User talk:WatchingWhales

:) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're watching whales, who's watching Wales?

LOL, just kidding. Hope you are well.--WatchingWales (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this account

Hi David. It's incredibly important for transparency and accountability that alternate accounts like this be marked clearly. I've added a (rather ugly) template to your user page here. Feel free to improve the current template, add another template, or even redirect these two pages to your main account, but it is imperative that this account be marked. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that as this account has already been shared with Arbcom as an alt and unless there is a policy that a userbox be added it would seem to only embolden those who have nothing better to do than harass when no actual problem has been shown. If there has been a change in policy on these issues please show me the discussion so I understand where the multitudes of users with alt accounts should be shown as to how to brand themselves. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have you been made aware of ArbCom having been disclosed the connection between these two accounts? Is this something David told you privately, did a member of the committee tell you, or is this information available somewhere on the project? Lara 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here [1] 99.150.255.75 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's from over two years ago and he specified he was using it for image uploads. Where was this ArbCom made aware of the connection, particularly considering what the account has been used for? And where was he told he doesn't need to make the connection between accounts obvious to the community? Lara 04:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the real question is where is anyone required to add a template or otherwise advertise the connection between their alt accounts? Let's not quibble to other details - simply show that it is required otherwise this smells like more of the same harassment ala socks of banned users trying to make a point via harassment. Or is that a new policy as well? -- Banjeboi 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the sock of a banned user, but speaking of SOCK, that's where it says you're supposed to link your alternate accounts. And that's a policy, by the way. Lara 21:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That same page helpfully points out ... "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a WP:CHECKUSER or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny." He has so now we can move on. -- Banjeboi 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding a COI doesn't constitute privacy concerns. Mr. Miller's full name is known, and he's apparently just been appointed to an official Wikimedia position. Avoiding scrutiny isn't a proper use of an alternate account when privacy isn't an issue.

Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

The edits of this account take on a new meaning when one considers it is David making them. Lara 22:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, no COI problems have been shown to exist despite a concerted effort. In fact it was suggested that ... people should be encouraged to write on subjects they know well as long as it is done in accordance with our other policies. If you really want to press the issue perhaps a polite note asking Arbcom if should this user be compelled to advertise the connection. Otherwise it really seems like inventing a problem that doesn't exist in order to force a solution that's unneeded. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I agree, that people are and should be encouraged to write on topics they are knowledgeable of and have an interest in. However, they shouldn't be using alternate accounts to do that when the articles and topics they are writing on regard their friends and other connections that may lead to COI issues. These contributions should remain within their regular account so that others are aware of the circumstances. Otherwise, it leaves the distinct impression that one is attempting to hide the fact that they're the one making the edits. Lara 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I confused two separate issues. The edits of this account included those to articles relating to Lucas. The edits made to articles relating to the author of David's BLP were made on his regular account. COI remains an issue on both accounts. Lara 16:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I think we're done here. COI problems are different than actually COI connections, if you feel a problem exists then maybe file a COIN report. -- Banjeboi 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZM, please leave the template off. Instead of undertaking contentious actions during a sensitive time, why don't you go block the obvious impostor of this account whose words were right above your eyes as you spent time to compose this unnecessary thread. But I'll leave it, if that will satisfy you. That should give fair warning to all who encounter this rather sleepy account that's been around for years and everyone knows about. Take care, -->David Shankbone 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

There is a sockpuppet investigation involving you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David Shankbone. I saw no evidence this account had been notified, and so am doing so. LadyofShalott 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Tragedy of Today's Gays.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tragedy of Today's Gays.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]