• • The past 3 nominations were based on a faulty premise. --Justanother 05:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • Fair enough. I think we all know how she feels anyway and her feelings matter. --Justanother 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, 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).[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
• This is clearly Schwarz again. I've blocked the sockpuppet account. -- ChrisO 09:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of the same user appears, makes harassing edits, and Justanother restores the edits

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 tag the sockpuppet for edit history [1]
• My disclosure and removal of the edit [2]
• 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" [3]
• I removed the edit again [4]

I believe it is appropriate to note these events on this page. Orsini 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef and abusive info removed

• DIFF. I wonder if it is inherently vandalism in and of itself to restore such abusive material? Smee 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

No worries. It will be interesting to see what the Admins think over at WP:ANI... Smee 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • Roger that. --Justanother 18:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• But Justanother, it does not clear up this matter since your nomination statement is wrong, as can be seen when the list of citations in the article are examined. She had had more than two articles written primarily about her, and the articles were not merely filler for a local Salt Lake paper. The Salt Lake Tribune article of May 2003 was placed on the AP news-wire and appeared elsewhere. Nor are the newspaper articles about her FOIA quest her sole claim to notability. Why do you exclude to mention the other two newpaper articles and two online newsletters meeting WP:RS when assessing the amount of primary coverage she got in the English speaking news media? Please explain why you will not count these articles. Orsini 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see anything that would make me change my mind again. Maybe there is a deus ex machina just waiting in the wings, though. If it shows up I will consider it but for now I am comfortable with my reasoning. --Justanother 06:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still doesn't answer the point that your second statement above, on which this AfD is your cited basis, is wrong: "Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. The media coverage citied in the article has been pointed out to you on many occasions. So I am furiously trying to assume good faith and presume you have made an major error, since if I didn't, I would have no other choice but to conclude you are lying. Orsini 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I wrote the nom I believe that we had two print sources in local papers (Oregonian and Salt Lake) and one local TV station. I wrote my nom to reflect that. I think another local print source or two has been uncovered since? Like I said, not anything to make me consider her notable, simply slightly newsworthy. Horse rescued from ditch gets more coverage. --Justanother 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the other two articles were cited all along. They were clearly cited in the talk page archives after much discussion in August 2006. In fact, User:ChrisO told you her media background went back over 20 years, when you agreed she met "the barest minimum of notability requirements" in the edit cited above. If you had spent as much time reading the archives and researching the subject at that time as you did supporting the attempts by User:BabyDweezil to bully User:Tilman from editing the article with a nonexistent COI issue because he answered the questions you both put to him (and in doing so, pointed to WP:RS citations you both didn't like) you would have known this. In any event, you should have read the article's Talk page archives before beginning the AfD process, and especially before writing your Nomination Statement. Did you read those archives? It's your responsibility to get it right and to make sure your AfD has legitimate premises, and Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) does not. Orsini 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry to disappoint you Orsini, but it is not my responsibilty to muck about in talk page archives. I am permitted to evaluate the article as presented at the time of the AfD and that is what I did (and after working with the article for 10 days). If others know of other material then they can incorporate it into the article and/or mention it in the AfD discussion. I could care less, Orsini, about your concepts that I should have added as many barriers to the process as needed so as to dissuade myself from filing the AfD. I did my due diligence. I did not make a career out of Schwarz as some apparently have. And if you feel that I did not do my due diligence then you can take any remedies that you care to. But being a WP:DICK about it with me will not be one of the more fruitful avenues. --Justanother 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Justanother, as I have stated from the beginning, this disruptive AfD is based on faulty and misleading premises. To use the process properly, your premises for arguing for deletion must be factually correct, and here, they're not. If the premises are manufactured and unsupported by evidence, it points to an abuse of process. Please see and read the policy for recurring AfDs. Due diligence includes properly researching the article's Talk page archives before nominating articles for deletion. When the faulty premises are removed from this AfD, it leaves only two reasons I can see for the article being nominated: 1. editors with a strong pro-scientology POV view it as an embarresment to scientology; and 2. the subject doesn't like it. Neither of these reasons are valid grounds for deletion. Orsini 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is what I said after a bit more minor press coverage was unearthed and I placed it prominently beneath my nom statement:

                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.

                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)[reply]
                • The additional press coverage was noted all along; it wasn't suddenly unearthed, so this premise is flawed and shows a failure to carry out due diligence. The issue of her notability for inclusion in Wikipedia was answered by three previously AfD debates, and a far wider community consensus in this AfD still favors keeping the article. It is noted also the community is becoming fed up with those pushing to remove the article by abuse of consensus-building processes. Trying to make the article painful enough to Wikipedia that it is deleted is abuse, and doomed to failure. Orsini 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I hardly think you speak for the community, Orsini. --Justanother 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nor do you. Nor does any one individual... Smee 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • Please don't continue in this manner, please answer how the sources you found to be acceptable around 20 February ceased to be sufficient on March 11. Orsini 03:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Seriously then, Anynobody and Orsini. It was like a bright light went off in my head. "Wait minute" I thought, "this is bullshit. These press references are nothing more than local filler in a small handful of outlets. She is a private person making public requests for private reasons. She doesn't belong here." I tell you, guys, it was like an OBE. Wow, I am so glad I've gotten that off my chest. I am so relieved. Was it good for you, too? Anybody want a cigarette? Does this mean we are friends now? --Justanother 04:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Justanother, please see WP:BITE and behave civilly. Orsini 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
  • That is true, Mr. Smee. But he continued with his abusive bigoted comments against me. I don't need you to agree with me, Smee. So go ahead now. Your turn. --Justanother 03:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was simply clarifying. And I would suggest that you separate "abusive" from "bigoted" - it has been shown that there are other Scientologists that also do not agree with your behaviour here on Wikipedia and think it is disruptive. Not all who think you are a disruptive editor are "bigots"... Smee 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Yes, Mr. Smee, I always know that you always stand ready to "help". I am just talking about Paul's comments here so what is your point? That one fella doesn't much like me because I called him on calling someone else a "wikinazi" and this fella made sufficient immature attacks on me to finally earn himself a 24-hour block? So what? Sheesh, Smee, you must have a lot of time on your hands. --Justanother 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As do you....... Smee 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • God knows I don't. Later, Mr. Smee. --Justanother 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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).[reply]