Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

If it is found that I (Blackash) have been editing in good faith, been civil and willing to compromise to the improvement of the article. I would like to be un-topic banned.

1) I feel I was unfairly Topic banned at the ANI, as my editing behavior wasn't looked at. It seemed more about trying to settle the discussion down and as WhatamIdoing said I ended up being collateral damage, of the fire them all approach.

2) The article talk page had been settled down between 21 Oct 2010 - 16 Feb 2011. The Tree shaping article was edited by me and others during this quiet time. This latest flare up started because of the removal of the alternative names from the lead. diff One of which was Arborsculpture, which is the only alternative name that Martin Hogbin and Johnuniq were concerned about.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I request clarification of WPs stance on editing articles then referencing those articles in off-wiki activities

1) Blackash has worked to keep the title of the Tree shaping article from reverting to Arborsculpture (the first non-stub title) as it was coined by her professional rival, and has subsequently followed its usage around the web and discouraged garden related websites from using it, citing the Tree shaping WP article. She has done this on over one hundred sites already and has expressly said she sees nothing wrong with it. Of course referencing WP is in itself perfectly ok. However editing for the purposes of keeping the name from reverting to Arbo, and therefore ensuring those posts remain accurate, seems to violate

WP:SOAP

and is therefore not an acceptable reason to edit from how I understand that policy, but I could be wrong as it is not clearly stated. I request specific clarification of this point.

See here for details. Colincbn (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this seems to violate

WP:CANVASS as "Campaigning", due to the non-neutral wording of the post (claiming Arbo leads only to Reames). However that is just a guideline not a policy. Also it is unclear whether posting to off-wiki sites in this manner is covered by the guideline at all. Colincbn (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please note: I agree with her that the title should not be Arborsculpture. Colincbn (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right Colin but that is not a decision that we should make here. We need to look at the whole subject of article title again, after the arbitration has been completed, as though the two COI editors had never been involved. We just need to follow WP policy on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Blackash's activity in editing the article in order to support her outside interests this, to my mind, is clearly wrong. If there is not a policy which prohibits this there should be one. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Comment My objection to Arborsculpture has nothing to do with who coined the word. If Pooktre was being suggested for the title I would also object. As it leads to Pete Cook and I. Arborsculpture leads to one person (Richard Reames),www.arborsmith.com/www.arborsculpture.com (his website), or his books. Easily checked, google it. The vast majority of my comments online about wikipedia's title change, was in the months after the title change. Blue Rasberry tried to address this for Colincbn [1]. I can't recalling even one comment in the last 20 months or so where I've pointed to wikipedia.

As I didn't offer any suggestions for the title before the change, I don't see how this is editing wikipedia to suit where I've commented online about the title. I haven't been editing to keep the title at Tree shaping. Colincbn knows I've been part of the discussions about changing the title. One example diff I believe Colincbn's repeated suggestion of "...therefore ensuring those posts remain accurate..." is not assuming good faith. I have been editing the article to create a balanced view reflecting cite-able sources. I believe a quick look at before the title change and now supports the article is now more balanced. Blackash have a chat 01:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry is not an admin. And if you can come up with one editor who thinks it is fine, I can come up with three who don't. That is why I am asking for Clarification. I don't know if this is considered wrong or not, I think it should be but I don't make the rules. That is why I am asking. Regardless of when you made the posts you have never expressed that you feel there is anything wrong with your behaviour regarding them. That's fine, but I have no reason to think you wont be continuing to do it. If it is something that is frowned upon we need admins to point it out. That way you and I will both know and we can modify our behaviour accordingly.

And please stop building

strawmen, you have specifically said your agenda (if you have one) is to keep your art from being labeled with someone else's term. Is this incorrect? Your actions on those websites show you are making a concerned effort to keep the word Arborsculpture from becoming the de facto name for your art. You say it leads to Reames, but if all of those web pages started using it to mean the art as a whole then it would in fact become the standard name. You have been trying to prevent that. That is also fine, but I think using WP as a tool for doing that is right out. You have become very wiki-savvy in the last 20 months but this is still the reason you came here. And you have given me no reason to think your reasons have changed. I do whole heartedly accept you have benifited the project in other ways in that time as well and I hope you continue editing and continue to improve the project. Colincbn (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Colincbn, It is not my fault that you either, don't think I have a valid point or you don't get what I trying to say. It not polite to repeatedly go on about

strawmen. The fact Arborsculpture leads to Slowart/Reames has always been one of the core issues. In my first edit to the talk page I tried demonstrate this by commenting about how no artist in this field uses the word Arborsculpture for their work. 16 August 2008 It wasn't until my 5th-10th edit (depends if you count formatting/signing ) on the talk page, I thought to demonstrate the issue by stating "...put Arborsculpture into Google..." 9 October 2008

Googling Arborsculpture then got the same result as today, the links lead to Richard Reames and his methods/books.

All my comments online were clarifying who created the trees shown in the images, their owners' preferred name, that Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames methods and the title change at wikipedia. I haven't bother with pointing to wikipedia for the last 20 months or so, as I now demonstrate about the name of the art-form with the published books on this field. Blackash have a chat 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that Arbo is associated with Reames and is not the preferred name of the art for many practitioners. I never said it was, and attacking my statements as if that is what I am saying is a logical fallacy called a strawman argument. It was never my point that Arbo does not lead to Reames nor that it is the agreed upon term in the artistic community. My point is that A: You have worked to keep new practitioners and those being introduced to the art through online sources from thinking that it is the agreed upon term (and them maybe using the word themselves), and B: you have pointed to the WP article as proof that it is not the agreed upon term, and C: you have subsequently edited the article to show that it is not the agreed upon term, and to squarely place it as a term only used by one artist. I think that is using WP as a tool to further off wiki activities.

Quote: Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames’s method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net [Please Note: treeshapers.net is a website run by Blackash/Becky] which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world.

Nothing about this mentions any images of other artist's work nor their preffered name as you stated it does.

Note: I see nothing wrong with A and B above, just with A, B, and C together. But I am not sure what the official stance on this currently is, so I am requesting clarification. Colincbn (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn you did state this "...as it was coined by her professional rival,..." This part of your comment is what I was rebutting in my last comments. Who is going to believe a statement of xyz with out the reasoning behind the statement. So I demonstrate my points of

I don't care who coins what.
and that I do have issue with any word that leads to one place.

with examples as I did in my comments above. This quote of yours also shows yet again your misunderstandings of my comments. Please give a diff to my comment that lead you to this belief and I will try to clarify it for you.

A: The vast majority of my comments I've laid out the facts in a neutral manner.

B: Wikipedia happens to been the only place were there has been discussion with close to half of people from the field about the name of the art-form. So until I thought to point to the published books it was the logical place to point to.

C: I have edited the article to reflected what the sources are saying. I have always been willing to type up the content from the sources so other editors can check that my editing is not taking the content out of context. diff I have suggested if Slowart felt a view was unfairly represent, he should add the alternative view/s with citations, and for him to please read

WP:YESPOV diff

As to my online comments, the vast majority were Pooktre images branded with Arborscuplture (submitted by Richard Reames). In most of those cases I've just commented with the short quote you have given. When it was other Artists' work I would then go into detail of who they are and their preferred name. Some examples [2] [3] [4] Blackash have a chat 01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash as for your points: A: I have not been debating that. B: I have not been debating that. C: I have not been debating that.

Do you see why I have so often used the term Straw man? As for you not caring about who "coined" the word. Fine, I retract my statement, and replace it with the longer statement "Because she claims the term leads to one man, who is her professional rival, who also happens to be the person who coined the word". Colincbn (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my A B C are all in reply to your A B C statements. We (Pete and I) don't see Richard Reames as a rival, which I've stated on wikipedia before. Please give diff where I have claimed he is. Blackash have a chat 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that I am saying the things your points counter, when I am in fact not saying them, is called a straw man argument. Please stop doing that. Nothing in your A~C points above addresses what I am actually saying. Also I don't think anyone here (especially Slowart) would agree that you are not in a rivalry with Reames [Note: Slowart is Richard Reames and Blackash is Becky Northey. Both mentioned in the article and noted as having potential CoIs at the top of the Talk page. Both are currently topic banned from this article]. In fact you yourself likened this dispute to a game of chess and claimed he would "still have players on the board" if you were topic banned. Using this metaphor with him as your opponent makes it clear you see him as a rival diff. But if you prefer I will use the word "opponent" from now on, even though it is longer to type and means the same thing. Colincbn (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything for you, I'm replying to your statements. Please don't put words into my mouth this in not the first time you have tried this. One example Colincbn's diff my rebuttal.

The metaphor of "game of chess", I used this to illustrate how Slowart has other editors who stated they believe the title should be Arborsclpture and are willing to try to get the title changed. We don't see Richard Reames as a rival. His obsessive concern is about the naming the art form. In my opinion to be a rival he would need to be an expert in shaping trees. Which he is not, as the results of his methods show (which is why he has repeatedly edited them off article). I have repeatedly asked Duff and Slowart for evidence he is an established expert and never received any. Blackash have a chat 06:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok seriously, do you not see the irony in you going on about how another artist who's methods you disagree with is not an expert, even though he has written two books on the subject and teaches it in a college course. Calling his work substandard and him obsessed with the name of the art, even though you have followed the subject around the Internet and spent god-knows how many hours on telling people what the art should be called. And in the same exact post saying you don't see him as a rival? Whatever. Look why do you object to using a name on WP that can't be used as the de facto name of the art? It will fix all these problems and you can go on posting whatever you want to other webpages with no worries here. Colincbn (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you were not replying to any statements I made, claiming you were is a straw man argument, please stop doing that. Colincbn (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) Writing a book or two doesn't make the author an expert. Both books are self-published by a non expert and fall under

WP:SPS

. Unless Slowart can prove he was an expert at the time of writing his books.

1.2) Slowart/Reames teaches at a John C. Campbell Folk School, for a week each year. [5] I'm sorry I didn't realize this would be classed as a college course.

2.) Richard himself states in his book he is obsessed.

3.) I didn't state "his work substandard" (again Colincbn stop putting words in my mouth). I stated he is not an expert in shaping trees which his results show, a picture says a thousand words. Short discussion about Richard's bench image. Colincbn as you know we have been acknowledged has having the best trees in the world. I have the knowledge to know what I'm talking about.

4.) Colincbn please read my quote you have put up, I'm not telling people what to call the art form. (Please stop putting spin on my comments) I'm stating Arborsculpture is Richards, there had been a consensus for a neutral name and here a couple of links.

5.) I have already stated why I don't agree a long term is need for the title on my talk page. discussion

6.) As to your straw man allegation I don't agree that I have been. Blackash have a chat 08:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look the "Workshop phase" of arbitration is supposed to be over today, the 19th. So I don't plan on spending much more time on this. I will say that not in all your numbered points above nor in your points A~C do you address my clearly stated three concerns. You have argued semantics about whether the correct word is the one I used or not, you have brought up things I am not disputing, you have claimed someone is not an expert because you are one and you say so, and you have ignored the actual points I have brought up. So I will make it very simple for you:

~~I feel~~ My claim is that: A: You have worked to keep new practitioners and those being introduced to the art through online sources from thinking that Arborsculpture is the agreed upon term
Do you disagree with this statement? Yes / No
If yes:
Why?

~~I feel that~~ My claim is that: B: You have pointed to the WP article on outside webpages as proof that Arborsculpture is not the agreed upon term.
Do you disagree with this statement? Yes / No
If yes:
Why?

~~I feel that My~~ claim is that: You have subsequently edited the article to show that it is not the agreed upon term.
Do you disagree with this statement? Yes / No
If yes:
Why?

Now in cases where there is no controversy, like mathematics (HA!), something like this might be ok. For example if a professor posted a scientifically accepted fact on outside pages then subsequently edited WP to clarify what the scientific consensus is. That might be considered perfectly fine. But in cases where the subject is in dispute among professional ~~rivals~~ opponents this seems way off base to me. I would like clarification of this from ArbCom. Do you have a problem with getting clarification? If so Why? Colincbn (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love the things you leave out example my quote "I have repeatedly asked Duff and Slowart for evidence he is an established expert and never received any." I'm saying he is not an expert because he hasn't given any evidence that he is. Colincbn sorry I'm not doing the "I feel" argument again [6], been there done that, it seems you like the wiggle room it gives you. Short discussion Long discussion with diffs. Back up your claims with diffs that actually say what you are claiming. Blackash have a chat 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "wiggle room" it is called making accurate statements. But ok, what would qualify as evidence he is an expert to you? Colincbn (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiggle room" is about you using the terminology "I feel". Blackash have a chat 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the "I feel" from my points above, now will you address the issues? Colincbn (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Back up your claims with diffs that actually say what you are claiming Blackash have a chat 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for me to provide "diffs" for things that did not happen on Wikipedia. That is kind of weird, but I will do the best I can. This is where my claims for points A and B come from. As for Point C I think we can both agree that it is clear why I make this claim without forcing me to go digging through the massive amount of text involved. But since I imagine you will do it anyway here we go: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

So, now that that little bit of unpleasantness is behind us will you address my points? And what kind of evidence would you agree serves to qualify Slowart/Reames as an expert? Are you asking for diffs from WP that prove he is an expert in the field of shaping trees? He is mentioned in the article already. You have even edited his section yourself. Is that not enough? What evidence do you require? You have said you have the best shaped trees in the world so you know he is not an expert, but that is not really empirical evidence is it? Can you give me evidence he is not an expert in spite of his books, teaching position, and website(s)? Colincbn (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn your link to google search of Hi Becky Pooktre Arborsculpture Wikipedia shows links to my quote that you have already posted here in your comment above.

Re-posted Quote: Hi this is Becky form Pooktre. Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames’s method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping. You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net [Please Note: treeshapers.net is a website run by Blackash/Becky] which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world. end quote. (Blackash comment I didn't suggest any titles names before the article name change. Please check out tree shapers practitioners I believe this shows how I edit neutrally with out pushing any name.)

Well I have already address your A, B and C statements diff. My replies are attempts to answer you, if you chose to state they are straw man that is your choice.

Finding these diffs must have taken like... 5 mins, as Martin had already put these up on the evidence page. Two of these diffs Colincbn you where part of the discussion and already know my reasoning behind my edits. All of these diffs I have already addressed, the first 5 in this discussion section. I'll list where in the discussion, after each of Martin/Colincbn examples so it is easy to find my reasoning.

Martin/Colincbn example 2nd bullet point.
Martin/Colincbn example 3rd bullet point.
Martin/Colincbn example 11th bullet point.
Martin/Colincbn example 13th bullet point or 5th bullet point from the bottom.
Martin/Colincbn example 16th bullet point or 2nd last bullet point
Martin/Colincbn example This diff is where I started a discussion, instead of editing the page directly due to potential COI. This I had also addressed for Martin here.

Colincbn thank you for giving the link to google and the diffs. I now see that your statements A,B and C are your interpretation. Now other editors can look at the information and decide for themselves. Blackash have a chat 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who told me to get diffs! Of course I already knew your stance! We all do, but you said you would not address my points until I had provided diffs so I did. I repeatedly do exactly what you ask and you still refuse to address my points. I am not even saying you were definitely wrong to do it, I think it is not cool but since I'm not sure of the policy on this I'm just asking for clarification. Yet you still approach this as if it is some kind of battle, and it is not my choice to call a straw man a straw man, it is just reality. Whatever. I am not going to try to engage you in an actual discussion about this anymore. According to the guidelines on ArbCom cases the workshop phase should have ended yesterday. So I am done here. All we can do now is wait for the committee's decision. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn, Sorry you see it as battling, I just don't like you twisting my comments to mean something other than what I was actually stating. You are again changing my comment to make me seem unreasonable. What I said was quote "No, Back up your claims with diffs that actually say what you are claiming." That is not saying I'll reply if you will supply diffs. I also have repeatedly stated I have replied to your statements. That you view I haven't, doesn't change my view that I have. Blackash have a chat 23:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like some clarification on WP policy regarding this point. Above is a demonstrative example of the kind of arguing that consumes so much time on the talk page for the article in question.duff 22:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Question for all parties

Just what you might call a sense check. I'm not getting the impression that there is any/much what you might call "normal" bad behaviour - incivility, repeated mindless reverting etc. I'm not even getting the impression that this is advertising in the usual way that is understood - no-one is trying to persuade us to buy shares. The big issue here is the conflict of interest, with several parties having a commercial interest in the subject, and potentially standing to gain advantage if Wikipedia uses their word for this artform.

Do people feel this is right? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair assessment. My impression is that there is good faith all around, the COI editors have declared their COI, everything is discussed, and the other editors genuinely believe they're doing right by wikipedia. My only question is whether there is financial gain involved. I get the impression (more a gut impression than anything else) that the various COI editors are in this more for getting recognition of their version of the art rather than for any commercial advantage. This, unfortunately for arbcom :) is one of those 'everyone is a good guy' situations. --rgpk (comment) 18:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our concern is not financial. For us (my partner and I), we just don't want our art branded by a name that leads to a different artist and uses a different method. We would have same the complaint if the proposed title was changed to any artists brand name (including Pooktre). We don't want or need brand anyone with Pooktre, our trees are widely accepted as the best in the world. The world will one day settled on a name for the art-form, we watch trees grow we can wait. It not the same for Richard Reames, he needs the creditability he gets from branding of other artists. To sell his books, methods and trees (groups of whips(unbranched small trees)). It is his lively hood and as a added bonus immortality for being known as the father of Arborsculpture if he successes in having every shaped tree called "Arborsculpture". This is the reason he has been trying to remove his method and any images of his trees from the article, he doesn't want people to be able to compare the different between methods and results. Blackash have a chat 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Blackash has persistently tried to control the page either by editing or by barracking people on the talk page in order to promote her view of the subject. The sheer volume and persistence of her discussion makes it impossible for other editors to base their editing on WP policies. I agree with RegentsPark that it may be more about personal recognition and standing than money. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin the trouble I have in discussions with you is you don't stick to content and how wiki policies applies, you give vague answers and quickly change to COI or just don't reply to content questions. Blackash have a chat 16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the action of Blackash in canvassing on the web for recognition of of a name, based on a claimed consensus in WP, thus creating more sources to support her preferred name is a threat to the integrity of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin I repeatedly have offered real suggestions for the title name that meet wiki policies and that were not tree shaping, I know you were there two of the times I've done this. You also know I created a set tables showing sources and quotes for the different title suggestions. Yet you still seem to believe I'm pushing for the title tree shaping on wiki. Please believe me when I tell you again I don't care what the title is as long as it doesn't lead to one artist or has a method linked to it. One that meet wiki policies as well would be good. Blackash have a chat 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, your comment in italics demonstrates your COI here. You do not have the right to insist that the title does not lead pack to a particular person. The title should depend only on the most common term in sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash's comment is perfectly fine. A name that leads to a single artist (and their books..) presents NPOV issues, which is a legitimate cause for concern. I share that sentiment and have no COI. AfD hero (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response shows how even non-COI editors can be drawn into trying to give equal benefit to those with an interest in the subject. That is not our job, our job is to reflect the world as it is (shown in sources). If everyone uses a name that leads back to one person, that is the name we must use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, if all sources did use a name, it wouldn't matter if it all did lead to one person but they don't. In point of fact the title as it is now has the most references both in number and from secondary sources. An interesting question is, if all sources used a name would it lead to one person in an art form? I don't think so. I do have the right to point out where a title, or an edit change doesn't meet wiki policies. I don't go to a discussion page and state you can't do that, I clearly and logically list how and why wiki policies applies. Then other editors can decide weather my point/s are valid Blackash have a chat 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Blackash has been critical of editors who do not see her POV, maybe not quite personal attacks in most cases. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is an accurate assessment of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, when I see you guys stating an untruth (not base on logic but a truth that feels true) or a half truth as a fact I have stated you were lying. I'm sorry I will not use this terminology again. Blackash have a chat 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this issue since June 2010 when I made my first comment at the article talk (agreeing with Martin Hogbin about what "tree shaping" means, diff), and I do not think there has been any bad behavior. The problem is that Blackash has used the Internet to promote certain views regarding her business (particularly that "tree shaping" is the correct name), and that procedure has been used at Wikipedia. The reason that arbitration is required is that no one has the motivation or patience (not even Slowart) to continue opposing the subtle POV changes that have occurred in the article over a very long period (for example, after a period of relative stability, this edit in February 2011 by Sydney Bluegum removed mention of "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article, leading to yet another slow edit war with everyone behaving well). Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the title had been changed to Tree training or Tree art I would have used that name on the internet to point to. Blackash have a chat 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Sydney Bluegum

You only edit this article. There is nothing wrong with this - we have other editors that just edit one article, or a handful of related articles. However, I wonder if you would be willing to confirm 'on the record' as it were, and without outing yourself, if you have any commercial or professional connection to or interest in any of the artists connected with this artform. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no commercial or professional connection or interest in any of the artists. I came to wikipedia as an end user to find out more about the practise of tree training. I have tried to grow articles without much success. I admire the work of the artists, living and dead. I then became involved in the discussion page and decided to contribute and find out about the methods that practitioners use. Within 3 edits I was accused as being a sockpuppet. The atmosphere has been hostile. Editors ignore you and misinturpute what you say or repeat the same topic - the name. The edit I did on 14 Feb 2011 was following wiki policy about alternate names. I also removed other alternate names not just "arborsculpture" as the article had a list of alternate names.

