Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Casliber
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Coren
4. David Fuchs
5. Elen of the Roads
6. Iridescent
7. Jclemens
8. Kirill Lokshin
9. Mailer diablo
10. Newyorkbrad
11. PhilKnight
12. Risker
13. Roger Davies
14. SirFozzie

Inactive

1. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
2. Xeno

Recused

1. John Vandenberg

comment

Seems evident that the arbitration committee is so overloaded, and the case is so overdue that they are basically "dialing it in" on this case. For example, one arbitrator calling blackash a "he", when it would be extremely obvious that she is a woman from reading any of the evidence or workshop pages. Also thinking that reaffirming blackash and slowart's bans (they are already banned in case some of the arbitrators didn't bother to look into the case) would "break the back" of this dispute - that's not even the crux of the problem at all.

Failing to consider the conduct and actions of editors other than blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum is a massive oversight. Seems like the arbitrators are singling out blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum because they don't want to delve into the case, and are looking for some easy targets to ban so they can call it done and move on to the next case. To be honest, I feel this is disrespectful to all the participants here. AfD hero (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this feedback on. I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate - I said I would draft, then lost two months over a family crisis. If that hadn't happened, this week's problems wouldn't have caused the issue that they have done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I hope everything turns out all right for your family. AfD hero (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I'm sorry to hear about your family and wish you and yours well. I echo AFD hero's view above, if you need to take other 2 months to read all the evidence and what has happened recently on the tree shaping talk page to sort out the complexities of this case I would rather you do that than to just push through a simple answer. I've spent a lot of time getting the diffs and evidence compiled together in some cohesive format to try in illustrate some of the complexities and feel it is unjust to not look at the behavior of other editors involved in this case. Blackash have a chat 08:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I'm very disheartened at the way Sidney Bluegum has been treated here on wikipedia, and I thought the arbitrators would have looked into his/her situation more seriously. The evidence presented against him/her is very weak. That's not to say that Sydney has done nothing wrong, but his/her actions are mostly explained as a reaction to the hostile treatment he/she has been given here on wikipedia.

As far as I can tell, Sydney came to wikipedia after reading one of Richard Reames books without having much success, but was immediately and endlessly attacked after showing the mildest support of blackash's position. The gang of pro-arborsculpture editors jumped all over sydney, basically biting the newcomer. Within a handful of edits they brought up unfounded accusations of being a sockpuppet, talked to him/her in a hostile manner, and over the course of 2 years doggedly tried again and again to use the system to get sydney banned through every wiki-legal means, up to and including this arbitration proceeding.

For evidence and diffs, I would humbly suggest that the arbitrators read through the evidence and workshop pages, particularly the lengthy sections written by blackash and sydney - it's all there. AfD hero (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD hero Thanks for your comments above. I hope all the admins read this section and follow your advice.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt they will.. So far as I can tell, most (all?) of the arbitrators didn't even bother to read the case before voting. They want to ban at least one person so that it looks like they've done something, and sorry to say you're the scapegoat. AfD hero (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is fundamentally incorrect. We all read the evidence and workshop before voting. We've even taken a couple of the items that were brought up here on the talk page for clarification and review. SirFozzie (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't believe you. Why?

• Arbitrators referring to blackash as a man instead of a woman.
• Arbitrators unaware that blackash and slowart were already banned.
• Arbitrators unaware that sydney was not already banned.
• No findings or sanctions against anyone except blackash/slowart/sydney, and poor understanding of the social dynamics of the situation.
• Lack of discussion of the proposals by the arbitrators, as compared to that of most other arbcom proceedings.
• Elen directly admitting that she didn't have time to look into the case. AfD hero (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Afd Hero, it seems to me what has happened to Sydney BlueGum is a case of bad first impression. The mistake that Sydney BlueGum is already partially topic banned has leaded to the full topic ban. It would go a bit like this:-

I see by these diffs this editor is not being civil and is against another editor. Umm they are already partially topic banned. Well it doesn't seem to be working I'll vote for a full topic ban.

For some of the arbitrators this may not be true but it would be a common psychological reaction to the misinformation given. Really this false information should be removed from the proposed decision page, other wise in the future it could lead to confusion about just when Sydney BlueGum was first topic banned. Blackash have a chat 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic bans specific to the article name (Remedies 1c, 2c, 3c)

Elen, this is a different kind of remedy than we've seen before, which is much narrower than most topic bans. Could you please provide a bit of insight into your thinking here? Risker (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We use very blunt instruments. If the function of a topic ban is not punishment, but a means to prevent disruption and allow the wider community a chance to regain control, then it should be the minimum necessary. This dispute was very limited - Richard Reames and Becky Northey use different techniques to make their trees grow into art, but they haven't fallen out about that. The art form is older than either of them, but they aren't trying to claim they are the first. The only dispute is what to call it, and that is because Arborsculpture is also a brand name. It's as if all the vacuum cleaner manufacturers were trying to write the article Vacuum cleaner - only the article title was Hoover. If the community could persuade the two of them to step back and allow others to thrash out whether Art made from living trees that have been modified over time or something a little shorter is the right title for the article, then there is no reason that they could not contribute information about the development of this art, their techniques, other artists they know of etc. Yes it could be messy, but if the two of them could accept it with good faith, it could work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, arborsculpture is not a brand name. No such evidence has emerged. The only capitalization appropriate is when it is used in Title Case or as the first word of a sentence. That statement is still not correct. duff 01:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen, please look at the sources that relate to this subject. As Duff says, 'arborsculpture' was never intended to be a brand name and is not used as such in sources. The idea that it is a brand name is the result of a sustained campaign of disinformation by Blackash. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen, you seem to think I'm pushing for a preferred title, which is not true. The title should not be Pooktre for the same reason is should not be Arborsculpture. Google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames, Google Pooktre it leads to life partners Becky Northey and Peter Cook. I've never stated Pooktre should be the title. Martin, Arborsculpture has always lead to Richard Reames, which is why there are comments about it from the start of the tree shaping talk page. When the title was changed to Tree shaping it didn't lead to us. But we don't care what the title is as long as it doesn't lead to one artist or method. I've offered multiple valid alternative title suggestions and found references for them, to help build consensus about the title following Wikipedia policies. I'm not pushing for any one title. Blackash have a chat 08:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Elen. I think this might possibly be workable if we perhaps also place the article under general sanctions, so that administrators can move in quickly if any editor crosses the line in ways that don't include the title. What do you think? I'd just not want to have the case have to come all the way back to us for amendment if someone crosses boundaries, and you raise a good point about the quality of information being contributed by these editors. Risker (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think general sanctions would be a great idea as it may help to eliminate some of the complexity that I understand other arbs are foreseeing.

