Talk:Barbara Schwarz/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Older Discussion

Just a question, why are the older discussion links at the top of this talk page only available to admins? .V. [Talk|Email] 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory about that, .V. [Talk|Email]. This article has been the subject of serious edit warring in the past, disruption by Ms. Schwarz and her sock-puppets, as well as intervention by User:Fred Bauder + other admins. I theorize those older admin only archives are just there to keep them easily at hand for any future admins finding themselves here. Anynobody 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Anynobody's correct answer: if I recall correctly, Barbara Schwarz violated the privacy of several Wikipedia editors, made repeated personal and libelous attacks upon several editors, and made repeated legal threats to Wikipedia and Jimbo Wales. These are all in the restricted archives of this Talk page. Orsini 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The talk pages were deleted due to such remarks. Fred Bauder 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Disruption by sockpuppet accounts of banned user

Come on, admit it, if she would no Scientologist, this article never would have been written. She files a couple of FOIA requests and files some lawsuits,(big deal - NOT) mades some claims of which she admits she has no proof just memories, and you guys go all gaga about it. If you read about her memories, you think she must have some wrong memories. But your obsession witht her that makes one wonder if there might be indeed some truth to her story. Flamenco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flamenco2007 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 March 2007.

FYI -- The above comments were left by banned user Flamenco2007 (talk • contribs • count), believed to be a sockpuppet of Ms. Schwarz. Vivaldi (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A few FOIA requests = Thousands
Some lawsuits = Dozens. .V. [Talk|Email] 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What I think is ironic is that the people who want to use Barbara to get back at Scientology are only hurting their own cause by making themselves look bad. Steve Dufour 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely be editing this article if she were not a Scientologist, anyone who files the amount of pro se litigation she has is notable. She has filled much more than "a few" requests, here is a link to some I found with a quick Google search of .gov domains. This is just a fraction of her cases.
Moreover her experience being "deprogrammed" seems noteworthy too for it's own reasons. Personally the idea of forced deprogramming is a euphemism for kidnapping, but some people seem to think it's a good idea. I understand that Ms. Schwarz still considers herself a Scientologist, I guess it didn't work. (If she hadn't been a Scientologist, I'm assuming they'd be trying to deprogram her for some other reason)
Your point about there being difficulty telling between truth and memories is quite correct. That's why I personally have endeavored to only mention memories that are also addressed in court papers. I do not believe that ALL of the information in her autobiographic series merits inclusion here for exactly that reason.
I don't think "people hate her guts", honestly I think they mostly feel sorry for her. Nobody wants to go down in history for doing something perceived as madness, regretfully though it is often those people who are very notable . Anynobody 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
If this article is really about Barbara, not about Scientology, then I propose that we use my consensus version, [1], which gives the basic facts about Barbara including her past membership in the CoS and her lawsuits against it. Then the people whose real interest is not in Barbara but in Scientology could get on with their lives. Steve Dufour 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Essentially you want to remove the Scientology infobox and any reference that she was president of the German CoS? (Regarding the Scientology aspects of her history). Anynobody 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The infobox should be removed because the article is not about Scientology. The fact that she was president of the German CoS is not notable. The information had to be dug up. No published source says that her holding that office was important. Steve Dufour 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying that those two items related to her association with Scientology are the only references to Scientology you would remove? I'm open to discussion on those points, but removing any mention of Scientology would be unacceptable in my opinion. (It'd leave pretty big gaps) Anynobody 07:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In my version of the article I left in the info that she was a former member of CoS, that she FOIA filed for information on the CoS, Rathbun, and Hubbard and that she sued the CoS. These were related to her only possible notability: her FOIA requests and her lawsuits. Steve Dufour 08:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD is live!

