Policy Creation and Editorial Decision Making on the Wikipedia, Surely David Shankbone sockpuppet ... on Israeli money? Options Rating

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I am sure there is more filth in there to dig out than I did in a few distracted minutes, but please don't allow me to distract from the fun any longer. See below for the latest 'toon episode.

Surely a David Shankbone (T-C-L-K-R-D) sockpuppet ... WatchingWhales (T-C-L-K-R-D) corrects signature to a David Shankbone's comment on a 'David Shankbone' arbitration page (which was then later blanked out of courtesy by Newyorkbrad ), here; Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Shankbone user pages, adds David Shankbone picture to David Saranga article which WatchingWhales started and David Shankbone has supplied 16 out of 23 edits.

And, pray, who is Carmen Smith Jones (T-C-L-K-R-D) also editing on Saranga's page and created the IsraelPolitik is an official blog of the Consulate General of Israel in New York" page which was initiated by David Saranga, Consul for Media and Public Affairs? Or Mike beer (T-C-L-K-R-D) who created the page IsRealli, the "official blog of the State of Israel and the first official blog to ever be started by a government" ... by the Consulate General of Israel in New York (of course,)? Funnily enough, a topic only contributed to by Carmen Smith Jones.

Carmen, who just happened to drop, David Saranga, the former IDF officer and now Israel’s Consul for Media and Public Affairs at the Israeli Consulate in New York, name into the article about homosexuality in the U.S. military, Don't ask, don't tell. Carmen's other concerns include re-labeling the Isreali Defence Force hotties willing to parade in their bikinis, see example, below, from "bikini-clad babes" to "models".

Watchingwales's others fascinations include a scratchpad for page on jewish gay porn actor and ex-prostitute, Michael Lucas, of whom David Shankbone contributed various photos, including "Michael Lucas with Israeli flag on Fire Island.jpg" by David Shankbone, "The making of an adult film by David_Shankbone.jpg" or "Michael Lucas 2 by David Shankbone.jpg" and maintains with whitewash edits (e.g changing 'prostitute' to 'escort' and inserting David Shankbone photos of Vanessa Carlton, Salman Rushdie and David Saranga.jpg and others. "David" David went as far as ANI and Checkuser demand blocking (the editor was 'Unrelated' ).

"Escort", that is kind of on a par with "model", isn't it?

Policy Creation and Editorial Decision Making on the Wikipedia



See; Wikipedia:GIANTDICK

For those of you unaware of the context, see the current discussion on Paid editing or David Shankbone, goat piss and more kiddie porn. David Saranga (pictured) is the Israeli government man charged with getting ex-Israel Army girls to do full page spreads (that is pages, not legs ... mostly) for Maxim magazine.

An Israeli government sponsored push to evoke a sexier depiction of Israel to American males in New York, the aim of the project being to "broaden people's view" and "change Israel's image from a country associated with constant conflict to a different, sexy, fun and vibrant place". David Saranga's investment also included seemingly more than one paid holiday to Israeli for "leading Wikipedian" and penis photographer, David Shankbone for added gay appeal.

Former Consul General of Israel in New York, MK Colette Avital, said the sexy tourism thrust "a pornographic campaign sponsored by the Foreign and Tourism Ministries" was "an outrage". True, true, madam, let us join you in condemning these Wiki-whores.

What example are they setting to the morals of young people on the Wikipedia!?!

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 21st June 2009, 9:31am

[sbrown]

If they wanted to make Israel look sexy theyd find a better photo of Leonardo DiCaprios girlfriend Bar Refaeli. I mean look at the pic then try googling her.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bar...aeli_age_18.jpg


This post has been edited by sbrown: Sun 21st June 2009, 6:56am

[Viridae]

Shankbone isn't trying to hide the fact that WatchingWhales is a sock of his: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...on_under_WP:COI

Its only a problem if they have been used in the same topic/discussion to make it look like there is more support/dissent than there is.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Its only a problem if they have been used in the same topic/discussion to make it look like there is more support/dissent than there is.

And the other accounts?

Is it a problem that the sock edits are all in service of his paymasters? (... I think there are more socks in there but I cant be bothered looking). I don't see any discussion of this in the 'Paid editing', or "I'll ban them (paid editors) where they are pointed out to me - Jimbo Wales" discussions.

As far as an 'universal policy' goes, I have lost more than one user account for far less an infraction. You can think what you like as far as I care, but I would wish to underlining a type of favoritism or bullshit-juggling, that goes on within the Wikipedian context, and which I think you are reflecting in a case such as this. Would that be fair to say?

Pass me a 14 year old admin and I'll get you banned ... then once I have you banned once, I can ban you again, and again, and again ... railroading you out of the project because you don't suit my agenda (paid for or not).

Now, purely in the name of academic research ... for less than a price of a few business class return airfare tickets from New York to Tel Aviv, both Israel and the Wikipedia could have had a sponsored photoshoot like this ... rather than a Goat urinating on an organic farm in Israel.jpg. Call me an old fashioned and orthodox but ...

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 21st June 2009, 9:35am

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Its only a problem if they have been used in the same topic/discussion to make it look like there is more support/dissent than there is.

Taken with a gracious humility from the topic on the related, "New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case".

So you can ban anyone you dont like as a sockpuppet whether or not they are. But we knew that.

I guess that is what I am saying, to which I add ...

"One can defend anyone you that is in favor from being accused of sockpuppetry, even if they do in service of their paymasters. But we knew that too."

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 21st June 2009, 12:47pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Its only a problem if they have been used in the same topic/discussion to make it look like there is more support/dissent than there is.

Taken with a gracious humility from the topic on the related, "New Israel/Palestine ArbCom case".

So you can ban anyone you dont like as a sockpuppet whether or not they are. But we knew that.

I guess that is what I am saying, to which I add ...

"One can defend anyone you that is in favor from being accused of sockpuppetry, even if they do in service of their paymasters. But we knew that too."