This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) page. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 then Justanother 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)
Here is the posting, since deleted as inappropriate, from AIV. I stand by everything I said below. -- Justanother 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
KadyOHalley ( talk contribs) is another suspected sockpuppet of the banned The real Barbara Schwarz ( talk · contribs). After this sockpuppet was embarking upon the the same behavior which saw the puppetmaster account banned, that of revealing the personal information of edits in violation of WP:HARASS policy, I removed the edit after tagging the account as SPA and left disclosure of the fact on the Projet page.
Justanother then reverted those edits in full and suggested that as I was not an admin, I had no right to remove this sockpuppet's edit. The inappropriate edit was again removed and an disclosure left on the Project page. Below are the citations for these edits.
I believe it is appropriate to note these events on this page. Orsini 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I really would like to know what changed your mind. Everybody is entitled to change their mind, so I don't want you to think I have a problem with it. Anynobody 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your position now:
Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination): I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google "most parking tickets" most+"parking tickets"[1] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.
I omitted the USENET part because that is not her primary claim to notability, in my mind it'd be tertiary. What I am curious about is how you arrived at this position from here:
I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements. Of course, the only real reason she is here is because some editors here have an agenda to discredit Scientology so the fact that this poor woman was once associated with Scientology and that Scientology plays a prominent part in her delusions and her internet abuse guarantees her a nice long article here going into considerable depth to the non-notable parts of her story. I, as a Scientologist, could care less about her having an article (and I wonder what part the "deprogramming" played in here current condition, but that is beside the point). As a human being, the nature of the article is somewhat offensive to me in its purpose, and "need" to drive home her illness in every single section.
I guess the meat of my question is, what changed? Anynobody 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
to this:"I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements."
All cleared up for you now? Glad I could be of service. -- Justanother 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable."
I stand by that and I stand by my nomination. So you now have everything you need from me to pursue any recourse you think appropriate. I am not backing down one inch. Take it or leave it. That is my final statement on the subject unless you come up with the seven-part mini-series Barbara Schwarz - Legend of the Legal System or the Time Magazine Special Commemorative Barbara Schwarz Issue. Or anything more notable than "local filler in a small handful of outlets." Please let me know if you do. -- Justanother 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Barbara Schwarz does not meet notability standards for an encyclopedia. and she did not even meet the much lower newsworthiness standards for more that a few local outlets despite one story apparently going out on the Associated Press (AP) wire, a cooperative tool for filling up newspapers and airtime. Were she truly noteworthy, the AP story would have been picked by perhaps hundreds of member and non-member news organizations. There is no evidence that her story showed up as more than local filler in a small handful of outlets.
Justanother you keep telling us WHAT happened, we all understand that part. Maybe it's our fault for not being clear, to help I've prepared a couple of links to two archived versions of the Barbara Schwarz article. This is an archived version of this page as of 22:53, 17 February 2007 just before you started editing, around this time was when you said the article met basic notability standards. This is an archived version of this page as of 04:39, 11 March 2007 when you added the AfD tag. The wording of the article has changed a bit, but the news sources were the same throughout. Why did the sources you found to be acceptable around 20 February cease to be sufficient on March 11? I saw your statement in the edit summary, how are we to WP:AGF with you if you keep being so evasive? Anynobody 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that these responses are your way of saying nothing changed about her notability. Do you realize that your first edit was to move the fact that she is/was a Scientologist from the opening sentence? Anynobody 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that prompted another question. Are you saying that in your view, local media is no longer a valid indicator of notability? Anynobody 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong to anyone else but you. I'm hoping that you'll see the way you've arbitrarily ignored a concept like WP:N to pursue the course you have here and realize that if all editors were allowed to do the same thing, Wikipedia would break down. I am not advocating the AfD be removed, at this point to do that would be advocating censorship. I do look at the votes, both sides of them. I sympathize with those who feel this article is insulting to her, but respectfully disagree with those who say she is notable or non-public. I also note that the resounding majority seems to be in favor of keeping the article, as they have in the past 3 AfDs. If you won't acknowledge your behavior in proposing an AfD without making new points violates WP:CCC, you must see that community sentiment hasn't changed. Anynobody 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are offended, Justanother. I honestly can't think of a way to describe what you did by putting up the AfD without making new arguments. I invite you to read WP:CCC which states:
This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss.
I believe that your actions are exactly what the section "Asking the other parent" is describing. To be clear, if the previous AfDs had been closer to even, I would have no issue with you bringing up the subject again. The AfDs in this case were strongly in favor of keeping, one even resulting in a Speedy Keep, which does not indicate an evenly divided community. Anynobody 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm not making asinine accusations, I just saw this page is now different and not this one. I've seen you delete a lot of stuff here and was just asking a question. All you had to say was something like, "please refer to the 'edit history' section", which I will do from now on. You're tone with me is not acceptable even on Usenet. Paulhorner 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) page. |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 then Justanother 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)
Here is the posting, since deleted as inappropriate, from AIV. I stand by everything I said below. -- Justanother 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
KadyOHalley ( talk contribs) is another suspected sockpuppet of the banned The real Barbara Schwarz ( talk · contribs). After this sockpuppet was embarking upon the the same behavior which saw the puppetmaster account banned, that of revealing the personal information of edits in violation of WP:HARASS policy, I removed the edit after tagging the account as SPA and left disclosure of the fact on the Projet page.
Justanother then reverted those edits in full and suggested that as I was not an admin, I had no right to remove this sockpuppet's edit. The inappropriate edit was again removed and an disclosure left on the Project page. Below are the citations for these edits.
I believe it is appropriate to note these events on this page. Orsini 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I really would like to know what changed your mind. Everybody is entitled to change their mind, so I don't want you to think I have a problem with it. Anynobody 02:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your position now:
Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination): I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google "most parking tickets" most+"parking tickets"[1] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.
I omitted the USENET part because that is not her primary claim to notability, in my mind it'd be tertiary. What I am curious about is how you arrived at this position from here:
I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements. Of course, the only real reason she is here is because some editors here have an agenda to discredit Scientology so the fact that this poor woman was once associated with Scientology and that Scientology plays a prominent part in her delusions and her internet abuse guarantees her a nice long article here going into considerable depth to the non-notable parts of her story. I, as a Scientologist, could care less about her having an article (and I wonder what part the "deprogramming" played in here current condition, but that is beside the point). As a human being, the nature of the article is somewhat offensive to me in its purpose, and "need" to drive home her illness in every single section.
I guess the meat of my question is, what changed? Anynobody 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
to this:"I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements."
All cleared up for you now? Glad I could be of service. -- Justanother 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable."
I stand by that and I stand by my nomination. So you now have everything you need from me to pursue any recourse you think appropriate. I am not backing down one inch. Take it or leave it. That is my final statement on the subject unless you come up with the seven-part mini-series Barbara Schwarz - Legend of the Legal System or the Time Magazine Special Commemorative Barbara Schwarz Issue. Or anything more notable than "local filler in a small handful of outlets." Please let me know if you do. -- Justanother 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Barbara Schwarz does not meet notability standards for an encyclopedia. and she did not even meet the much lower newsworthiness standards for more that a few local outlets despite one story apparently going out on the Associated Press (AP) wire, a cooperative tool for filling up newspapers and airtime. Were she truly noteworthy, the AP story would have been picked by perhaps hundreds of member and non-member news organizations. There is no evidence that her story showed up as more than local filler in a small handful of outlets.
Justanother you keep telling us WHAT happened, we all understand that part. Maybe it's our fault for not being clear, to help I've prepared a couple of links to two archived versions of the Barbara Schwarz article. This is an archived version of this page as of 22:53, 17 February 2007 just before you started editing, around this time was when you said the article met basic notability standards. This is an archived version of this page as of 04:39, 11 March 2007 when you added the AfD tag. The wording of the article has changed a bit, but the news sources were the same throughout. Why did the sources you found to be acceptable around 20 February cease to be sufficient on March 11? I saw your statement in the edit summary, how are we to WP:AGF with you if you keep being so evasive? Anynobody 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that these responses are your way of saying nothing changed about her notability. Do you realize that your first edit was to move the fact that she is/was a Scientologist from the opening sentence? Anynobody 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that prompted another question. Are you saying that in your view, local media is no longer a valid indicator of notability? Anynobody 04:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong to anyone else but you. I'm hoping that you'll see the way you've arbitrarily ignored a concept like WP:N to pursue the course you have here and realize that if all editors were allowed to do the same thing, Wikipedia would break down. I am not advocating the AfD be removed, at this point to do that would be advocating censorship. I do look at the votes, both sides of them. I sympathize with those who feel this article is insulting to her, but respectfully disagree with those who say she is notable or non-public. I also note that the resounding majority seems to be in favor of keeping the article, as they have in the past 3 AfDs. If you won't acknowledge your behavior in proposing an AfD without making new points violates WP:CCC, you must see that community sentiment hasn't changed. Anynobody 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are offended, Justanother. I honestly can't think of a way to describe what you did by putting up the AfD without making new arguments. I invite you to read WP:CCC which states:
This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss.
I believe that your actions are exactly what the section "Asking the other parent" is describing. To be clear, if the previous AfDs had been closer to even, I would have no issue with you bringing up the subject again. The AfDs in this case were strongly in favor of keeping, one even resulting in a Speedy Keep, which does not indicate an evenly divided community. Anynobody 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm not making asinine accusations, I just saw this page is now different and not this one. I've seen you delete a lot of stuff here and was just asking a question. All you had to say was something like, "please refer to the 'edit history' section", which I will do from now on. You're tone with me is not acceptable even on Usenet. Paulhorner 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)