User talk:Blackash/Archive2

tree shaping discussion

 * Dear blackash,
 * It is clear that you are passionate about the subject and want your voice to be heard. However, I would request that you take a short break from talk:tree_shaping and allow other less personally involved editors to continue the discussion. Maybe relax and shape some trees or something. I can't order you to do anything, but please take this into consideration. AfD hero (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem like a nice person, and I am sure that we would get along great if we met. So it sucks for me to have to say this, but I am seriously considering bringing this up at the conflicts of interest noticeboard. I know it was done once already and lead nowhere. I assure you that with editors like Martin and myself taking notice we will make sure a decisive conclusion is reached. That might lead to you being allowed to continue editing the article, but I think that is unlikely. So please take the advice of AfD Hero and myself and stop trying to influence neutral editors in the discussion. I suggest simply not even looking. I think you have added valuable content to the article, but you have also worked hard to control the article to best suit your commercial interests. I also notice that the vast majority of your edits are solely regarding the tree shaping article, this is also looked down upon as being a "single purpose account". I hope you take this advice and please be assured that it is meant in the utmost of good faith. Cheers Colincbn (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Colincbn, you should read my reply to AfD hero at his (talk) page, and I did take a short break, at that time and you seem to have a misunderstanding about COI, SilkTork stated it best quote
 * "Conflict of interest is frequently misunderstood. Some editors feel that if someone has an interest or association with an article topic that is a conflict of interest. It is not. It may be a "potential" conflict of interest, but we would need the mind police to discover someone's potential intentions, so we look at the actual edits rather than any assumed intention. Most Wikipedia editors have a potential conflict of interest as we tend to work on those articles whose topics connect with us in some manner - we write about the place where we live, the writers, musicians and films we respect and enjoy, our own areas of expertise, which includes our own occupation or academic subject area. We invite experts to write for Wikipedia, and experts in a field may be expected to hold their own biases or personal enthusiasms. However, we also expect from all Wikipedia editors a certain degree of responsibility, and an awareness of our core policies. Mostly, people do conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. Yes, there is some bias - particularly Systematic bias - but we are aware of that, and we try to deal with it individually and collectively.


 * Of more importance, relevance and accuracy than trying to second guess someone's intention is to look at the article in question to see if the article is promotional in nature, or biased. When I was involved in the article I felt it was proceeding in a mostly neutral and factual manner - though there was a slight cause for concern over the use of the word "arborsculpture" as that word was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with him and his books. However, examination of the evidence showed that the word was also being used by some sources as a generic term for tree-shaping, so limited and careful use of that word was acceptable. However, caution needs to be applied and a watch kept on Tree shaping and related articles to ensure that there isn't inappropriate over-use of the term.


 * Other than keeping a weather-eye on the use of the word "arborsculpture" I agree with Quiddity that there is nothing else here that is cause for concern.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"


 * As most of editors don't have any of the books on the subject it a bit hard for them know what is said in reference and citations.
 * As most of the article is not about Pooktre there isn't a COI.
 * I don't edit war, I will call for a truce rather that push my point of view. Which each time resulted the article giving undue weight to one neologism.
 * How are you going to know when some of the editors will lead you up the garden path?
 * I not pushing to get Pooktre more noticed that others on the page, if point of fact there are quite a few things incorrect with our section now. Pooktre is not a business it is a word for our art. Blackash   have a chat 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just the point, you are using WP to influence what the name of your art is considered. You have even linked to the WP article on outside pages as proof of "Arborsculpture" not being the correct name. You also use the term "Tree Shapers" in the name of your business. I am not suggesting a break I am suggesting not editing to influence the name of the article at all. If WP decides to use a name you don't like then you just have to accept it, if they go with what you want then great. But you yourself should have no part in the discussion. Of course that does not mean you should never edit the article. You have added a great deal of good info to the article and I hope you keep doing so. But leave the naming discussion to others. If action is taken against you it will be bad for all of us. Colincbn (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to talk about behavior outside of Wikipedia, I could tell you stuff about Richard Reames that...... anyway we complained to an editor here about Richard's insistence on branding us and they said it doesn't matter, what happens on the internet, as far a Wikipedia was concerned focus on the cite-able content and not the editor.
 * Go to treeshapers.net have a look around and you will see that we haven't branded other artist's pages on the site with pooktre and the only place treeshapers.net appears in the the address bar example Please remember that I can edit this site however I want and yet all the artists (including Richard Reames) who replied to my email where happy with pages and any changes they asked for where made. I believe this site is a good demonstration of my neutrality.
 * Tree shapers is a descriptive term not the name of our business either. If someone had a business registered as Tree shaping I could easily register a separate business as Tree shapers they would not be considered the same word when it comes to business registration.
 * Finding references and making suggestions for the title makes sense as you guys don't have the books to do with this art form. Blackash   have a chat 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Sydney on Tree shaping talk(Blackash to Ripley)Response(Ripley)
Ripley, I think if you are going to advise one of the wrong party you should share your advice to the other in the wrong as well. Griseum is routinely snide to other editors. Griseum is an experienced editor and should know better. Please next time share the advice around. Blackash have a chat 15:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I comment on things as I see them. If Griseum had made those remarks, he would've received the same comment from me. But I'm not a teacher prowling the classroom with a ruler in constant vigilance, and I don't plan on combing back over the (lengthy) talk page to extend tut-tuts for past bad behavior.  &mdash; e. ripley\talk 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. I feel that Griseum was being snide (and untruthful to boot) in his comment about Sydney's editing quote "but poor marks to whoever was so concerned about “improving” this article that they turned the introductory sentence into grammatical non-sense.", from the same section where you commented. To some else I would normally have said don't bite the newbes. But Griseum has issues already with me and I didn't want to inflame the situation. Blackash have a chat 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see being concerned about language like that too. At this point though, it's been days if not a week or more since that thread was even active, and I don't think adding another comment that could potentially reignite bad feelings would really help anything. Though the specific instance I cited was chiding Sydney, I intended for its broader meaning (play nice with others) to be plain to everybody reading the page. But I do agree frankly that not everybody has covered themselves in glory on that page as far as how they address one another. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that commenting now would not be of any use or may even be detrimental. I was making my comment more as a suggestion for future occasions. When you may want to give advice, that it would be a good idea to check who the editor in question is replying to, and maybe clearly include both sides about playing nice together. Blackash have a chat 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fair observation and I thank you for it. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 16:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blackash have a chat 16:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of photo of Beckies' Mirror
Blackash, I really feel that your in the round mirror photo should be replaced on the Tree Shaping article. I dont have the experience to do this myself. Can you give it a white background and I see this as a compromise as other editors seem to have a problem with the background. I will try to do it and have a go but don't feel confident about it. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I change the background to white, and uploaded it and see how it goes. I do that in a week or so. Blackash   have a chat 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Mirror back
I have put the mirror back on the article I think it looks great!!. Made a few changes to the methods and I think it should go up soon.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Requests for mediation/Arborsculpture 2
You have not listed any parties to Requests for mediation/Arborsculpture 2, and I do not want to presume that they are the same as Requests for mediation/Arborsculpture. I have moved the request page to User:Blackask/Arborsculpture 2 and deleted the request page. When you re-file the request, please ensure that all the parties are listed, because otherwise MediationBot won't notify everybody: it can only do this when the request is first filed, and so I had to delete the request because adding them now would be no good. AGK [&bull; ] 12:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also be advised that you misspelled the request name when you filed it: it was listed as Arborsuclpture 2. AGK  [&bull; ] 12:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up I relist. Blackash   have a chat 03:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you and the two Reames accounts the only editors involved in the dispute? AGK  [&bull; ] 15:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue of how and where the alternative names should be used on the tree shaping page goes back to link when SilkTork was mediating. Lots of editors have been asked to come in a help in one way or the other, the only editors who have involved in all the discussions (except for the lasts round) has been myself and Slowart, though Martin Hogbin (talk), Johnuniq (talk) and Sydney Bluegum (talk) seem to be interested in this issue. Blackash   have a chat 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing in good-faith and an honest desire to reach an agreement. When I first tried to file for mediation I fully expected Slowart to agree and we would discuss and come to a workable compromise. It was after trying to refile that it become clear Slowart wasn't going to talk. So it occurred to me that maybe I should be filing elsewhere to sort this out. By this time Slowart's behavior needed to be pointed out to other editors and maybe he would then be willing to talk. If Slowart now agreed that he is willing to talk I would be happy to go to mediation instead of having the page locked and needing to discuss Slowart's behavior. Blackash  have a chat 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would rather talk content than about behavior

