Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Editors _ The DennyColt Conspiracy
Posted by: Somey
We're really going to have to put some serious work into exposing this "DennyColt" guy. I just spent a few minutes on Google and found that he spent about 18 months trolling a site called "http://forum.cygnus-study.com/index.php" with a lot of blatant right-wing nonsense, using the same user name (except that there he's "Denny Colt", with a space). That's only the most obvious example, but there are like 1,148 posts by this guy, all espousing the usual creationist, dittoheaded, gay-bashing neo-con fundamentalist crapola. I even joined the site to make sure - it's definitely him, there's plenty of material about how he's into the same comic books and suchlike.
But do you see anything about his politics and fundamentalist beliefs on his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DennyColt No, of course not. That might prevent him from gaining adminship, might it not?
So right now, he's desperately trying to get WP to accept blogs as reliable sources. Why? Could it be because blogs are the only sites on the internet that still espouse creationism as a valid science? Or any number of other right-wing, anti-scientific positions on various things?
That also explains why he targets Brandt specifically: Brandt is left-wing. http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?p=86129#post86129.
Do the math, folks!
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Denny Colt (aka "The Spirit") is the name of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit that was created by Will Eisner (1917-2005) in 1940. There are probably a large number of avatars who use the "Denny Colt" name. In the comic series, everyone thinks that detective Denny Colt is dead, and this made Colt realize that staying dead would be a good cover to solve more crimes.
It would be difficult to nail this guy. He's definitely someone's sock. He started editing on January 28. That's about the time that Essjay realized he might have a problem. Is user DennyColt the new Essjay, who everyone assumes is gone from Wikipedia? Old habits die hard — on his user page he's a broadcaster, a writer, and an engineer (what, no Catholic scholar this time?). He immediately gets into playing supercop on Wikipedia, which is strange for a newbie. Yeah, he may as well be Essjay.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I see that there's a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&oldid=118613991#DennyColt —
I've never understood this bit of rag-man-roll before — will it tell us whether DC = SJ, or only whether DC = MH (MisterHamburger), or is it more like a sealed indictment?
Inquiring minds want to know ...
Jonny 
Posted by: Uly
It tells the checkuser which accounts have shared IPs with which other accounts.
If Essjay edited on the same IP as DennyColt, it'll show up, but I'd be surprised if the person running the checkuser said anything about it in his response to the request.
In reality, checkuser is completely unable to catch the technically adept if they're willing to exercise a little care. With the number of checkusers Essjay has run, he's immune if he makes any effort at it at all.
Posted by: guy
I'm a sockpuppet, but not of DennyColt. I'd rather Brandt not put me up on his website. MisterHamburger 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the history of the Brandt article this is a highly credible explanation, SqueakBox 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Unrelated --jpgordon?êç?êå?êç?êå 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Speaking of links between DennyColt and Essjay, here's another wiki-puzzler for those of you who grok —and I sincerely wiki-pity you for a' that — wiki-psychology better than I do.
Why would DennyColt be so steadfastly dedicated to preserving what he calls this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2007_March_28&diff=118608569&oldid=118602427?
Jonny
Posted by: Jonny Cache
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=118609860&oldid=118589183
So it's clear that Admins really do control the publication of messages on talk pages, based on the ostensible identity of the messenger and not on the content of the message itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=118608199&oldid=118605089 — not squeaked — to just the right higher ups that he-she is not a n00b, but a highly skilled player of the Wikipedia video game.
Just tryin' to keep up ...
Jonny
Posted by: Jonny Cache
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=1000&target=DennyColt.
Yeah, like that really narrows it down ...
Herzliche Grüße ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.237.149.143&oldid=118634036
Posted by: Jonny Cache
We need to watch this one for sure. It's clear that it's a highly experienced player at the highest levels of the Wikipedia Video Game, probably someone we know quite well already, probably someone who is quite well-known to the Administration — maybe one of Jimbo's Personal Wiki-Proteges? — and is being allowed to use tools that it's not really supposed to have, plus it's using a bot to pile up edits at a rate of 2 or 3 per minute like somebody who wants to be an Admin (again) real, real bad.
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=DennyColt&site=en.wikipedia.org
Other Symptoms. Sock Puppet Paranoid
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.237.149.143&oldid=118634036
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.237.151.207&oldid=118633973
Namely, anybody in my way must be a puppet of somebody else in my way.
Diagnostic Rule Of Thumb —
A sockpuppet paranoid is usually a paranoid sockpuppet.
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to figure out who he may have been before based on the usual diff-checking and such... After all, nearly everyone on Wikipedia consistently misspells the word "consensus," not to mention the words "inadvertently" and "contradict."
He's a busy boy, though, that's for sure! In addition to his campaign to make the failure to automatically revert a banned user a bannable offense in itself, and make Wikipedia safe for right-wing bloggers, he's getting a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll" together to put the kibosh on SlimVirgin's WP:ATT policy. I guess ol' Denny is a little picky about which right-wingers he supports - in other words, only the ostensibly Christian ones are acceptable, and the others can, presumably, go stuff themselves.
Anyway, it may be a waste of time trying to figure out if he's someone we've seen before... He might have gained his wikiskillz somewhere else, like on one of the Wikia sites, or CreationWiki, or someplace like that. And admittedly, I'm less convinced now that he's the same guy that was on http://forum.cygnus-study.com/showthread.php?p=77687&highlight=concensus#post77687, but I'm nowhere near unconvinced, let me just put it that way. It's the same reflexive, knee-jerk attempts at logic, the same insistence on changing rules to suit his fascistic view of the world, and the same refusal to accept opposing ideas or opinions as having any validity whatsoever.
My gosh, he's... he's... the "perfect Wikipedian!"
Posted by: guy
he's getting a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll" together to put the kibosh on SlimVirgin's WP:ATT policy.
Is that good or bad? Weren't we rather suspicious of WP:ATT?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
he's getting a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll" together to put the kibosh on SlimVirgin's WP:ATT policy.
Is that good or bad? Weren't we rather suspicious of WP:ATT?
You mean he-she's agin SV ???
Omegad !!! This is too shocking !!!
He-she must be me !!!
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
Yes, we were, but I think we were more suspicious of SlimVirgin taking ownership of a fundamental policy than we were of the policy itself, right?
What Denny-boy ultimately wants to do is eliminate any wording that denies the use of blogs and self-published websites as "reliable" secondary sources. He's made that abundantly clear, and I think I know why he wants to do it.
Let's face it - both scenarios are bad. But it doesn't have to be either-or by any means... With any luck, some of the WP'ers will read this and try to help stave off both of these things, but if we are having to choose, I personally would rather they continue to discourage most blog citations - even if that means Slimmy ends up taking control of the policy.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Is that good or bad? Weren't we rather suspicious of WP:ATT?
Yes, we were, but I think we were more suspicious of SlimVirgin taking ownership of a fundamental policy than we were of the policy itself, right?
What Denny-boy ultimately wants to do is eliminate any wording that denies the use of blogs and self-published websites as "reliable" secondary sources. He's made that abundantly clear, and I think I know why he wants to do it.
Let's face it — both scenarios are bad. But it doesn't have to be either-or by any means. With any luck, some of the WP'ers will read this and try to help stave off both of these things, but if we are having to choose, I personally would rather they continue to discourage most blog citations — even if that means Slimmy ends up taking control of the policy.
I haven't been following what DennyColt was doing with SlimVirgin's ReVisionThing. If what Somey says is accurate, then DC thinks that SV's SubVersion of Source Validity does not SubVert it nearly far enough.
Whenever we see one of these Wiki-Punch-&-Julius shows between the Xtreme and UltraXtreme on Wikipedia, it is always a fair hypothesis that both puppets are in the hands of one and the same master.
Paranode Enuff ?
We Will See ... Now Won't We ??
Well, Those Who Have Eyes Will See ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
OK, now DennySlimEssjayZ is interpreting the words "I've just been libeled by Thatcher131" as a "legal threat" and reverted the edit where that statement was made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ABanning_policy&diff=118804175&oldid=118803461
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066932.html
Obviously it is libel, and just about any court - even in Florida - would agree with that. I think they're reaching the point where Brandt could easily demonstrate substantial harm being done by these people, and probably get significant monetary damages as a result - possibly enough to cripple them.
What gets me is, why all the buck-passing?
They wrote the web page. They keep voting to keep it on their website. They keep libeling Brandt, on and on and on... Why do they try to shirk responsibility for their behavior by foisting it off onto the Foundation? Don't they think the Foundation has better things to do, like deal with their personnel problems and raise more money?
