User:Orsini/Sandbox


 * This is a draft only.

I wish to cite User:HResearcher for violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, involving repeat instances of -


 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusations of impropriety
 * WP:CIVIL - threats
 * WP:NPA - accusations of bias
 * WP:CIVIL - baiting, taunting
 * WP:NPOV - pursuing a POV agenda to omit facts meeting WP:V standards
 * WP:CIVIL - wikilawyering / wilful misinterpretation of policy
 * WP:AGF - constant failure to assume good faith by other editors
 * WP:DISRUPT - disrupting Wikipedia to pursue a POV agenda
 * WP:VANDAL - vandalism of discussion on Talk pages to support a POV agenda

Overview
User:HResearcher and a number of other editors contrbuting to the Barbara Schwarz BLP discussion are unable to reach consensus, based on User:HResearcher's behavior.

The problems began with this article when User:HResearcher removed what he claimed was poorly sourced negative source material, however the source was an published newspaper article appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune about the subject. This publication meets the standards of a reliable source under WP:V policy.

This action led to a previous edit war over the article, after User:HResearcher deleted the source reference and the opening paragraph of the original article. User:HResearcher was blocked for violation of the 3 revert rule.

Since then, the article has been stubbed and restarted after User:HResearcher's vandalism of the page.

However the subject of the article, a scientologist, has attempted to get the article deleted by various means. The article originally formed part of the Scientology controversy series of articles, and the well-sourced information in the article related to the subject's reasons for notability may not present scientology in a manner acceptable to it. The subject was a former executive in it and forms one part of the subject's notability, which is mainly related to extraordinary numbers of FOIA requests and the associated litigation. The subject's FOIA requests involve senior scientology figures.

The subject does not wish the article to appear in Wikipedia, and it appears to me there is an vested and coordinated interest by others with a pro-scientology POV to have the article removed. It appears to me also this user has an agenda to have the article deleted by using means of WP:DISRUPT, after 3 AfDs have failed, and now other means are being used towards that goal.

User:HResearcher appeared to be working with [User:Steve Dufour]] at one time towards the goal of deleting the article, in bad faith. Please see this edit below.


 * Thank you. Keep up the good work.Steve Dufour 06:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. my mention of the db-attack tag was a hint. :-)

More recently User:HResearcher has appeared to pursue an agenda in the article biased towards the aims of scientology, by repeating uncited allegations of illegal psychiatric detention of the subject by the German government, and focusing on the failed attempted deprogramming of the subject by a notable figure in criticism of scientology. There is consensus about including the deprogramming attempt in the article, however there is no consensus for the claims of illegal psychiatric detention of the subject by the German government.

User:HResearcher's background involving the Barbara Schwarz article
After User:HResearcher was blocked for violating the 3 revert rule, it appears HResearcher tried to misuse the WP:BLP policy (regarding the immediate removal of poorly sourced negative information about the subject of an article) to justify those actions. This led to User:HResearcher removing warnings from the talk page and making a series of uncivil edit summaries and comments.


 * WP:CIVIL "the admin who blocked me and the troll who came an concurred with the abusive admin"

This block reflects badly on the admin who blocked me and the troll who came an concurred with the abusive admin. HResearcher]] 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)




 * WP:CIVIL - uncivil edit summary

Revision as of 06:12, 2006 August 6 (edit) HResearcher (Talk | contribs) (?Incorrect block - removed troll comment)




 * User:HResearcher warned by Cúchullain about edit warring


 * I dropped the blocking admin a line, but engaging in edit warring is not appropriate, even if you think you were right. In the mean time, you should review the page in question and see if there's still any problems; someone seems to have added better citations.

Cúchullain t/ c 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:TALK - removed policy violation warning notice

Revision as of 06:34, 2006 August 6 (edit) HResearcher (Talk | contribs) (cleaning up after William M. Connolley)



DO not remove this notice from my page, I want it kept for documentation purposes. I have removed the category from the subst'd template. --HResearcher 08:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)




 * User:HResearcher removes a personal attack warning


 * WP:VANDAL Removal of personal attacks

xx== No Personal Attacks warning ==xx HResearcher, your edit here is viewed by me as a personal attack. Wikipedia has a policy against this. I would encourage you to read up on the policy at WP:NPA. You have a mistaken belief or assumption that I want the Barbara Schwarz page to exist in order to defame or cause harm to Ms. Schwarz. That is incorrect. I want the article to contain only verifiable information about things that are notable about her. Your accusation that I am "acting strangely" is uncalled for. I'm giving you this warning now in the hope that you will change your behaviour on Wikipedia and immediately cease from engaging in personal attacks. Vivaldi (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Note: no admin unblocked me even though my actions were supported by policy WP:BLP You removed properly sourced material and you were blocked for violating the policy of Wikipedia that is meant to prevent people from engaging in revert wars. The information was continually readded and you were pointed to sources for each of the claims that were included in the article. And still, you cannot justify any of the deletions you made. Numerous editors can still point you to the sources. Can you name a single claim that wasn't supported by a verifiable source? Even one? Vivaldi (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removal of notice from Talk page WP:VANDAL

Vivaldi discovered User:HResearcher removing a warning notice

WARNING: Removing warnings from your user page Please do not remove warnings from this talk page. Doing so in the future will be considered vandalism. Vivaldi (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * After removing material from Barbara Schwarz article - WP:VANDAL

LOL, you've got to be kidding me. :D I suppose you would call my next action "vandalism". --HResearcher 07:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * User:HResearcher cited for removing warnings showing abusive personal attacks


 * WP:TALK
 * WP:VANDAL

(edit revision)

Revision as of 07:48, 2006 August 22 (edit) Vivaldi (Talk | contribs) (user is removing talk page warnings showing abusive personal attacks. Reinstating the warnings.) 


 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation of fact (false accusations of wikistalking)

Revision as of 07:50, 2006 August 22 (edit) HResearcher (Talk | contribs) (user:Vivaldi is wikistalking me) 


 * User:HResearcher cited for removing warnings about policy violations

Revision as of 10:29, 2006 August 22 (edit) Vivaldi (Talk | contribs) (removing talk page warnings is vandalism. further attempts to cover up your policy violations will result in an escalation of this matter.) 


 * User:HResearcher cited for uncivil edit summary


 * WP:CIVIL

Revision as of 10:40, 2006 August 22 (edit) Vivaldi (Talk | contribs) (uncivil edit summary noted.) Newer edit ? 

User:HResearcher's allegations against me
User:HResearcher has cited me for an uncivil edit summary and I conceded this edit summary may have been inappropriate, although for the reasons stated on my user Talk page, I still believe the edit itself was as I described it.

User:HResearcher has also cited me for making a personal attack, although it should be noted User:HResearcher wasn't sure to whom this alleged "personal attack" applied to.

Other serious allegations User:HResearcher is making are that I am submitting original research and failing to cite references in discussions. I believe these allegations are without merit.

Basis of my dispute with User:HResearcher
The cited edits below were made by User:HResearcher primarily on  Talk:Barbara_Schwarz and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, and one edit cited below by User:HResearcher was made on my user Talk page.


 * Incident [1]


 * WP:NPA - "Vivaldi is acting very strange (animosity). He has been using the article as an attack page for more than a year now"

Steve, can you look at the talk page. I'm trying to get the information about Barbara Schwarz' involuntary psychiatric treatment into the article. To me this is notable and apparently it has drawn a lot of attention as it occured in Germany. I'm waiting for some sources on this, they will have to be translated from German. Anyway, can you please help on the discussion page. Vivaldi is acting very strange (animosity). He has been using the article as an attack page for more than a year now and still seems more interested in cherry-picking information that supports his agenda rather than writing about some notable events such as the involuntary psychiatric treatment and a deprogramming attempts by Cyril Vosper. By the way what ever happened to the EL33 person? I haven't seem him/her around for more than a week now. --HResearcher 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [2]


 * WP:CIVIL - Baiting

Have you found anything positive to say about her based on usenet postings or are only the negative things important? --HResearcher 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [3]


 * WP:CIVIL - Threats

(this edit below was made shortly before off-Wiki smears began attacking User:Fred Bauder)

LOL. I think the facts she may present aren't the facts you'll want to be seeing. --HResearcher 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [4]


 * WP:AGF - "..the tone being presented by certain editors...."

Whether or not we have enough information to justify an article is not the question. The issue was violations of WP:BLP and the tone being presented by certain editors who seemed to have an agenda. --HResearcher 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incidents [5] / [6] / [7]


 * WP:CIVIL - baiting
 * WP:NPA - accusations of bias


 * You seem to be biased against Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 03:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)



(next comment after an explanation)


 * WP:AGF - "You're (sic) intent seems to be to discredit ..."
 * WP:CIVIL - baiting
 * WP:NPOV - makes a statement of unsupported POV, not fact: "I found postings of Barbara Schwarz with reference to legal documents, yet you keep insisting that Schwarz has no credibility." (note User:HResearcher is participating in the same type of "original research" that the same editor dismisses when it conflicts with that editor's own POV)
 * WP:DISRUPT – makes unsupported statements to disrupt discussion

You're intent seems to be to discredit Schwarz. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to discredit living individuals. I found postings of Barbara Schwarz with reference to legal documents, yet you keep insisting that Schwarz has no credibility. 

(HResercher's reply after a long reply and explanation regarding legal documents)


 * WP:CIVIL - baiting

We're talking about the involuntary psychiatric treatment. Note the header "Involuntary psychiatric treatment". --HResearcher 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [8]


 * WP:CIVIL - baiting, taunting

(in response to User:Vivaldi after HResearcher asked about 20 year old German newspaper articles and Vivaldi replied)

What are you talking about? --HResearcher 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [9]


 * WP:NPOV - pursuing a pro-scientology / personal POV agenda

Tilman's sources said nothing about the unlawful incarceration, they mentioned the Deprogramming, but the subject of the sources Tilman provided were mainly anti-scientology. --HResearcher 00:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [10]

Antaeus Feldspar, please don't make any claims or speculations or arguments which may affect how we or outside readers may view Barbara Schwarz' status in the United States unless you are going to provide citations to reliable sources. See the policy WP:NOR. Thank you. --HResearcher 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * WP:CIVIL - wikilawyering (to an admin)


 * Incident [11]


 * WP:AGF, WP:POV "we don't need editors who only focus on negative information"

If you're only insterested in a negative POV portrayal of Schwarz I suggest you recuse yourself from this article and it's discussion. We don't need editors who only focus on negative information. --HResearcher 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [12]

The SLC Tribune article isn't a reliable source by default. I agree with Barbara that it is yellow journalism. --HResearcher 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 
 * WP:NPOV - uses the term "yellow journalism" to dismiss a source meeting WP:V standards, as the source conflicts with HResearcher's personal POV


 * Incident [13]

WP:VANDAL, WP:NPOV - vandalism as HResearcher did not accept the validity of the sources cited as it conflicted with the editor's personal POV

(edit revision quoted below)

Revision as of 23:30, 2006 August 28 (edit) HResearcher (Talk | contribs) (?Involuntary psychiatric "treatment" / "unlawful" psychiatric incarceration "by the german government" - WP:BLP Orsini provides no reference, original research, negative statement removed)'' 


 * Incident [14]


 * WP:NOR, WP:NPOV - intends to pursue a line of original research to support the editor's POV

Note that in that thread I stated that I am working on getting sources, until then mention of the Involuntary psychiatric treatment is not supported for entry into the the article. --HResearcher 04:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [15]


 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

Now you're making a personal attack on one of the biggest admins in Wikipedia: You called his speculation: "Your idle speculation". --HResearcher 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [16]


 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting
 * WP:NPA - "Do you have any more adjectives that you can use to degrade what/how someone thinks?"

