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

message: **The past 3 nominations were based on a faulty premise. --Justanother 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Wjhonson, see what I mean? He can't stop. --Justanother 08:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor can you...  Smee 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'd never actually seen this particular template before, but the extremely similar template  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)
replies: text: All very good points.  I have switched the template to the more widely used, .  Smee 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the gray header 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Justanother|Justanother]] why don't you want editors to see both sides of this discussion? 

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

text: The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 
;User-reported
*  suspected sockpuppet of banned user User:The real Barbara Schwarz currently disrupting an AfD discussion of her biographical article. Orsini 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
**: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)

text: Thank you Smee for taking the matter over there.  I am not sure if this is vandalism or not, however it is certainly inappropriate behavior and show of bad faith, since the reason for the deletion was clearly disclosed.  It appears the Project page is having work done on it as well, as I cannot access it right now or see its history.  Best, Orsini 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  It will be interesting to see what the Admins think over at WP:ANI...  Smee 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Justanother|Justanother]]  do you support sockpuppets of banned users voting in the AfD of their own biographical article?  

message: Here is the posting, since deleted as inappropriate, from AIV. I stand by everything I said below. --Justanother 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 
;User-reported
*  suspected sockpuppet of banned user User:The real Barbara Schwarz currently disrupting an AfD discussion of her biographical article. Orsini 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
**: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)
thread_title:  Let's post it 

message: KadyOHalley (talk contribs) is another suspected sockpuppet of the banned .  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 tag the sockpuppet for edit history 
* My disclosure and removal of the edit 
* Justanother restores the edits, stating "Orsini of the 14 edits - you are not an admin and you do not get to remove anybody's postings. post it on ANI if you need help from a real admin" 
* I removed the edit again 
I believe it is appropriate to note these events on this page.  Orsini 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Smee for taking the matter over there.  I am not sure if this is vandalism or not, however it is certainly inappropriate behavior and show of bad faith, since the reason for the deletion was clearly disclosed.  It appears the Project page is having work done on it as well, as I cannot access it right now or see its history.  Best, Orsini 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  It will be interesting to see what the Admins think over at WP:ANI...  Smee 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sockpuppet of the same user appears, makes harassing edits, and [[User:Justanother|Justanother]] restores the edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate use of edit summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I came to believe exactly the points I argue in the AfD. So please refer to the AfD if you want to know why I changed my mind. --Justanother 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, that is easy. I changed from this:"I agree that she meets the barest minimum of notability requirements." to this:"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."All cleared up for you now? Glad I could be of service. --Justanother 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I get it. I think it because I had my pacifier taken away from me by my father because he thought it was immature. I tried to suck my thumb but they put some nasty tasting stuff on it. One time, I remember we were at my Aunt Nancy's house and one of her kids had a pacifier so I took it. My mother . . . Hold on. I have to do something. I will continue when I get back. --Justanother 03:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Local media is media, yes. See WP:N, WP:BLP, etc. I've made my decisions. You are free to come up with your own. This AfD process right now can help us see some other opinions. Why not go over and look over the "Delete" votes again to see how others see it? Obviously difference of opinion of what goes in this project is possible. Doesn't make one of us "right" and the other "wrong". AfD is a discussion. I think that this one is interesting and a strong case is made for "Delete". You would say that a strong case is made for "Keep". That is OK. It is not a voe; it is a discussion. Anynobody, I hope these words help you with your fixation that you need to prove me "wrong". It is not as black and white as you might like or think. --Justanother 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to prove that you are wrong to anyone else but you. That is offensive, Anynobody, after I have already heard your arguments and rejected them. So all you are doing is beating a dead horse, wasting everyone's time, and upsetting yourself needlessly. That is my point. Give it up, man. If another editor does not agree with you then you point them at the policy, explain your interpretation, maybe a bit of discussion, and then you leave them to their, in your opinion, misguided ideas. If they then continue to edit inappropriately, in your opinion, based on those misapprehensions then you follow standard WP:DR procedures, you do not incessantly fixate on proving them wrong to themsleves, you let the community help you. But you are not taking that path and it, in my opinion, is not good for your state of mind. I am really trying to help you out here, Anynobody. --Justanother 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving someone to their own misguided (in my opinion) ideas is not a problem for me, unless such misguided ideas form the basis for an abuse of process.  On the contrary, Justanother; it is several people now who have heard your arguments and rejected them as being valid explanations.  Encyclopedias exist to coldly record facts, not to twist them, or make them up to support a POV.  Her notability led to her media coverage, not the other way around.  Orsini 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Justanother|Justanother]] would you please explain why you changed positions on notability? 

