This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I know but then you have to muck about with the underscores or a bit of double copy/paste. My way did the job and was quick and easy. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No underscores necessary, (they're only required if you want to type out the html address.) Anynobody 03:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Topic ban on Barbara Schwarz
Under the terms of the article probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, I am banning you from making any edits related to Barbara Schwarz in any article for 30 days. You may make suggestions on talk pages provided you are not disruptive and follow the BLP policy, which applies to talk pages as well as articles.
After our previous discussion, I was disappointed to see you reinstate the Schwarz material at Neutral reportage. As I noted before, Schwarz is possibly a unique figure in the history of FOIA, but she is by no means unique in the history of neutral reportage. There are two other cases cited as "notable successes" and you made no attempt to describe either of them. There are 70 law review articles containing the term "neutral reportage" and none of them mention Mrs. Schwarz. Therefore, I conclude that your purpose in reinstating the information about the Schwarz case was not about improving the article on neutral reportage but was instead about pursuing this individual wherever possible. In the spirit of assuming good faith I do not completely rule out the possibility that you were innocently attempting to improve the neutral reportage article by describing the only case you are familiar with; this is the problem that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Ultimately, however, you continue to press the issue, so a time-out is warranted. Thatcher 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm perfectly willing to discuss your point about law review articles, but not on the arbcom noticeboard or here. Instead, that's part of the reason I started the talk page discussion. Indeed the reason I only added info about that descion is because it's the only one I'm familiar with. However as I've tried to make perfectly clear, it was already there and I was just adding info from sources I had found. Anynobody 03:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take your concerns to Arbitration enforcement, not ANI. Thank you. Your post is here:
Background: Barbara Schwartz had undergone four previous (1 - 2 - 3 - 4) deletion discussions were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping, while acknowledging WP:BLP concerns with some of the information in when it was speedily deleted by an admin. A deltion review determined that when WP:BLP questionable material was removed, the remainder would not be enough to justify an article.
I could understand the ban if I was adding information about her to topics which used to be covered by her article, but for which no/little sourcing exists such as her relationship with Scientology or her forced deprogramming. No really good sources discuss either aspect, so clearly adding such info would be disruptive. I'm not doing that though, here are the two sources which I cited:Utah appeals court backs reporting privelage First Amendment Center and the article she sued about Tribune. Anynobody 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You've missed the point, the subjects are FOIA and neutral reportage. As a participant in the arbcom you should recall it was Scientology topics covered. Anynobody 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would perceive that your ban on editing Barbara Schwarz related articles is justified. You have been stalking a non-public person. The notice that you placed on user Tilman's talkpage also appears to indicate this in where you openly pronounce about her supposed mental illness see here. I also wish to comment here that I do not agree with your adjudication as if these previous "deletion discussions" concerning the article on Barbara Schwarz had been "overwhelmingly in favor of keeping" it. They were not. --Olberon (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Since we disagree about the outcomes of previous discussions, and actual numbers can be counted, I'll start with that. I did a quick count and these are the numbers I got:
Number 1 k = 34
d = 8 (several unsigned comments appear to be Schwarz herself)
Number 2 k = 20
d = 3
Number 3 k = 17
d = 1
Number 4 k = 56
d = 17
Bearing in mind that some people voted in multiple discussions, the overall numbers were: Keep = 127 Delete = 29 Really, the numbers speak for themselves.
In regard to stalking anyone, the part of her former article which those 127 people felt was notable is her FOIA and court activities so when I saw an article about the latter which mentioned one of her cases I expanded it.
Lastly, you've obviously missed the entire point I made on Tilman's talk page, so I'll repeat and simplify it. There aren't any sources which discuss her relationship with Scientology in any great detail, therefore nothing can be said about it. If I had added mention of her to an article like Scientology, I'd understand why you'd think I was obsessing about her, the fact is I haven't. Anynobody 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You will have to adjudicate by valid argument and not by majority vote and personal opinion. O.J. Simpson was also found innocent by a majority vote in the jury. BLP rules are simply to be enforced. Having a FOIA record is exercising one's rights as a US citizen, it does not turn a someone into a public person. May I also note that the article about Barbara Schwarz at present is actually gone.
