Global blocklist request, - shankbone.org in trouble again .... Options

[Alison]

I was just on Meta a few mins ago, renewing my sysop status when I noticed the following being requested at Talk:Spam blacklist;

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)

[Chris Croy]

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?

[thekohser]

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]

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?

---

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?

[thekohser]

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.