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Image tagging for File:2011-03-01 1946.png
Thanks for uploading File:2011-03-01 1946.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Blackash   have a chat 11:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Interviews and book reviews
You have a response at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban
A discussion has started on a proposed WP:Topic ban for you and Slowart: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. The reality is that the article is causing you and others too much grief. A break for a while will help you put everything in perspective.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented that I'm willing to go to formal meditation at the noticeboard. I don't feel stressed, but I can understand some editors may be feeling stressed. As they don't seem to be arguing from a very strong position. Blackash   have a chat 05:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Blackash. For mediation to work, it requires more than one open party. We cant ordain that. I've seen WP's mediation process fail repeatedly when the question involves specialized experience or knowledge. WP, like English-speaking culture, seems full of people with limited experiences and large what-about-me issues. I think that's called our "entitlement culture" of "corporate welfare"? Unfortunately you have financial interest. That's always tangential to the conflicts I've seen.
 * Whenever you pursue conflict, questions of forests easily become lost in these trees. However WP is growing. You should be content continue to attract interest in the article, and let the marketplace of ideas manifest w/o the influence of intractable individual interests. I believe you said as much yourself? You have spent a lot of time in discussion here, which is nice- but it's all in service to one specialty. You might also present yourself in a new light by working on a wider variety of articles and helping to grow new, cosmopolitan editors. You might find satisfaction in such.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Hilarleo, Martin Hogbin has a agreed to mediation so I'm going to list on Friday. Normally I edit fortnightly and as part of that day of editing I work on de-orphaning, I'm working my way though the backlog stating at 2006 orphans. I've been doing this for quite some time now. Blackash   have a chat 15:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Hogbin is a new name to me, which you have not linked. I assume this is related to Mr. Reames - -? In which case I've seen enough- seen it before.
 * I have seen comments about your de-orphaning, Your edits-list however appears to be in one area (tree horticulture)- where one is more likely to encounter a clique mentality- as well as limited allies and resources. Am I missing something about the de-orphaned subjects? Nevertheless I suppose new editors arrive everywhere. But I feel new editors' new articles is where we can have the best effect in grooming a gentler attitude for WP. I say this b/c you have evinced particular patience and awareness of process. Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin is one of the vocal pro arborsculpture editors. Slowart puts Martin Duff and Griesum into his camp. I'm sure he has other sleepers. You may find this interesting or not
 * I've been systematically going though the orphans to help clear the back log. As a resulted, I've edited about, medicine, judges, obscure schools and race horses love horses plus lots of other stuff I can't remember. I enjoy looking for references and find that this sometimes helps to de-orphan.
 * It seems you are suggesting that I help new editors? Blackash   have a chat 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * btw Do you have an academic background in the field? Your list of 'possible title' references is recentist and ignores arguments of historical precedence. I understand the art form is changing, but we all bow to culture. Is there any more historically precedent term for the art than Topiary or Pleaching? And is there any reason why these terms are  not generally applicable? On the west coast Topiary is the general and popular term. I have never heard  the contended terms used in any sense but @ WP.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This art form was introduced at the world expo 2005 in Japan. We were invited to be the featured artists and our work was displayed for six months. Where we were acknowledged as the world leaders in this art form. There are only about 18 practitioners in the world who do this, 3 maybe 4 are dead. There are only 4 books in English on this art form. Two of which are Richard Reames self published books. There is not much information about how John Krubsack and Axel Erlandson shaped their trees. Axel seemed to enjoy knowing a secret, he never really told anyone how he shaped trees. So there are no Universities that teaches this. My life partner and I have 39 years combined experience with shaping trees. We have lots of photos of our trees at pooktre.com We believe Dr Chris Cattle is an expert in this field. He has a repeatable design that has been grown in a variety of tree species, with even and balanced growth. This is a key point, the results of shaping trees show how well someone understands this art. Richard Reames is not an expert he is someone who, saw how much attention Axel Erlandson's trees were receiving and got a hold of Mark Primack's research about Axel Erlandson. Mark Primack is the main reason Axel's trees are still alive today. Which Richard used to write a book in 1995 about Axel's trees and added his own theory about how to shape trees. Re-branded Axel's trees with arborsculpture and has defended his shaping method ever since. 10 years later he wrote his 2nd book stating things like "I consider all my trees to be experimental". Anyway Richard doesn't have a method that gives repeatable results, but he lecturers and teachers his method still. Which is why I believe he's been trying so hard to remove the instant method from the tree shaping article. Even though its all cited and not out of context. He doesn't like having his own work representing his methods. Richard has been relying on branding Axel's trees and other artists to imply his method works. Our trees, Dr Chris Cattle and Axel's trees are unachievable using Richard's bending method.


 * Any way thats a very brief overview, if you want to know more I can give you the info or point you in the right direction.
 * Now to answer your questions. We are experts but there are no universities to study this. So no, we don't have any academic background. This art is related to Bonsai, Espalier and Pleaching. Richard's method is very close to pleaching. Pleaching seems to have started out as a weaving/braiding process of hedge laying and has evolved into a weaving/braiding of tree branches with clear trunks to form a hedge. Or it maybe even be used for both process still. There is a movement in Germany basically using pleaching to try and grow houses out of trees. The gradual tree shaping, which is training new grow, is more like Espalier and to some degree bonsai. The reason arborscuplture was changed to tree shaping, was arborsculpture lead to one person. At the time of the change over, tree shaping had a very broad search result, and didn't lead to one artist. That was about 2 and half years ago. Tree shaping has been used for this art-form, Topiary, Espalier and bonsai, for bonsai I only found 2 references and they were from about 100 year old books. Blackash   have a chat 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Side comment
You said here that you might be "banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate."

I wanted to say that this way of looking at the situation is not wholly without merit. At some point, the community has to defend itself against disruption through whatever means are likely to be effective, even if it seems like overkill. The "fire 'em all" approach is neither pleasant nor noble, but it is often effective at ending the disruption.

Good editors resolve disputes. Not every person is able to do that for every subject. If the community decides that your participation—no matter how well-intended it is, or how hard you have tried, or how strictly you have followed the letter of the law—has the result of perpetuating a dispute in an article, then the community may well ask you to stop participating in those articles. If that's the case, I hope that you will not take it as a referendum on your overall potential or value as a person or a Wikipedia editor (it's not intended to be), but simply as collateral damage in a well-intended, if somewhat ham-fisted, effort to end a long-standing, significant problem.

Good luck to you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * With appreciation for WhatamIdoing's intelligent position, and with respect to the volumes already written-
 * Why do we not just admit it, and help Blackash let it all go? WP process inevitably gives activists a break. We dont look for "fair" in "resolution". Blackash's fault here has been to seek fair treatment when the system is against her. IMO she has consistently tried to do right by the process. Apparently editors are now objecting more to the volume of her documentation than her arguments, offering Blackash veiled insult and repeating their previously-addressed issues in a new forum. But it's us editors who have prolonged this matter by our "faith" in a failing "dispute resolution" rigamarole- promising oxymoronic 'fairness by committee' and proposing "non binding  mediation" to deal with activists.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ WhatamIdoing I understand that to most editors this issue is worth about 0.01% of their time and I've haven't taken it personally. 12 years ago My life partner and I were not concerned about Richard's banding of arborsculpture. Then about six years ago we started getting e-mails from people who were confused thinking Richard's method was how we shape our trees, (we haven't yet made it public how we do so) some of the e-mails we were receiving were hostile, saying we were torturing trees. Other people were contacting us wanting to know what tree species we used as they seemed to grow so well and theirs weren't. Richard Reames came and visited us on our property. Afterwards we thought he would change his methods of shaping trees, so we didn't do anything for a couple of years to see what his results were. Then about three years ago we decided we had to separate ourselves from Richard's branding. And that is when Richard called us on the phone very upset with us wanting to know what the heck we were doing. We explained to him our problems over many e-mails he just gave us the brush off about our issues. We asked him not to brand our trees anymore and he said quote, "For the last time I call everybody arborsculpture." At this time we didn't realized we were messing with his chance at immortality. If he can successfully brand his word arborsculpture on to artists with the best trees he would go down in history as the father of the art form. This art is only in its infancy once there is a repeatable method that anybody can do in their home garden it will become as well known as bonsai. If you mess with someones chance at immortality they do you over if they can.  Blackash   have a chat 11:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well youre being quite candid here. unfortunately I must ask if you see your role as preventing RR's alleged agenda, protecting yourself from something- (unwanted email? smaller prestige?), or to simply provide information. You indicate it also involves secrecy re proprietary tech- yours. That problem's yours alone. Unfortunately, as English, 'arborsculpture' has undeniable poetry. We must consider ways to face the fact of it rather than "hate on a player"  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Hilarleo I find your comments very interesting, as this is mostly how I feel things have happened. Though I wasn't thinking as far as "a failing "dispute resolution" rigamarole- promising oxymoronic 'fairness by committee' and proposing "non binding mediation" to deal with activists." It something I need to think on.  Blackash   have a chat 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've been doing WP twice as long as I. As of this month I've now observed 2 disputes conceptually attached to careerism. The parallels are astounding: Left-brain overmatched by home-court "Edit-War advantage". In both cases months become years b/c there is no economic advantage to surrender. Why do we support this? . We should all know by now that our culture is broken. Can we expect anything more from our institutions? Let's ask the black men who comprise our death-rows. On the larger front, WP was founded by a leftist frustrated by capital's destruction of independent media. WP's inevitably becoming just another pillar of the hegemony of priesthoods. Why do we support this? Answer: What's the alternative? So I'm happy to discover the 'mutual ban'; it can offer at  some opportunity for fairness & fresh-take. We might add this to dispute-related articles [ie, WP:Edit war] where its not, b/c these struggles are only going to increase with the rising appearance of paid editors.
 * But you are already a natural at working with real people. A great way to create allies is to offer widely requested services at "WP:Good_article_nominations" page. It's a broad wealth of... material. But if you can nudge a quality topic toward 'GA' status you'll find a smart, dedicated and grateful editor behind it. Have good meditation.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Arborsculpture 3 has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Typo in name of mediation case
I hope it is not too late to change this: the case should be named "Arbors cu lpture 3". --Lambiam 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Damm, thanks for pointing this out, I touch type and one finger must have been faster than the other. I don't know how to change a title I can redirect a page. Umm I check it out later. Blackash   have a chat 00:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to its proper name. --Lambiam 07:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing that. Blackash  have a chat 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Community topic ban: Tree shaping
By community consensus, as established in this discussion, you are topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from articles related to tree shaping. This topic ban does not apply to pages that are not in the main space, such as talk page discussions. If you do not comply with this ban you may be blocked. You can appeal this ban to the community at WP:AN, or to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  09:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture 3, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Working towards compromise
Hi, I hope you realize that I have nothing against you as an editor, nor in any other capacity. I am not in any way pro/anti Arbo/Pooktre. I simply want to help make good WP articles and have been doing my best to follow Policy with that aim.