I have been accused of being the life partner of Blackash. I have no partner.

I believe that the name should "Tree Shaping" be found not suitable, be "tree training" as this meets all requirements in that it does not lead to one person, is neutral, and is not a neologism. I believe it would be appropriate as it is what Axel Erlandsen called his craft.I have stated this several times, both Blackash and Slowart have agreed to this in the past.

I contacted FETCHCOMMS early in the process as to the conduct of editors on the page but was replyed to by Chezz stating that I should edit lots and improve my editing. This was not my purpose for being at wiki. Although I have done a small amount of editing, I was happy with the discussion for Fantasy V Reality, and Is it an Art or Craft and the changes that eventuated.

I dont know how to do diffs. Could you please provide me with a link. Thanks Sydney Bluegum (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diff guide! (: AfD hero (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:SilkTork

Proposed principles

Subject specialists can bring useful insights

1) Subject specialists can bring useful insights and information to articles so their involvement in Wikipedia is valued.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree - this probably worth saying. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree It can be hard to find media info unless you know they already exist. Blackash have a chat 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. With the caveat that this is more true when the subject is well-defined and less true when it is not. In the latter case, wikipedia may become a vehicle for defining the subject, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 19:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Basic.duff 22:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Personally or commercially involved users have a potential COI

2) Users with an involvement in a topic, either personal or commercial, will have a potential

conflict of interest

, so need to edit with care and attention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This balances Principle 1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree: While it is clear that Slowart and Blackash have conflicts of interest that in itself is not grounds for sanctions. However any editing on contentious points could be seen as disruptive, regardless of civility and adherence to WP rules. Colincbn (talk)

Agree This in one of the main reasons for me asking for outside editors input about edits I believe may be considered COI. I believe COI states to talk first and then do the edit. If another editor objects for any reason to any edit by a potential COI editor, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits would then need to be discussed on the article's talk page and show how and why they meet wiki policies. Blackash have a chat 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree yup. --rgpk (comment) 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Also basic, though I would extend that to include all editors in the need to edit with care and attention.duff 22:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disputes that are long running and pull in other users are disruptive.

3) Disputes that are long running and pull in other users are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally agree, however this could probably be rephrased to take on board some of the concerns raised. Long running disputes use up valuable volunteer hours, especially those disputes which pull in other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree Dispute points change over time and having other editors come in and comment/edit only improves the article. After all if no one comments the article stays where it is. Blackash have a chat 23:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree While disruptive disputes tend to be long running and pull in other users, I disagree that the reciprocal is true. It depends on the trajectory of changes to the page. --rgpk (comment) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Though I do agree that long running disputes can be disruptive (and this one has been), pulling in other neutral users seems to me one of the more productive ways to work toward resolution of such disputes. That's how several of the users participating on this topic (and in this arbitration) were introduced to the page, via prior RfM/RfC requests. Taken as a whole, their mediations and contributions have been quite beneficial to both conflict reduction and page content improvement, even though some issues remain contentious.duff 23:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not necessarily. They can be disruptive, but if everyone remains civil and the discussion remains on topic then they generally are not disruptive. This is the basis on which processes like third opinion and RfCs work. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining civil and on topic is taken for granted; the point here is that using all the dispute resolution options available and getting advice and assistance from 100 people and still neither side backing down but continuing, however sweetly and well focused, on the same trivial issue so we end up at ArbCom is disruptive. The time I and others have spent helping out on this issue is time we have not been getting on with building the encyclopaedia - we have been disrupted from building the encyclopaedia. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now what you mean, but that isn't clear from the single line principle above. To me it implies actively disruptive behaviour (edit warring, incivility, etc) rather than passively disruptive (being a time sink). Perhaps phrasing it something like "Disputes that are long running and pull in other users are an unproductive use time that participants could otherwise use to improve the encyclopaedia" would better, although less pithy.Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Thryduulf that the wording above doesn't make the point properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who knowingly edit against consensus are disruptive

4) Users who knowingly edit a disputed article against consensus and agreed remedy are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basically agree. Perhaps have 'generally remained civil' instead. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment What was Slowart thinking when he did this [13] By having his Reames account signature mimic Blackash's signature in color and writing style.Is this being civil? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember what I was thinking Mum, don't see anything uncivil by it.Slowart (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: User:Blackash has repeatedly accused several other users, including me, of lying. I do not consider that civil. Here are several diffs: [14], [15],[16], [17], and finally right here in this arbitration, another instance. Her extensive rebuttal is undated & though I've wasted a lot of time digging through her diffs, I cannot find a link to the corresponding diff. Thus, hopefully this will suffice [18] That rebuttal also contains several false statements that Blackash knows to be false, having participated directly in the events and pages she refers to therein. I will deal with that directly on the evidence page where those statements were made. duff 03:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always triple check before making bold statements, if the admins would like I can find the diffs showing why I used such strong wording. Duff please do put up your diffs on the evidence page about how my statements are false. Blackash have a chat 14:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stand by for liftoff on that. Do you want to restate any part of what you submitted as evidence there before I do? Maybe you meant to express something else? This is me kindly urging you to reconsider whether what you typed was accurate.

Also, yes, I would very much like to see these diffs you have that prove I have lied on Wikipedia at all, ever. Don't wait for permission from the admins. Either back it up or back it down. Maybe you were wrong? Maybe I or one of the editors was wrong? Maybe you misunderstood something? Maybe you were hasty those times? Did you actually triple-check those posts, where you repeatedly accused each of us of lying, and really, are you convinced that those editors & I were all lying, all those times?

I'm giving you a couple of big lily pads to leap onto here & I encourage you to accept them gracefully. duff 18:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four hours later, four hours wasted gathering the details, so...I'll take that as a 'NO'. Here [19] is a link to my documentation of only three of Blackash's numerous falsifications & misrepresentations on the evidence page. That's as much as I can stomach, so it will have to do. duff 22:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see, now Blackash is EDITING MY POSTS, (as the diffs here clearly show) & she has BURIED MY EVIDENCE on the evidence page (as the diffs there clearly show). The link above in my last post is changed by Blackash, to the place that Blackash BURIED MY EVIDENCE using an edit note that said she was moving it to my evidence section. Wherever that is that she moved it to, that ain't my evidence section, and she wasn't supposed to be doing any moving of evidence; that's for clerks & admins only. I dug it back out from her diffs. This is the correct link to my EVIDENCE OF HER FALSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE, which I've now copied (without moving anything) to what I hope is the correct section:[20]

Duff when you first posted your evidence "Blackash's numerous falsifications..." section on the evidence talk page did you think you were posting on the actual project page/evidence page? Blackash have a chat 12:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I did. I wasn't the first to make that mistake either, please note. Why would I have any reason to have thought otherwise, since you copied the real evidence page over to there, including names of parties, arbitrators, etc., and then linked to it on the evidence page without any indication that you were linking to the talk page? Completely unexpected and I think that was really sly and very clever of you, by the way, but I won't make that mistake again and hopefully the added banners will help others to make the distinction also. duff 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Blackash's defence I do not believe this was an attempt to trick anyone. In fact she moved the text on the advice of a member of ArbCom. Her evidence page section had become somewhat longer than the guidelines allow so rather than just loosing all of it it was suggested she moved it to talk. I think she misunderstood the implications of that to some extent but I do not think she was trying to fool anyone. I figure the person who suggested it meant that some of her evidence was better brought up in a forum of discussion, whereas she has insisted that we treat the talk page as if it was in fact the evidence page and not post in her "evidence section". While I think this is a misunderstanding on her part I do not think it is an example of bad faith. Colincbn (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wasn't/isn't, and if it wasn't/isn't, then I take it all back, every word, and apologize as humbly as I can muster @ a pretty punchy 2am in Oregon. However, am I to suspend the assumption that SHE knew it was not an evidence page, since I also noticed later that you had already pointed that out to her? After challenging me to post evidence there, without indicating that it was not the evidence page--but a talk page, when I did address her challenge by posting evidence there, below the comments that the evidence pertained to, she promptly moved my post to a new & even more disjoint & confusing spot on that talk page with an edit note indicating she was moving it to my evidence section, and then she came back here & edited MY post (above) to change the link to where she stuck it. All this fits neatly within the assumption of good faith also? I'm running a little threadbare on both faith & sleep here, frankly, but am about as willing to entertain an entertainingly plausible explanation as ever.

I wish the banner were nicer. And louder. This is my first arbitration, so I haven't yet captured the glowing megaphone, but ah (maybe I should point this at the clerks?)...should there not be some really salient banners on the all talk pages for the various pages of an arbitration, to show clearly that they ARE talk pages so that people don't get so cornfuzed when they arrive on Mars? There's just the little tab to indicate and that's a lot of pages to monitor for revisions and also remember to check that tab every time. Maybe I should check watchlist every so often instead. Duh...Thunk. Anyhow, I've already re-posted the actual evidence to my actual evidence section on the actual evidence page, so that aspect is pretty much moot. Thanks Colincbn, for following up with a clear explanation of at least part of the problem. I dp appreciate it. duff 09:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this discussion is now typical of the long multilayer spin, misinformation and jumping to conclusions of discussing things with duff in the past. [21] [22]

I'll try and be short and clear up this one comment of Duff's diff. This will be my example of why tree shaping talk has so much discussion, as I don't want spin, misinformation or just plain wrong info in the main article.

In short I asked Duff did he think the evidence talk page was the actual project page/evidence page. Basically he said yes. Duff's points followed by my questions or comments

"Yes, of course I did."
1. Duff as you had already successfully added evidence on the actual evidence page with out posting in the middle of anyone else evidence why did you think it was ok it put your evidence in the middle of mine?
"I wasn't the first to make that mistake either"
1. Question. Who else made that mistake?
"since you copied the real evidence page over to there, including names of parties, arbitrators, etc.,"
1. Nope I only copied my own evidence over. The names and etc was there to start with. [23]
"and then linked to it on the evidence page without any indication that you were linking to the talk page"
1. The first sentence in my section on the actual evidence page is "I've shortened my evidence and given links to talk page as advised."
"I won't make that mistake again"
1. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how Duff didn't realize it was the talk page.
  1. As there is how you got to the page in the first place.
  2. The size 18 point font "Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence" please note the it starts Wikipedia talk.
  3. The link box has talk unlinked
  4. Duff replied to Martin just like on a talk page. diff
  5. The heading of "Blackash info from the evidence page please don't comment" to which Colincbn replied this is the talk page. [24]

I'm assuming Duff made a mistake then jumped conclusions then added his negative spin to his conclusions about my behavior. Duff has this underlying hostility which breaks out a the slightest hiccup. My first interaction Duff short discussion. Blackash have a chat 14:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is typical. Another rare point of agreement. And this, ^ is a good example of you winding out and milking a meaningless dispute that has already been settled, for the sole purpose increasing confusion and disruption. As I mentioned just a moment ago (where you did the same thing around Primack's COI) today I am not going to get caught up in your usual snare of demands to waste everyone's time & energy digging up diffs to prove or disprove points that have already been thoroughly explored and settled. Make whatever assumptions you wish to and then characterize them any way you like. Hiccup. Cheers. duff 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not meaningless as this workshop is about editors behavior. My comment was to illustrate Duff's behavior in regards to misinformation and spin. Duff on one hand he tells me to "Please don't wait to go into detail. Fill up the page, if that's what it takes for you to back up your claims of misinformation and spin". diff then on the other hand when I do, Duff is like " And this, ^ is a good example of you winding out and milking a meaningless dispute that has already been settled, for the sole purpose increasing confusion and disruption" as commented above and "are you just being disruptively and repetitively pointy?" diff. Blackash have a chat 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Blackash and Slowart are topic banned

1) User:Blackash and User:Slowart are banned from discussing the tree shaping topic anywhere on Wikipedia for 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Regretably, I think this is probably necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure if there is a way to avoid banning entirely while still addressing the issues brought up here. But if there is I would prefer that to a full-topic ban. I would not mind if Blackash and Slowart continued to edit on my talkpage (or a subsection of it) for example. Both of them have an in-depth understanding of the topic that it will be hard to get from anyone else. Colincbn (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree As RegentsPark pointed out Slowart has editors who are willing to discuss what he cares about (title). I do care about the title but it isn't my main concern, I wish for the art form, in all its different aspects to shine example artists, history, methods and related practices. This is why I've added the bulk of the content to the article because I believe what wiki does is a good thing. If I hadn't been editing who else cares enough to go to the trouble of looking for hard to find refs for all the different content I've added. Realistically I don't think any one would have bothered. Banning me as a quick remedy to stop the discussions will more than a likely stop the gradual improvement of the article. Blackash have a chat 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I remain uncertain as to what this will achieve. I see a fine article on a topic that is not otherwise well known and see that this is the outcome of a long running tug of war between two sets of editors. Without that tug of war, and without the knowledge that the COI editors have about this topic, I doubt if we would have had a good article like this one. Banning them seems counter-productive at best. --rgpk (comment) 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why anyone disagrees about this. It is a statement of fact. They are in fact both topic banned at this time. Colincbn (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've placed this under 'proposed remedies'. People can reasonably agree or disagree with a proposal. --rgpk (comment) 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not placed this anywhere, this is not my section. I just think with the wording as it is implies they are not currently topic banned, which they are. A better wording would be "Uphold Blackash and Slowart's topic ban" or something like this. Note I prefer mentorship or some other form of resolution that still allows them both to contribute. As I put forth in my section below. Colincbn (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: The proposed remedy, as regards Blackash only, is a further extension of the present ban and is warranted. The point of the arbitration is to settle an ongoing problem that previous topic banning on only the main article space did not resolve, namely, continued COI pressuring on the talkpage. Slowart does not appear to have behaved in the same manner. I agree that Blackash should be completely topic banned, for whatever period is necessary for her to clearly understand the problem and correct it.

I don't see where "RegentsPark pointed it out", but I neither agree with nor appreciate Blackash's insinuation that Slowart 'has' other editors standing by to do his work. That seems to imply that anyone who agrees with Slowart about anything is in his pocket, which is both insulting and untrue, so far as any evidence has been shown to me. Also, a comment by Regentspark above, concerning "sets of editors" is a very similar mischaracterization, perhaps based in a faulty set of assumptions, as promulgated by Blackash. So we're clear, I don't belong to any 'set of editors' and I'm not in anyone's pocket. I am an entirely independent editor and an entirely independent person.

As for who else cares enough to look up references, I most assuredly do, and have proven so, here: [25]. That effort cost hundreds of hours & resulted in not 9 references of 92 being investigated, but instead 9 references of 92 standing up to scrutiny, as the page and all of its diffs clearly illustrate. The fact that Blackash chose to come in later on that page, in an apparent attempt to further discredit Reames/Slowart, does not impress me at all. She wasted a bunch more time, essentially duplicating a fraction of my work, and then gave up on her effort in February, after finding and discrediting the already-accepted references to Reames own work, which were used in his own bio. I am confident that this article can proceed to improve, more so, without that constant tug of war. I'm not a COI editor (despite Blackash's repeated attempts to characterize and discredit me as one) and yet I've somehow managed to contribute substantially to the article. So will other interested editors. duff 04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Sanction applied to the tree shaping topic

1) A sanction is applied to the tree shaping topic that any user who knowingly edits against consensus and any agreed remedies may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From my perspective, editors who knowingly edit against consensus can be blocked anyway. Or in other words, this could be an 'admins reminded' remedy instead. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment That could work if there was someone to create a brief summary of what the consensus is. Making it clear for existing and new editors as to what the consensus had been. It would need to be flexible thou in-case at a later time new sources come to light, so that topic could be discussed again and a new consensus formed. Blackash have a chat 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the face of it, this appears to be reasonable. To Blackash's question, there are various formal consensus determining mechanisms (the move request on the title was one) and the main result of this sanction would be to force editors to use these mechanisms when they find their edits reverted. Knowingly, implies that the editor has tried to make a change, been informed with evidence (weak or strong) that this is against consensus, and then attempts that change again anyway. My one concern with this sanction is that, in my opinion, the greater part of the problem with this article lies on the talk page rather than in edit warring on the article page and this may end up as a toothless and pointless sanction. --rgpk (comment) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the move request mentioned above was closed as "No consensus" which was certainly an accurate assessment. This is obviously not the same thing as a consensus not to move. Colincbn (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The topic itself is not the problem. The problem on the article has been solved, for the present, by the topic ban currently in place. The trouble lies now with discussions ensuing on the article's talk page. My sense is that existing protocols for editing in the mainspace should be adequate among editors committed to the encyclopedia. I also second Colincbn's note, in that consensus not to move was not found (nor sought) during the most recent move request. Neither was consensus found on not moving it to the proposed name. The field split in several interesting directions, hence, no consensus.duff 19:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Martin Hogbin

Proposed principles

Editing of WP articles should be based on WP policy, not the requirement to give those with a commercial interest equal benefit

There are several issues of commercial interest involved in this article namely: the name of the article, the way current practitioners of the art are presented, and proprietary techniques relating to the subject.

This article started as two commercially based articles, Arborscupture, which seemed to be an attempt to promote a book, and Pooktre, which looked like a promotion of a business. When Pooktre was proposed for deletion AfDHero stepped in to combine the two articles into what was intended to be a non-commercially-based one.

The name was hastily and without sufficient discussion or consensus changed to 'Tree shaping'. It would seem to me that this was done on the basis that the article should give equal commercial benefit (or maybe no commercial benefit) to both original editors, rather than on established WP policy on the subject. This decision was, in my opinion, a complete misunderstanding of many WP policies and a misguided attempt at fair play that has dogged the article ever since.

This 'equal benefit' attitude has become so pervasive within the article and talk pages that many editors with no COI seem to use the principle in place of the relevant WP policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Martin you have repeatedly been asked by different editors what in the article is commercially sensitive or "spam" (as you called on your talk page.) You are yet to give a concrete example. After the topic banning you where invited to edit the article to remove anything you saw as an issue. You have chosen not to do this, instead you make generalizations that includes nearly the whole article.

At the time of the change of title Tree shaping didn't lead to us. I gave some refs, So the new title met the neutrality and veritably policies. 4 different editors (including myself (I made no suggestions as to the name)) discussed the move, there were 5 other editors aware of the move discussion. Some of these editors came and discussed the options as to title at tree shaping talk. There were 9 different editors who discussed the title and what to do. So yes there was plenty of discussion.

I'm not surprised that you consider the neutrality to be a non issue. Your reply to my comment about Arborsculpture all leads to one artist, was basically, so what get over it. Link Blackash have a chat 05:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the stated principle in the title of this proposed principle. However, some clarification is needed as to facts of the supplemental statement that follows it.

While

arborsculpture clearly did not begin that way at all, but rather as an horticultural & gardening article about a practice which had been commonly referred to by others than these involved artists as arborsculpture, here: [26]

, on March 17, 2006. It's been through a lot of twists & turns since. I know this because when I first started editing on this article, I read through every single diff, including those of both AfD's for Pooktre.

The first introduction of a link to the commercial entity Pooktre occurred on March 22, 2006 with this IP edit [27] by 80.178.72.236 . Here [28] is the first identifiable edit to the article by

arborsculpture that proposed it as a commercial page, and also gutted its existing content, was done over a year after the article's creation, on April 12, 2007, here:[29]. It was posted by User:Primack, also an expert with a commercial interest, and was, based on the text inserted, clearly an effort to make the same point that User:Blackash

has been making, specifically, that he did not wish to have his enterprise or anyone else's but Reames' work associated with this word, usage notwithstanding. It may be worth noting also that up to and including this point, not a single proper reference had been added to the article.

I also agree with the portion of the above principle elaboration statement which acknowledges this: The real problem started with the hasty renaming of

arborsculpture to tree shaping by User:AfD Hero, without any discussion on the article's talk page preceding that change. It obviously fostered a good deal of bad feelings on the part of existing editors of that time and understandably so.duff 21:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Expert editors are welcome but they should withdraw from editing and discussion in areas where they have a COI

This is a very specialised subject and without the contributions of Blackash and Slowart, both current practitioners of the art, the article would probably not be possible, however, when there is a clear COI as is clearly the case here editors with a potential COI should withdraw from editing in the areas where the conflict arises, in this case those with commercial significance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's a definition thing here.

WP:COI conflict of interest arises when one actually edits to progress one's own interests rather than those of the project. Just having an outside interest in the topic doesn't cause a COI - it raises the possibility that one might edit in this fashion. There is no policy requirement for an individual to withdraw from editing (let alone withdraw from discussion) where they have an academic, professional or commercial interest in the subject. If someone with such an interest actually makes edits to progress their own interests and against the interests of the project (and that includes promotional pov pushing in discussion as well as edits to articles), then they lay themselves open to sanctions. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by parties:

I agree that this would be best, but how do we decide what those topics are? And who decided it? For example, obviously the name dispute is one, but the addition of the term "woody plants" drew a lot of disagreement as well. I believe because it was seen as an attempt to claim "tree Shaping" is not accurate because other plants are also used. We would need a way to decide what is and what is not "commercially sensitive" while remaining neutral.

I do feel this would be better than an all out full topic ban though. Colincbn (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "commercial significance" which I believe Martin stated was the practitioners, title and methods. Well that covers most of article. Don't forget the list of trees had some conflict as did the Alternative names, History and Tree shaping in fiction and art. Even the images placement and captions has been changed back and forth, so there are some issues there as well. Well that leaves References and External links, not that different from a topic ban really. Blackash have a chat 11:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly clear in which areas you have a COI. These are: the name of the art, where you have a strong business and personal preference for 'tree shaping'; information about current practitioners of the art, because you are one; and detailed discussions of the differences between the ways different practitioners carry out the art, where you have expressed strong feelings that the way you do things is better than the way some others do them. That leaves plenty of areas where your contributions are welcome and invaluable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly were have I stated I have a strong preference for Tree shaping? So a practitioner of Sanda, can't edit the living Sanda practitioners either? I don't believe I have ever stated our methods are better than others' methods please give link. It seems you have modified your views now there are admins watching, this diff tells a different story [30] as does this [31] quote "I think the whole article is dominated by commercial issues." Blackash have a chat 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you have quoted those diffs but I stand by them both, the article has been dominated by commercial issues. Slowart has agreed to withdraw from them you have not. Regarding your preference for 'Tree shaping', that started in 2008 or earlier as one of your refs shows. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I consider this basic also, but again, I do not agree with the entire statement that follows the principle. Neither Slowart nor Blackash initiated the original article (links are above, to that event). Both artists/editors have contributed extensively to their own websites also, which, along with all the other websites and references currently used in the article, could have been found and used by any uninvolved editors to develop a similarly interesting article. Those two artists' contributions could have been reflected just as gracefully by their simply suggesting & then continuing to improve their own sites, instead of arm-wrestling over whose techniques were better & who deserved the most credit.

Also, responding to Colincbn's reference to the use of the term 'woody plants': whatever it was or was not seen as, it is accurate and it does indeed illustrate one reason (among many) why the current title is inappropriate to describe the topic of the article. "Accuracy of definition is the first essential to clear thinking."...John Peter.

There should be a section (or maybe even a full article, if warranted) on the common practice of 'tree shaping', but that section, until properly developed, belongs in the article entitled

herbaceous plants; yes, there is a difference & it is an essential distinction). Arboriculture encompasses all woody plants (not just trees), as does this craft, as the artists' own works all clearly demonstrate. duff 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to invent new names for subjects to resolve commercial disputes

The article name 'Tree shaping' was made up in an attempt to find a 'neutral' name after an essentially commercial dispute. It is not the purpose of WP to do this. We must use the name most commonly used in reliable (preferably secondary/tertiary) sources. Any commercial impact of this decision is merely a reflection how the outside world sees the situation. It is not our business to resolve commercial disputes by inventing new (or sparsely used) terms for subjects.

It would seem that I am wrong here. Despite claims that 'Tree shaping' it is 'neutral' it is actually the term preferred by Blackash since 2008 or earlier.[32] also Pooktre call themselves 'Pooktre Tree Shapers'[[33]].

As will be seen from my evidence, 'Tree shaping' is a term widely used by arborists to be something other than the subject of this article, namely the pruning of trees to maintain a natural shape. It is therefore completely unsuitable as a name for this article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree absolutely that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to create the established name for something. It's a very unusual situation, but I definitely see your concern. However, exactly the same caveat applies to all the words that the tree artists have coined for their art. Without the evidence that one term is preferred, what applies in this situation is Wikipedia's policies for this eventuality. --Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment Words can have more than one meaning, this is why wiki has disambiguation pages. Wiki has a policy about broadening the title name if the current title is not neutral as is the case with Arborsculpture. Which is how Tree shaping come to be picked. It also has more secondary/tertiary sources than Arborsculpture. Tree training also has some though not as many sources. Follow link to read sources with quotes of different suggestions for the title. Blackash have a chat 11:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV also states about choosing a title quote "...might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view" Blackash have a chat 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As to it being our preferred term, we told the interviewer the name of our art is Pooktre, they chose not to use Pooktre and to use tree shaping. I believe it was the whole tall poppy syndrome in action.

Now an interview is proof of a person preference for a term? In that case Richard Reames must love Tree shaping as he uses Tree shaping and variations in both of his books and in interviews as well. Example Richard's first book quote "Tree trunk topiary, botanical architecture, arbortipia - all of these terms have attempted to describe an early 1900s approach to tree shaping that goes beyond such traditional practices of topiary, bonsai and espalier." Martin you knew Richard has used Tree shaping as I had given you a quote from an interview of Richard Reames for Cabinet magazine Winter 2005/06 here is my diff in reply to your question about tree shaping diff. Yet you leave that out strange.Blackash have a chat 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MartinHogbin's statement & with the supporting paragraphs for it, including the correction, as written, entirely. There is much in the comment content above mine with which I do not agree, but little of it is pertinent to the statement at this heading.duff 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The article was moved to 'Tree shaping' without consensus

There was no discussion on the 'Arborsculpture' page before the move.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree though there was discussion here before the move. Maybe not the best way to go about it. Blackash have a chat 01:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was on a different page and the 'discussion' seems to consist of:

I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold on I disagree, where is the discussion on the move ? in the afd box of pooktre ? Perhaps a discussion at a afd box on arborsculpture ? or am I missing something ? Reames (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The entire issue stemmed from this bold move, It should be reversed. Slowart (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: This was the most recent and most critical flashpoint. It should be reversed on the simple basis that it was done with neither appropriate discussion nor necessary consensus building; in fact without any apparent awareness by most of the article's contributors.

While I believe that

WP:TITLECHANGES, that it was a wrong move. According to its footnote, that policy appears to have been adopted in 2005 following the Jguk RfArb case[34]

, explicitly to stop/settle precisely this sort of dispute. It's not clear to me whether AfD hero was aware of (or considered) this policy before rendering his move.

The pertinent text at the noted policy page reads, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." The article title had been stable for nearly 3 years, from the time it was created, at the point of AfD Hero's change, which was on January 9, 2009, here: [35]. From what I can see having come in much later and read just about every diff on both the mainspace & the talkpage, it has been unstable ever since. Though Blackash pitched a fairly substantial fuss around the AfD of her commercially-based Pooktre article, I remain unconvinced of that being a good reason to change the title of the non-commercial arboriculture article.

Also, If I am correctly understanding that policy, the article title should be the one used by the first major contributor to the page after it ceased to be a stub. The article ceased being a stub on September 21, 2007, here: [36]. At that time, obviously, the page was titled arborsculpture. It's not clear to me what the definition of a major contributor is nor is it clear just which contributor that points to here, but it is clear that for the year and five months that ensued after removal of the stub tag at 9,211 bytes & before the title switch at 10,169 bytes, all of the edits took place under the title 'arborsculpture'. Both Reames/Slowart & Northey/Blackash (prior & ongoing major contributors) edited extensively during this period, as did several anonymous IP's all using the title 'arborsculpture'. The IP edits may also have been one, the other, or both of them...not sure of this or whether it is even relevant, but I believe they have acknowledged this elsewhere.duff 04:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Colincbn (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Blackash has edited the article and talk pages with a persistent conflict of interest

I have given some of the evidence of this on the evidence page but I believe it is pretty well self-evident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Martin since you have commented that even discussing issues on talk pages, is editing badly with a COI, your definition is very broad. Blackash have a chat 01:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Both the article's history and its voluminous archives of talk pages are replete with clear examples too numerous to re-catalog.duff 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Slowart has a conflict of interest but has agreed to withdraw from all relevant editing

[37]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree The above link shows how Slowart/Reames gave premission to Martin to have the page. Ownership issues here I think.Slowart has been disruptive with his comments diff diff Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not the case as the diff shows. A said that the page should be temporarily restricted to editors with no commercial interest. I even suggested that we should try to get some new editors in. Slowart's final response to this was, 'O.K. Yes, I suppose it's worth a try. Good luck then'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree He did agree to not edit but later changed his mind and did COI edits. Blackash have a chat 01:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion was that both COI editors withdraw. You can hardly expect Slowart to withdraw with when you had refused to do so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No your statement heading is not about both of us it is about Slowart. Your statement implies that Slowart has not been doing COI editing, which is not true. That is what I was clarifying. Blackash have a chat 11:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart did agree to withdraw but it was clearly understood that this was on the basis that both COI editors withdrew. When you refused to do so he continued editing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your heading statement is not about the both of us. It is about Slowart's editing and is misleading. Blackash have a chat 02:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I should not edit a subject that involves myself and any controversy. Of course the edits by another artist from "Pooktre tree shapers" to eliminate, redefine, and water down the word "arborsculpture" is a blatant misuse of Wikipedia. When no other editors realized what what was going on, I was compelled to counter blackash's editing. Please do not force me watch this page for the rest of my life. That is why I proposed a mutual edit ban.Slowart (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart has resisted having the different methods as part of the article 8 June 2009. Yet this lack of method is one of the reasons given as to why the Pooktre article was not very interesting. diff. "how do you do it" is one of the most asked questions in emails. Slowart COI edits aren't done to improve wikipedia but to push his agenda. Example diff this edit removed Slowart/Reames's published method and image. To hide that he does actually have a method and the results it achieves. Blackash have a chat 04:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree:It's also clear from his comment above that he still is willing to comply with a mutual topic ban, which seems to me to show enormous generosity of spirit, given the profoundly disturbing nature of Blackash's protracted campaign to discredit him, his work, and any other editors who dared to agree with him on anything.duff 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The article should be moved back to 'Arborsculpture' pending a decision on the best title

The article was moved improperly to 'Tree shaping' and this move has been used to canvass the public that that is the 'correct' name for the art.

'Tree shaping' is misleading as it means something different.

WP policy is to use the original article name during discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

ArbCom generally avoids content decisions of this nature. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this would be something Arbcom would order, regardless of the circumstances in which the article came to this name. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree This is not a good idea at all. Arborsculpture is definitely tied to a specific company while the current title is not. There may well be better titles out there but a move back to a commercial title is not the right answer. --rgpk (comment) 20:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree As far as I am aware, this is the only path to resolution that is supported by clear policy, as I have noted & linked to above.

Also, concerning User:RegentsPark's comment, he has it backwards and I cannot fathom why. The original title was and is generic. If arborsculpture were a commercial title, I would certainly agree with RegentsPark, however, there is simply no evidence that this is true, beyond Blackash's persistent, insistent, consistent resistance to being 'branded' by a word of someone else's coining. The word was coined for generic use to describe the craft, by one of her many professional artistic rivals; one whose work in the craft predates her own...a fact she documents in a very oddly reluctant but obvious way on her own site's timeline at [[38]], under the heading 'Practitioners 1908-1999'. It's clear that this point is irksome to her, not just from the odd mis-ordering of Reames and of herself, on her own website, but also from her vehement wrangling over the order of the bios on the article page & insistence on her own inclusion in that order at the same point as is her partner Peter Cook. His bio, by the way, is chronologically ordered on the basis of their own unsubstantiated claims as to his discovery and initiation of their craft in 'complete isolation from the rest of the world'. It's all self-serving hogwash and it clearly illustrates why Blackash has been SO determined for SO long to fight this thing out.

Generic use of precisely that sort did indeed ensue following its coining. The word caught on, spreading worldwide, in overlapping artistic, cultural, and arboricultural circles. That usage continues today, unhindered by either her campaign to assert otherwise wherever she finds the word used in print, and unhindered either by all the hand-wringing here. Generic use of the word 'arborsculpture' as the name of the craft is evident in all of the best references for the article, as has been evidenced & demonstrated & linked repeatedly. I'm sincerely saddened that Blackash is irked by it, but in the general population, outside her little 'club', that is what this craft is called.

Again, no evidence has been presented to support this consistent false claim that the word arborsculpture is commercially 'tied' to any company. The current title is unacceptable because it means something else in common usage, but perhaps more importantly, it is in fact part of the name of Blackash's business, 'Pooktre Tree Shapers', and also integral to the titles and addresses of her websites, which are also clearly evident in the External Links section: http://pooktre.com & http://www.treeshapers.net . Pooktre, by the way, is a cute contraction of her partner & co-wikieditor's name, Peter Cook...Pook. I don't see how much more blatantly commercial the current title could possibly be, but if we're going to set aside all the pertinent policies, why not just call it all NortheyPookulture and then call it a day?duff 06:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Arborsculpture doesn't meet WP:Neutral Naming Google Arborsculpture, it leads to Richard Reames or his books/website. As does nearly all the references for Arborsculpture and so did the links given to prove that Arborsculpture is used independently of Richard Reames. discussion with links. Blackash have a chat 17:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Arborsculpture is the marketing funnel for Richard Reames/Slowart.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Blackash and Sydney Bluegum should be banned from editing this article and related articles, including the talk pages, for six months

I do not like to see editors banned from WP, especially those with valuable expertise in a subject but in this case I can see no other option. Sydney Bluegum seems to be a SPA with the sole purpose of supporting Blackash.

Blackash has constantly edited and argued with a COI and all other attempts to resolve the problem have failed. Six months would give the non-COI editors time to come to a consensus on all issues with commercial or personal significance.

Slowart should be asked to withdraw from all COI editing for a similar period.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would point out that Blackash is already banned from editing the article. While this does nothing to address issues related to the talk page, so far I think the ban has worked as intended to keep editors with a commercial interest from using the article for their own purposes. While I do wish Blackash would work under the assumption that we all have the same goal and relax her confrontational attitude to editors who prefer a different title, I also think having her input is valuable enough to warrant wading through to the other side. I would prefer a proposal that still allows her to help on article improvement.

In Sydney's case I will have to deffer to others, as advocacy is strongly discouraged, but he has not been involved in any disruptively tendentious editing of the article (that I have seen). Colincbn (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Blackash's current ban but I believe that it needs to be extended to the talk page to avoid further disruption. I think six months is time for the COI issues to be fully resolved by non-COI editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree As I note above, I think this falls under the 'cut your nose to spite your face' category of decisions. We have a well written article, primarily because of the work of these editors, let's try to keep it that way. --rgpk (comment) 20:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with respect to Blackash & also to her self-disclosed co-editor, Peter Cook. If that's not Sydney Bluegum, then honestly, I don't have a problem with Sydney Bluegum continuing to edit or comment in either space, including related pages, as long as it's in a non-disruptive and collegial manner and not in an advocacy role as described above. I'd also like to see some probationary period around Blackash's return to either space, on this or any related pages, during which time such a ban could be reinstated promptly and without further chagrin, in the unlikely event that it should become clear to other editors that the point has been missed.

We have a C-class article, not primarily because of Blackash's contributions, and certainly not primarily due to those of Sydney Bluegum (yet?), but primarily because MANY dedicated and fascinated editors have weathered the storm and kept the article on track. Please take the time to carefully study the five year history of contributions if there is truly any doubt of this.

The article's development will continue until it is an A-Class article, but my impression is that this will only happen if editors of good conscience can be unhindered by the present battleground mentality. Slowart has agreed to a mutual ban in both spaces, consistently. Blackash & Slowart should certainly be encouraged to expand & improve their OWN websites and publication lists, as their time permits, so that non-conflicted editors can consult, exploit, and reference their expert resources in the manner that is permitted.duff 06:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is happening on this page shows why Blackash and Sydney Bluegum must be banned from the article and talk spaces while editors with no personal or commercial involvement in the subject decide on some of the issues with commercial significance, based only on WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Peter Cook and I am NOT the partner of Blackash. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Blackash should be permanently banned from COI editing of the this article.

Slowart should be asked not to edit the article in areas where he has a potential COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment I'm not sure how this is different from outright banning.--rgpk (comment) 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You do not understand the difference between areas where Blackash has a conflict of interest and areas where she does not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Blackash &/or her co-editor Peter Cook prove unable to fully grasp, respect, and comply with the other agreed-upon remedies during the present ban and/or any others that might emerge from this proceeding, this may be necessary as the conditional outcome of an unsuccessful probationary return to non-COI editing. I believe that Slowart has already volunteered, in the interest of both the article and the encyclopedia, to comply with a temporary mutual topic-wide ban, though I don't think it could hurt to ask him again if further clarification or confirmation is sought. duff 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Blackash should be permanently banned from excessive use of the talk page to promote views on subjects where she has a COI

Slowart should be asked not to make excessive use of the talk page in areas where he has a potential COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Again, regarding Blackash & her co-editing partner, I'd like to see something like this as a conditional outcome, should there be an unsuccessful return to editing after expiration of the current ban &/or any other bans that might emerge from this proceeding. I'd go along with a permanent ban from ANY use of the talk pages on any related topic areas, should the problem re-emerge after that. Slowart's talkpage contribution history does not indicate that this has been problematic, but it sounds like something he would voluntarily agree to given his past willingness to participate in a mutual ban.

Comment by others:

The article should be put on COI probation

Anyone editing with a COI should be warned and then banned by any admin.

This should also include a watch on editors drafted in or canvassed by anyone with a COI. New editors are, as always, most welcome, but if we want more editors here we should use a standard and neutral process such as another RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed principles

Wikipedia does not prescribe usage, nor determine the names of topics

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such it does not take stances in disputes outside of its own internal workings. And it is not to be edited by those involved in outside disputes as a tool to gain an advantage. When there is no consensus name for a topic Wikipedia has an article on, policy calls for a descriptive phrase to be used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[Note: the content of the above section has changed considerably since the comments here were started]

Comment Colincbn your heading sounds like a wiki policy is it? If so were?

Tree shaping has more secondary/tertiary sources than Arborsculpture, that in a way is a consensus. link to read sources with quotes of different suggestions for the title. Blackash have a chat 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is included in the Policy on

Original Research. Also in various other policies it is made clear that WP must Describe not Prescribe. In this case prescribing the name that should be used for the art in-spite of the fact that there is a debate going on in the artistic community of what the name should be. This is why I am against the title being Arborsulpture as well. Because it was the first non-stub title there is an argument for using it, but I would much prefer a title that does not influence the debate at all. Colincbn (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Umm I believe you are the main (only ?) editor using "the first non-stub title" as an argument. Blackash have a chat 12:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "using"? It is a Policy, everyone has to follow them, thats how the whole show works. Colincbn (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple policies that apply to any issue for example title has

WP:NEUTRAL is core policy and should have greater weight because of that. In your statement "Because it was the first non-stub title there is an argument for using it," in context to the rest of the paragraph it could come across as though this has not been your argument, which would be misleading. You have repeatedly used "the first non-stub title" as an argument. That is what I am clarifying. Blackash have a chat 02:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes and the statement above reflects every single one of those Policies. In addition

WP:NOR is also a core policy that is important to this discussion. What about the statement above is not in-line with policy? As for the "non-stub" thing; it is not an argument it is a Policy, I'm just pointing it out. I accept that it exists and therefore accept that Martin, Duff, Griseum, and every other editor who has supported reverting back to Arbo has a valid point supported by Policy. Therefore if it gets reverted I would not argue. However I don't think Arbo is the best title, in fact I am solidly against it. Do you actually read my posts and still not understand that? Colincbn (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:VERIFY should outweigh the "the first non-stub title" policy. I'm just pointing out you have used "the first non-stub title" policy, as that is not clear in your original statement. Blackash have a chat 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Blackash are you just arguing for arguments sake here? I do not want the title to be Arbo, I have said this multiple times on every page related to this dispute, yes there is policy that calls for it but I would prefer a descriptive phrase. How do you feel about a descriptive phrase? Please address what I am saying not some straw man you have built to discredit me. Colincbn (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first non-stub argument does not apply here because the original title is tied to a specific commercial operation and to a book title by the owner of that operation. Arborsculpture should be a non-starter as a title under any circumstances. Whether tree shaping is or is not an appropriate title is a different question but we can't return to the original title. --rgpk (comment) 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree While I agree with the initial statement as it is presently phrased, I have significant concerns with the direction of its supporting paragraph and with the direction that comments on this point have taken. I do see, based on the note above, that the content of the original point has changed since first posted, so not sure to what extent the comments above are in response to the original question or what has changed or what might have inspired its opaque amendment. Omitted from the supporting paragraph is the more applicable policy. Was it initially included? The ensuing discussion suggests that it was.

