Shankbone just threatened Greg by saying, "how far would you like to take this, because it is about to go further than you might be able to imagine?" then explains that this actually means going to Jimbo.

I should think Greg could easily imagine that, don't you think?

Shankers, as usual, is lying. His goal is to get photos of Greg's mom, wife, kids, boss, employees, and the minister of his church, photoshop them into pornographic images, and post them on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

That's just what he likes to do, you see.

And if Jimbo doesn't back him up, he'll probably do it to him, too... not that that hasn't been tried already, of course. (Shankers was never one for originality!)

Well, it appears that Greg may have started incited him a little.

Well sure, but that dog wasn't even wearing a leash! Does he want to get the poor little fella killed?

Jeez, what am I saying? Of course he does! Then he'll put photos of the deceased chihuahua on Encyclopedia Dramatica, probably photoshopped over an image of... well, use your imagination.

Talk about carte blanche, when the carte should be shown covered in ...

On DS's post about ED, the following text appears in google result descriptions but not in the actual page or cached copy



Does anyone have the original text of the rest of the post?

Do we really need two threads on this topic? Aiy yi yi.

Could someone combine the two threads?

The thing is there'd be no need for DS to go to Jimbo, I hate to say it but I think he could get a consensus for this on the Admins noticeboard, or the start of one. I think Grawp is blocked over all the projects, and that didn't need the personal intervention of Jimbo. He may have been Grawpish on all the projects or something, though.

...which continues this fascinating demonstration of Wikipedia morality. Greg is a mildly irritating thorn in their side who, in my view, lacks the common sense to remember not to poke a self-confessed mentally unstable person who has time and again demonstrated a frightening immorality who is given the freedom of Wikipedia even though he posts deliberately antagonistic and defamatory information in every venue available to him and spends time phoning business contacts of his enemies to defame them.

One has to ask the question that Somey always poses: if the Wikipedian community has any understanding of natural justice, why is Shankbone allowed to post in a manner that would get anyone else banned? Is it simply that once they see what they are dealing with, they know that if they took any action, they'd get the same treatment? Put another way, is Wikipedia devoid of ethics, or just scared of him?

I think Wikipedia is getting wise to Shankbone's issues, in part, at least, because of this forum's exposure of them. As for why it hasn't been dealt with decisively already is one of those irritating idiosyncracies of Wikipedia culture. If this was occurring on Citizendium, Shankbone would already have been sent to detention.

Shankbone has created a lot of content for which he gets a lot of passes.

No, it's because he's their mate and edits/used to edit a lot. As with the many other people we hear complaints about on this forum, he's allowed to practically do what he wants. It's not an exceptional treatment in some ways.

As a bisexual I can say this- there may also be elements of 'is it because I is gay?' and with the liberal bias on wiki people don't think they can be as firm towards those of a minority group. Especially as his stalker was prone to homophobic comments.

There are certain things that he has earned a bit of leeway for (tolerating the generally harmless self-promotion in return for what most Wikipedians consider useful content), but there are certain things that nothing should earn you leeway for.

Wikipedia is slowly learning the lesson that giving people leeway on the basis of work done is corrupting. So, as it dawns on Wikipedia that turning a blind eye to Guy eventually generated a bigger problem than they were solving, ditto Slim, and, dare I say it, it was the logic that allowed PoetGuy to earn reprieve by doing good things. It is the logic that gets them into trouble for partiality by wanting to ban Giano. I'd have more sympathy, if they felt that they could not work with Giano's prickly outbursts if they treated DS's uncontrolled bile in the same way.

In the continuing review of how Wikipedia fails to recognise the lessons of the real world; in the real world if you let someone get away with criminal behaviour because they do something useful, it is known as corruption. If Wikipedia understood ethics, it would understand that it should not tolerate this behaviour. DS has learnt the lesson that he has a hold over Wikipedia and is therefore above the law. It is unsurprising that his use of Wikipedia as a revenge platform is getting worse.

Being gay and Jewish? Let's not avoid the elephant in the room. Shankbone fits into the Wikipedia Ideal. Gay, Jewish and liberal. Although how any genuine liberal can bastardise the Palestinian articles by adding pictures of kids holding guns in order to force their own POV is beyond me.

You surely mean: Gay, Jewish and liberal with some sort of personality disorder?

Oddly enough, though no doubt you are 100% correct on the Jewish thing within Jimbo's inner circle of days of yore, it is not something I consider affecting the wider community. As I've mentioned before, I just don't get this Jewish fixation thing. To be fair, the comments have always been in reference to his many pictures contributed, and I am simple enough to believe that such an argument alone has been sufficient to protect him.

I actually like his pictures. They are not pretentious and he would be the first to admit he is not a professional photographer. But they have a sense of "realness" to them that is hard to capture. In any case, his photographs are better than his attempts at writing.

I don't even really have an issue with the content of his pictures. Sure, I'm a fairly right-wing Conservative, but I have no problems with consenting porn.

What does annoy me is the way he tries to shock. Such as on the foot fetish article. Surely the "top" is nailing the "bottom" and just happens to be licking his feet? If I like to nibble an earlobe during sex, does that make me an earlobe fetishist?

And I can even just about understand why he adds his "By David Shankbone" to every image - he is creating a lot of material and may as well get some credit. But why, oh why does he not use his real name? Is it because it is dirt common and would not result in Google ego boosts? Probably, yes.

Since I'm straight, conservative, and Catholic, I now understand my excessive block log.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=240654465

Translation: "Help me SlimVirgin, your my only hope"

Actually, Slim Shanky claims that he is not Jewish.

Thats not his real name? He is an attention whore. Broke him of the habit of putting "Picture by David Shankbone" in the caption of every image he added a while back by mass removing that part of the caption.

The Barnstar of Vindication??

...I think that there's still an arbcom open about SV right now...something about counting chickens before they're hatched comes to mind...

...one which we should expect a decision shortly - noting that in July Thatcher said it was important to be determined quickly.

Yes, he is an attention-whore, but would it not make more sense for him to use his real name? Then, of course, I realised his real name is so common (as in high usage) that he wouldn't be able to "impress" himself on Google so easily.