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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

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:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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[reply]

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:

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:

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:

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~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)[reply]
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)[reply]
~~No evidence of my making personal attacks or harrassing anyone was presented, and there were no warnings on the discussion page or my user page. S Scott 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott[reply]~~
~~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)[reply]
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. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~

~~Comment by parties:~~

~~Comment by others:~~

~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~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:~~