I'm sure Hoover were delighted when their coinage came to be synonymous with vacuum cleaners as well, and I'm sure James Dyson would be dead chuffed if we renamed the vacuum cleaner article to Dyson, so as you can see from the contributions above, it is important to ensure that those pressing so hard for one name or another do not have some kind of vested interest in it (I believe neither Martin nor duff do have any professional or commercial interest in the subject, but there have been a lot of editors who did). Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think their point is that both "Hoover" and "Dyson" are trademarked terms owned by corporate entities. While arborsculpture is not in any way trademarked or copyrighted. It is simply not the same thing at all. I'm sure you must be able to see the difference. That being said however, I am still against its use as a title but for a completely different reason. Colincbn (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While I see Colincbn's point, I can also think of a few non-trademarked examples. SirFozzie has beat me to proposing general sanctions, but should they pass I would be comfortable in giving the lowest level of remedy a try for two of the three editors. Risker (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn, while Richard Reames hasn't trade marked or copy righted Arborsuclpture, he had used Arborsculpture as a marketing lead device. Richard also feels possessive about how the term Arborsculpture is used "...watch a editor abuse my word my work ..." sometimes to the point where he has identified it as his child link. A word that is truly independent of its creator doesn't get this sort of reaction to comments about the word. Blackash have a chat 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Richard Reames coined the word 'arborsculpture' and that it is not a trade name of any kind. I have no idea whether or not he did this to promote his own business or his own standing within the horticultural community. However, none of that matters. All that matters is whether the word has moved into general usage in good quality reliable sources.

Bringing commercial interest into what should be a simple decision is exactly the way that Blackash's COI has persistently manifested itself in these discussions. It is not the job of WP to level the commercial playing field. Our job is to describe the world as it is. If 'arborsculpture' is the word in general usage than that is the word we must use; if not we must find another title for this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin you have persistently ignored or discounted 1. Arborsculpture is but one name in a group of terms used for the art form and 2.Arborsculpture leads to one artist. The issue with no.2 is it doesn't meet wiki core policy of neutrality. Blackash have a chat 15:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your point 1 is exactly what non-COI editors should be looking at but without continual inteference from editors with a COI. We need to decide if there is a single word in general horticultural usage to describe the art.

Please explain exactly what you mean by 'neutrality' in this context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, just after RFC there was a generalized belief from the pro arborsculpture group that there were no references for other terms. Yet it was my effort at creating an easy to scan listing of references with quotes that has enabled other editors to decide for themselves about the different title possibilities. A potential COI editor has the right to point out where a content point/issue is not meeting wikipedia policies or guidelines on talk pages. If you would discuss content instead of going on about COI editing, it would help a consensuses to form in discussions.

At NPOV Naming quote "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias" Having the article title Arborsculpture is bias as 1. It clearly leads to one artist 2. There other terms more widely used in reliable sources. Blackash have a chat 10:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that we should choose a name based on its prevalence on sources and the reliability of those sources then I agree with you. If you are saying that we should not use a name because it was coined by your business and personal rival then I disagree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin it is not who coined the word that is relevant, it that the word leads to one person. I've discussed this leading issue with you before and you have dismissed it. Yet ironically one of the reasons you give for tree shaping being unsuitable as a title is because we use tree shapers. This dual pov just shows your bias. Martin, you know my pov on this I know your pov on this as we have discussed this to ad nauseam. It looks like I may not be allow to discuss title issues soon so please don't ask me any more title issue questions. Blackash have a chat 00:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two other areas where Blackash's COI has been important, these are the mini bios on the practitioners of the art and the different methods used by different practitioners. For this reason I would ask the arbitrators to vote for a complete topic ban for Blackash. If you feel, as do, that a one year topic ban is too strong a sanction for an undoubted expert in the subject why not consider a ban of shorter duration. This would give non-COI editors time to sort out the commercial interest that has dogged this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. As I have said ad nauseam, it is not a problem that Blackash has a commercial interest in this, it is only a problem where she edits to promote her interest and not the interests of the project. Other than some attempts to promote her company at the start of her career, I'm not seeing a vast amount of inflated self promotion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there is a significant dispute over the way that the work and techniques of practitioners, in particular Blackash and Slowart is characterised. If have asked Slowart if he believes that this is the case. If this is true, then would you not say that both editors with a direct personal interest in the subject should refrain from editing a section that describes their own work in relation to that of their commercial and personal rivals? If there turns out to be no such dispute then I apologise for misunderstanding the situation and withdraw my suggestion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been my impression as well and I don't think you have misunderstood, Martin Hogbin. Part of the dispute centers around Blackash insisting that arborsculpture is a brand, and that it is Richard Reames' brand, that his work exemplifies a 'method', that is subject to that brand, and also that his work and methods are inferior to that/those of Pooktre This is the root of and the reason for her bifurcation of 'methods'. As far as I've seen, those suggestions have no basis in fact and are not supported by any reliable sources. I believe that this message, which Blackash recently left on Slowart's user talk page, indicates an effort by Blackash to remedy that problem, and to turn the screw a little as well. duff 06:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart objected to the term Instant tree shaping at his COIN listing. I then asked on the talk page for suggestions for a new heading. Regarding Arborsculpture it can and does have more than one meaning I never have stated it only has one. Richard's process of Arborsculpture is written about in his early interviews for his first book How to Grow a Chair. Duff has stated that any reference based on a interview with the Pooktre artists are unreliable as Duff believe we are bias, it doesn't even seem to matter who doing the interview. When I created the section about the different methods I didn't state or try to imply that Richard's methods were inferior. Techniques section as worked by myself and Colincbn In point of fact it was pointed out I had add some puffery to Richard Reames. Blackash have a chat 11:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, please note that I am not saying that Slowart is correct and you are wrong, or vice versa, what I am saying is that, once it is established that there is disagreement between two editors about the characterisation of their own work, there is real COI in either editor continuing to edit on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, my comment about the heading issue was in reply to your earlier comment of "It is my understanding that there is a significant dispute over the way that the work and techniques of practitioners, in particular Blackash and Slowart is characterised." As to the heading there was no disagreement, Slowart stated it was no good and I asked for suggestions, Colincbn changed it I didn't comment on it. Blackash have a chat 16:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, are you saying that there has been no disagreement between yourself and Slowart over the way your work is characterised and the different techniques that you each use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin I believe Slowart's take on it, was he didn't believe there should be any methods/process in the article. I and other editors believe the different methods/processes is of interest to the reader. There are sources for the methods/process and techniques. WP:V "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Blackash have a chat 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash diff's COI

Newyorkbrad I've commented on each of this diff's in my evidence but it may have been missed, so I'm copy and paste the diff's and my comments on each here. link to my original comments

1.canvassing her professional mailing list Blackash's comment

Yes I contacted our emailing list on 19th Aug 2008. "Being a new editor I had only done 7 days of editing Wikipedia or 26 edits at the time I didn’t know that I shouldn’t have done this. Please note this was some time before the title was changed (Jan 2009). I only had 3 people reply. If any admin would like to see that email I’ll be happy to forward it to them.

2.promotional rewrite Blackash's comment

I was fixing Duff's business (unsupported) spin about Pooktre and adding a ref for when my partner had first started.

3.insertion of own website into article Blackash's comment

Yes I did put pooktre web site in the article, it was on my 2nd day of editing Wikipedia and my 7th edit. I didn’t know any better. I would not do that now, Pooktre site was removed from the article diff (21 May 2010), though I believe it should be part of the article, I haven’t even asked for it to be replaced, it will happen when it does or not. I was allowed to edit the article during this time.

4.shuffling list to put her professional name at the top Blackash's comment

I wonder why Martin didn't use this diff of mine that shows the edits he complaining about and in which the edit summary explains why I did those changes. Instead he chose to add two extra diffs in the comparison in which I'm only adding a ref. I put artists in date order to echo the rest of the page. As to adding pooktre to the lead sentence I've twice pointed this out as being the closest I can recall to COI editing. Once at COI noticeboard COI noticeboard listing diff and my opening statement [1]

The closest I have come to COI would be when I added Pooktre to the lead after discussion on the talk page about which words should be in the lead.discussion my reasoning diff after 10 days with no comment on the talk page I put in the comprise diff I believe there should be no alternative names in the lead as this gives to much weight to these words in an art form that only has 4 books in English published and 3 of them write about there is no established name. From my POV ideally all alternative names would be removed from the lead, this meet wikipedia style guide lines about alternative names. On the other hand I do think Afd Hero has some valid points as to why the names should be in the lead. diff Which is why I offered the comprise and then 10 days later put it up. (This is my comment from COI Noticeboard.)

5.adds brand name to caption Blackash's comment

Just like there is Arborsculpture in the captions of Richard Reames's images. I also added Grownup Furniture to Dr Chris Cattle image and Treenovation the fig tree drawing. Our art (my life partner and I) is better known as Pooktre rather than our names, Try googling Peter Cook for instance.

6.removes usage of the term Arborsculpture Blackash's comment

this editing was done after the title change where I was changing/removing Arborsculpture to the new title or rewording the sentences so the title was no longer needed. Please also note I removed Pooktre as well. I was also clearing up some details about pooktre section. This was my 27th day of editing or my 98th edit. There were 11 editors who were commenting on the talk page during this time none chose to comment about my edits. 6 of those editors were not part of the art form and 5 editors were.

I've posted this here to give the admins the history/reasoning behind each edit. Only one of these edits is recent and was discussed before I did it. One is 7 months old the rest are over a year or more ago. I've done a lot of editing in the intervening time, and as I learn of the policies and guidelines I follow them and don't repeat my mistakes. Blackash have a chat 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Voting without knowledge at the tree shaping proposed decision

I can't believe you guys are voting with out even knowing what the current situation is, let alone the I know you guys are busy but if you are voting at the very least you should read the different pages that are part of the arbitration. The workshop page shows that some of the editors not listed in the proposal decision are behaving badly or clearly advocating for arborsculpture. Please take the time to read the pages pertaining to this case. Blackash have a chat 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of how I have voted so far, do you have something specific that you want me to look at ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that other editors' behavior needs to be accessed especially Duff and Martin Hogbin. Elen of the Roads has commented that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" For example

• Since Duff restarted editing again he has shown his pro arborsculpture bias is distorting the tree shaping article. He is using the article to create a WP:POINT by listing 28 refs next to arborsculpture in the other names section and has stated that he will edit at what ever speed he wants and won't slow down to let consensus form. He has removed reliable cites, in one case all I did point the pooktre had been used generically [2]. Plus other stuff. Duff's technique seem to be do a mass amount of edits then writes essays that can be taken two ways, full of miss-information and spin. A few time on the workshop page I entered a discussion with him to demonstrate just how far his spin goes.
• Martin since he first stated about COI editing (over one year now) as though I edited badly, but with no evidence he has used this as a means to not discuss content to the point where I feel harassed had to repeatedly ask him not to.