This whiny chatter of theirs about "pursuing the matter via the proper channels" is obviously ludicrous. How can they even think for one minute that the Foundation or the OTRS "staff" is going to do anything about this whatsoever, prior to the filing of an actual lawsuit?
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Just for the record, the comment by Thatcher131 that I said was libelous was this one:
He fixed it after I complained, as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy&diff=prev&oldid=118823615. The four cases he refers to are: Katefan0, SlimVirgin, NSLE, and Snowspinner. Each of his four descriptions is inaccurate. You can see why he decided to back off of this post. I also pointed out in my complaint that the banning Talk page was indexed by Google, which makes it a "published" page by any conceivable legal definition.
See? It does work (to an extent) for Wikipedia to let victims of libel to post on pages that are directly relevant to that libel. But now that Ms. User:Durova has semi-protected that page, just like she did to my bio's talk page yesterday, she has in effect Spoken for the Foundation: "Victims shall not be allowed to point out errors of fact and sourcing that they consider libelous or inaccurate."
Posted by: Somey
I think "D" actually refers to Phaedriel - nobody really cares what happens to Snowie.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I think "D" actually refers to Phaedriel - nobody really cares what happens to Snowie.
Really? No, the campus cops visited Snowie, but I didn't contact anyone from the Oklahoma City Police Department about Phaedriel, and I'm not aware that she had any problem with her employer. Of course, neither did I send that email about Snowie to the University president. Either way, Thatcher131 is just being reckless and irresponsible here. Wikipedia should do something about admins like him — he deserves a job at Wikia and an appointment to the Arbcom!
Posted by: Somey
Right - you had nothing to do with either of those cases, that's a certainty. Also, you can't be considered responsible for what the laws are like in Malaysia or wherever, or how someone living there would react to them under those or any other circumstances. (Could you? Interesting question...) And obviously katefan0 didn't get into trouble with her employer, since the whole thing blew over because you pointed out the COI before her employers found out on their own!
As for Slimmy, well... three out of four ain't too bad, right?
Anyhoo, it's almost silly to think that Snowie might be described as one of the "nicest wikipedians ever," and he wouldn't have been asked about you by the cops in any case (and they'd be regular Kampus Kops, not Internal Affairs). Presumably he's not a "she," either... Then again, I've never met the man... 
It does give you a good idea as to the kind of accuracy one can expect from WP, doesn't it?
Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker
Nevermind, Daniel beat me to it yesterday. (really should look further than the first post)
Posted by: Somey
Was that about the comic book character? Ahh...
There's also a http://www.diamondamplification.com/colt.shtml
She's cute, but my God, those shoes!
Posted by: Jonny Cache
There's also a http://www.diamondamplification.com/colt.shtml
She's cute, but my God, those shoes!
The snow, she blow bone deep in the Great White North ...
If you cache my drift ...
Jonny
Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker
Yeah. I'm fairly familiar with the character. I really enjoy Eisner's work as a whole. No one could quite use a page like him.
Posted by: gomi
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&diff=120547067&oldid=120544987
Posted by: Jonny Cache
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&diff=120547067&oldid=120544987
Lemme get this strait ...
Does this mean that they are now going to delete all links to The New Yorker?
And ban anybody who re-inserts them?
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
That was (thankfully) reverted by JzG, but now Slimmy is trying to get people blocked for posting unlinked URL's, too. Watch encroaching fascism in action, folks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=next&oldid=120565070
I don't really blame them, I guess... they're all volunteers, after all, and it's unpleasant to be criticized when you're working for free. Whereas all of us here at Wikipedia Review are making thousands of dollars for each post! It's the home-based business opportunity of a lifetime!
I tried to get Our Corporate Masters™ to start paying me by the word, but they didn't go for it. 
Posted by: thekohser
That was (thankfully) reverted by JzG...
Careful, there, Somey. Don't go making JzG out to be some kind of rational good-guy. He wasn't reverting, he was just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=prev&oldid=120562915.
Greg
Posted by: Jonny Cache
That was (thankfully) reverted by JzG, but now Slimmy is trying to get people blocked for posting unlinked URL's, too. Watch encroaching fascism in action, folks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=next&oldid=120565070
I don't really blame them, I guess... they're all volunteers, after all, and it's unpleasant to be criticized when you're working for free. Whereas all of us here at Wikipedia Review are making thousands of dollars for each post! It's the home-based business opportunity of a lifetime!
I tried to get Our Corporate Masters™ to start paying me by the word, but they didn't go for it.
But weightaminute — tic toc tic toc tic toc — isn't Wikipedia itself partly responsible for "outing" Essjay?
I mean, didn't the Management send him "out" to the interview?
And didn't they "out" many of the details of his bio themselves?
And doesn't any bit of information about a person potentially endanger that person?
Will Wikipedia now have to break all links to itself?
Maybe they need more volunteers?
Consider it job security ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
I dunno... the wording is slightly different, isn't it? Or am I just imagining that?
Dennybot version:
JzG version:
The key difference (IMO) is the term "such information" - a deliberate use of what they like to call "weasel words" to encompass a far larger amount of potential material. After JzG removed that, Slimmy felt compelled to step in and specify that unlinked URL's would also be prohibited.
Anyway, folks, don't worry - we're not planning to prohibit links to Wikipedia from this site in response... However, we might have to set up a special "Guide to Unlinked References" subforum for people who are trying to understand on-wiki conversations that can now include only vague allusions to offsite material critical of Wikipedia in some way, or threaten the anonymity of certain admins.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Just a qwiki to file later —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DennyColt
One for the Jewels of Dennyal file —
As to what should be removed from, or included in the encyclopedia... It is a grey line. The trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Do no harm" ??? —
Positively Precious Bit from the Hypocritic Oaf !!!
Who am I kidding? You all know I'm just jealous. I really hate it when somebody puts my capacity for mockery to shame this way.
Jonny
Posted by: Cedric
Just a qwiki to file later —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DennyColt
One for the Jewels of Dennyal file —
As to what should be removed from, or included in the encyclopedia... It is a grey line. The trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"Do no harm" ??? —
Positively Precious Bit from the Hypocritic Oaf !!!
Who am I kidding? You all know I'm just jealous, though. I really hate it when somebody puts my capacity for mockery to shame this way.
Jonny
Well, I think it was inevitable that Denny would get put up on WP:ANI, given his rather aggressive "WP:BADSITES" crusade (with its particular emphasis on WR). A bit surprised that it was Danny T that started it, but maybe I shouldn't have been. I suppose from Danno's POV, it's rather hard to puncture a balloon without seeing what it is you're trying to poke a hole in (which makes sense, actually). Time to make popcorn!
In the Dennyverse, it would appear that "do no harm" means "cover your ass"-- an ample piece of real estate in Denny's case (or so I've been told
).
Posted by: anon1234
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:DennyColt
I don't want to focus too much on it, there is no need to go too meta on this sideline topic, because I do think that DennyColt is trolling us, trying to provoke responses from us which he can then point to and shout "look at how they retaliate" or similar claims in order to justify in an after-the-fact way this current crusade against us.
The best strategy, the one I recommend, is to ignore these provocations and attacks. If you ignore them and continue on as we normally do, then anyone who takes a risk and defends us on Wikipedia won't end up being bitten by any bad behavior that pops up that DennyColt can point to. If any of us chooses to retaliate, that individual can help DennyColt paint us all with a broad brush. DennyColt by himself is going to lose this battle, any retaliation on anyone else's part can only help him.
Posted by: Robster
DennyColt's post is manipulation at its very best... or worst...
He writes "Attack sites are sites that are used to facilitate, promote, enable, or encourage harassment of Wikipedia editors and users" and then ignores his own definition to claim that WR is an attack site.
I'm a Wikipedia editor and user (hey, everyone has their faults) and nobody here is harassing me.
The only people being "harassed" -- and that's by a tortured definition of the word "harass" -- are the wild-eyed adminstrators, petty bureaucrats, and power-mad loons who are creating a schizophrenic, rule-laden, policy-heavy mess while calling it an encyclopedia.
I wish there were enough time to see how much of Wikipedia's page count is dedicated to policies, discussions of policies, discussions of people who discuss policies, discussions of discussions of people who discuss policies, and... well... this could get awfully recursive. But I suspect that it's becoming a substantial percentage of the wiki.
And it's their heavy-handed harassment of people who disagree with them that creates sites like this, after all.
So who's harassing who?
And as to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES... it's more proof that at Wikipedia, any idiot can write policy, and clearly some do.
Posted by: guy
I'm a Wikipedia editor and user ... and nobody here is harassing me.
Ditto
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I'm a Wikipedia editor and user ... and nobody here is harassing me.
Ditto
Your call is important to us ...
All of our harassers are presently occupied with other customers, but your call will be answered just as soon as one of our licensed harassment agents becomes available ...
Your call is Number 1296 in line, and should be answered in approximately 11 to 12 hours ...
... tall and tan and young and lovely,
the girl from Ipanema goes walking ...
Jonny
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Copying this here for the sake of continuity in the DennyColt case file, and also because all those humongous pics on the other thread are wearing out my scroll bar.
Or maybe English isn't his first language?
I don't think so ... it's not really "broken" English — what he writes is clearly intelligible, but it's full of poor spelling and grammar. Furthermore, the substance of his arguments are about what you would expect from an early adolescent who can't yet grasp the essence of what he's talking about.
It's a hypothesis. It's always conceivable that just the right combination of dumb luck and natural talent would explain the impact that he-she has had in the first 2½ months of his-her WP:LIFE.
I'm just going by what I myself was doing in my first few months of n00bh00d in Wikipedia, when I actually wasted gobs of time writing lots of articles and actually imagined that anybody in WP gave a RA about that.
Now, I long ago got used to the idea that I would always be an incredibly slow learner, so I've tried to discount for that in my estimations of DC's ediot savvy, but the idea of going right to the top of what all of us know — Now — to be an Utterly Phoney Arbitration Scam (UPAS) is something that seems a bit too precocious for me to believe.
And when I look at the diffs of those early skits that gave him-her the excuse to contact the Great And Powerful Crustacean, what I see is something more like somebody pretending to be a kid.
Of couse, it could just be my slow learning thing again ...
Jonny
Posted by: Starman
It's a hypothesis. It's always conceivable that just the right combination of dumb luck and natural talent would explain the impact that he-she has had in the first 2½ months of his-her WP:LIFE.
Denny is trying at all costs to position himself the best way he can for RfA and he can't wait for that moment to arrive. I questioned his cunning and ability to forge alliances a few posts ago, but reading more of his contribs I think I was wrong. He's trying at all costs to make friends with some influential and established users by doing their dirty job. I compared him to Cyde and I think many similarities between Denny and Cyde at the beginning of his WP career can be observed except Cyde chose to ally himself with the very heart of the Cabal and succeeded using the same methods Denny uses now. However Denny lacks Cyde's intelligence and his nose to realize that it's better to STFU when the heat is on instead of happily jumping into the mud and make yourself look more of a fool than you already do. Just today he sadly embarrased himself at the RFA talk page with a ridiculous proposal that has been laughed at by every established user who passed by. He floundered miserably taking the initiative of proposing us to be included at the meta spamlist. But the worst mistake of judgement he made was to promote his own essay to policy and run amok enforcing it. That diff link can and will be used against him at his RfA unless he has the patience to wait for at least a year. No need to say that considering his impatient nature he won't hold for more than a few weeks and he'll end up very bruised.
I'm not worried about him. At this step he'll screw up really really bad sooner than later and will make a lot of people very angry. I've seen his kind come and go for more than a year. I'm only intrigued to see how much more damage the elephant loose in the china shop can cause.
Posted by: a view from the hive
It's a hypothesis. It's always conceivable that just the right combination of dumb luck and natural talent would explain the impact that he-she has had in the first 2½ months of his-her WP:LIFE.
Denny is trying at all costs to position himself the best way he can for RfA and he can't wait for that moment to arrive. I questioned his cunning and ability to forge alliances a few posts ago, but reading more of his contribs I think I was wrong. He's trying at all costs to make friends with some influential and established users by doing their dirty job. I compared him to Cyde and I think many similarities between Denny and Cyde at the beginning of his WP career can be observed except Cyde chose to ally himself with the very heart of the Cabal and succeeded using the same methods Denny uses now. However Denny lacks Cyde's intelligence and his nose to realize that it's better to STFU when the heat is on instead of happily jumping into the mud and make yourself look more of a fool than you already do. Just today he sadly embarrased himself at the RFA talk page with a ridiculous proposal that has been laughed at by every established user who passed by. He floundered miserably taking the initiative of proposing us to be included at the meta spamlist. But the worst mistake of judgement he made was to promote his own essay to policy and run amok enforcing it. That diff link can and will be used against him at his RfA unless he has the patience to wait for at least a year. No need to say that considering his impatient nature he won't hold for more than a few weeks and he'll end up very bruised.
I'm not worried about him. At this step he'll screw up really really bad sooner than later and will make a lot of people very angry. I've seen his kind come and go for more than a year. I'm only intrigued to see how much more damage the elephant loose in the china shop can cause.
Come on, the hive (and yes, that is a joke..... it's become a lot more well, independent lately) isn't that thick...... this has made en-admins plenty of times with discussion.... the general feeling is it's someone's sock. From what I've read, I don't think a cabal support en masse is likely to happen, people have too many concerns.
Posted by: anon1234
I still like Citizendium's model of expert-reliance though, because in part there is less need for administrators over there (called constables) to deal with vague and difficult topics like sockpuppets and what not. Also on Citizendium, administrators/constables are more accountable than they are on Wikipedia. Citizendium is a more efficient system overall.
Posted by: a view from the hive
I still like Citizendium's model of expert-reliance though, because in part there is less need for administrators over there (called constables) to deal with vague and difficult topics like sockpuppets and what not. Also on Citizendium, administrators/constables are more accountable than they are on Wikipedia. Citizendium is a more efficient system overall.
If only they could find a short domain name that I could actually spell
Posted by: JohnA
DennyColt's post is manipulation at its very best... or worst...
He writes "Attack sites are sites that are used to facilitate, promote, enable, or encourage harassment of Wikipedia editors and users" and then ignores his own definition to claim that WR is an attack site.
I'm a Wikipedia editor and user (hey, everyone has their faults) and nobody here is harassing me.
The only people being "harassed" -- and that's by a tortured definition of the word "harass" -- are the wild-eyed adminstrators, petty bureaucrats, and power-mad loons who are creating a schizophrenic, rule-laden, policy-heavy mess while calling it an encyclopedia.
I wish there were enough time to see how much of Wikipedia's page count is dedicated to policies, discussions of policies, discussions of people who discuss policies, discussions of discussions of people who discuss policies, and... well... this could get awfully recursive. But I suspect that it's becoming a substantial percentage of the wiki.
And it's their heavy-handed harassment of people who disagree with them that creates sites like this, after all.
So who's harassing who?
And as to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BADSITES... it's more proof that at Wikipedia, any idiot can write policy, and clearly some do.
I completely agree with this.
Torturing language is part of the Wikipedia way - haven't you noticed? Changing the meaning of words is part of the process by which propaganda is relayed. Very soon it will be impossible to write (or think) in any way other than that prescribed from on high.
Thus "harassment" means "to publically question the behavior of those in authority by reference to facts which are inconvenient".
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Torturing language is part of the Wikipedia way — haven't you noticed? Changing the meaning of words is part of the process by which propaganda is relayed. Very soon it will be impossible to write (or think) in any way other than that prescribed from on high.
A good bit of critical semiotics. But the mental blocks maintain their force only so long as one remains inside the semiotic bubble world in question.
Thus "harassment" means "to publically question the behavior of those in authority by reference to facts which are inconvenient".
Good one. I'm going to copy it to the WikiPhraseBook that I'm compiling.
Jonny
Posted by: papaya
I tended towards the same conclusion about seeking admin status. His early edits are rather odd for someone who has just fallen out of the sky; either he's a sockpuppet (which I tend to doubt) or he's the sort of person who naturally goes after that kind of position. But I expect he'll go for an RfA at some point.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
i thought this part on grace note's user page was sorta interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Grace_Note&diff=121367298&oldid=118416222
to clarify im not accusing grace note of anything, it is my understanding that it is a comment on the dennycolt situation
i dont know the exact history of grace note and this forum but he or she seems to make good observations at times
haven't done it. I have nothing to lose by suggesting changes in policy myself. But, and I [[WP:AGF|can't name names]], someone has recently. I'm not an edit analyser but if I was, I daresay I would be able to find out who it was quite quickly. The picture is a fake, btw, and that might be a good place to look. But like I say, I'm not interested in the shell game here.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Where4 Art Thou, DennyColt !?
Jonny the Greek has upped the odds to 60:40 that DC is one of the WR Founders, and that DC's March To The See (WikiPapal, That Is) will go down in hystery as the most successful membership drive that we've had so far, even outdoing Essjay.
Of course, it's still not a terribly bad bet that it's really just Essjay trying to break his own personal best for WR recruitment numbers.
Jonny
Posted by: The Joy
I'm leaning to agree with Jonny that Denny is likely a former Wiki Reviewer.