Watch those adjectives. You may think it's no big deal, but others do. You used the same type of personal attack on Bauder as you did on me. "Idle" speculation, "faulty" interpretation. Do you have any more adjectives that you can use to degrade what/how someone thinks? :) --HResearcher 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Incident [17]

WP:CIVIL – attempted to stifle discussion conflicting with editor's own POV

The discussion about asylum has ended,

HResearcher 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [18]


 * WP:CIVIL (list of citations posted after evidence was requested)

WP:NOT. Why clutter up the place with a big list of cases that only support editors who have already shown they intend to spread the rumor that Barbara only loses case? I'd also like to see the case(s) she won against the german government in the late 80's. --HResearcher 12:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [19]


 * WP:CIVIL - intentional misrepresentation of WP:TALK policy on Talk pages

Who counted 80? Still, you cannot use those to make a claim that she has never won a lawsuit. That would be a violation of WP:BLP and original. --HResearcher 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [20]


 * WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV attempts to stop discussion conflicting with editor's personal POV
 * WP:AGF

Tilman, and exactly what statement are you using these cases as a source? Nothing! These cases are only being used as a source for original research to make a negative claim about Barbara Schwarz' litigation history. --HResearcher 23:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [21]


 * WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV - attempted to force POV to stifle discussion
 * WP:AGF - did not assume good faith
 * WP:TALK - does not follow appropriate talk page policy
 * WP:BLP – Articles must provide citations - the matter was being discussed on the talk page

Note, I will be applying WP:BLP and removing every statement you make make about Schwarz which you do not support with citation. --HResearcher 23:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [22]


 * WP:NPA - "you do not know..."
 * WP:CIVIL - "I am under no obligation to provide evidence ..."
 * WP:CIVIL - baiting / taunting

Remember WP:NPA Vivaldi? My view is a little more conservative than yours, I think, that's all. Anyway, you do not know that Ms. Schwarz has never won a case in the U.S. I am under no obligation to provide evidence to disprove your statement, any burden of proof is upon you, Vivaldi. How do you "know it for a fact"? direct us to the exact place where she "admits it". --HResearcher 14:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [23]


 * WP:VANDAL (removed statement supported in the remaining paragraph)
 * WP:CIVIL (POV edit summary)

(note citations were provided in the paragraph vandalized by HReasercher )

Revision as of 23:30, 2006 August 28 (edit) HResearcher (Talk | contribs) (?Involuntary psychiatric "treatment" / "unlawful" psychiatric incarceration "by the german government" - WP:BLP Orsini provides no reference, original research, negative statement removed) 


 * Incident [24]


 * WP:NOR (HRsearcher cites POV without citing source)

There is substantial and verifiable evidence. Your claim that there isn't will not stop people from looking into the sources. It may be a while until we get those sources. HResearcher 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [25]


 * WP:NOR (states intent to use in the article previously unpublished, unverified documents to support a POV)

Because, first of all, they are not on the web. Secondly, they are in German and thirdly they are in Germany in boxes stored under tight security. At this point, I only have verbal confirmation that there are sources but practically unaccessible at the moment. It will take a while to get them because Im going to have to write some letters and attend some meetings about this, and provide some funding, and then the boxes will be taken to visit the xerox machine. I hope you aren't also going to require me get notorization. --HResearcher 14:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [26]


 * WP:CIVIL - accusations of personal attack when none was made or intended

Are you referring to me or Terryeo or both of us in your personal attack about "cult sympathizers" ? Orsini read WP:NPA before you discuss things any further. --HResearcher 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [27]


 * WP:NPOV, WP:DISRUPT - pursuing unsupported POV to disrupt discussions

That is what the Chinese government has doing to the Falun Gong and that is what Germany did to Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [28]
 * WP:CIVIL – willful misrepresentation
 * WP:VANDAL -  direct threats of vandalism to talk page
 * WP:NPA - "doesn't really know what's going on concerning this.."
 * WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL – deliberately misinterprets WP:BLP policy to quash discussion contrary to a personal POV

I agree Terryeo, Orsini doesn't really know whats going on concerning this and continues to make speculations (original research) As long as Orsini doesn't edit the article to include those speculations, Wikipedia should be ok. And per WP:BLP we could even remove some of the statements Orsini makes. --HResearcher 23:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [29]


 * WP:CIVIL - reference was cited previously on HReasercher's request and was ignored
 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting
 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

Again, you're making original research. Do you have a reference which says the church wishes to disconnect from her? You say the church appears to and it's your awareness. How about a reference, Orsini, not your original research. --HResearcher 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [30]


 * WP:CIVIL - reference was cited earlier at this editor's request, and dismissed
 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting

Linda Simmons Hight, made no mention of disconnection. Claiming the church wishes to disconnect from Barbara Schwarz is Orsini's original research and Vivaldi agrees with her. Orsini and Vivaldi have "consensus" but no clear reference. --HResearcher 15:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [31]


 * WP:NPOV - point of view, unsupported by evidence

It looks like a human rights violation to me. --HResearcher 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [32]


 * WP:NOR – ‘’Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories’’

Getting copies of the scans are in the works thanks to a few people who have responded to my emails over the weekend. --HResearcher 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [33]


 * WP:NPOV - attempts to push personal POV into the article (note the matter discussed was the inclusion of the person whom the subject claims is her husband, and he is notable as being one of the core reasons for the FOIA requests which have established the subject's notability)

The public "knowledge" being discussed is TRIVIA and utterly unimportant and un-notable to the world. --HResearcher 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [34]


 * WP:V - statement was from a credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * WP:NPOV - editor trying to pursue a POV agenda

So basically, this Linda Simmons Hight person is an unreliable source, yet you think we should still use her statement just because it can be cited? That doesn't seem to be in the best interest of Wikipedia to me. --HResearcher 14:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [35]


 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting

(in response for requesting new notability discussions include topics not discussed)

There is no need to discourage anyone from talking about it, or looking at sow's ears or silk purses. --HResearcher 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [36]

WP:AGF - "...if the editors don't want to do a good job.."

It's like using Osama Bin Laden to attack Muslims. I think this article should be severly scrutinized and researched and if the editors don't want to do a good job, then it should just be deleted. --HResearcher 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [37]


 * WP:CIVIL – deliberate misrepresentation (the article is sourced from credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and one post from the Usenet supported by a reliable source)

Your claims are backed up by UNRELIABLE sources: USENET and a couple biased newspaper articles. --HResearcher 17:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [38]


 * WP:CIVIL - Calling for bans or blocks
 * WP:CIVIL - accusing ediitor of slander or libel
 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

Orsini, you have just libeled Barbara Schwarz!! I am asking you to please stay out of this. .... I'm going to request that you be prevented from discussing or editing this article! Give me a week or two, I don't edit Wikipedia every day. --HResearcher 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [39]


 * WP:NPA - "I'm better than you" attack
 * WP:NPA - Negative personal comment "you seem to think a lot of things that are not real."
 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusation of impropriety

I know what original reserach is, my assessment of it is not incorrect just because you think it is. You seem to think a lot of things that are not real. HResearcher 09:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [40]


 * WP:NPA - Accusatory comments of bias
 * WP:CIVIL - "ranting"
 * WP:AGF "other editors are biased"

Orsini is biased, look at some of her comments on the talk page, she goes on ranting about the organization even though we're trying to talk about Barbara Schwarz. Several other editors involved are also biased. HResearcher 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [41]


 * WP:NPA - Accusatory comments of original research without citation
 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation (sources were cited)
 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / taunting

I'm not here to defend myself or my past actions, but I will not cease to point that you consistently use original research to influence other Wikipedia editor's ideas about Barbara Schwarz. .... You haven't presented sources, yet you continue to push that POV and you act like these unsourced claims are grounds for your arguement. --HResearcher 10:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [42]


 * WP:NPA - Accusatory comments
 * WP:CIVIL - baiting / taunting

Yes, you really do "know" a lot of negative things about scientology, like an "expert". Can you cite anything positive about the organization or is it all sow's ears to you? --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [43]


 * WP:AGF - failure to assume good faith
 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation (the negative material in the article is sourced to WP:V standards, it is not original research)
 * WP:CIVIL - Using affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting views
 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting

You're anti-scientology POV is pretty obvious. Is that why you edit the Barbara Schwarz article? How about all the original reserach you engage in? Is it your agenda to harm the reputation of Scientology by using original reserach to make negative claims in the Barbara Schwarz article? --HResearcher 10:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [44]


 * WP:AGF - statement of bad faith

I strongly agree with Tbeatty, Fred Bauder, Morton devonshire, Crockspot. And strongly oppose ChrisO, Orsini, Vivaldi, and Tilman. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [45]


 * WP:CIVIL - taunting
 * WP:AGF

I could care less about your anti-scientology POV. --HResearcher 10:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [46]


 * WP:NPOV - unsupported POV, to advance the editor's POV

"The USENET trolls attack Barbara, call her crazy and blame her condition on Scientology. --HResearcher 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) " 


 * Incident [47]


 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation (I have volunteeered citations, and presented citations when asked)
 * WP:NPA - Accusatory comments
 * WP:AGF

This is not the first time you have forwarded "facts" without providing a citation. HResearcher 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [48]


 * WP:NOR - (intends to use unpublished material to use in the article to support POV)
 * WP:CIVIL - taunting / baiting

I'm working on getting secondary sources to support the primary source (Barbara's 92 part usenet postings) regarding the involuntary psychiatric "treatment". Are you trying to intimidate me to prevent me from doing this? --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [49]


 * WP:NOR - (editor intends to use previously unpublished and unverified data)
 * WP:NPOV - (expresses a strong POV against psychiatic care)

...soon I will be presenting references about the human rights abuse of the German government when they illegally detained her and then subjected her to involuntary psychiatric abuse ("treatment"). --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [50]


 * WP:NPOV (asserts a POV as fact and will not cite supporting evidence)

I now know that she has won several lawsuits, one of them was a civil lawsuit recently in SLC. I'll have to get the case # the people who have contacted me over the last 2 weeks. --HResearcher 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [51]


 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation (alleging I made a statement about "Barbara Schwarz's mental state")
 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation (alleging "poorly sourced negative comments .... made it into the article)
 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation ("Note Orsini's comments about Barbara Schwarz's mental state" - I made no statement about her mental state)
 * WP:BLP (the negative sources used in the article were from reliable sources meeting WP:V)

No, you are wrong, Orsini, the article was poorly sourced and discussion continues to be poorly sourced and often based on original research / extrapolation and it was/is being done in a way as Tbeatty has expressed concern, however the issue is not notability. The issue is direct violation of WP:BLP "poorly sourced negative comments/claims". Orsini has made original reserach to include negative comments in the talk page and some of those ideas have made it into the article. Also note Orsini's comment about Barbara Schwarz' current mental state. I'd like to know the source of that. --HResearcher 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 


 * Incident [52]


 * WP:CIVIL - deliberate misrepresentation of facts, "negative unsourced claims"

I am thinking of gathering differences of all the negative unsourced claims Orsini has made. 


 * Incident [53]

WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK - creation of an attack page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HResearcher/OR


 * Incident [54]


 * WP:CIVIL - threats to call for a ban or block
 * WP:CIVIL - Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(This edit appeared on my Talk page after I requested the advice of an admin, note also the cited edit by HResearcher does not identify a specific user)

xx== WP:CIVIL == xx Please provide citations for your accusations of my alleged "personal attacks, dive into original research, violating WP:CIVIL, and this behavior is now descending into making outright false accusations, taunting, trolling". I don't think you can because I do not believe I have engaged in such behavior. Failure to provide citations will result in my posting of your documented uncivil behavior in the administrator's noticeboard. --HResearcher 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 

'''In response to HResearcher's threat above, this RfC was prepared. '''

Orsini 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)