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I did not want to take my wiki-break without starting this. I am only going to notify one editor in the above discussion that specifically asked that I do that. If anyone else wants to notify others then please be very very sure that you comply with WP:CANVASSING and make a very simple statement that a new AfD has been opened without any other statements as to its nature. And be sure you tell everyone or tell no-one. Thanks and enjoy! --Justanother 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is no longer live. The result of the 4th AFD discussion was 'KEEP'. Vivaldi (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well at least this one got a fair hearing and the result was decidedly different. How many "deletes" in the first three AfD's combined? --Justanother 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean signed, non-SPA, votes. --Justanother 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The other AfDs were fair hearings too. They were all listed on the AfD board just like every other article that is nominated for deletion. You did get some votes for deletion, which I don't find to be that unusual considering that you spent considerably more time writing the nomination that the previous editors. Your nomination was written better as well. In any case, perhaps we can focus on making the article better for another few months, until someone inevitably renominates. Vivaldi (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A fair hearing means that the correct arguments are presented in a clear manner. That is all I did and that is what explains the difference. --Justanother 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully , many of the editors who commented in the previous three AfDs addressed your concern about notability. (Actually the very first vote of the first AfD went directly toward notability as you'll see below.) I don't know if you read many of the comments left by editors who voted to keep, but here are a few examples from each of the three previous AfDs of notability discussion, starting with the very first comment:
1st Afd
  • keep totally notable! Brighterorange 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just happened upon her while researching FOIA requests. Utah Court of Appeals ruled against her and evidence presented supports the Wikipedia article, here is a link to the article [1] Barbara is a notable figure in various courts throughout the United States and her contibution should be noted here. --Frankcoop 10:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable in the FOIA scene. Also notable in that she is a major player in the Alt.Relgion.Scientology scene, which is clearly a point of interest given that A.R.S. also has its own entry. She is a curious facet of our modern times, and many, many internet denizens know of her and refer to her, which would cause others to seek her out on Wikipedia. There is no good reason to delete this page; unless you are Scientology, or Barbara Schwarz. Databind() 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
2nd Afd
  • Speedy keep. This figure meets the notability criteria set forth by WP:BIO. We cannot delete articles from Wikipedia based upon unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks posted on Usenet. Bill Gates comes to mind right now. Hall Monitor 16:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep the article appears to report facts from the public record. it does not draw any conclusions on her mental state, although a reader might draw such conclusioons. Then person appears to be notable. Assuming that the sources support the facts alleged (which i have not double checked personally, but I strongly suspect that they do) this is a completely proper articel and should remain. DES (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
3rd Afd
  • Keep Someone might look this up; it seems to be far enough on the notable side to keep. --DanielCD 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject appears to be notable enough for encyclopedia in context of history of Scientology and perhaps the FOIA. Users such as Steve Dufour may have concerns about the neutrality of the article, but deletion nomination is the not the proper channel to address this. Use the talk page and neutrality dispute tags. Make verified, well-sourced edits to the article. Bwithh 03:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)*
When I said you haven't brought up anything that hasn't been addressed in the previous AfDs, quotes like these are what I meant. Many editors used notability arguments to trump concerns about it being an attack article. Anynobody 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, there were mentions of notability in the previous AfDs. But, in my estimation, a true and fair discussion of the issue was overshadowed by the wrong premise nominations and the fact that a better case was not made for deletion. I felt that I could make that better case and I did and a sizable portion of the respondents agreed with me and a number of those that did not agree with me acknowledged that I was justified in bringing the AfD and that I made valid arguments that they just did not happen to agree with. So the AfD is over; and I acknowledged on the closing admin's talk page that the consensus was "Keep". So what. Move on, please. I have. --Justanother 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've actually kept Barbara Schwarz on my watch list because I think there is more work to be done here. Justanother, if you've "moved on" why are you still trying to justify your reasons for creating the fourth AfD? Saying "OK, there were mentions of notability in the previous AfDs." is actually a bit of an understatement considering it was the notability of the article that was cited by most of the editors voting to keep. It makes a separate AfD on the subject of notability seem superfluous. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm stuck on this, but my posts here have all been replies. If you do really want to move on, perhaps you should consider not making new posts on the subject. If you had not made posts I disagree with, I would not have replied. As long as you continue to post here on this subject, I will probably continue to reply. Anynobody 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh puleese, Anynobody. So long as you feel compelled to continue to attack my putting the article up for AfD, I reserve the right to respond. Move on means "it is over, move on". Why are you continuing to harp on the fact that mine is the minority position. I cannot tell you how many times we have seen Smee and other critics to be in the minority position, usually all by themselves, when it comes to inclusion of some bit of non-RS, POV material. I have shown Smee to be in the wrong time and again but you do not see me following him around say "See, you were wrong about those letters to the editor at Philip Gale; comeon, admit you were wrong, nanny nanny boo boo". I just ask that Smee stop his disruptive edit warring when such disputes arise. As far as you, Anynobody, if you have some actual dispute with me then you may address it on my talk page but only to the degree that we are addressing a dispute. --Justanother 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm really trying to understand how you could see my disagreement with your assertions as both an attack and me following you to an unrelated page to discuss this. This is a section about the AfD on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, an article which I was actually editing before this all started. If you truly believe that I am "attacking" you by responding to your comments here, perhaps you are too sensitive to continue editing. I will certainly not be the last person who disagrees with you, and are bound to encounter more "attacks" from editors who do not agree with you. I say this because you've accused me several times of attacking you or someone else, and thus far you have been the only one to make the accusation. If I WP:AGF with you, I have to assume you really feel attacked when disagreed with. If you are "just saying" it then I must ask you to stop, for your own good. Making false accusations is a Petty violation of WP:CIVIL, here is a quote:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

