Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh

Case Opened on 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * , also edited as ,
 * , advocate
 * , also edited as ,
 * , advocate
 * , also edited as
 * , edits from dialup with dynamic IPs 4.248.x.x
 * , also edited as, - AOL ips
 * Various sock/meat puppets editing anonomously, usually from AOL addresses
 * Various sock/meat puppets editing anonomously, usually from AOL addresses

Due to the above editors involvement in a dispute outside Wikipedia, they have shown a disregard for WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In order to gain an upper hand said dispute, they wish to control the content of the article and have attempted to hold the article hostage since the first week of December.

All parties have been notified, , , , 
 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Request for mediation:
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

RfC on article dispute:, ,

Straw poll on versions of article:  RfC on editor's behavior: Requests_for_comment/Tina_M._Barber

All of these steps met with no success; my own 2 months of attempted mediation with the parties has done little to alleviate the problem since they continue to ignore policy.

Statement by User:Jareth
I became involved in the article in the first week of December when a WP:3RR violation was reported. I offered to help solve the differences between the two sides who each have multiple representatives with accounts (and also call up meatpuppets when they feel the need). Since then, its become rather clear that there isn't really any interest in resolution, unless resolution means one side or the other has the article written to its standards; there's clear POV pushing despite all requests to review WP:NPOV and try to understand its purpose. Several of the editors involved have taken the time do familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and have greatly improved their conduct; those involved in theis RfAR have refused to do so. In addition to the NPOV issues, the editors involved have continually violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They argue and dispute every addition to the article in an effort to stifle change to the article and are esentially holding the article hostage at this time. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to improve the article, but due to their inability to remove themselves from their outside dispute and edit neutrally, I believe they should find somewhere else on Wikipedia to contribute, or use a forum better suited to their needs. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Robert's posts on behalf of MilesD.: I have no side in this dispute; I was asked by MilesD and others to bring this case to RfAR since the other steps have not produced any results. I attempted to include all editors currently active in the dispute and didn't intend to make anyone feel that this was an attempt to disparage them. I'm sorry I didn't clarify which editor the RfC was in reference to; I thought the link being exposed would clearly show that. As to your second claim, I don't believe I stated that anyone was edit warring, simply that my first involvement came from a 3RR report -- the report was against editor Tina M. Barber, I don't recall who made the report, but will look it up upon request. My "mediation" did not ever involve private mailing lists - please see the 10 talk page archives, however, I have been *bombarded* with over 400 private email messages from various parties involved in the dispute which I would be *happy* to email to any arbitrator who'd like to sort through it and see my responses. Please provide *any* evidence that I have disparaged any side in this dispute, or withdraw that comment.

I believe MilesD, Robert and the other editors who responded with acrimony have done a wonderful job of making some serious assumptions in bad faith -- *you* asked me to put this here, if you don't like the way its worded,. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reponse to the questions about parties included: It was my understanding that all parties in a dispute are supposed to be included in an RfAR; this isn't an accusation or judgement against any particular editor involved but an acknowledgement that the situation is out of hand and a request that the arbitrators wade in and try to sort it out. If I'm incorrect and all editors involved in the dispute are not supposed to be included, please let me know. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:MilesD. by Robert McClenon, advocate
FIRST STATEMENT

I was asked by User:MilesD. to prepare an RfAr against Tina M. Barber. Since this RfAr has been filed, User:MilesD. joins in requesting arbitration against Tina M. Barber.

User:MilesD. is one of the certifiers of Requests for comment/Tina M. Barber.

Tina M. Barber did not respond to the RfC. The article concerns a breed of dog of which she is the original breeder. She is seeking ownership of the article, and has a pattern of personal attacks on other editors, and incivility. On behalf of User:MilesD., I request that the parties to this case be clearly distinguished between the complaining parties, Jareth and MilesD., on the one hand, and the responding parties, Tina M. Barber and meatpuppets. Robert McClenon 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

SECOND STATEMENT

The statement by Jareth does not state the history of this dispute accurately. Jareth states that there has been an RfC on editors behavior. There has been an RfC on the behavior of only one editor, Tina M. Barber, except to any extent that Jareth is claiming that some of the other editors are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. In fact, two of the other editors, User:MilesD. and Shiloh Supporter, were certifiers of the RfC, not subjects of the RfC. If Jareth is claiming now that they were edit-warring, she has made no prior effort to resolve that dispute. She now also states that her two months of mediation have done little to alleviate the problem. In the RfC, she did not refer to herself as a mediator, but rather stated that an attempt to involve Tina M. Barber in mediation had gone nowhere. Much of her "mediation" appears to have been done behind the scenes on private mailing lists, and involved disparaging the other parties to the dispute. Whether or not it was a good-faith effort to resolve a dispute, it was not a Wikipedia effort to resolve a Wikipedia dispute.

On behalf of User:MilesD., I ask the ArbCom to accept this case, but to read Jareth's statement skeptically. Her behavior has been inconsistent, and she has not identified a dispute with anyone but Tina M. Barber. Robert McClenon 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I did respond ... not sure how to put it in here, so you can do what you like with it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tina_M._Barber

Statement by Shiloh Supporter
To my surprise, I was awarded the Barnstar award by our mediator, Jareth, on January 30th ’06. I am “Shiloh Supporter”, and my comments regarding the Shiloh Shepherd article on Wikipedia have been fairly restricted to keeping the article brief so that all parties might find some common ground upon which to agree. I have had extensive personal dealings with most all of the editors on both sides of the debate, and I believe there will never be an article of consensus on this breed, in one place, at one time. I can qualify my statements by the fact that I attempted to film a documentary on the “Birth of a Breed” which began production in 2001. My filmed hours with the founder were into the hundreds, in addition to the Padgett health survey presentation including an entire long weekend filming the late Dr. Padgett (at my home) in discussion with the founder, plus at least 20 hour-long interviews with all the top breeders. I also have (Mr. GSD) “Fred Lanting” presenting his structure seminar and my interview specifically on the Shiloh Shepherd, on film. Ultimately, it was due to what I’d learned during my one-on-one time with the founder over an intense 2 year period that I chose to pull the plug on my entire project. There IS a history to the breed, yet the challenge lies in actually presenting it so all can agree on it. No amount of ‘trench digging’ (as has been recently done by Jareth on the breed founder’s private list) would proffer a clear picture of what has really gone on in the breed this past 15 years. There are too many hurt feelings, legal battles, unfulfilled contracts, name callings, and slanderous accusations made in the past, toward those who have ‘splintered’ away from the founder. There are too many newbie’s and devout “founder-ites” fighting for the sake of fighting because they’ve either been caught up in the propaganda, or they just opt to support the founder for their own personal reasons. My general advice is to leave the article as it stands or revert to the one-liner article that Will Beback suggested. Then…lock it. This war of the wills has existed for well over a decade, and it’s to Wiki’s misfortune that it wound up here. Shiloh Supporter

Statement by User:NobleAcres
This is the first time I've posted in two weeks, preferring to leave the posting to one or two editors to help eliminate confusion. I responded to Jareth's post asking if anyone had any input and I did. But since jareth has been on other editor's private forums caling us idiots and splinters, plotting with them how she'll make us look stupid, she's decided that no one should disagree with her at all. Jareth has continuously allowed the other editors to threaten, call names, and lie about opposing editors. Jareth has then flamed the fires by repeatedly bringing parts of the article back up for changes and additions after all editors had agreed on the way it was. Then when someone disagrees with the way she's changed it she resorts to name calling and declaring that no one will agree with all of her hard work. Is this the way wiki works? Jareth has crowned herself queen and reigns over the filth and mudslinging. This whole thing is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting it when some people are trying to seriously have a consensus on this article. NobleAcres

Statement by David Gerard
Dmcdevit asked me to checkuser this mess. Lots of the involved parties use AOL, which of course is impossible to match except by edit style/pattern. The closest I can see to any sort of match is that NobleAcres and WindsongKennels use dialup connections to the same (very large) ISP in the same geographical area; that may indicate the same or linked persons, if the edit style/pattern matches (I'm not familiar with the edit styles in the case) - David Gerard 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ShenandoahShilohs
1st Statement

In response to Jareth's recent statement: If I am understanding this correctly, Jareth is now saying that this RfArb was not about anyone but the original RfC, but an attempt to include all editors involved. Jareths opening statement after listing the parties involved reads :

"Due to the above editors involvement in a dispute outside Wikipedia, they have shown a disregard for WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In order to gain an upper hand said dispute, they wish to control the content of the article and have attempted to hold the article hostage since the first week of December"

Maybe someone can clarify if this RfArb is about the parties listed as involved, or the second step to the RfC on Tina M. Barber? ShenandoahShilohs 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tina M. Barber
I have NO clue as to how I should reply here! I am not good with computers, and never claimed to be! I came to the talk page by invitation because I started Shiloh Shepherds and there is plenty of proof out there regarding my kennel, the "breeds" history, etc. When I started to help out with this dispute, I provided tons of documentation .. but I was accused of just stating *my* POV ... well, these are MY dogs, I am the person that bred most of them, so who else would know more about them?? The "Shiloh Shepherd" is not even finished yet! It's still a breed in development but a small group of people have chosen to use my name because they want to sell their GSD mixes for more money! That's what this dispute is all about! I only requested that TRUE statements be published .. they want equal billing with me (even though they have only been involved a vey short time!) For more information, please visit our Learning Center via http://shilohshepherd.com/ MaShiloh 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:WindsongKennels
I am sorry for the delay in my response to being named in this RfArb. I have not been overly active in this article in recent months, as can be seen from my limited contributions, but have been watching closely and having some participation from time to time. My involvement with the breed is quite lengthy and I had originally thought that I could make some positive contribution to the article, while maintaining the Wikipedia foundations. My initial involvement in the article came after learning of editor User:Tina M. Barber attacking editor User:Shiloh Lover by revealing personal information and contacting the editors employer (can be referenced on the RfC on Tina M. Barber [], and on the Administrator Noticeboard []). Although more experienced editors such as User:Trysha appeared aware of the attack, nothing was done until almost a month later. My involvement in the article came to an abrupt halt after I was personally attacked (again) on December 28th with an absurd claim of having an affair with an editors son! Reference []. For me, this was a clear indication that there was little control being exercised by administrators present and that some parties involved were to use this venue as a personal battlefield. It was at this point that I realized that some editors involved in the development of this article would take outrageous steps to remove editors from the discussion that had differing positions from that of their own, and that unfortunately my contributions would be made in vain. By the end of January I was prepared to help try and bring closure to the article as it appeared some limited forward progress was being made, but was quickly labeled by User:Jareth as performing a "personal attack" when responding to a post of direct questions to me by editor Tina M. Barber. Like many here, I feel the only RfArb should be against User:Tina M. Barber and consideration should be given to the editor ignoring all previous communication attempts via the Administrator Noticeboard, the User Talk Page, and of course the RfC against editor Tina M. Barber (to which the user never responded once and now pleads ignorance of computer usage, although has made almost two hundred contributions as an editor, and made too many links to her own created website to be considered a "computer novice"). A second RfArb should be considered on the article itself and an attempt to find closure to this ongoing discussion.

I will note that the ISP of NobleAcres and WindsongKennel are similar because we live about an hour from each other. We are two seperate editors.

Thank you. WindsongKennels 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

 * Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 08:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. - SimonP 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction
1) Until the resolution of this case, and  are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.


 * Passed 5 to 0 on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Civility
1) 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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
5) Wikipedia is not to be used for advocacy or self-promotion. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
6) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Intrusion of an event into Wikipedia
7) Participants in an event which is the subject of an article may be excluded from editing an article which describes the external event if their participation is disruptive.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets
8) The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, perform reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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. There are controversies 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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal involvement of Tina M. Barber and others
2) 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. Many of the other participants in the conflict, including meatpuppets, are also involved in the external controversy.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by involved users
3) Tina M. Barber has been discourteous and engaged engaged in personal attacks against other editors.     ShenandoahShiloh   and Shiloh lover   have also been uncivil.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Claims of ownership
4) Tina M. Barber and the many other involved users have attempted to maintain ownership of the Wikipedia article Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Tina M. Barber and many of the other involved editors have only edited Shiloh Shepherd Dog and its related articles and talk pages.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets
5) There have been an enormous number of meatpuppets, both anonymous IPs and new users, involved in giving a feigned sense of support to parties to this dispute.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Tina M. Barber reveals personal information
6) Tina M. Barber has revealed the personal information of other anonymous editors in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a dispute. On January 26, she was blocked for revealing personal information.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Tina M. Barber banned
1) For a pattern of disruptive behavior and personal attacks, revealing personal information, and attempted ownership of Shiloh Shepherd Dog, Tina M. Barber is banned for one year.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Article-related Probation
2) The editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog and its related articles and talk pages are placed under probation. Any administrator may ban any editor from any of Shiloh Shepherd Dog's related pages for any amount of time for disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, edit wars or personal attacks. Should any banned editor violate any ban imposed under Probation he or she may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. The Committee reserves the right to appoint mentors to monitor the article and ensure enforcement.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rescinded by motion on 02:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Meatpuppets banned
3) Any administrator may block indefinitely any suspected meatpuppet for good cause. This includes disruptive behavior like edit warring and personal attacks, but also skewing consensus or neutrality by flooding the discussion.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors warned
4) The editors of Shiloh Shepherd Dog are warned to remain civil at all times during discussion on Wikipedia.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 18:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Article probation revocation (February 2022)
Remedy 2 of the Shiloh case ("Article-related Probation") is rescinded.
 * Passed 11 to 0 by motion on 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 18:29, 25 March 2006 Kelly Martin blocked "Tina M. Barber (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Banned for one year by order of the Arbitration Committee: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh)