Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Jareth[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) has revealed personal information of at least three editors [2], [3], [4], [5]

Second assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) engages in frequent personal attacks even after multiple requests to stop (just a few examples) [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Third assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) is passionate in her viewpoint which sometimes leads her to ignore discussion by other editors, i.e. those who scream the loudest win mentality; the editor also pushes her own website and creates additional pages (WP:OR) to support her assertions (few of many examples) [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

Fourth assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) has called for meatpuppets on two occasions, once to stack a vote and another time to suggest the article be deleted if her POV isn't honored (few examples of both cases) [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

Fifth assertion[edit]

MilesD. (talk · contribs) has recently handled the dispute well and has put effort into learning how to work within Wikipedia (recent examples) [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

Sixth assertion[edit]

MilesD. (talk · contribs) occasionally pushes her POV (sometimes speaking as a representative for a side of the outside dispute) and lets the outside dispute get in the way of assuming good faith (few examples) [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]

Seventh assertion[edit]

S Scott (talk · contribs) has recently started learning more about working on Wikipedia, but due to the outside dispute occasionally pushes POV (sometimes speaking as a representative for a side of the outside dispute) or fails to AGF [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

Eighth assertion[edit]

S Scott (talk · contribs) revealed personal information, in the form of court documents, about another editor. Technically these documents are public record, however, the site linked is very POV and omits documents showing that in one case all complaining parties recanted and the case was dismissed with prejudice [53]

Ninth assertion[edit]

NobleAcres (talk · contribs) strongly supports a particular POV and attacks other editors [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]

Tenth assertion[edit]

NobleAcres (talk · contribs) reveals personal information about two editors (see discussion of blog on court documents in Eighth assertion) [60], [61]

Eleventh assertion[edit]

ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) strongly advocates a particular point of view, sometimes failing to AGF and attacking others because of it [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]

Twelveth assertion[edit]

ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) revealed personal information of other editors (see Eighth assertion for dicussion of the blog) [71]

Thirteenth assertion[edit]

Jareth (talk · contribs) has been uncivil and lost her temper with editors involved in the dispute [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]

Fourteenth assertion[edit]

All parties listed in this RfAR with the exception of Tina M. Barber have used this as a platform to attack Jareth and are currently bordering on harassment [79], [80]

The insinuation that I can be held responsible for my husbands silly edit summary is ludicrious. However, I did leave a polite message on User Talk:MilesD. even after the accusations made on WP:AN/I explaining how to refactor posts -- if you'll note the diff you used below, I removed all names and the final paragrah (which was little more than an attack) when I replaced the deleted post. As per the discussion [81], its been pointed out the the contributors frequently use each others names throughout the history of the dispute on the Talk page, so the personal information argument is a bit spurious to begin with.

Evidence of mediation[edit]

I not only offered but was accepted as a mediator for the dispute; also included in evidence are the many comments of thanks I received for my work. I assume that the parties in the dispute are concerned that there behavior will be looked upon unfavourably since they are so desperately trying to come up with any reason not to be included?

I can provide more references upon request, but I think the evidence clearly shows that the parties represented by Advocate McClenon did, in fact, accept and until recently, appreciate my mediation. May I respectfully suggest that in the future, the Advocate investigate his clients vexatious claims before stating them as fact? I have stated that all parties, including myself, as part and parcel of this RfAR should have their conduct reviewed. I have also requested that if I am misunderstanding the process here, please let me know; I am not an unreasonable person, so the attacks and misinformation are completely uncessecary. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding claims of article ownership[edit]

I have repeatedly suggested others edit the article and have not reverted it a single time. I tried many times to explain Wikipedia and assist the editors in staying within policy; throughout two months of this disruption there were only two short blocks to editors for personal attacks. When the editors complained that they could not reach concensus, I attempted to combine their proposals for the article in order to find a common ground and was thanked many times for it. I find it incredible that these same editors now claim I was controlling the article, when in fact, their dispute has been the controlling factor all this time. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133][reply]

Email, IM and other evidence[edit]

Various participants have now presented supposed evidence from email, instant messages and other forums. While I appreciate the fact that they're being thorough, snipping a line or two from an email takes things incredibly out of context, not to mention the several cases in which its completely twisted the meaning by leaving out certain words here or there. I have offered to make the emails available, however, I understand that these aren't usually acceptable in an arbitration case. If evidence is being presented, it should be presented in its entirety, not with a POV spin by pasting only the parts the participant wants seen.

Hopefully everyone can appreciate the fact that very little in the way of a defense has been made, just an attack on others -- this is precisely what got the dispute to this point -- mediation was successful and a consensus was reached, unfortunately the editors involved in this dispute then felt the article should be locked and no further discussion on improvements should go on. I see now that I should have clearly stated that my mediation ended once consensus was reached on the disputed section, however, since I received so much encouragement and thanks for my work, I was copmletely unaware anyone had difficulties with my role until this arbitration started. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Hopefully to help clarify the sequence of events and give some context to all the evidence being presented, I've come up with a high-level timeline:

  • April 14 - First comment about POV of article, comments added to article itself and later removed. First addition of other registries (NSBR, TSSR, SSBCA)
  • April 15-18th - Numerous reverts removing and readding the information.
  • September 13 - POV added disparaging other registries.
  • October 27 - POV claiming all Shilohs come from breed founder and her club/registry. POV is removed by editor not involved in the dispute.
  • November 4 - POV from Sept 13 removed, link to ISSDC added and ISSR/SSDCA links moved to bottom of links section. Request made to talk page for NPOV in article.
  • November 26 - POV elevating ISSR added, ISSR/SSDCA links moved back to top of links section.
  • November 30 - Article is reverted to original form removing all reference to other registries. Ext link added to very POV site disparaging other registries.
  • December 2 - Revert to article as of Nov 4 and additional health information added. Dispute starts on talk page with personal attacks, using editors first names - mediation and RfC on article are mentioned but no evidence either was done at this time.
  • December 3 - POV elevating ISSR added again, ISSDC link moved further down in links.
  • December 5 - Article reverted to Dec 2 version and then back to Dec 3 version. Another attempt to communicate on talk page.
  • December 6-9 - Revert war ensues and dispute tag is added by uninvolved editor. Talk page explodes with attacks, POV pushing, post deletions and legal threats. An editors name and employer are revealed and a claim is made that the editor is being reported for vandalism to his employer.
  • December 11 - New POV added to article disparaging breed founder/ISSR/SSDCA and is quickly reverted. Many talk page posts are deleted and more attacks added.
  • December 12 - POV disparaging breed founder added and reverted. Attempt to NPOV the article is also quickly reverted to preferred version. More attacks and POV pushing on the talk page.
  • December 13 - Some POV removed from article but is reverted. More attacking on the talk page; some editors try to difuse situation and cite policies on no attacking.
  • December 14-16 Major revert war. More personal information and legal threats on the talk page between attacking. Notification of request for mediation. Uninvolved editor attempts to explain mediation process and how to use talk pages; finally reports a 3RR violation for edit war for which editors are warned. Offer of mediation by Jareth.
  • December 17 - More post deletion and POV pushing on talk page.
  • December 20 - Uninvolved editor tries to NPOV article, POV is quickly reinserted but reverted this time.
  • December 21-January 17 - Much discussion on talk page about dispute, attempts at mediation. Some attacking and incivility on the talk page throughout. Straw poll held to check concensus on the other registries being in the article and how to NPOV; concensus clear even though some meat puppet activity.
  • January 1 - Straw poll showed clear consensus, editors encourage to edit the article along the lines agreed upon. Discussion starts about how history section should be worded. Dispute arises over using references from anyone involved in the outside dispute; outside sources are asked for.
  • January 18 - One portion of the history is agreed upon by all parties while additional parts are still under discussion. Agreed upon portion moved to article to replace History section; this is reverted to re-add information about the other registries which had not yet reached agreement. The Health section is expanded again and references are added; the references were forced to be removed after a dispute started over their inclusion and veracity.
  • January 30 - After much discussion with considerably more attacking and POV pushing, a complete version of the History reaches concensus and is moved to the article. RfC opened on Tina M. Barber.
  • February 1-2 - Major expansions to the article as requested to accomodate recently added pictures, references section finally added. Shortly after, all references are deleted, but the change is reverted. Discussion on talk page about which references may be included.
  • February 3 - More pictures are added, one side of the dispute moves their pictures higher in the article, other side then goes in and puts theirs on top.
  • February 5 - POV against other registries added to the article several times, but is reverted.
  • February 8 - More pictures added to illustrate sections, pictures re-ordered so they aren't clumped in the top of the aritcle. This is reverted to squeeze more pictures in the top where editors apparently feel they are more important and enhance their POV.
  • February 9 - Arbitration requested.

Employer and other personal information and threat to ShilohLover[edit]

Actually, the incident happened long before I was involved in the article (post was added Dec 7). Someone mentioned it later via email, but didn't provide a link to the edit(s) and I had difficulty finding it, given the high number of edits to the talk page. I was the one who suggested taking it to the admin board for futher help in removing the edits -- no one did so, until another admin mentioned it on Jan 17. When it wasn't acted on by another admin, I searched for a *number* of hours and attempted to remove the information on Jan 27 (a day after the last post on the admin board). Since other editors had copied the information several times on the page in order to comment on it, it made things much more complicated (honestly, why copy it if you wanted it removed?). If it still remains in the history anywhere (I did remove it from the archive as well), please let me know and I will be happy to delete the edit. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the Health section[edit]

On another note, I'm thoroughly amused at now being blamed for others inability to follow rules that were presented to them numerous times by many editors. To characterize my edits to the Health section (which was not in dispute) as disruptive is just amazing -- I expanded and wrote an entirely new article for the section. When editors immediately disputed the inclusion of information about certain health practices that were verifiable on the grounds that they weren't "true", I discussed, cited policy and removed the information being disputed, all within mere hours. Even though policy specifically states that we aren't judging the veracity, I felt removing the information was preferrable to starting another dispute and removed it myself -- and that's disruptive? There are a number of items I believe should have been included since they are important to the development of the breed, but because one side of the dispute doesn't believe them and presents WP:OR to defend their POV, they literally demand their removal -- and yet, multiple times I removed any disputed information, reminded everyone of policy and let the discussion go on. I guess the entire crux of the situation is whether or not the breed founders website/pamphlets/books are original research; I pointed out several times that if they are OR, most of the article simply needs to go as it isn't sourced elsewhere -- the other side didn't want that, they wanted to exclude only what they didn't agree with. Simple case of POV blinding all parties and frank refusal to work within Wikipedia guidelines. The continued attempts to shift blame (mostly to my corner) appear to support Fred Bauer's point that editors involved in this outside dispute simply aren't going to be able to be involved in the article.

I know that I'm not perfect; I'm sure I don't do everything right. I may have made some mistakes and definitely got tetchy toward the end and I've put that behavior out there in my evidence. I don't plan on involving myself in mediation any further, I'll go back to my mop and bucket thank you. Its a serious concern that the other editors involved can't step back, look at their behavior and say "Alright, I did get a bit uncivil at times" or "Maybe my feelings are coloring the way I handle this situation" -- instead, they seem determined to blame their behavior on someone else. I will take full responsibility for my failures in this situation, can anyone else do the same? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in the outside dispute[edit]

As has been noted by ShenandoahShilohs only the most recent editors were named in opening the RfAR since the full list is quite lengthy - many may be meat or sock puppets (checkuser on this would be daunting). Editors who may be involved in the external dispute and have no edits elsewhere (some of these editors have been disruptive, some have not):

Also see checkuser summary at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tina_M._Barber

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon as advocate[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Jareth makes blatantly inconsistent statements as to who she considers to be the offenders in the RfAr.

Jareth files the RfAr against multiple parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=38959461&oldid=38942464

Advocate for other parties requests that case be accepted against Tina M. Barber but notes that other parties were not identified in RfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=38978793&oldid=38977159

Jareth acknowledges that the RfC was only against Tina M. Barber. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=39097191&oldid=39093242

Jareth corrects a typo to clarify that the RfC was only against one user. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=39097372&oldid=39097191

At this point it appears that Robert McClenon and Jareth are in agreement that this is a Tina M. Barber issue. However, Jareth then posts allegations against all of the editors, and also argues that any punitive action should be equal.

Second assertion[edit]

An anonymous editor, acting as a sockpuppet (but not clear whose sockpuppet), posts personal information, in a pattern of continued posting of personal information. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=39165545&oldid=39089486

Third assertion[edit]

Dixen and Jareth engage in tag-team reverting of posting of personal information.

Dixen reverts a posting of personal information while making an extremely uncivil edit summary: Too late to get self righteoous now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=39219668&oldid=39168279

Jareth reverts the same posting. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=39268612&oldid=39222943

Fourth assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber has engaged in personal attacks and serious violations of civility. See evidence presented by Jareth.

Fifth assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber has engaged in harassment, including threatening to report an editor to the editor's employer.

Sixth assertion[edit]

Jareth, while making a good-faith attempt at mediation, failed to familiarize herself with Wikipedia policy.

Seventh assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber recruited meatpuppets to Wikipedia to create the appearance of consensus.

[135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149]

Eighth assertion[edit]

No substantive evidence of misconduct or of involving Wikipedia in an external controversy has been presented against MilesD. or S Scott. The external controversy is a dispute between breeders as to what the definition of the breed is and what registries should be recognized. Neither MilesD. nor S Scott breed Shiloh Shepherd Dogs or register their pedigrees. They are being identified in this dispute because they tried to edit an article that was also being edited by parties to an external controversy. To the extent that either of them engaged in personal attacks, those were due to lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy, and an unfortunate atmosphere of incivility in the article. Regardless of what sanction is imposed on the breeders, they should only be cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Ninth assertion[edit]

Jareth claims article ownership. In an email posted by MilesD., Jareth stated: I'm ready to toss the lot of you and get together some real editors to write the article. Not only was this statement inappropriate for a mediator, but it was also an inappropriate use of administrator authority to seek control of a content dispute.

Tenth assertion[edit]

Tina M. Barber has continued POV-pushing since the start of arbitration. Edits changing the caption of a photograph of a dog bred by a "splinter" breeder:

For explanation, Tina M. Barber argues that dogs bred by "splinter" breeders are not Shilohs. The definition of the breed is the core of the dispute.

Eleventh assertion[edit]

ShenandoahShilohs engages in a revert war with Tina M. Barber to push her POV and makes an uncivil edit summary.

Whether the dog is a Shiloh or a GSD is a content issue, so that Tina M. Barber's edits were not vandalism but a content dispute.

Evidence presented by ShenandoahShilohs[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Other than a warning on my talk page for reverting, which I was new and didn't know Wiki policies, I have never been personally warned about my behavior on my talk page or on the discussion pages of the Shiloh article. Further there has not been a Rfc on my behavior.[[150]]

Second assertion[edit]

I dispute the charges

First accusation

My reply was to an accusation written by Trillhill, no attack was made, it is called debating an issue [[151]]

Second accusation My reply was after editor Trysha claimed the links jareth had added on her own were an equal representation of both groups. Not only was this not accurate, one of the links she put up was already heavily contested. Again, no attack, disputing a claim made. [[152]]

Third accusation

I have no idea why this is even listed. It was my only post after days of attacks on the one picture I placed on the article page. Jareth had made multiple posts asking for the attacks to stop, they didn't and no action was taken. All I did here was defend the placement of my dog's picture after 11 attacks and 8 or 9 comments in defense by Jareth.Hardly an attack Attacks on me via the dog's picture I posted.

[[153]] [[154]] [[155]] [[156]]"Carmen" (24.242.252.125) posted this attack and signed Tina Barber. [[157]] [[158]] [[159]] [[160]] [[161]] [[162]] [[163]]

Jareth addresses these attacks: [[164]] [[165]] [[166]]

Fourth accusation. Hardly an attack, it was in response to an attack, calmly stating that claims made are false

Fifth accusation Point was made after Tina M Baber was saying that the Shiloh was not a breed, just her own dogs. My point made was strong, but it was after attack after attack by Tina Barber and I did lose my cool a bit.


Sixth accusation. A response after weeks of attacks of every kind thrown at us by Tina Baber trying to discredit our dogs and our registries. She made accusations, I pointed out she was doing the same thing she accused us of.

Seventh accusation Editor was trying to revert the article back to what brought us here in the first place, and article that was bias and called our group immitators and dissidents. No attack, just a disagreement.

Eighth accusation Again, no attack. A strong view point to a recent attack review TB's attacks here [[167]]


Accusation of revealing persoanl info. No where did I use anyone's name unless they themself had used it. I posted a link to court documents in refute of a claim made, and court documents already posted by Trillhill. [[168]]

Third assertion[edit]

This was a forward movement of a RFC on Tina M Barber as told to me by Jareth. Note IM session on 2/2/06 [[169]]

Fourth assertion[edit]

If this is now an arbitration on the Shiloh article then Jareth shows a bias in only naming parties from one group other than Tina Barber. Editors from other group are not named yet are equally if not more guilty of same accusations.

Trillhill Breeder

Pushes POV, advocates meatpuppets,reveals info on court documents [[170]][[171]][[172]][[173]] [[174]]

2.Recommends article deletion if not given POV [[175]]

3.Threatens to disaparage Wiki to public when her POV is not granted [[176]]

24.242.252.125 aka Carmen

Pushes POV and makes attacks on a picture of a dog an editor put in the article, posted signing another name: [[177]] [[178]] [[179]] [[180]]

Corfil Breeder

Strongly pushes POV and original research [[181]] [[182]] [[183]] [[184]] [[185]] [[186]] [[187]] [[188]] [[189]] 2.reasserts Jareth's comments of their forum of next dog being a Shiloh [[190]]


198.169.171.159., 67.186.153.43. Katy Breeder

Attacks, pushed POV and original research [[191]] [[192]][[193]] [[194]] [[195]] [[196]] [[197]]


M.Bush 65.37.31.237

1 Personal attacks, major push of bias POV, vandalizing article page [[198]] [[199]] [[200]] 2.Warning for vandalizing page [[201]]

Fifth assertion[edit]

The process of Wiki Arbitration seems grossly flawed and unjust. When an Arbitrator, Fred Bauder, makes public, inaccurate assumptions, finds guilt, and proposes remedies to a case, before the case is heard and before any evidence is given is a mockery of any justice system. [[202]]


Sixth assertion[edit]

Dispute assertion three of Monicasdude. Reference to Tina Barbers first post [[203]] as not being an attack or uncivil. In this first post by Tina Barber on 12/7 she came out in full attack mode that never waned throughout the entire talk pages. Comments such as calling others dissidents, or ""In all honesty, they should not even be listed, unless just to warn the public regarding the various groups that *claim* to be "registries" that are selling their mutts as Shiloh Shepherds ", "via the 'self proclaimed' "registries" promoted by the BYB's that have started them" Excuse me, but if these statements are not attacks then I am not sure what is.

Also on 12/7 Tina wrote this post calling others not affiliated with her puppymillers [[204]]

On or about 12/7 or 12/8 Tina Barber tracked an editors Wiki IP addy to his employer, posted all of this editors employment info and called his employer in an attempt to cause harm to this editors livelihood. I am sorry, this to me is one of the most serious offenses someone could do, trying to cause harm to someone's livelihood. A number of editors called it to the attention of Jareth, etc for remedy. NONE was given, and this editors employment info sat on the talk pages for anyone to access. In fact, if one reviews the archives, it is still there.It has been removed from the history, but not the archives of the talk pages. When admin Jareth failed to act, a number of other editors took it to the Admin board. While admins chatted on what should or shouldn't be done, the info still sat there. One admin stated there should be a threat ban imposed, yet again, there was nothing. [[205]]

Now, arbitrator Bauder recommends due to maybe some incivility, or POV that "breeders" be permenantely banned from the article. Others equate the behavior of editors as equal to divulging one's employment info in an attempt to cause harm to a person's livelihood.

My post that Monicasdude is referencing (Blatant lies) was made after these Tina Barber attacks and was the result of frustration that she was allowed to do so with no intervention.

Seventh assertion[edit]

Mr Bauder is making assumptions that this dispute is about the "marketting and selling of dogs" I must respectfully disagree. This dispute is about not allowing Barber's attacks on registries, people and dogs that are not affiliated with her or her organization into an article on a breed of dog. Trust me, this Wiki article has no bearing on marketting or selling of dogs, we are doing fine with or without Wikipedia. Further, it astounds me that someone in the position of an arbitrator could so forcefully make statements both before and after evidence has been presented. I am in total shock that Mr Bauder could show such prejudice in recommending that "breeders" be banned from editing an article about their chosen breed.I am sorry, but for anyone to show that much prejudice toward a group, rather than the merits of the individual is mindboggling.

If this is the Wikipedia way, to ban anyone due to their occupation or hobby having a relevence to a Wiki article than I would have to say that Jimbo's philosophies have failed. Prejudice in any form is a disgrace, and I am appauld that a Wiki arbitrator would promote this.

Wiki touts great rules for editing and behaviors, yet in this case failed to administer them until there was a full battle engaged, now remedies punishment due to prejudice.

Eighth assertion[edit]

Jareth claims that those named in the arbitration, other than Tina Barber were in full support of her until she named us in the arb case. This is not true. Days before we were named we revealed the fact that she was playing both sides against each other. It was uncovered that Jareth had become too personally involved and was promoting OR and POV that previously she agreed was not allowed. The people that Jareth has named other than Tina Barber are the people that questioned what she was doing the days before this case was brought forward. Again, if this was truly a case on the article and the editors involved than it would include the multitude of editors from the "other group" that engaged in the same infractions as listed. Some of which have final warnings etc on their talk pages.

If people are to be banned from editing this article than it would need to be every editor that has posted, as I would doubt there is anyone that has not broken at least one of the Wiki rules at some point.

Further, it would behoove your group to review the actions of Admin Jareth. Whether you want to decide that she acted inappropriately in becoming too personally involved or not, she failed to enforce Wiki rules even when asked for relief , and the result for her inaction are pages and pages of editors attacking each other, pushing POV, and incivility and the naming of only one of the two groups involved.

Nineth assertion[edit]

1.Some of my attempts to work on compromise

[[206]] [[207]] [[208]] [[209]]

2.requests to Jareth to stop making her own edits while people were trying to reach concensus, objections made. [[210]] [[211]]

3.Made a constructive edit and was praised for such 2/8/06 [[212]] and was praised for it [[213]]

Tenth assertion[edit]

In reference to Robert McClennan's eleventh assertion. With my understanding of Wiki policy I did and still do feel that Barber's edits were vandalism. Further, According to WIki policy, if you see vandalism, revert it, which I did. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense"

While there are many disputes at the heart of the Shiloh article, the addition of this picture was discussed ad nauseum on the talk pages. The picture in question is of a Shiloh Shepherd Dog who in 2005 was awarded the top Rare Breed Dog by the American Rare Breed Association, and in 2006 he is the top dog in two of the Rare Breed Show organizations. He is recognized by these organizations as a Shiloh Shepherd as that is what he is.

I am sure if I went to the Collie dog article page and changed the caption of one of their pictures to say it was a Beagle, that would also be considered vandalism.

I hardly think that my one revert to this picture is attempting a revert war as claimed by Mr. McClellan. The multitude of orgnaizations that recognize this dog as a Shiloh Shepherd and have awarded him as such clearly outweigh Barbers POV. It is not a content dispute, the change was made to encite.

Evidence presented by Monicasdude as advocate for Tina M. Barber[edit]

First Assertion[edit]

Barber did not reveal personal information as alleged in Jareth's 1A. The editors involved in this dispute are generally known to each other and identify themselves by trade names openly associated with their real/legal names [214] [215] (external links). The name mentioned in Jareth's [3] (12/10/05), and the much later [4] was previously disclosed/signed by the editor herself in this 12/9/05 talk page comment [216], which ShenandoahShilohs titled "Blatant lies posted by Tina Barber AKA MaShiloh." The name mentioned in Jareth's [5] (1/26/06) was previously disclosed/signed by the editor herself in this 12/28/05 talk page comment [217].