  • Rudeness
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap") or saying "move on" in your edit summaries since it's also mentioned
  • Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
  • Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
  • Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.
Which is also what your comments about the recent AfD being "...a fair hearing and the result was decidedly different." You are implying that both the previous AfDs were unfair and that the decision this time was also. I honestly think you are wrong, and am trying to explain to you why the past votes were fair and that this decision was too. In the three prior discussions over 50 people stated that the article's notability outweighed the possibility of the article being perceived as an attack, if you re-read the keep comments you'll see what I mean. So I cannot agree with your assertion that a "fair" discussion about whether or not the article is notable enough to keep even though it's notability had been deemed enough to override other concerns. Anynobody 02:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I said: As far as you, Anynobody, if you have some actual dispute with me then you may address it on my talk page but only to the degree that we are addressing a dispute. --Justanother 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would it be appropriate to move this discussion to your talk page? I'm not talking about your behavior in general when addressing your reason for creating the AfD. When discussing aspects of the AfD, this is clearly the best venue.
If you are referring to my statement about what you see as an attack that would be appropriate to take elsewhere if you want to discuss it further. However you have previously demanded that I stop posting on your talk page when you lost interest in discussions about disputes, so I'm a bit skeptical as to how helpful it would be. I'm still willing to try. Anynobody 03:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have a dispute with me then you can address it on my talk page. I have told you that numerous times. As far as here, what "aspect" of the AfD is unclear to you? I think the article should go away. A number of other wikipedians agree witrh me. A larger number feel it should stay. So it stays. What is so mysterious about that that you cannot seem to stop writing about it? --Justanother 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the only mystery is why you keep trying to justify the AfD, and I'll be as concise as possible in explaining.
  1. You start a discussion on this page suggesting it for AfD because it lacks notability.
  2. I tried to explain to you that notability had been established by the comments in three previous attempts and suggest your view might be hindered by a biased POV.
  3. You say I'm attacking you and ask me not to post on your talk page.
  4. I set up a RfC so others could comment on the issue.
  5. You had an involved admin delete it and set up the AfD arguing the article should be deleted for lack of notability.
  6. The AfD reaffirmed her notability.
  7. You try to explain here that you felt the previous requests and the recent result are unfair.
  8. I responded to your assertion by disagreeing.
  9. You accuse me of stalking and attacking you here.
  10. I explain that a disagreement is not an attack, and that I was editing here first so I couldn't have followed you.
  11. You said you don't understand why I keep writing about it.
I'm writing about it because you are writing assertions that are untrue about the AfDs conducted here. Specifically your claim that notability had not been addressed until now, which is most certainly not true. What you did actually was contrary to WP:CCC, and WP:DP. I can't let your comments rationalizing why you did what you did go unanswered, especially if they are implying unfairness of the AfDs. Anynobody 04:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said:

OK, there were mentions of notability in the previous AfDs. But, in my estimation, a true and fair discussion of the issue was overshadowed by the wrong premise nominations and the fact that a better case was not made for deletion. I felt that I could make that better case and I did and a sizable portion of the respondents agreed with me and a number of those that did not agree with me acknowledged that I was justified in bringing the AfD and that I made valid arguments that they just did not happen to agree with. So the AfD is over; and I acknowledged on the closing admin's talk page that the consensus was "Keep". So what. Move on, please. I have.

and

As far as you, Anynobody, if you have some actual dispute with me then you may address it on my talk page but only to the degree that we are addressing a dispute.

There is really no reason for you to continue posting here on this topic, Anynobody, but luckily for me, all I need to do is copy and paste as I have already addressed your issues. --Justanother 11:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel the need to repeat yourself, you don't think the AfD process has been fair. You appear to want that point to made very badly, and it probably seems to you that I am interfering and should not be. If you think that, you would be right about the first part.

Rather than cutting and pasting, I'll do you the courtesy of reminding you about what I've said all along. I think that your point about how unfair the first three AfDs were is based on your inherently biased POV concerning Scientology. When a group of editors reject a call for deletion with remarks like:

*keep totally notable! Brighterorange 14:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

in the numbers Smee pointed out below, insisting on a separate argument about notability after NOT making any new points makes no logical sense. It does make emotional sense if one considers that the requester has strong positive feelings about an aspect of the article, in your case Scientology.

Whether you personally approve of it or not, Ms. Schwarz's actions have made her a notable subject in American legal history. People who don't care one way or another about Scientology may find themselves looking for information about her legal odyssey. There are also people who will use her against the CoS and ridicule her, which is both unfortunate and wrong. It is also unavoidable, there will always be people who misuse information. We are not supposed to concern ourselves with such people, if we did an article like: Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't exist. Anynobody 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal tallies
  1. AFD - 36 Keeps, 8 deletes.
  2. AFD - 20 Keeps, 2 deletes, one none vote.
  3. AFD - 17 Keeps, 1 delete.
  4. AFD - 55 Keeps, 17 deletes.

This was a rough count, scrolling through mind you, but fairly accurate. Smee 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Paternal Granddaughter

Actually Wjhonson the way I understood the difference of the two terms Paternal and Maternal to break down like this:

Paternal = father's side (Paternal granddaughter = daughter of son of father/mother)

Maternal = mother's side (Maternal granddaughter = daughter of daughter of father/mother)

Removing the entire paragraph seems a bit hasty because if you were right, Ms. Schwarz would be the maternal granddaughter of Dwight D Eisenhower and would require a one word change to correct. Anynobody 05:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Paternal means "of my father". If she were the "paternal granddaughter" of Eisenhower that would mean, that since L Ron is her purported father, that L Ron himself would need to be the son of Eisenhower. I'm sure she does not believe that L Ron is the son of Eisenhower. So it must be that she believes that her mother is the daughter of Eisenhower. Wjhonson 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually she really would be the paternal grand daughter, 99-4016 Schwarz vs CIA. Sorry to nitpick.

"(3) her father, L. Ron Hubbard, who she alleges is the son of President Eisenhower and from whom German Nazis kidnaped her at an early age and forced her to live in Germany; ..." Anynobody 06:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. I've corrected my correction and cited it now to your source. I did a "quick cite" feel free to enhance the citation. Wjhonson 07:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not a problem, I've made similar mistakes here before. Honestly, when it comes to her ideas regarding her past, assumption is the mother of all mistakes. (I'd assume that one wouldn't get arrested for merely lingering with their salad in a restaurant. According to her it happened, but since it's not in the FOIA stuff it shouldn't be in the article, I only use it as an example that rational assumption is not something one can safely do regarding Ms. Schwarz) Anynobody 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wjhonson, I have expanded your citation. Sued the CIA and NSA and both reached to very high courts, which probably established some caselaw... Intriguing... Smee 07:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Links

Since I Wikified these for use on the AfD, here they are: More links to government resources. (Rather there they are in the article itself) Anynobody 07:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of links, has anyone seen this?!? Trodel/Barbara Schwarz Anynobody 07:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As you can see, the first five words were problematic, and this edit (if I recall correctly) began the edit war and the BLP concerns. For the most part however, that is a copy of the original article just before it was vandalized and blanked, while the current version was re-created from scratch. Orsini 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely we can use his/her sources though? I saw a Schwarz v Clinton in that list...Anynobody 11:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I guess I shouldn't be as surprised as I am, but she sued President Clinton? Schwarz v. Clinton, 96-9254, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 837; October 6, 1997 Anynobody 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And her dentist. See Archive 8 for the list. Best, Orsini 11:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What if we delete the commentary (what we have now is better, I agree) and use the page as a list of references? That amount might quash future notability concerns, but is too much to include on the main article page. Anynobody 11:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, actually I think it will look better in the end as prose/paragraph formatting. It will not take up too much space - the citations are in small formatting at the bottom, and we could have a new subsection about only notable individuals and agencies sued by Schwarz, backed up by reputable sourced citations. Smee 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
  • One moment, formatting, adding material and citations ... Smee 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Some media citations

  1. Getting at public records tests intent of new law, Asbury Park Press, 13.3.2005
  2. Utah woman without rival in pursuit of public records, The Oregonian, 3.5.2004
  3. E-mail at heart of battle, The Deseret News, 23.8.2001
  4. S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System, The Salt Lake Tribune, 11.5.2003
  5. 'Neutral reportage' privilege recognized, rcfp.org (The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press), 11.5.2005
  6. Utah appeals court backs reporting privilege, First Amendment Center Online, 14.6.2005
  • As of now, the 1st and 4th are already cited in the article. Anyone know of an (online) resource for some interesting material/blockquotes for the other reputable secondary source citations that could be added to the article? If someone personally has ahold of some of this info, but not online, you could post a few relevant blockquoted portions here below, and I could add it to the article in citation formatting... Smee 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Update: - I see that Citation number 6 is already in the "Further reading" section. I will grab material from this reputable secondary source article, delete it from that subsection, and cite it somewhere in the main body of the article... Smee 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Found citation number 5, will add to the article with material, reputable secondary sourced citation... Smee 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Added, now twenty citations present in article, article expanded much since AFD posting ... Will try to find the other secondary reputable citations... Smee 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
          • Added citation, material from reputable secondary source, The Oregonian. Smee 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Could use quotation from secondary source...

  • Now the only source I need to find is:
  • I'll see if I can find it in some sort of online news database somewhere... Smee 17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Where in Germany/when was she really born?

In order to keep away from between the divide of information and defamation, perhaps we should consider a minor rewording. We really should include that information if it is known, or at least mention that we don't know the real facts. (It seems disrespectful to "play along" and criticise at the same time.) Please read these two examples and tell me which one sounds more academic:

  • She says she was born in a secret submarine base in Utah, USA.

AND

  • She says she was born in a secret submarine base in Utah, USA. Her actual place of birth is unknown except that she has a German birth certificate.

Anynobody 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where she is actually born is irrelevant. We should report that she says she was born in a submarine base in Salt Lake City and we should also report that a federal judge called her a German Citizen. Let the readers decide for themselves who is a more believable source. We shouldn't make conclusions. We just need to provide reliable sources for the information. Vivaldi (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, according to her autobiography on the Usenet: August 31, 1955: born. (part 78) Grew up in Deggendorf, Bavaria. (part 90). They are not WP:RS of course since these accounts fail WP:V WP:VERIFY. A "Chronology" appears in Archive 10. As to what should be added to the article, I concurr with Vivaldi. Orsini 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How do they fail V? They are by her, and about her. V only says we should be able to find the source and verify what that source says, it doesn't say the source has to be factual. Wjhonson 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You do know about the exception for self-published material about yourself in your own article? Wjhonson 08:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly; I am aware of the exception. In part, they fail WP:VERIFY because she is not a completely WP:RS and we have no independent means to verify her date of birth. It should be noted the Chronology in Archive 10 is part OR as it was compiled from statements extracted from her posts on the Usenet. Please read Part 78 and Part 30 for yourself and this will clarify for you what I mean as "part OR". For example her contention in her published accounts is that her date of birth (as stated) is incorrect, preferring to insist upon the Hubbard relationship and the submarine base delusion, and so on, despite her mother (whom Schwarz claims was not her mother) providing her with letters from a hospital. The WP:RS account is where she states she remembers being born in the US, and that her German birth certificate is "suspicious" since no place of birth is stated on it, and I believe these claims are reliably sourced in some of the cited court documents. Her search for her "real biography" forms the basis of the FOIA quests. Although the biography and German birth and background she wrote about and wants to deny is the more logical account, there isn't any reliable source to confirm it. It is also difficult to justify putting it into the article when she wrote about her German background and parenthood to say "this is what they tell me, but it's all lies" and basically denies what she was told by her mother was true. (Reading the whole of the 90-plus part series was a laborious task I did some time ago, so please note I am stating here what I remember of it without going through it all again, oh boy). Regards, Orsini 09:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you object to adding a sentence like, "The details of her actual birth are unknown."? Most articles on here seem to address actual details (in a general way), even when unknown. (We all know she wasn't born in a submarine base under the great salt lake.) Anynobody 07:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemer. Wjhonson 07:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But to the point, yes we should say both. Quoted and cited. Wjhonson 07:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An infobox has been added since the last edit here, and only naming her country of birth seemed incomplete given the rational explanation Ms. Schwarz denies. I've used the footnote section to note she disagrees with the information without going into specifics about what she really thinks happened. Anynobody 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Litigation

I re-worded some of this section to more neutral POV, and added a citation for the case which had the 3,087 defendants and 2,370 pages. Merely stating she did this in "one complaint" isn't good enough. Orsini 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Photograph removed

I have removed a photograph which was added to the article, as I believe it may constitute a copyright violation. Please note image was sourced from a site containing a copy of the Salt Lake Tribune article, and this site was originally linked to the article to cite this article. As may be noted in the Talk page archives, it was determined to be inappropriate to link the SLT article from this site for reasons of copyright, and I believe the same principle applies to the image. Orsini 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I put a fair use disputed tag on the image itself, and left a message on DennyColt's talk page. Smee 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Thank you Smee. Orsini 00:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize we weren't linking to the mirror SLT article so will DB self the image for now, and mail SLT for an OK. if they give it, I'll reupload the image then with an email authorization from them. thanks! - Denny 01:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, thank you Denny, please do keep us posted on this one... Smee 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

If she is such an important person why has nobody snapped her picture? Steve Dufour 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune did. --Tilman 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply from SLT

Just now, upon 2nd emailing...

From: Tim Fitzpatrick
Subject: Re: Feedback: Barbara Schwarz photo for Wikipedia
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:59:05 -0600
To: xxxx

Mr. Colt,
I'm sorry. The photo you are seeking is not available for reprint.

Tim Fitzpatrick
Deputy Editor
The Salt Lake Tribune
cc: Tom Baden

The SLT pic is not usable thus... so, another will be needed... - Denny 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info box

Does she really need one? Also, it is fair to say her occupation is president of the German CoS when she only did that for 11 months? Steve Dufour 11:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The infobox was requested on the talk page. And her occupation is denoted properly, as "former". It is notable. Smee 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
The job must pay pretty well if she is still living off of her wages 20 years later. :-) Steve Dufour 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The box can list current and former occupations, there is plenty of room. Please do not use sarcasm. Smee 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Generally I will try not to. However, it is hard not to when discussing the alleged "notability" of Barbara. Wishing you well as always. Steve Dufour 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. You are more gracious than some... Smee 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

The infobox says "Spouse: Marty Rathbun[1]" As there is no proof of this other than Barbara's fanciful (according to the US courts) claim, should it be "Spouse: Alleged to be Marty Rathbun" Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing this out, will change it.... Smee 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
    • There is a difference between the free-form nature of the article and the limited, structured nature of the infobox. In the article, we can cover Barbara's beliefs appropriately, affirming that yes, she believes them, but that there is no supporting evidence and no one else who has shown any signs of believing these things, and that US courts have deemed the claim "fanciful". We don't have the space to do that in the infobox, however, so I do not think we should list any spouse in the infobox, since we have no generally credibly claimed spouse. I'm also removing the citation next to this claim since the reference in question does not assert that Rathbun is Schwarz's spouse or even that she claims this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Antaeus Feldspar, mentioning her belief that she is married to Rathbun seems inappropriate for an infobox. Perhaps we could list spouse as "Disputed", but if we address issues regarding marriage in the box shouldn't we also include her ex-husband? I don't know his first name off the top of my head, but I thought that's how she got the name "Schwarz". Anynobody 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Circa 1979, she married Jürgen Schwarz in Markgroeningen, Swabia, Germany according to her autobiographly in part 35, see [2]. According to information supplied by User:Tilman Jürgen Schwarz is treasurer of scientology Germany [3], and president of Dianetik Stuttgart e.V. [4][5]. Based on her description of their duties in the 90-plus part autobiography, I believe this Jürgen Schwarz is Schwarz's former husband. However the Rathbun reference should be removed from the infobox for the reasons Antaeus Feldspar and Anynobody have stated above. Orsini 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I found what I think is a better infobox. The previous one was for celebrities, I just can't remember her maiden name. Orsini can you help me out, I know it started with a B. Anynobody 02:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's Bretschneider. Anynobody 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming they are divorced and I really shouldn't be, do we know when/if that happened. (I figure even if she didn't file for divorce Jürgen Schwarz probably wanted to move on with his life.) Anynobody 04:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A little confused

The first sentence of the Litigation section: Public records searches failed to confirm Schwarz's statements, which government officials have characterized as "fanciful". What statements are we talking about? I'm trying to improve the language of the article, but I hit a snag here. - Crockspot 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it to mean her statements that Eisenhower was Hubbard's father, she was born under the Great Salt Lake, and Marty Rathbun is being held somewhere for her murder. Anynobody 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot, you could try rewording it to be more accurate:

Public records searches failed to confirm Schwarz's assertations about her biographical background, which government officials have characterized as "fanciful".

Perhaps something along those lines may help? With your experience, you might find better wording than in my suggestion above. The original text was changed from the word "claims" to the word "statements", after someone waged war on weasel words (such as the word "claims"). Her biographical claims about the submarine base and being Hubbard's daughter etc are all claims which have no factual basis and are politely described as "fanciful". It is worth noting that nearly all the claims she makes are fanciful and are unsupported by any evidence, e.g. Schwarz's claims that NCUA employees work secretly for the German Nazi Secret Service by hearing through microchip middle ear implants. Orsini 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not getting the progression from her claims to the public records searches that failed to confirm them. Who did the searches? She just said this stuff, and people scurried to do public records searches? What am I missing? - Crockspot 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, please take a look at the example provided by Orsini here Schwarz's claims that NCUA employees work secretly for the German Nazi Secret Service by hearing through microchip middle ear implants. It is a response from the NCUA addressing her requests. It also might help to take a look at FOIA to get an idea how it works, but your example of her asking and people scurrying is close. Anynobody 04:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Crockspot: you are correct; she just said this stuff in her FOIA requests; government employeees scurried to do public records searches as they are required to do under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (the FOIA [6]); and when they came back with no result or results conflicting with her delusions, she sued them. Please see "Schwarz v. Federal Bureau, et al, Civil Action No. 00-2758(JDB), United States District Court for The District of Columbia". [7]:

Plaintiff received varying responses from the offices. Generally the response was to ask her to provide privacy waivers from individuals other than herself, and to inform her that the office had no responsive records and that no inquiries or subpoenas had been received from any independent or special counsel.

and

Some offices described the records systems that had been searched, prompting plaintiff to complain that the offices had failed to search other records systems.

Further:

She claims that the offices provided wrong information when they say she has never been of investigatory interest to the FBI and had not been the subject of electronic surveillance. She refuses to accept a response that the office has no such records and than it will not search for records on Mark Rathbun or his parents without a privacy waiver.10 All such responses are attributed to the German Nazi conspiracy. For example, plaintiff asserts that the Pittsburgh office "misinformed Mark Rathbun, his family or their attorneys (sic) or the independent or special counsel having no records on me so that they don't get hold of me as witness and to obstructjustice." Compl. at 20; see also Compl. at 50 (Louisville Field Office, defendant 22). In some instances, a "no records" response provokes an allegation that the office simply did not conduct any search. See, e.g., Compl. at 38 (Phoenix field office, defendant 18) (plaintiff asserts that the requested subpoenas exist and the office is "deliberately withholding them from" her); Compl. at 41 (Cincinnati field office, defendant 19); Compl. at 46-47 (Newark field office, defendant 21).