You have said that you don't want to have your art labeled as Arbo and I certainly understand that. Also I don't have any problem with you posting your view around the web, nor even referencing the WP article in your posts. However, I feel that if are going to do so you should not be editing the article as that makes it look like you are editing to prove a point on those outside web pages. That has been my only issue as far as the CoI goes. In fact I think you should be explaining your position on various web-pages and blogs. I also imagine you could easily write a book on your own methods, as R. Reames did, thereby giving us a great source of refs for your position.

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)


 * Colin, I don't know why you feel the need to restate this "I have nothing against you as an editor" as I've never said that you where against me personally. I would like to discuss the content on the talk page so I'll start a new section there. I'll copy across your last paragraph and talk there. Blackash   have a chat
 * I'm glad you don't feel that I am against you (if I can take that from the above), because I think you are actually really good at all this wikistuff. I do think you may be a bit conflicted when wiki policy butts-up against your art, but I imagine we will continue that discussion on the T.S. talk page. Anyway I am a bit buzzed on the Ol'Honey Mead at the moment so I will refrain from editing until the morrow. Cheers and good night my dear! Colincbn (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep you can take that from my comment. Blackash   have a chat 08:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reposted from Evidence Talk because I'm not sure if you will reply there
''Look I am honestly confused. Are you allowing me to post in this section or not? You just changed the heading to mach a heading in my evidence section, and you say below that you don't want me posting up here, as if this page was the evidence page (if we are doing that I don't see why you even moved stuff over here though, but fine). But then you started this section with a sentence obviously directed at me by saying " I don't see you changing your stance...", that makes me think we are having a conversation I am allowed to participate in. Can you just lay out your rules for me posting so I know what is going on? Please?'' Colincbn (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the evidence section is that we are allowed to make changes to our evidence. Well I'm editing my evidence. I happy to talk in a section that is not my evidence. You are right I should have written Colincbn instead of you I'll fix that soon. Sorry about that. Blackash   have a chat 06:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you must realize that a talk page is not an evidence page. But that is fine, if you want me treating it as if it is I will. I don't think that is what was intended when you were asked to move stuff there though, you're basically just using it as an extension of your evidence page as a way to get around the limits placed there. I know that is what you were told to do, but I don't think they intended for all the same rules to apply. Also can you please just tell me where you want me to reply to you on the Talk page? It is not clear whether you want me to post in new sections in-between your sections or if you want me to start a whole new section underneath and reference your sections. I think this is all a very bad idea that will lead to more confusion and misunderstandings than we already have though. And I think we would see eye to eye on most issues if we could clear out the misunderstandings. Colincbn (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not bring the points over to where the discussion is happening at the workshop with links? That way the same discussion isn't happening over multiple pages. Or you could start a new section at the bottom of the talk page and we talk there. My understanding of arbitration guidelines is we not to talk about content but behavior. So maybe behavior is what we should be talking about over there? Blackash   have a chat 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also can you tell me what your problem with the title "Training plants to form tools or items" is? I am not wedded to that wording, but it seems to answer everyone's issues with the name. Colincbn (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that title is based on WP:NEO right? Tree shaping is not a neologism so WP:NEO doesn't apply as a guide to change the title. Unless you believe Tree shaping is neologism? Also I had the impression some of the admins would rather we work on improving the article and leaving the title for now. I plan to do some cleaning up the grafting section when I have a some more time. Blackash   have a chat 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say it is based on a way to find compromise. And the WP:NEO policy is just a good clarification of general policy on titles and what to do if there is no accepted consensus name for a topic. We are not allowed to promote one use over another if there is a dispute. This title avoids that. And I was not asking what the admins think, I was asking what you think. Colincbn (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As to using WP:NEO as a guide I think WP:NAME is more appropriate as guide to which title. Blackash   have a chat 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME says "Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." so my point about prescribing usage during a dispute still stands. But you still have avoided answering my question. How do you feel about using the title "Training plants to form tools or items"?
 * For multiple reasons, I don't see that policy really calls for a long title, I have stated some of these to your before. We also now have a fairly detailed table showing different terms in use for this art form some spanning more than a hundred years. . Blackash   have a chat 01:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering. I would point out that none of those names fix the problem with allowing WP to choose the default name for the art. The fact that the table exists, with so many options, just goes to show that there is no default name. So WP needs to respect that and not influence what the default name becomes. My suggested name does that. Colincbn (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I may change my preferred title suggestion to "Shaping living plants into objects", as it flows better and is essentially a direct quote from one of the sources on the table. Colincbn (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre
Dear ms. Northey,

"Pooktre" is the name of your company and not the name of the general art. Your home page states "Pooktre Tree Shapers". That means that you are calling your tree shaping company "Pooktre", just like "Walmart" that is the name of a chain of department stores, not a general name for department stores. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My life partner and I use Pooktre as the word for our art, it is not our company. Our company is SharBrin Publishing PTD LTD, as in it pays the government taxes. Tree shapers is a descriptive term for what we are. That aside even if Pooktre was our company name (which it is not) there are lot of examples where a word is both the name of company and a generalized name. Example  check out Hoover_(disambiguation) A other example would be Biro There is Biro the company that makes ballpoint pens, while biro is used as generalized name for any ballpoint pen. | wikitionary.org biro  Blackash   have a chat 01:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But when I enter a Burger King and ask for a Whopper, I will most likely get a hamburger. But if I enter any hamburger outlet worldwide that is not a Burger King, I can guarantee with 99,99% likelyhood that you will get confused looks when asking for a Whopper. I am also confident that the thousands of tree shapers worldwide have never heard about Pooktre, even less as a generalised name for the art. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you have no reply? Or do you just not want to answer me? You can not defend yourself if you don't answer. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn’t realize you were attacking and I need to defend. I gave two examples were a word is used in two different contexts relevant to your argument. You ignored that and your comment doesn’t address the basic issue that words can and do have more than one definition. Blackash   have a chat 17:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass rollback of your recent edits
Hullo; I have (without prejudice towards the contents) rolled back your recent spam of seveal talk pages. Whatever you're trying to communincate, that's not the way to do so. I won't be watching this page, so if you'd like to reply please use my talk page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He appeared to have been trying to contact all the arbitrators about an arbitration case he is involved in. While that is not the best way to make contact, I don't think a mass roll-back was strictly needed here (if it had been my talk page, I would have reverted the roll-back and replied). I also only noticed this when looking at a single revert on a single arb's talk page and in isolation that edit on its own looked like a mistaken revert and it was only by looking a bit further that I realised that there was a reason for the revert that hadn't been given in the edit summary. If the edit summary had said "mass revert - see user's talk page" that would have helped. If I'd noticed this, I would have left a note here with advice on better ways to communicate. You also missed one of the edits. I'll leave a note on your (Aaron Brenneman's) talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, Carcharoth is correct this was a mistake on my part, and an abuse of the button. I apologise unreservedly for being hamfisted. - Aaron Brenneman (talk)
 * No that fine the mistake was in how I contacted editors and Carcharoth is right about the way I should have done this. Blackash   have a chat 07:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Henry Morgan
Ya wanna hear sumpthin sad? I honesly think Tree Shapin is da best name fer it. Colincbn (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
Final Decision

An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year . The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
 * 4) User:Slowart 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.
 * 5) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. 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.
 * 6) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the db-author or db-self template.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the issues