Talk:Tree shaping/Archive 14

Roots
As a diversion from the endless conflict here, you guys may wish to take a look at Root trainer which is a device used for a particular form of tree shaping. It's at AFD where your opinion is welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is interesting I haven't heard of this before, I will look into it tomorrow and comment on the AFD. But it does sound legitimate and maybe just needs some good refs. Blackash   have a chat 13:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Name argument restarted
I see Blackash and Bluegum have re-started the name argument by removing the name arborsculpture from the lead, quoting WP policy. The policy actually says this 'When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph'. Will some one else please revert this renewed attempt to push one name over another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When quoting WP policy please link to the page. Is this the section you are quoting? Please note where I have bolded the text from WP:LEAD section |Usage in first sentence In articles about places, people, literary and artistic works, scientific principles and concepts, and other subjects, the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses. The following are examples of names that may be included parenthetically, but this is not mandatory, and inclusion should reflect consensus.
 * I didn't start the naming argument: though I did agree with Sydney Bluegum that there should be no alternative names in the lead. This follows WP:LEAD Quote "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line". Please note this follows your quote on the WP:LEAD page.
 * There also was a rare point of consensus to create the Alternative names section and remove all the alternative names from the lead. Please read the Archives 5,6,7.
 * Why did you think it about arborsculpture? I have always stated I preferred no alternative names in the lead, even when they where talking about putting up pooktre as an alternative name. For me it makes sense to have the alternative names section and leave them out of the lead.
 * Since you seem to think this is about Arborsculpture please take this to the WP:Arbitration_Committee Blackash  have a chat 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) has reverted the lead. He has a WP:COI and I've reverted his edit. Going by his edit comment he clearly thinks this is about his word Arborsculpture. I take this to WP:Arbitration_Committee Please don't change again. Blackash  have a chat 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the long term, stridency never wins on Wikipedia, and "please don't change again" is weak reasoning. The vigor with which a couple of editors are seeking to minimize mention of "arborsculpture" shows that some strong principles are involved. Are those principles being applied by the editors in other articles, or is there something about this article and this terminology that is a special interest to them? Since ArbCom are not at all involved in this issue, it would not be appropriate to suggest that "don't change again" has any basis. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Johnuniq
 * Excuse me? Asking a COI editor not to revert an edit again, when I have already made my case on the talk page to which they don't choose to rebut, is not unreasonable.
 * Why are you focusing on Aborsculpture? There were 3 different names removed out of the lead.
 * You don't seem too worried by consensus now.
 * As I pointed out above I don't think any Alternative names should be in the lead and not having them in the lead does follows WP:LEAD, as detailed above in my comment.
 * Arborsculpture has been to taken to WP:Arbitration_Committee once before but was closed with out any ruling. I stated that if Arborsculpture became an issue again I would take it to WP:Arbitration_Committee which I have started to do.
 * Please discuss the points I made above as you didn't address one of them. Blackash   have a chat 09:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackash, please feel free to move this dispute onto Arbcom, where your continued and long term attempts to promote your own business at the expense of others will become apparent. First you will need to exhaust all other means of dispute resolution such as RfC and formal mediation.  The sooner you get started on this route the better as far as I am concerned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Martin how does stating that I don't believe there should be any Alternative names in lead including the name Pooktre (the name of my art) promote my name? Martin please feel free to discuss any of my points above as you haven't yet. Blackash  have a chat 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Martin,
 * Looking though the history look what I found. Here is a | diff in late January 2009 where I removed the Alternative names from the lead. Oh look I removed Arborsculpture and Living Art but wait I also removed Pooktre.
 * Please note that the other 20 editors over a year period didn't feel the need to put the Alternative names back in the lead.
 * By the way I have twice asked for the article Pooktre to be deleted. The original article was created by me titled Pooktre. I requested for deletion once it was pointed out to me it didn't meet Wikipedia standards. The 2nd time Pooktre article was created by Griseum and as it still didn't meet the Wikipedia standards. I filed the article for deletion. How is this promoting Pooktre over the interests of others? Blackash   have a chat 15:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What can be seen is that there has been a protracted campaign to minimize use of "arborscultpure" in this article. Why? Are the editors involved concerned that use of "arborscultpure" contravenes the principles of Wikipedia? One way to evaluate that is to ask whether similar concerns have been expressed regarding articles on other topics, or is the activity focused on this single issue? Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq,
 * Why are you insisting that my support for the removal of the 3 names out of the lead is about Arborsculpture? My history shows I don't think any of the alternative names should be in the lead.