To clarify,

WP:TITLECHANGES

is not an 'argument' and not a tactic to be 'used'. It's a policy and it is the policy that directly applies to the titling situation on this article. I posted more detailed responses above, which I don't want to clutter this up by repeating in their entirety. Please see Martin Hogbin's FoF @ 4.2.2.1 & PR 4.2.3.1 for the well-referenced and strong case for the preeminent applicability of that policy to this article's title.

Directly responding to RegentsPark, The

WP:TITLECHANGES

POLICY does indeed apply. This statement "the original title is tied to a specific commercial operation and to a book title by the owner of that operation" is factually incorrect and is also an inaccurate characterization of the original article title. The author of the book by the same title...coined the word,in that book, specifically for generic use. The article is not about that author, not initiated by that author, not about the word, and not about the book, despite repeated attempts to color it that way. It's about the craft and arborsculpture is what the craft & products of the craft are called in the ordinary world, as the predominance of quality references demonstrate clearly and as the original article also demonstrated clearly.

There is no evidence so far of any "specific commercial operation" "tied" to the generic term arborsculpture. What specifically is meant by "tied"? As for a commercial enterprise by the same name, owned by that author...Have you any evidence of any of this? I'd like to see it all. Please elaborate and provide it.

The craft of arborsculpture, sometimes rising to the level of an art, is the topic discussed and illuminated in the article and that is the generic term most well-referenced by reliable sources for this craft.

The name change was just plain wrong and ill-informed. We should not perpetuate that mistake any further. Arborsculpture is (not coincidentally) also the only title that meets the

WP:TITLECHANGES policy requirements. If for some good reason editors do not like the policy, the policy page is the place to bring that up & make a convincing case for changing it; not the pages it applies to. duff 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

By allowing the title "Tree Shaping" Wikipedia is prescribing the use of "Tree Shaping" as the actual name of the art, regardless of its use outside WP.

1) The term "Tree shaping" is used by many gardeners and tree care professionals to mean something entirely different than the subject of this article. Also, among artists who do practice the art being described Tree Shaping is in no way the most common term used. WP must report usage not prescribe usage. To keep the current title violates Policy on several levels.

2) Wikipedia is quoted around the web and is used as a first reference point for many outside articles. Regardless of whether this is a good thing or not it is something we need to be aware of. The number of websites that have begun to use the term Tree Shaping has jumped considerably since the title change, many of them directly referencing the WP article. Thanks in part to Blackash's work to bring the article's title to the attention of various web-masters. If the title is a name that can be easily used as the name of the art WP is essentially claiming that to be the consensus name. That is unacceptable.

3) By choosing a title that can be used as the name of the art-form WP is taking sides in an outside naming dispute. Regardless of what the title ends up being it must not advocate a particular usage until such time as that name has clearly become the default/consensus name for the art.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Words can have more than one meaning, this is why wiki has disambiguation pages. The terminology of Tree shaping, shaping trees and variations is used by the artists of this practice usually to describe their own name of the art. Blackash have a chat 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we should absolutely make a disambig page if the current title remains after Arbitration. On your second point I would say that while the terminology is used when talking about the art it is not used as the name of the art. Using a short easy to use title unduly influences the debate on what the name should be. And WP should not be used to influence any outside debates. Colincbn (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the quotes at the List of potential titles again. Couple of examples Quote "Extreme tree shaping (like the granny knot page 65)" talking about Aharon Naveh's pretzel tree. Quote "History of Shaping Trees" "Chapter title out of Richard's book. Please note how it is used as "The name" as do other quotes at the link. Blackash have a chat 11:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all 3 points. The word "tree" and the word "shaping" are used when talking about the art of coerce, but should not be misconstrued as to be used as the name of the art.Slowart (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the three points listed, and find the FoF title factual. However, while several other policies also apply,

WP:TITLECHANGES

is the policy most on point with respect to Title Changes. The fact that there is a bitter private branding dispute among a small clique of artists, and that those artists have chosen, against WP editing policies, to wage that private and personal dispute here on wikipedia, and also to use their editing time and that of neutral good faith editors to further leverage their interests in a private commercial dispute, amounts to nothing but a distracting and time-consuming tempest in a teapot.

Statements previously placed inside the article space which alluded to such a dispute were rightly removed, on competent counsel from outside neutral editors, because no reliable citations for their private dispute could be located. We can't deny that the dispute exists, because it's been shoveled in here for YEARS by at least three of the admittedly involved parties (including Primack/MPrimack). However, in the context of this article, the lot of it is unsubs tantiated, unreferenced ORIGINAL RESEARCH. These parties' little snarlings at each other and at the editors of this & related topics, on several wikipedia talkpages of related articles, on the wiktionary article, and across the vast blogosphere are NOT reliable sources.

None of it changes the fact that there is no such dispute in the rest of the real world, or in the academic world, over what to call the craft. The elegantly coined term 'arborsculpture' is generally accepted and used to describe products of the work and the work activity itself, because it is readily understood by people who understand gardening & people who understand art. Arborsculpture is the name of the craft as distinguished by the preponderance of reliable sources. Check the references yourself. I did, with excruciating scrutiny.duff 09:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rename article to descriptive phrase that cannot be mistaken for the actual name of the art. Or revert to first non-stub name per Policy on title disputes

1) There are already policies in place for this issue. Simply following them is the best course forward. However that will require untangling some policies that seem to conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My first suggestion would be "Training plants to form tools or items". Seven words, three less than the ten word suggested limit put forth in the MoS (It's only five if you discount "to" and "or"). It covers what the art is without any association to any practitioner. It is a Verbal noun. And most importantly it cannot affect the real naming debate that is going on in the artistic community.

Any concern over what term people will use to search for the art can be addressed by redirects. Colincbn (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my preferred title to "Shaping living plants into useful objects", as it flows better and is essentially a direct quote (slightly modified) from one of the sources provided by Blackash. Six words, still a verbal noun, and still keeps WP from deciding on the default name of the art. Colincbn (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point 1 above. There is no point in trying to resolve the issue here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree As I explain above, using the name of a commercial operation as the title is not where we should be going. If consensus settles on a better descriptive phrase, then of course we should go with that.--rgpk (comment) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying you disagree with renaming to arbo, not to using a descriptive phrase correct? How do you feel about my suggestion?Colincbn (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put disagree in big bold letters, then explained that you are actually fine with my proposal. How do you feel about the specific phrase I put up as a suggestion? [Note: I struck Arbo from the proposal because although Policy does call for it I don't want to use it either, I think I have made that clear.] Colincbn (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't get it. Renaming to a descriptive phrase will solve all title related disputes, the main point of contention, and it fits squarely with all policies on naming. Even Blackash has never given any reason why she would be against it (she has said she does not think it is necessary however). As no one has given any reason not to do it, and it solves so many problems, it seems like a no brainer to me. In fact policy specifically says that is what we should do in these situations. Even after saying he/she disagrees above RegentsPark (rgpk) points out he/she actually sees nothing wrong with my proposal. Several people have said "yeah maybe if there is consensus" but no one seems to be trying to build it. This will fix 99% of what is causing problems and it follows every single WP policy there is. Can anyone tell me what the problem is with using my proposed name above? Colincbn (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, though I'd have agreed strongly with the portion you struck. We should use the actual name of the art. There is no commercial operation tied to the word; that meme is false. The problems that I have with this solution are that by either 1. allowing the bold-but-incorrect initial name change to stand or 2.Contriving up some other descriptive phrase for it, we are being asked to ignore the best & highest quality citations indicating that arborsculpture IS the correct title, which are THESE: *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects*Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *UC Davis Graduate Thesis *University of California pressand we are also being asked to ignore the clear policy @

WP:TITLECHANGES, which exists specifically to resolve exactly this sort of conflict. Significant consensus was built for returning the article to its original name during the RfM I organized here: [39]

& that consensus could easily be built again, were it not for the constant browbeating of the one pair of co-editors most opposed to its correct use. To be clear, by that I mean Blackash & her co-editor Peter Cook. They've chased away a number of dedicated and productive editors over the years, over this issue. I'm one. Any other solution simply capitulates to that persistent COI haranguing, setting a precedent that I'll not support. It won't make the encyclopedia or the quality of its editors better either.

I object to involved artistic & commercial interests using Wikipedia and its editorial volunteers to squelch the use of this (or any) word for their own personal or corporate gain. I even more strongly object to capitulation to those who attempt to do such things. Campaigns to kill words, particularly around private gain, violate some of my own most basic principles about languages and their evolution. I would say that this protracted argument has been a huge waste of time, were not the underlying principles SO important to uphold. duff 18:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I would obviously prefer to have you agree on this I am also very, very, grateful you have actually addressed it. My main reason for taking this stance (and striking the second sentence) has been the number of people who do not see Arbo as having a clear majority in reliable sources. I have never thought that the phrase chosen should be permanent. But I do think it should be the title we use until there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever of what the consensus name for the art is outside of WP. The reason I added the second sentence originally was because I accept there is policy that clearly calls for returning to Arbo, I just think in the name of compromise (not with commercial practitioners but with the many editors who do not accept Arbo), and in keeping WP from being the final arbitrator in the naming dispute, taking this option is the best way forward. Colincbn (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwersator, I agree there has been no consensus in media to the use of one name. There are references for Tree shaping as used for this art. Also there are references for Tree training and tree training at this time is not linked to anyone. list of potential title name with source and quotes. Blackash have a chat 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

IMHO it may be good idea because there are multiple names, all commercial and no consensus, so any name (like "Arborsculpture" etc) will violate

wp:UNDUE or will be untrue (current title) Bulwersator (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Assign Blackash a mentor who is experienced at conflict avoidance

1) I think at the end of the day Blackash is a good editor who truly believes in the goals of WP. I think she sometimes has a hard time separating what she sees as good for her art from what is good for WP. But this does not mean she is malicious in any way. The prolonged conflict here has lead her to have a battleground mentality that has hobbled good faith attempts at compromise.

2) Assigning her to a mentor that can give advice on her edits before she makes them may help her see how to approach the issues from a new standpoint. An editor with a background of avoiding and resolving conflicts could give advice on edits she wants to make to the Tree shaping Talk page before she makes them, and help her make the points she is intending without furthering the conflict. After some period of collaborative progress she could then follow the standard process for unbanning to remove the topic ban that is already in place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree that Blackash could do with some help in understanding what COI editing is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree I do not agree with either Martin or Duff that the title should be Arbo, but we have always behaved civilly with each other. Also I do not agree with Blackash that the current article is acceptable, yet after her topic ban I implemented more of her proposed changes than anyone. I do think she specifically has a battle ground mentality that has hindered progress, but in-spite of that I think everyone has tried to work with her fairly well. This dispute has had almost no edit warring, sock-puppetry, or any other classic examples of a "war zone" article. Colincbn (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I agree with all that Colincbn has said. However, I will add that I see the issues as being multiple, complex enough to merit careful examination, and not better understood by "breaking down" the participants, roughly or otherwise, into these two "factions" that the proposer perceives. That meme is both short-sighted and self-perpetuating. Its source is its proposer, having made the initial bold mistake that led to what has now become a very difficult and time-consuming discussion among good-faith editors. The proposer has not acknowledged the undue weight that their own bold decision bore on the direction of later discussions and has not made any effort to accept responsibility for and correct that error, in this proposal or elsewhere. Not at all heroic, by my measure. duff 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote demonstrates my point,

Its source is its proposer, having made the initial bold mistake that led to what has now become a very difficult and time-consuming discussion among good-faith editors. The proposer has not acknowledged the undue weight that their own bold decision bore on the direction of later discussions and has not made any effort to accept responsibility for and correct that error, in this proposal or elsewhere. Not at all heroic, by my measure.

AfD hero (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There has been editors calling other editors "meats". Hostility towards new editors to the point where by an editor's fourth edit they taken to sock investigation. Slowart was doing a very slow style edit warring and not discussing anything on the talk page to the point where the article had to be locked. Multiple editors seem unwilling to discuss content to reach a consensus but instead use COI as though I'm behaving badly with out evidence. I'll get the diffs next week. Blackash have a chat 13:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Unban blackash and slowart

1) Unban blackash and slowart from editing the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree I believe I was Topic Ban without real cause. I'm civil, I back up my claims with evidence, how and why wiki policies apply and I ask for outside editors to look over edits that may be considered COI. The last seems to be why SilkTork listed me for Topic banning, SilkTork's quote "We have over 3 million articles, and this is a low priority one - the amount of attention this is getting is disproportionate to its value and importance. I am committed to truth, accuracy and fairness, and am prepared to spend time on getting that. But I can only give my time where I see a decent return for my investment. This topic is too expensive." diff Blackash have a chat 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alowing Blackash to edit the page forces me to watch and counter edits to the page, at least in the absents of other aware editors. I am not willing to do this for wikipedea and if the past is any indication the page under the control of this editor will liley end up marginalizing the word "arborsculpture" and redefining my own work to suit.Slowart (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good idea in combination with the mentorship suggestion above. --rgpk (comment) 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be willing to do the mentorship as suggested. Blackash have a chat 23:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Unbanning Slowart is unlikely to cause further problems & I don't object to that, as he's voluntarily agreed to mutual self-banning at nearly every stage of the conflict and appears to grasp the importance of taking a step back. However, the ban on Blackash should run its course, along with any other remedies found appropriate during this arbitration. She still doesn't get the cause of her ban nor think she has done anything amiss, as she clearly states above.duff 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Limit blackash and slowart's edits

2) Prohibit blackash and slowart from doing name-related edits to the article. Limit blackash and slowart's talk-page edits on conflict-of-interest issues (eg, the name) to 500 words per issue per month. Allow them unlimited talk-page edits for issues where there is no conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment I think it would need to be clear which sentences this would apply to. I would be more comfortable, if the limit was 80-100 words per point, with no time limit. I would recommend that every one should have to follow this. This would prevent Duff's essay style replies and make the talk pages more readable. Blackash have a chat 12:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one really admits it, but I think one of the main issues people have with you (blackash) is that you talk too much. Much more than any other editor except perhaps duff (but he no longer participates). Even though your posts come from good intentions, don't break any rules, and bring up valid points, on the whole they have the effect of dominating the conversation. Now I think the reason is obvious - you are a passionate person especially when it comes to your art, and you also feel like the pro-arborsculpture editors are ganging up on you so you need to defend yourself. Would you agree with this asessment?

This is why I think a word limit makes sense - it lets you defend yourself and make your points, without dominating the conversation. AfD hero (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assessment has a fair bit of truth to it. In most discussions I'm talking to 2-5 editors, I reply to each editor's raised issues and questions, sometimes only one editor replies, or they seem to take turns in replying to me, focusing on behavior not content. example discussion So at a quick scan it seems I'm talking a lot, and they aren't. To try to address this I've offered at the tree shaping talk to self-limit my comments about edits I contest by first making my case and then only making 2 comments to any given editor in reply. Blackash have a chat 11:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I think this would be easy to manipulate by the editors asking irrelevant questions and gooble- gook to use an editors quota up. An example is this diff where Colincbn completely missed the point, argued about it, and turned the point around too mean something else. He stated I made a statement that I did not -He states you could use vines I didn't.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I don't think there is anything wrong with posting a lot. If a single post gets too long it can become hard to read, but you can simply break it up with formatting to make it easier on the eyes. I post a lot too and I think Blackash also has the right to post as much as she wants, every editor does. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't like the idea of forcing her to restrict the volume of her postings. Working with a mentor on edits before she makes them would most likely bring down the number of posts she makes, but placing an arbitrary limit seems like the wrong answer to me.

Besides, on the talk page once she reached her self imposed two post limit she accused me of bad behavior because I replied to her second post. She says I should not have replied because she could not respond. Colincbn (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn you seem to misunderstand my comments in a negative way. I had asked you to go to my talk page if my point was still unclear. If you had stuck to content on the Tree shaping talk page I would not have made any comment at all. Colincbn you chose bring your feelings about my supposed opposition to "each and every one" of your edits, (which was a gross exaggeration) on the Tree shaping talk page, and to top it off you asked a question as well. My responds. I then when to your talk page as that is the appropriate place to bring up your behavior. [40] Blackash have a chat 01:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The place to talk about articles, including trying to compromise on them which is what my post was actually about, is the talk page of the article in question.

Are you saying if you get a limit on your edits then we are no longer allowed to ask you questions when you reach that limit? And it is up to us to keep track of when you reach that limit? And follow your instructions on where to post once you have?

I think this conversation shows why this proposal is unlikely to work. Colincbn (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duhh. Colincbn, why keep beating your head against the wall? Is it because it feels so good when you stop? Peace to you.Slowart (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree This proposal is unlikely to remedy the present situation. Slowart has voluntarily complied with the currently-in-place ban & he voluntarily complied with a self-imposed ban also. Check the volume of his edits. Slowart is not the problem, though it's clear why Blackash sees him as her problem.

Also, again, I'm not a "pro-arborsculpture editor". I'm a wikipedia editor. If my own sincere attempts to be thorough & clear on the talk page when I address Blackash's prolonged and multi-pronged assault on the use of the word arborsculpture, are seen as essays, then so be it. If someone does not address each & every instance of her repeated insistences, she takes it as a go-ahead and then wields any non-response as permission for her to do as she pleases, regardless of any prior protests. That's why we are here, now. Ultimately, her approach works, as she just wears down other editors until they don't want to deal with her anymore. She has a pretty clear reason for doing what she does and I have not been inclined to simply let it happen. I can understand why she would see that as a problem too, because it robs her of that excuse for her actions. I don't have much to say on any other talk page, because among the many pages I contribute to, this dynamic only exists here. Generally, collaboration around Wikipedia is much more enjoyable and much less of a 'chess game', to use her phrase. I don't think a word limit on anyone is the right answer. Most editors are here to do words. Stopping the gaming of Wikipedia and of words by a commercial interest is the goal I'd like to see achieved, however many words that takes. duff 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Hold official name discussions

3) Hold an official name discussion on the talk page every 6 months, to be closed by a neutral administrator. Prohibit discussion of the name outside the official discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree if it includes everybody and the agreement can be pointed out to new editors. At least that way there is a chance of actually discussing content. Blackash have a chat 12:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Please fix the title per the relevant policy

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, want that one. It may be generic, but it's the first building block --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with this statement, but it's so generic I don't really see the point. Also, it focuses on why editors are editing rather than the content of their edits. AfD hero (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also, although like AfD hero I imagined that it was always assumed. In this case I agree that stating clearly is a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree yes furtherance of outside conflicts also it is not the place to redefine words or terms or the work of your competition or competitors!Slowart (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slowart you have accused me of this before diff my rebuttal diff and discussion Blackash have a chat 12:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --rgpk (comment) 20:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Wikipedia articles are to reflect what is in reliable sources and not to be used as a

coat rack. Day before the title change. [41] Blackash have a chat 12:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree I do see the point and it's a crucial one. Thank you for articulating it so clearly. It's right at the problem here.duff 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Fundamental. Colincbn (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Basic --FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a

"original research"

, is also contrary to this principle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another building block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Just to be clear, NPOV refers to 'all significant views that have been published by reliable sources' not the views of WP editors, individuals or businesses. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --rgpk (comment) 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Again, right on point and well said. Also, right on point is the clarification by MartinHogbin. Completely agree.