message: 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 </font>  ✉  08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "I agree completely with Athaenara's assesment and comments." Now there is a surprise. Laff. --Justanother 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  AlfPhotoman 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my user page to have the great mystery revealed (cue music). --Justanother 12:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the tip. One of my hobbies is to study everything people believe in so this was self-evident  AlfPhotoman 13:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Munchausen syndrome 

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't be silly, Paul. Just look at the edit history to see who did what instead of making asinine accusations like Did Justanother delete it? That is what I mean when I say this is not Usenet; this is not your personal website. One important policy that you will want to totally understand is WP:AGF because you, my friend, are off to a lousy start. --Justanother 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that was an asinine accusation when taken in toto with the tone of all your remarks to me since you arrived here. I left a clue on your talk page. Take it or leave it. I am used to all kinds. --Justanother 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, please see WP:BITE and behave civilly.  Orsini 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orsini, when an editor comes here loaded for bear against one particular religious group and he finds the sole member of that group that edits here and promptly unloads on him; as in here and many equally inappropriate if less suggestive remarks; I think that we can safely forego WP:BITE. But you can keep trying to make me look bad, Orsini, don't let me slow you down. I love interacting with you. --Justanother 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, you know Paulhorner is a poster to the Usenet and you also know there are rules about civil behavior on Wikipedia, while there are none on the Usenet.  I agree his past comment was inappropriate, and as Smee points out, he apologized for it.  Still, that is no justifaction to bite new or inexperienced editors and behave in a non-civil way yourself.  Not every editor who cites your behavior as inappropriate is an "anti religious extremist," "bigoted", or even anti-scientology; it is more from a viewpoint derived from your observing your own conduct and patterns of editing.  As the good editor you like to say you are, you should have directed Paulhorner to use the edit history function of which he may have been unaware.  Not all editors know the extensive processes and admin processes which govern Wikipedia.  Orsini 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this is rich. I am not talking about "every editor", I am talking about one specific anti-Scientology extremist. New users do not generally ask for assistance by starting off with an asinine accusation against another editor. Pu-leese. I gotta run now but you'all can keep bad-mouthing me in my absence. I'll look at it all later. Promise. It is really important to me (laff). Later --Justanother 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justanother, you've been asked to stop making personal attacks like "one specific anti-Scientology extremist".  Please stop this, and argue about the quality or otherwise of edits, not about the alleged character of editors, if you must.   Orsini 04:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a joke, right Orsini. His site is scientomogy.com. I detect in the uncharacteristically gentle nature of your post that even you are having trouble arguing this with me but feel that you simply must go through the motions (now, how is that for psychobabble? Closer than some I've seen, I'll wager.) I do not think my characterization of him was exaggerated. Actually, it is mild. --Justanother 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No joke is being made, Justanother.  Please cease your personal attacks and address the misleading and false premises in your AfD, instead of persisting in this side-show.  Orsini 
*It should be noted that Paulhorner instantly removed that edit from the page himself, and then apologized for it.  This apology was then accepted at the time by Justanother.  Smee 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did the stuff go I just wrote?

message: *I realize that this is not a vote, but I count about 19 deletes, and 53 keeps.  How does this amount to "no consensus" ?  Smee 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus?