Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

Commentary

• • The past 3 nominations were based on a faulty premise. --Justanother 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • While the current AfD is made on many faulty premises. A list of them on this Talk page may be appropriate. Orsini 07:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting observation, considering that myself and several others find the AfD itself a faulty premise. Anynobody 06:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Please do not delete my comments again. Please see my opening discussion for the answer to your question if you have a question. Thanks --Justanother 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me Orsini, I'd be happy to comment on a list like that. Unfortunately my "intuitive abilities" are telling me that creating such a list myself could antagonize Justanother. Anynobody 07:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And once again, Anynobody, your "intuitive abilities" would have failed you. I have no objection if you pick my arguments apart though I think you would get a larger audience if you did it on the main page. You need to figure out, Anynobody, that I object to your picking my motives and intentions apart. That borders on WP:PA and, besides, you are wrong. So have fun. --Justanother 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends. If he "picks apart your motives and intentions" by showing the flaws in your argument than that isn't a WP:PA. I'd think Anynobody could figure out what is an attack "on your person" and what is an attack "on your position". Wjhonson 08:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Except he has already demonstrated that he has trouble making that distinction, and not just with me. I won't bother with the diffs, we will see how he does here. --Justanother 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not; everything else does, but that's too bad. If you have it ready, I would very much welcome your list and your input. Best, Orsini 08:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled, you attribute "intuitive abilities" to me, yet doubt them at the same time. Sadly this time I fear you'd be incorrect, it's only after you were unsuccessful in defending some of your faulty premises that rational discussion ceased. Talk:Barbara_Schwarz#RFC_on_.22Biographical_information.22 At that point, I had to doubt one of the following: your neutral POV, your intelligence, your sanity, or your honor. I think you have a COI affecting your POV. To be clear: You seem intelligent, you don't seem crazy, and any dishonorable actions you might commit (note the future tense) could be explained by your desire to defend your faith (believe me that is not an insult, people sacrifice honor in the name of religion quite often without realizing it). In short, in picking apart your arguments there is a certain amount of logical error I'd want to point out. Since I'm sure you're not an idiot, I'd have to explain the gaps in logic as being overlooked by your strong POV. For example, comparing Barbara Schwarz to the "McMillan Electric Co." is a prime example of faulty logic and actually kinda hurts your argument anyway. Comparing one individual who generates more "paperwork" than an entire electric company REALLY illustrates how far she has taken her claims. Despite the fact that it's an apples and oranges comparison, (1,497 parking tickets for hundreds of individual employees is actually much less than the sum total of all the pages she has filed in FOIA requests and related pro se litigation). Anynobody 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson, see what I mean? He can't stop. --Justanother 08:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor can you... Smee 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, nor can any of us, if you want to get philosophical. But that's not what I meant (smile). --Justanother 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, Smee. This is an excellent example of Dev't. Except I won't play. You'all can, of course. It'll keep you out of trouble. --Justanother 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Still don't quite get the jargon, but I believe most of the individuals here would agree that it was yourself who had started and instigated most of the "Dev't"... Smee 09:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I think you've got it! No, the AfD is not dev't. It is something that needed to be done. Wasting your time over here in talk is dev't. I won't do it but you'all can . . . but I am kinda doing it, aren't I? I had better stop. Later. --Justanother 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am getting the hang of this "Dev't" jargon... Perhaps that is the only reason that certain editors come to Wikipedia - "Dev't" ... Smee 09:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope Anynobody doesn't stop. He raised an excellent point, and crying "He can't stop" is a pointless edit that does nothing to refute the point. Orsini 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out to anyone eles reading this that this isn't idle chatter on my part, I have created a notice on the COI noticeboard about my perception. Anynobody 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Right here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Barbara_Schwarz Anynobody 08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother don't you see that because you won't or can't address my points, I'm not in trouble? If people really thought I was just trying to goad you or be mean, I'm sure they would be warning me like crazy. I think it's fair to say that you have gone out of your way to avoid addressing these concerns. Anynobody 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about the gray header

I am curious about this header as the link on it, Wikipedia:Survey notification, goes to an "inactive" page. Please comment. Thanks --Justanother 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What is there to be curious about? Clearly it is a template that is outdated but convenient to one side of an ongoing small faction war over cult related pages which has adopted the Barbara Schwarz page as one of its battle fields. I hope it is entirely clear to anyone reading that template that it is pretty much 99.9% meaningless. While canvassing isn't particularly ethical behavior there is no way of ever knowing if the people responding to an AfD are "representative of Wikipedians". Its absurd and I find it rather offensive that someone would want us to believe its possible. That's my comment.PelleSmith 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And as if those that were actually canvassed as opposed to simply reading a post on someone's user page would take take trouble to make a clear statement "I'm here because I was canvassed and here is what I think. . . .". --Justanother 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The template Template:!vote is widely used. I was unaware that Wikipedia:Survey notification was no longer active, but the wording of the template itself is still most appropriate. Smee 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

• Please see What links here, to see that the template is still used. Smee 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I'd never actually seen this particular template before, but the extremely similar template {{not a ballot}} sees regular use when there is reason to believe that someone may (whether in good faith or not) tried to deliberately solicit participants from a specific side of the issue in order to sway the discussion. Since such solicitation is in fact counter to Wikipedia policy (not "outdated" in any way, not "99.9% meaningless") I really can't imagine why anyone acting in good faith would treat the act of placing a template alerting people to this point as if that was somehow counter to Wikipedia policy. I also find the allegations about "convenient to one side of an ongoing small faction war" extremely interesting, as it would seem to be a pretty blatant violation of WP:AGF. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All very good points. I have switched the template to the more widely used, {{not a ballot}}. Smee 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Justanother why don't you want editors to see both sides of this discussion?

Respectfully Justanother, the WP:AfD process is designed to let neutral editors vote after reviewing reasons to delete or keep an article. The idea of WP:NPOV is what putting the pro/con arguments together addresses. By moving my points about notability to the bottom, it could be argued that you don't want neutral editors to have both sides of this entire discussion. What can not be argued is that moving them is a violation of WP:AfD#AfD_etiquette which states: Don't reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count. Therefore, I will return the counterpoints to the non-notability argument to the header (under, not above, your non-notable arguments of course). Anynobody 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, do not chop up my comment. That is inappropriate. I thought actually that I had given you a more favored position. You should ask for 3rd opinions here but certainly do not chop up my comment. It distracts from the continuity. That is my comment, signed by me. You cannot edit inside it. --Justanother 03:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be falling victim to WP:OWN, you did set up the vote but you don't get to set the conditions of the vote. Editors should know both sides. Anynobody 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have all the chance you need to present your view. Just not in the middle of my comment. --Justanother 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, please self-revert and we can discuss here. Otherwise I will ask on AN/I for admin help for your rude and inappropriate action. Thanks. --Justanother 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted to WP:ANI --Justanother 04:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Posted a response comment on WP:ANI. I am not going to keep that page on my watchlist - someone please tell me if the thread continues significantly and the outcome, here on this talk page. Thank you. Smee 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Do what you have to do, Justanother. My reading of WP:AfD suggests that this is a place to discuss both the reasons to delete AND to keep. Since you initiated the AfD I didn't feel it appropriate to put the my reasons above yours, but please understand I only want editors to know all the facts as seen by both sides. Your actions up to this point seem to indicate you do not. Anynobody 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All I did was move your remarks out of the middle of mine and to a proper and prominent position. And if do not please stop your "analyzing" you may find yourself on the wrong side of a User RfC. As in "Your actions up to this point seem to indicate you do not." This is part of my good-faith attempt to get you to stop. I saw another on your user page. --Justanother 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you are minimizing your error here. If the "proper and prominent position" were the middle of the page, why was it kept at the top? Justanother, it's not really "analyzing" to see that moving relevant info about the AfD as a whole away from the top is an attempt to hide reasons NOT to delete the article. It's behavior like this that led me to believe your ability to make neutral decisions relating to your faith is compromised because your strong feelings for it cause you to be impartial. (Seriously, and I mean no offense, how can you logically conclude points made in the middle of the page, sandwiched in between votes, have a prominent position on the page? Considering that the page itself scrolls top-down.) Anynobody 06:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Because people scroll down the page and they would have seen your points last. I am fine with the current position. Have a nice night and give your "intuitive abilities" a well-deserved rest. --Justanother 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother do you support sockpuppets of banned users voting in the AfD of their own biographical article?

StrangerInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet account of The real Barbara Schwarz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I filed a report of this sockpuppet's vandalism at AIV, and thenJustanother appears there, advocating that this banned user has a right to vote in the AfD of her own biographical article. To me, this seems to be a very strange way to conduct an AfD, in which the sockpuppets of banned users can participate. Orsini 07:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I now agree with Orsini, the first two contributions didn't convince me 100% it was Ms. Schwarz. Looking at the latest contributions, they read like her posts. Anynobody 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then a report should be filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Smee 08:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Let's post it

Here is the posting, since deleted as inappropriate, from AIV. I stand by everything I said below. --Justanother 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: I did not realize there was a sockpuppet concern at the time I reformatted the post. Sockpuppets of banned users are not allowed to edit the site, period. Removal of the vote and comments from a reasonably-suspected (and I agree with the suspicion) sockpuppet of a banned user was correct—if I had believed otherwise, I would have restored the comments. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you Doug. There is a long list of sockpuppet accounts used by her, and sometimes they can be difficult to spot for those not familiar with her style. Best, Orsini 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Fair enough. I think we all know how she feels anyway and her feelings matter. --Justanother 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• SUGGESTION: - If this Banned User is a chronic abuser of Sockpuppet screennames and IP's, I am curious, is there a Wikipedia Page on this User to log all of the Sockpuppet screennames, IP's and behaviour patterns in one place, in the vein of , that is not the only page, in addition to category usage to classify abusive banned editors and their sockpuppets, I know that chronic banned users have individual pages to log them as well... Smee 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The real Barbara Schwarz - Wow, answered my own question. Yeesh, this is really, really abusive use of sockpuppets. Wow. Smee 08:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
• This is clearly Schwarz again. I've blocked the sockpuppet account. -- ChrisO 09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of edit summary

Smee has before used minor unneeded edits for the apparent purpose of simply communicating to me (or to the audience). I refer to this edit. I was going to speak to him about it here for this edit and some previous in that article but decided that it was not enough of an issue to mention. Now it is. No big thing, Smee. Just please do not do it. Your edit had nothing to do with my previous edit so your edit summary should have been about your edit (the comma), not my previous edit. If you want to talk about my edits please take it to talk. Thank you. --Justanother 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Justan has been criticized for abusive use of edit summaries in the past. This most recent one: How about we put the section break where it belongs according to the history of the AfD. Nice try. Subtle. - is highly inappropriate. I was simply creating an Arbitrary section break. In fact, I am quite fine with the way you had changed it. You could have simply said in your edit summary: "Changing section break as per history of AFD." But you didn't. You chose to make it about me somehow. In the future don't be so quick to assume... Thanks. Smee 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
  • That is because you cherry-picked where to put your new section break to maximize any positive impact it might have. You can protest all you like, that is my opinion and I stand by it. It was a nice try. And it was somewhat subtle - someone would have to look at the edit history to figure out that your new "section" should not have included the last four "Keep" votes. You were seeding the section kinda like the panhandler puts a buck in his cup so people will get the idea. But hey, worth the try, right? Anyway, if you objected to my Edit Summary then you should take it here, not misuse the Edit Summary for a comma. That is all. Just wish you wouldn't try things like that - I would love to just leave this AfD alone and let it run its course. Thanks. --Justanother 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, your assumptions were incorrect. Rather than making accusations in the edit summary, you should have taken your complaints here, and only stated in the edit summary: "Changing section break as per history of AFD." But you didn't. What you call your "opinion" is a very highly inappropriate usage of the edit summary, and it must stop. Smee 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
      • I doubt it was "very highly inappropriate" but perhaps I should have put it in a more NPOV way as in 'Moving section summary inappropriately placed so as to include the last four "Keep" votes. That could be interpreted as an attempt to influence future voters'. Yes, you are right. I should have said that instead. Sorry. I will slow down a bit in the future. Dev't done now. Had you not inappropriately placed the section break, we would not have wasted all this time. Suggest giving it a rest. I see it every time. Later. --Justanother 18:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Could the two of you please stop tearing chunks out of each other? Wikipedia is not a battleground. It's not helping anyone, frankly. -- ChrisO 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Roger that. --Justanother 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I will simply reiterate that: "Changing section break as per history of AFD." - would have been fine, and I would have been okay with the changes if it had been phrased politely. We're done here. Smee 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Justanother would you please explain why you changed positions on notability?

You once thought the article was notable. I'm sorry to keep at you with questions, but did your change of opinion have anything at all to do with how you view Scientology? Anynobody 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's Nomination Statement states: "Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion."

However Justanother has stated with regards to the subject's notability: "I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements." I hope Justanother can please explain this incongruity in his AfD which he says he brought in good faith and without any conflict of interest on his own part, where the subject suddenly went from being notable to being non-notable in the space of a few weeks? Orsini 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Munchausen syndrome

The determined abuse of higher consensus-building processes (Afds, noticeboard reports, etc.) is analogous to Munchausen syndrome: persistently presenting symptoms which have been deliberately induced (in oneself or in another person—see Munchausen syndrome by proxy) rather than seeking attention in legitimate ways. I do hope Wikipedian tolerance for ongoing disruption by Dufour, Justanother, et al. is nearing the zero level. — Athænara ✉ 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Psychobabble. I thought it was a joke when you placed this babble on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I got a smile out of it but I do believe now that you take yourself seriously. And what is your anal-ysis of the good number of editors that agree with me that the article does not belong here or the good number of editors that believe that the article does belong here but I make arguments worth addressing? Hmmmm, Dr. Wiki? Is this a new Wikipedia Policy called Assume Mental Illness? --Justanother 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, the apllicable Wikipedia policies are called WP:POINT and WP:DE. Please read them carefully. Opinion is less than 30 percent in favor of deletion, and there is little consensus for this disruptive and inherently flawed AfD. I agree completely with Athaenara's assesment and comments. I also hope the Munchausen syndrome passes away quickly. Orsini 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"I agree completely with Athaenara's assesment and comments." Now there is a surprise. Laff. --Justanother 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The same principles were used to form statistics... so more than psychobabble, a word that makes me more certain about the corner of the world this controversy comes from Alf^Photoman 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my user page to have the great mystery revealed (cue music). --Justanother 12:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. One of my hobbies is to study everything people believe in so this was self-evident Alf^Photoman 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well good. That is one of my hobbies too. I saw a Buddhist monk sitting in Barnes and Nobles the other day, walked over, introduced myself, mentioned that I was a Scientologist, and we had a very nice conversation. I hope that your study includes more than the study of internet misrepresentation of Scientology because that would only be a study of what critics believe about Scientology. If that is all you want to know then you can probably stop now as your comments indicate that you already know what they believe. --Justanother 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Alf, sorry if I came on too strong. I was adding your first remark here to my misunderstanding of your reply to jpierreg on the other page and coming up with an opinion of you as biased against Scientologists that might well not be true, and that I would not have made had I not misunderstood your reply to jpierreg. --Justanother 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did the stuff go I just wrote?

Did Justanother delete it?

Anyway, Barbara Schwarz is currently threatening to sue me over my website religiousfreedomwatch.info and because she says I receive money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting. If I had no idea who this lady was, I would be worried. Because of this Wiki page and Google it is very easy to find out the lawsuit has no merit. That's why you need to keep this Wiki page.Paulhorner 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)