What I don't want is for this case to be closed with out the other editors behaviors look into. Blackash have a chat 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear John, it is your duty as an arbitrator to fully read the evidence and workshop pages, follow the diffs, and investigate the situation before voting. That is the job the community entrusted to you when you were elected. We shouldn't have to point you to a subset of the evidence already presented. Now if you say you have fully read it, I will take you at your word, but I strongly suspect you haven't. AfD hero (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The extremely long list of references added by Duff isn't ideal; that list is more suitable for the discussion page. However, we have proposed two solutions that I hope will resolve the issue:

1. that there is a community wide [WP:RFC]] on the naming issue.
2. discretionary sanctions, applicable to anyone editing the article. This encourages admins to apply topic bans to editors who are editing in a way that is causing problems.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the issues with Martin is he will use what ever is ruled here to cause disruption if I go and ask content questions else where as he has done in the past with claims of COI and the community article topic ban. One of the problems with Duff is how Duff's will not edit so consensus can form and fills the talk pages with essay after essay so other editors can't figure out what the heck is happening. Blackash have a chat 08:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I did intend to formulate a finding of fact concerning Martin, but couldn't get a wording that identified breaches in the rules. I would agree that it would be better to take time than to rush for the sake of an arbitrary deadline Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen, I would be interested to hear what you think I have done wrong even if it is not strictly a breach of the rules. I came in response to an RfC and have tried to prevent commercial issues from dominating this article. I have acted in good faith and for the benefit of WP at all times. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please take the time to check the evidence, really there is no rush. In my view Martin's main problem is his insistence that even talking on the discussion pages is COI editing badly and he has got to the point where he is WP:HARASS me and I had to repeatably ask him to take me to COIN or here. He's comments and others (about COI/topic banning) have disrupted the forming consensus at notices boards. If you need more diffs than what is in my evidence I can get them. Would you please also check Duff's behavior (including his recent discussion and editing on tree shaping) and Griseum as well. If you need some diffs of Duff's recent behavior I could get a sample together at the end of the week. Blackash have a chat 10:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin is just a normal editor like me. We are concerned that a person who is known to have used the Internet to promote their work ("tree shaping") is pursuing the same line on Wikipedia. It's an open and shut case and why there should be so much discussion is a mystery to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq maybe because of Martin's editing style. Here is an example where you and Martin on the tree shaping talk section took turns in not replying to content questions but instead tried to brow beat me into not editing. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, in the article, the long list of references attached to the word arborsculpture is not ideal, true, however leaving them collected in that way, temporarily, facilitates further article development by providing readily usable refname formatted citations that can be very simply moved into the main editing space without the tedious repetition of re-creating them a third time or finding and copy-pasting them from discussion to mainspace across multiple browser tabs. I'm working on integrating them properly now, but have paused momentarily on that aspect of the article's development to participate in this proceeding.

Most of those citations had already been in the article at an earlier point, but had been deleted during contentious discussions around and leading up to the previous RfC about the article's name. This occurred at the point that Blackash copied the content of an ongoing (long) discussion on the talk page and began this other subpage, from which the voluminous citations for the use of the generic term 'arborsculpture' to identify the craft were pointedly omitted. Though there may be some other explanation, to me it seems obvious that the reason for the omission was that the point of the subpage was to prove otherwise, and to establish some basis for establishing Pooktre, their brand, as a generic name for the craft. As Blackash has noted, Slowart later corrected that curious omission by adding a section on Blackash's talkpage subpage for the word arborsculpture.

Also, please note that Blackash's effort to promote Pooktre as a generic name for the craft continues, through today, at the RsN board, couched in a citation request, here, titled "The use of pooktre generically", which began a few days earlier here, titled "Tree shaping article refences"(sic).

Meanwhile, I had been working on this subpage (also moved from the discussion page (by request) as it had become so long). This was an attempt to investigate and distill the existing citations, many of them duplicitous and not reliable, which were being used to make a case for the inclusion of these various 'other names'. Blackash later altered that workspace too, enough to make it difficult even for me to use at this point without studying the diffs for it.

An important point to note is that each of the references currently attached at the word arborsculpture, in the article, do firmly answer the question of whether or not there is one term presently in use to describe this craft, and if so, what that term is. That information will be extremely important to consider, should there be yet another community-wide RfC on the name of the article, as you suggest. I agree that there should be another one and that this one should be fully informed. If that's an essay, I apologize, but somehow the facts must be clearly stated. duff 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Duff's misinformation again. The RfC about the title happened in mid June 2010. Colincbn trimmed and saved the Arborsculpture citations on the discussion page in mid September 2010. Just after the RfC about changing the title to Arborsculpture with a no move result, there were discussions about other possibilities, I created [this other subpage in response. As Arborsculpture had been ruled out at that time I didn't do the refs. Later it was brought up about lack of ref for Arborsculpture Slowart/Reames then added most of the refs for that listing. I added a ref and tidied the formatting and style this table as well doing the others. Strange to think that by not listing Pooktre I'm trying to prove that Pooktre is generic with this subpage. Blackash have a chat 00:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the four instances of capitalizing the word arborsculpture in the prior paragraph, I think it is more accurate to say that Blackash is and has been trying to prove that arborsculpture is not generic, more than that Pooktre is. Still, Blackash's insistence on capitalizing the word does not make it a brand, nor does it make any particular 'method' proprietary, nor does it have any impact on the actual broad adoption of the term, as demonstrated by the reliable source citations. According to the arbitrator who settled the RfC, there was no consensus for a move. That's a finding I question, as there was considerable accord on several points, and I did question it at the time. Even so, arborsculpture was not "ruled out" in any way (except by Blackash, who had already ruled it out anyway), and it should really have been included on that subpage by the editor who created the subpage, Blackash. That would've clearly illustrated a neutral POV. It didn't sit well. duff 05:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No I've always stated words can and do have more than one definition. It the pro Arborsculpture group refusal to acknowledge the possibility that Arborsculpture is also a process of tree shaping that got me in the habit of Capitalizing, I'll try to do it less. I don't understand why it such an issue for arborsculpture to be both. Multiple outside editors ruled out Arborsculpture as the title at the RFC. When I created the alternative title listings I did invite others to contribute title suggestions and references and to keep the list clear of comments for easy reading/checking by other editors. Blackash have a chat 13:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So...three capitalizations and one capitulation? There is no "pro-arborsculpture" group, but there is a "pro-reliable sources group", which includes most of the serious editors on Wikipedia. This is important to understand: there are no reliable sources showing that arborsculpture is used as anything other than a generic term to identify the craft described in this article. Blackash was not able to provide any and I didn't find any either. It simply isn't a method. Blackash has tried really hard to establish that it is. It's clear that it means something else to her, and it's also clear why that's important to her, but the reliable sources indicate that the word is simply used to identify the craft. She made the same effort to establish a commercial and proprietary nature for the word arborsculpture at the RfC for the article name change. That was incorrect, then as now, but the fact that Blackash continued to repeatedly argue her POV, that it was proprietary and that it does have another meaning, influenced the RfC in a way that her POV should not have, because she has a conflict of interest.duff 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Duff consistently advocates for arborsculpture, others have shown strong pro arborsculpture opinions. Duff stop giving wrong information. I have given sources for two of the methods, which you have dismissed as bias because they had something to do with Pooktre. Duff is aware I'm going to ask about these refs at the RSN. Duff please enlighten every one why you think the methods are important to me, because I have no idea what you are on about. I have never stated arborsculpture is a proprietary brand I have stated it is used as lead devise just google it. I've never said it was/is trade marked or such. Duff stop twisting my comments. Blackash have a chat 13:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I went to the RsN board, about this ref because Duff when from stating it as "new solid and authoritative reference" to a "weak and doesn't add anything new, circular promotional ref" within a day, the only difference was I pointed out pooktre is used generically. At the RsN it been confirmed as a reliable ref for arborsculpture and pooktre being used as alternative name to tree shaping. It appears Duff's bias made the decision, not sound reasoning. Duff's diff reply to me about the ref and Pooktre shows Duff's belief that Pooktre is not part of the Tree shaping article.

If my topic ban is changed so I can edit I would be interested in finishing going though the references at this sub page. I mainly stopped due to SilkTork commenting that I'm using up to many other editors time asking questions, going to noticeboards and stuff.

As to the Duff adding 28 references in the other names section 3 different editors have suggested or asked him to trim and move the number of cites from there. His refusal to do shows a lack of respect for consensus. Duff's comment "That information will be extremely important to consider, should there be yet another community-wide RfC on the name of the article" shows that he added the refs to arborsculptue as a WP:POINT not as an improvement of the article. Example of how this could be used:- "look at tree shaping article, arborsculpture got the most refs therefore it clearly the most used term and should be the title." Blackash have a chat 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop calling me "the Duff". It's rude.

It has and continues to seem as though you are suggesting that because the reliable sources all use the word arborsculpture to describe this craft, we should ignore them and instead base the article and its title on only the fewer and less reliable sources that support your POV, which I can't get behind at all.

Please note that in fact I did add the PopSci reference, as determined by the editors @ RsN, to both the Pooktre & arborsculpture othernames.duff 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Duff I apologize for having add the before your name. I don't recall ever having done so before but if I did it also was a mistake and I apologize for that as well. Yes this time you followed the advice from the RSN, but that has not always been the case.

No not all reliable sources use arborsculpture, some use other names for the art form. Duff stop your misinformation. Asking about a reference reliability (so it can be added back) at the RSN is not asking anyone to discount all other references. Adding all the available references for one alternative name (arborsculpture) and not treating the other 8 the same is giving undue weight arborsculpture. Duff has already stated why he added the refs to arborsculpture, is to give weight for the coming RFC. Blackash have a chat 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Existing topic bans

I've just glanced through the proposed decisions, and forgive me if this is already covered, but I couldn't see it. Is there a provision for dealing with the existing topic bans? If Blackash and Slowart are given ArbCom topic bans for one year, would these run concurrently or consecutively to the existing community bans? If Blackash and Slowart are not given ArbCom topic bans, would that overturn and terminate the existing bans? I suppose this is standard stuff that's covered somewhere.... SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, if the Committee doesn't rule specifically that a community action is reversed (for whatever reason), the community action is still in place. SirFozzie (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I see one problem with the of Proposed remedies User:Blackash and the community ban. Namely the community ban is of indefinite duration (no time-frame was really discuss at the case). I ended up asking the closing admin. I don't see how 1C) will work unless ArbCom rule for the community action to be reversed. Unless ArbCom reverse the community action 1B) time frame is meaningless. P.S. The community topic ban of article space was also for related articles and that would also need to be addressed. The same would apply to Slowart proposed remedies. Blackash have a chat 12:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Elen, could you put in a remedy to reverse the indefinite community topic ban? If it's too late to do that, I'll open a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard when this case is closed to reverse it, otherwise we'll have a community topic ban in force simultaneous with an ArbCom talkpage limitation, a situation neither the community nor ArbCom have asked for. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think that any contradictory/parallel sanctions would be superseded by the ArbCom enforcement, since we're last-stop dispute resolution anyhow... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SirFozzie thank you for listing this for clarification. Blackash have a chat 10:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that remedy 6 is not intended to pre-empt any future community-based sanctions, only the topic bans currently in effect? If so, it should be made clear. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in my vote on the discretionary sanctions that any actions that pass can be supplemented as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocks/bans are not covered by discretionary sanctions. So if a user sanctioned in this case commits an indeffable or bannable offense, it can be plausibly argued that remedy 6 prevents an indefinite block. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the added word I just did help? SirFozzie (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should clear it up nicely. T. Canens (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Explain ---- Ellen of the Roads

Ellen of the Roads --- I would like you to explain your last diff titled "cutting up trees with chainsaws" In what context do you use this? . Explain to me what this statement has to do with this arbitration. Is this a case of not having time to look for appropriate diff and you have just grabbed this out of the air.

Please explain why you used the diff about Blackash titling her work Pooktre. She has every right to do this. If not her work will get labelled arborsculpture. It seems OK for Richard Reames/ Slowart to have his name on his art.He also seems to want to label everyone esle's work with his label as well. This is the the basic problem. You seem to be taking sides or you still haven't got a handle or understanding of the situation.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sydney, the finding of fact is that a considerable thrust of your editing is anti-Richard Reames, for whatever reason. In the diff in question, you said "Arborsculpture to me means to sculpt(carve or cut ) usually with a chainsaw to create a model out of a log. It it obivous that you have'nt googled 'arborsculpture' and followed the marketing funnel( that catchy phrase again)to Richard Reams who you seem hell bent on promoting." That to me appeared to be accusing Richard Reames of cutting up trees with chainsaws to make his art - something that I was kind of expecting would be abhorrent to a community that grows their works of art in living trees. I'm afraid I cannot figure out the rest of what you are saying - the diff was used about you, not Blackash. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen I think Sydney is talking about two different diffs. The first you addressed. The second is where you gave the diff of my editing Pooktre into the caption of a image of our art. Blackash have a chat 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A Good faith edit answered with bile, spite, and verbosity. Welcome to tree shaping Elen. Colincbn (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but at no stage in the diff have I directed the comment about chainsaws to Richard Reames/Slowart /Grisium. I was simply explaining what arborsculpture means to me as I have personally seen both Americans and Canadians at our Shows and Exhibitions which are similar to Fairs in America using chainsaws to sculpt or carve Totem poles, eagles. chairs, and other items out of a log of wood. The technique was refered to as Arborsculpture. Nowhere in the diff have I stated what Richard Reams does is the same. This was during a discussion about the title where (1)I wrote about what aborsculpture meant to me and (2) if you google arborsculpture it leads to a marketing funnel for Richard Reams. You have been very creative with your finding of fact.I expect you to remove this diff and apologise for having made such a huge assumption. I believe the saying goes "when you make assumptions you make an ASS out of U and ME.

The second part refered to the diff you (Elen) provided in Blackash' section about her labeling her work Pooktre. In future Please take the time to read carefully.Blackash got the meaning of my comment in the edit above. Simple.

I would also like you to read AFD Hero's comment in the comment section above which clearly outlines what has been happening through out my editing history.

I would like to point out the comment by Colincbn which includes the words bile spite and verbosity. This comment just proves that the actions of editors Duff Colincbn, Slowart and others is exactly what AFDHero is talking about. Happy daysSydney Bluegum (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should not have posted that one. In fact I should probably not post at all when drunk. My apologies. Colincbn (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. From my experience while editing on Wiki I have been continually attacked and I believed that this was the culture of editing. You had too be very assertive to get your point across. More experienced editors were saying far worse and nasty comments on the page. For example, Griseum has repeatedly attacked Blackash insinuating she has a mental disability. One instance is on his user page titled "Advice I need to follow". Richard Reames/ slowart has pointed out twice that this is about Blackash. I went to Fetchcomms page to get advice on how to cope with the way the editors were acting and the language that was being used. Fetchcomms was the editor who welcomed me to wiki. Fetchcomms didn't answer. Chzz answered and said I needed to do more editing. Some discussion about bad behaviour.[[3]] Happy days againSydney Bluegum (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If it is found by using the truth and the appropriate evidence that I have done the wrong thing I will go along with the topic ban. The other editors who have done the same or worse should also be topic banned. This is why I have requested Admin to look at other editors and their style and behaviour. If not they will continue to advocate for arborsculpture and push other truly neutral editors away. The recent discussion has focussed on changing the title after the arbitration is over. Please google the word 'arborsculpture' as it is a marketing funnel for Richard Reames which other editors chose to ignore continually. Colinnbc and Martin have stated that they are willing to change the title to a long discriptive name (Temporary holding name) and the arguement could be made that the title is unstable and should be reverted to the original name.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen In the proposed remedies section - Sydney Bluegum (2b) Your statement implies that I am already topic banned by you saying this is the current situation. This is misinformation Please remove this as I am not topic banned.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

I have entered a request about clarification of the official WP stance on editing WP articles and referencing the same articles outside of WP. I assume that there is no official position, however I feel clarification of this is in order. Although it jeopardises quickly reaching a resolution of the main conflict, I very humbly ask that this issue be addressed before this arbitration is closed. Colincbn (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also request that the behaviour of all significent editors be looked at before this arbitration is closed. This includes Martin ( who was soo indignant when the findings were put up that the finding was changed), Duff, Griseum (Sock for Slowart) ( Evidence on Sydney Bluegum"s talk page RE 4 seconds - follow the links.) Colincbn, PaoloNapolitano(sleeper) and Johnuniq. Please do this using the right process as to date I and other editors feel that the reading of evidence has not been comprehensive.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please review this [[4]] from one year ago. If you don't remember, all the accounts were investigated and the accusations were dismissed. Slowart (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed this in my evidence quote

Duff listed this Sock puppet investigation [5] but I gave behavior evidence as to why I believe Griseum is really Slowart/Richard. The investigation was closed on Ip evidence, not on the behavior edits. Please read my edit just above their reply in diff [6] Please also note how Duff states "I am neither the accuser nor the accused". He started this investigation and he also lists Sydney Bluegum as a sock or maybe my life partner.

Blackash have a chat 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the pro arborsculputre group are experienced editors and have used COI and SPA as though they are intrinsically a bad thing. Sydney BlueGum stated from the get go, they came to Wikipedia to find out more about the different shaping methods. Not to be an editor, but they got caught up in the drama of tree shaping talk and entered the discussions as they couldn't help themselves. Elen of the Roads told me on her talk page that "all behavior of all parties will be examined." [7], this doesn't seem to be happening. An indication that somebody is reading the extensive evidence would be reassuring. Are any arbitrators checking the evidence of the editors not listed at proposed decision page? Blackash have a chat 14:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Clerks: There's a small typo on this page: "done in repeatedly" should be "done repeatedly". Thanks, --Elonka 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. Many thanks! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated! --Elonka 01:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Current name

I am a completely non-involved party in this dispute, just reviewing the proposed decision out of curiosity. In the "Current name" finding of fact though, where it says, "The article reached its current name", there is no indication of what the current name is. This might make sense to those who are currently familiar with the case, but future readers (and future arbitration committees) might become confused by this, especially if the article changes title a few more times between now and then. Might it be wise to include what the current name of the article is, just for future reference? Or is it being deliberately left vague? --Elonka 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a valid point, Elonka. I have added the name now; as it does not change the meaning of the finding, I do not think the addition will have any opposition. It's important that the decision be clear for future readers. Risker (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. --Elonka 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Article and subject scope

Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.

So does this mean we are being asked to find a consensus name in two months by holding a forum both Blackash and Slowart are allowed to participate in, in spite of the topic ban against them discussing the name? If this is the case what is the point of the topic ban? Colincbn (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation is that they are being allowed to participate, but in a very limited fashion and only at the start. They are not, I suspect, allowed to participate in the subsequent discussion, but are only allowed to present a one-off 'position statement' at the start of the process. If no-one asks them specific questions about their 'positions', then they will be unable to say more (or rather, should not say any more and if they do they will get blocked for breaching the conditions laid down). I would suggest that plans are made to find an uninvolved editor to initiate and oversee the process, as having someone not previously involved in all this would help. Some of those who have edited this talk page recently might be willing to help out. If you get a readable summary, a position statement from editors other than the topic-banned ones, publicise it enough, and get enough people participating in the process, it should all work out. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as Carch has stated it - given their familiarity, they are allowed to make a statement and answer specific questions if asked, but not to otherwise engage in debate. The discussion will be monitored. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. As long as the discussion is monitored it should work well. Colincbn (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have no objection at all to Blackash and Slowart presenting reliable sources to support their choice of article name at the start of the discussion. After that any further comments would be disruptive to calm discussion of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator, I'd be willing to help monitor the discussions, and enforce arbitration restrictions as needed. Or if I'm not around, and no other admin appears to be monitoring the discussion, requests for enforcement can be submitted at WP:AE. --Elonka 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

All new editors are welcome as far as I am concerned, or if you want to stick around as an uninvolved admin that is also fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For the pro arborsculpture group a surprising lot of things are connected to the title. Just read the workshop page to see how often discussions are dragged to the title. I can give other examples if wanted. Duff's last diff on this page (my reply) has just highlighted a problem I have with some of the editors at tree shaping. These editors have repeatably made false statements to which I've cleared up with diffs and such (can supply diffs). They will put a ugly slant on why I edited something diff with misleading info (clearing up, read the 3th line), twist my comments as Duff did above or put words into my mouth (like Colincbn tried to here, short discussion.) As it seems I will not be allowed to discuss things to do with the title, what is my recourse if this happens and it is connected to the title? Blackash have a chat 15:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One final plea for sanity

Mediators, several independent editors came to this page to give their view on a dispute between two editors, both with a potential COI.

Blackash has claimed that Johnuniq, Colincbn, Duff, Griseum, Quiddity, and myself have all taken against her and have used all sorts of dirty tricks to discredit her and promote the name 'arborsculpture'. Why? Why would a bunch of independent editors want to take sides in a dispute between two potential COI editors?

The above editors, on the other hand, believe that not only does Blackash have a potential COI but that this COI has been manifest in her editing and discussion throughout the article. I have to admit that I though this was obvious and therefore did not require proving' to the arbitrators.

I, and I believe most of the others, had never heard of the subject or the name 'arborsculpture' before and really do not care which term is used. On the other hand we do all care about the integrity of WP and its independence from commercial interference. That is why I called for this arbitration.