 * How about answering my points above? Blackash   have a chat  20 February 2011

Blackash, if you want to be seen as fair and reasonable and avoiding a COI you should completely avoid editing or commenting on anything to do with article or subject name and allow only editors who have no commercial interest in the subject to deal with these issues. Instead what we see is, as Johnuniq says, is a long term and sustained campaign of involvement with this aspect of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When asked repeatably to answer my questions, the COI card is brought into play again. As you know multiple editors have stated I don't COI and can edit the main article.  The potential for conflict lies in fact I'm Co-founder of Pooktre a name for the art work of my life partner and I.
 * Trying to stop me from discussing issues on the talk page by claiming I have a conflict of interest. (Goes against How to handle COI quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.") Please discusses my points above as you have yet to answer any of them. Blackash   have a chat 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the removal of the 3 names, but please address my points on this issue above. Blackash  have a chat 11:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've listed with the mediation here.
 * Excellent, let us hope the mediators act to remove any potential COIs from this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Slowart has again manually revert back to having the 3 names into the lead. I have removed them from the lead sentence. I've created a compromise based on what Griseum proposed when he and Slowart both agreed there shouldn't be any alternative names in the lead sentence. tree shaping Blackash   have a chat 23:42, 20 February 2011
 * Having any alternative names in the lead gives WP:UNDUE weight to those words.
 * Having no alternative names in the lead follows WP:LEAD


 * I have just read the most recent changes and think it is a good compromise to have the alternate names with the artist.
 * Martin, I dont understand what your comment about potential COIs when clearly a real COI is being ignored by you. Blackash has done some excellent work with the techniques which was what I was looking for when I frist came to this article. I will again quote from "Arborsculpture Solutions for a Small Planet" written by Richard Reams also known as Slowart."It is my deepest desire that others will feel inspired to carry this artform into the mainstream." Is this the role of wikipedia? Of course Richard Reams wants his word "arborsculpture" to be in the lead as it is his marketing funnel which leads to his web-site and his products for sale.This fact seems to be ignored by all. I feel the article should be locked as it is now until the mediators make their discision.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Several secondary sources refer to the subject as "arborsculpture" and the term is used in many circles. Therefore it should be somewhere in the lead. To do otherwise would give an undue weight to the term "tree shaping" and potentially confuse readers who have heard other terms. Also lets be honest here - wikipedia influences culture. Whatever word we use has a larger chance of catching on, and this has an associated commercial impact for the involved parties. If a reporter sees some sculpted trees and wants to write a story, the first thing they are going to do is google it and read the intro section on this page. This is unavoidable, but we should seek to mitigate the effect as best we can by placing the alternate names in bold in the lead. I am not swayed by the style guideline arguments presented. Such lawyer-like methods of reasoning are a mental crutch that allow one to be decisive without giving honest consideration to the issues involved. AfD hero (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Most important, surely, is that editors with a commercial interest in this subject should not make edits to the article that might have a potential commercial impact. To put this more bluntly, Blackash and Slowart should not be making any edits involving the name 'arborsculpture'.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork tried to have this as the lead Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names), change with some of his reasoning here here. I stated I don't think any alternative names should be in the lead, but SilkTork said it not about how we use Pooktre but how others do. SilkTork found pooktre to be in use as generic name for this art form.  So I agreed to the comprise of Tree shaping (also known as arborsculpture and pooktre and several other names),
 * But Slowart and Griseum said no way could Pooktre be in the lead. Which lead them to stating/agreeing, to the removing of arborsculpture and pooktre out of the lead. As I believe having any of the alternative names in the lead gives to much weight, I agreed.
 * If you really think some alternative names need to be in the lead how about this?