Agree Again, fundamental. Colincbn (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Basic. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree, Especially when editor one states potential COI asks content question then other editors come into the discussion stating COI against editor one without supporting evidence of bad behavior. Blackash have a chat 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeAgain, completely agree. These things are prohibited so as to create and maintain the essential collaborative writing atmosphere described above in point #1. Great flow, Flo. duff 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with small caveat' While this is obviously a fundamental principal, I also feel it is necessary to accept that when editing on topics that one feels are important many good intentioned editors will be more likely to display behaviour based on frustration. This in no way implies they are editing out of bad faith. Colincbn (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Too much battleground mentality. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

4) Wikipedia relies on a

Wikipedia:Page move

discussions, and have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree And again I see that you have clearly read a LOT of the background of this page and are very much aware of the entire scope of the challenge here. Thank you. duff 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Colincbn (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts

5) Editors may choose to focus their contributions to Wikipedia narrowly or broadly. However, editors who focus primarily or exclusively on a narrow subject—sometimes referred to as

advocacy

rather than neutrally presenting information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The way I put it is that being a SPA, in and of itself is not an issue, however SPA's must take extra care that their editing complies with Wikipedia's norms and policies. SirFozzie (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging this one out - it is highly applicable here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per SirFozzie and Elen. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree The part of this arbitration that concerns User:Sydney Bluegum is well addressed by this statement.

Agree Colincbn (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

6) The purpose of a

misuse them

through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Worth stating. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree I got the feeling the length of discussion was part of the problem at Tree shaping. The last time this issue came up on the Tree shaping talk page I offered to self-limit my comments about edits I contest by first making my case and then only making 2 comments to any given editor in reply. This is my way of trying to help shorten the length of discussion. This seemed to be helping but was only in effect for a few weeks before this arbitration was listed. Blackash have a chat 06:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Thank you again, Flo, for clearly recognizing and succinctly describing so many essential facets of the problem that brought us all to this arbitration.--duff 19:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with small caveat' Because talk pages tend to be the most well viewed locations of centralized discussion it is natural that issues other than proposals for specific edits to the article will take place there. RfMs, attempts to gauge the views of involved editors, and attempts at consensus building will all likely take twists and turns away from direct edits to the article. Colincbn (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Arbitration Committee

7) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Essential. I am not about to tell anyone what to call this article, or this art form. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Much of the material presented in this case is simply a rehash of the content disagreement over the use of the term arbosculpture. The behaviour of the parties has largely been civil and within policy, but has been persistent and tendentious and has dragged in other volunteers, taking up a vastly disproportionate amount of time and effort for the value of the article. This is a trivial dispute, as it doesn't really matter what the article is called; however, a series of uninvolved and experienced Wikipedia volunteers have looked into this mater, and the consensus has been that the name should be Tree shaping. Continuing to argue after the fact, is wearying, and the name could be changed over and over again without satisfying all parties. A consensus has been reached; the parties have been asked to accept the situation and move on. They have not moved on and have been unable to conduct themselves without continuing to draw in editors to the naming dispute, so at this stage they should be banned from talking about the subject anywhere on Wikipedia for a period significant enough for them to calm down; and for other editors to be warned that taking up the dispute and edit warring over the name would result in short blocks. The issue here for ArbCom is not to look at the content dispute, or the value of one name over the other, but to look at the behaviour of those who have refused to accept consensus, and have continued to create drama. As well as the two lead parties, Slowart and Blackash, it may be worth looking at the behaviour of some others who have prolonged or inflamed the dispute rather than calm it down. I have not paid attention to who has done what, so I don't know who is on who's side. RegentsPark's observations appear a good starting point. I recall some other editors who were involved, but who appear not to be on Wikipedia at present; it might be prudent to include them in consideration in case they decide to reuse their account. One account that I recall was used a lot for making comments on and editing the article is User:Griseum. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where consensus for the title was reached? Colincbn (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because, you know, if there are a bunch of editors who disagree, than that ain't consensus. Colincbn (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this goes beyond a content dispute. There are multiple Policies being violated by the current title.

@Elen: You said "I am not about to tell anyone what to call this article, or this art form", but by keeping the title as it is you are telling people what to call this art form and that goes directly against the principals of WP. I'm not asking ArbCom to decide on a title, just to decide that the title must not be usable as the name of the art. The exact wording is not so important. Colincbn (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I think if the COI editing is prevented non-COI editors will be able to to impartially apply WP policies to the subject of the article name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have accepted the consensus for the title to stay at Tree shaping. A few of the editors stated they could not move forward if the title was tree shaping. I only offered alternative title names and discussion about wiki policies and how they apply, as a way of working towards a compromise hoping they would then be able to help improve the article.
There are 5-7 editors who have gone on about the title and made false claims of consensus in the past, part of the reason I felt the need to be part of the title discussions is to point out the half truths and misleading comments. If there was some type of restriction on any editor bring up the title, I would be delighted to not talk about the title. This would then let the content be the focus of discussions.
Agree past editors who where very active about this issue should also be part to the restrictions. Blackash have a chat 06:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a consensus on the title. When SilkTork was involved he clearly stated he did not have time to look close at the issues, made a dision and moved on. At the time he insisted Pooktre was a name for the whole art due to a press release, and the only compromise was to remove the word that is most used solid refs."arborsculpture". The Pooktre name mistake is not even fixed to this day. Please realize the lead is screwed up. The art is also known as tree training, arborsculpture, Pooktre and several other names. this was promoted and defended by blackash to water-down the word arborsculpture by trying to find every word ever used by anyone and adding it to the article. Someone once used in a published article the word "arborsmithing", that is very close to my company name perhaps we need to include that also, but no that's just silly and would be a misuse of this Wiki. Slowart (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart that is not how I remember the discussions. I disagree with most of your comment. Please give diffs to support your claims. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that arbitrating content disputes is not the purview of this arbitration committee, as I understand it. The problems experienced at this page & talk page go way beyond a content dispute though, just as your previous points have alluded. duff 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and tendentious editing

8) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may have editing restriction on the articles in question or be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basic ground rule. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. What I have found tendentious and disruptive to consensus is the necessity of repeatedly replying on different talk pages/noticeboards to the same editors who were claiming I had COI without supporting evidence of bad behavior. I rebut with diffs/links because if I don't most editors would logically believe their claims. The last couple of times I've just linked to a diff where I had already rebutted these editors. Blackash have a chat 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There may be no other remedy, Flo, as this has indeed been a sustained problem. Thirteen archives so far (and that's just THIS talk page) of endless repeated rebuttals attest to and provide ample evidence of this aggression and fall squarely under this heading. duff 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Tendentious over a long time span, in conjuncture with a SPA is at the heart of this matter.Slowart (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

x) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

I'm putting some suggestions here for the wording of parts of the proposed decision,so the parties are able to comment. (I'm using my alternate account because I'm not at home, but it is still me) Elen on the Roads:talk to me 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Take it that all of the principles articulated by Flo Night above are included.

Expert editors

1) Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject. However, the guidelines concerning

conflicts of interest

must be observed, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the enclyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are some subjects (for example

High shear mixers, where the only experts in the subject are the ones that manufacture the technology. Wikipedia appreciates contributions from experts, but they must edit for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. I'm open to modification of wording - I can see this is one where several folks have made similar suggestions. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Covers the same ground as SilkTork's first and second principles, and is worth including. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - we need to proactively address this area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I might specify somehow that this guideline applies to editing in article mainspaces and in both article & user talkpages, if there's any chance that's not obvious. duff 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I would even go so far as to say editors with CoIs are absolutely necessary for the project to function.Colincbn (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disputes regarding article titles

2) Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From

WP:TITLECHANGES Elen on the Roads:talk to me 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree logical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. Colincbn (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That's the right policy. Also it is my considered opinion that the entire controversy and ensuing dispute over the original term and the subsequent muddying of the waters around it were both manufactured and magnified by one pair of persons, using Wikipedia and its editors as tools with which to whack their professional rival over the head. duff 23:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Duff would like people to believe I'm the only one who has an issue with Arborsculptue. This is not true. It has started on the talk page as early as 13 April 2007 quotes from multiple editors Also here is link to sources their dates and quotes. Blackash have a chat 14:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage Elen and the other arbitrators to follow the 'quotes from multiple editors' link above. It is more wishful thinking than evidence. Many of the comments are from Blackash and Sydney Bluegum. Most of the other comments are based on discussions on WP and the commercial rivalry rather than any research into what reliable sources say on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin this list shows that other editors (approx 16) have issue with Arborsculpture and how it is used. It shows the word Arborsculpture has never really been stable. It was never meant to be used for citation on the article. Blackash have a chat 16:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a list of potential title names with references and quotes created during one the many title discussions. Blackash have a chat 12:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existence of this list is a good example of why a descriptive phrase is needed. Colincbn (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles should present a neutral point of view (as specifically established at WP:NAME), in addition to the other factors mentioned. When the factors conflict, I think NPOV should should be given the highest weight. AfD hero (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A descriptive phrase would be neutral by definition. Colincbn (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neologisms in article titles

2) In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From

WP:NEO Elen on the Roads:talk to me 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree - wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage, not create it. Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. However, I do not agree that this is one of those few cases. Arborsculpture was a neologism when it was coined, but it proved generic and descriptive enough of this otherwise unnamed craft for many scholarly (and not-so-scholarly) resources to pick it up quickly & use it to describe what this article is about. At that point, it ceased being a neologism. Since then, many other scholarly and other resources have followed suit. Much later, this article was written to reflect that usage and to describe the topic in an encyclopedic and well-referenced manner. duff 00:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is here as an "and if this applies, do that", rather than saying it specifically applies. I may merge the two to make it clearer, particularly given your comments below. --Elen on the Roads:talk to me 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With that above clarification, I agree also. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, wholeheartedly. Colincbn (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arborsculpture is a neologism as there are not any reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term. All the sources use the term and/or state it is coined by Richard Reames. Length of time is not the deciding factor either on whether or not a word is a neologism.

WP:NEO

would apply if the title was Arborsculpture.

Tree shaping is the title and that is not a neologism so

WP:NEO doesn't apply to changing its title. Blackash have a chat 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) This dispute focuses on the article on a relatively new art form in which 3 dimensional works of art are created by modifying the growth of living trees. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what title to give the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it all boils down to this. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Duff - Agreed that if one were wanting to pick a descriptive title to avoid promotion or a neologism, 'tree shaping' may have too wide a meaning, as techniques such as Pleaching (which plainly is shaping trees to make a pleasing designed structure) are mentioned, but the avenues of pleached Limes that grace many English country houses are not referenced as a form of tree shaping. If the article is to be primarily about making particular kinds of art by tweaking living trees, then the title should be more specific if a descriptive one is to be used. --Elen on the Roads:talk to me 11:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Martin Hogbin - I shall follow your point up. --Elen on the Roads:talk to me 11:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could agree to this. From my perspective, there's a slight problem if the article ends up being called 'tree shaping' and includes earlier forms of tree shaping. Possibly consider 'The dispute focuses on article content which covers the relatively new art form in which 3 dimensional works of art are created by modifying the growth of living trees. Much of the dispute has centered around what title to give to the article which covers this subject'. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree That is perhaps the most significant product of a boil-down. I think there are also others, but a neutral resolution of this one would help to clarify the proper course to take on the others. For example, keeping the present titling would demand that the description and coverage of this entire craft in particular be completely diluted and expanded to cover with equal weight the full scope of 'tree shaping', which is not to say more illumination of the craft & crafters of this thing, but instead all of the various ways that anyone might shape

trees (and only trees), from the mundane to the sublime. That's a wholly different article and mostly already covered by Arboriculture & Living sculpture. Substituting some other unreferenced title would not be preferable either, given the scope & quality of the citations already provided for the original title. duff 00:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree although the dispute also covers the way in which commercial practitioners of the art are presented in the article along with distinguishing techniques used by different practitioners. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Here is a very recent example of what I am referring to [42] Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Martin Hogbin. That is a very good example of the precise way in which the problem Martin describes above has also become a central part of this dispute. It affects the composition of the whole article. duff 18:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This art has also been know as Pleaching [43]. As for the scope and quality of citations for Arborsculpture the vast bulk of them are based on the two self published books by a non expert, mostly book reviews and interviews with the author. Blackash have a chat 15:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Blackash (& beyond), as you may be aware, I have suggested this option before and documented its use, without garnering much support. If I remember correctly, there are also a few solid citations using 'Pleaching' to identify this craft. Pleaching is a reasonable and (afaik) solidly neutral compromise, in my opinion. Further, your mention of it illuminates again the fact that what we are writing about, and what you do, is not a new art at all (though relativity in age to the other arts is not clearly defined in the proposed statement we are commenting on). As is documented in the article we are working on, pleaching is a VERY old art.

The existing article Pleaching is weak. If the two articles were combined and merged under the title Pleaching, that would really strengthen the Pleaching article and also alleviate one of my most serious concerns, which is about the fact that Tree Shaping is not neutral as regards you and your commercial involvement. duff 17:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Tree training or Pleaching could work as the article title both have references, are short and what people would use to search for this art, if it is found that Tree shaping isn't suitable. Blackash have a chat 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Training as a title has come up before in discussions and has some similar problems to those present with Tree Shaping. While it would be more neutral, as it's not the name of your business, it is too vague to accurately describe this craft and also it is commonly used to describe another well documented practice within arboriculture that is not at all involved with forming artistic or useful items (other than the trees themselves) :) duff 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen: When I originally read your comment above, it occurred to me that I thought we had described England's pleached

allées in the arborsculpture article, and in fact we had. It's near the end of the section entitled History, here: [[44]]. Your note that these are still a common element of landscaping in England (maybe elsewhere too?) is a good one. Of course they are...We oughtta cover that a little more deeply, and not just as an historical note. Maybe as part of a merge with Pleaching, if it goes that way; otherwise, it's right on topic and definitely worth expanding further. I'm sure there are LOTS of citeable references for it. Thank you.duff 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've given this some more thought, and I think that the same case that I just made above, against Tree Training as a title, must also be made against merging with & using

woody plants; including to create the kinds of works covered in this article. Pleaching (braiding) is a very specific technique, among many, that might be used to train inosculant woody plants

, though not necessarily to train them for the purpose of creating these artistic & functional items.

This article is about the work product (artistic & functional items, etc.) that results from using those and other practices & techniques, including some of the notable artists creating or who have created these work products. Thus, the pleached

hedge laying

, the product of which is yet another example of arborsculpture.

Hopefully this is clearer & not muddier. What's clear to me is that it is not a new artform, though there are some new practitioners and artists, bless them all, and some new products. It does also appear to be evident that, prior to Reames' coining of the word 'arborsculpture' to unify the concept, this impressive body of works had only been referred to in the past either by brand or by indicating the main process used to accomplish the specific individual product. Cheers. duff 18:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Duff's statement above. I don't see a merge as viable. For both the reasons Duff gave above and also because the "Tree shaping" content would outweigh the Pleaching content. We would then need to trim down the TS stuff or split it into its own article, which would leave us right back here. Colincbn (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is the crux of it. Colincbn (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The dispute is about the title, yes. There is also dispute about the scope of the topic. Defining the scope has been part of the problem, and I'm not sure how helpful or appropriate it is for ArbCom to get involved in that dispute and attempt to define or limit the scope by saying that the article is about "a relatively new art form" when the article describes the long history of the topic, and that it is functional as well as decorative. Suggested wording: This dispute focuses on the article on the modification of the growth of living trees. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what title to give the article; and, to a lesser extent, the scope of the topic. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The practice has been going on for a while - for example the ancient war-khasi people of india, and john krubsack in 1914. It's not "new", it's just that a name has yet to catch on. AfD hero (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SilkTork's and AfD Hero's comments regarding amending this statement, to the extent that it is neither new, nor is it exclusively art. However, it's not exclusively trees either, so 'living

woody plants' is more appropriate, as the craft is exclusively done on plants that form wood. Also, clarifying Afd Hero's statement, (even though I understand that ArbCom intends not to rule on this point): a name for this craft has indeed caught on, if we are to give any credence whatsoever to the many reliable sources so far found, and that name is arborsculpture, the original and proper name for the article that describes the craft we are writing about.duff 06:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

No one established name for this topic

2) Different practitioners use different terms for their art, and there is not yet one well-established term within the art world for this art form. In this unusual situation, it is possible that whatever Wikipedia uses as the article title will become the de facto term for the art. This is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia, in which the encyclopaedia must follow established practice, and not create it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It strikes me that this is the crux of the problem - whatever Wikipedia calls it has the potential to become the name everybody calls it, which is exactly the opposite to Wikipedia's policies. I think back in the day, we would have had the same argument about titling the article on appliances that clean carpets by suction.Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not for this to sound like Arbcom is ruling on content - as far as I can see, everyone agrees with the premise of the first sentence, even if they feel they have a good reason for using one name or another.--Elen on the Roads:talk to me 23:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Duff and Martin Hogbin. Thanks for your comments. I shall withdraw the first sentence, and rewrite the second, and await further comments. --Elen on the Roads:talk to me 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree Here is how I would say it instead. Some practitioners use individual brands to distinguish their individual works, and there is one well-established and non-branded term that the majority of reliable sources presented are using to describe it, partly because it is elegantly descriptive & partly because it is not a brand. That vacuum has already sucked & Wikipedia is too late to unsuck it. =) duff 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree You said that you did not intend to decide on the name for the article. I think that a decision on whether there is one established name or not should not be made here either. If the non-COI editors were free to discus the issue without continual COI disruption, I am sure that we could arrive at a consensus based only on the principles you have elucidated above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (as written at the time of this posting) This has been my main issue with the article. Colincbn (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Out of the 4 books published in English about this art form and it's practitioners, 3 of the books talk about the naming of the art-form also other media talks about the naming issue eg. newspapers and magazines. As for Martin comment about COI disruption, I believe what he find disruptive is that I point out where and why some logic is faulty according to wiki policies. Blackash have a chat 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I'm pretty sure that the majority of reliable sources in the horticulture world(not necessarily the art world) indicate the word arborsculpture is more often used for this art.Slowart (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first clause of the first sentence is better (as of the time of this posting), but I don't know whether or not the art world has developed one established term. I'm not sure whether that specific point has been clearly nailed. The available quality references are not what I would call art-world sources, but instead are scholarly sources. It is apparent, but only from the comments on WP by the artists who have participated in editing & discussing the article (

WP:OR), is that among those artists there is not one well-established term. With the exception of Reames/Slowart, they are all standing by their own brands. I also think MartinHogbin has a good point. While it would be in some ways a relief to have this arbitration somehow bind some sense into the whole tired name discussion, I am hopeful about the possibility of finding and establishing consensus in the ordinary way, in a better editing environment.duff 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As I have stated in my edits previously Richard Reames says in his 2nd book "It is my deepest desire that others take this art form to the mainstream". By this comment he means 'arborsculpture' which is his marketing funnel and his branding of other artists. On his web site there is a photo of Axel Erlandsen's daughter and one of his trees that is represented as one of Richard Reames works. Google the word and see.

Several editors have asked for recent photos of his mature pieces and these photos have not been forthcoming. Are there any mature pieces after 20 years of bending trees and using the Instant Method which is demonstrated at the Campbell Folk School every year.

It is OK to waffle on about Wiki policies and such but we as editors must be truthful. Recently while watching Aljeezera(International news program)a founder of Wikipedia stated "Wikipedia will become the temple of the mind Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney, increasing the indent of each paragraph you write is a little confusing. On first sight it looks as though three different people have commented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney, that quote from Reames' book, if it is one, doesn't read to me that way at all, although I have to thank you for putting it that way, because perhaps for the first time, I can understand clearly how a conflict of interest might narrow a reader's or an editor's understanding of it. To me, it's clear from that quote that he intended for the entire broad array of arts & crafts associated with the practice to enjoy a broader audience & attract more practitioners. To foster that, he generously gave over to the world free use of a really cool word that he coined, and thus had every right instead to trademark, copyright, brand himself & his works with, etc. Nobody HAS to use that word (and obviously, some people determinedly don't), but lots of people and reliable sources do now. I think its fair to say that by explicitly NOT claiming any ownership of the word, he did achieve his clearly stated goal of exposing the whole craft and its deep roots to a broader audience and also that the whole art form and all its practitioners, novice & professional, have benefited from his contribution. It has been extremely helpful, from a researcher's perspective, to have something neutral to call it all. My understanding is increased by it and to me, the word instantly conveys far more than just one guys work.

On your point about photos, pretty sure he's not required to submit photos and I can also understand why he might be reluctant to provide them, given the hostility expressed toward him by other editors, such as yourself.

On your point about the Aljezeera bit, interesting quote, but what is your point and who are you quoting exactly? duff 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

off topic comments removed to talkpage. Please only provide comment on the proposal, do not go off into rehashing your beeves with each other. thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

(2a) Practitioners have developed brand names for their particular form of the art. As well, there are a variety of terms from arboriculture and elsewhere which are used to describe both the techniques used and the final results. There is not a consistent preference within reliable sources on the use of any one term. The concern for the project is that, by the nature of the position as a reference that Wikipedia now occupies, the title of the article may become the default name for the art form. This is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia, in which the encyclopaedia must follow established practice, and not create it.

Comment by arbs

Revised version, taking on board comments.--Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can determine, the idea that we must somehow alter our content to prevent people from using it has no basis in policy or convention. On the contrary, a conviction that what we have written is the best way to represent a particular subject is an inherent premise of creating a reference work; if we do not believe that our terminology is worthy of being used by the general public, then we should not be using it to begin with. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Colincbn: You're conflating two different issues here. The

policy on original research. Our choice of descriptive phrase is thus constrained only by the necessity of complying with said policies, not by any greater philosophical considerations about the impact of the choice itself on the real world; the simpler and more obvious the descriptive phrase, the better.

You, on the hand, are proposing that the choice of descriptive phrase is governed not by these policies, but by a desire to make such a phrase deliberately complex and unnatural, so as to discourage the rest of the world from using it. This is not a consideration required by the policy on neologisms, or any other; on the contrary, the use of a deliberately uncommon and unhelpful article title runs counter to our normal naming convention.

Or, to put this in simpler terms: I am not arguing that a descriptive phrase should not be used. I am arguing that, if one is to be used, then the degree to which the rest of the world may or may not subsequently adopt it as a common name for the topic is not a legitimate reason for selecting a particular phrase. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@Colincbn: Given your previous comments on this page, I think my evaluation of your position is quite reasonable:

"If the title is a name that can be easily used as the name of the art WP is essentially claiming that to be the consensus name... By choosing a title that can be used as the name of the art-form WP is taking sides in an outside naming dispute."
"Rename article to descriptive phrase that cannot be mistaken for the actual name of the art... And most importantly it cannot affect the real naming debate that is going on in the artistic community."

Based on your response here, am I to understand that you would in principle have no objections to a descriptive phrase that could be used by the rest of the world as a name for this art form? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties

Agree That statement I can solidly support.duff 22:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I think the principles on article names and neologisms outlined above are sufficient for this issue to be determined by non COI editors. We should accept whatever that leads to, as Kirill suggests. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill I think your point is exactly why the policy on

neologisms calls for a descriptive phrase in the rare cases that WP cannot stand by any one term as a title for a notable topic. If there is no one name that can be used we have no choice but to not use a name. Colincbn (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kirill At no point have I ever said the phrase should be "deliberately complex and unnatural" in fact I have tried to make it as short and smooth as possible. I am actually quite surprised an arbitrator would misunderstand that, if you have in fact read my proposals. Specifically the one where I changed my suggested wording to make it shorter and more natural. Nor have I ever suggested using a "deliberately uncommon and unhelpful article title". Why on earth would anyone want an unhelpful title? And why would you think I was suggesting it? What I am saying is that by making the title a short one or two words it is not a phrase at all, and falls under the same problems of using a neologism. And the policies on original research, verifiability, and synthesis do apply because they apply to all articles, which is exactly why my stance has always been that a choice of descriptive phrase is governed by these policies. I think you must agree that it is not WPs job to decide on the name of this or any other topic, but to report on them. If there is no accepted name we cant just make one up. Colincbn (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in rereading my own section on the evidence page I can see how you could take that meaning from it, in fact it seems quite clear that is what I meant the way it is phrased now. That was a poor wording choice on my part. However I assure you that every point I have raised has been based on the policies mentioned. While using the terminology "long and unwieldy" certainly implies the same thing as "complex and unnatural" that is not how it was intended. I should have been clearer that I feel the phrase chosen should not be a simple noun, but an actual descriptive phrase, and that I think it should be kept as short , simple, and natural as possible while still being long and descriptive enough to comply with policies that call for WP to refrain from making up names. I do still take some exception to the implication that I wanted an "unhelpful" title and that I have not based my stance on policy. I do my utmost to make sure that everything I do on WP is helpful and based squarely on policy. Colincbn (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill I do see your point that there is nothing in policy that states we need to worry about off-wiki reactions to WP pages. I just think that is missing the heart of why the policies on titles say to use a descriptive phrase in these cases. WP cant just make up a name, it fails all the policies mentioned by both of us. Even if the broader philosophical reasons behind why those policies call for a descriptive phrase are not to be considered it does not change the fact that they call for using one. I do not think the current title meets the requirements of those policies, regardless of what happens off-wiki. Colincbn (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I do not think it is reasonable, or even acceptable, to assume I want something "unhelpful" nor that I do not want to follow policy. Colincbn (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping is not a neolegism. Blackash have a chat 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I agree that if there is no term meeting the criteria outlined be Elen above then we should use a descriptive phrase. All I am suggesting is that this is not the place to determine if there is an appropriate name. Once the COI conflict is out of the way we can determine if there is a name that meets the criteria. If there is the we should use it, if not we should use a descriptive phrase. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the wording of "use different terms for their art" is more accurate than "have developed brand names for their particular form of the art". There are about 15 or so living artists in this field. When asked by media all artists give their term for their art. But most don't have published work, web sites or any form of marketing, so therefore there is no branding. Blackash have a chat 12:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That some individual practitioners choose not to brand their work when they are marketing themselves through 'media', does not establish that "therefore there is no branding". Clearly some practioners have indeed developed brand names for their particular form of the art and so the statement indicates that clearly and accurately. You are a good example of the latter, with your "Pooktre"; so is Dr. Cattle with his "Grown Furniture", so has Golan with 'Plantware', and there are numerous other examples of branding in this field, as your research has proven conclusively. Also, you may be aware of only 15 living artists in this field, but it's also important to recognize that there probably are a lot more living artists and crafters working in this field of whom we are not aware, because they are not famous, for exactly the reasons you have given. duff 19:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that most artists don't brand their term is not clear in the 2a wording. The wording of "use different terms for their art" is shorter and still accurate. Blackash have a chat 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Again we are coming into the scope of the article, and narrowing it. When involved in mediating the dispute my view was that the article as it stood was a general article on the deliberate shaping/training of trees, and that allowed the possibility of articles to split out per WP:Summary style on specific techniques or artistic brands, such as Richard Reames and arbosculpture or Pooktre. It seemed to me then and still does today, that trying to narrow the article down into focussing on one aspect or one brand (such as Pooktre or arbosculpture) and then using the article to dominate the topic of the deliberate shaping/training of trees by that brand was inappropriate. It is within our scope as an encyclopedia to cover specific techniques or brands if they are notable enough in stand alone articles, and that route has been offered to the main contributors. If I remember there was some attempt at doing that, but then the article (or articles) got merged back into the one under discussion. It is within our policies to have an article on arbosculture as practised by Richard Reames - but that article should not be the only one on the deliberate shaping/training of trees, as that would potentially mislead the public into thinking that Richard Reames developed the technique, or was the main practitioner. I think the analogy I used was ballpoint pen and Biro, though vacuum cleaner and Hoover work equally well. The article under discussion is for the generic topic - an activity which is widespread and has been going on for a long time. Narrowing the focus to "art form" is inappropriate for the generic article, though would be appropriate for a split-off article on one of the practitioners. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does "shaping trees" with a chainsaw or sandpaper fall under the subject of this article? How about "shaping trees" to be really small and fit into a pot? Or shaping trees so the leaves form a Disney character? Also are non-tree plants covered, such as vines? If these apply then we already have a broad article about the subject Living sculpture. It is my opinion this article is specific to a particular practice and it should be clear in the title what that practice is. And I also expect some editors will disagree with your assertion that Arbo is a brand, but I am willing to concede that point. Colincbn (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have stricken my 'Agree' above on further consideration of the comments presented; some really good points and I share Colincbn's concerns about the vagueness of the current title.

In particular, I would further suggest the following: "Some practitioners have developed brand names for their particular creations. As well, there are a variety of terms from arboriculture and elsewhere which are used to describe both the techniques used and the final results. ~~There is not a consistent preference within reliable sources on the use of any one term.~~ The concern for the project is that, by the nature of the position as a reference that Wikipedia now occupies, the title of the article may become the default name for the practice. This would be contrary to the policy of Wikipedia, in which the encyclopaedia must follow established practice, and not create it."

These suggestions are based on having carefully considered:

the meaning of the word 'art': This is a craft; most of its practitioners are craftspeople, some of their products are craft and others are art.
the references and quality of the sources: There is indeed a consistent preference within reliable sources on the use of one non-branded term and there has been since that term was coined. If ArbCom is unable to rule on this or even study the references cited, then this statement (the one I struck) should be simply left out of the facts, as it is not factual. In light of that, I'm not sure the entire statement is necessary at all, as that statement is the basis for including the rest of the 'fact', the details of which I would otherwise agree with were it not for this salient inapplicability to the term at hand. It limits the discussion in a way that suggests something authoritatively which is unproven and evidently untrue. The term 'arborsculpture' does not appear to be a brand, nor to indicate any particular artist's choice of methods or techniques (Blackash's fervent insistence to the contrary notwithstanding). Reames did not develop or originate the craft (nor does he claim to have) and neither did any other living artist. He practices it, he writes about it, and thanks to him, for better or worse, now it is called something besides 'it'. Had there not been a name for a pen or a vacuum cleaner before Biro and Hoover (which there was), SilkTork's analogies would be only slightly more relevant, but still, unlike Biro/biro, and Hoover/hoover, arborsculpture is not and was not ever a brand name, insofar as any reliable sources have revealed. duff 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think discussions regarding the scope of the article do not properly belong on ArbCom, and should take place on the talkpage of the article. Discussions regarding the name of the article also do not belong on ArbCom. That can can place either on the talkpage or on requested moves. The focus of this ArbCom should be on the behaviour of those involved in this debate. We try to get things right on Wikipedia, though sometimes things are not clear cut, so a decision is made. If that decision is clearly wrong, then there are processes we can go through to adjust the decision. If those processes have been through, then we
WP:LETGO
. Continuing to raise what is essentially a minor issue, time and again, wears people.

- Here are the main previous discussions on the title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooktre, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_2#Move_from_Arborsculpture_to_Tree_Shaping, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_7#Article_name, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_8#Proposal_to_Move:_Arborsculpture_or_Tree_Shaping, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_9#Requested_move, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_10#Proposal_to_move_to_.27Shaping_Forming_plants_through_inosculation_to_form_useful_or_artistic_items.27_pending_further_discussion, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_10#Consensus_already_established_to_move_the_page_back_to_Arborsculpture, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_10#Survey_for_a_move_to_Tree_art, Talk:Tree_shaping/Archive_11#Undid_move_and_move_protected.

It might be worth while for somebody to go through those discussions to see what the consensus has been over the years, and if the decisions to title this as Tree shaping were wrong so as to warrant the continued attempts to rename it as Arbosculpture. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share SilkTork's concerns, and that is why we are currently workshopping 4.6.2.2a, which is a Proposed Finding of Fact that suggests otherwise in its present form. Sorry to wear anyone, if that

WP:LETGO is aimed at me. There have been honest mistakes made. Some remain unresolved and their resolution, I agree, should take place on the article's talk page, etc. It wouldn't hurt either for someone to carefully study the reliable sources. However, I'm pretty sure he'll agree that we still need to get this Proposed Finding of Fact right, here in the arbitration workshop where it really counts. duff 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@SilkTork As those links clearly show a consensus has never been reached. The move request was closed with "No consensus", If there had been an RfM for the first move (which there never was) then it would have closed as No consensus as well. Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not all of those who do not agree with the current title want to move back to Arbo. I do not. I want a descriptive phrase as called for in

WP:NEO. Colincbn (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others

Some editors have a potential conflict of interest

3) Some of those editing the article are themselves practitioners of the art, or have a professional or commercial interest in the art. These editors have a potential for a conflict of interest, as it may be in their professional/commercial interest to have the title of the article reflect the description used for their their own artworks; and this may conflict with Wikipedia's policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am going to be more specific - this is a starter for 10. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 22:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am not sure what '10' means in that sentence, but perhaps I can assist. Several of those editing, or who have either edited or influenced the editing of the article, are in fact featured, mentioned, cited, or some combination of those, in the article.

Featured artists Becky Northey & Peter Cook (as a team under User:Blackash), Richard Reames (as User:Slowart & previously as retired User:Reames), Dan Ladd (as User:Gourds1), and Mark Primack, ~~owner of Gilroy Gardens, containing most of featured artist Erlandson's specimens~~ (as User:Primack, as User:MPrimack & as User:MarkPrimack), are the editors I am aware of who have both worked on the article (or around it in some fashion) and are involved in the craft described.

Also, please allow me to clarify one other thing. The 2-user team that is User:Blackash has repeatedly insisted that I am more closely involved with this topic than I have disclosed, consistently basing this claim on some cryptic hearsay. I believe that claim to have been completely fabricated by User:Blackash. No evidence has emerged to support that claim; only these repeated innuendos in several different proceedings against User:Blackash as well as in both formal & informal discussions on the talk page. Apparently the intent is to discredit me in some way or dilute the integrity of my editing.

I do have some specialized knowledge about plants and a pretty extensive library surrounding that interest (among many others, I might add), but I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I intend to become an arborsculptor or a published writer about arborsculpture; and I never have, nor do I now, nor do I ever expect to stand to benefit in any way whatsoever from the outcome of any aspect of this article. I also have never met & do not know any of the people in this article. I don't consider any of them friends & I have had zero outside association with any of them. Proof otherwise would be very interesting to consider, but absent that (and since I know it to be false), it is dishonest for her & her partner to make this claim. duff 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but note that there has been a large difference in the way that different editors have expressed their potential COI. Blackash has persistently and proactively edited the article, argued on the talk pages, and canvassed others to support a COI and has also ignored all requests to withdraw. Slowart has made some reactive COI edits but has agreed to withdraw as part of a general COI withdrawal. Others, it would seem, have withdrawn completely.

By the way, 'starter for 10' is a reference to the UK TV quiz University Challenge. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Martin: That seems an accurate summary. I meant only to be as thorough and neutral as possible. Also, (& I may now just be misreading you) please allow me to further clarify, lest I conveyed this point poorly in my second paragraph: regarding my phrase "the 2-user team that is User:Blackash", I hope that didn't come across in a way that suggests User:Slowart is the other part of that team. I meant that User:Blackash is both Becky Northey & her partner Peter Cook. Finally, YAY! TV Trivia! I haven't owned one in over 10 years. =)duff 12:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Duff, apart from the comment about 'starter for 10' I was really responding to Elen's comments. IMartin Hogbin (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Martin...I had a feeling that might be the case, but wanted to make sure I understood correctly.duff 17:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC) duff[reply]

Agree This is why I've gone to notice boards to ask about references and edits that could be considered COI before I did them.

Comment Duff you are wrong about Mark Primack owning Gilroy Gardens. [45] also read Gilroy_Gardens it states a different body as the owner.

@Duff I told you before who edits with Blackash, it is me myself and I, though I talk to Pete and sometimes ask him how to spell something or check my writing. diff

@ Martin, please give diff/s where I've canvassed others. Blackash have a chat 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is nothing new...I am frequently wrong and not afraid to get right either, so please allow me to rephrase that, then. Mark Primack is strongly commercially and professionally associated with Gilroy Gardens & the Erlandson collection. Regarding the

WP:ROLE situation, I think he writes under your user name. To put it as kindly as I can muster: your writing styles are SO different that, to me, the point I made is readily self-evident. I also think he writes as Sydney Bluegum, the novice-turned-sudden-expert with the SPA. These are my opinions, not facts. It is possible that I am wrong about this too, on both counts. I am not aware of any way to prove either point, either way, conclusively (as much as I would like to get this out of the way), since you live together and most likely share just one IP address at any given time. It's something that concerns me though, and that's why I brought it up.duff 17:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As to Mark Primack as far as I have read, he is an professional architect who as a young man saved Axel Erlandson's trees and knew the original owner of Bonfante gardens now know as Gilroy Gardens. Mark also has given presentations about Axel's trees in the past. Duff what is your evidence that Mark Primack is commercially involved and professionally associated with Gilroy Gardens. Blackash have a chat 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heavens sake, he is world famous for his association with those trees and for his effort to save them, as well he should be. That's why he lectures on them. He has also edited forcefully on this article in the past and has participated in several discussions, expressing strongly held opinions. Are you really saying that even given the evidence you have just provided, together with the evidence that Sydney Bluegum provided this morning (below, from the Erlandson article): "he recieved a grant to draw and study Axel's trees...in 1977", still you are not able to recognize and agree to the simple point that Primack is closely associated enough with the topic of this article to have a potential conflict of interest? duff 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duff please give diff/s of where he has edited the article. I don't believe he has. Mark Primack has only been in two discussions on the tree shaping talk page. I agree Mark has the potential of COI, in regards to his interactions with Axel's trees. This is a long way from

Duff's 1st claim:- Mark Primack is the owner of Gilroy Gardens P.S when pointed it was wrong Duff moved onto his claim 2nd and 3rd claims.
Duff's 2nd claim:- Mark Primack is Commercially involved with Gilroy Gardens.
Duff's 3th claim:- Mark Primack is professionally associated with Gilroy Gardens.

This is another fine example of how Duff misinforms and jumps to conclusions without evidence. The best he gives is as above "Oh for heavens sake...etc" is not evidence of any of Duff's claims. Blackash have a chat 15:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, do you actually disagree that Primack has a COI or are you just being disruptively and repetitively

WP:SPA

accounts too, if I remember correctly, so it should not be at all confusing for you. Today, I will not be allowing you to tie up my editing time and use up my electricity with your demands that I go swim around in the voluminous diffs for hours to locate links to information that you are already well aware of and can readily access yourself if you so desire.

Again, yes I did incorrectly state that Primack owned Gilroy Gardens. If you would like for me to apologize again, for any confusion or grief that my misstatement may have caused you during that 1 hour and 34 minutes that elapsed between your having noted my good faith error at 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC) and my having corrected that error by acknowledging it right below your note about it, at 17:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC):(above at this statement "Well, this is nothing new...I am frequently wrong....") and then having gone on to accurately correct my statement (which you now characterize as misinformation), then please allow me to extend my sincerest apology to you again now. Whatever upset you and your partner and your advocate may have experienced since then is a result of your own pot stirring and theirs.

What I wasn't wrong about was the simple fact that Mark Primack has a potential conflict of interest due to his close professional & commercial involvement with the article's topic. His edits prove he has an actual conflict of interest, much like you do. I don't find that at all controversial & there's no real need to manufacture additional controversy over what I'm pretty sure you understand was my genuine (and fairly small)error; which was not at all intended to mislead. The facts of his COI and yours remain unaltered by my misstatement. duff 17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor User:MarkPrimack/(User talk:MarkPrimack) states in their first edit they are Mark Primack (of whom Duff and I are talking about) quote "It was recently brought to my attention that my name had been appropriated on this page in the past". diff Duff you stated below that had "read just about every diff on both the mainspace & the talkpage". Well this must be one of the diffs you missed. So these editors User:Primack/(User talk:Primack) and User:MPrimack/(User talk:MPrimack) are not Mark Primack but are other people who chose there user name based Mark Primack's name. Editor User:MarkPrimack/(User talk:MarkPrimack) to date he hasn't edited the main space yet. Until he edits an article inappropriately he only has a potential COI in some areas of the Tree shaping article.

As to my subpage [47] I quote editors I don't state who they are.

I don't want or need you to apologize. If you had just bothered to check who owned Gilroy Gardens by either reading the Gilroy Gardens or googling Gilroy Gardens (it took me like 5 mins to find out that no Mark Primack doesn't own Gilroy Gardens.) and/then 2. checked is Mark commercially involved and professionally associated with Gilroy Gardens, before posting there would be a lot less of your time wasted. What I would like is for you to do some research before making bald face statements, which misleads others and then needs to be cleared up thus filling up the talk pages. Blackash have a chat 02:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the diffs Blackash refers to, but this explanation is simply not credible, particularly given her use of the quotes on her subpage to support her arguments, absent this 'disclosure'. Still, Primack is not the subject of this arbitration nor has he participated in it. My comment, including him in a list of the editors with a potential or actual conflict of interest, stands. duff 14:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Duff you still seem to be misunderstanding my points. I agree editor User:MarkPrimack/(User talk:MarkPrimack) has a potential COI as he as clearly stated they are Mark Primack and how he can be contact in the outside world. As for editors User:Primack/(User talk:Primack) and User:MPrimack/(User talk:MPrimack) who knows, they haven't stated who they are. My comments above was to clarify your behavior of misinformation and spin. Duff your last comment comes across to me as assuming bad faith. Blackash have a chat 10:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've got that key point, which was a fairly minor one in context, worked out and agreed upon clearly. While I certainly intend to provide correct information, I am not always right, and I don't mind being set right at all. I'd rather get it right. I think many of our disagreements are based in misunderstanding one another, perhaps inadvertently. Strongly suggestive evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I still assume good faith and will try even harder to express myself in such a way as to be understood in that way. duff 01:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duff You stated that Mark Primack owned Gilroy Gardens. Now you change the story to Primack closely associated. Make up your mind.and stop telling lies or half truths to influence uninvolved editors with your spin. Please dont use my comment with spin to form your arguements.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sydney, I did state that (above), and when Blackash pointed out that I was wrong (also above), I corrected my statement and took responsibility for my error (also above), approximately two hours after she made that correct point. I did not tell any story and I did not change any story. I made a mistake and then I corrected that mistake, 2 days ago. That's what responsible editors do. You've made a lot of noise about my mistake since, following on several unrelated comments of mine with these accusations of dishonesty, apparently still even now without grasping that I have already sincerely apologized for the error. You seem to be scanning for only the things that upset you and skimming over the things that would ease your concerns. Please allow me now to apologize to you personally and sincerely for the chagrin that my error quite obviously has caused you. I assure you that it was a good faith error and now that I have the correct information, I am unlikely to make it again.

Back to the point of this section: Regarding the evidence I included in my other comment (also above), which you found in the Erlandson article where I suggested you look for it, I'm not sure what your problem is with my pointing it out again. It's factual, it's cited, and it's relevant to the point at hand (which is that some editors have a potential conflict of interest, including, namely, Mark Primack). That's why I suggested that you read the Erlandson article when you first accused me of lying at the bottom of this page, long after I had already apologized for my mistake. You called that suggestion a wild goose chase, as I recall, even though you had found yet another proof of his close association. As for your increasing incivility, may I gently remind you again that this arbitration is specifically (in part) focused on you and your behavior; so this would be a really smart place to play nice. You owe me at least as sincere an apology and several retractions both downthread and upthread, so please don't dilly-dally. Cheers.duff 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Duff Add Varden to the list of people with close ties. The proof I supposedly found is 34years old.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That which you ignored is much newer.

If that's your contention, run it up the flagpole yourself and see if it flies. Like I've said before, I edit for no one; least thou. Cheers. duff 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with small caveat' I would prefer if the wording included the idea that just because an editor has a CoI it in no way necessitates sanctions against them. Only editing behaviour can necessitate that. Of course editors with CoIs must tread a very narrow path to avoid being seen as disruptive. Colincbn (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Current name of article

7) The current name of the article (Tree shaping) was a direct result of a merge in 2009 between two articles with names associated with particular practitioners of this art (Arborsculpture and Pooktre). While the name change was not discussed before hand, it was a good faith

bold

attempt to come up with a name that was not associated with any one practitioner or school of the art.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Apologies for delay in presenting final few items. The above is my opinion based on all the evidence presented - I do not think that at the time the article was renamed, there was an intention to move it to a name that represented one party or another, I believe the intention was to come up with something not associated with anyone in particular.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, this finding isn't strictly necessary, and goes a little too far in the direction of a content finding, so I'd probably abstain. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the only purpose of this finding is to confirm that it was a good faith action, and the editor didn't intend to favour any side (whether the name does or not is a different matter). If people don't think it is necessary, it doesn't have to go forward. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree: However I do agree, based on the evidence, that the bold decision by

arborsculpture

is or was ever intended to be associated with any one practitioner or school of the art. Notwithstanding extensive efforts by Blackash to assert the contrary both on and off-wiki, the preponderance of authoritative reliable sources demonstrate clearly otherwise. That part of this 'Finding of Fact' is inaccurate.

Pooktre, on the other hand, which was the article up for deletion when that decision was made, was and is unquestionably commercially tied to one pair of artists/Wikipedia editors, Peter Cook & Rebecca Northey, whose work was and is also covered in this article, who participated influentially in the AfD in question as it pertained to the deletion of a separate article created about them and their business, and who, as an editing pair, Blackash, are one of the two subjects of this arbitration. The odd result of the merge is that the commercial brand 'Pooktre' now not only redirects to the article we are working on (which it should not), but has become so entangled with the lead and the rest of the text of the article as to suggest that the brand 'Pooktre' is synonymous with the craft (which it is not, and evidence has clearly shown that it was never intended to be).

Merge intent notwithstanding, the choice of the term 'tree shaping' as a neutral alternative was a poor one, in that evidence has shown that it actually is commercially associated with the brand of one (pair of) practitioner(s), Pooktre Tree Shaping, whose article was one of those two merged at the AfD. Their website at treeshapers.net is perhaps the most obvious evidence of that fact. Available evidence also shows that the term 'tree shaping' itself had already been (and remains) in common usage to describe a very different and non-artistic aspect of commercial arboriculture, involving the general care of trees to maintain a natural shape. duff 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bold move by User:AfD hero may have been an attempt to come up with a name that was not associated with any one practitioner. The name chosen without any discussion "Tree Shaping" failed miserably. This -[[48]] shows that well befor the move occurred, Pooktre had been useing the name, look at the header. The web site has used "Pooktre Tree Shapers" in it's header since 2005. User:AfD hero was apparently unaware of this at the time.Slowart (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duff our web site banner is Pooktre in large letters with a descriptive subheading of Tree shapers. Google is very precise about keywords. Slowart at the time of the name change, a internet search of tree shaping didn't lead to pooktre. 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment If this proceeding is going to make findings of fact having to do with the name of the craft or of the article, then those questions deserve a full and fair airing of all the evidence, which has not happened here thus far because that is not understood by all parties to be the scope of this arbitration.duff 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it was a good faith change, in an attempt to come up with a name that was not associated with any one practitioner or school of the art. There was some discussion, at Pooktre for deletion before the move. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and point out that according to

WP:BRD the title should have been reverted before all of this discussion. However now that it is happening anyway we might as well skip that and just give it a descriptive phrase as that is what Policy calls for. Colincbn (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I agree with Colincbn that according to policy, the title should have been reverted, well before this discussion, and in fact immediately upon realization that no consensus could be reached about keeping the errant change nor switching to any other name. However, I do not agree that finding a different policy that applies to a different set of circumstances to support a different outcome is the way to go to set that right. duff 23:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree that

WP:BRD fits this title change. There was some discussion before the move Pooktre for deletion and quite a bit after the move [49] by 11 different editors, with Slowart/Reames being the only one dissatisfied with the article remaining at tree shaping. So a consensus was formed to keep it at tree shaping. It was 11 months later that Slowart brought it up again diff. Blackash have a chat 12:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment by others:

Blackash has a conflict of interest

8) User:Blackash has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic, and in the terminology used for the art, and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has overriden the interest of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will add diffs shortly Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree. I have participated in extensive discussions on this article from a neutral and uninvolved perspective and have read all the material surrounding it. This is what the evidence has shown. duff 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Duff is "from neutral and uninvolved perspective". For the neutral part here is most recent evidence that Duff is not neutral. At tree shaping Duff added this ref as one of group for the term Arborsculpture with summary of "added 9 new solid and authoritative references to the use of this term to refer to and describe this craft; all will prove rich resources to improve this article" Duff's diff. When I pointed out the reference also uses pooktre generically and Duff hadn't added this ref to pooktre entry my diff. Duff then removed the ref with edit summary of "deleting PopSci/Jiwatram citation per conversation on Talkpage: it's weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref to AFTAU/Plantware/Treenovation material." Duff's diff Then on the talk page Duff made out I suggested to remove the reference Duff's diff, which I did not. What changed Duff's perspective? The fact this ref does use pooktre generically and that doesn't fit with Duff's view that pooktre can only have the one definition that being the name my partner and I use for our art. Duff's diff Duff is willing to discount and is removing any evidence that could show there is more than one name for this art form. Blackash have a chat 06:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This has been the real problem with this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that not only has Blackash persistently edited in a way such that personal or business interests have overridden the interest of the project but she has continued to do so and argued her case extensively on the talk page even after several independent editors have brought her COI to her attention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that I have a potential COI in some areas of this topic. As a practitioner in the field talking about the overall name should be no more of COI for me, than a Bonsai practitioner talking about the name Bonsai. I have tried though out my time editing here to follow the polices, guidelines (as I have learned of them) [50], called for truce rather than edit war [51], [52], [53], filed for meditation 3 times, followed advice from neutral editors [54], seek help from the noticeboards in edits that had the potential to be considered COI [55], [56]. I also have always been willing to talk about my edits, [57] given my reasoning for them and have worked towards compromises with others [58], [59], [60]. Elen of the Roads I think my good faith attempts to work towards the betterment of wikipedia should be part of your findings. Blackash have a chat 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A strange analogy, since bonsai is not a "name". It's not capitalized either (unless it begins a sentence, of course), as it's a generic word for a Japanese practice which has been called that by its Japanese practioners since at least the 17th century, and which the Chinese called penzai, long before that. There is little dispute over what bonsai is or what it is called among its practitioners, nor is there any in the world outside its practitioners. I do not think that an argument to the contrary would be taken seriously by anyone. duff 22:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen of the Roads this part of your statement "and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has overriden the interest of the project." seems to imply that I haven't been doing good faith edits on this topic. Could you please supply the supporting diff/s. Blackash have a chat 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sydney Bluegum is an SPA

9)

single purpose account, whose edits to the project have been solely on this topic, and in support of the edits of User:Blackash

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, will add diffs shortly Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree After 30 minutes of searching I still can't find the diff, but during this arbitration proceeding, either here or on the article talkpage, the user explained their purpose for editing. This, in a nutshell was, that as a purchaser & reader of Reames' books exploring & detailing the craft, this user was dissatisfied with the results he had achieved using the techniques outlined therein. Thus, this user aimed to set the record straight here, that the techniques outlined in the books did not work; that they were the author's techniques alone; that those methods had a distinct and exclusive name; that they were inferior techniques to those of Pooktre/Blackash; that Pooktre/Blackash's techniques did work; that those techniques were theirs alone; that the article should reflect all of that as separate Methods; and that Reames' perceived Method comprised the entire of the concept of arborsculpture, which he claimed proved that arborsculpture was a brand of Reames. Predictably enough, Blackash supported that effort by re-arguing the superiority of her own techniques and products and the inferiority of Reames in general, as well as insisting again that Bluegum's opinion was an example of an exclusively proprietary nature behind the word arborsculpture. Both Blackash & Bluegum forcefully edited the article in support of those ideas (separate and distinct well-established Methods and their-POV-only use of the word arborsculpture), ideas for which we found no supportable basis in reliable source citations. The argument over those points wears on, still absent any reliable documentation. duff 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duff I would really like to see that diff/s. I recall them stating they come to wikipedia as an end user wanting to find out more about the methods. I recall them talking about how Richard Reames's tool handles don't work and why. I don't recall them comparing the two methods (maybe I missed that?). I've have stated many times that a word can have more then one definition, generic and as a method. Duff Sydney Bluegum only has about 120 contributions, they don't write essays I don't think it would be that hard to find the diff/s if it is there. Blackash have a chat 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree Sydney BlueGum is now a SPA. I believe their support is more like a reaction to the hostility they have received on the talk page than actual support for my views [61] Sydney BlueGum's quote "I originally came on to learn about methods and successful tree trainers eg Chris Cattle and his well balanced little stools. Now I am forced to take sides in this debate to find this knowledge." By Sydney BlumGum's 4 edit Duff filed a sock puppet investigation. Sydney BlueGum had at this time only ever edited talk page. [62]. The reception they received may be why they are only a single purpose account. Blackash have a chat 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is diff you seek. [63] Slowart (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart out of Duff's many accusations above which one/s is substantiated by the diff you give and the following discussion?

The closest I could find to me supporting Sydney BlueGum was this quote "Sydney Bluegum yes wood shrinks, and both the bark and sap wood are soft. This would cause the results in problems you have reported. Blackash have a chat 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)" following a comment where she talks about a grown tool handle.
This was part of a discussion at the NPOV notice board were I was asking about the amount of weight Arborsculpture had been given in the article in relation to the references. Arborsculpture had been given
WP:POINT at the time request to move the title to Arborsculpture was happening. I tried to get them to justify the changes on the talk page, but they started up the COI chant [64]
. So, I asked at the NOPV notice board, of course these editors then came and changed a content discussion to be about the title. Then rhetoric about the title followed from the pro arborsculpture group and myself.

Duff since you are still clearly editing please find the diff/s that support your accusations as stated above. Blackash have a chat 02:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, that's actually not the diff, though its content is close enough to illustrate my point. Thank you for posting it. The diff I was seeking, and have given up looking for, had very similar content but was more detailed, as I described, and I had responded to it directly beneath the post, pointing out that Wikipedia was not the place to come to complain about a book that he bought, as Wikipedia is not the customer service department for their bookstore or for Reames' publishing company, and that that was not an appropriate reason to edit wikipedia articles. It is possible, however, that my response was lost during one of the frequent episodes of power loss that I experience off grid, though I was pretty sure that my post stuck. I agree that it should be findable, and I also wish it could be found, but I've searched as much as I'm going to and I'm not going to waste time and power going back to read through all of Sydney Bluegums posts one by one to find the diff.duff 23:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slowart has a conflict of interest

10) User:Slowart has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic, and in the terminology used for the art, and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has overriden the interest of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will add diffs shortly Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment I will wait to see the diffs presented as I may have missed something important, and withold my support or lack thereof for this finding, until I do get to see and evaluate them. It is not clear to me from what I've seen so far that Slowart has edited in such a way that his interest has overridden the interest of the project. His support for the use of the term most commonly used to describe the craft can be easily understood as a call for accuracy, not preferential treatment in the article, from what I've seen and from what the evidence seems to support. The issues have been difficult to separate, because many years ago he coined the word arborsculpture in a book entitled Arborsculpture. As someone with a deep interest in

arborsculpture to encompass this whole craft and yet only recently heard (here) of this author and his books. I have attempted to understand the issues here with an open and neutral mind, as someone with the background to understand them clearly, by carefully studying the entire history of the article. While it is clear that Slowart has a potential conflict of interests (as does Blackash), I do not so far share the view that Slowart has edited in support of his own interests over the project's, nor that he has behaved improperly given the circumstances surrounding this article. duff 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree Blackash have a chat 23:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with reservations Slowart may have made some COI edits but when these have been brought to his attention by non-COI editors he has withdrawn and allowed others (sometimes including Blackash) to have the final say. Although he may have overstepped the mark on a few occasions his behaviour has generally been in accordance with the way we would hope an expert with a potential COI to behave on WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No diffs were presented by the proposing arbitrator. Were any found? If no, then I must disagree. duff 23:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Martin Hogbin

11) User:Martin Hogbin has said that he does not have any commercial/professional interest in the topic, but has consistently pressed for the use of a term coined by one of the practitioners as the title of the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I will add diffs shortly Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reasons to finding 7, I'd probably abstain, as this seems to be going too far in the direction of a content decision. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I think you have in the past given the impression that you were favouring one side. I accept that this may well have been unintentional, and your intention was good faith, and I have removed the suggestion of non-neutral editing accordingly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

~~I am astounded by this finding.~~ I came in response to an RfC over the name and my suggestion, right from the start, was that the name should be decided only on WP policy without regard to commercial considerations. The diffs I have presented clearly show this. My conclusion at that time was that, according to WP policy 'arborsculpture' was the correct name for this article and thus I supported that name. This has nothing to do with being neutral or not it, was my interpretation of the 'right thing to do for WP' and I am sure that it would have been yours to if you had looked at all the evidence at that time. Despite that initial conclusion regarding the name, my recent suggestion for resolving this dispute was that we should look again at the name, based only on WP policy and the interpretation of the policy given by Elen above.[65]. We have to come to a conclusion as to what is the correct title for this article, to actually reach one, based on WP policy is not non-neutrality but the right and duty of every editor. If those who respond to RfCs are to be accused of non-neutrality simply because they reach a conclusion, editors will soon become reluctant to help resolve disputes; they will learn to just keep their heads down.

If by 'neutral' you mean that we should give Blackash and Slowart equal opportunities to promote their businesses through WP then I am not neutral. I believe that that such commercial factors should play no part in decision making here. Only WP policy on the matter should be taken into account.

If you are suggesting that some undisclosed external or improper factor is influencing my decision making then I would ask you to provide evidence of that, otherwise your finding is merely a presumption of bad faith on my part which I would ask you to withdraw.

I suggest that PhilKnight has taken the right approach here. If Arbcom are not going to rule on the article title then I think they should refrain from criticising those that do try to reach a conclusion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen, consistency may be a really good thing in this situation. IMO.Slowart (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Disagree~~ Comment Now that the initial finding has been altered, I don't know whether to agree or disagree, but the finding is poorly framed and suggestively hints that somehow Martin Hogbin has said something that isn't true or done something improper. I disagree that there is any evidence he has done either. I called the RfC that Martin mentioned above for precisely the reasons that he articulates here and those that I have previously outlined myself. We are both neutral editors coming in to assess and help with a problem; he a few steps later than I. For precisely the same reasons that Slowart cannot actually be considered advocating for a self-promoting position, Martin's neutral assessment has has been in support of accuracy in both content and titling as supported by reliable sources. His advocacy has been for proper adherence to WP policies and he hasn't been shown to have any conflict of interest in the topic. No one stands on any 'side' that has been fabricated of advocating for unfair benefit to the coiner of the word. No one. Someone does stand on the side of (and stands to benefit from) making everyone else appear to be standing there though, and that complicated strawman argument is what has confused and misguided the entire simple matter. duff 22:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Though I believe your earlier wording to be more accurate. In my view a neutral editor is like the ideal scientist. As new evidence is presented they are willing to change their findings/POV. That is not saying they don't have findings or POV just they are willing to change their findings/POV according to the evidence. Martin has shown a resistance to new evidence presented, and from the beginning has actively asked editors with the knowledge to present new evidence to stay out of the discussions. Blackash have a chat 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to change my mind given new evidence but any decisions must always be made on the basis of WP policy and not commercial benefit or personal kudos. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree According to this log Martin Boldly moved the page to

WP:PREFER (although this may have been a misunderstanding). I do agree with the revert as a much better wording could be found. Also if we remove "consistently" from the wording what exactly is this finding meant to show? That Martin has agreed with one of the practitioners for at least some of the time? Well, every single editor, including admins, who have ever agreed with either Blackash or Slowart can also be put in this category. Colincbn (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Martin boldly moved the title as a temporary measure while the real name was to be discussed diff. He clearly thought Arborsculpture should be the title when you read Martin's reply to Regents Park's comment of why he reverted Martin's title move. Matin's quote "...was to move the article back to the original name, from which it improperly moved, of arborsculpture" diff. There are plenty of other comment of Martin about Arborsculpture as the title. Colin I'm really surprised that you have taken the stance in your comment above as you where part of these discussions. Blackash have a chat 13:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am really quite surprised by this. This is the second time during this process that editors focusing solely on policy have been accused. Perhaps being in ArbCom jades one into thinking all editors who come here have done something wrong? I can certainly see how that could be a danger of constantly dealing with the darker side of Wikipedia.

For the record I disagree with Martin and I do not feel using Arbo is the way to implement policy. Yet I accept he has followed it. He supports the term because he does not see it as commercial. It has been used by multiple practitioners, and in reputable third party publications. It is not copyrighted nor does it mean something other than the subject of the article. Also it was the first non-stub name. He has a good point. I however feel that in the name of compromise and relieving all doubt as to whether WP is taking sides we should accept that there is no consensus name, and follow the policy that covers this eventuality. Even though we disagree we have always been civil and simply worked to build consensus between us. Colincbn (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not entirely clear on what kind of comment should go where in these cases. So I will just post here for a few things I would like to say. First I do not think it is appropriate to ban Blackash or Slowart from WP as a whole over this. If a full Topic-ban is put in place I can certainly understand why, however it would not be my first choice.

I think that a large part of the issues that editors have brought up against Blackash stem from a misunderstanding. Namely, just because you follow the letter of the rules does not mean you are following the spirit of the rules. A lot of time is being spent pointing out specific edits and what rule they do or do not break. I think this is not the best way to resolve any issue. I think it is important that Blackash sees why some editors have taken stances opposed to her. It is not because "we just don't like her" or anything like that. It is because we feel that in cases where one editor is involved with a topic commercially, as she is, they should recuse themselves from editing on any topic that a non-involved editor disagrees on them with. I know it does not seem fair, but that is the only way we can be sure that the edits made are coming from a neutral standpoint.

