Please AfD the Google_Watch article, It's so bad that I'm embarrassed Options

[Daniel Brandt]

The Wikipedia article on Google Watch is a piece of shit. Will some kind soul please nominate it for deletion?

For example, the cookie-expiration line is out of date. For the last 2.5 years, they ostensibly expire in two years. However, Google admits that as the expiration date approaches, they are automatically renewed for another two years. To get the cookie to expire, you have to avoid all Google sites for the entire two years, or wait until your hard disk heads for the dumpster, or delete them yourself.

The "Response" section says this: "A May 2003 PC World article described Google Watch as "perhaps justifiably paranoid",[4] however Google's defenders assert that Google Watch offers very little evidence to back up its allegations.[5]" But these citations are six years old! In the seven years since Google-Watch.org began, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of Google critics.

If Wikipedia must mention Google Watch, note that it's already mentioned and linked in this Wikipedia article. That's okay by me, because my name isn't on that one.

The Wikipedia article on Google-Watch.org is such junk that I decided a year ago to hide the whois for the site behind a proxy. It's downright embarrassing to have my name in that Wikipedia article. But I'm banned from Wikipedia and cannot nominate it myself.

(By the way, a person who is banned from Wikipedia should have the right to demand that any article that names him or her be edited to exclude his or her name.)

[Alison]

I'll look into it later today. It's already on my hitlist, on the heels of the Wikipedia-Watch and Scroogle successes.

On my cell here at the moment, tho' (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

I would do but I made the last nom and it would create more hassle than good.

[Doc glasgow]

I'm happy to nominate this, but I'm less sure of what the grounds would be. Personally "subject's request" would do for me, but I'd need something that had a chance of success.

[Doc glasgow]

Well, someone beat me to AfD it. Now, we can see what will happen.



Incidentally, who here is [[User:Paz y Unidad]]. Because, if I wanted to troll, my money is that a checkuser would identify this as some banned individual.

(It is really as well I'm not a drama- stoker!)

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Apathetic]

It would really help the cause if banned users didn't start these things. As then the issue gets conflated ("omgz we must cloase beacuz unperson maed it").

This post has been edited by Apathetic:

[Doc glasgow]

It would really help the cause if banned users didn't start these things. As then the issue gets conflated ("omgz we must deleat beacuz unperson maed it").

Agreed, I was about to nominate the article myself - which would have had a better chance of success.

[Jon Awbrey]

It would really help the cause if banned users didn't start these things. As then the issue gets conflated ("omgz we must deleat beacuz unperson maed it").

Right — it only contributes to the General Melee (T-C-L-K-R-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Well, thanks y'all, and I'll cross my fingers. If it gets deleted, I may once again stick an email address on the site, and take it out of the whois proxy, and also put a proper phone number on the whois. Then once again I may get the occasional call from a reporter as Google (hopefully someday soon) gets hit with a ten-ton antitrust suit from the Justice Department.

What I cannot handle is some idiot reporter reading the Google_Watch article on Wikipedia and then contacting me. If this happens, his mind is already polluted by the time he is able to find me, which is why I had to make myself difficult to locate.

Google just announced their free, public, super-fast DNS service. My guess is that soon Chrome will use it as the default, and soon after that Firefox will too, so as not to lose their lucrative Google contract when it comes up for renewal in 2011 (it's worth about $90 million a year to Mozilla Corporation).

Think of all the user tracking Google can do!

In the meantime, you have to stick their DNS servers ( 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 ) into your browser yourself, which at the moment makes it look like a cool public service instead of yet another evil plan for world domination.