If you cannot see that one editor is using WP as a forum to push her own commercial and personal interests then I despair for WP. This is exactly the kind of thing that the arbitration committee is set up to stop. It looks as though you are going to fail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I read through the decision, and it looks like the SPA got kicked to the kerb (topic-banned completely), and two other editors have been topic-banned from naming discussions. The community appear to have been left to apply the COI policy to those two editors as regards the rest of their editing in this topic. They should certainly (per COI) limit their editing to talk pages only (not sure if they had previously been editing the articles or not), and what you would have needed to show is whether abuse of the article talk pages was occurring. That is different to abuse of editing privileges for articles. My advice would be to see how things go and if things don't improve you can always ask for an amendment later. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See above section Martin. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, Can't you tell that the editors haven't read all the evidence. As well some of the evidence was misinformation, not only from the arborsculpture gang but mainly from Duffy. Misinformation was also placed from Ellen of the Roads who has had amply time to correct this as well as any of the other admins. I hate to be relying on EotRs for anything very important as well as the Admins who handled this case. THIS JUST REENFORCES WHY WIKIAPEDIA ISN'T TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY SECONDARY AND TERTIARY INSTUTIONS AS THE EDITORS ARE UNRELIABLE AS WELL AS THE ADMINSTRATION. When admins add evidence that is not true and dont change it. This just proves it.

I believe your plea for sanity as you have called it is actually flogging a dead horse.Well Done Martin I hope you are very proud of youself and now understand what you are dealing with. It is not the time now to bitch about the outcome now that you don't agree with it but go ahead like when you didnt like the proposed findings and jumped up and down about that. I cant believe that colinnbc has admitted to editing while drunk and nothing has been done about him.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is referred to as a Kangaroo court.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC

It seems to me that Ellen of the Roads made up her mind that Blackash should be Topic banned on 3 April 2011. This is days before the Arbitration was started. It came about in a little discussion with Martin Hogbin. I think this is very interesting. A decision made before the evidence is presented. Check out her talk page.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I invite everyone to do this. Read it carefully - Sydney, you don't seem to be good with nuances, so to explain: I said that Blackash clearly had a potential conflict of interest - this is a matter of fact, she has an interest in her art, she has an interest in Wikipedia, they have the potential to conflict. I also said that Martin Hogbin would have to present evidence that Blackash's editing was disruptive in order to make a case for her to be topic banned entirely, as the previous consensus was that she should only be banned from article space (ie not the talkpage or other discussions). In fact, having examined the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the only problematic area is the name used for the topic, and the title of the article, the rest of her editing has not been so problematic as to warrant a sanction.

Elen, I did not provide many diffs of Blackash'e pervasive COI because I did not think it necessary. I guess that was my mistake. Maybe you need to get involved more over a period of time to see what is going on here, but six independent editors who have done this have come to the same conclusion. I will now take Carcharoth's advice and see how it goes but I may come back to you if Blackash's editing shows a continued COI. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Come back to me if Blackash's editing becomes disruptive, given that they are no longer allowed to enter into endless procrastination about what to title the article. I didn't find that she was talking down the work of any other practitioner, or trying to make it look as if only her work was worth buying. I would like, going on from this, for everyone to edit the article(s) (within their restrictions if they have them) and put the history of the dispute behind them. If this isn't possible, then further action may be necessary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you have stated even talking on the discussion pages as editing with Coi as thou it is a negative. Martin I believe you have scraped the bottom of the barrel with the diffs you have given in your evidence. From now on please don't make broad statements about my behavior with out giving the evidence/diffs when you make your claims. Blackash have a chat 11:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While you're here, and further to your comment on my talkpage [8], I am not lying about you, I have not said that you are already topic banned. What I have proposed is that you should be topic banned. All that section where it says "Proposed Remedy" is referring to what should happen in the future, not what is already happening. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen the problem as I see it, is in 2B) text. Quote "(this is the current situation)" This is what gives the impression that Sydney BlueGum already partially topic banned. Blackash have a chat 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Obviously a copy/paste error - I have struck the offending note. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this. I believe it has already resulted in a harsher finding and influenced the vote against me than otherwise would have happened. How do I appeal this?Sydney Bluegum (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart and Blackash bickered over what to call the product, but they seem to largely respect each other as practitioners. The problem with your edits is that you keep attacking Slowart, and you've made it very clear that the reason is to do with you trying his methods and them not working. This makes you more straightforwardly disruptive than the two of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Query about 1C

Hiya, as I may be one of the admins enforcing these restrictions, I wanted to check for clarity on one part. In 1C (which is not yet active), it says, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject." My question is, would this include adding references? For example, would this list of edits, at a subpage where the name is being discussed, be considered a violation?[9] --Elonka 16:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the bigger-picture plan is this - once the naming debate has been settled but a structured discussion which is monitored, then the aim would be that all editors do what they usually do WRT improving articles. The hope is that the name and scope of the article, or whether it is upmerged into a larger article, is settled and that editors under this ban do not revisit or attempt to push for a further name- or scope-change. So adding references supporting text would be ok, but say an article is at name X, and editor loads an article with several sources expalining why name Y is a better name is not ok, although a supporting a contextual statement indicating that one alternative name is name Y with a source would be ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Elonka I don't plan to talk on the sub page unless it is to point out I'm not to talk about the title or to ask editors to not mess up the ref tables with comments seeded though out. This sub page was started as a list of candidate titles. My idea is to continue with this format and add the extra refs that Duff has found and any others that I know exist to the different listings. Please note I have not and I will not be adding Pooktre to this list. Blackash have a chat 12:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As an update, it looks like discussion has started at Talk:Tree_shaping#Article_name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Article titles

I'm curious to see what, if any, effect this decision has on the various community disputes/discussions that are ongoing which revolve around article titles. Does the statement of principle used here indicate an interpretation of Wikipedia:Article titles, or is the committee... unwilling to make claims about how that policy (including COMMONNAME and it's potential impact on other areas) can and/or should be interpreted, or is it putting forward an interpretation that should be generally accepted by the community?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)