The DennyColt Conspiracy, Join now, before all the good seats are reserved Options

[Daniel Brandt]

I just tried to post this to the talk page of my bio, and DennyColt reverted it, and then I put it on the WP:ANI page, where AmiDaniel reverted it. My IP was instantly blocked indefinitely by a 15-year-old in India, Shreshth91. This IP is used by all sorts of people in San Antonio; all I have to do is reset my modem to get a new one, which I do automatically at least once a day, and more often if needed.

The Google-Watch-Watch link at the bottom of my bio is an unreliable source. It is a tiny attack site that went up in July of 2003. The person behind this site is Chris Beasley, who is an affiliate-site web spammer. At the time he put up this site, he was making a lot of money from web spam through Google ads. I responded to him at http://www.google-watch.org/gaming.html#case3

He quotes Farhad Manjoo as his source about my objections to PageRank, but Farhad Manjoo is another unreliable source. The Manjoo source is already listed in the bio, and this listing is improper also. Manjoo misquoted me, and I complained to his editor at Salon at the time.

However, Chris Beasley's site is even more objectionable than the Farhad Manjoo piece. When SlimVirgin started this stub on me and I first noticed it in October, 2005, the Beasley citation and the Manjoo citation were the two citations I asked her to delete. She agreed to delete the Beasley citation, but not the Manjoo citation. At that point I asked to have the bio taken down, and she did so. Then another pro-Google blogger, Philipp Lenssen, complained about the deleted bio on Jimmy's talk page, and another admin restored it. Here we are, 17 months later, and there has been no progress at all by Wikipedia in ridding my bio of unreliable sources. —Daniel Brandt ~~~~

[Somey]

I just tried to post this to the talk page of my bio, and DennyColt reverted it...

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 "Cygnus's Study" 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 Wikipedia user page? 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. Denny isn't.

Do the math, folks!

[Daniel Brandt]

Just for the record, the comment by Thatcher131 that I said was libelous was this one:

I happen to think that human decency requires that we consider the interests of admin A, who was hounded off wikipedia when Brandt outed her real identity and got her in trouble with her employer; of admin B, whom he also tried to out, including calling old boyfriends of 20 years past; of admin C, who was so unnerved by the fact that Brandt had discovered his identity and that he posted from a country that does not value freedom of speech that he allowed himself to be blackmailed into editing the article with a sockpuppet, resulting in a desysopping; and of admin D, universally regarded as one of the nicest wikipedians ever, who had to explain to investigators from the Internal Affairs who Brandt was and why he would be calling a police station about her. I happen to think that such behavior damages Wikipedia greatly, and that tolerating comments by such users on talk pages, even nominally reasonable comments, is not only the camel's nose, but shows enormous disrespect for the distress that many good Wikipedians went through before the user was banned. I happen to think that entertaining such edits is offensive to good Wikipedians in the same way that giving a seat on the PTA activities planning committee to a person who had lost custody of their own children through abuse and neglect would be offensive to good parents. And I happen to think that the OTRS email system satisfies our duty to banned users quite well enough. Thatcher131 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He fixed it after I complained, as shown in this diff. 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."