[EricBarbour]

Haw, haw, what a sock drawer:

That it's notable seems to have been confirmed in past deletion discussions - if there are problems with the content, identify and fix them. --Kotniski (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What agenda do you have to push, Kotnitski? Remember, this is not the first time you've been hanging around articles relating to Daniel Brandt. This was you in April 2008, trying to get Daniel Brandt listed on a surname page listing notable people with the last name "Brandt". I see this as an attempt at baiting, and it's obvious that you have an agenda to push regarding this. So, what is it? Paz y Unidad (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To stop Wikipedia's readers from being deprived of good information just because a few obsessed people don't like it, I suppose. What's yours? You seem very new here to be nominating controversial articles for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, what is with Kotniski? Normally he edits Polish-related articles, and keeps a low profile. Many times in the past when one of Daniel's unwanted pages came up for AFD, he's in there, fighting like hell to keep it. Always in parallel with John Nevard.....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[MZMcBride]

I'll look into it later today. It's already on my hitlist, on the heels of the Wikipedia-Watch and Scroogle successes.

On my cell here at the moment, tho' (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I don't suppose you've seen the (second) Scroogle DRV? Some admin should really just step in right now and close that under the premise that Deletion review is final.

[Daniel Brandt]

But seriously, what is with Kotniski? Normally he edits Polish-related articles, and keeps a low profile. Many times in the past when one of Daniel's unwanted pages came up for AFD, he's in there, fighting like hell to keep it. Always in parallel with John Nevard.....

Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet.

Found a pic but still working on his age.

[Alison]

Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet.

Found a pic but still working on his age.

Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse.

Please don't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

EDIT: Ugh - too late

[Jon Awbrey]

Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet.

Found a pic but still working on his age.

Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse.

Please don't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

You don't mean to say that anyone would want to stop Wikipedia Review's readers from being deprived of good information just because a few obsessed people don't like it?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse.

Please don't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sorry, but this guy has been stalking me, and I'm fed up with it. Do you have any idea what that's like?

[Alison]

Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse.

Please don't (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Sorry, but this guy has been stalking me, and I'm fed up with it. Do you have any idea what that's like?

Funny you should ask that. Showing up at your place, is he?

I don't need to explain to you, Daniel, that doing this is only going to bring all the usual idiots out of the woodwork to ensure the stupid article is now going to be kept? Nothing like a little spite and vengeance to bring 'em all out. Why the fuck do I bother?

[Daniel Brandt]

Funny you should ask that. Showing up at your place, is he?

Maybe, but I would have no way of knowing because he doesn't have the decency or the courtesy to use his real name! It wasn't easy to find his name or his pic. But now if he shows up, at least I'll know what's happening.

[Alison]

Funny you should ask that. Showing up at your place, is he?

Maybe, but I would have no way of knowing because he doesn't have the decency or the courtesy to use his real name! It wasn't easy to find his name or his pic. But now if he shows up, at least I'll know what's happening.

Yeah, but you knew all that before you decided to put him up on Hivemind. So why do it at all? It's just shooting yourself in the foot.

[Jon Awbrey]

I don't need to explain to you, Daniel, that doing this is only going to bring all the usual idiots out of the woodwork to ensure the stupid article is now going to be kept? Nothing like a little spite and vengeance to bring 'em all out. Why the fuck do I bother?

Spectators of the meta-game know that Bringing All The Usual Idiots Out Of The WikiWoodWork (BATUIOOTWWW) is the name (and the acronym) of the game.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Yeah, but you knew all that before you decided to put him up on Hivemind. So why do it at all? It's just shooting yourself in the foot.

It's a public service. The lowest form of life in cyberspace are those who harass living persons who don't want to even be mentioned in Wikipedia, and who do this while hiding behind a screen name, claiming that they're building an encyclopedia when all they're doing is playing games at the expense of others. It's worth a bullet in the foot to expose creeps like this.

[thekohser]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

[Alison]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

[Doc glasgow]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.

[Viridae]

Yeah, but you knew all that before you decided to put him up on Hivemind. So why do it at all? It's just shooting yourself in the foot.

It's a public service. The lowest form of life in cyberspace are those who harass living persons who don't want to even be mentioned in Wikipedia, and who do this while hiding behind a screen name, claiming that they're building an encyclopedia when all they're doing is playing games at the expense of others. It's worth a bullet in the foot to expose creeps like this.

I call bullshit.

[dtobias]

"Harassment" is one of the most ridiculously abused words on the Internet, referring to anybody saying or doing anything to or about you that you don't like. Everybody from Brandt to Slim Virgin to MONGO uses such accusations to suppress people they dislike.

[Lar]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.

Indeed. I think a month is about right so that's what he got.

"Harassment" is one of the most ridiculously abused words on the Internet, referring to anybody saying or doing anything to or about you that you don't like. Everybody from Brandt to Slim Virgin to MONGO uses such accusations to suppress people they dislike.

I agree.

[Nerd]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.

You are an admin.

[Doc glasgow]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[Lar]

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here.

[Doc glasgow]

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here.

Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no?

[Trick cyclist]

But now if he shows up, at least I'll know what's happening.

He'll come specially all the way from Poland?

[MBisanz]

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here.

Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no?

I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances.

[Lar]

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here.

Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no?

I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances.

The other one needs the bit flipped off though, at or near the same time.

[MBisanz]

You are an admin.

Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password.

The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here.

Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no?

I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances.

The other one needs the bit flipped off though, at or near the same time.

I do know how to edit m:SRP.

[wjhonson]

Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.

O RLY? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)

I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.

When I saw that edit, I immediately recognized it as frivolous and flip. That is not harassment and libel. A "one month block" seems quite excessive for such a bit of silliness. Perhaps we should allow Daniel himself to comment on this.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Perhaps we should allow Daniel himself to comment on this.

Good idea; I'll go restore his WR posting privileges.

[Tarc]

Seems ridiculous, honestly. Looking through the sources cited in the article, they're primarily about privacy concerns with Google, cite Brandt's opinion on the matter, then mention Google Watch in passing.

The conclusions reached by the keepers in AfD #3 were fairly retarded, esp Geo Swan.


This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Daniel Brandt]

There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page:

My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

[Tarc]

There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page:

My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

[Milton Roe]

Perhaps we should allow Daniel himself to comment on this.

Good idea; I'll go restore his WR posting privileges.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Good luck with that, Sarc.

[Cyclopia]

There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page:

My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

[EricBarbour]

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

Before anyone else comments, just let me say this.

Cyclopia, I think that you are a little shit.

You are helping to make Wikipedia suck, and obviously you also think it's fun.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Tarc]

Some guy just added a "Google for Dummies" type book to the refs, stating that that now cements notability. The lulz just keep on rollin.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[Cyclopia]

(ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!)

That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.

Someone called?

Before anyone else comments, just let me say this.

Cyclopia, I think that you are a little shit.

You are helping to make Wikipedia suck, and obviously you also think it's fun.

We agree to disagree.

Didn't expect a more constructive comment from WR, however. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

If anyone has decent questions, happy to answer, that's the only reason I raised my head up. Other than that, goodbye again.

[Daniel Brandt]

The Google_Watch AfD was closed as a merge into Criticism _of_Google. For now, this means that a purple box is on top of the article. How long is that going to stay there? In other words, the important question is, "When does the Google_Watch article come down?"

Shouldn't there be a "noindex" meta in the article between now and then, so that the bots get the message? Better yet, if you have to save content for a day or two for the sake of the "mergists," why is the thing still in article space? The few paragraphs should be in Talk space or User space.

[Tarc]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

[Daniel Brandt]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted.

I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index. Anything that's on the first page of Google's results in a search for my name, is like low-hanging fruit for the Mark Binmores out there. You will start to see ugly lines about me in Criticism_of_Google that will persist for months or years.

[NuclearWarfare]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted.

I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index.

Would you be OK with the page history being moved to Talk:Criticism of Google/Google Watch and noindexed? The redirect would be deleted in that case.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[Daniel Brandt]

Would you be OK with the page history being moved to Talk:Criticism of Google/Google Watch and noindexed? The redirect would be deleted in that case.

No, because archive.org has a history going back to January 15, 2004 for the Google_Watch article, with 27 versions during a four-year span. Having another history on Wikipedia is a wretched excess.

[Cimorene]

No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it.

Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course...

Sigh. Here it is.

[Random832]

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines.

But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Daniel Brandt]

Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google.

As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines.

But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?)

And I pointed out to you that if my name is in the anchor text of the links pointing to the page (and now that page is the Criticism page, not the original Google_Watch article), then this matters more than whether the name is on the page itself.

I noticed this back in 2002. One blogger in Italy stuck my name in the title of one post, and his blog post shot up to number one in a search for my name.

Do a search for "namebase" in Google. The Public Interest Registry is number 6. I sold the pir.org domain to the Registry in early 2003. There were three full months of redirects to namebase.org written into the contract. I also spent a huge number of hours asking everyone I could find who linked to namebase when it was pir.org, to change their link to namebase.org.

Almost seven years later, what do we see? It's still at number 6. The word "namebase" is nowhere on the pir.org site, and hasn't been since I sold the domain. Is seven years — and still going strong — what you mean by "dropping off the Google results quickly"?

Here's another example: My name is not on the wikipedia-watch.org home page and hasn't been for about two years. Yet that page comes up number one in a search for my name. Why do you think that happens? It's because external links pointing to that page contain my name in the anchor text (or maybe in close proximity to the anchor text, like in the same sentence).

The external links that pointed to the Google_Watch article caused it to show up at number 5 on Google in a search for my name. Yes my name was on that page once, in tiny print. But much more significantly, the external links pointing to that Wikipedia article are providing juice for my name. Now those same external links are providing that exact same juice for my name as it points to the Criticism article. That article doesn't contain my name, but I doubt that this will make a difference. Moreover, can you guarantee that no one will ever insert my name in that article?

Yes, my name was in the PIR article. But that wasn't the most important factor. As soon as the redirect from the bio to PIR was in place, the PIR article slammed into first place for a search on my name. The juice from my name in the PIR article helped somewhat, but the major juice was my name in or close to the anchor text of external links — the links that used to point to my bio. Now they all pointed to the PIR article.

The redirect has to come down, and I'll keep fighting to get it taken down. The question isn't how much you or I know, or don't know, about Google. The real question is why does Wikipedia have to make it so hard for me to get off of their damn site?

[Random832]

I notice that the NameBase article appears nowhere in the search results for your name. How many links are there, in fact, to the Google_Watch url [i.e. now to the Criticism article] that use your name in the anchor text?

[Trick cyclist]

* Google Watch – Closed as MOOT as DRV cannot undo a merge. Merges are a matter for editorial discretion and do not require admin tools to fix. Please see WP:ND3. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I can undo the merge? (Ducks)

This post has been edited by Trick cyclist:

[Daniel Brandt]

* Google Watch – Closed as MOOT as DRV cannot undo a merge. Merges are a matter for editorial discretion and do not require admin tools to fix. Please see WP:ND3. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So I can undo the merge? (Ducks)

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

If it goes to DRV after killing the redirect, well, I'll take my chances in DRV. If I lose in DRV and Google_Watch comes back, I'll just resume the battle.

[Alison]

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

And he's done just that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.

And he's done just that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

[Trick cyclist]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[EricBarbour]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

[NuclearWarfare]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

Coffee? An inclusionist? Are you sure you aren't confusing him with someone else?

[A Horse With No Name]

Is there any medical study linking Wikipedia game playing with heartburn? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Alison]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

[RMHED]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

What are you playing at Alison, Google Watch should be redirected to Criticism of Google, I believe Danny boy can't really object to this as long as the article history remains deleted.

By the by shouldn't you be doing important admin stuff on ED rather than pissing about on WP?

[Cyclopia]

Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper.

Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.

Since I've been again called directly in question, I desire to answer. No, it is not malicious, nor I understand what malice are you implying. Simply, it is a very legitimate search term (I personally think it should be a legitimate article too, but a merge is fine), and the deletion of the redirect has not been discussed at all. There is no reason at all for the redirect to be deleted apart from Mr.Brandt concerns about Google ranking algorithms -and that's something he should ask to Google, not to Wikipedia.

[Daniel Brandt]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/SteelyKnifes.jpg)
"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

[RMHED]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/SteelyKnifes.jpg)
"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

[Daniel Brandt]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

We need to get rid of that article. We've subjected Brandt to hundreds of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs — wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made complete fools of ourselves as a project.

No matter the merits of the article, the process he's been put through is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.

— SlimVirgin
June 14, 2007

[RMHED]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

Appealing to Jimmy is a waste of time, you should have told him to delete the stub or you'd pay him a personal visit that he might not enjoy.

P.S. Answer: What.

[EricBarbour]

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.
P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

Let it go, Daniel. He's probably just had a long night of swimming in lager,
and needs to step away from the keyboard. (That's a hint, son.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Alison]

By the by shouldn't you be doing important admin stuff on ED rather than pissing about on WP?

Let me get right on that (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

While you're at it, how's about you take that sanctimonious nonsense, roll it up and cram it sideways up your arse? I think we'd all derive great satisfaction from that, present company included.

[Coffee]

It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.

There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist.

Wait what? Did I miss something? Last I checked I was on the "rouge deleting admin" list. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Here are the visitors to the google-watch.org home page from various Wikipedia sites for the last two days. This is a grand total of 32 out of 2,956 visitors to my google-watch.org home page (that's only one percent).

I don't want these people visiting google-watch.org because they've been polluted by Wikipedia before they visit. Therefore, as of now I am redirecting all *.wikipedia.org* visitors to that OTHER "Google Watch" that I have nothing to with — the one at eweek.com. He can have this traffic. I'm doing him this favor even though he started using the name "Google Watch" three years after I was already using it.

CODE

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Watch
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroogle

[Doc glasgow]

You are assuming all 32 weren't me and Alison trying to annoy you (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Coffee]

Sadly the attempts to take the redirect away, lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...009_December_12

[Alison]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Abd]

Is there any medical study linking Wikipedia game playing with heartburn? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Game playing relieves heartburn. It's believing that WP is a serious project following stated mission and neutrality policy, and trying to help, that causes stress.

[tarantino]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He had to wait because he was blocked for a month because of this.

[Doc glasgow]

And the continuing stoooooory;

Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh?

Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

He had to wait because he was blocked for a month because of this.

He was banned for a month for using Wikipedia for abusing a living person.

He returns from that ban and immediately proceeds to wikilawyer to get a blanking of an AfD done as a "courtesy" to that same living person reversed.

If I were still active as a WP sysop, he'd be looking an an immediate reimposition of his ban for annother month (indeed perhaps indefinate) until he learns not to use Wikipedia to pursue an obvious vendetta against a living person. This is trolling pure and simple - and an attempt to harrass a real identifiable person, whilst hiding behind his screen name.

Indeed, I'd ban his ass. (WP:BLP WP:BATTLE WP:TROLL)

[Alison]

And onwards it goes yet again (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Enric Naval recreated Wikipedia Watch today and redirected it to Criticism of Wikipedia

I deleted it as G4 (recreated page that was deleted per a deletion discussion);

(del/undel) 13:36, 9 January 2010 Alison (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia Watch" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: C'mon now. This just went thru AfD) (view/restore)

Enric immediately demanded I restore it, which I rightly refused, so now it's gone to DrV where the usual suspects are gathering. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del.../2010_January_9

What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

PS: Hi guys, I know you're reading this.

[Nerd]

And onwards it goes yet again (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

Enric Naval recreated Wikipedia Watch today and redirected it to Criticism of Wikipedia

I deleted it as G4 (recreated page that was deleted per a deletion discussion);

(del/undel) 13:36, 9 January 2010 Alison (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia Watch" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: C'mon now. This just went thru AfD) (view/restore)

Enric immediately demanded I restore it, which I rightly refused, so now it's gone to DrV where the usual suspects are gathering. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del.../2010_January_9

What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters??? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

PS: Hi guys, I know you're reading this.

Why are you doing this? What is so awful about a redirect (other than the fact Daniel doesn't like it)? At any other time it would be completely reasonable to redirect it, and yet because it's Daniel "I collect pictures of children and put them on my website" Brandt, everyone is tiptoing round following every demand he makes.

The redirect doesn't violate BLP in any way, shape or form, so what gives? G4 is invalid, as the people have noted.