Well, it appears that Mr. Brandt is back in the viewfinder again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...5th_nomination)

Funny, there is now a barnstar for those who appear on Wiki-Watch. Doesn't that suggest some degree of notability?

Alison asked me, and I replied that I wanted that article deleted. I'd also like the NameBase and the Google Watch articles deleted, but those may have to wait until some later date.

Aha. Well, Alison is a class act...not a lot of those on WP, for sure.

This would be a class act on Wikipedia (Check out the Christmas Song - knocks Rolf Harris into a cocked hat, whatever one of those is)

I should add that all of the following articles on Wikipedia — Scroogle (deleted two days ago), Wikipedia-Watch, Google-Watch, and NameBase — were derived from the notoriety that my bio caused, once I started attempting to get my bio deleted. Some of this activity was a good-faith effort by editors to substitute for, and divert the need for, my bio. In any case, that's a poor excuse these days since my bio is gone, and I don't want these articles in Wikipedia. Wikipedia-Watch itself was started in October 2005, when I realized that arguing with SlimVirgin and Jimbo fell under the heading of "resistance is futile."

Once they are all gone permanently, and nothing similar rears its ugly head on Wikipedia, I plan to retire my website Wikipedia-Watch.org. I'll redirect all my traffic to Wikipedia Review for a few months, or until the search engines drop the links to Wikipedia-Watch, whichever of these two takes longer.

I don't know the history of the article, but I knew about NameBase before I knew about you, Daniel.

Not that I'll be voting to keep it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia can delete everything.

Yeah right.

I have to call bullshit on that one, Daniel. You made a similar promise to remove your "hive-mind" page once your bio was deleted. You re-negged on that one and have archived the original page for what you claim are "historical" reasons.

Simple way to have those articles deleted: take down your sites. Once you no longer have a presence online there's nothing for them to write about. I don't think you'll do that because I think deep down you like the game. You like sleuthing and outing these people.

In no way does that guarantee that the Wikipedia articles would follow.

(I agree that it would be unwise to take Mr. Brandt at face value here, for what it's worth.)

Except for Namebase, any argument for the inclusion criteria for the other sites is so slim that it would evaporate if the sites no longer existed. Anyone inclined to keep for vindictive reasons would lose their motivation.

The "coverage by reliable third party sources" being used to build up those arguments would not vanish with their subjects.
Pardon me while I laugh so hard the Amp® brand black tea-flavoured energy drink I am consuming emerges from my nostrils.

Sarc must be bending over backward to avoid reference to "coffee".

I need some more DELETE votes for that AfD on Wikipedia-Watch. It's quite an insignificant site for folks who visit Wikipedia. I tallied the referrals from en.wikipedia.org over the last two days from my logs for the three sites I'd like deleted from Wikipedia. Here are the results:

2.5 percent of the visitors to wikipedia-watch.org come from Wikipedia (this figure is probably inflated because of the AfD in progress)

1 percent of the visitors to google-watch.org come from Wikipedia

1 percent of the visitors to namebase.org come from Wikipedia

As you can see, my sites are ignored by Wikipedia's readers. The deletionists are correct that I'm a complete non-starter on the World Wide Web. My sites still use images created on a 16-color computer, and I'm always getting dissed for this by young web wizards who all have cool blogs. "Brandt's site looks like it came from the 1990s!" is a comment I hear frequently.

All three articles should be deleted because no one will miss them. Help me out here; the AfD for Wikipedia Watch is about 22 for DELETE and 16 for KEEP at the moment. I'd could use a stronger showing for DELETE. Only two days remain!

I've always been amazed as to how few referrals come into my sites from Wikipedia. It's been like this throughout the four years that I've been watching it. At this rate, I much prefer to exercise my primitive 16-color skills in "stealth mode" and be rid of Wikipedia completely.

There's no porn on any of your sites...

Somey - can we tarpit this before the ARSe Squad start screaming about canvassing and whatnot? We just need to get the damn page down at this stage so everyone can disconnect from this pit of drama & I'm fighting hard to make this happen

Oh and the Scroogle page has gone to DRV. Ugh - let it go already

I have an excellent idea. If the article is kept, Daniel should add everyone who voted keep to Hivemind. Actually, he should just add them anyway.

Don't give him any ideas.

I've said it before, but I think that the HiveMindMuster (hmm…) is an essential public service and every Oaficiate Or Other Pediot Of Influence associated with Wikiputia and the Con-Foundation should be listed there on a permanent basis.

And I hope I'm giving him some ideas …

Ja Ja

Deleted. Occasionally I guess things do make sense on Wikipedia.

Thank goodness! I'm just glad it's over now - it was a battle to have that thing deleted

No thanks to Benjiboi, though, who not only marked it for {{rescue}}, but dumped heaps of stuff in there and did his damndest to have it kept

Oh, and interesting to see Seth Finkelstein make a personal appearance at the AFD.

The Wikipedia Watch logo that Sister Kitty Catalyst copied to Wikipedia no longer serves any purpose.

And it also happens to violate NFCC#5, which is an actual policy-based reason to delete it.

And deleted - via my iPhone from Reno, NV. Worth interrupting my vacation for

Just about every time I've seen Benjiboi mentioned on WR, it's almost always been because he tried
to save something that needed deletion, or because he stabbed someone in the back......

when is someone going to open an RFC on him? Not important enough, is he?

There was an RFC regarding Benjiboi and paid editing, but nothing came out of it except what usually comes from RFCs.

Amazed? That's sarcasm, no?

As far as I know this pronouncement is in no lesser effect than it was three years ago. That is, even if the current arbcombatants were to vote on whether to re-affirm this, I doubt their overall credibility is much better than those of the Bauderville Era.

There are known unknowns as well. By default I'd expect the number of missing (or obviously fudged) http-referer headers to exceed those indicating links from WP.

I don't even understand how you publish private information.

If it's private, where did you get it?

A: Hi my is [redacted]. I like to have sex with dogs and you're cute, here's my phone number and waist size and names of all my closest relatives...

B: Oh I know you, you're a Wikipedia [official role redacted] ! I'm gonna tell Daniel Brandt right away!


If your name, address and phone number are in a phone book, that's not "private".
Maybe what they meant to say was "not widely published?" i.e. published in one obscure source?

And then of course a lot of "private" information was published by the very same people who object to being outed, just they didn't realize anyone was actually reading hotchickswithbigboobs.com when they used their exact same user name to create a personal ad with personal details....

Deletionpedia is way way behind (like over a year). I sent the guy an email to ask why, I'll post up a summary at my Knol page on it, but at any rate, it seems like it will be at least two years before we see this page back up on the Deletionpedia site. And I suppose archive.org isn't actually archiving Wikipedia at all? I had high hopes for them at one time.

In my opinion Wikipedia shot themselves in the foot on this one. I'm not sure I agree with everything on this site but if it took 5 tries to delete it, it looks more like a witch hunt to delete critics from Wikipedia. If they kept it they could have debunked it when they deserved to be debunked.

The owner of the site probably had a good laugh since he can now claim he was censored.

Excessive attempts to delete articles are counterproductive.

That you only appear to have been on Wikipedia for 15-months is quite noticeable.

Um, you do realize that the site owner wanted it deleted, right? This AFD was even instigated by a request from him. (EDIT: This may or may not be the case - I was actually thinking of the more current Google Watch AFD when I wrote this. Nevertheless, his position on these articles has been quite consistent)

You fail.

Must have forgotten I'm supposed to keep up more on Wiki politics than the issues they cover. OOPS

I still fail to see why he would want it deleted or why Wikipedia would delete it. If I jumped to this conclusion so could others.

Even if there is agreement on this the question of whether there should be unlimited number of attempts to delete things is valid. A double or triple jeopardy option should be considered. If they fail to delete an article perhaps they shouldn't be able to do it later or at least wait a certain amount of time.

BTW I see he is now trying to delete Google watch. I don't know why he would do this either if he is going to comment on Wikipedia and Google shouoldn't he accept the same in return?

The difference is that he takes responsibility for his own words, whereas much of the wikipedia stuff is written by people who do not even reveal their identity.

It is rather ironic, that when I Google "wikipedia review", this thread is the second hit.



Bah, scratch that.

I was Googling "wikpedia review" -type on wikpedia. Still weird.