Your words on Tilman's talkpage are quite clear for any to read: "has essentially locked her into mental illnes"! Per your archived talkpages you have been quite active with Barbara Schwarz. Various comments found there from other users/editors speak for themselves. May I also note that you have been blocked at present editing any articles relating to her.
You continue to argue and defend thus you will probably take up your previous approach when this block will be lifted. --Olberon (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your history and focus on my opinion about Schwarz's ironically sad choice of religion indicates that your focus is Scientology. Like I said, both on Tilman's talk page and here, unless a source of some kind publishes the same opinion I won't be posting that in any articles. (Seriously though I doubt I'm the only one who will ever notice the discrepancy between Scientologists like her who need psychiatric help and the teachings of the CoS. Actually come to think of it, others have noticed, unfortunately it took a tragedy to get any attention.)Anynobody 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your personal interpretations and evaluations nor mine for that matter do not bear any value whatsoever. The issue is not about Scientology but the non-public person Barbara Schwarz. The issue is that you have to abide by Wiki rules. Your responses and avoidance of the arguments brought forward by me have been noted. Over and out. --Olberon (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that you have to abide by Wiki rules. Well, duh! (If I was breaking Wiki rules I'd of just added a section about her to Scientology despite there being no source.)
...the non-public person Barbara Schwarz. You are incorrect, she is a public person, by filing public requests for information, intiating pro se litigation (also public), and being interviewed for stories in newspapers and other media. Anynobody 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Again exercising one's rights for requests for information is no criteria for having become a public person. No encyclopaedia worthy of notice will ever consider adding the things you have been writing about Barbara Schwarz. --Olberon (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Those are all your opinion's and of course you are welcome to them but as you also pointed out earlier Wiki rules take priority. That's because the Salt Lake Tribune reported on her requests, and then when she sued them, The First Ammendment Center reported on that.
If you want to disregard the fact that exercising her rights in these areas made her public, that's your choice. The secondary sources can not be ignored. Anynobody 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that is actually interesting as I am not interested in opinions! I relate about a reality. No encyclopaedia (as in printed form) would consider including entries about Barbara Schwarz. You are again also ignoring BLP rules. Get an actual definition of what a public person is. Consider this:
"Wikipedia accepts your anonymity and privacy but you should also grant same courtesy to Barbara Schwarz and others. You don't know much about her because she explained her "run-in" with the Salt Lake Tribune very often on Usenet. Wrote that she gave interviews to the media. That is not what she explained. She wrote that a reporter of that paper contacted her and asked her to help him write an article about how the federal government denied reporters their FOIA records. He asked her to tell him her experiences with the FOIA offices. She didn't see him to provide information on her life but to help the media. A friendship between herself and the reporter developed over weeks, and he used private information that she gave him as a friend but not to be printed. He turned against her one day and abused her trust and twisted the private information and made a spectacle out of it. You should google Barbara Schwarz+Christopher Smith because she even posted the private correspondence between the reporter and herself after he betrayed her.
This was the only reporter she met. Apparently, after the Tribune published that article, other media came after her but by reading those articles, one can see that Ms. Schwarz refused for privacy reasons to talk to these reporters. And the media does not report anymore about her. This is all years in the past."
(Because I don't want you to think I'm avoiding any of your arguments I'll point out that Wikipedia's privacy policy regarding editors isn't the same privacy policy which affects biographies, which is what we're actually discussing.) The simple facts are that she was subject of an article by the Tribune for her notable FOIA endeavors, making her fit to be mentioned in our FOIA USA article. She was also the subject of an article by the First Amendment Center which she was interviewed for, since you've obviously not read it despite being provided with a link I'll quote her from it for you:
“It (the neutral-reporting privilege) is unconstitutional,” Schwarz said in an e-mail interview with the First Amendment Center Online (she has no phone in her Salt Lake City apartment). “We all depend on the media to keep us up to date with events, but we need true and responsible reporting and not horrible insults such as calling somebody a ‘FOIA terrorist.’”
