Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence

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/enwiki/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

First assertion

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

Second assertion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenth assertion

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

Eleventh assertion

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

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

Thirteenth assertion

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

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

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?

• Offer of mediation [82], [83]
• MilesD. (talk · contribs) addresses me as "moderator" and even clearly states that I am the volunteer/appointed mediator, contrary to her current claims that I was not mediating [84], [85], [86]
• Multiple editors express appreciation, including those currently claiming no mediation occurred [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]
• Another reference to me mediating [101]

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)

Regarding claims of article ownership

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]

Evidence presented by Robert McClenon as advocate

First assertion

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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=39165545&oldid=39089486

Third assertion

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog&diff=39219668&oldid=39168279

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

Fourth assertion

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

Fifth assertion

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

Sixth assertion

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

Evidence presented by ShenandoahShilohs

First assertion

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.[[134]]

Second assertion

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 [[135]]

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. [[136]]

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.

[[137]] [[138]] [[139]] [[140]]"Carmen" (24.242.252.125) posted this attack and signed Tina Barber. [[141]] [[142]] [[143]] [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] [[147]]

Jareth addresses these attacks: [[148]] [[149]] [[150]]

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 [[151]]

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. [[152]]

Third assertion

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 [[153]]

Fourth assertion

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 [[154]][[155]][[156]][[157]] [[158]]

2.Recommends article deletion if not given POV [[159]]

3.Threatens to disaparage Wiki to public when her POV is not granted [[160]]

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: [[161]] [[162]] [[163]] [[164]]

Corfil Breeder

Strongly pushes POV and original research [[165]] [[166]] [[167]] [[168]] [[169]] [[170]] [[171]] [[172]] [[173]] 2.reasserts Jareth's comments of their forum of next dog being a Shiloh [[174]]

198.169.171.159., 67.186.153.43. Katy Breeder

Attacks, pushed POV and original research [[175]] [[176]][[177]] [[178]] [[179]] [[180]] [[181]]

M.Bush 65.37.31.237

1 Personal attacks, major push of bias POV, vandalizing article page [[182]] [[183]] [[184]] 2.Warning for vandalizing page [[185]]

Fifth assertion

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. [[186]]

Sixth assertion

1.Some of my attempts to work on compromise

[[187]] [[188]] [[189]] [[190]]

2.requests to Jareth to stop making her own edits while people were trying to reach concensus, objections made. [[191]] [[192]]

3.Made a constructive edit and was praised for such 2/8/06 [[193]] and was praised for it [[194]]

Evidence presented by Monicasdude as advocate for Tina M. Barber

First Assertion

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 [195] [196] (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 [197], 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 [198].

Second Assertion

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 [199]. 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 [200], 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 [201], and followed up with an even less appropriate talk page posting headed "Blatant lies posted by Tina Barber AKA MaShiloh" [202]. 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.

Evidence presented by S Scott

First Assertion

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

Second Assertion

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 [[203]]

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

Third Assertion

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. I have never been warned of any violation of 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. [[204]] S Scott 21:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Fourth Assertion

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

Fifth Assertion

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.” [[205]]

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

Sixth Assertion

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

Evidence presented by MilesD.

First Assertion

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

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 [[206]], 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

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. [[207]] (See “Questions”) [[208]] (See “Dispute(s)” - Proposal and Rqst for Straw Poll) [[209]] (See “Attn: Jareth - NSBR, TSSR, SSBA, and ISSDC History Section Proposal” – History Section Proposal and Rqst for 2nd Straw Poll) [[210]] (See “Some Questions/Comments re: "...Remove the article...") [[211]] (See “Support Revision (B))

Fourth Assertion

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

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. [[212]] and she threatened other editors by stating she was going to file an addendum to Tina Barber's RFC. [[213]]

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 [214] (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

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. [[215]].

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)

[[216]](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.”

[[217]]

"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 [[218]] 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” [[219]]

“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.”

[[220]]

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: [[221]]

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:

[[222]]-PA warn

[[223]]-PA warn

[[224]]-RfAR threat

Seventh Assertion

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. [[225]] [[226]] [[227]] [228]] [[229]] [[230]] [[231]] [[232]] [[233]] [[234]] [[235]] [[236]] [[237]] [[238]] [[239]] [[240]]

Jareth insists on an unverifiable contested reference inclusion in article[[241]] [[242]]

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

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

[[243]](Please see post referencing Miles/Roberta Ellena-Jareth did nothing about this posting of personal information) [[244]] [[245]] [[246]] [[247]] [[248]]-Please note:Jareth added most of the photos herself without discussion [249]] [250]] [[251]] [252]]-Doesn't AGF [253]] [[254]]-Doesn't AGF - this is not why we disagreed [255]]-AGF [[256]] [[257]] [[258]] [[259]] [[260]] [[261]]-Implied threat of RfAR

Ninth Assertion

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 [[262]] 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 [[263]] 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 [264](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”. [265] 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 [[266]]: "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

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

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)

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