Second Assertion[edit]

There is no doubt that virtually all the editors involved in this dispute have failed to conform to Wikipedia policies concerning civility and personal attacks. However, Jareth's 2A, which singles out Tina Barber as the only editor making "frequent personal attacks" is inappropriate and inaccurate. Barber began contributing to Wikipedia on 12/7/05 [218]. By that time, a thoroughly uncivil dispute was in full swing, without any sign of administrator intervention. For example, on 12/2/05, Shiloh lover began posting personal attacks on Trillhill [219], without admin response. On 12/7/05, after Barber's initial posts (argumentative, perhaps, but clearly civil), ShenandoahShilohs almost immediately posted a lengthy personal attack on Barber [220], and followed up with an even less appropriate talk page posting headed "Blatant lies posted by Tina Barber AKA MaShiloh" [221]. There is no record of any admin intervention regarding this editor's practice of personal attacks. The earliest personal attack by Barber cited by Jareth (her [6]) is dated 12/14/05, roughly one week after the personal attacks against Barber by other editors began. Barber, a new editor, should not be singled out for action for caving in and eventually responding in kind to personal attacks made by other editors.

Third Assertion[edit]

There is simply no evidence that Barber violated WP:NOR, except in the minor way, common to Wikipedia editors, her article space edits reflected her knowledge and experience. The diffs cited by Jareth are all talk page edits. Wikipedia policy allows (in some ways encourages) editors to make comments on talk pages that would not be allowed in articles. And nothing in Wikipedia policy, of course, prohibits or even discourages editors from creating pages on external sites which do not conform to Wikipedia policies.

Fourth Assertion[edit]

Virtually all the editors involved in this dispute have edited only the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article (or, occasionally, related pages): User:Shiloh lover, [222], as 207.236.183.18, [223]; User:Trillhill, [224]; User:ShenandoahShilohs, [225]; User:MilesD., [226]; User:Tony Matzke, [227]; User:NobleAcres, [228]; User:WindsongKennels, [229]; User:Iamgateway, [230]; User:SandraSS, [231]; User:Jenny Dufy, [232]; User:Dartagnan, [233]; User:S Scott, [234]; and User:PJBJ, [235], to say nothing of the many anon editors whose full history cannot be verified but who appear to edit only the article involved, and, acknowledgedly, User:Tina M. Barber. The WP:Sock_puppetry policy states that "meatpuppet"" issues arise "when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion." All of these editors involved in the dispute should fairly be viewed as the equivlent of single-issue "meatpuppets," whether they were fully anonymous (as many seem to have been), used IP accounts while signing legal/given names (as many of the Barber-supporting "meatpuppets" did), or edited under specially created Wikipedia names (as many of the Barber-opposing editors did). The discussions make clear that all sides rallied like-minded individuals, not already Wikipedia editors, to join the discussions in support of their respective positions. (User:Trysha is the conspicuous exception to this pattern.) Barber should not be singled out for criticism in this regard; if there are distinctions to be drawn, her actions were simply more open/transparent, with less occasion for deception, than her opponents'.

Fifth Assertion (Revised)[edit]

The individual who edited as Shiloh lover is a professional dog breeder and trainer [236] and advertises himself as a breeder of Shiloh Shepherd dogs [237]. He is affiliated with several of the registries involved in the dispute [238] [239] [240] and appears to be reasonably well-known to other members of the pertinent community, if for no other reason than his apparent operation of / participation on one registry's message board [241] [242]. (A review of the publicly listed membership of the user's message board [243] suggests that he and his associates are the primary instigators of this dispute.) Virtually all of the information regarding Shiloh lover that Tina Barber is accused of disclosing was actually made public by or with the approval of the user himself, including his employer and job position [244] (even alluded to in the user's email address). The individual who edited as User:Shiloh lover was engaged in an existing dispute with Barber, and brought that dispute to Wikipedia as part of an effort to injure Barber's reputation and business interests. While Barber's actions would have been thoroughly unacceptable in an on-Wikipedia dispute, her actions should properly be viewed in the context of the overall dispute. User:Shiloh lover used Wikipedia to further his interests in an external dispute; the protections Wikipedia extends to its good faith editors should not extend to him. User:Shiloh lover improperly used his employer's facilities to promote his own business and damage Barber's; Barber used information she found on Wikipedia to stop his improper behavior. It is, in general, not Wikipedia's business to involve itself in such a dispute, except to forbid the individuals involved from using Wikipedia to further their interests; it is inappropriate to single out Barber, as an on-Wikipedia target of User:Shiloh lover's campaign, for action. Note: Shortly after this section was posted, the board operator, User:Shiloh lover, made the contents of the board and the member list inaccessible.

Revised: The individual who edited as User:Shiloh lover is a principal figure in the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club, and holds himself out as the operator of its Canadian chapter; he is the owner/registrant of the chapter's domain name/website [245], [246]. He came to Wikipedia with the unmistakeable purpose of promoting his organization's interests and damaging the interests and reputation of the competing organizations affiliated with Tina M. Barber.

Sixth Assertion[edit]

The current dispute was instigated by User:Shiloh lover (sometimes editing as User:207.236.183.18. On November 4, he made extensive changes to the main article, removing references to Barber's registry and falsely representing that a rival organization's primary status was undisputed [247]. (He is apparently an officer in that rival organization, and controls its Canadian chapter.) On December 2, after his edits were disputed, he made personal attacks on and disclosed personal information of the disputing editor [248]; and posted abusive comments on User:Trillhill's talk page, in effect claiming ownership of the article [[249]. He then made repeated uncivil and provocative comments, e.g. [250]. After he claimed to leave the dispute, his position was reasserted, with a similar level of incivility, by new editors apparently recruited from the membership of his Shiloh messageboard.

Seventh Assertion[edit]

ShenandoahShilohs has repeatedly posted uncivilly and violated the policy prohibiting personal attacks. In her first signed talk page comments [251], she attacked three different editors -- Trillhill, Tina Barber, and Jeff Bragg (apparently not involved in the current dispute, but an earlier contributor to the article); in the same post, she also disclosed irrelevant personal information concerning Tina Barber -- a set of inflammatory accusations concerning Barber's business practices which reduce, so far as Barber's critics have been able to document, to a single, apparently unexceptional Small Claims judgment. (She also accused Barber of criminal activity in this post [252]. She has personalized disputes with, and personally disparaged, users who disagree with her opinions [253] [254] [255] [256]

Eighth Assertion[edit]

User:SScott has purposely attempted to deceive the arbitration committee in her description of User:Shiloh_lover [257]. That editor is a relatively prominent figure in the interested community, a professional breeder, a principal figure in the Canadian chapter of the registry adversarial to Barber, and the operator of the website/forum used by those hostile to Barber to organize their participation in Wikipedia. All of the "private" information Barber was accused of disclosing had previously been made public, on multiple websites, by/for User:Shiloh_lover.

Ninth Assertion[edit]

User:NobleAcres has repeatedly posted uncivilly [258], revealed personal information [259], and made personal attacks [260]. User:NobleAcres has had a recent business dispute with Barber, which was litigated, and received substantially less than she demanded; since the resolution of that case, she has attacked Barber on various internet sites, making claims inconsistent with the reported resolution of that case.

Evidence presented by S Scott[edit]

First Assertion[edit]

Posting Personal Information: The advocate for Tina M. Barber is correct in saying editors in this dispute are generally known to each other. However, the editor whose employer information was revealed is an exception. I share this information with their permission.

First, the editor is male, not female. He isn’t known to most in the Shiloh community, and he didn’t use his real name on the discussion page or give any identifying info except his IP address, due to being a Wiki newcomer. No one would have known him from his Wiki signature of “Shiloh Lover.” On one of Tina’s forums, there was even speculation that he was a female.

He has never spoken to Tina, who had no occasion to know who he was until she got angry about his posts on the discussion page.

Tina then traced his IP address from his Wiki post, learned who he was, and posted to Wiki his first and last names, work e-mail address, and employer information, saying she was going to contact the employer and try to get him fired. According to the editor, she contacted the employer but was unsuccessful in getting him fired. She told people on her forums to call the employer, too. The editor left Wiki, and Tina’s actions created a tense situation for the person at work.

Tina M. Barber's actions go far beyond using a person's name that was known by almost all editors. She attempted to deprive him of his livelihood. S Scott 02:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Second Assertion[edit]

Response to link 53, 8th Assertion above

S Scott revealed personal information, in the form of court documents, about another editor. Technically these documents are public record, however, the site linked is very POV and omits documents showing that in one case all complaining parties recanted and the case was dismissed with prejudice [[261]]

I have not linked to any public documents on the discussion pages. Jareth's link goes to my comment that refers to a different court case:

“Court records indicate that Ms. Barber was unsuccessful in her efforts to trademark the name Shiloh Shepherd, yet she continues to add the TM symbol to the breed name.” S Scott 02:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Third Assertion[edit]

Responses to 7th Assertion, above

Note: It is puzzling to me that the examples Jareth cites in the 7th assertion would warrant being named in this RfAR. Until this RfAR, Jareth has never mentioned any of these examples to me as being infractions of Wiki policies.

I have never been blocked or warned that I might be blocked. No one has mentioned my violating Wiki policy on the discussion page or on my user page. There has been no RfC filed against me.

Note: I'm not a breeder, I'm not known by many in the Shiloh community, and I don’t belong to any Shiloh club or registry. Most people on the ISSDC side of the “outside dispute” haven't been following the discussion on Wiki. Yes, I know their general opinions and feelings, but I wouldn't speak for them without their permission.

Note: As for “pushing POV,” as an editor on the Shiloh article, I spoke as a representative of the group of ISSDC editors, as per the agreement among the group: If one of us saw something on the discussion page or in the article that needed a response, the person posted right away, let the others know, and then sometimes, we worked on a response together, which one of us would post on behalf of the group.

Link 48 - Jareth, could you clarify what you think I did wrong in this example? I haven’t been able to figure it out.

Link 49 - In the first paragraph of this example, I mistakenly thought Jareth was referring to a draft and not the article itself. It was late at night.

In the second paragraph, I was registering the objections of all ISSDC editors to a particular reference being included in the article.

I don’t recall Jareth ever mentioning that an editor shouldn’t speak for their group without saying they had the group’s permission. Had she said that, I would have changed. If I missed it, I apologize.

Jareth, could you let me know if I’m interpreting this correctly, that I should have said I was speaking for the group with their permission? If links 49, 51, and 52 are examples of something else, please let me know, so I can respond.

Link 50 - Jareth, could you clarify this one, too? In this example, I expressed doubt that editors would reach agreement on your latest draft proposal and then posted the draft that editors had been working on most recently. Example 48 comes from this same exchange. There, you said that you weren’t referring to “any editor” when you talked about editors who felt “they couldn’t work with others and reach consesus on the article may wish to recuse themselves.”

In the next part of the exchange, you specifically said you weren’t talking about me. [[262]] S Scott 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Fourth Assertion[edit]

To date, there are no indications that Jareth will be held accountable for her behavior. Because she isn’t on the Mediation Committee, it’s looking as if she can do anything in the name of mediation, including following virtually none of the process and including taking actions that are expressly forbidden, as has been documented elsewhere on this page.

She pretends to be a mediator, exacerbates the conflict and divisiveness, and then may not held accountable because she wasn’t really a mediator. It is my hope that there will be appropriate consequences. S Scott 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Fifth Assertion[edit]

So far, there’s no indication that Jareth will be held accountable as an Administrator, either. She has failed there, too: “…Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral. They do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.” [[263]]

On this page, other editors have documented examples of her failure to be neutral and to avoid direct involvement in the issues she was charged to help us with. Again, it is my hope that there will be appropriate consequences. S Scott 01:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Sixth Assertion[edit]

One effect of Jareth's behavior was that, when she was on the SSDCA's side, the ISSDC editors took turns posting material that we had all worked on, so we could rotate who would be “on the front lines,” receiving her displeasure with us.

When Jareth was on the SSDCA's side, the ISSDC editors found themselves spending as much energy trying to work with her as they did with Tina and other SSDCA editors. Many times, we wondered how we could “fire” her. I accept responsibility for my part in not exploring options.

Many times, our appreciative comments were attempts to encourage appropriate behavior on her part. The fact that we spent considerable time strategizing the best way to elicit fair treatment from our “mediator” is a telling reflection on her effectiveness.

This assertion is a consensus of the ISSDC editors named in this RfAR and is posted with their permission. S Scott 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Seventh Assertion[edit]

When Jareth inserted herself into the Shiloh discussion, all the editors contributed to the unfortunate situation we have now by not saying – Hey, wait a minute. We need to look at the mediation process and see if the steps are being followed. I accept responsibility for my part in not pursuing this. Editors on both sides have suffered the consequences for our mistake.

Wiki authorities, please take steps to keep Jareth from repeating her behavior with another group of editors. She brings little credit to the Wikipedia endeavors.S Scott 02:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Eighth Assertion[edit]

Please advise if this should be on the talk page.

Does Wiki provide redress for editors who are falsely accused in RfARs?

Does Wiki have standards for the quality and accuracy of RfARs that are filed?

It seems inappropriate for me to have been included in this RfAR. Additionally, there is no correlation between Jareth's evidence against me and her additional charges in the Workshop. except possibly one charge that is unclear to me.

Any clarification that Wiki authorities can provide would be appreciated.


Jareth has filed charges against me in the Evidence that are incorrect, unclear, or seem minor: occasionally pushing POV, failure to AGF, and revealing personal info by linking to a court document that is available to the public.

The charges are

  1. incorrect - 8th assertion about the court document
  2. unclear as to the charge - 2 of the 5 examples in 7th assertion
  3. inconsequential and unclear as to the charge - 2 examples in 7th assertion.
  4. apparently incorrect - In Jareth's statement that immediately follows the 5th example, Jareth specifically said she was not talking about me. On the Evidence page, I have asked Jareth for clarification.

Jareth has not responded to my requests for clarification.

Additionally, in the Workshop, Jareth requests severe remedies for additional alleged infractions that are not in Evidence, including being banned from the article and from Wiki, and asserts that the evidence substantiates these claims against me.

She claims that I have been discourteous and have made personal attacks, have harassed editors, have attempted to maintain ownership of the article, and have been involved in the external controversy.

None of the evidence relates to her claims in the Workshop. Jareth presents no additional evidence.

The possible exception is Jareth’s charge of “occasionally pushing POV,” but she hasn’t responded to my request for clarification.

Additionally, there have been no mentions on discussion page or my user page for any behavior of mine, including charges in Evidence and Workshop. There has been no RfC against me.

Details:

In this RfAR, Jareth presented evidence against me that is incorrect, unclear, or seems insubstantial:

  1. 8th Assertion: Jareth said that I linked to a court document to which I did not link. I have never linked to a court doument. In addition, she was referring to a different court case than the one I mentioned.
  2. 7th Assertion: In two of the five examples of evidence, I can’t determine what Jareth is saying I did wrong, and she hasn’t responded to my questions about those.
  3. 7th Assertion: In two examples, Jareth has not responded to my request for clarification: Was she saying that I was speaking for the group of ISSDC editors and not adding that I had their permission? Or, was she saying I was speaking for non-editors who are involved in the outside dispute?
  4. 7th Assertion: The charge in the 5th example is unclear. No response to my request for clarification.

Regardless, none of these charges seems to warrant an RfC, much less an RfAR. None of these was mentioned by Jareth or anyone else on the discussion page or my user page.

In the Workshop, Jareth asserts that I have violated additional Wiki policies, stating that evidence on the evidence page substantiates her claims.

None of the evidence she cites relates to charges in the Workshop, except possibly one claim, which is unclear.

Details:

A. Proposed findings of fact

1. Personal attacks by involved users 4) Tina M. Barber and other users involved in the external dispute have been discourteous and engaged engaged in personal attacks on one another.

I belive this statement should be revised to state that all parties involved have engaged in personal attacks per the evidence presented. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Claims of ownership 6) Tina M. Barber and the other involved users have attempted to maintain ownership of the Wikipedia article Shiloh shepherd dog,

All other parties should be included in this statement, please review evidence. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


B. Proposed remedies

3. Tina M. Barber banned

Tina M. Barber is banned from Wikipedia for six months for personal attacks and harassment.

Six months seem to be a bit much and this should be expanded to include all editors involved in personal attacks and revealing personal information per the evidence. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Ban from articles Tina M. Barber and the other participants in the external controversy are banned from editing articles on the Shiloh shepherd dog. This ban shall be interpreted broadly.

I believe this should be expanded to include all involved parties, including myself should the arbitrators feel I've also acted inappropriately. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) S Scott 16:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]

Evidence presented by MilesD.[edit]

First Assertion[edit]

Jareth has demonstrated a pattern of making “blanket” accusations of misbehavior against editors, while excusing her own failings as an administrator and mediator, and repeatedly and falsely claiming she is a victim, while being unable to provide specific, repeated, escalating evidence to warrant my inclusion in this RfAR.

Jareth asserts I have recently handled dispute well and provides examples of such, however she provides negligible and insufficient evidence to demonstrate a either a pattern or sufficient preponderance of misbehavior. On the contrary, she provides ample evidence demonstrating my adherence WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, AND WP:NOR.

In addition, I have only been "disciplined" for PA one time . As a brand-new editor on 12/16, unaware of Wiki policies and procedures, I reinstated an edit deemed inappropriate and removed by Jareth, because I did not realize she had removed it and assumed I had added it incorrectly. I was blocked for 3 hours. I do take responsibility for one other occasion when I responded inappropriately. When an editor posted attributing my signature to a post I did not write, I called them a “loser”, but then at my own discretion without admin warning or correction, immediately rv’d my comment and apologized for my use of this term. Other than that, I have never received any official warnings or blocks for any contributions I have made to Wiki.

Second Assertion[edit]

Jareth has failed to cite examples of WP:POV re: this editor. While only asserting that I have only “occasionally” pushed my POV (i.e. sometimes speaking as a representative for a side of the outside dispute) and letting an outside dispute get in the way of assuming good faith (few examples), however, the examples she provides in her Assertion #5, do not meet the criteria for WP:POV. In fact, they demonstrate numerous attempts on my part to adhere to Wiki:Mediation policies [[264]], which assert the need for defined “groups” of disputants and allows for individual editors to speak as representatives for a group, with their permission, when seeking consensus. Through her statement, Jareth incorrectly presumes Wiki disallows editors from forming cohesive approaches in the formation of articles. In addition, if I do have an acknowledged POV, it is one of my repeatedly requesting and suggesting that Wiki policies of neutrality, verifiability, good faith, no original research, civility, and consensus be applied. Jareth has not cited any examples in Assertion 5 where I have asserted that my own personal viewpoint, bias, or the views of others, re: these clubs/registries should be included in the article, other than those embracing the above mentioned Wiki policies.

Third Assertion[edit]

Jareth and arbitrator, Fred Bauer, prior to the presentation of this case, have presumptively and prejudicially assumed that all participation, position, motive and affiliation with other editors is a direct biased, disruptive reflection of an “outside” dispute re: the Shiloh Shepherd dog and should be censored. They have also falsely assumed that all editors know each other and/or are publicly known, and therefore anonymity is moot. They have unfairly asserted that contributors affiliated with this breed, or some of the controversy surrounding its founding club/registry, should be excluded from participation in this article.

Nevertheless, I am not a member of, nor do I participate in, any clubs/registries involved in article. I am not a breeder/seller of dogs . I have met only one other editors participating in this project. I have never revealed personal information about myself or another editor on the Wiki talk page/article and I have never addressed another editor on the Wiki talk page/article by any name other than their stated “signature”.

I am however a member of a “group” with an agenda, including all members included in this RfAR, with the exclusion of Tina M. Barber. This is a group which has always consistently and repeatedly asserted that both Tina’s club (SSDCA) and registry (ISSR) and those formed since their inception (ISSDC club and NSBR-TSSR-SSBA registries) do exist and warrant respectful and neutral inclusion in the Shiloh article. In fact, I wrote and submitted this very proposal to the talk page and requested Jareth convene a straw poll for consensus re: this matter, which passed overwhelmingly. The group included in this RfAR (except T. Barber) has never sought to deny T. Barber or her club/registry neutral, factual, respectful representation in the article and has firmly asserted her right to mention as historically significant in the establishment of the Shiloh Shepherd dog. We have strongly and consistently resisted the inclusion of article contents re: any clubs/registries, including T. Barber’s, which are based on bias, original research, lack of verifiability, and personal attack.

Further examples of my participation and attempts to post appropriately and reach consensus. [[265]] (See “Questions”) [[266]] (See “Dispute(s)” - Proposal and Rqst for Straw Poll) [[267]] (See “Attn: Jareth - NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC History Section Proposal” – History Section Proposal and Rqst for 2nd Straw Poll) [[268]] (See “Some Questions/Comments re: "...Remove the article...") [[269]] (See “Support Revision (B))


Fourth Assertion[edit]

However, neither Tina M. Barber nor Jareth, contrary to her statements of purpose, have demonstrated a like willingness to apply these Wiki standards re: neutrality, verifiability, and NOR, most particularly since mid-January. Jareth has increasingly aligned herself and attempted to establish an offline relationship with Tina M. Barber and her “group”. She has stated she would like to have, and has attempted to secure, a Shiloh Shepherd from Tina Barber’s breeders. Jareth, under the guise of “mediation”, has taken ownership of the article, inserted contested bias and original research contents into the article, and has used her administrator title to intimidate and thwart editors resistant to these actions. With demonstrable bias, personal attacks, incivility, threats and a lack of good faith, and included in numerous Shiloh talk page postings, private correspondence and writings on Tina M. Barber’s offline chat group, which many editors are denied, Jareth has patronized, disparaged, advocated and attempted to control this article and foment a negative relationship among disputing editors. (Please note: Copies of all of Jareth's offline email correspondence and chat group posts are available upon request), in efforts to escalate the dispute and attain her own control of this article.


Fifth Assertion[edit]

Whereas, Jareth followed Wiki Dispute Resolution policies by warning and filing an RFC (1/30/06) against Tina Barber, she did not accord the same notice/warnings/RFC filings to the other editors she has now “added” to this RfAR. She specifically stated her RFC was filed against Tina Barber. [[270]] and she threatened other editors by stating she was going to file an addendum to Tina Barber's RFC. [[271]]

Email from Jareth to MilesD. 05jan06: Jareth stated “Since no one else seems to want to do it, I'll be putting together an RfC on Tina since her behavior is getting absurd.

When Tina Barber and members of her group became aware an RFC had been filed they were angry. Jareth then falsely led them to believe the RFC included other editors, to appease them and align herself more closely with them. She filed this RfAR to cement that alliance, by including only the editors listed herein and by excluding any editors affiliated with Tina Barber, even those she had warned numerous times (including a final warning) and blocked.

Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber off-Wiki chat group) Post from Jareth 8feb06 9:37pm: “As far as removing and discrediting Tina, that's not what an RfC is about and if you read it, the RfC is not only about Tina. Its about the behavior of a number of people and the constant disregard for Wikipedia's rules”
Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 12jan06 11:23am: “I browsed some of the ISSR site and looked at the dogs from some of the breeders -- they absolutely take my breath away….So I've told my husband I've made up my mind. I'm willing to discuss other dogs he might like, but I would really like to have a Shiloh .
Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 13jan06 2:37pm: “Well holy cow Michael, I live in Akron myself. I'd love to get the chance to meet your 2 one of these days. Course I'd love to take a road-trip to visit Ma {referring to T. Barber aka MaShiloh} one of these days too (as if she doesn't have enough to do).”
Editor from T. Barber’s group given final warning but not included in RfAR Trillhill

Contrary to Fred Bauer’s contentions [272] (Please see: "Request Urgent Help"), this is important and unfairly detrimental to the parties named in this RfAR. Jareth has posited that the RfAR is somehow or another an “extension” of the RFC she filed against Tina Barber, in order to pacify Tina Barber’s group, to imply complicity/forewarning on the parts of editors named in this RfAR, to further impair consensus, to enhance the “weight” of her position as arbiter. In addition, with no notice of her plans to do so, she has denied us recommended Wiki due process.


Sixth Assertion[edit]

Jareth self-assumed the de facto position of mediator for the Shiloh Shepherd Dog group, even though she is not a member and has not gained experience/education as participant in the Mediation Committee and was not been appointed by them as such for the Shiloh article. As new Wiki members, we were unaware of Mediation policy, assumed good faith in her intentions/experience and followed her lead after she asserted this role. Jareth did not explain Wiki mediation procedures, did not define her role, and did not adhere to Wiki mediation policies. [[273]].

Jareth also frequenly and preferably employed Wiki off-line emails and a private chat room as means of communication. (Copies of these transcripts are available upon request)

[[274]](Please see "re:Hey")

“One of my major mediation feats was completely behind the scenes - when Joomla! split off of Mambo, someone thought Wikipedia needed an entry on the new CMS.”

[[275]]

"One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality. I've spent a great deal of time with them explaining how Wikipedia works (their influx of support looked very sockpuppet like) and working with them on how to create a better article."
Email from Jareth to MilesD. 03jan06: Jareth stated: “Don’t worry about emailing me privately – there are some things better not said on the Talk page.

Mediation [[276]] actually requires “groups” and allows for individual spokespersons to represent/speak for a group with their approval.

“Mediators are a neutral third party….assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement”

Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 8feb06 10:44pm: “Everyone here has been fantastic lately. You've pulled back a bit, commented and let the people from the splinters (ISSDC editors} look like idiots with their petty arguing.”

“The mediators are here to help you communicate with the other parties, not to judge you. In particular, they will not have any power of final decision over an article or over banning.”

Email to MilesD. 11jan06: Jareth: “I'm actually working on rewriting the history myself so we'll see how that goes - I've actually found that if you just ignore her {referring to Tina Barber} ranting completely, you can make her actually answer questions.”

“A mediator may only suggest, rather than impose, a contract” [[277]]

“Mediators are not Emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow communication to happen”

Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 7feb06 8:01pm: “If people would rather not post on the Wiki, I'd be happy to add your suggestions over there.”

Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article.

Email from Jareth to MilesD. 03jan06: Jareth: “I'm pretty sure the worst is over; Ms Barber and her faction have been clearly outnumbered -- she won't be able to insert her propaganda again.”
[[278]]
I will try to do some research tonight and see if I can't find anything that would help. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediators are not Psychologists or Social workers. Mediators will work with both parties, and therefore cannot counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.

Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 13jan06 10:38pm: Jareth, referring to ISSDC editors: “Sneaky aren’t they? They’re being very careful no to actually claim its LMX data, they actually don’t really say anything other than “pedigrees”. Ask them to cite their source.”

Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.

Please See: [[279]]
Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 12jan06 1:41pm: “Looks like there's a new history proposal, or part of one….Doesn't have anything about the splinters yet though, so it could all go downhill from there.”

Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines. Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report.

Email to MilesD. 17jan06: Jareth: “Here's the deal folks. I do not have the time or energy to try to compile the history that none of you seem to be able to handle and at the same time try to go through all the archives, clean out all the bull (which would be more than half of it) and leave something still coherent.”
Email to MilesD. 17jan06: Jareth: “I'm ready to toss the lot of you and get together some real editors to write the article.”
Please see:
[[280]]-PA warn
[[281]]-PA warn
[[282]]-RfAR threat

Seventh Assertion[edit]

Jareth has attempted ownership of the article. Early on in the formation of the article Jareth stated: “I would request again that none of the parties involved in the dispute add or remove information related to the dispute until such time as we have an agreement :.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)” However, she has repeatedly edited the article without seeking consensus and has chosen to “control” and/or “write” the article herself on many occasions. [[283]] [[284]] [[285]] [286]] [[287]] [[288]] [[289]] [[290]] [[291]] [[292]] [[293]] [[294]] [[295]] [[296]] [[297]] [[298]]

Jareth insists on an unverifiable contested reference inclusion in article[[299]] [[300]]

Additional examples of assumption of "ownership"

Email to MilesD. 17jan06: Jareth: “Hopefully I'll be posting the second section of the history proposal later today.”
Shiloh Shepherd Forums (T. Barber private chat group) Post from Jareth 7feb06 10:28a: Jareth responding to previous poster referring to Jareth being a “him”: Jareth: “First, I'm a her -- I know, its a horrible nickname :P. Second, I have always felt that the history needed to be more inclusive. I actually made that last proposal to point out how horribly things would look if we just ripped out nothing but the facts everyone agreed on. Unfortunately, a lot of people decided they liked that I originally had a much more lengthy, 4 paragraph history which was more clear and descriptive -- I got shouted down from all corners. I'll try it again and see what I can come up with.”

Eighth Assertion[edit]

Jareth engages in uncivil behavior, displays a lack of good faith, and makes personal attacks on editors

[[301]](Please see post referencing Miles/Roberta Ellena-Jareth did nothing about this posting of personal information) [[302]] [[303]] [[304]] [[305]] [[306]]-Please note:Jareth added most of the photos herself without discussion [307]] [308]] [[309]] [310]]-Doesn't AGF [311]] [[312]]-Doesn't AGF - this is not why we disagreed [313]]-AGF [[314]] [[315]] [[316]] [[317]] [[318]] [[319]]-Implied threat of RfAR

Ninth Assertion[edit]

Arbitrator Fred Bauder has violated Wiki:Arbitration policy and Jareth has utilized a sock/meat puppet to rv and edit to the Shiloh talk page, which included personal attacks and the reveal of personal, private information.

A post [[320]] containing numerous personal attacks and revealing personal information about editors and private citizens not involved with this article is posted to the Shiloh talk page by an ip address poster User: 209.215.39.5(signs post "Lisa Trendler), who has never posted before and has been warned twice for vandalism. This attack is removed by ShenandoahShilohs, one of the editors attacked and revealed in the post.

Then, Dixen, Jareth's now self-acknowledged "husband" posts for the first time ever to the Shiloh Shepherd article by rv-ing the post [[321]] with the edit summary comment “rv: Too late to get self righteoous now.

I removed the offensive post again and appealed to the Admin Incident Board [322](see "Request Urgent Help")for relief re: 209.215.39.5 and a request that a user:check for Jareth and Dixen be considered, a request I have every Wiki right to make.

Jareth then posts to MilesD.’s talk page claiming Dixen is “her husband” and claiming “you're accusing my husband and I of being sockpuppets -- if you'd like, I can provide my phone number so you can personally verify”. [323] I don’t know anything about this person’s personal life, don't want to know anything, and find her attempt to establish phone contact with another editor desperate and highly inappropriate.

Seven (7) minutes later Jareth rv’s the post again, claiming it is not disparaging and does not contain personal info, which is patently untrue.

Thirteen (13) minutes later, our appeal to the Admin Incident Board is “archived”, within 3 hours of posting, without comment, and the personal information revealed remains in the Shiloh article history for everyone to view.

Following reinstatement of the request for Admin assistance on the board page, Arbitrator Fred Bauder posts the following response to our post [[324]]: "The participants in this dispute seem to be all involved in sustained disputes regarding the breeding and marketing of Shiloh Shepherds. They know each other by name already. Use of first names on the talk page of the article is of minimal significance. When and if the Arbitration Commitee hears this case I will almost certainly advocate that no one involved in the current controversy over the breeding and selling of Shiloh Shepards should be allowed to edit the article. Your quarrels belong elsewhere, not here, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Fred Bauder 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"

Mr. Bauder’s post to the Admin Incident Board is very disturbing: 1) He is an arbitrator hearing our RfAR case, and we had not even been given the opportunity by him to present our cases before he made these assumptions,voiced his prejudices, and declared his verdict re: this RfAR. 2) He is wrong to assume that experience with controversial subject matter automatically negates an editor’s ability to remain neutral and unbiased. There is nothing in Wiki policy prohibiting participation of editors involved with article subject matter; in fact our affiliations are protected by Wiki policy. 3)He is completely inaccurate when arbitrarily generalizing and assuming my contributions (and all editors,but one, targeted in this RfAR) to this article are "outside quarrels" spilling into Wiki. In fact, almost all of our contributions involve challenges to the presentation/inclusion of unverifiable, non-neutral information and PAs by Tina Barber and Jareth, as appropriate. It should also be noted that the few times those of us named here responded personally was due, for the most part, to Jareth's consistent refusal to stop the constant and continual barrage of Tina Barber's personal attacks/animosity/self-promotion/unfounded accusations thrown our way. 4)Nevertheless, his prejudice is seriously damaging as some of us named in this RfAR are neither breeders nor members of any of the clubs and registries involved with this breed. 5)He is wrong because anonymity is guaranteed by Jimbo and I have met only one other participant in this discussion. Most of us have never revealed our names nor referred to another editor by name, unless they have revealed that info on the talk page. However, my own identity has been published and has remained on the Wiki talk page for months, without any action by administrator Jareth. It should also be seriously considered that, in another egregious incident of this type, an editor’s personal full name and place of employment was was tracked through his IP address tracking and posted by Tina Barber on the talk page. His employer was contacted, he was reported to them, and they were threatened and harrassed. Jareth did nothing and this information was left on the talk page, until we found concerned Admins who recognized the serious nature of this attack and pursued removal of this information. 6)This is simply and seriously wrong, for a variety of legal and privacy issue reasons and Fred Bauer, as an arbitrator, should not minimize such a serious issue . 7)Wiki arbitration policy dictates neutrality. Mr. Bauder’s presumptions and prejudices re: editors’ profiles and his already stated future plans to not arbitrate, but actually “advocate” that we be banned, seriously violate these arbitration principles, arbitrators codes of conduct, and damages any opportunity and belief in the possibility for a fair and impartial hearing.

Tenth Assertion[edit]

Oh, also, if someone in "authority" gets a chance, could they please tell Jareth she can stop posting harrassing posts on the discussion sections of our talk pages (i.e. MilesD. and ShenandoahShilohs. Neither I, nor ShenandoahShilohs (who has asked me to relay her same feelings) are interested in any of her attempts to contact us.

Eleventh Assertion[edit]

My experience with Wiki leaves much to be desired. For me, it is a waste of time/energy to continue interacting with those, particularly those with positions of authority, who “talk the talk”, when it comes to vocally insisting that others adhere to the principles of Wiki neutrality, NPA, CIVIL, and AGF, yet fail so miserably when it comes time to “walk the walk” and apply these same standard to themselves. I therefore have filed my own RfAR (Really Fouled Up and Ridiculous) against Wikipedia and found it has sorely failed to meet my standards for neutrality, civility, good faith, verifiability, and therefore, participation. Consequently, I have banned it from further involvement in my life. Do as you please. See ya' and good luck. MilesD.

Evidence Presented by NobleAcres 00:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[edit]

I appreciate you all letting me say my piece, but after I'm done I'll take myself out of this. This has gotten so ridiculous that I'm trying to defend myself for calling Tina "Tina" when she said who she was. And then I respectfully disagreed with jareth when she asked for comments. And now just because I breed Shilohs I'm not allowed to talk on wiki about them????

Tina Barber and her crew called us an assortment of derogatory names and nothing was ever said. She gave out someone's name, employer, and phone number and urged her crew to call his employer as she did. They called in more of their crew just to say hateful things to us, who even you all have begun to call "splinters". But yet I get this wiki foolishness because I expressed the opinion that a certain part of the history be left out (after I had been asked).

Jareth continually provoked all the editors by trying to add more controversial information after we'd all, from both sides, agreed on what to put in. She comes to our forum and tries to get our subscribers to come to wiki and edit, after she'd announced that we all needed to refrain from editing. She goes to Tina's forum and calls us names and talks about how she's going to set us up to get kicked off of wiki - and then she does it!!!!

Has anyone noticed that since Jareth has stopped fueling the fire there has been no more trouble with editors on wiki? Something is so terribly wrong with this picture and it's certainly not me!

I don't have time to go to wiki court and defend myself. I'm not real big on mind games and that's what this has become. The wikiworld has been a real trip, but my journey has ended.

Gloria Setterlund www.NobleAcres.com

Evidence presented by Trysha[edit]

First assertion[edit]

Keeping in mind that the core of the dispute is that Tina's group is saying that the dogs bred by other groups are not real SSDs, It is hard for me to find any way to interpet this as a good faith edit - Tina M. Barber changed the caption of the photo a dog bred by ShenandoahShilohs to say that the dog is a "long haired German Shepherd Dog". [325].


Evidence presented by User:Shiloh lover[edit]

I will not go into a lengthy list of assertions and evidence to contradict the claims laid by User:Monicasdude. I do not agree with them in the least and have no desire to contribute further to the Wiki community (be it the Shiloh Shepherd article, or any other) as has been the case since December 9th, 2005 when the debate within the Wiki article ventured outside it.

The sole intent for my particpation in the article was to attempt to reach a NPOV article without derogratory remarks aimmed at either organization, or any individuals. The initally found terms "dissident and immitators" has been removed thanks to the community discussions and the article is in far better shape today, listing the breed history with the parties involved. I am sure that the community will eventually attain an article better than it's original form.

Contrary to assertions made by Monicasdude, there was no pre-existing battle involving myself. No where will evidence to support such be found as it quite simply does not exist. Neither on my personal website, or the ISSDC Canada website and so it shall remain. Although I am a member of an alternate club/registry, that does not mean that my intent is to disrupt other groups, but rather focus on improvements to our own.

My personal information continues to be spread (or linked to) on Wikipedia although it was only obtained thru an IP trace and was never disseminated without my consent or approval. Therefore was only obtained through an inappropriate action. This is in my opinion further breaching the Wiki policies.

Although posting made by myself shortly before my departure may have been less than courteous, they were indicative of my growing frustion with the constant edits without any form of discussion on the discussion page. I will accept whatever punishment the Arb committee deems fit for those posts and for any negative tone directed towards the users present at that time. All I was initially seeking was the removal of the negative "immiator and dissident" comments and the inclusion of the other registries.

The claims made that I was seeking self promotion are incorrect. Again this was simply a case of removing negative comments about the parties to which I am affiliated and at no time had to do with attempting to harm other organizations or individuals.

The fact that I run a club website & forums is certainly no confirmation that I was an "instigator" or some "continuing influence" or "recruit editors from the forum membership". The forum is in it's beta stage and simply being set up - it's purpose is for the promotion of Shiloh Shepherds in Canada - period. The removal of the membership list, and profile information as posted by User:Monicasdude was done as a security measure as User:Monicasdude had identified two security gaps which provided user's private information which was not intended for public distribution. Again, being a new board still in beta mode, there are a number of items requiring work. Besides, guilt by association is hardly grounds to base a statement on.

The statement "unmistakeable purpose of promoting his organization's interests and damaging the interests and reputation of the competing organizations affiliated with Tina M. Barber" is completely false. As can be seen by edits I made to the article the only attempt was to removal POV and never once was a derogatory comment inserted that would be considered damaging the interests and repution of other editors. I take extreme offense to that statement. I would recommend the Arb committee looks at exactly what posts I made and what was said in there. Although they were not courteous, they were by now mean an attack as described by User:Monicasdude

I have remained silent during the entire RfArb process and only now post a response due to what I feel are incorrect and unfair accusations made against me. I shall have no further participation in these proceedings, no further participation in the Wikipedia community, and would strongly recommend future editors reconsider before entering articles with contention.

The Arbitration committee can pass whatever sentences it wishes on me. My particpation ended on December 9th, and with this one exception, so it shall remain.

Shiloh lover 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence&oldid=954900848"