Meaning both Ms. Schwarz refused for privacy reasons to talk to these reporters. is wrong and she's also fit for mentioning in neutral reportage. (Again since I don't want you to feel any points are being ignored, the fact that this is all years in the past. means nothing, that's what history is...stuff that happened in the past.) Anynobody 00:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Then make a short adequate notice/referral on the FOIA article. It doesn't either need a notice on some 'submarine' which is the invention of the reporter (see FOIA article entry of Barbra Schwarz). For all it does not nearly require an article entirely dedicated on Barbara Schwarz as you actively have been fighting for to keep. Let it go. You are far too occupied with her. I've checked some of your entries on the supposed Barbara Schwarz sockpuppets page. What is your issue with her? Define 'public person' & 'public figure' in proper dictionaries. None of your arguments turn Barbara Schwarz into any such. --Olberon (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"she is a public person, by filing public requests for information, intiating pro se litigation (also public)" - AN, by this logic, if I use a public restroom then I am a public person too. That's it, I'm holding it in until I get home!! --JustaHulk (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Try this and this, these may give you some idea. Consider the following message from Barbara Schwarz herself: "I just made some FOIA request and sued some lying officials. I never had any intention to do anything public. It is not my fault when people who hate my religion dig my cases out and make a big deal out of it." --Olberon (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
For all it does not nearly require an article entirely dedicated on Barbara Schwarz as you actively have been fighting for to keep. You seem to be missing the point entirely, the only way her article could be re-created is if new sources/developments were to come to light. I'm talking about adding information to two articles which already mentioned her.
JustanotherHulk Indeed you could use that kind of logic if the idea that submitting public domain FOIA requests and filing pro se lawsuits are just like going to a "public" bathroom. I haven't laughed so hard since I told a guy he had poor motor functions and he replied "Shut up! I know a lot about motors." Being in public and making public domain requests are not even close to the same thing. Even funnier is that your example is right you are a public person when you use a public restroom. So if you don't want people to know you use public restrooms, you'd better indeed hold it. People are free to watch you go into the bathroom, take your picture as you leave, and then later report it if they choose. You couldn't exactly argue invasion of privacy if the fact you used a public restroom is posted on the internet or something.
Olberon you're once again doing what you previously accused me of, ignoring Wiki rules. You really ought to look at links like our notability guideline for stuff to cite/quote. Anynobody 03:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
AN, I am glad you got a good laugh - that was partly the point. However, you seem to be confusing "public person" and public figure. The first is a misnomer. So we should substitute "public figure" for "public person" in the above discussion. Utilizing public facilities available to the private citizen, be they FOIA or a public toilet, does not a "public figure" make. That is erroneous thinking on your part. As regards the toilet (and perhaps the FOIA), you also seem to be confusing expectation of privacy (I am not really referring to that strict legal "Open fields" sense in the link though). Of course, when a private person uses public facilities available to the private citizen, be they FOIA or a public toilet, they sacrifice a certain level of privacy. That does not make them a "public figure" either. So Schwarz is not a "public figure" by virtue of "filing public requests for information, intiating pro se litigation (also public)". Does that change your mind on those points, disregarding whether press reports have made her a public figure? As regards the press, well that is the more borderline situation. I would say clearly no, she was a private person that had a very limited amount of press coverage on her private thoughts and private activities. But I will leave Olberon to argue that with you, I just want to see you change your mind on the other points I discuss. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly your points are very coherent, but irrelevant because you appear to be operating under Olberon's belief that we are talking about Barbara Schwarz the article. (I would say clearly no, she was a private person that had a very limited amount of press coverage on her private thoughts and private activities.
In the annals of the subject's(FOIA) history Ms Schwarz has made the most requests, and has received press coverage for it. Moreover these requests are in the public domain for all to see. (That's the public aspect I've been talking about, to address your concerns about confusion of public figure/person. So essentially your argument is that public domain information is private, even after being published in the news. BTW should I assume you weren't joking about the public restroom point?)
As a result of her news coverage in regard to the above subject, she felt defamed by the statements quoted in the article. Again she chose to seek satisfaction via a method that is also documented in the public domain. She again spoke to a reporter about what she was doing, and was again published (The First Amendment Center article).
In short, I'm sorry but you can't change my mind by arguing privacy when both the person in question gave interviews AND did what they interviewed her for in the public domain. Because private thoughts become public when entered into the record, press coverage of these thoughts now in the public record makes her notable. All this as a result of private activities again in the public domain (be it FOIA or civil court) make any privacy argument sound, well... absurd. Anynobody 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Notability rules do not outrule BLP rules. Barbara Schwarz per these has a right to her privacy which you, judging your efforts, are obviously unwilling to grant her. Seems you did not understand that Justahulk was actually joking. There are specific guidelines that determine if a person is a public person or not. This is a closed cycle. --Olberon (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability rules do not outrule BLP rules. Nobody said they did, which BLP rules are being overruled? Barbara Schwarz per these has a right to her privacy which you, judging your efforts, are obviously unwilling to grant her. Being in the paper and holding e-mail interviews are not "private".Seems you did not understand that Justahulk was actually joking. I laughed didn't I? Anynobody 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It is your actions that denote your position on things, not your laughs.
Delete - An embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to
maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability,
Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be be
respected. Fred Bauder 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC) --
Keep deleted -The article and its talk page has had to be deleted
before. The subject is interesting, but any article about her (Barbara
Schwarz) soon includes nasty and controversial information that is poorly
referenced. It is a running sore and a black mark on Wikipedia's
reputation and integrity. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2007
(UTC)-
The person is an actual lawer (retired as such). I believe he knows what he is talking about. This is over! --Olberon (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
He addresses your arguments about Barbara being a public person or not. This bears direct relevancy to the other 2 articles. Your evaluation on both accounts in your latest respons obviously are incorrect. --Olberon (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And indeed as he said The subject is interesting, but any article about her (Barbara Schwarz) soon includes nasty and controversial information that is poorly referenced. where's the poorly referenced info? And again, which article is about her? Anynobody 07:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
RE the case you filed, remedy as written is vague, suggest not using each other's talk pages or interacting on other talk pages. Next time sterner measures will be taken. Both are warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying I'm being vague or the arbcom was? The advice you gave is essentially what the ruling was, which is why I posted to WP:AE because that wasn't being followed. I reopened the thread, so would you please be a bit more specific about who/what is vague. (If it's me I can certainly clarify anything.) Anynobody 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hrs. Please refer to my closing comments on WP:AE. Thanks. El_C 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'd really appreciate a chance to resolve these long standing issues as well as accusations of bad faith brought up by several editors and start a thread at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeals and requests for clarification to appeal the original arbcom finding either through them or with Jimbo Wales
Decline reason:
reason Its a 24-hour block. Come back tomorrow and you can make the edits you wish, but please do not resume the same behavior that led to this block, or it will likely be longer than 24 hours.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
but please do not resume the same behavior that led to this block I must discuss the fact that Justanother has done much more of the supposedly harassing behavior than I have in order to point out that the decsion made by the arbcom is based on incorrect information. If I can't discuss these things on WP:AE or other arbcom pages that means that there can be no appeal. Does that honestly make sense to you? Anynobody 06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
it's a 24 hour block. In 24 hours you can edit the arbcom pages, or any others you wish. Take the opportunity to sleep on it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to let go of past disputes, and avoid further entanglements with Justanother. Repeating these complaints will only lead you into deeper trouble. If you want to appeal the Arbcom ruling, use the correct venue.JehochmanTalk 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32 I really appreciate your following up, most admins don't seem to. I don't want to give the impression that I'm being emotional about this, but it's difficult to accept being blocked for discussing the specifics of an arbcom case on the WP:AE page from a logical standpoint. (If I can't discuss it there, then where? The answer would seem to be nowhere, which seems very unwiki to me.) Anynobody 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman I plan to do exactly that, which you seemed to have missed: [1]Anynobody 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
– This may not even be a complaint at all, but if it is, I will refer the complaining editor back to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, where editors' behavior is discussed. I would find it hard to justify using WP:NPA to keep people from discussing editors' behavior there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We deal with editors who's behavior ranges from outstanding to borderline anti-social, this means that it's sometimes necessary to call out bad behavior. Certainly the truth as best as we can remember, whether good or bad, should be told. However given that people make mistakes, is it considered "bad" Wikiquette to cite examples of what we mean when describing bad behavior?
For example hereJehochman says I have a long history of trolling and goading. Were our roles reversed and I was making a similar comment, I'd actually cite diff(s) so he understood exactly what I meant. (Bearing in mind that I'm not asking to actually discuss what he said about my behavior, only if it would have been better/worse from a Wikiquette standpoint to cite examples.) Anynobody 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can you explain, is this an etiquette complaint? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, this is forum shopping. My comment was made at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and was based on the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS as well as the comments Anynobody (talk·contribs) had made at the relevant AE thread.[2] I suggest that the matter be dealt with where it started, rather than igniting disputes across Wikipedia in multiple fora. JehochmanTalk 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ohhhh, now I see. This is either forum shopping, or something that belongs on the talk page of this alerts board (if it were an honest "so is this incivility?" question). Regardless, in an ongoing arbitration enforcement discussion, past behavior is obviously relevant. If this is a complaint, it is frivolous, and if it is a question, then the answer is "no." There is clearly nothing wrong with discussing the behavior of other editors at an arbitration enforcement discussion, citing examples or not. And Anynobody, this is completely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to delay an actual reply on the Wikiquette board, but I was blocked for discussing an editors past on the arbcom enforcement board. This isn't a complaint, I tried to make that clear by explaining that I wasn't even sure if there is a precedent for this kind of thing and trying to explain to [User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] that it mentions but is not about him. (Giving hypothetical situations can add confusion because it may not adequately describe the actual situation in question. As I said, I would have cited examples and it sounds like doing so would not be bed Wikiquette. (I do regret this but please understand it can be quite frustrating to be accused of such things without something to back it up.) Anynobody 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Friends
;) I've always thought very highly of you. Sorry for the late reply; my hours have been shifted, and my body has yet to compensate, so I'm not on the compy much anymore. Anyways, I've never seen that movie; is it worth renting? Cheers, SexySeaBass 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you very much :) (No problem about the reply time, I understand how life can be.) Sling Blade is a weird movie, but weird in a good way. It has just the right mix of indie and hollywood type actors. It's worth spending money to rent, or trying to catch on a movie channel. Anynobody 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Userpage
Enjoyed reading it. Thats all . --Hu12 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it's cool to hear people check it out :) Anynobody 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikisource
Hi, when will be seeing these source documents? :-) The first one is always the most difficult; let me know if you need any help over there. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I had actually forgotten about that :) When I first thought this group of 18 document images were going to be too big, I anticipated having to transcribe them. In the end I was happy with the images. Someday I may need to transcribe something though, so I'm planning on keeping the id at Wikisource but should probably change the "near future" to just future or explain I meant it in a geologic sense. :) But I do appreciate the offer, and may take you up when the time comes. Anynobody 00:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the JAL 2001 images
Thank you so much for the images :) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's no problem but you're welcome :) Anynobody 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Mentioned
I have mentioned you here. However, I suggest you not engage in any sort of debate with Justanother. It will be best for Wikipedia if you ignore Justanother, and if Justanother ignores Smee. Thank you. JehochmanTalk 14:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the notice, and would not have added my input anyway as he is convinced I'm wrong about pretty much everythingBased on what you wrote here you didn't look at the evidence I presented (the 10 or so diffs I boxed on the recent WP:RFAR thread) of how he has been doing that since Feb 07, which is why I assumed Smee signed on to the RfC with me.
I never got her to admit it, but to me it seemed like changing usernames was her solution to avoiding him after dispute resolution fell apart. Anynobody 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
. --Hu12 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