As myself and others have pointed out Blackash has put in an enormous amount of effort into this article and we truly value that work. I also think if she simply lets go of worrying about how the article turns out and leaves it up to others to decide she will be much better off as a wikipedian. In short just

WP:DGAF. Colincbn (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Colincbn, COI states it's appropriate to bring issues up on talk pages and to ask other editors about doing potential COI edits as long as these editors are aware of the COI. Just stating an editor shouldn't be offering suggestions where there is a potential for COI mean it is simpler for other editors, but the articles are also restricted by the lack of input. Blackash have a chat 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nowhere in the above statement do I say "an editor shouldn't be offering suggestions where there is a potential for COI". You are framing my points in an inaccurate way and then disputing them as if they were actually my points. Please don't do that. What I said was editors with CoIs should "recuse themselves from editing on any topic that a non-involved editor disagrees on them with". That in no way implies they "shouldn't offer suggestions". However once the suggestion is made they should probably just drop it. Let other non-involved editors make the final decision. Otherwise any attempt to influence the discussion will likely be seen as POV pushing and gaming the system. But again this is only when conflict arises. Otherwise edit to your heart's content. Colincbn (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the my "... an editor shouldn't be offering suggestions..." comment it was in reply to your comment "... if she simply lets go of worrying about how the article turns out and leaves it up to others..." come across to me as, let it go don't even bother offering suggestions and things will be simpler. Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. Blackash have a chat 07:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to be clear that I don't think it is wrong for Blackash to go around the web commenting on the use of the word Arborsculpture. Nor do I feel it is wrong for her to reference the WP article in those posts. I did put this link into the discussion but not because the posting itself is in any way inappropriate. What I find inappropriate is that she then edited to keep the name from changing back. I see this as using WP as a tool to further off wiki activities. And that is right out. Colincbn (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got to love how you make out I have defended the Tree shaping title, and never offered any other suggests, all with out using those words. Wow, you know I have on multiple occasions suggested other titles names I even when to the trouble to create a large list of suggested titles with sources and quotes, words like pleaching, tree training and Biotecture to name a few. Here is a diff of my suggesting to you to "seriously discuss alternatives to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping instead of just moving the page temporarily". Blackash have a chat 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash I assume you are actually reading what I post before you reply, so I don't understand how you keep missing basic points made in plain English. I said: "she then edited to keep the name from changing back". Specifically back to Arborsculpture, since that was the only other title the article has had. I never said anything about other names. Do you deny that you have fought against returning to Arborsculpture? As it was the first non-stub name I think we could get a fair amount of support for that if that is what you want. Or are you simply building a straw man to attack instead of addressing what I actually said? If that is the case I hope you decide to change tactics and actually try to understand why using WP as a tool to further your activities on other sites and blogs is not acceptable. If you made it clear that you understood this, and laid out what you would do to rectify the issue, I would no longer bring it up as evidence of disruptive behaviour. Colincbn (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you have made in the context of the rest of the paragraph can be taken to mean, I'm fighting to maintain the title's states quo. Which is not true Blackash have a chat 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has taken that meaning from my posts I would like to be clear that was not my intent. I have never thought you were fighting to maintain the status quo. I honestly think you have the best of intentions and you truly want to improve the article and WP as a whole. However, I'm sure you saw this coming, I think where this subject is concerned your primary motivation is to do what you feel is best for your art, rather than what is best for WP. I totally understand why and I don't even think there is anything wrong with that. But I feel that you must admit that WP is not as important to your life as your art is, and there are times where doing what is best for WP and doing what you feel is best for your art may conflict.

I want to be clear that I don't think having a CoI is a bad thing. Most likely everyone who edits WP has one in some fashion in regards to some articles. Some are simple opinion based conflicts, for example I am a huge fan of

J.R.R. Tolkien and I might have to back off of editing if someone wrote up a criticisms page on him. I could certainly take part, but I would have to be very careful not to let my feelings for his writing get in the way of my edits. As such I would be very likely to leave key decisions to others. In the case of a commercially significant conflict, editors have to be even more careful. But it is not "wrong" just to have them. Colincbn (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Colincbn I can and have on multiple occasions put wikipedia policies ahead of my art. To refresh your memory, check this diff. There are other instants as well, but I guess you get the point. Blackash have a chat 07:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Nothing in that diff shows you putting WP ahead of what you feel is best for your art. For one thing it is a conversation you had on an editor's user talk page. It is not even a talk page related to the article. Second it seems to me that none of the links in the diff show you putting WP ahead of your art. You have always demanded that Pooktre must not be branded with the term Arborsculpture, none of those links show any different. You have said you can live with any name that you feel is not linked with a practitioner, but that is not how WP, or even English, works. Unless a name is copyrighted, in which case things change, whatever becomes the standard name is what WP uses, regardless of who first used it. I actually understand your reasons for not wanting to have your art branded with the term Arborsculpture. However if that is what WP decides is the best title (I happen to disagree by the way) then that is what it should be, regardless of how you feel that effects your art. Colincbn (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are misrepresenting me and my motivations (which is the problem with minding reading). That diff is about my potential COI not content and shows how I've supported wiki polices instead of disregarding/fighting them. To clarify one instance. As a newbie I created the Pooktre article. It came up for deletion, I presented the case to save the page once. It was pointed out where it didn't meet wikipedia polices and why it should be deleted. I then requested speed delete as those editors where right. As I understand it most people fight to the bitter end instead of up holding wikipedia polices. One editor complimented me about my behavior at the AFD. [66] The first link shows my diff asking for speedy delete of the Pooktre article. The rest of your comment shows the same level of misunderstanding. Blackash have a chat 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about what that edit shows, agreeing to an outcome that is already decided, changes what I said above. Colincbn (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine for her to push her points wherever she wants to, except here. This is not the place to engage in a battle over what the art should be named. If she spent as much time writing her own books on the subject as she has spent fighting the word Arborsculpture here, we would have plenty of acceptable references that use the term "Tree Shaping" to work with! Colincbn (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any party is entitled to promote their own business or personal interests outside WP. I think Blackash misrepresented WP in her canvassing, there was little discussion of the name change and no consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn, Thanks for your repeated recommendation to write a book. Martin I addressed your concern to lack of discussion about the move in your comment above. There where 9 editors part of the discussion of the title after the move. 5 noticeable people from the field chose to comment, in a field of 12 that is a large %. Blackash have a chat 12:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should have occurred before the move. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I do not doubt that given complete control over this article both Blackash and Slowart would do their best to present all aspects of the subject in a fair and neutral manner. That is not the point. It is a fact that, in the real world, those with a conflict of interest cannot be relied upon to make impartial decisions. That is why a judge, for example, would not be allowed to preside over the trial of a close relative. However well intentioned they were they would find it impossible to view the trial from the POV of someone with no interest. They may be biased towards their relative, or their sense of integrity may make them over-compensate and be biased against them. This is why situations where people may act with a COI are avoided in the worlds of finance, commerce, and justice.

In this article COI is obviously not just a matter of principle. Slowart and Blackash have both, in their own opinions, edited in accordance with WP policy, yet there has been continual strong disagreement between them. It least one of them, therefore, must be allowing their personal and commercial interest in the subject to affect their judgment. The answer is simple, just as in the outside world, both should withdraw from all areas with a potential COI. Blackash does not seem to recognise this principle. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never consensus

Blackash has asked (on the evidence page) for me to give diffs about something that never happened (consensus for the name not being reached). That is called demanding proof of a negative, or Negative evidence, it is part of the "Argument from ignorance" informal logical fallacy. For example the statement "since you cannot prove we are all not just heads in jars living in the matrix then it must be true that we are" also demands a negative proof.

I would respond by saying if she thinks consensus has been reached please show the diffs where it happened. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim. Colincbn (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re-reading Blackash's post to the evidence page I realize I may have misunderstood her statement "Please give diffs about my beliefs.", rather then asking me to provide diffs that there was not consensus for the current title, as she states there was (there was not). I guess she was asking for diffs that verified my claim that she sees using a long title as a plot. I have since added one. I will look for more if requested but it is a long, time consuming, process sifting through all the various talk pages and whatnot for examples. It would be easier if she simply stated here what she has against using a long title. Colincbn (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn as you have show some difficulty in interpreting my comments (as above and else where) and the state of my COI [67] please find some other diffs. I've stated "I accepted the consensus for the title to stay at Tree shaping" Colincbn I've already replied to you about the long title idea diff. I don't see you changing your stance as a plot. I believe changing the title to a holding/temporary name is a way of trying to game the system. But why are you so defensive about that statement? Blackash have a chat 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly not understand what the word plot means?!?! You are saying it is a plot to game the system. You just said that, just now. WTF?!?! Colincbn (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying changing your stance is not a plot. As to gaming the system I have never stated anywhere it is a plot. What I did do was point out where Martin offered the solution of a holding title. What else was being discussed at the same time, with my interpretation of those edits. [68] Blackash have a chat 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to game the system is a plot, by definition. But fine you win, I will no longer use the standardly accepted English word "plot". I will now say you see wanting to use a long descriptive title as "an attempt to game the system", much longer to type but I will deal with it. However that still changes nothing. You have said repeatedly that after the change you think me and Martin will use that as an excuse to go back to Arbo. You just posted on the Evidence Talk page that you think I will go back to pushing for that Policy (first non-stub title) once the change is made. That is not only not assuming good faith it is just plain wrong. I do not think the name should be changed from a descriptive title until the artistic community decides on a consensus name. Since that community is small and both you and Slowart are parts of it I expect that will take a very long time. But once (if) it happens the title should change to reflect that consensus. After all WP is here to report what is happening in the world, not to influence it. Colincbn (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAME is trying to use policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of consensus. Where as plot seems more like a plan of attack. I pointed to Martin's temporary title idea, etc... [69] as gaming the system. I also did not state a long descriptive title is gaming the system. Blackash have a chat 06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Fine. Then what is your problem with my suggested title above? Colincbn (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I care

I have been asked why, when I am usually so ready to

WP:SOAP

, and many many others all stem from these two pillars. To allow WP to become the final arbitrator of what this art is called is totally unacceptable and irreconcilable with the very foundations on which WP is built.

On the other hand it won't really be the end of the world (or the site) either, so whatever. Colincbn (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping was chosen as it is a broad descriptive phrase, covering a range of subjects that are about changing the appearance of a tree. Which meets

WP:NPOV section Article naming. It also has refs going back over 100 years to do with the article subject. Martin said this [70] and Colincbn agreed "Tree Shaping means something else" [71]. So Colincbn are you saying that Tree shaping no longer means something else and could become known only as the name of the article subject. When does a descriptive term become a name? Blackash have a chat 05:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Well it is not when WP decides it is that's for sure. Colincbn (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow

Gone a few days and Duff comes in and does his thing, approximately 37 points with spin and misinformation, An example

Duff’ quote “The article is not about that author, not initiated by that author, not about the word, and not about the book, despite repeated attempts to color it that way.” In this one statement alone there is 4 pieces of misleading info.

"not about that author" 3rd paragraph in the summary is all about Richard Reames
"not initiated by that author" User:Ezekiello and Richard worked together on the this article both before and during their visit to us in march 2006. They explained how they had started the page and showed me how to edit the article. I have already point this out on the talk page before. [72] (Duff was editing the talk at this time)
"not about the word" 2nd paragraph in the summary talks how the word was coined and that it is not found in standard English dictionaries.
"not about the book" 2nd paragraph in the summary talks about Richard Reames book.

[73] page just after the name change. I could respond to Duff’s misinformation and spin, but that would just lead to a discussion like I had with colincbn [74], but on steroids. So instead of filling the page, I’m willing to go into detail if an admin would like more information about any of Duff’s statements, or anything else. Blackash have a chat 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, wow, yeah....37 posts, probably more with the lag...Hey! Check out this link: (from the top of this and every page on this arbitration) [[75]]. See that top name there with the 100+ posts? Probably more with the 18 hour lag, but, um.. Whose is that name, please? (drumroll..)

I truly appreciate and am enlightened by your vigorous participation in this hearing & I wish you were courteous enough to not knock mine.

Please don't wait to go into detail. Fill up the page, if that's what it takes for you to back up your claims of misinformation and spin, or, like I noted just a moment ago upthread, back down. No steroids here.

As usual, you have entirely misunderstood my point regarding all 4 of your bullet points, quoting me. Of course the article covers all four things, but it is not about any one of them. It is about this pleachcraft thing. Do you understand the difference? The article on Richard Reames is here: Richard Reames. One could, by your reasoning above, say that this article is about you. But it isn't, is it?

Furthermore, your assertion that User:Reames & User:Ezekiello "explained to me that they started the page" is just that. An assertion of yours. It's all innuendo and no meat. User:Ezekiello started the page. And yes, I read this claim when you originally posted it on the talk page for the article. However, your pointing it out & asserting it and repeating it does not make it factual or even noteworthy. The page history doesn't support your claim. There is no other way to prove or disprove your claim, nor useful evidence, nor citations to support it that I am aware of. That's all original research & is a pretty good example of why Wikipedia frowns on original research. It can be really disruptive when an editor insists on using it.duff 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Admin is watching the article as Duff has been editing to his hearts content changing the article and related articles to reflect what Reams/Slowart/Grisium have repeatedly asked for. The Method Section needs to remain as it is vital information to tree shapers. The individual methods needs to be named.( There are already issues with the Simple/Manual Method that need more discussion and evidence.) Commercially sensative areas need to be removed. Limited discussion has taken place with Duff and Blackash but I do not think it satisfactory untill all editors are involved.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Wikipedia on my own account, I write for no one else and at no one's direction, and I am free to edit to my heart's content, Sydney. I do not appreciate the libelous and false accusation you have made here, and it seems odd that you would do that in an arbitration workshop concerning yourself. There is indeed a discussion about that section, which I initiated, on the article talk page, where you and every other editor, wiki-wide, are free to make comments or suggestions about this or any other aspect of the article that you are concerned about. I do agree with you that the commercially-based material needs work, and that is why I am working on it. Please rest assured that I am here to improve the encyclopedia, and of course, by extension, this article. duff 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilroy Gardens is a not for profit organization run by a Board of Directors. Mark Primack is not listed as a member of the board. This is proof that Duff has told an untruth. Google - Gilroy Gardens Theme Park - about us - for list of directors. Duff where did you get your information from? Is it a fabrication?

No, it is not proof of any such thing; no, I have not told any untruth; and no, it is not a fabrication. Again, I do not appreciate the libel and smugly suggestive comments, but I'm going to let it slide. I gently recommend that you read this wikipedia article on Axel Erlandson[76] and then Google "Mark Primack". You might also consider reading his several contributions to the article talk page. Cheers. duff 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished following your advice Duff and thanks for the wild goose chase and the waste of time following up your suggestions which have lead to a big fat zero. No proof of evidence of Mark Primack owning Gillroy Gardens. However the Axel Erlandsen article did state that he recieved a grant to draw and study Axel's trees BUT this was in 1977. Where did you get your evidence or information on Primack owning Gilroy Gardens ? Do you have a link or again I ask you did you fabricate this statement?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? Primack is famous for his association with Erlandson's collection. Sorry you feel this is a waste of time, but it is your time to invest as you see fit, and this seems to be your choice. It is also clear to me now, by your more specific restatement of your issue, that you did not read my response to Blackash upthread, where she initially posed the question, and where your further concern about that question should also have been posted. Perhaps it was an oversight? Please scroll up to Blackash's initial challenge on this point and take the time to read my near-immediate response to her and mea culpa for the good-faith error. Please try to be civil. I am trying to, too. duff 16:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This arbritration case has become just like the talk pages of the article. I thought this case was about the behaviour of two editors.I hope the behaviour of other editors is being regarded as well.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

The arbitrators seem not to have made any decisions yet. If you are discussing the role of Blackash and whether a talk page ban is justified, I would ask you to look at this current discussion which demonstrates the impossibility of having a proper discussion on certain subjects without continuous disruption from a COI editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That current discussion link is illustrative. So is this current one; this current one (perhaps even more so), and this one analyzes and distills the overall problem quite vividly. duff 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duff again with misleading with the truth. In regards to my edit count. Yes I've done 674 to date. edit count But this is not all just separate comments on the talk page.

About a quarter to a third of my edits are fixing my own comments etc formatting, links, grammar and spelling. diff, diff, diff. That is just from within my last grouping of edits (9) on the talk page.
Sometimes I'll take 2 to 3 edits to get my comment done as I'm getting links or diffs. This comment diff took 4 edits to complete.
Also I sometimes work on getting/checking references and working on table formation to layout information. This sub page of tree shaping talk list of potential title names I have done 235 edits on. edit count. This sub page of tree shaping talk Alternate names I have done 53 edits on. edit count

I'll do some maths

Sum
674	Total edit count.
288	Subtract edit count from the two sub pages.
=368	Subtotal of edits that are part of the main tree shaping talk pages.
4	Divided by a quarter.
=092	Subtotal of edits which are fixing my own comments

368	Total of my edits that are part of the main talk tree shaping page.
092	Subtract edits which are fixing my own comments (approximately a quarter)
=276	Approx complete comments to the talk page, it should be a bit less due to the fact I didn't worry about comments that took 2-3 edits to complete.

Consider my editing on talk page starts in August 2008. I've approximately made 276 edits as part of the discussions. ~~The talk page has approximately 2000 edits. So I've been about 13% participating in the overall discussions on the tree shaping talk page.~~ Blackash have a chat 02:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackash, that % only works on the assumption that the other editors do not fix grammar, make changes, etc. when most of us in fact do. Colincbn (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But please note I don't think a high edit count on talk-pages is in any way a bad thing. I don't have any problem with the volume of your posts. I just felt I should point out the flaw in logic that lead to the 13% number. Colincbn (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as one factual element of a larger picture filled with factual elements. This 'math' is yet another element, though a somewhat more entertaining one. =D duff 08:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colincbn, thanks for pointing that out I thought I was the only one who edited their own comments so much. So I've struck the % part out of my comment. Blackash have a chat 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the edit count is that important. It is the fact that Blackash is continually expressing opinions in areas where she has a clear and obvious conflict on interest, such as the bios of practitioners. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin

WP:COI tells editors to talk about potential COI edits. One example quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration." Martin please stop stating about my potential COI as though I'm editing badly. Blackash have a chat 01:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Blackash, I think you should read the whole of

WP:COI

and not just quote bits that suit you. Even your quote comes from this section.

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

Please explain what is the POV dispute here. My only POV is that editors with a COI should not be editing areas of the article where they have a COI and should not be pushing on the talk pages for changes in those areas. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin you have repeatedly stated or asked potential COI editors to not be part of the discussion page. The latest Martin's quote "Once again, I would ask all editors with a direct personal or business interest in the subject not to involve themselves in this discussion because the have an obvious COI." diff. Where in the

WP:COI does it state potential COI editors are not to be part of talk page discussions about area of potential COI? Blackash have a chat 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the answer to your question, Blackash, is that a COI editor should not edit the talk page when their editing becomes disruptive. You have used the talk page to campaign tirelessly for editing of the article in accordance with your own views in areas where you have a clear COI. I can only ask you not do do this.

Duff seems to have started the discussion on the name of the art and therefore of the article. You have a strong and clear COI on this subject and I think it would be best for you to withdraw completely from this discussion. The decision should be made purely on WP policy, with no regard for personal or business rivalry. I think that, if you get involved in the discussion, you will find it very hard to stick to WP policy and not raise issues relating to business, marketing, and personal kudos. That is the reason that I suggest that you withdraw. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Martin Hogbin's perspective on this issue (and because I do), I have not begun that discussion and I still think it will be prudent to wait until the results of this arbitration are clear before we do. It's clear that further discussion of the names some noted practitioners choose for their own art will not be helpful. It's also clear that in the article's talkspace, we do need to further consider the currently unsuitable title of this article about the craft itself. My recent work on the article page is intended to (and will) help us to prepare for that discussion by unstacking the shaky deck. I intend first to sort out and eliminate the clear bias inherent in the 5 sentence paragraph that currently opens the section entitled Tree shaping#Other names. Second, I intend to properly distill the questionable sources: culling several instances of repeated, circular, weak, and otherwise poor sources from the article, restoring several previously evident but curiously deleted authoritative sources, and also adding several new reliable and authoritative sources; thereby improving the quality of this article's citations & sources in general and thus the article itself. duff 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hold off discussion of the name until the arbitration is over if that is the general feeling. Good luck with your sourcing improvements. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I shall do my best. duff 22:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: