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

[Doc glasgow]

And onwards it goes yet again Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day

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.

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

What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters???

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.

Bullshit.

This is either a deliberate attempt to piss Brandt off or, if I assume moderately good faith, a process wank at the expense of a real person.

Why on earth have a useless redirect when you know it annoys him. You may not like the guy, but he's a real person and Wikipedia has no right to play games here - particularly when there are no real life consequences for the game players.

Frankly, it is insanity like that which almost justifies Brandt's tactics.

[Nerd]

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.

Bullshit.

This is either a deliberate attempt to piss Brandt off or, if I assume moderately good faith, a process wank at the expense of a real person.

Why on earth have a useless redirect when you know it annoys him. You may not like the guy, but he's a real person and Wikipedia has no right to play games here - particularly when there are no real life consequences for the game players.

Frankly, it is insanity like that which almost justifies Brandt's tactics.

It's not useless, it's a valid search term, like it or not. Having never met or spoken to the man, I cannot say I like or don't like him, but it's irrelevant. Yes, if this was his bio I'd be much more sympathetic. Or even if it was a full article on the topic. But this is just a redirect. I cannot see how it affects him at all.

[Alison]

So the Wikipedia Watch redirect that I speedy-deleted was restored after this DRV failed

I guess the next step is RfD, so I'll create a request to have it deleted later today. To be honest, after Brandt's callous disregard of a child's safety, my heart's just not in this at all. But it still needs to be done, I guess - do the right thing.

Expect a drama-laden DRV later today

[Nerd]

So the Wikipedia Watch redirect that I speedy-deleted was restored after this DRV failed

I guess the next step is RfD, so I'll create a request to have it deleted later today. To be honest, after Brandt's callous disregard of a child's safety, my heart's just not in this at all. But it still needs to be done, I guess - do the right thing.

Expect a drama-laden DRV later today

No one has yet explained to me what actual damage the redirect is doing, other than hurting Daniel Brandt's feelings (who, after his latest antics, deserves no sympathy whatsoever). Maybe Alison will enlighten me in her rationale at RFD.

[RMHED]

So the Wikipedia Watch redirect that I speedy-deleted was restored after this DRV failed

I guess the next step is RfD, so I'll create a request to have it deleted later today. To be honest, after Brandt's callous disregard of a child's safety, my heart's just not in this at all. But it still needs to be done, I guess - do the right thing.

Expect a drama-laden DRV later today

No one has yet explained to me what actual damage the redirect is doing, other than hurting Daniel Brandt's feelings (who, after his latest antics, deserves no sympathy whatsoever). Maybe Alison will enlighten me in her rationale at RFD.

There's nothing wrong with that redirect, it has no history, it serves a mildly useful purpose. If Danny boy objects to it then he really is being a fuckwit.

[Trick cyclist]

There's nothing wrong with that redirect, it has no history, it serves a mildly useful purpose. If Danny boy objects to it then he really is being a fuckwit.

Helpful suggestion (I hope). Mr Brandt takes down the site. That will make it less notable hence less deserving of having even a redirect about it.

Will Mr Brandt put me on Hivemind for daring to suggest such a thing? I hope so, I could boast about it for ages.

[dtobias]

Brandt's demands are totally unreasonable, as is usual for him. On the other hand, a redirect from the name of a not-particularly-notable site is of minuscule utility at best, so this isn't an issue that seems to particularly matter one way or the other except to drama-lovers.

[Alison]

So the Wikipedia Watch redirect that I speedy-deleted was restored after this DRV failed

I guess the next step is RfD, so I'll create a request to have it deleted later today. To be honest, after Brandt's callous disregard of a child's safety, my heart's just not in this at all. But it still needs to be done, I guess - do the right thing.

Expect a drama-laden DRV later today

No one has yet explained to me what actual damage the redirect is doing, other than hurting Daniel Brandt's feelings (who, after his latest antics, deserves no sympathy whatsoever). Maybe Alison will enlighten me in her rationale at RFD.

It's simply non-notable. Honestly. Wikipedia needs to disconnect from Brandt as much as Brandt needs to disconnect from Wikipedia & inane redirs like this are just stoking the fires - on all sides.

The good part, I guess, is that the redirect has now been fully-protected which will at least dissuade someone from attempting to create (another useless) article there.

BTW - More people on Hivemind today, though no children and all are admins this time. Today, it's the turn of Balloonman, Tanthalas39 and Kingturtle*, and it seems that Rebecca (former admin/cu/arb/os) has made a re-appearance. He's also taken the time to update my own pic & for some reason, has added information relating to a family member of mine who doesn't edit Wikipedia. Dunno what precipitated that ....

A quick check shows that Daniel Brandt and his sites are all largely gone from Wikipedia now, thank goodness. Having said that, I don't think Hivemind will be taken down any time soon, though he's hinted at it in the recent past. Let's take a look;

• Daniel Brandt - deleted, move to redir to PIR, then the redirect was finally deleted
• Wikipedia Watch - deleted, then later created as a redir to 'Criticism of Wikipedia'
• Google Watch - deleted, then later created as a redir to 'Criticism of Google'
• Public Information Research - deleted
• Namebase - still there, though scrubbed of any nonsense

I personally went around and {{NOINDEX}}d as many pages mentioning Mr. Brandt by name as I possibly could, and courtesy-blanked every AfD and DRV I could find. It's hard to really find anything left ....

(* - what is it with Wikipedia admins and ukelele playing??!!)

[A Horse With No Name]

(* - what is it with Wikipedia admins and ukelele playing??!!)

What is it about fat male admins and good looking female admins? Most of those guys look like they've never seen their feet, but almost all of the ladies are va-va-voom! (Especially Alison -- and, Alison, you ought to call yourself Campbell's Soup because you are mmmm, mmmm good!)

[Alison]

mmmm, mmmm good!)

[Alison]

And the RfD is now live. See how things go ....

Here's a fun game - count the number of die-hard inclusionists that re-emerge from the woodwork for this battle. I can pretty-much name them all

[Nerd]

BTW - More people on Hivemind today, though no children and all are admins this time. Today, it's the turn of Balloonman, Tanthalas39 and Kingturtle*, and it seems that Rebecca (former admin/cu/arb/os) has made a re-appearance. He's also taken the time to update my own pic & for some reason, has added information relating to a family member of mine who doesn't edit Wikipedia. Dunno what precipitated that ....

A quick check shows that Daniel Brandt and his sites are all largely gone from Wikipedia now, thank goodness. Having said that, I don't think Hivemind will be taken down any time soon, though he's hinted at it in the recent past. Let's take a look;

• Daniel Brandt - deleted, move to redir to PIR, then the redirect was finally deleted
• Wikipedia Watch - deleted, then later created as a redir to 'Criticism of Wikipedia'
• Google Watch - deleted, then later created as a redir to 'Criticism of Google'
• Public Information Research - deleted
• Namebase - still there, though scrubbed of any nonsense

I personally went around and {{NOINDEX}}d as many pages mentioning Mr. Brandt by name as I possibly could, and courtesy-blanked every AfD and DRV I could find. It's hard to really find anything left ....

(* - what is it with Wikipedia admins and ukelele playing??!!)

I wonder why these people were put up. Are there any rules for inclusion on hivemind, or is it just done on a whim with whatever information is available?

And I don't think Hivemind will be taken down until Wikipedia closes, which will be never.

[Mr.Treason II]

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.)

It's been merged with Criticism of Google, but I am a skilled sockpuppeter. I can create and skew any debate with my sockpuppets. If I get a gang of 13 (including Katefan0), then we can draw you out of this mess quickly.