Finally:

Defendants essentially contend that plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted because her numerous FOIA requests are based on the fanciful premise that Mark Rathbun is illegally held as part of a Nazi conspiracy. Defendants argue that the allegations that agencies deliberately failed to search for records or purposely concealed records are conclusory and without any "rational facts" to support them. Memorandum in Support Of Motion to Dismiss ("Memorandum") at 11. They point out that the agencies conducted legally adequate searches despite plaintiff's objection that many searches were inadequate because the entity did not search every office and every system of records.

(boldface, underlining, and italics in all blockquotes above added by me for emphasis) I hope this answers your question. Regards Orsini 04:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand now. Will try to clarify that i|n the text. - Crockspot 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've worked through the entire article and improved wording where I thought it needed it. (I didn't verify sources, this was just a readability pass.) The one thing that bothered me was the constant repetition of "she says is her husband" at least a half dozen times, to the point of even replacing his name in a quote with "her alleged husband". It's mentioned in the intro, and the first section. Anyone reading further gets it, and the constant hammering home of the point gave the article an accusatory tone. I also don't think that the word "claim" is unneutral, if used in the proper context. I believe I have used it in a neutral way. Anyway, I was against this article existing, but if we're stuck with it, I figure it should at least be a good read. I hope everyone feels that it's an improvement. Crockspot 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Did a quick pass through your copyedits and they look good. Smee 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
I think you did a great job, Crockspot. The article reads better, and I followed the in pro per link through to pro se and listed this article under the list of famous pro se litigants. Anynobody 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Crockspot, I concurr with Anynobody and Smee. Well done. Thank you for your contribution despite your own personal feelings; a true demonstration of NPOV. Orsini 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Schwarz Reveals Shocking Information reference link to Google fixed

A likely sockpuppet of Barbara Schwarz pointed out that the reference link to the Google archive of her 92 part series was broken. I responded:

Here you go: Barbara Schwarz Reveals Shocking Information. I replaced the reference link to Google with this one. Sorry for the trouble, Anynobody 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Anynobody, I replied to you about this issue on my Talk page but it appears there is more to this matter than first thought; it seems the 92 part series (or rather the 91 part series plus the never posted Part 24) is being gradually deleted from Google Groups. It is clear now the sockpuppet was trolling, since the same URL links appear in both the Faxor post and in the post you cite and so the trolling is to let us know she is deleting her posts. Should the fact the autobiography posts were deleted be added to the article? Regards, Orsini 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's worth mentioning for a couple of possible reasons. Either she came to her senses, or she was trying to sabotage the article. If it's the former, that'd definitely be worth adding (but doesn't change the fact that her past makes her notable). If she's trying to sabotage the article, all she's done is remove her perspective which itself seems worth noting too. Anynobody 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a key reason why usenet posts and self-published sources make poor sources. If the posts vanish, we have no choice but to scrub the article of anything that referenced them. Further, to even note the deletion would be original research, unless that observation could be attributed to a reliable third party source. Now maybe it is a little clearer why I supported deletion of this article. It is built in large part on a house of cards that is now collapsing. - Crockspot 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is rubbish. The existence of the 92 part autobiographical series on USENET is supported by valid secondary sources. Much of the information in the posts is also confirmed by the newspaper story and by reading the contents of the 90+ court cases that were cited in the article (and on the talk page) at one time before Fred Bauder decided to make the history only available to admins. And in any case, there is no reason to get rid of a source just because one particular Internet link to that source is disappearing. Google does not maintain the sole archive of alt.religion.scientology posts.Vivaldi (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the above contention. In my experience google groups posts live on in archives. I would be surprised if there isn't an archive somewhere that Barbara of course, cannot touch that has backed up the group. Wjhonson 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Google will delete your posts from the archive, if you ask them to. From one of the google help pages: "you may (1) request removal of a message that you have Posted yourself or (2) prevent archival of your message. (For more information about preventing archival, please see our FAQ.)" Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
She has also left pieces of the story in several places, here's what I've found so far:

Part 5 Anynobody 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind people that Wikipedia policy specifically says not to remove references even if the reference link goes dead. Noting that the link is now dead? That's fine. But it's very clear that references should not be removed just because the reference link has gone dead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I've been looking at what Wikipedia says about references and can't find anything about leaving in dead links to references. I'm not saying you are wrong but could you point me to where it says that? It seems a bit, dishonest referencing something that isn't there. Anynobody 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Before any more gets taken down, let's make sure that we have the original message-id of each part we are referencing, rather than just the Google Groups URL; that way if a non-Google archive became available the reference could be checked with the original message-id. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me Antaeus Feldspar, the links stay. It looks like the part we really need is part 92. If I recall it correctly the final installment was a kind of summary. I think that Wjhonson's suggestion about archived data on the sites involved could be the way to go on this. Anyone know the best way to do this? Anynobody 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[posts from sockpuppet of a banned user removed]

It's not a big deal, unfortunately all she did was remove her side of the story. We still have plenty of resources from the gov't and news sources. Anynobody 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I reworded the reference to explain that the posts were removed by her. Anynobody 05:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Older Discussion (pt 2) Why do we keep blocking her?

(I mean nothing against you Antaeus Feldspar as your actions were completely correct and there was no context for you to offer this time anyway.)

I realize that this may sound like an obvious question, but my conscience has caused me to want to know. Would an administrator mind digging up some of her more atrocious edits, sanitize any personal information, and post them here? My recent experiences on Wikipedia have taught me that even if the action is correct it can seem cruel to those who don't know what caused her banning in the first place. Were this any other article I wouldn't care, but to a newbie a post like this without context looks disconcerting. [posts from sockpuppet of a banned user removed](I REALLY mean nothing against you Antaeus Feldspar as your actions were completely correct and there was no context for you to offer this time anyway.) Say what you want about her mental health; She evidently has access, time, and motivation so we are going to keep hearing from her. (Again I know that the stuff she did was a big no-no so I understand why it's necessary, it'd just seem more open to remind her and us why she has been banned and save ourselves the headache of having to deal with any potential "Crusaders for Schwarz's right to speech!". If they knew what she said in the first place, I doubt people would be that sympathetic. Anynobody 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible - I believe the edits in question were removed from the database some time ago at the instigation of Fred Bauder, one of the arbitrators. See [8] - it doesn't seem to be retrievable even with admin privileges. -- ChrisO 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking though, ChrisO I appreciate the effort.

I guess that makes sense, can't be too careful with personal info. Still she was uncivil to a lot of editors in the accessible archives, yourself included. Could some of those be possibly sanitized and used as I mentioned (I'm not asking you to do that since I can get those archives, my question is do you think the idea is worth any effort?) Anynobody 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I submitted a proposal once for a formal redaction system so that in cases of extreme misbehavior as much evidence could be kept visible for public consumption as possible, for maximum transparency. The way it would work is that the unacceptable portions of an edit would be replaced by a formatted placeholder using a checksum of the removed text as a parameter.
For instance, suppose that in version 135792468 of a page, ObviousSockPuppet tried to reveal personal information of another editor:
Why would anyone listen to RandomEditor, whose real name is John Doe? Call him on his cell, 212-555-1234, and tell him how much you hate him!
An admin seeing this edit would go in and pull that page version from the history. The admin would calculate checksum values for "John Doe" and "212-555-1234", and replace those passages in the text to produce something like the following:
Why would anyone listen to RandomEditor, whose real name is {{redacted|crc="1A5B64F7"}}? Call him on his cell, {{redacted|crc="5E2305AC"}}, and tell him how much you hate him!
The edited page version would then be reinserted into the page history.
Using this approach, anyone could look into the page history and see that yes, ObviousSockPuppet did indeed try to reveal another editor's personal information. Those who already know what ObviousSockPuppet tried to reveal can calculate the checksums of the redacted passages themselves and verify indeed that it was not just harmless text that was removed. But those who don't already have the personal information can't get it from the checksum.
I still think this is a good idea. Unfortunately, either I submitted it in the wrong place or at the wrong time because I never got any response at all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea too. Maybe a suggestion here at Wikimedia is the way to go? We really ought to show interested people why editors are/were banned without compromising privacy. Anynobody 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Schwarz was permanently banned from editing here because she has threatened lawsuits against Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, other editors, and admins. Until she agrees that she does not intend to initiate lawsuits she cannot be allowed to edit here -- that is the official policy. Her other behavior, namely exposing what she believes to be the personal information about anonymous editors, was just another reason for the banning. In order for her to be reinstated, she'll need to agree to follow the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Just because she is a persistent vandal and abuser doesn't mean she should be rewarded for her bad behavior. She has to follow the same rules that every other editor must follow. Vivaldi (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose section updating tag: Barbara Schwarz and Wikipedia on talkkpage

This may sound bold, but we should mention her efforts to remove and/or sabotage the article.

  1. She has amassed a rather large list of sockpuppets to evade her block.
  2. She deleted her biography in an attempt to sabotage one of the references.
  3. Her behavior is consistent with her abusive behavior elsewhere, as mentioned in the article.
  4. She seems to think we are publishing lies about her, when we've mostly posted what she sued for.

It could also perhaps serve as an explanation of why she is blocked. Anynobody 05:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea. Wikipedia frowns on being self-referential and secondly I don't think you can show any secondary sources that indicate her behavior on Wikipedia is notable, unlike her behavior on USENET and the court systems which have been documented by many newspapers and other sources. Vivaldi (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point regarding the article. I guess my post gave the impression I meant to post it there, but I meant updating/expanding the tag at the top of the talk page describing her attempts to edit here. Sorry for the confusion. Anynobody 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.