I believe Denny is trying to reach into the upper echelons of Wikipedia and at the same time is seeking some form of revenge against WR.
I've been looking through some of the person's account I suspect may be Denny's mother account.
Both appear to be WikiGnomes with an intense interest in Wikipedia policy.
Both appear to be very aggressive editors.
The banned account was antagonistic to Slim Virgin but Denny is quite the opposite.
I think some deeper detective work is required but I'm willing to make a strong hypothesis as to the former Wiki identity of DennyColt.
Seeing as others here, such as Jonny, have done a lot more work than I have, I won't state my guess unless others here want it.
I should say that I'm not seeing that much correlation between Denny and the banned user's contributions, but who knows? Could be just good actions on the sockpuppeteer's part.
Posted by: Somey
Well, that narrows it down!
Are you saying it's Blu Aardvark or Donny? I considered those possibilities too, but I doubt it's Blu Aardvark, even though he http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/068348.html recently, oddly enough. That might have been a slip, using the wrong account to reply to something... but really, NAAAAH! For one thing, he would never have done that to Daniel Brandt.
Donny would be more likely anyway, since his real last name is also a name for the young version of a large four-legged animal, and he's more likely to still hate us (even though I removed the bad-word filter we had for him). But it still seems a little far-fetched - unless I've missed something...?
Would you mind PM'ing me on it? If I agree that you're right I promise not to "take credit," not that I'd want to anyway - I've been wrong at least once already!
Posted by: The Joy
Would you mind PM'ing me on it? If I agree that you're right I promise not to "take credit," not that I'd want to anyway - I've been wrong at least once already!
I have done so.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I think that folks who know my routine here will know that most things I say along these lines are intended for entertainment purposes only, and that I claim no special powers in the realm of psychic detection. As for DC, my best guess is that some Cabal within a Cabal ... within a Cabal on Wikipedia most likely already knows who the Deil he-she is, or else they would have flattened His-Her Uppityness quite some time ago.
Jonny
Posted by: The Joy
After some consideration and advice, I won't state who I thought it was.
This isn't as easy as proving User:Gaillimh was once User:Hoopydink, unfortunately (and I liked Hoopydink!).
I don't want to appear that I'm grasping at straws and I certainly don't want to accuse someone of something with their having no way to defend themselves, here or on Wiki.
If Somey or any other moderator wants, they can edit or remove previous post as it may not sit well with either Denny or the one I suspected (if its technically possible, I'll remove the post myself if others wish).
Rather ironic that the Featured Article on the Wiki Main Page today was Scooby Doo.
Unfortunately, no crooked real estate developer will be caught today and I certainly don't have Fred's or even Shaggy's hair style! 
Now I'll go drown myself in Scooby Snacks... or cheese... whichever comes first.
Posted by: Somey
Hmm... Let me sleep on that!
But either way, don't worry about it... If anything, trying to figure out who he used to be on WP is kind of a "comfort zone" thing. The idea that someone could really just appear, out of nowhere, completely new to WP, and manage to do the kind of damage he's done in such a short period of time is actually much more frightening than the idea that he's someone we're all familiar with already. In fact, it's the reason the WP'ers on Uncyclopedia thought I was Lir for a while. (I don't blame them for thinking that, I just blame them for what they did about it!)
Shudders!
Posted by: Jonny Cache
But either way, don't worry about it. If anything, trying to figure out who he used to be on WP is kind of a "comfort zone" thing. The idea that someone could really just appear, out of nowhere, completely new to WP, and manage to do the kind of damage he's done in such a short period of time is actually much more frightening than the idea that he's someone we're all familiar with already. In fact, it's the reason the WP'ers on Uncyclopedia thought I was Lir for a while. (I don't blame them for thinking that, I just blame them for what they did about it!)
Shudders!
By way of Review, why do we care Who and Wherefore?
According to my favorite theory of inquiry, surprising phenomena just naturally invoke in us a call for explanation.
So what is surprising here?
Is it surprising that some n0-account — old, new, borrowed, blew — that acts as DC acts could cause so much damage to the espoused mission of WP in so short a time?
No, that may be distressing — to us and other fools who still care about the espoused mission — but it is not surprising. It is readily explained by two things that we already know. (1) The actual mission of WP is not the adversized mission of WP. (2) DC is currently acting in a way that the ECOW (Elite Cabal Of Wikipedia) finds useful. Morever, the ploy to "Let Denny Do It" gives the ECOW plausible dennyability should his-her IMF bit go sour.
Again, the only thing that surprises me is that a genuine n00b could figure out the Real Game so quickly. And it is by way of accounting for that anomaly that the suckpoppet hypothesis comes into play.
Jonny
Posted by: anon1234
DennyColt is going after SqueakBox via an RFC:
User:DennyColt/Squeakbox-rfc
I think DennyColt has left the realm of being a useful contributor to being a pure WikiWarrior. It's actually quite boring now to follow. DennyColt just put it up for speedy deletion. The contents were:
Wil you agree to mediation, given [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration
&diff=prev&oldid=122270658 this] completely out of order accusation it is, IMO, entirely necessary, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 17:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:The only mediation needed is that you stop challenging everything I write all over Wikipedia endlessly. Re: my harassment statement -- I posted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ABiographies_of_living_persons
&diff=122014378&oldid=121996147 question] on the BLP page. You per the edit logs had ''never'' touched that page before you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&
diff=next&oldid=122014378 replied] to me minutes later, your first edit ever there. I don't care if you're following my contributions to contest me at every step of everything I do--your right, I suppose. But be honest about.
And don't be surprised if it goes on for weeks or months if you find yourself on the other end of arbitration/ANI for harassment. Your jousting against anything I do lately is amusing but if you keep this up much longer it will not be. - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)::Is that a yes or a no? You suddenly start attacking me with serious accusations and I have not been attacking you. Please calm down and answer the question. I've had BLP on my watchlist for longer than you have been editing here and you have no right to claim I cannot edit there. Your aggressive thrreat in your response and your failure to answer my question are not shoiwiung any good faith towards me, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I am concerned that every single time I write a single sentence related to the Brandt or attack site issues, you swiftly come after what I wrote. For the BLP page. You've had it a long time watchlisted, ok. Why did you NEVER touch the BLP talk page until I posted THAT question? Please answer that question. And please, please, please start doing indents like everyone else on WP does. You don't need to outdent every four seconds. - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Denny, if you're concerned others might read and/or comment on what you write, you're most definitely in the wrong place. —'''[[user:AldeBaer|Alde]][[user talk:AldeBaer|Baer]]''' <s>[[user:Kncyu38]]</s> 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I know that. Squeak's apparent tracking of my activities, however, makes me pause and consider why he is doing that. - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I take it you are refusing mediation then? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:I will address any mediation questions after you answer my question about the BLP page, based on your answer. Why did you NEVER touch the BLP talk page until I posted THAT question? - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::You what? I can make no sense of your question. I watch BNP because of Brandt, and I only post when I have something to say, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Stop outdenting. Yes or no question: did you ever post on the BLP talk page BEFORE I posted my question there? - <font color="#0000C0">[[User:DennyColt|Denny]]</font> <sup><i>(<font color="#7A1616">[[User_talk:DennyColt|talk]]</font>)</i></sup> 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
==notes==
* {{user6|SqueakBox}} (main account)
* {{user6|User:Squiquifox}} (old name, public record)
* {{user6|Squeakbox}} (different accounts, same person)
::This user was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Squeakbox blocked 1 month] for arbitration. But the wrong one apparently. Actual username wasn't blocked on SqueakBox but user stayed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060811174102
&limit=500&target=SqueakBox away] for a month anyway.
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev
&oldid=122277590]
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Man, this dude/ss gives McCarthyism a bad name.
Jonny
Posted by: The Joy
Cruelty, thy name is DennyColt!
There are surely more aggressive WikiWarriors out there, but this guy takes the cake!
Don't most WikiWarriors at least feign going through the dispute resolution process before cutting down their enemies?
Most though couldn't take going through the process and give up, allowing the Warrior to continue his/her devious agenda.
Posted by: Somey
He seems to understand that being persecuted by websites that are antithetical to your personal interests is a bad thing, but he doesn't seem to be able to make the teensy-weensy cognitive leap required to include websites in which he himself participates.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
ok i now have a solid gut feeling after reviewing many of his contribs that he is not a sockpuppet. i can see in places where he's learned to do things etc. i made a "timeline" based on his contribs and there is a pattern. to help you visually think of this, i believe that he "peaked" days ago and is now in a slide back down.
if he is a sockpuppet it is wonderfully crafted and the person who did it is a brilliant individual with too much time on his/her hands. this is entirely possible. i've seen it done before on the internet under different circumstances, and im sure that some of you reading this have seen it done in this exact same circumstance.
assuming he is genuine, we can conclude that he consistently expresses a love and a need for law, policy, and in general "order." all well and good, but as we know in projects like this it can be counter productive. he wants to be told how to do it, when to do it, and who should do it. he presents himself as person that does not want to think things out for himself. choices are a problem for him and he exhibits a lack of creativity and critical thinking. issues are black and white, good and bad. no gray. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder
if it is a sockpuppet then the person's goal is to expose those that are blind and follow policy because it is policy and those who make policy as they go along to fit their own agenda. a noble goal, and if i was optimistic i would say that it is a Great Wikipedia Patriot who is trying to expose inane policy and redundancy that distracts from the project.
also, if it is a sockpuppet, then the person never intended to gain adminship. how could he ever pass at this point? but his history reveals a strong need for power and a desire to gain adminship. if it were a sockpuppet i would think that the bigger bang would to hold off on his present actions until adminship. this person has time to kill on mind numbing tasks, he could certainly have held his cards a little closer.
in a nutshell, I think it was Somey that said it would be more frightening that a "newb" could just walk in and cause this much disruption. Upon review, this is exactly what I think happened.
Posted by: Starman
in a nutshell, I think it was Somey that said it would be more frightening that a "newb" could just walk in and cause this much disruption. Upon review, this is exactly what I think happened.
Only time will tell. But I still find it hard to believe that so much process wonkery and insider's knowledge can be attained in such a short time. Reading him in the mailing list I realised he has deeper info on stuff that happened many months ago than the majority of regulars, and I mean stuff that is scarcely documented at best and very hard to find unless he knew right where to find it or that he was there to witness it unfold in the first place.
I am intrigued about the most recent events. Denny has left the building since Apr 13. No edits in 8 days at all after the noise he made in the days before that? SlimVirgin vanished from the Attack sites talk page around the same date. Why she did, I don't know. There's a picture beneath, I'm sure, sometimes one can almost see it but it's changing all the time. We gotta keep watching.
Posted by: Robster
We gotta keep watching.
I believe it's simply that they're waiting for the heat to die down, and some other firestorm to start, and then the Attack Sites "policy" will quietly lose the quotation marks...
Posted by: Somey
Speaking strictly for the purpose of phony self-aggrandizement here, I guess I'd like to think that their cessation of discussion on the subject was due to my own pointing out (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8123&view=findpost&p=28089) that a http://www.google.com/search?q=private+information+about+Wikipedians on the term "private information about Wikipedians" placed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites they were editing at the very top, giving real stalkers all the information they'd supposedly need, rather quickly and easily I might add. (A shout-out to Squeakbox too, for relaying the message, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites#A_bit_of_Google_OR. Credit stealer!) Meanwhile, we were practically nowhere to be found in the results, at least not at the time - because thanks to Blu Aardvark, threads in the relevant subforums here aren't indexed by Google, whereas virtually everything on their site is.
Since then though, we've made it onto page 3 - while they're still at the tippy-top. But that thread of ours (on page 3) actually accuses Wikipedians of operating an attack site against private companies and organizations...
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DennyColt&oldid=127429127
Posted by: Somey
Joke, obviously, made by a single-purpose account... one of us, maybe? C'mon, now... who was it? 
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Joke, obviously, made by a single-purpose account ... one of us, maybe? C'mon, now ... who was it?
¿ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juzon_V%C3%BCr%C3%9Ft ? Clearly of Spanish-German descent — I'm betting my 1 Centavo + 1 Krone that Squeaky did it ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
I might just note here that the other likely sock-candidate used as a badgering hatchet-man account in the last Daniel Brandt AfD, User:David_Spart, has also disappeared, with no announcement to that effect. No contribs as of April 19...
I might also note, just for the record, that when we have these "Who is so-and-so" threads here, we're not usually concerned about the person's "IRL" identity. Certainly in both of these cases, we were just wondering whose sockpuppets the accounts were, and why they were so hell-bent on keeping the Brandt article, contrary to anything that might be objectively seen as "reason."
And, once again, the idea that these two weren't sock puppets is actually scarier than the WP-preferred alternative...
Posted by: SqueakBox
Joke, obviously, made by a single-purpose account ... one of us, maybe? C'mon, now ... who was it?
¿ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Juzon_V%C3%BCr%C3%9Ft ? Clearly of Spanish-German descent — I'm betting my 1 Centavo + 1 Krone that Squeaky did it ...
Jonny
No, not me. I do have Austrian descent and speak Spanish but I am the one reverting this strange chap, even I dont stage my own edit wars. If they continue I will probably post at AN/I but yes I am curious and even more curious about DennyColt, the wierdest wikipedia editor I have encountered by a long way. All that effort to master 1001 procedural details on wikipedia and then left after less than 3 months. I dont care who he is in real life but curious as to his relationship to wikipedia.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I might just note here that the other likely sock-candidate used as a badgering hatchet-man account in the last Daniel Brandt AfD, User:David_Spart, has also disappeared, with no announcement to that effect. No contribs as of April 19 ...
I might also note, just for the record, that when we have these "Who is so-and-so" threads here, we're not usually concerned about the person's "IRL" identity. Certainly in both of these cases, we were just wondering whose sockpuppets the accounts were, and why they were so hell-bent on keeping the Brandt article, contrary to anything that might be objectively seen as "reason".
And, once again, the idea that these two weren't sock puppets is actually scarier than the WP-preferred alternative ...
Squeaking of scary things, look how qwickly SqueakBox jumped on the tagging of those three suspexsox — "like a duck on a junebug", as they say in the more 1337 parts of Dixie. This means that he actually watches those user pages.
Now that's scary ...
Or maybe ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
Not necessarily - he obviously would be watching DennyColt's user page, and when that happened, it would have been natural for him to check the contribs of the person in question. User:Vkaryl (also tagged) is another SPA, of course, whose only contribution was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=124469125... Eerily reminiscent of at least two people we know of, but certainly not Mr. Cache.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
i thought that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Attack_sites&diff=prev&oldid=127126664 on Wikipedia talk:Attack sites was rather Denny like.
Another thing, take a look at Denny's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DennyColt...maybe he was trolling all along.
:itisamystery:
Posted by: Somey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069990.html, in reference to WP:BADSITES:
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069992.html
I agree. They had a field day.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069993.html
It had a very strong [[straw man]] feel.
http://www.animationusa.com/wd141.html
I'll forgive you this once, but remember... a boy who won't be good might just as well be made of wood.
http://members.tripod.com/~vibgyor/Pinocchio/pinocchio.html
I'm alive. See? And... And I'm... I'm... I'm real! I'm a real boy!
Posted by: SqueakBox
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069990.html, in reference to WP:BADSITES:
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them, so they could argue their points.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069992.html
I agree. They had a field day.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069993.html
It had a very strong [[straw man]] feel.
http://www.animationusa.com/wd141.html
I'll forgive you this once, but remember... a boy who won't be good might just as well be made of wood.
http://members.tripod.com/~vibgyor/Pinocchio/pinocchio.html
I'm alive. See? And... And I'm... I'm... I'm real! I'm a real boy!
So whichj one of you was it then? lol
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Jimbo's No Cricket —
You gotta have conscience to play that part ...
Jonny
Posted by: Jonny Cache
I might just note here that the other likely sock-candidate used as a badgering hatchet-man account in the last Daniel Brandt AfD, User:David Spart, has also disappeared, with no announcement to that effect. No contribs as of April 19 ...
I might also note, just for the record, that when we have these "Who is so-and-so" threads here, we're not usually concerned about the person's "IRL" identity. Certainly in both of these cases, we were just wondering whose sockpuppets the accounts were, and why they were so hell-bent on keeping the Brandt article, contrary to anything that might be objectively seen as "reason."
And, once again, the idea that these two weren't sock puppets is actually scarier than the WP-preferred alternative ...
In all of these cases — User:David Spart, User:DennyColt, User:IronGargoyle, ad infinauseum http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon7.gif — of what are most likely Adminion Suckpoppets, the chances are that they simply served the purpose for which they were incubated, or else attained the age of diminishing returns before being retired.
As always, the Question is Cui Bono ?
Jonny
Hey, what gifs?
I used to be able to insert board images in <img....</img> brackets, but now I get an error message.
Jonny
Posted by: papaya
What's funny is that http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/070005.html: watching for compeltely unrelated changes.
My guess is that DennyColt wasn't a sockpuppet, but someone who got caught up in the admin culture of officiousness and therefore got burned.
Posted by: Kato
What's funny is that http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/070005.html: watching for compeltely unrelated changes.
My guess is that DennyColt wasn't a sockpuppet, but someone who got caught up in the admin culture of officiousness and therefore got burned.
Colt was clearly a sockpuppet. Within 26 minutes of registering as a user, he had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=103809769 a perfectly formatted article which included categories, had the correct stub blurb etc etc. These are aspects that normal users take time to master.
Posted by: SqueakBox
What's funny is that http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/070005.html: watching for compeltely unrelated changes.
My guess is that DennyColt wasn't a sockpuppet, but someone who got caught up in the admin culture of officiousness and therefore got burned.
Colt was clearly a sockpuppet. Within 26 minutes of registering as a user, he had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=103809769 a perfectly formatted article which included categories, had the correct stub blurb etc etc. These are aspects that normal users take time to master.
Strange, I didnt think new users even could creat an article so quickly. And indeed it took me months to master even the basics of wikipedia, and I think that is the case with almost everyone. I take my hat off to his knowledge of wikipedia techniicalities, procedures etc. And then he leaves.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Strange, I didn't think new users even could create an article so quickly. And indeed it took me months to master even the basics of Wikipedia, and I think that is the case with almost everyone. I take my hat off to his knowledge of wikipedia technicalities, procedures, etc. And then he leaves.
And just when I was sure that his teachings were pure
He drowned himself in the pool,
His body is gone, but back here on the lawn
His spirit continues to drool.
~~ Leonard Cohen, http://people.deas.harvard.edu/users/students/Rebecca_Hwa/lyrics/cohen.html
Jonny
Posted by: SqueakBox
Yes I had never heard of WR myself until Denny pointed it out to me, and here I am a member
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Yes I had never heard of WR myself until Denny pointed it out to me, and here I am a member.
U mean yer not just the President ?
Jonny
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
If Denny was a sockpuppet, he really didn't do anyone any good...unless you consider the increased traffic to this site and bringing attention to the problems with the Daniel Brandt drama good. Who benefited? Even those who decided to take the pseudo policy and run with it have eventually alluded to the fact that DennyColt was at the very least a little strange and that the pseudo policy was not terribly well written or thought out.
They tried to use him but his strange behavoir actually made their stance the weak one. I could be wrong, but I also noticed that some of the longer standing, level headed users never really took the issue seriously in the first place.
Posted by: Somey
That's such a load of bullshite, I'm tempted to just delete it outright. Do you think we're total idiots? You've been all over Talk:Daniel_Brandt for almost a year. Are you saying you don't even read the discussions you participate in, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt/Archive_7#Maybe_this_should_be_deleted.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt/Archive_6#Why_does_this_Brandt_want_this_article_deleted_in_the_first_place.3F?
Admittedly, that would help to explain some of your responses there...
Posted by: SqueakBox
That's such a load of bullshite, I'm tempted to just delete it outright. Do you think we're total idiots? You've been all over Talk:Daniel_Brandt for almost a year. Are you saying you don't even read the discussions you participate in, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt/Archive_7#Maybe_this_should_be_deleted.3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Brandt/Archive_6#Why_does_this_Brandt_want_this_article_deleted_in_the_first_place.3F?
Admittedly, that would help to explain some of your responses there...
I can assure you I never looked at WR or took any much interest in it until Denny and it was Denny's obseesion with this site that finally got it to register in my brain which resulted in me looking here and I joined within a day or two of first rerading WR
Posted by: Somey
That I can believe. In fact, that's probably true of most Wikipedians...
Posted by: Jonny Cache
What's funny is that http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/070005.html: watching for compeltely unrelated changes.
My guess is that DennyColt wasn't a sockpuppet, but someone who got caught up in the admin culture of officiousness and therefore got burned.
Colt was clearly a sockpuppet. Within 26 minutes of registering as a user, he had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kirk&diff=prev&oldid=103809769 a perfectly formatted article which included categories, had the correct stub blurb etc etc. These are aspects that normal users take time to master.
Strange, I didn't think new users even could create an article so quickly. And indeed it took me months to master even the basics of wikipedia, and I think that is the case with almost everyone. I take my hat off to his knowledge of wikipedia technicalities, procedures, etc. And then he leaves.
It was not his-her wiki-typing skills that made DC suspect, but the fact that he-she sussed out the real nature of the Infernal Hierarchy so quickly, skipping blithely over all the busy-bee-work of the lower ladder rungs like WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:WQA, that n00bs like I was waste months of our lives on when we are still so clueless as to take the Wikipedia rules at their wiki-prima-facetious values.
Based on that, my current wild guess would probably have to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Consumed_Crustacean, but I no longer have the kind of e-legs and e-time that it would take to run down all the leads and foils, so I leave it to the brighter-eyed and bushier-tailed Reviewers.
E-joy !!!
Jonny
Posted by: thekohser
It has been forty days and forty nights since User:DennyColt's last edit.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
It has been forty days and forty nights since User:DennyColt's last edit.
Quick, send a seach party to Mount Arafat <insert your own joke here> ...
Or, you could just shoot every dove on sight ...
Take yer pick, Gimli ...
Jonny
Posted by: SqueakBox
But the BADSITES controversy rages on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes
Posted by: Somey
Hmm. Aside from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FGracenotes&diff=132964504&oldid=132963416 by User:Gurch being one of the funnier things I've seen on Wikipedia in quite some time, I wonder if there really is a form of "war-weariness" setting in, with people simply getting tired of hearing all the talk about "stalking" that never actually amounts to anything? (Except for maybe one or two borderline incidents that happened well over a year ago?)
I'll be completely frank here (even though I probably shouldn't say anything about it whatsoever). At least since I've been here, just about every time we've been asked politely to remove or hide what little personally-identifying stuff there is on this site, we've pretty much done it, within reason. On the one or two occasions where we've been threatened with lawyers and lawsuits, we haven't. And the people making the threats didn't follow up on them. Those people know who they are, of course.
It's always the same people voting against other people's RfA's for that reason, isn't it? What are they hiding? I'm sure I don't want to know, but I've also heard that the best way to prevent real internet weirdos from becoming interested in you is to not arouse their curiosity.
It's bad enough that they won't accept the fact that large numbers of people either seriously dislike, or even hate, them, their website, and the way they operate it. "Nooo, everything we do is completely benign! We're biuding a free encyclopedia for everyone in the world, what could be wrong with that?"
And so on.
Posted by: Robster
But the BADSITES controversy rages on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gracenotes
Single-issue politics has made it to Wikipedia... where the question "Are you now linking, or have you ever linked, to Wikipedia Review?" is enough to get people to vote against you for adminship.
Tangent: Do you think SV will ever figure out that she brings it on herself?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Tangent: Do you think SV will ever figure out that she brings it on herself?
Cotangent: Do you think GWB will ever figure out that he brings it on himself?
Jonny
Posted by: Robster
Tangent: Do you think SV will ever figure out that she brings it on herself?
Cotangent: Do you think GWB will ever figure out that he brings it on himself?
Jonny
I've been out-tangented!
Although I wonder if it's an attack to compare SV to GWB...
Posted by: norsemoose
Although I wonder if it's an attack to compare SV to GWB...
Debatable, for sure. On the one hand, SlimVirgin is clearly more intelligent than the other. On the other hand, it is rather unfair to Ol' George to make such a comparison.
Posted by: norsemoose
I've become convinced that DennyColt was, indeed, a sockpuppet account, as SlimVirgin has suggested.
I suspect that s/he was controlled by either SlimVirgin or one of her cohorts, and it backfired. Both Slim and Jay are backpedalling like mad, and accusing everyone else of strawman arguments while throwing their own scarecrows into the fray.
Blu seems to have them up against the wall on WikiEN-L, which means it probably can't be much longer before someone pushes to ban him from that mailing list. What a shame.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
it's obvious to me that while they now state BADSITES as foolish, in the zeal of its creation they decided to use it to satisfy their own goals, knowing it was flawed. they knew it was bullshit from the beginning but thought they could maybe put some lipstick on it, and they are still trying.
Posted by: norsemoose
Can't say I didn't predict it.
Posted by: Somey
Still, they waited slightly longer than usual...
After all, what were they objecting to? Stuff like this?
It hasn't, at least not in my opinion... So, what about this:
I'm not sure I would qualify that as "odiousness," though it does use a four-letter word. Can't have that! Anyway, that was the last thing he posted, then BAM.
It isn't really an argument they can win, at least not unless people are willing to believe a lot of false accusations. One of which, of course, is that we've ignored Slimmy's take-down request... I now have confirmation that she's seen my reponse to this particular accusation, not to mention the original reponse to the request, but still no word from her whatsoever. Which, once again, only serves to convince me that she was never all that concerned about her "privacy" at all, but simply wanted more excuses to continue the conflict so that people would continue to be distracted from her usual activities.
Posted by: Somey
I suspect that s/he was controlled by either SlimVirgin or one of her cohorts, and it backfired. Both Slim and Jay are backpedalling like mad, and accusing everyone else of strawman arguments while throwing their own scarecrows into the fray.
Precisely. But the reason this theory is so much more plausible than any of the others (assuming, again, that "Denny" wasn't just a particularly clever n00b) is that he showed up and left Wikipedia at roughly the same time as another user, User:David_Spart, and initially both of them behaved almost exactly the same way - they appeared out of nowhere, and took leading roles in the effort to prevent Yanksox's deletion of the Daniel Brandt article from succeeding. (Along with User:JoshuaZ, of course, but he doesn't count because he isn't actually human.)
Here are the dates:
Denny: 28 Jan. - 13 Apr. 2007
Sparty: 2 Feb. - 19 Apr. 2007
Sparty's topic of choice was Chabad Messianism, which is something we're fairly certain Jayjg is quite interested in. But after the Brandt business died down, he didn't really join in on the BADSITES stuff - and indeed, at the time, there was little or no speculation here on who Jayjg might be; that happened a little later.
It struck me as very likely that both accounts were created by people who saw the writing on the wall - that several admins wanted to finally delete the Brandt article - and couldn't let that happen. Only they didn't want to risk the possibility that their primary accounts (and IRL identities) might end up on the HiveMind page. And, as it turns out, when Brandt was briefly unblocked by Jimbo a little while later, there were about eight different sock puppet accounts created by people claiming to be admins, just to complain about what Jimbo had done.
If you look at the description of Dave Spart in the Private Eye article, it's basically this:
"Denny Colt" is described http://www.willeisner.com/spirit/index.html:
I realize that a lot of this is rehash, but it bears repeating, particularly if they're going to start throwing ridiculous accusations around. Maybe they're only doing that because similar accusations against them are... maybe not so ridiculous.
Posted by: Kato
This is odd.
Spart, who spent most of his time editing on orthodox Jewish topics when he wasn't calling for Brandt's article to remain, comes out of nowhere to tandem argue alongside Squeakbox http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=123016277&oldid=123014544#Flags_And_Templates_And_Things. It is almost the last thing he does.
Posted by: Somey
Hmm... If we follow the conspiracy-theory reasoning, the "puppeteer" might have simply wanted to get into some sort of really pointless argument at the end to create a plausible "exit scenario," in case anyone asked later. The idea being that people who get into such arguments are likely to leave WP in disgust, this being just one more example.
He/she might have even been following some of Squeaks' edits, hoping for such an opportunity, since DennyColt and Squeaks got into a bit of a kerfluffle at the end... By supporting Squeaks in a silly argument, the idea would have been to make Denny & Spart seem less likely to be operated by the same person, or group of people.
Fascinating stuff! Why, it's almost like the X-Files.
Posted by: Kato
Hmm... If we follow the conspiracy-theory reasoning, the "puppeteer" might have simply wanted to get into some sort of really pointless argument at the end to create a plausible "exit scenario," in case anyone asked later. The idea being that people who get into such arguments are likely to leave WP in disgust, this being just one more example.
He/she might have even been following some of Squeaks' edits, hoping for such an opportunity, since DennyColt and Squeaks got into a bit of a kerfluffle at the end... By supporting Squeaks in a silly argument, the idea would have been to make Denny & Spart seem less likely to be operated by the same person, or group of people.
Fascinating stuff! Why, it's almost like the X-Files.
Regarding Sparty's sockpuppeteer, we're looking for:
- an editor with an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chabad_messianism&diff=prev&oldid=120164065 in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menachem_Brod&diff=prev&oldid=119905129.
- who has lived in Britain but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=prev&oldid=122764493.
- an interest in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Scarborough&diff=prev&oldid=121527458. Suggesting a transatlantic figure. Perhaps American or Canadian.
- this non-Briton is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Mirror&diff=prev&oldid=120440091 - which implies that the David Spart moniker is perhaps taken from the Private Eye pseudonym (Private eye is a long running "in the know" British paper satirising British politics and the media run by ex-Cambridge University types). If that is the case, we're looking for a fairly media savvy, well educated character.
- this non-Briton also has a knowledge of the British media/news http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillsborough_disaster&diff=prev&oldid=122531529
- an editor with a seemingly irrational need to persecute Daniel Brandt.
Days later, this "new" editor who "didn't know what he was doing" was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&diff=prev&oldid=112788995 saying Essjay was :
So to recap. In order to ascertain the sockpuppeteer, can we think of any North American editors that are interested in Jewish subjects, is non-British but probably lived in Britain in the late 1980s, has a "Cambridge University" sense of humour, likes to quote policy a lot, knows Jayjg and Essjay, has a pathological hatred of Daniel Brandt, and would need to cover their tracks by creating a sockpuppet for the Brandt debacle?
Hmmm.
Posted by: Poetlister
They'll probably try to blame User:Runcorn.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
So SlimVirgin = Runcorn?
Posted by: Somey
Naaah... There isn't enough similarity in "writing style"...
(Actually, I think PL was being a little facetious there.)
Anyhoo, if we accept those criteria, I thought it might be someone like, say, User:IZAK - but IZAK was quite active during that same period. Just doesn't seem likely.
Incredible though it may seem, I'm still willing to believe that Sparty was a non-puppet account - his actions WRT the Brandt situation might have been a result of his having privately contacted someone like User:JoshuaZ or User:Jayjg to get "tips" on how to advance quickly in the WP hierarchy. We may never know for sure, of course.
Which, in turn, is just another large part of the problem...
Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal
Or there's the other obvious alternative, which is that it was created by somone (perhaps even a user of this site) to smear Slimmy.
Posted by: Somey
Or there's the other obvious alternative, which is that it was created by somone (perhaps even a user of this site) to smear Slimmy.
How is that "obvious"? Besides, DennyColt never "smeared" Slimmy at all - in fact, he was one of her staunchest allies, after the whole Brandt DRV/Afd13 mess died down. The only reason Slimmy wanted to distance herself from him afterwards was because WP:BADSITES didn't become an official policy.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all...
Posted by: Kato
Or there's the other obvious alternative, which is that it was created by somone (perhaps even a user of this site) to smear Slimmy.
How is that "obvious"? Besides, DennyColt never "smeared" Slimmy at all - in fact, he was one of her staunchest allies, after the whole Brandt DRV/Afd13 mess died down. The only reason Slimmy wanted to distance herself from him afterwards was because WP:BADSITES didn't become an official policy.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all...
I think that Colt and Spart were two different people judging by their manner and editing areas - coordinating their actions to railroad the BLP issues. And I am convinced they were sockpuppets of two users. There is no way either of them could grasp the policies that quickly.
I'm still wondering who the Spart puppeteer is? Our transatlantic, late 1980s-British-news-interested, Jewish obsessed, Brandt hating, policy shoving, Private eye reading editor. I know who I have in mind and it's not Runcorn, nor a user of this site!
Posted by: norsemoose
I think you are right in this.
Now, if I was to take the simplest explanation, I would presume that Spart = Jayjg and Colt = SlimVirgin. They play each other's roles well.
However, to actually paint such a conclusion, I would have to check thoroughly each and every edit for overlap.
Posted by: Somey
There's one - actually, two - other explanations for their quick grasp of WP policy. There have been some rumors floating around for several months now about various special-interest groups (mostly religious-right organizations) whose members post detailed "how-to" guides for becoming Wikipedia admins, so that people will know exactly what to do from Day One. (That would also explain their having joined the Keep Brandt Brigade right off, like they did.) Once in place as admins, they can do the ol' POV-pushin' cha-cha-cha with all the fancy buttons and everything, all day long! Wheee! It's quite possible that people are actually being paid to do this.
As for the other explanation, you first have to allow for the fact that Sparty did relatively little messing around with policy pages, and after the Brandt DRV/AfD travesty, didn't really get involved much in WP politics at all. Also, his interest in Brandt might not have been purely Wikipedian in nature... And as for Denny, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's always possible that he was unemployed, bored, and/or had a job that allowed him to spend large amounts of time doing very little other than mess around on WP. I knew a guy who had a job like that once... He didn't mess around on WP (he was into Christian-music chatrooms, as I recall), but he could have if he'd wanted to. (He was a landfill attendant.)
But then we're back to the idea that these two guys could show up at nearly the same time, leave at nearly the same time, and both become goose-stepping stormtroopers in the Keep Brandt Brigade in less than a month, without having both been sock puppets of existing users. It's hard to believe, and I'm still inclined not to, but it's possible, at least.
Posted by: Unrepentant Vandal
Or there's the other obvious alternative, which is that it was created by somone (perhaps even a user of this site) to smear Slimmy.
How is that "obvious"? Besides, DennyColt never "smeared" Slimmy at all - in fact, he was one of her staunchest allies, after the whole Brandt DRV/Afd13 mess died down. The only reason Slimmy wanted to distance herself from him afterwards was because WP:BADSITES didn't become an official policy.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all...
I mean by someone on this site noticing the (quite remarkable) similarities between SV and these users, and then concluding that they are sockpuppets of SV.
Posted by: SqueakBox
There's one - actually, two - other explanations for their quick grasp of WP policy. There have been some rumors floating around for several months now about various special-interest groups (mostly religious-right organizations) whose members post detailed "how-to" guides for becoming Wikipedia admins, so that people will know exactly what to do from Day One. (That would also explain their having joined the Keep Brandt Brigade right off, like they did.) Once in place as admins, they can do the ol' POV-pushin' cha-cha-cha with all the fancy buttons and everything, all day long! Wheee! It's quite possible that people are actually being paid to do this.
As for the other explanation, you first have to allow for the fact that Sparty did relatively little messing around with policy pages, and after the Brandt DRV/AfD travesty, didn't really get involved much in WP politics at all. Also, his interest in Brandt might not have been purely Wikipedian in nature... And as for Denny, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's always possible that he was unemployed, bored, and/or had a job that allowed him to spend large amounts of time doing very little other than mess around on WP. I knew a guy who had a job like that once... He didn't mess around on WP (he was into Christian-music chatrooms, as I recall), but he could have if he'd wanted to. (He was a landfill attendant.)
But then we're back to the idea that these two guys could show up at nearly the same time, leave at nearly the same time, and both become goose-stepping stormtroopers in the Keep Brandt Brigade in less than a month, without having both been sock puppets of existing users. It's hard to believe, and I'm still inclined not to, but it's possible, at least.
Denny's grasp of policy doesnt seem credible in any new user. I do think he wanted to be an admin and when he realised that wasnt going to happen (after calling Dtobias a terrorist amongst other personal attacks) he either withdrew from the project or assumed another account/identity. This http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=DennyColt&site=en.wikipedia.org is very revealing about Denny, and his main interest was WP:Attribution and this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly
Posted by: Kato
Or there's the other obvious alternative, which is that it was created by somone (perhaps even a user of this site) to smear Slimmy.
How is that "obvious"? Besides, DennyColt never "smeared" Slimmy at all - in fact, he was one of her staunchest allies, after the whole Brandt DRV/Afd13 mess died down. The only reason Slimmy wanted to distance herself from him afterwards was because WP:BADSITES didn't become an official policy.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all...
I mean by someone on this site noticing the (quite remarkable) similarities between SV and these users, and then concluding that they are sockpuppets of SV.
Well I think that David Spart is a reasonable match for SV, as evidenced earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&diff=123016277&oldid=123014544 should be taken to the lab for further tests. DennyColt seems to me to be a different sockpuppet created with the same aim. I don't share Somey's improbable theory that these two were genuine users.
Though all of this is highly speculative, Unrepentant Vandals's meta theory that someone created the sockpuppets to smear SV seems way too convoluted. There are easier and more effective ways to do a number on SV that would actually work. http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia#Daniel_Brandt_controversy
Posted by: Rootology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly
Is it just me, or does that feel like a BLP vio? That convoluted sourcing on the opening about the alleged gay relationships feels wrong.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
I didn't think he was a sock previously. I found him entirely entertaining though and miss him a great deal. Hmm... well, Denny revisited for me:
The first place I ever read/heard that Denny may be a sockpuppet was here, which doesn't mean much since a lot of people probably came to that conclusion at the same time. SlimVirgin has stated that she believed he was a sock from the start of WP:BADSITES, but later said she felt she was being silly and decided to pitch in and help (translation: I can use this asshole for my own benefit).
The only thing that makes me believe that he is a sock is the way he left. The guy pretty much edited all day long and one day just...leaves. That suggests to me that he had another account, obviously.
I do not put any stock in the evidence of "no one learns policies that fast" and "no one learns to format articles that fast". Underestimating people and how fast they learn/what they can do is usually a mistake, besides using primarily that evidence to conclude he was a sock is hasty.
Anyways, it doesn't really much matter now. No matter who you are, you have to respect this person's ability to fuck things up and WP's inability to deal with users who are fucking things up intentionally or not. Actually, that is probably the biggest weakness of WP.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Deja Vu ?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=DennyColt&site=en.wikipedia.org
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Salaskan&site=en.wikipedia.org
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
Interesting.... The dates are near-exact, but there's no overlap in articles-edited whatsoever. Probably just a coincidence... How did you come across this? Were you looking for user accounts created around the same time?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Deja Vu ?
Interesting ... The dates are near-exact, but there's no overlap in articles-edited whatsoever. Probably just a coincidence ... How did you come across this? Were you looking for user accounts created around the same time?
Just noticed a Nu Kid In Town (NuKIT) on the Wikienlist who seemed to be trying to create a big virtual presence in a hurry, and that rang a bell. Posts as Skander, but signs as Salaskan, and the user page says no relation to Enwiki Skander. Was just headed out to dinner, so didn't have time to check it out.
Maybe we should check an Almanack for a full moon or sunspots or something on 28 Jan 2007 ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
It's probably nothing to be concerned about, though that timing coincidence is, indeed, quite striking. I noticed on WikiEN-L he posted http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/075858.html here:
But hey, at least he apologized for not being able to give an intelligent response! That's more than ol' Denny ever did, as I recall...
He also has a userbox on his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salaskan that claims he's "proud to have been an active Wikipedian since 2005," which (I'm assuming) means he's been active on the Netherlands Wikipedia since then - and sure enough, the NL http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Skander's first edit was in 2005, so... I'd say he's legitimate. And in all fairness, you can't really start pointing the finger at people until they start working on the RegisterFly article.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
"trying to create a big virtual presence in a hurry"
I suppose that doesn't really narrow it down all that much.
The Knight of the Tin Hat apologizes for not being able to concoct an intelligent enough conspiracy theory on an empty stomach.
Pfff ???
Jonny
On the other hand, it could be that DennyColt got a complimentary Simulated Bovine Hide Wikipedia Account and a String of Faux Cultured Pearls when he bought his Squeaky Clean Passport and his Cache of Blood Diamonds on the International Blecchhh Market in Rotterdam.
It could happen ...
Jonny
Posted by: Somey
That's just one of those things they do in the Netherlands. Marijuana is legal there, but apparently farting is highly frowned upon, so they're forced to use the "slient but deadly" technique in situations where Americans would just let one fly, so to speak.
And hey, Belgium is right next door!
Posted by: Jonny Cache
It's not Tuesday, so this can't be Belgium ...
G'Nacht ...
Jonny
Posted by: Kato
Deja Vu ?
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=DennyColt&site=en.wikipedia.org
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Salaskan&site=en.wikipedia.org
Jonny
My Checkuser tool shows negative. Salaskan is not DennyColt.
(By checkuser tool, I mean, of course, a wild hunch based on personal prejudice and a cursory examination of diffs)
Posted by: papaya
It seems unlikely, given the daytime edits on June 9.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
Has anyone checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crum375? I noticed a few comments that exhibited extreme black and white thinking, which reminded me of Denny. Of course that type of thinking isn't exclusive to Denny, so that proves nothing. I just glanced at the contribs and it seemed like it might have been possible that Crum was Denny.
Posted by: Kato
Has anyone checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crum375? I noticed a few comments that exhibited extreme black and white thinking, which reminded me of Denny. Of course that type of thinking isn't exclusive to Denny, so that proves nothing. I just glanced at the contribs and it seemed like it might have been possible that Crum was Denny.
Crum voted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angela_Beesley_%284th_nomination%29&diff=139005023&oldid=138992140 on the Angela afd, stating "I believe that Wikipedia should be a passive observer, and avoid being an active factor in its subjects' lives". Which is wholly contradictory to Colt's Brandt exposing, Essjay article fixated persona. So Crum fails make the shortlist as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Infoboy
Looks like someone http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMissing_Wikipedians&diff=152576243&oldid=152413144 to the missing Wikipedians page earlier today, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=next&oldid=152576243. But Jay's entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians&diff=next&oldid=152576519.
Posted by: dtobias
"I believe that Wikipedia should be a passive observer, and avoid being an active factor in its subjects' lives".
You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uatu in Marvel Comics? (Everything I need to know in life I learned in comic books.)