 * Tree shaping also called tree training, arborsculpture, pooktre or several alternative names,
 * I've listed tree training first as it has a lots references from different sources, and doesn't lead to any one artist. Blackash   have a chat 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
I've gone to the edit war notice board here. Over the last few of days or so Slowart/Reames replaced his word Arborsculpture plus two others alternative names into the lead, both Sydney Bluegum and myself have pointed out his COI and I've repeatedly ask him to talk here. Now he is removing cited content about himself. Maybe I should have taking him to COI noticeboard as well. Blackash  have a chat 15:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blackash, as someone with no direct interest in the subject but a regular observer of the article, the greatest conflict of interest seems to relate to yourself. I think this case should be referred to the COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin You seem to attack Blackash always. Why has she got a greater COI ? I see it as a potential COI . Please explain what you mean rather than making outragious comments that do little to support your work as an independent editor. Do you like stirring the pot? Or is there a hidden agender here?I have asked you to explain your statements previously and you ignore me Sydney Bluegum (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not take this to the COI noticeboard and let them decide. Some time age I suggested that Slowart and Blackash both withdraw from the discussion on the article name to avoid a COI and that they allowed editors with no commercial interest in this subject to decide the matter.  Slowart agreed to withdraw but Blackash did not.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin This is not about the name of the article. When it comes to content I think those who have the skills or have read the books need to input. What about the fact that Slowart has removed cited content about himself? He has done this on two different occassions now and you suppported him last time as well. This was reversed when pointed out that it was against wiki policy to remove cited material.Please explain why you are going against wiki policy.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Martin you got to be kidding! Slowart who removes cited content about his own method/word (Arborsculpture) verses me who is supporting an edit that removes all alternative names from the lead which follows WP:LEAD. Martin I agree with Blue Rasberry on this issue you are not a neutral editor. Now that you are back please answer my points in the above section. Blackash   have a chat 00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is Blue Rasberry? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin you could have followed the link I give on COI about Blue Rasberry's quote or here is the link again. NPOV Noticeboard Blackash   have a chat 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, just to make my position quite clear. I believe that neither yourself nor Slowart, nor anyone else with a commercial interest in the subject should make any edits relating to the naming of the art or any other issue of commercial significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin, early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do to quote ".As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. As you know multiple editors have stated it fine for me to be part of the discussions and for me to edit the article. Please don't rehash your latest rhetoric, I still have discussion points above we could talk about. Blackash   have a chat 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

COI
I've posted on the COI Noticeboard. Blackash  have a chat 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

At the COI Noticeboard Slowart has stated he doesn't like the heading of instant tree shaping, so lets change this heading, does anyone have some suggestions? Blackash  have a chat 00:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "the Reames Arborsculpture Method" or RAM for short, might be an alternative to "Instant tree shaping" which I think is appropriate as it describes what it is.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to "Reames Arborsculpture Method", but I would be interested to hear Slowart's view on this heading. Blackash   have a chat 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Arborsculpture title again
Slowart made this comment on COI notice board. As this discussion really belongs here I've copied it over plus my reply.


 * WhatamIdoing and Johnuniq I'd like to point out some important points. Blackash starts a page titled Pooktre, at the AFD and without any notice anywhere AfD hero changes the Arborsculpture page to Tree shaping.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre [|then blackash spams the world with this]The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, IMHO The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressThe best of the crop is see pdf page 6 text book page 442 section 4.
 * Basically what you have here is a page title that should be reverted to Arbosculpture as it was incorrectly changed and then it should have some semi protection from those who are just way too close to the subject to be unbiased.Slowart (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Slowart this discussion is not about the title but...
 * I'll do my best keep it brief, mainly summing up and giving links to help other edits get an overview. There has been disagreements about arborsculpture since 2007 quotes from editors who disagree about arborsculpture. Google arborsculpture and see where it goes.
 * I start where Slowart did and go till now. Anyone interest in knowing more can ask at the tree shaping talk page and I'm sure you'll get answers.
 * Article page before the move, Please note the amount of content and how frequently Arborsculpture is used in the article.
 * Page created for the references of the different names of the art-form. Quotes and sources
 * Discussion about moving Arborsculpture to Tree shaping AFD 4 editors out of 6 editors discuss using a less secret topic or a neutral name:- Mgm suggests merging Pooktre into a less secret topics like Tree shaping or Tree trimming diff AfD hero suggests moving Arborsculpture to neutral name diff Rror agreed diff as did I Blackash diff
 * AfD hero moved the article and created section on the talk page.
 * Reames/Slowart disagreed with the move diff
 * 11 editors where part of the discussion about the name after the move. The article stayed at Tree shaping.
 * During informal mediation the title come up again and after a lot of writing SilkTork the mediator stated "...Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" link
 * The title issue was raised again here and then a day later a Requested move was created. Which resulted in no move.
 * There was a request for references for tree shaping and talk about having a different title to tree shaping or arborsculpture which lead to me creating a group tables quotes and sources. Slowart added most of the sources for arborsculpture. Please note most of the sources for arborsculpture are based on interviews/book reviews of two self published books written by a non expert.
 * There are 3 archives of talk about moving the title to arborsculpture or to holding or temporary title. diff
 * I repeatedly suggested talking about a real alternative to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping, if it was found that tree shaping doesn't meet wikipedia policies/guidelines. I suggested Tree training, as had other editors and Slowart agreed diff to it as a title and it meets Wikipedia guidelines/policies. The pro arborsculpture editors didn't like that title but didn't rebut my points link. So that ended with no consensus.
 * As to leaving comments around web, when arborsculpture appeared on our photos we left comments to correct misinformation. Also please read Blue Rasberry's quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?" Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) diff of full quote.
 * I've twice filed for formal mediation to do with the word Arborsculpture. As Slowart still feels the title was unfairly moved he should take it up the dispute ladder.

I've left a heap of the arguments from both sides out, it mainly a timeline. I don't think we really need to rehash this again. If Slowart wants to file for formal mediation I'm willing to talk or if he doesn't want to talk to me he can take it further up the dispute ladder. Blackash  have a chat 11:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the result of your request for mediation? Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * Just for the record I am still around but RL is taking up vast amounts of my time. Also I still think in this case WP Policy demands the article's first title be preserved, or a neutral, non-commercial phrase be used until the artistic community forms a consensus on the subject. By the way article expansion after a title change is explicitly not to be used as an argument to keep that title as it would discourage editors adding to articles with titles they feel should be changed. So people should stop making that argument here. Colincbn (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cite content
Martin I don't understand why you took the artists in the summary out of chronological order. Why do you make a conscious decision to remove cited content? Martin as it seems you feel strongly about whats happening here in regards to arborsculpture and other issues will you agree to mediation with me? Blackash  have a chat 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
The article is currently unprotected, allowing IP editors to contribute. I note that IP edits are causing concern already. I am willing to semi-protect again. What are people's views?  SilkTork  *YES! 12:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think allowing the widest possible range of editors to have an input is a good thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the latest IP editors are just are sock puppets for Richard Reames/ Slowart as they are doing the same edits he did. These edits lead to Slowart being taken to COI notice board. I have reverted these edits. I have been waiting for Slowart to give his input on changes to "instant tree shaping" heading. I think it should be protected from IP's while there are random IP's coming in and doing edits Slowart wants with no talking. Slowart has had every opportunity to come up with a compromise and offer alternatives but has not bothered, instead it appears he is recruiting IP editors.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe an editor is using sockpuppets you should bring it to the appropriate notice board (Sockpuppet investigations). Basing decisions about a separate issue on an unsubstantiated assumption of wrong doing is not WP Policy. Nor is an editor's stance on an issue enough to claim sockpuppetry, if that was the case you are a puppet of Blackash and I am a puppet of Martin. Colincbn (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is to great a coincidence to just assume that the IPs edits not related to Slowarts. I think Semi-protection is a good idea. Blackash   have a chat 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blackash, assuming sockpuppetry because of a perceived coincidence is the very definition of "Assuming Bad Faith". As I said above and SilkTork says below, if you think there may be an issue with sockpuppetry you should bring it to the appropriate place; ie: Sockpuppet investigations. Just as you tell people to do with CoI accusations Policy does not state that you should use accusations when dealing with content disputes. Also I.P. editors often read talk pages and edit how they see fit without taking part in the discussion, and they are allowed to. I don't think it is the best way to add to WP but it is one of the fundamental pillars of the project. Colincbn (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Colincbn you are right that I'm assuming bad faith of the IP's, in future I'll just mention that the edits are the same if that is the case. I will continue to ask the IP's to talk here and go back to assuming good faith.  Blackash   have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If there has been a pattern of behaviour to lead to genuine suspicion of sockpuppetry, please request an investigation at Sockpuppet investigations. There is no clear consensus on protecting the article at the moment; however, if there's more support for protection, or there are more examples of inappropriate IP edits, then I will semi-protect.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Insistent false accusations on my real name should be grounds for topic ban, IMO.Slowart (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Slowart, while you here make some suggestions for "Instant tree shaping heading", so we can change it. Blackash   have a chat 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted another IP edit making similar edits to the last one and describing it as fixing vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin that was me I thought I was logged in. I was reverting an IP's edit not doing the same edit.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contribs you appear to be a WP:SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin, Sydney Bluegum has never pretend to be here for any other reason then to find out more about the methods of shaping, they have point this out 2-3 times here and also now on the topic ban noticeboard. My understanding is it fine to be a WP:SPA just that more experienced editors will take more care in checking the SPA edits. Blackash   have a chat 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Protected.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation
I've listed again this time with Martin  Blackash   have a chat 14:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
The editors (blackash and slowart) do excellent work in main-space but argue constantly in talk-space. So we ban them from mainspace, but continue to allow them to edit the talk page? If any banning was to be done it should have been the exact opposite. What a clownish decision by the community. Bah. AfD hero (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that anyone is thinking of a permanent bad for Blackash and Slowart. What I think is required is that they be banned completely from the article and talk pages and from discussing the subject elsewhere until the editors without a COI resolve the commercially sensitive issues.  After that they should be welcomed back, but permanently banned from editing anything commercially significant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD hero, when I replied above, I did not realise that the two editors had been topic banned. You are quite right, banning them from the article but not the talk is bizarre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if either of them will want to edit anymore, I hope they do, but this kind of thing can be a pretty big blow. The way I see it if they have changes they want made they can bring them up here, even doing them in their sandbox first. And other editors can put them in. This will (hopefully) avoid the slow edit war about the lead and the naming issue. Also using the WP page to negatively characterize a rival's methods should be curtailed. As for me this has restored some of my faith that the WP community will do the right thing, eventually. If they come back I hope they see this as a chance to reassess what they are editing for. Hopefully they decide that editing WP must be for the benefit of WP not of their own commercial interests. I think a short term ban is appropriate, I would say no more than six months and possibly less. I think after this they may be more willing to let others decide on contentious commercially relevant issues and I would support either of them if they have that in mind when they apply to have the ban lifted. Colincbn (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The topic ban prevents two editors from editing any article related to tree shaping. The topic ban is indefinite (in principle, it could be appealed and possibly reversed after a long period of helpful contributions—contributions that show that previous problems have been overcome). The editors are not banned from anything else, and are welcome to comment on any talk page about any topic. See the closing statement here.
 * It would be very unwise for anyone to repeatedly raise similar issues on these talk pages. When a topic ban has been enacted, everyone should take it as a hint that the community is losing patience and if protracted arguments broke out about the topics mentioned in the topic ban discussion, anyone engaged in unhelpful behavior would be likely to receive sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Martin I've rebutted your claim about COI diff unless you are going to file somewhere please desist from making such statements. Blackash   have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Colincbn I'm going to continue to edit wiki, the whole time I've been editing orphans as well as tree shaping stuff. Good idea about the sandbox, the grafting paragraph (in tree shaping) is not quite right but I'll wait a few weeks before I start a new sandbox for it. Strange comment "negatively characterize a rival's methods" I'm guessing you are talking about the heading "instant tree shaping" as Slowart voiced distaste for this heading. I would like to point out that I've repeatedly asked for suggestions to change this heading. I have no real preference as to what the heading should be. Removing referenced/cited content because Slowart views it as damaging to himself is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is not here to build up or protect a person's reputation. If you think any of the cited content I've added is out of context, I will type up the text from the source here on the talk page. Blackash   have a chat 07:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am honestly glad to hear that. Also I was avoiding making any direct accusations of anyone, I was just addressing some concerns that were brought up by others. I imagine you agree that WP should not be used to deride a rivals work, therefore any attempts to do so should be discouraged. Also just because something is "cited" does not necessarily mean it is appropriate. One can cite many books that say man never went to the moon, but they should not be used in the Apollo 11 article. The ref, the statement, and the benefit to the article of the added content must all be considered. That being said I have not looked into the content you are referring to so I withhold my opinion on that.
 * If you do make a sandbox for editing the article let me know when you want something added and I will be more than happy to put it in for you. Colincbn (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the methods, 90% of emails send to us, asks how do we do it and what trees do we use. In a general article about the art form the various methods are of interest to the reader. Also when the pooktre article was up for deletion, one of the reasons given to delete the pooktre article was "isn't very interesting with out the method". Blackash   have a chat 13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing un-sourced content and references

 * 1) Colincbn when contesting that something is un-sourced isn't it policy to put on the contest info and give the other editors time to get the references?
 * 2) Colincbn, do you have any of the books? My understanding of ring barking from other sources is it is used to kill a tree or to ring bark a branch (that is planed to be remove later) to help increase fruit production. Please find another reference where ring barking is used to control the growth speed of a tree to give balance to a design. If not please replace this wording and reference diff.
 * 3) Colincbn in this diff you removed Arborsculpture form this sentence "...for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design", by removing Arborsculpture it seems like others in this field use this technique. As far as I'm aware no one else in the art form uses ring barking as a means of control, and in English Richard is the only one to publish so.  Blackash   have a chat 11:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Basicaly I'm trying to remove the POV that Arborscupture is somehow fundamentally different and incompatible with all other forms of the art by describing things as neutrally as possible. If you are suggesting that anyone who uses ring barking is no longer "Tree Shaping" and is now "Arborsculpting" I would have to disagree. The article is Tree Shaping and therefore all the techniques therein should be considered Tree Shaping techniques, correct? Or is Arborsculpture not Tree Shaping?


 * There is no policy against removing unsourced content. If you have a reliable reference about the Pooktre People Trees being the only known trees shaped like humans post it here or my talk page and I will add it back in a jiffy. Colincbn (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Words can and do have more than one definition. Arborsculpture is one of those words that has more than one definition. Colincbn, the word Arborsculpture also represents a method (which is fundamentally different to the other methods) of shaping trees, it not appropriate for you systematically remove or change cited wording to censer this aspect out of the article. WP:VERIFY Please replace the cited wording in these diff and diff. Blackash   have a chat 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that Arborsculpture is not Tree Shaping? Colincbn (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology. I think that desire is one of the main things that has lead to problems here. I suggest just stepping back and letting go. See where the article goes when people who honestly don't care about it do the editing. I really think that in a while you will see us take the great content that you added and turn it into a great encyclopedia article. Neutral, balanced, and well written. Just relax, this will probably not effect your business and art at all. Colincbn (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm saying is Arborsculpture has two definitions WP:NPOV quote "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Colincbn you are systematically changing cited wording to censer this definition out which is not the act of a neutral editor. Please replace the cited wording and references.  Blackash   have a chat 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So if someone uses the Pooktre method exclusively they are "Tree Shaping" but if they do a single ring bark in conjunction with that method they cease to be Tree Shaping and are now Arborsculpting? Because if you actually read the changes I made all I was doing was saying that all these methods are "Tree Shaping". And the only reason to take offence is if they are not. Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light. Please step back and try to look at this dispassionately. Colincbn (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone is doing a Pooktre technique and then they decide to try Arborsculpture technique of ring barking, then yes they are no longer doing Pooktre but are then doing Arborsculpture. But both techniques are tree shaping. Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. It's a broad general over all name. Colincbn it seems you feel it has to be either Tree shaping or Arborsculpture. It also seems you are insisting that Arborsculpture has only one definition, why is that? Blackash   have a chat 09:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. What I'm saying is that since both techniques are tree shaping and Tree shaping is not limited to a method or technique. All methods fall under the title of this article and therefore the wording should reflect that they are all equally "Tree Shaping". The article has alternative names clearly stated. As such all those names should be interchangeable with "Tree Shaping". Now I know you don't like it when people call your work by someone else's name, but WP is not here to do what you, or anyone else "likes" (including Slowart and myself even [edit: To clarify, what I mean is that WP is not here to do what anyone, including me, likes of course] ). What it is here to do is give information in a neutral encyclopedic manner. To you Neutrality seems to mean "Doing whatever Blackash wants". But that is not really the case. In fact your refusal to accept that WP is not the place for you to battle about this issue has lead to your topic ban. With the edits above I have not claimed that Pooktre is Arborsculpture, just that all those methods are Tree Shaping. Colincbn (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Colincbn, Thank you for acknowledging that there is more than one definition for the word Arborsculpture.
 * You have made a couple of statements, that seem a bit odd.
 * Colincbn, quote "I get the feeling that you would like us to single out Arbo in a way that we don't single out other methods and terminology." To rebut Have a look at Judo they not only go into techniques but also the refinements of each techniques. Grafting goes into detail about  individual techniques as well. So it seems normal to have a referenced wording like Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking in a wikipedia article. This wording meets WP:VERIFY as well.
 * Colincbn, quote "Unless you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to the word Arborsculpture and therefore refuse to accept any wording that does not put it in a negative light." Statment/Question Excuse me. Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary. Into the lead diff and further down diff. How do these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. showing Arborsculpture in a negative light?
 * What your diffs' 1 and 2. show, you are systematically removing or changing referenced/cited wording to censer out one definition of Arborsculpture. Which doesn't follow WP:NPOV.
 * Let's cut to the chase Colincbn are you going to put the references and the cited wording back? Blackash   have a chat 09:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First off I'm not even sure what you mean by "Cited Wording" we site facts not wording. Second the only refs I removed were multiple versions of the same ref, which I left in at the end of the paragraph. So if what you are asking me to do is change the article to reflect your personal view that Arbo is incompatible with all other tree shaping than no, I will not be making that change. And I would remind you that this issue is exactly what got you banned from editing the article. Colincbn (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also if you want to bring up WP:VERIFY show me a ref that states Reames is the only artist that uses ring barking. All my edits did was describe ring barking as a tree shaping technique, which it is. Colincbn (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cited wording is wording like Arborsculpture technique of ring barking or Arborsculpture design that has multiple references for this exact wording.
 * Cloincbn The sentences you removed both were WP:VERIFY. It seems you changed them to reflect your truth not what is verifiable. Which of these sentences state only Richard does ring barking? Out of the 4 books published (in English) 2 of them talk about this technique both of which write about the techniques as part to the published method of Richard Reames. This is what can be WP:VERIFY. I didn't suggest that only Richard Reames does this Arborsculpture technique of ring barking for the article. I was letting you know though my knowledge of other artists in this tiny field that they don't use the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking. Until there are references in other places about ring barking being used as a technique (to slow the growth of one side of design trunk) being used as part of the other methods, the Arborsculpture technique of ring barking will remain unique to its published method.
 * The funny thing about methods is, if different techniques are used to achieve an outcome then yes those methods will be "fundamentally different". Arborsculpture has a definition where it is a technique which is used in the first method, so yes it is different to the other methods.
 * Also you haven't clarified how these sentences show Arborsculpture in a negative light. Blackash  have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm Martin you are quick to claim something is commercial, I hope you will be as quick to clarify how having Arborsculpture with a referenced/cited definition on the page is of "commercial significance". Please don't waffle like you did with SilkTork . Blackash   have a chat 11:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it very worrying that you do not see a conflict of interest in a person who uses the name 'Pooktre' in their own business and who objects to the name 'arborsculpture' because they believe it is too closely related to another business discussing use of the the names 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm an acknowledged world expert in this field. It is only a potential COI as practitioner discussing this art form. In the past when you tried to claim COI or commercialism it was done so you can change the focus of the discussion from the content to my behavior. WP:COI Quote "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." It is up to the editor to justify the changes they want to make if the edit is contested. Claiming I have COI/commercially connected doesn't relieve them of this responsibility. I'm pointing out that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles.
 * Martin you claim this is of commercial significance and yet don't state why. How are these sentences:- There are five different methods of ring barking for slowing the growth of a dominant branch in an Arborsculpture design. and Arborsculpture techniques of ring barking are used to slow down the dominant branch allowing thinner branches to catch up to help balance the design. of commercial significance. Is this building someone up? If you think so, then how? Is this damaging to someone? If you think that, then how? Blackash   have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Blackash listed on ANI to have me sanctioned over this. Colincbn (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Crazy! Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, where did I ask for you to sanctioned? I only talked about content, and requested some editors to look into this. Blackash   have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On March 12th Blackash added Pooktre to the lead sentence, as if the whole art is called Pooktre. The one Press release that said that, was shown to be an unreliable source.
 * The section now titled Manual tree shaping, was originally intended to tie a perceived inferior method, along with a perceived inferior technique of "ring barking", to Reames and his books.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to encourage the editors to re-think the page name, the lead and the Manual tree shaping section. Carry on as you wish of course, I'll try not to muck up the talk page any more. I think you Colincbn and Martin are doing good work under trying conditions. Hopefully a few more editors will look in on the article, it deserves better than to be a battlefield.Slowart (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, multiple editors have found pooktre to be used as the name for the art form and a few have even added it to the lead at different times. I put it into the lead as part of a comprise just above this section based on SilkTork trying to mediate the lead here here. Also the reference on tree shaping for pooktre is not the press release you talk about. Please go and check it out. Blackash   have a chat 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that you have a conflict of interest here also, Slowart. Best you do not comment on 'arborsculpture' and 'Pooktre' either. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Working towards compromise
How about this, as far as the current situation with my copyedits, if you provide me a source, your own website would be fine as far as I am concerned, that says Pooktre refuses to use ring barking and other techniques that damage the tree etc. (I'm not sure if that is actually your position or not, but if you give some details of your exact methods and reasons I will explain your stance as stated), I can place that under your entry in the Practitioners section clearly stating that those techniques are not a part of the Pooktre method. That way there will be no confusion about whether Pooktre uses them, but we can still avoid labeling every technique to a particular method. The fact is all techniques and methods are included under "Tree Shaping", therefore I see no reason to label one as an Arbo technique and another as a Grownup Furniture technique etc., unless a particular artist actually has never used one, nor will ever, on some kind of moral grounds, such as not wanting to hurt the trees they work with. If that is the case it should go under that artist's section. Of course we will need refs to include if that is the case. Does this sound like something you can live with? Colincbn (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the methods go there are 3 distinct methods with own cite-able techniques. Techniques that are published with a method should stay with that method unless/until there are references for a technique being used for a different method. Which would then meet WP:VERIFY Then that technique would naturally be moved to the Common techniques to all forms of tree shaping detailing how it is used in each method.


 * Colincbn I can give you a reference about ring barking. In Richard Reames's 2nd book he talks about his technique of ring barking and states something like most artists are loathed to wound their art. in regards to the use of ring barking to control growth. So on tree shaping article where it talks about ring barking it could be added that most practitioners of the art form don't use this technique. Blackash   have a chat 09:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be no compromise regarding the COI here. Editors who practice and advocate a particular technique should not be trying to influence the way that technique is presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with Martin Hogbin, but I think it is reasonable to ask anyone including Blackash to provide opinions on what the article might say about techniques (which independent editors can assess). This topic presents some difficulties because (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong) there are no useful secondary sources that provide precise definitions of the various techniques involved. If there were such sources, I do not see how we could have had all the arguments about terminology because with proper secondary sources we would just follow their lead. Without such sources, it is going to be difficult to present precise details that distinguish between various techniques. I have a pdf somewhere that I found a couple of months ago with some brief descriptions, but I do not recall it having sufficient material on which to build an article. So, what I am suggesting is that Colincbn's plan of describing details for various techniques may be hard to implement in practice—if there are suitable secondary sources, we will just follow them; if there are not, we should only present broad overviews and leave it for individual websites to expound upon their currently favored techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, I understand the difficulties that you refer to and agree that Slowart and Blackash will be able to make unique and important contributions to this article but they both should not be involved the naming of the art or their own contributions to it or their own preferred techniques.


 * Once the contentious issues have been sorted by editors with no COI, I would welcome the contributions of both Slowart and Blackash, subject to their appreciation of the continuing potential COI and the vigilance of other editors in avoiding this.


 * At the moment Blackash is banned from editing the article, pending resolution of certain issues. The sooner those issues can be properly resolved, the sooner the ban can be lifted and the experts on the subject can resume adding their important and specialist knowledge to the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq Most of the references for the Gradual tree shaping are secondary sources. There was article in the London financial review that mentions the two methods. Aeroponic root shaping This ref for the Aeroponic method, I think is a secondary source. If so then Aeroponic root shaping has both primary and secondary sources. I didn't think to look for secondary sources for the first method, as I had the books. (Thanks for the link I didn't know about this policy) References are hard to find unless you know they exist. I'll look at the ones we already got and see what else I can find in regards to the methods and techniques. Blackash   have a chat 11:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for full top ban
Blackash, you are still interfering in matters having commercial significance. I am going to suggest that you are banned from the talk pages as well until editors with no commercial axe to grind have finished. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree Slowart (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It's what should have happened originally, and when I saw discussion was moving toward a limited ban, I did think about making a comment at the time, but didn't. I wish I did, because dispute continues, and dragging others into the dispute continues. 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. I also think that a period of total rest from any involvement by the two main contributors will allow them to put matters into perspective, and return to editing in a year's time with a little more distance and judgement. It will also allow other editors to work on the article without protracted discussion, to see how it can be developed. The important thing to bear in mind, is that there is no haste, and anything done to the article can be undone because everything is stored in history.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I bet you guessed what I'd say. As it not that I'm uncivil, rude or off point, but the amount I talk that seems to be a problem, how about this as a comprise: When there is an edit I contest, I will only make 2 comments to any given editor about the contested edit. Blackash   have a chat 08:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This has nothing to do with volume of talk it has to do with a commercial and personal COI regarding certain aspects of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a potential COI doesn't justify a ban. Please read WP:COI "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited," Martin you have played the COI card multiple times and again I rebut your claims of COI diff of a detailed rebuttal unless you are going to file at WP:COIN, again I ask you to please desist from making such statements. Blackash   have a chat 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Blackash, I am not playing any kind of card, I have no reason to. The plainly evident fact is that you have been pressing for changes to the article relating to techniques and names that are commercially and personally important to youself and your business. That is a clear and actual COI.
 * You and Slowart will always have a potential COI but Slowart seems generally willing to keep away from areas that are of personal and commercial importance. You have refused to do the same. If you want to take this further, by all means go to Arbcom.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin this is the last I'm going to say on this here, if it is so clear and actual COI put your action where your mouth is and take me to WP:COIN, or drop it. Blackash   have a chat 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I told you so. However, I don't feel it is legit to ban people via this sort of process (ie: just making a vote on an article's talk page, bypassing AN/I or COI or whatever). Something about it seems very wrong. If this were to come up in the proper forum, I would support a narrow ban from discussing the title, but not a full talk page ban. Since the only areas of contention are related to the name, a full talk ban seems punitive rather than constructive. AfD hero (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You did indeed tell us so and I agreed with you as you will see. There is nothing whatsoever punitive about my request, indeed it would help the two editors with a commercial interest in this subject return to editing if they would not involve themselves in certain issues which could easily be properly resolved by others.
 * I have no wish to bypass anything and will take this back to the COI noticeboard if you think that is the right thing to do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain Because I am currently involved in a content dispute over these matters I don't feel it is appropriate for me to vote at this time. However I will say that I think if Blackash and Slowart can agree to Blackash's suggestion of a two comment maximum when conflict arises we will have much fewer problems going forward. Of course I don't think user talk pages or non-controversial editing should be included in this "2 edit rule". It has been a very short time since the last ANI action and I think it would be best to let things cool down before pushing harder sanctions. Colincbn (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very noble of you to abstain, but, like me, you are not really involved an a content dispute, you are involved in trying to ensure that WP policy on COI is followed. Without editors with a COI we could decide on the content in the proper manner according to WP policy rather than being continually influenced by editors with a a direct business and personal interest in this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment As AfDhero, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for a topic ban. --rgpk (comment) 18:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Return to COI noticeboard
A number of editors have expressed the view that this is not the appropriate place to discuss this ban so I propose to take it back to the COI noticeboard, where I would encourage you all to comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the matter there again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Link to COI  Blackash   have a chat 01:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)