Welcome!

Hello, ShenandoahShilohs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the edit wars on the Shiloh Shepherd Dog page. You will probably want to look at some of our policies such as neutral point of view, verifiability and the three revert rule. Instead of constantly reverting the content, which can lead to your account being blocked, please discuss the problem on the talk page and come to a consensus. If you are unable to find a solution to your content differences, please explore other options at dispute resolution. Thanks and Happy Editing! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 00:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That last edit you made to the article was fantastic :) Thanks for making those corrections and getting the wording much better! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'm editing from a horrible connection today :( I apologize for having missed this earlier.

A Request for arbitration has been filed on the dispute at Shiloh Shepherd Dog. Please visit WP:RfAR to learn more. Thank you.

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are e-mails, IM sessions and posts on a public forum made by Jareth. I never asked for any of the following to be kept private and was never asked for the same. This info is very important to this case. This is not the first time Jareth did a great deal off Wiki with no other paper trail other than off Wiki sources. It gives a clearer perspective and shows jareth was out of line as both a Wiki Admin and Wiki mediator.

date: 12/20/05 Actually I just suggested to another editor that they file an RfC against Tina. Several people have tried to approach Tina on the article talk page and her own talk page and have gotten nowhere. She continues to insert the exact same text.

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

date:12/30/05 Honestly, I don't think there is any way to resolve this issue with her. I would suggest creating an RfC on her behavior since its obviously completely out of line.

You can read up on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

And also, an example of a recently well done RfC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Monicasdude_2

If you need any help figuring it out, I'd be happy to work with you.

Thanks, Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

date:1/17/06 It was quickly moved to the archive and we're back on topic now. I'll be posting the second section of the history shortly, which will probably generate more problems. If personal attacks start again, I'll have to end up banning people most likely. Hopefully we can try to avoid that if at all possible.

I'm sorry this has been so frustrating. Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

Date 1/23/06 I really like the proposals. They clarify the facts and remove the extraneous comments that were still left over. I would strongly support the history be written in this manner.

Thank you for all the work :) Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

date: 1/31/06 I know -- she's an idiot. (referencing Tina M Barber)

I don't want to start everything all over again, but they keep trying to make changes, so we've either got to address what they're saying or they'll just go back to adding whatever they want.

• shrugs* Its really a no win situation until they stop.

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

date:2/1/06 That's why I unlinked it -- that and the fact that the links page went on about the ISSR being the only "true" registry and other such crap :P

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)

IM session on 1/26

Response when questioning TB's behavior

jarethandomiel [3:05 PM]: And if it continues, I'll have to write the darn RfC myself since we really need to bring her behavior up the chain. Jareth stating she is going to do the Rfc jarethandomiel [3:06 PM]: lol! Well, let me see if I can't just put one together, this is just getting silly Questioning all the "web articles" of TB's jarethandomiel [3:08 PM]: The good thing about that is that any webpage she "produces" is original research and completely un-usable Pattisasq [3:09 PM]: I understand that, it is that fact she doesn't seem to get it jarethandomiel [3:09 PM]: No she doesn't. Its that "he who screams loudest is right" mentality. Jareth writes the Rfc on Tina:

jarethandomiel [3:11 PM]: Ok, I found what I started writing for the RfC to help you guys along, so I'll see if I can't finish that up with evidence and post it. I highly doubt this is going to be resolved without ending up in front of the ArbCom. jarethandomiel [3:13 PM]: I really have no idea what she actually wants. I don't think she's ever answered a single question about what she'd really like to see in the article -- she just complains about everything we do.

IM session 1/30

jarethandomiel [3:51 PM]: I get the feeling that we're going to battle over *everything*. It may take listing the RfC and eventually taking this all the way to RfA -- she may ultimately end up banned from the article all together jarethandomiel [4:02 PM]: I can't believe she can make those statements either. Its got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever seen. jarethandomiel [4:03 PM]: lol -- i'm just trying to point out things I don't have references for. And if its a "secret" part of the history, we're not about ready to report it jarethandomiel [4:05 PM]: Its quite possible she's so far into promoting "her" story that she's lost track of reality herself. Pattisasq [4:09 PM]: do you need us to come on and say we agree with that? jarethandomiel [4:11 PM]: That would really help -- the more agreeing we get, the less of a leg Tina has to stand on if she complains later. jarethandomiel [4:11 PM]: And the more both sides agree around her, the worse the RfC is going to look. jarethandomiel [4:14 PM]: It would work with both if we could get some of the reasonable people from Tina's side -- the problem is that she calls the ranks every time and every nut runs on over. jarethandomiel [4:15 PM]: I would just like to note that I'm not all the way through the talk page history and I've already got 60 edits of evidence for this RfC jarethandomiel [5:23 PM]: ok *pantpant* here's the RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tina_M._Barber

IM session 2/2/06

jarethandomiel [9:31 PM]: That's why I went the route of the RfC -- its easier to deal with her then -- if she gets banned, anyone who "appears" to be her can be tossed out Pattisasq [9:34 PM]: What happens to an Rfc, is there an outcome? jarethandomiel [9:37 PM]: It looks like we'll be waiting until about 2/6 to start moving it to the ArbCom -- that way we've given her at least a week to make some response.

Excerpts of Posts made by Jareth while claiming to mediate. Full posts may be provided if requested Jareth became to personally involved and should have removed herself as a mediator.

1/12/06

I just wanted to tell all of you how happy I was to find this list.

I actually ran across the Shiloh at Wikipedia (I know, that's a bad word around here) and something really struck a chord with me 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. So again, thank you all for being here, I look forward to meeting all of you

1/13/06

Looks like there's a new history proposal, or part of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiloh_Shepherd_Dog#H..._things_still_needed Doesn't have anything about the splinters yet though, so it could all go downhill from there.

1/18/06

Sneaky, aren't they? They're being very careful not to actually claim its LMX data, they actually don't really say anything other than "pedigrees".

Ask them to cite their source

1/20/06

I live in <personal info removed> 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 vist Ma one of these days too (as if she doesn't have enough to do

2/7/06 Writes article with one side's input only

Here's what I've got so far -- I'm working on splitting the history into three sections as was suggested on the talk page. Hopefully this way the breed history won't suffer if more fighting goes on about the registry section. This is what I've gotten so far on the Breed History (needs more work):

2/8/06 Jareth gets question why she wrote the RFC on Tina. On 2/2/06 she tells me it is all about Tina, now on 2/8 she tells the other group the opposite

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

2/09/06 Excerpts of a Wiki editor confronting Jareth after realizing what we already figured out that she was playing each group against each other.

You curry favor here and say here that the Rfc is not about just Tina. You were the one who initiated the Rfc. You are the one who brought the request for arbitration against Tina. So take that part of your story someplace where it may sell.

Now, to prove "fairness" and equality, you are going tooth and nail against someone else? My POV is that you are playing both sides against the middle and that is a game that you can't win m'dear.

You could start by stepping back and not agitating

I would strongly suggest Jareth, that you not play with things that you truly do not understand. You will not solve our disagreements by calling one side or the other names and then doing your Wiki thing on Wiki. What gives you the right on Wiki to launch your own personal attacks? We are not so blinded by our passion for the dogs to not be able to see through your tactics.

Isn't it funny that you don't bother to mention I also approached people on "your" list to gather more outside input from "experts" on the subject. But hey, you tell it your way. Since posting emails is now a free for all, would you like to see some of yours? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from Jareth's RFA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jareth&diff=prev&oldid=28865238 4. Do you accept that being an admin requires good communication with others? Do you forsee increasing your community interaction, regardless of the outcome of this RfA?

A. Absolutely, to both questions. In fact, I've recently become active on Helpdesk-l and assist in answering questions. I honestly hadn't considered that taking discussions off-wiki would be a road-block, however, I do understand its not as easily trackable. 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. I think it can still use improvement, but it is no longer entirely an ad and most of the revert warring has stopped. Unfortunately, since this was all done via IM, forum and IRC, there's just no paper-trail to display

Dixen, Jareth's husband? First contributaion was 11/21/06, same time Jareth requests Adminship in her name [[1]]

Both screen names, Dixen and Jareth were used together while Jareth claims mediation [[2]]

Jareth claims mediation on the Joomla site as a reference for her RFA. How could she have been a neutral mediator when she is a Core Team Member, Co-Leader Documentation Team of Joomla proof can be supplied, but link would reveal personal info.

Oh please, please, please supply me this link? I'd love to go tell the guys over there I'm a Core Developer. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll just go tell Michelle that she's me, I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it. You did see above that you posted my location and it doesn't jive with the person you're now claiming I am? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It might have been easier to find out who I am by looking at my user page User:Jareth/Bio, got a pic there too if that helps. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tag to one that correctly states the GFDL release; you mentioned on the RfAR though that you released for all use, which might be a different template. Let me know if you want that changed. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Never mind, you already got it :) .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been incredibly frustrating for everyone. The only good news I can offer is the fact that the ArbCom will resolve the issue (though it does take some time) and it'll be over with. You've resolved the only concern with the picture, so there's no reason it can't be reinstated as soon as the article is out of protection (or earlier if another admin decides to revert to before the edit war today). .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

This temporary injunction has been passed in the Shiloh arbitration:

1) Until the resolution of this case, Tina M. Barber (talk · contribs) and ShenandoahShilohs (talk · contribs) are banned from Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

This injunction has received the requisite four net support votes. If breached, it can be enforced by a short block. The ban does not apply to edits on Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog.

Enacted on 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case is now closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]