Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is this how Arbitration works?

Please explain to me how while in arbitration an advocate can continue to push his clients POV in the article in question? Tina Barber defaces a picture calling a top ranked Shiloh a GSD mix. I revert her edit. Monicasdude reverts it with a bogus claim of copyright. It gets reverted by a different editor again explaining it was uploaded with free use, and placed in the article by an admin. Monicasdude reverts it again with the same bogus claim, in fact his claim pertains to a number of the pictures in the article that were NOT removed, and within 3 seconds of his removal of the picture the page gets locked. So after an Rfc on Tina Barber, now arbitration, Tina Barber is still continuing her behavior and has an advocate enabling it. There was absolutely no reason to remove the picture of that top ranked Shiloh Shepherd other than to enable Tina Barbers control of the article. The picture was given Wiki free use, there was no copyright issue. Monicasdue acted in bad faith to enable Tina Barber's POV only in regard to this article.

I would ask this arbitration board to show good faith by putting the picture in question back and to recognize that issues like this is why there is such an unpleasant dispute about this article. ShenandoahShilohs 01:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this how Arbitration works....is this how Wiki works?

I agree completely and request the same. If not possible, please refer it on to Jimbo. I don't know the guy, so at this point, I don't know what he would say, but at least we will know if this is all an aberration or the reality of Wiki for anyone wishing to participate. |||Miles.D.||| ^{03-1-2006 02:33 (UTC)}

Request for Clarification/Guidance (procedure)

1) In order to properly respond to the allegations of harassment by Tina Barber, I will need to refer to external links which disclose virtually the same information at issue in this case as inappropriate to disclose on Wikipedia. I would prefer to omit those links in public postings, but transmit them privately to Jareth, to advocate McClenon, and to the Arbitration Committee via the clerks' office. Please advise on whether the Committee would prefer this course, or including the links in posts to the Evidence page. As advocate for Tina Barber, Monicasdude 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motion to add party to arbitration

1) I ask the Arbitration Committee to add User:Shiloh_lover to the parties formally named in this case. As I have outlined in my Fifth and Sixth Assertions on the Evidence page for this case, he has been a principal actor in the underlying disputes, both on and off Wikipedia, and has been attempting to influence the outcome of this arbitration. As advocate for Tina Barber, Monicasdude 05:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No discussion outside of RfAR

1) Due to recent involvement of several parties in making accusations of sockpuppetry in retaliation for being included in this RfAR, all parties will refrain from discussing any of the involved editors outside of this RfAR until its conclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no basis for this Fred Bauder 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This request, as stated, is extreme. It is presumably intended to be a "gag order" to prevent the parties from posting to WP:ANI or other Wikipedia boards to request non-ArbCom action. However, as stated, it prevents the parties from discussing this case with an advocate. Please clarify. Robert McClenon 12:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed immediate block on Tina M Barber

Ms Barber continues to vandalize the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article. 2/28/06 she vandalized a picture by altering the caption with incorrect information in yet another attempt to evoke an edit war. This is the same behavior that has brought us to where we are today. ShenandoahShilohs 19:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

The edit was POV-pushing but was not vandalism, since there is an external dispute as to what dogs are Shilohs. If an injunction is to be issued, it should be against all parties to the external controversy, that is, the parties to this arbitration identified as breeders. (MilesD. and S Scott are not breeders and are not parties to the external controversy.) I have requested page protection of the page, but an ArbCom injunction against editing by parties would be more targeted and less drastic. Robert McClenon 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is an injunction, it should extend to all the editors involved in the arbitration here. The precise status of these editors with regard to the external dispute has never been well established, and virtually all, included the two named by advocate McClenon, have made actions and statements indicating they view themselves as stakeholders in the external dispute. (Please note that I have deleted [clarification: from the article] the picture involved in the immediate editing dispute, since the license statement was apparently provided by uploader User:MilesD., who is not, per information attached to the image, its creator or copyright holder.) As advocate for User:Tina M. Barber, Monicasdude 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you had no right to remove that picture. A number of the pictures on that page were added by others to help editors that did not know how. Further, as an advocate for Tina Barber, don't you find your removal of that picture a bit bias? The picture has no copyright, it was uploaded with Wiki's free use, so again, your assertion for its removal is not accurate. As for your edit comment that there are plenty of pictures, that was the second picture added to the article, if you feel there are plenty, then maybe you should remove the more recent pictures and the others that were not added by the picture owner. A number of the other pictures are also in dispute as they were registered GSD's, not Shilohs. As a member of this arbitration, I respected it enough to no longer edit that article, shame others didn't do the same. For the record, I have given my permission for that picture to be free use and for Miles D to post it. ShenandoahShilohs 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This photo of a Shiloh Shepherd dog (despite various opinions, this dog is recognized as a Shiloh Shepherd and is the the #1 ARBA Rare Breed Dog in the country for 2005) was uploaded into Wiki by me with free use permission by the photographer/owner (ShenandoahShilohs) of this dog and was added to the article by Jareth. ShenandoahShilohs gifted me with this photo of her dog and it is mine legally to use, contrary to Monicasdude's false claims. And, there was only one other photo in the article at the time, so there was no attempt to "crowd" the article at all, another bogus rationale for its removal. In addition, 3rd party, verifiable, neutral evidence was provided to warrant this photo's inclusion. That includes this dogs recognition, as acknowledged by the American Rare Breed Association, as both a Shiloh Shepherd dog and their #1 Rare Breed dog nationally, using Tina Barber's own Shiloh Shepherd Breed Standard to make this decision. Also, his lineage and pedigree has shown him to be unequivocally a genetic Shiloh Shepherd.

Nevertheless, Ms. Barber does not consider any Shiloh Shepherd not affiliated with her club/registry to be a Shiloh Shepherd, regardless of ANY evidence to the contrary. This attempt to arbitrarily disavow genetics, simply based on a dog's registry/club affiliation, is not evidence and does not warrant its removal from the article.

I put the photo back in, now Tina Barber's advocate has chosen to employ questionable tactics by reverting it twice and gee.... three minutes after his 2nd removal of it....an admin (KillerChihuahua) comes in and protects the page, without the photo.

This photo should be reinstated immediately, then the article should be locked until this arbitration is complete. Or are there no rules of fair play or respect or honesty and is this what Wiki and some of it's contributors are really like? This is so indicative of the the same types of under-handed, POV, unethical stuff many of us have had to deal with throughout this ordeal and obviously Ms. Barber's advocate fully approves and has decided to participate in a like manner. But, just for the record, the photo submitted by Ms. Barber's editor, TrillHill, which is currently located in the "breed box" sat there for months as a "full copyrighted" photo, totally against Wiki policy and marked as such, but not one of us challenged its use or removed it. And the majority of the photos added to the article were submitted by Tina Barber advocates in the same manner the removed photo was, yet, funny, Monicasdude found no reason to apply his "standards" to those. The reason we didn't revert any of those or complain....we tried to be reasonable and work for compromise and not initiate/engage in edit wars.

But it appears treating other editors with no respect, bullying, constantly maneuvering for every advantage, and having accomodating administrators for friends, appears to be the overriding method of operation for some. Unfortunately and again, as proven repeatedly, I have no hope that truth or any kind of ethics, fairness, justice, or even a little courage on the part of some arbitrators will prevail at this point. Where is the Wizard of Wiki-Oz...hiding behind the curtain or willing to take some control of this out of control mess.

|||Miles.D.||| ^{03-1-2006 01:58 (UTC)}

It appears that the page has now been protected per Robert McClenon's request. It is particularlly disturbing that Monicasdude, acting as an Advocate chose to acerbate the situation and advocate not only for his client, but also her POV. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It escapes me entirely how removal of an unlicensed image from an article, in furtherance of applicable Wikipedia policies, promotes anyone's point of view. The underlying issue was simple: the only justification for allowing the photo was User:MilesD.'s GFDL release. Since User:MilesD. was not the creator/copyright holder, the GFDL release was invalid. The unlicensed image could not be justified under Wikipedia's fair use policy, particularly given the large number of other images in the article, all with valid claims (under Wikipedia's policies) allowing use. [Despite User:MilesD.'s assertions, all other images used in the article had appropriate use tags.] If anything, I should be faulted for holding off on placing a formal deletion tag on the unlicensed image itself, in the (now clearly unwise) hope that a valid tag/justification might be quickly forthcoming. I think the applicable Wikipedia policy regarding unlicensed images is clear. Just as, I think, the applicable Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring and page protections are clear, and justify advocate McClenon's request for page protection on the article earlier today -- even though, his request been granted slightly more rapidly, it would have advanced his "clients'" POV in the same quite de minimis way that my removal of an unlicensed image might have done (in the opposite direction). [And, to be maximally clear, I believe that the request for page protection was entirely appropriate.) Monicasdude 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was valid and not unlicensed as she has permission from the copyright holder, the tag was simply the incorrect choice. If we WP:AGF for a moment and understand that most of the editors involved are new to Wikipedia and its templates for licensing, you can understand how Template:GFDL-self might be confused with Template:GFDL -- I believe Miles D. misundertood the term "owner" as evidenced by her statements here. Simply retagging the image or following procedure for WP:PUI would have resolved the issue without causing further provocation; a quick review of WP:PUI shows that removing the image isn't typically the procedure followed and in any case, discussion would have been appropriate after the removal was reverted. I understand the request for protection and was in no way suggesting that I disagreed with it, however, the article has stood for months without an edit war after all parties were warned and discussion started on the talk page, so I'm not certain its really necessary now either. The difference here is that Robert McClenon has acted as advocate without involving himself; if this was simply a misguided attempt to follow policy, I apologize, but the timing was rather odd given the behavior of your client shortly before. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely disturbing as the inappropriate behavior of Tina Barber is now being perpetuated by her advocate Monicasdude. The article has remained untouched since this arbitration until Barber decided to make her bad faith edit today. The only reason Monicasdude removed that picture was to push his clients POV. All but one other photo on that page would be in the same violation of the policies he used to remove the one. The removal was a bad faith edit to perpetuate his clients POV after her defacing of the caption and to have control of the article right before it was protected. I certainly hope the powers to be rectify Monicasdude's inappropriate photo removal. ShenandoahShilohs 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually only this picture stated that the uploader was the original author of the photograph (in the template), the others' templates simply state that the owner has released permission. Just a quick template change was needed to get the correct wording in there; I've fixed it but will not be restoring the picture since the article is in protection. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well isn't this all quite convenient? That picture has been there for over a month, Jareth you even put it in the article, and there has been no mention of an inproper tag.

Now because Barbers advocate finds a loop hole, the picture his client makes derogatory edits to is removed and will not be replaced.

This process appears to get more absurd daily. The people sitting back and letting this play out get nowhere, yet the person who was the reason for this arbitration continues to manipulate the system. Wow, what a fair process. :This is turning into the same scenerio as the talk pages of the article. ShenandoahShilohs 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the templates are so much alike I hadn't noticed until Monicasdude pointed it out, otherwise I would have fixed it much earlier. I firmly believe the picture should be replaced, but since I'm an involved party, it would be improper for me to edit it while in protection (see WP:PPOL) -- this might fall under the exception for reverting to before the controversy started, but I'd rather someone uninvolved make that decision.

Arbitration cases, especially when they are complex, take quite some time to resolve -- this often means at least a month -- the arbitrators have to review a dispute that was months in the making and they're just volunteers like all the other editors here. You might like to browse through some of the resolved cases(or current cases that are further along) to get a feel for how things usually work out; the arbitrators have an incredible track record of fairly (if not always quickly) handling all manner of contentious situations. I know its hard to be patient after all this time, but this really is the last step and the issue will be resolved. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited. This is a Wikipedia official policy WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral Point of View

Neutral Point of View is one of the pillar principles of Wikipedia. This means that points of view (POVs) should be presented as points of view rather than as fact.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No Original Research

As stated in the policy No Original Research, Wikipedia is not a forum for original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No Article Ownership

As stated in the policy No Article Ownership, Wikipedia articles are developed by the Wikipedia community. No editor may claim ownership of any article or seek to prevent other editors from good-faith editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Posting of personal information

Posting of personal information about editors that those editors have not chosen to reveal is a violation of the Wikipedia official policy against harassment, which states: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Does not apply in this case which involves a small group of people who are on a first name basis. Fred Bauder 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Tina M. Barber traced the IP address (which appeared on discussion page) of an editor who had not revealed his name on Wiki, could not be identified by his signature of "Shiloh Lover," had never spoken to Ms. Barber, and who was largely unknown to the Shiloh community, including Ms. Barber. Ms. Barber then posted on discussion page the editor's full name, place of employment, work e-mail address, and employer's phone number, stating that she was going to call the employer and try to get the editor fired. The information has been deleted. [[1]]S Scott 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

Administrators

Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community. They are expected to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Jareth, while meaning well, failed to familiarize herself with Wikipedia Mediation policy, thus complicating rather than resolving a conflict. Robert McClenon 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
2. The History section in dispute did, in fact, reach resolution -- twice. After this, any changes to the article, including sourcing were reverted and argued about. This was outside the scope of the mediation. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mediation

Mediation is an important part of the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nature of mediation

Mediation relies on the acceptance of an impartial mediator by the disputing parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. While it appears that Jareth was accepted by all parties to the controversy except Tina M. Barber, her role was not impartial. Robert McClenon 15:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Aside from snips of supposed emails or instant messages, absolutely nothing in the evidence supports me taking any side. In fact, I'd say the evidence directly counters this given the number of times I was attacked by one side or the other when they thought they didn't get their way. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arbitration as last step in dispute resolution

Arbitration is the last stage in dispute resolution and is not intended to be used when other steps in dispute resolution have not been exhausted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Irrelevant as has been pointed out many times. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Intrusion of an event into Wikipedia

1) Participants in an event with is the subject of an article may be excluded from editing an article which describes the external event if their participation is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The essence of this situation Fred Bauder 03:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No evidence against me was presented on this charge, and it wasn't mentioned on the discussion page or my user page. S Scott 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

The principle is well stated. Participants in the event or controversy only need to be excluded if their editing becomes disruptive. Robert McClenon 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors having identifiable interests

Editors with financial or other identifiable interests in the subject of an article may be excluded from editing an article which describes the subject if their participation either is disruptive or shows evidence of pushing a POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Breeders involved in this controversy are likely to be unable to strive for POV. Robert McClenon 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Breeders ShenandoahShilohs and NobleAcres were among the group of ISSDC editors who, with SSDCA editors, reached consensus on the history section, which was by far the most controversial part of the article. Frequently, when ISSDC editors were working behind the scenes on a draft or response, one or the other would be the first to propose a compromise with the SSDCA's position. S Scott 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

"Meatpuppets"

The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus, while not prohibited, is strongly discouraged. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet for details. This practice is known as the use of "meatpuppets".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Focus of dispute

1) The focus of this Wikipedia dispute is the article on the Shiloh shepherd dog, a breed of dog that is still in the process of being defined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Controversies about breed

There are controveries between breeders and breed registries concerning the Shiloh shepherd dog breed. These controversies are reflected in the dispute over this article with a number of actual participants in the dispute editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modified a bit Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Every editor who has participated in the article is involved in the "outside dispute." It's likely that any future editors will be involved in the outside dispute, unless they have minimal knowledge about Shiloh Shepherds. S Scott 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

Involvement of Tina M. Barber

3) Tina M. Barber is acknowledged to have been the principal original breeder of the Shiloh shepherd dog breed. There is conflict between her and other breeders and registries of the dog.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modified Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Made more general Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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)

None of the assertions on the evidence page claimed that I have been discourteous or have engaged in personal attacks. Additionally, no one mentioned either on the discussion page or on my user page. S Scott 22:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

I believe you are correct, review of the evidence suggested you have assumed the worst at times, but nothing resembling a personal attack. S Scott should be excluded. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tina M. Barber reveals personal information

5) Tina M. Barber has repeatedly addressed editors by first names that are not parts of their Wikipedia handles, and has revealed information about their involvement in the history of the breed. The ArbCom finds that this conduct was harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No good, these folks are closely acquainted, and while not friends, are on a first name basis.

Comment by parties:

S Scott, NobleAcres and ShenandoahShilohs should also be included as they have done the same, please see the evidence. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tina M. Barber traced the IP address (which appeared on discussion page) of an editor who had not revealed his name on Wiki, could not be identified by his signature of "Shiloh Lover," had never spoken to Ms. Barber, and who was largely unknown to the Shiloh community, including Ms. Barber. Ms. Barber then posted on discussion page the editor's full name, place of employment, work e-mail address, and employer's phone number, stating that she was going to call the employer and try to get the editor fired. The information has been deleted. [[2]] S Scott 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

Tina M. Barber reveals personal information

5) Tina M. Barber traced the IP address (which appeared on discussion page) of an editor who had not revealed his name on Wiki, could not be identified by his signature of "Shiloh Lover," had never spoken to Ms. Barber, and who was largely unknown to the Shiloh community, including Ms. Barber. Ms. Barber then posted on discussion page the editor's full name, place of employment, work e-mail address, and employer's phone number, stating that she was going to call the employer and try to get the editor fired. The ArbCom finds that this conduct was harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This conduct is unlike the use of first names and needs to be addressed by itself. Robert McClenon 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tina M. Barber reveals personal information

5) Tina M. Barber has lapsed from time to time into the practice of referring to rival breeders and operators of registries, information which is readily available from their websites where they offer dog or registration of the breed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Appropriate. Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed, except for one incident mentioned above.a

Comment by others:

Claims of ownership

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Definitely Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

None of the evidence claims I tried to maintain ownership of the article, and there was no mention of this on discussion page or my user page. S Scott 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

Breeders

Some of the parties to this controversy are breeders of the Shiloh Shepherd Dog breed or of closely related breeds. These parties include Tina M. Barber, ShenandoahShilohs, and NobleAcres.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Non-disruptive non-breeders

The editors MilesD. and S Scott are not breeders of dogs. Their editing of this article has not been disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Jareth notes that these editors were civil and constructive. Robert McClenon 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has been civil and constructive at times, you can see the ebb and flow throughout the dispute. However, I'm not certain whether or not someone is a breeder really has a place here. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution history

7) A user conduct RfC was originated by Jareth against Tina M. Barber after discussion on the article talk page failed. Other parties to this case were not the subject of the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

They are all involved Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is misleading - mediation, surveys and even private email mentoring were tried with all parties involved. The only reason an RfC was not brought against the other editors was because they were insistant that an RfAR be started and I felt it would be better to address all involved parties rather than spread this over two cases for the same dispute. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The history shows a long record of efforts by Jareth and MilesD. to ask Tina M. Barber to be civil, and these efforts accomplished nothing. The history does not show a similar record of warnings to other editors. Robert McClenon 00:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree. For instance, please see User_talk:69.173.135.114 and note that the editor now known as MilesD. was, in fact, blocked for personal attacks. I will also provide links on the evidence page of other requests to cease. Since some of these requests were also made via email, I'll need to find out what the procedure is for those. There were, of course, times when all of the editors involved in this dispute were following policies, but this is a discussion of when they weren't. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No mediation

8) There was no use of mediation to resolve this dispute. A request for mediation was posted, but accomplished nothing due to the unwillingness of Tina M. Barber to compromise. Jareth neither asked the other parties to accept her as a mediator nor was accepted as a mediator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant, we have it now. Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is patently false. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence#Evidence_of_mediation. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is utterly false and the evidence is clear that people involved in this dispute were eager to get some sort of mediator involved. Very early on in the dispute they were begging for a moderator, I received at least one email message asking for help. Not being an admin, I did not feel up to the massive task and filed reports on WP:AN/I, WP:3RR, and WP:RFP - This is how Jareth came to be involved in this dispute. - Trysha ^(talk) 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation problems

9) There was an attempt to use mediation to resolve this dispute, but it was not an actual mediation for several reasons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant, we have it now Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Failure to participate

10) Tina M. Barber, as one of the parties to the dispute, was unwilling to compromise and did not take part in mediation. Since the dispute was between Tina M. Barber and other parties, mediation never actually took place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant, we have it now Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I find this statement to also be misleading and I fail to see what this entire line of points is attempting to accomplish. Even if Tina M. Barber did not compromise as the others expected or participate as fully as she might have, consensus was reached and the two versions of the history were developed with consensus. That would appear to be a successful outcome. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The other parties to this case made a good-faith effort at dispute resolution. Tina M. Barber did not. Jareth argues that all parties were equally guilty and should be equally sanctioned. That statement overlooks the fact that some of them attempted to work out the dispute and others did not. Robert McClenon 02:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never used the word "equally" and I believe the extent of the parties involvement is for the arbitrators to decide, however, one cannot fail to see that all parties had some part in the dispute. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Faulting Tina Barber for refusing to compromise is inappropriate. The Wikipedia disputes which lead to this arbitration are a relatively small part of a larger and more substantial dispute which spilled over into Wikipedia. Barber could not fairly or reasonably have been expected to compromise her position in the overall dispute in submission to any Wikipedia consensus. Barber is generally recognized as the breed founder and an expert on the breed, albeit one with strong convictions that others disagree with. In these circumstances, the governing principle should have been seen to be WP:NPOV. The NPOV policy generally requires that all sides of a disputed issue be presented in a Wikipedia article which addresses that issue. This policy is particular important when the real-world disputants are also Wikipedia editors, and this case demonstrates the perils of confusing the two roles. When the article addressed matters disputed by Barber's faction and other elements of the Shiloh community, it should have described the disputes and the positions each side takes in those disputes. Wikipedia's only role in those disputes is to describe them with verifiable information; it is not Wikipedia's role to take "jurisdiction" over any part of those external disputes or to attempt to resolve, settle, compromise, or reach consensus among the parties to them. As advocate for Tina Barber, Monicasdude 06:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground for the resolution of whatever quarrels people get into in the external world. None of you, Tina Barber or her opponents, have any business editing this article, dragging an external event into Wikipedia. We welcome comments regarding any alleged libel or inadequately sourced information, but not this nasty struggle. I will do everything I can to get you all banned from the article. Nice dogs, though. Fred Bauder 18:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mediation procedures not followed

11) Jareth made a good-faith effort to act as mediator. However, she did not follow several key aspects of the official policies on Wikipedia:Mediation. From "What Mediators Are Not:" 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 (emphasis mine). Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We are not engaged in second guessing whatever difficulties were had in attempts to mediate the dispute Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Again, I'm not certain what this is supposed to accomplish, however, I believe this only applies to members of the Mediation Commitee, who never took up the case. Also, some other things to note from Mediation "Mediators may not always follow the traditional role model of mediation. In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation." and "Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other." Not allowing personal attacks is not only policy, but a necessary ground rule for meaningful discussion to take place. I was asked by both sides of the dispute to initiate the dispute resolution procedures that were and are being used. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jareth claims article ownership

11) By holding herself out as a mediator without any agreement to that effect, Jareth was claiming article ownership.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Probably an error to attempt to mediate a dispute they had become involved with Fred Bauder 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As shown in the evidence to the above, mediation was in effect. Since all my time is being spent defending myself now, I'll have to wait till later today to post evidence of the many times I encouraged others to edit the article. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jareth came to this article because of my reports on the 3RR, AN/I, and RFP notice boards. She came here to help. I think it's patently absurd to suggest that she thinks she owns the article, time and time again she pointed out wikipedia policy and guidelines on the article - whenever changes were made to the content of the article, she sought consensus first, or cited policy, and explained why changes were made. It is my view that she fought hard to get people to agree, when the consensus did not go their way, she was attacked. - Trysha ^(talk) 19:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Tina M. Barber recruited meatpuppets to Wikipedia to influence a survey. The meatpuppets included M.Bush and 14 anonymous IP addresses.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the most favorable interpretation of this action. The alternative interpretation would be to conclude that the anonymous editors were sockpuppets.

Comment by others:

Jareth claims article ownership

Jareth claimed article ownership

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Her threat to "toss out" certain editors could have been a warning to ban or block them due to conduct issues. However, her statement that she was considering bringing in other editors can only be interpreted as a claim of article ownership.

Or, considering the small snippet you're presenting, could that be a reference to the article RfC, Straw Polls, notes on AN/I, notes to wikipedia-en, request to the Mediation Cabal for assistance and other attempts to engage the Wikipedia community? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tina M. Barber banned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Singles out one participant and is way too broad Fred Bauder 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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)

Requested as the remedy for stalking an editor to his workplace and requesting to have him fired. That action was meant to be destructive. Robert McClenon 16:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No evidence of my making personal attacks or harrassing anyone was presented, and there was no mention of these on the discussion page or my user page. S Scott 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Comment by others:

Alternative remedy: Tina M. Barber banned

Tina M. Barber is banned from Wikipedia for two months for the harassing action of stalking an editor to his workplace and requesting to have him fired.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Meant to single out one editor, who did something far more extreme than the general pattern of disruption. Robert McClenon 19:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this incident is of particular concern. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proper remedy Fred Bauder 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I believe this should be expanded to include all involved parties, including myself should the arbitrators feel I've also acted inappropriately. Perhaps "other disruptive participants" would be more on point; a number of editors aware of the outside dispute have edited productively especially when not subject to provocation by editors unable to seperate the dispute from their editing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All editors working on the article are on one side or the other of the disagreements about the Shiloh breed. If it is Wiki policy that no participants in a dispute outside Wiki can edit an article on the subject of the dispute, then all editors should be banned, not just the five named in this RfAR. S Scott 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

This remedy as stated is vague. It needs to be clarified in one of two ways. I would suggest that the editors who have been disruptive need to be named. Alternatively, some mechanism needs to be defined that will provide for any admin to ban anyone from editing the article for disruption.

Comment by others:

Excluded editors identified

Tina M. Barber, ShenandoahShilohs, and NobleAcres are identified as the participants in the external controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would include everyone who is involved with the breed. But we need to look at the kind of edits each person is making. Fred Bauder 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As Fred Bauder says, we need to look at the edits each person made. There is no need to ban anyone whose editing was constructive. There is a need to ban anyone whose editing was disruptive.

Comment by parties:

The controversy is the definition of the breed, and the breeders are the interested parties. Robert McClenon 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, other editors who are not breeders have shown and allowed their involvement in the outside dispute to affect their editing of the article. I do not believe this controversy is in any way confined to breeders, though it may have started there. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 15:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jareth not a mediator

Jareth is prohibited from holding herself out as a mediator. Jareth's status as an administrator is not affected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek is on point. The would-be mediator meant well, but the mediation was disruptive. Robert McClenon 16:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Literally until the moment the participants found out that their behavior could be considered in this RfAR, I was thanked and encouraged for my efforts. Not only one, but then a second version of the disputed section which initiated the mediation reached consensus and was placed into the article dispite the grudging participation in the mediation by some parties. Citing sources is a principle, not a disruption. I also believe the cited case to lack relevence, as neither the mediation nor my edits were disruptive and the mediation resulted in a positive outcome on that particular issue. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Personal Attack Parole

Tina M. Barber, ShenandoahShilohs, and NobleAcres are placed on personal attack parole. They may be blocked by any administrator for personal attacks. Initially a block shall be not more than 48 hours. A second block may be one week. After a fifth offense, the block may be for a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors Cautioned

Editors MilesD. and Scott are reminded to of the need to remain civil even under provocation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dixen Warned

Dixen is warned not to use uncivil edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For one edit summary? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jareth on probation

Jareth is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for six months. She may be banned from editing any article if, in the judgment of an administrator, her edits are disruptive. The six month counter shall be reset any time that she is banned from any article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Probation is an appropriate remedy for an editor who exacerbates existing controversies by aggressive, well-meaning, but misguided involvement in existing controversies.

Nothing in the evidence, nor my history of edits, supports this assertion. Can I have my evil admin badge now? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look in your purse for it. No one has proposed taking it away. Robert McClenon 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Trysha commended

Trysha is commended for quickly seeking administrator intervention in a dispute that was out of control.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: