a BLP of [[David Shankbone]]. User Huckandraz formerly seemed mainly interested in New York City artist [[Judy Rifka]].

No comment, just pointing it out.

[The Wales Hunter]

Technically, a borderline BLP with no-consensus should default to "delete".

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Just following up on the general silliness of this David Shanbone, his exploitation of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia for personal advancement, and the Wiki-elite support of him ...

• Over here, on the Administrators' noticeboard David Shankbone has a hissy over editors naming Israeli diplomat David Saranga on his snapshop taken at Porn King Michael Lucas's home alleging a Wikipedia Review conspiracy.

Howdy everyone. The subject image is not used anywhere in Wikimedia, yet its history shows that it has been very controversial. Recently, the Wikipedia Review has launched a harassment campaign related to me that 1) tried to have me topic banned on Wikipedia; 2) blacklist my blog; and 3) edit-war over this photo. Through OR on the Wikipedia Review a person in the photograph is being identified without any evidence ("looks like him"). The edit summaries are full of accusations against me, OR and BLP violations. Could someone please protect the image to remove the OR?

• Over here on Wikimedia Commons Shankbone scweams and scweams ...

(Undo revision by Proabivouac the person is unidentified, and you do not know their identity beyond speculation, which makes this OR and creates BLP issues)

• But over here, on English Wikipedia is the exact same snapshot uploaded by Shankbone with Israeli diplomat David Saranga clearly named.

Credibility ... moi? What is credibility when one can have celebrity instead? Give the man his own Pee-dia page now!

Lucas has mean while obviously been taking lessons in diplomacy from Saranga on Fire Island given his inspired letter to the US president.

Lucas sent a letter to US President Barack Obama following the Canadian Border Services Agency's refusal to allow shipments containing DVDs of Lucas Entertainment's 'Farts!' and 'Piss!' to cross the border on the grounds that disallowing gay porn shipments into Canada could harm both countries' economies. I had no idea it was such a moral and high brow milieu.

Dear Mr. President:

Farts! and Piss! were seized by the Canadian Border Services Agency and deemed obscene according to their (and in my opinion, antiquated) decency standards.

There are a number of issues here that concern myself and international trade, and I believe you are the only person who can rectify this situation at this moment in time.
 
Since you will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada today, I urge you to make what I detail below an item on your agenda, if it is not already a topic of conversation. I know that one of your points of discussion will be coordinating our nation's economic stimulus plan with Canada's. 

Farts! and Piss!, just two of the productions that were denied importation into Canada, are highly successful titles from my Lucas Raunch line. Both have gone on to be among my best sellers in 2008 ... Piss! is also nominated for a GAYVN award for Best Fetish Video ...

Sincerely,

Michael Lucas

No, it is not dated 1 April. More related dirt digging documented here on a blog called Wiki-Hell.

"Nobody goes to Israel for Golda Meir, I'm so sorry," Lucas said in heavily Russian-accented English. "People don't care that you have a great orchestra, and they're not particularly interested in the Holocaust museum. Gay people, and straight people, want beautiful beaches, beautiful nature, beautiful men and women, good food, good hotels ... They need me."

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Somey]

No, it is not dated 1 April.

Are you sure? That's one of the most hilarious things I've ever read in my whole life!

Ya gotta wonder about these people... Just when you think they can't get any more ludicrous, ridiculous, and laughable, they come up with stuff like this.

I am far from agreeing with what seems to be the prevalentl opinion of David Shankbone around here. He has supplied many good and useful pictures to the project; some are decidedly risque, true, but Wikipedia and Commons are not censored...

Just what do you think the prevalent opinion of Mr. Shankers is, actually? I mean, you're sort of new around here...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as Shankers is an active, unbanned user on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia has any right to criticize us or anyone else for any sort of alleged immoral, unethical, or otherwise unpleasant behavior whatsoever. We retain absolute moral superiority over Wikipedia as long as he's there, and for that matter, so does practically every other interactive website in existence. (Well, within reason I suppose.)

[Happy drinker]

Just what do you think the prevalent opinion of Mr. Shankers is, actually? I mean, you're sort of new around here...

I get the impression that he is regarded as a blatant self-publicist, who just into it for his own glory. He is derided for posting obscene photos, maybe of himself. Maybe so, but I don't care why someone contributes as long as they improve the project (which as I say is not censored). People there to disrupt the project, or to push their own POV (whether I agree with it or not) are not welcome.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as Shankers is an active, unbanned user on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia has any right to criticize us or anyone else for any sort of alleged immoral, unethical, or otherwise unpleasant behavior whatsoever. We retain absolute moral superiority over Wikipedia as long as he's there, and for that matter, so does practically every other interactive website in existence. (Well, within reason I suppose.)

If an editor on Wikipedia threatened to assault another editor, he'd be banned on the spot, wouldn't he? There'd be ructions here if he wasn't, right? What's the policy here?

This post has been edited by Happy drinker:

[thekohser]

Just what do you think the prevalent opinion of Mr. Shankers is, actually? I mean, you're sort of new around here...

I get the impression that he is regarded as a blatant self-publicist, who just into it for his own glory. He is derided for posting obscene photos, maybe of himself. Maybe so, but I don't care why someone contributes as long as they improve the project (which as I say is not censored). People there to disrupt the project, or to push their own POV (whether I agree with it or not) are not welcome.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: As long as Shankers is an active, unbanned user on Wikipedia, nobody from Wikipedia has any right to criticize us or anyone else for any sort of alleged immoral, unethical, or otherwise unpleasant behavior whatsoever. We retain absolute moral superiority over Wikipedia as long as he's there, and for that matter, so does practically every other interactive website in existence. (Well, within reason I suppose.)

If an editor on Wikipedia threatened to assault another editor, he'd be banned on the spot, wouldn't he? There'd be ructions here if he wasn't, right? What's the policy here?

Hey, Happy... Do me a favor. I'm just curious of what your opinion is of the contributions Shankbone has made to Meta Wikimedia? Also, what are your thoughts on the time when he published a statement on Wikipedia that if I didn't stop removing the image of his chihuahua riding illegally on the NY subway system, he would retaliate in "a way you cannot even imagine"?

I'm just curious to hear how an apologist such as yourself would successfully frame these issues.

Also, note that if I say I have a desire to punch someone in the face, that does not mean I have any intention of carrying that out. Also, with the "victim" hiding behind a veil of a psedonym, it's rather silly to express dismay over such a statement.

Besides, don't worry. Your value as an entertainment prop is growing on me.

Looking forward to your answers!

[Happy drinker]

Also, note that if I say I have a desire to punch someone in the face, that does not mean I have any intention of carrying that out. Also, with the "victim" hiding behind a veil of a psedonym, it's rather silly to express dismay over such a statement.

That's worth knowing - if you say something you don't mean it. Pseudonym? Is your name really "thekohser"?

Anonymous cult-apologist fuckwits who refer to the BLP victims as "fair game" desperately need to be punched in the face. Hard.

Anonymous? Is your name really 'taiwopanfob'? And that's not what I said at all. I said that those who advocate "dead tree notability" say that anyone who gets into a reference work becomes fair game. I on the contrary believe that such people should be treated no worse than anyone else - everything about them must be justified by reliable, verifiable sources (which of course excludes scandal rags).

Happy drinker, let me add a question to your list - if WP is not censored, as you have said a couple of times now, why did Jimmy Wales delete several Shankbone images of a gay porn film shoot? (No points for guessing the director of that film.)

I have no idea; I didn't even know he had. Ask him.

until Mr. Drinker abandons his odious position on BLP

It's odious to demand that everything in a BLP is sourced to reliable, verifiable sources? It's odious to refuse to treat people who get into encyclopedias less favourably than others? And please stop making so many assumptions about me.

This post has been edited by Happy drinker:

[taiwopanfob]

It's odious to demand that everything in a BLP is sourced to reliable, verifiable sources?

You've been told that everyone knows what is written on the side of the bottle.

The problem, as everyone is telling you, is that the label does not reflect the contents of the bottle.

We have options now, which I'll order in increasing likelihood:

1. We are all wrong, and the label and contents are in fact consistent with each other. Or can be made to be agree with minimal work. Unfortunately, there is far too much hard data and rational argument against this position. (A big hint being that if it was a solvable problem within the existing WP policy framework, it would have been solved by this point.)

2. You are completely unaware that the label is inconsistent with contents. Hard to believe. I'd also have to assume you are an ineducable moron, and you've asked me to stop making assumptions.

3. You know that the label is a lie. This is more believable, but it does make you a liar. This is a simple model. Some of your behavior is in accordance with this model, but I feel the model probably too simple.

4. You don't care what the contents of the bottle are, just the text of the label. This is much more likely case. Sadly, it is probably the worst case too. But all your observed behavior fits. Ignoring or evading questions that lead you to examine the contents of the bottle being a big one.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Aside: Someone needs to create an Mediawiki extension where 'my avatar' can fight with 'your avatar', each given different powers, weapons and abilities on an almost random basis/edit-count/who-we-know, so we can push angry electrons around the internet and work these disputes out; not get all tied up over figures of speech. In fact, it should be automated so we don't even have to do it ... just run a script and see who wins.

This Shankbone thing is becoming ridiculous ... "writer". He has gone from someone that uploads snapshots on a website to a 'photographer' and a blogger to a 'writer'.

With notoriety ... which if I was him (in his frame of mind), I would be working hard. In New York, he will probably make the next step to celebrity. There are a lot of people who buy 'bad boy' and laugh at the pettiness of the Pee-dia. I could imagine an exhibition of large blows of his "porn film set" series. He could easily print to canvas and call them "art" (there is this inkjet technology where you can print vast gallery-sized blowups of digital photographs), later do exhibitions of famous people ... and at around the same time the first best-of-the-blog book.

If I was huck and raz, I would have him signed up as an agent ... 15-20% commission. If I was David, I would try speaking to Paul or Salman again, and hold out for a more established agent (unless, of course, Huck or Raz are).

Come on guys ... from their myspace:

Huck & Raz

Promoting books and illiteracy since 1998

One editor, one agent

Just what he needs ... are we watching the next step of self-promotion in real time?

The problem is he needs to work on his photography a lot more (and his consistency promoting the "by_David_Shankbone.jpg" brand) ... not necessarily making it better (the cheapo paparazzi stuff is really not very good and he needs to stop taking 'school girl pictures of "me with famous people mum"). I mean not trying, making it look crappier and casual, even more amateur, would work better ... "the cult of the amateur portraying the cult of the celebrity".

He need to have his ass kicked (rather than prodded) a bit by a good, established art director/editor/galleriste; and not his dick sucked by another sycophantic friend or amateur. Play around with some lenses and angles. Drop ANY pretention like claiming his wiki-work was an "art project, darling" (it wasn't). Step up to the next league.

He has access to very good material which, unless he works it, wont last for ever ... and he is wasting right now. There are too many paparazzi chasing too little money. I doubt he has the muscle for that life. It is the wrong way to go. Heading for the galleries, the high end of the pink dollar, La La Land etc is.

In a sense, he is actually a bit trapped by all the psychotic faux academic administrators on the Pee-dia and at having to pretend to play nice and be more conservative than any real adult would or needs to be. He should really say, "fuck it ... this is who I am, this is what I want, I am using the Wiki" and go for it. Stop bothering about the silly kids Wikigame. And it is very silly. Play a grown ups game now for all it is worth.

Big canvases of disheveled beds in banal, tacky, empty porno sets at art prices, a more affordable range of limited edition prints. The idea could sell. There are lots of relatives and precedents in the art gallery photographic world. With the subject he has had access to, it is a real shame he has not got a half-decent book to send around.

In fact, once he "makes it", which I actually think he has a reasonable chance of doing so, he should even turn back around and bite the hand that fed him: be honest about how he used it, care about how stupid people are to give their lives to it be sucked in and exploited for nothing but tell the world how nasty it can be ... milking it for the sympathy factor (e.g. full of crazy stalkers and how it nearly destroyed his life, something should be done about it etc). Shanker does Oprah ...

If he could become REALLY famous, then he could have some real fun, like juxtaposing his genital and excretion work with his celeb work; split screen 'pissing goats and starlets', 'Perez and his Hebrew incontinence pants' ... be really provocative. It would not work at this stage but once he was established, they would be lining up to be offended by him. Cock_and_ass_by_David_Shanbone.jpg ... yes, its doable.

Of course, then 'psychotic faux academics' will have a whole generation of "wannabe_David_Shankbones_by_wannabe_David_Shankbones.jpg" photographers on the Pee-dia to contend with trying to copy him and be even more outrageous to compete, like all the Corinne Day copies after 'heroin chic' phase. But, just by dint of all his contributions, he has a good chance of becoming the first person ('Bo Whale apart), to use the Pee-dia to gain celebrity and turn it into a good living. There is probably only room for one or two people to do so before it become old news. He could be one, the other could be a serious author/critic. Sadly a comicbook artist would come way down the list ...

I don't know the guy at all. I don't know the history. I don't know what he "deserves" but, like they say, "work makes free ... and the wiki brings out the worst in people".

The lesson is, efforts bring rewards despite how awful you might or might not be in real life.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:

[Achromatic]

Play around with some lenses and angles.

At the risk of coming across like a camera snob (and with a due nod to the fact that some of the best photographs/photographers used cameras worse than you'd pick up today for $5 in a thrift store), I'm fairly sure Shankbone (proudly) uses a digital compact camera with not so much as an external flash (which, given some of his Myspace-quality celeb-deer-in-headlights "portraits", explains a lot).

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

At the risk of coming across like a camera snob ...

You are absolutely correct. You could make better pictures with a cardboard box with a hole it in, (as an aside, do a google for 'digital pinhole camera').

The fact is, if he has ... ahem ... publishished 4,000 plus shapshots ... and has access to the "A-List" .... and has an in with the NYC gay/Jewish media mafia (ask Steven Meisel) ... and that is the best he can do so far ... the guy is not a 'photographer'. So fuck Virgin, Fanboi and Huck & Raz off. He is not a 'writer' until he is properly published. He is not "noted" so who are they all trying to kid?

They are all such wankers really.

If David screws this opportunity up ... and remains a tiny bit part player ... he really is an idiot. Which is why I would say he is better going for a deliberately sub-myspace look and working his 'bad' photos of people people who take bad photos normally cant reach ... which is basically his "thing". Upping the 'scale', ups the price and changing the medium, makes more of a statement about what he is doing.

So what is he, or could he be? Well, I suppose one of that sub-culture who have leaned their ladders up against the wall for being "famous for being famous" and of whom no one remember why ... albeit he is in a tiny pond right now.

You can turn that into art without any talent whatsoever. You can even turn artlessness into an art if you are good. Has he got it in him?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: