In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC).

• ( Tina M. Barber | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

First, I apologize to anyone who'll be looking through this RfC -- it is rather long and convoluted, however, the issues in question have been going on for months. Since early December, the abovementioned user has been heavily involved in Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog, where there is an ongoing dispute about how multiple POVs should be included in the article. The editor has habitually violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV during these discussions in an attempt to push her POV. The editor also has difficulty with WP:V and WP:NOR, creating webpages on her personal site to verify the POV she would like to include. The editor has not made any contriubtions outside of this article.

This is not to say that there are not others involved who have also lacked civility at times as well. This is obviously a long standing dispute that has spilled into Wikipedia, but, frankly, it doesn't belong here. After almost two months of attempted mediation, only one small section has been resolved due mostly to the discussion constantly being hijacked to promote POV or make attacks.

Inserts POV original research about other parties into article [1], [2], [3]

Attacks other registries [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],

Reveals editors name and employer, makes threats (this edit has been deleted due to the personal information contained therein) [16], [17]

Attacks other editors [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]

POV pushing including spamming her site and creating new pages on her site [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

Reveals other editors names and attacks [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

Advocates deletion of article if her POV isn't included, shortly after, meat puppets converge to agree [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Brings meatpuppets to staw poll on article history [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]

Borderline legal threats [66]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:AGF
4. WP:V
5. WP:NOR
6. WP:NPOV
7. WP:TPG
8. WP:EQ

(provide diffs and links)

1. Entire contents of editor's talk page User talk:Tina M. Barber
2. Mediation requested [67], [68]
3. Requests for civility and good faith [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]
4. Attempts to resolve article dispute [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. .:. Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. ShenandoahShilohs 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. MilesD. 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(sign with ~~~~)

1. S Scott 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)S Scott S Scott 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Gwyllgi 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. WindsongKennels 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Dartagnan 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Robert McClenon 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. NobleAcres 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Shiloh Supporter 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. The blatant refusal to acknowledge NPOV is the most troubling to me. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Suzy G. 13:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. iamgateway 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Saginaw 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. I have to agree with ESkog on this one. Compu te r Jo e 14:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. PJBJ 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Trysha ^{( talk)} 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I came across the dispute on the talk page when User:MilesD. posted a notice about the revealing of personal information on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. I refuse to take sides in the dispute itself. Not just because I'm trying to be on a full-stop wikibreak (which I'm not really succesful at :s), but also because I have no idea what the dispute is about (I'm a cat person myself). Having said that, I am shocked at Tina M. Barber's behaviour on the talk page. I'm particularly shocked by her posting of personal information (name, job, employer) at the talk page. She went on to threaten that user to contact his employer, saying that he was surfing from his workplace (and I understand that she has indeed contacted the employer). This is beyond belief. Even someone with no knowledge of the specific wikipedia policies on user privacy should have known that this was out of bounds. When she was warned, she continued this behaviour. It did become more innocent (e.g. the use of first names in a conversation), but I believe that in the light of the warning she received for her previous violation, she should have refrained from even this.
Wikipedia has become the new battle ground for a dispute that has presumably originated outside this project. While wikipedia shouldn't take sides in the conflict itself, it should judge the behaviour that those involved show on wikipedia. I believe that Tina M. Barber has violated not just the applicable policies and guidelines listed above, but also, and probably most prominently, Wikipedia:Harassment (an official policy). She has demonstrated "a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target." She has posted "another person's personal information" which placed the other person "at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (as the outsider itself) reply
2. Robert McClenon 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. .:. Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. ||| Miles.D. ||| ^{02-6-2006 20:05 (UTC)}
5. Dartagnan 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. S Scott 20:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott reply
7. Gwyllgi 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. NobleAcres 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. This whole thing makes me sad. Mangojuice 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Very poor behavior. - Will Beback 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. PJBJ 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Trysha ^{( talk)} 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.