Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

The article was moved from Arborsculpture without proper discussion or consensus
The only real discussion was on the talk page of a different article. There is no sign of discussion on the Arborsculpture/Tree shaping talk page before the move. AfDHero put the single word 'Discuss' on the arborsculpture talk page at 05:19 10 Jan 2009 and at 06:38 the same day reported having moved the page (See first diff). The first discussion was after the move.

Blackash engaged in an internet campaign, which referred back to WP, to remove the name arborsculpture from general use.
Evidence as presented by Colincbn here. This campaign, improperly in my opinion, refers back to a supposed consensus at Wikipedia with comments along the lines of, "At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping ".

Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, created purely for the purpose of supporting Blackash
See here. Specific diffs to show support for Blackash: adds Pooktre image -, Removes 'arborsculpture' - , Removes info about Reames , accuses me of attacking Blackash, claimed I am biased in favour of Slowart, defends Blackash and attacks Slowart on an editors talk page, accused Slowart of 'spamming the world'. These are taken from Sydney Bluegum's first 18 edits.

Blackash has edited with a persistent conflict of interest
COI edits are not always biased edits, although some clearly are, they are just edits in an area where the editor has a direct business or personal interest. A look through Blackash's contributions shows that a significant proportion are in such areas, often relating to the name 'arborsculture'.

Note that Blackash's business is called 'Pooktre Tree Shapers'

March 2007 - Adds own business web site

Aug 2008 - Removes two mentions of arborsculpture Adds comment about 'branding of Arborsculpture'

Jan 2009 - Admits contacting 500 business mailing list asking them to comment on the article. Pushes the word 'shaping' and adds details of own business history.

April 2009 - Changes the obviously neutral 'works of Axel Erlandson' to 'Tree shaping of Axel Erlandson'.

Jan 2010 - Admits COI purpose of some edits, "My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees." Changes neutral wording to include 'Tree shaping'. .

May 2010 - Adds own name for the art to caption. Chooses how to be described in the article. Note edit summary describes section as a bio.

June 2010 - Slowart's work now called shaping

August 2010 - Reverted my revert of Sydney Bluegum's rather provocative edit. Note edit summary.

Sept 2010 - Another attack on 'arborsculpture'

November 2010 - More comprehensive bio + plug for own technique "In the spring 1996, Pooktre was born"

Feb 2011 - Arborsculpture again, maybe a valid point but better left to someone else

March 2011 - Adds own name for the art and changes order of own name. 

Talk page
Here are a few examples of Blackash on the talk page ,,

The term 'tree shaping' is already in common use to refer to the normal arboricultural practice of pruning trees to maintain a good natural shape
These links were found from a quick Google search of 'Tree shaping arborist'. Note the url of the first one one       search on each page for 'shaping' or 'tree shaping' There are plenty more. What this shows is that whatever usage there may or may not be of the term 'tree shaping' to refer to the very specialised and limited subject of this article, the term is already in common use to refer to a standard arboricultural process, carried out on a much wider scale.

Alternatively, phone your local arborist and ask if they do tree shaping, then ask them what they understand by this term.

Many of Blackash's refs refs either refer to the common use of the term 'tree shaping' referred to above or just refer to the general shaping/training of trees or do not actually contain the term 'tree shaping' at all but contain some part of the verb 'to shape' in the same sentence as 'tree'. Few of them actually use the exact term 'tree shaping' to clearly refer to the subject of this article. Compare these to the 'arborsculpture' refs in the same link.

In fact, this reference from Blackash's list shows that, far from being a neutral term, 'tree shaping' was a term proposed by Blackash in 2008. A relevant quote from the article is, Tree shaping, as Peter and Becky call it.

Commercial and personal rivalry has become so pervasive that non-COI editors now try to give equal benefit in the article.
Although one might expect that Slowart and Blackash would get roughly equal mention in this article there is no policy that requires this, or that they get any coverage at all. Everything said should be based on what reliable sources say not a commercial or personal 'fair play' policy.

Immediately after the move Afd hero created a section on Pooktre to go with the one on Arborsculpture. It would have been better to have tried to combine the two sections into a description of the subject based on secondary/tertiary sources. Afd hero seems to think that WP has the duty to give everyone equal benefit rather than reflect the real world

Even Colincbn worries about equal coverage here see edit summary.

Response to evidence about me by Regents Park
I came in response to an RfC about the article name. I explained who I was and how I might help. I proposed a way to deal with the dispute and commented on the heavy commercial content of the article. The commercial battle continued unabated and I suggested that the two COI editors withdraw for a while. After a short discussion, Slowart agreed to withdraw completely but Blackash did not. I did not come with any strong opinions on the subject but I do object strongly to the abuse of WP that I saw here. I therefore stuck around to try to prevent this.

Evidence presented by Blackash
I've shortened my evidence and given links to talk page as advised.

Martin Hogbin section
Rebuttal

Slowart states I've chased off good editors, Duff, Griseum
Duff has been editing recently and both of these editors have been rude, uncivil or in one instance tried to frame me for bad behavior.

Griseum who is also 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199
Griseum's hostile comments,.

Listed COI Noticeboard, without evidence of my bad editing behavior. The only link they do give is where I've asked for editor assistance.

Griseum refused to move on the next point during meditation then tried to imply I'm the reason the meditation is not moving forward

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

more

Duff
Duff has some commercial interests in arborsculpture. (This in no way outs him) my talk with duff

Duff added lots of references to a website he knew I owned. Then later accused me of over linking. . I asked him not to do this, (look at last comment in diff)

Duff's wide sweeping generalizations appear to have the intent to mislead new editors. my edit with a list of Duff's generalizations with my rebuttal.

Duff accused me of gutting the article. An editor notes that they didn't have any specific problems That editor later only queried a couple of changes

I suggested going over one diff at time Duff didn't like this idea  quote "so I'll list 'em as I see 'em" thus making it almost impossible for new editors to figure out what is happening on the talk page. Then Duff complaints he can't keep up with them all. 

more

Slowart's section
Rebuttal

RegentsPark section
More commenting than rebuttals

How COI has been used to discredit me or stop/divert discussion from content to my behavior
Griseum trying to stop the discussion. 

Griseum makes claims about my bad behavior No diffs. discussion a quick scan and you get the idea. This is the throw enough mud and some will stick.

Martin implies bad behavior on my part Martin knows I contacted nearly all the editors (about 30) As he contacted the few I accidentally missed

Broad generalizations about my behavior and influence with other editors  This is not true, examples  and.

Arborsculpture had been added 8 times to the tree shaping article during the request to move Survey and shortly after, in a very WP:POINT. I started Undue weight on the talk page. Note Colincbn edit summary encouraging others to dismiss my questions. When talking about the title didn't sidetrack the discussion the COI was brought into play Then some talk about NEO again, Colincbn tried to stop me talking about it because of COI  Martin backs him up also with COI  Some more talk. Then I state I'm taking it to NPOV noticeboard.

At NPOV I state who I am and my potential COI ask my question. Martin comes claiming I'm behaving badly and have COI. Colincbn talks about title and my COI as bad behavior. Then Johnuniq talks about the COI editors (me) causing confusion Duff comes in to support Colincbn & Johnuniq, views about COI and adds a bit more kick  This seemed to me to be in an effort to stop the content discussion from happening  about how much weight Arborsculpture has in the article. Colincbn goes on to talk about how I went around the web talking about the title change. It a lot to read through if interested I also clear up a few points

Once the editor from NPOV notice board comes to tree shaping talk, Duff goes on about how I"m behaving badly with no evidence.

The issue I have is, when there are multiple editors putting negative spin on behavior together their comments are greater then the individual comments. I gave these examples COI chant to give an idea of how COI has been used. This has been repleted else where. If asked I get more diffs.

Martin Hogbin
Slowart and I shouldn't be even talking. 

Martin tries to make out I haven't given evidence of artists using Tree shaping, shaping trees or tree shapers yet in an earlier edit complained the references for tree shaping are not good because quotes aren't "...Tree shaping..." instead they content various example "shaping trees" "shaping tree trunks" "Tree shapers"  Some of these sources are by artists of Tree shaping Tree shaping references

Martin has twice supported COI editing by Slowart which are against wiki policies.
 * 1) Slowart removes cited/referenced content the content was about the art forms name and how each artist has their own name for their art. This was a COI edit for Slowart, as the text talks about how Arborsculpture is used.
 * 2) Martin started a section on the talk page supporting Slowart's edit
 * 3) Initially Colincbn also supported the removal
 * 4) I pointed out why it is not appropriate to do or support that edit. . As far as I'm aware Martin never retracted his support of Slowart's edit.
 * 5) Slowart removed a section of cite/referenced content about his method of creating shaped trees.
 * 6) Two Ips mirrored Slowart's edit
 * 7) Martin shows support of Slowart's edit by mirroring Slowart earlier edit. Please note the edit Martin was reverting diff had only added the word "The". Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.
 * 8) I asked Martin to justify doing this edit he never has.very short discussion and at ANI of proposed topic ban Sorry can't find diff I'll try again tomorrow.

Colincbn
States Arborsculpture seems to be a valid title unless there is a consensus not to use it There is a "no consensus to move" to Arborsculpture at the RFMove  RegentsPark sums up consensus. 6 days after the survey Colincbn doesn't accept consensus as he stated he would but discusses how to get the title changed to Arborsculpture quote "If we can't change the title to match the article another option might be to change the article to match the title" discussion with Griseum, and  Martin Hogbin.

Colincbn's diff shows his underlying opinions about Tree shaping/Arborsculpture/NEO/Let's delete the article and I don't care. So much for not caring "I don't like it but there it is."

This is not an edit summary of an neutral editor also seems to be assuming bad faith.

More

Working towards a common goal
A scan though the comments in these discussions and you get a feel of the pro Arborsculpture group. Survey sub-discussion, discussion, discussion,, talk page

Slowart trusts Duff with his vote Slowart states who can edit for him. short discussion near the end.

Martin Hogbin and Colincbn discuss taking me to user conduct RfC (I'm going by the time frame) because I'm querying the amount of times Arborsculpture was put into the article. last two comments in Arborsculpture section.

Colincbn section
"game of chess" is a metaphor to illustrate how Slowart has other editors who stated they believe the title should be Arborsclpture and are willing to try to get the title changed. Griseum Martin Hogbin  Duff  and Colincbn  The following comments are just after the move survey that resulted in no consensus to move the title. Colincbn  Martin Hogbin  Mdvaden  Duff  or read the discussion About the same time they were having a discussion of how to get the title back to Arborsculpture. At the Tree shaping talk Martin offered a solution of changing the title to a temporary name, while having the real discussion as to what the title should be. . I believe this was suggested to game the system. After the move, the argument could then be made the title is unstable and needs to go back to the first non stub name which is Arborsculpture. Wikipedia is not a game though some treat it as such. I contribute to other articles because Wikipedia's contribution to the world at large is profound and is an amazing model of how people can work together. Even when the community makes decisions I disagree with I abide by them, example my Topic banning Topic banning at ANI. Once I'm aware of policy I edit accordingly. Example changing redirects, I changed Arborsclpture redirects to Tree shaping, Duff pointed out, Redirect policy and I have never changed a redirect since or tried to find a way around the policy.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Evidence#Colincbn_section_Blackash_sees_WP_... More]

Colincbn "Blackash..."
Comment Rebut Please note the diffs Colincbn gives are recent which doesn't show a long held view.

Duff's section
Rebuttal

Why I'm here
After being inspired this articles creation, I started Axel Erlandson's and John Krubsacks's bio. Shortly after the title was changed from "arborsculpture" to "tree shaping" a word I coined in the book How to grow a chair 1995, the article started being manipulated in every conceivable way to eliminate and redefine the word "arborsculpture" by my professional rival, originally without regard to Wikipedia rules. It was not until more experienced editors like Duff arrived to help did the junk start to be removed. I don't edit much on this page simply because I am way to close to the subject and other editors have caught on to the reality of the issue.

Title of article moved from arborsculpture
There was no discussion before AFDHero moved it "tree shaping" as Martin describes. This mistake has launched mega bites of talk and mega hours of time.

The campaign to censor a word
After the article title changed the follow up campaign by Blackash/Becky/Pooktre across hundreds of web sites comment box was and still is distressing to read in most every article that ever used arborsculpture, IMO effectively suppressing it's organic growth. By using google alerts on the word, she simply spamed every instance with a copy of this as found on a reprint from an article in Dwell. [] "Hi this is Becky form Pooktre Arborsculpture relates to Richard Reames''s method of shaping trees. At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping You may be also interested in visiting this website http://www.treeshapers.net which shows photos from all the different tree shapers from around the world."

COI editing and endless arguing
It appearers to me that endless debate here has been used effectively as a way to chase off or stifle good editors, Duff, Griseum to name two. Topic ban with out talk page ban only helps if editors can ignore the talk page activity, not easy or practical if one just one editor can't or won't do it. Currently no reliable source I have seen titles the whole art Pooktre, FYI.Slowart (talk)

Main contributors and some battles
Griseum One example and opinion from a neutral editor who contributed a lot but is no longer helping. []

Duff contributed the most to the article, at one point he said this about the Title. [] Johnuniq []

Blackash and Slowart's contributions have greatly improved the article
The article when I moved it (Jan 2009):.

The article now (April 2011):.

The breakdown of contributions by editor:

These editors also have special access to and knowledge of sources that would be hard to come by for non-expert editors (out of print books, old news and magazine articles, etc). This is evident from the reference list, most of which were added by these two editors:.

I think it was a mistake when the community banned them from editing the article.

There is a real policy dispute over the name
Although it is easy to blame the problem on biased editors, this is not really the heart of the issue. The real problem is that the policy is inconsistent.

On one hand it says that the name should be neutral, but on the other hand it says that if there's controversy then it should default to the original name. Arborsculpture is the original name, but it is definitely not neutral. I think that being neutral is more important than using the original name (after all, what if I instead merged Arborsculpture into Pooktre then renamed that - then the "original name" would have been Pooktre). However, Martin disagrees and thinks keeping the original name is more important. This is a genuine disagreement not related to COI.

Another inconsistency that has added fuel to the argument is the neologisms policy, which says that the name should be a technical description even if longwinded or awkward. On the other hand, the article titles policy states that the title should be concise and natural. I think conciseness and naturality is more important, whereas Colincbn thinks otherwise and suggests changing the name to "Shaping plants to form useful or artistic tools and items". Again, another genuine disagreement between neutral editors.

A third inconsistency is whether or not we are allowed to make up the title - one part of the policy page says we can (in the interest of neutrality) create a non-judgemental descriptive title, whereas another part of the policy says that we can't make up a title. Well.. which is it? (note, "Tree shaping" is not completely made up, as it is used in several sources, but it is arguably not as common as other non-neutral terms like Arborsculpture and Pooktre)

The key link to read a condensed version of the arguments is here:. AfD hero (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A Conflict of Interest is a state not an action
While much time has been devoted to pointing out specific examples of edits that may or may not have been "CoI edits", having a conflict of interest does not boil down to a set of actions. It is the state one is in when two things that are important to that person have goals that are sometimes at odds. In this case the goal of Blackash to not have her art labeled with someone else's term vs. the goal of WP to label the art with whatever the most common term is.

Of course simply having a conflict of interest in itself is not grounds for sanctions. However any editing on contentious points may be seen as disruptive, regardless of civility and adherence to WP rules.


 * Conflict of interest

There is only one reason to edit WP
The only acceptable reason to edit WP is to write an encyclopedia. Controlling the name of an art is not a reason to edit here. Nor is helping someone in a conflict with other editors. Both Blackash and Sydney Bluegum have stated that they have intentions other than the improvement of the encyclopedia where this topic is concerned diff.

The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates: Five_pillars

An essay widely regarded as encapsulating the five pillars: Here to build an encyclopedia

Blackash sees WP as a battleground and a tool for furthering her off-wiki activities
Blackash is working under the assumption that there is a "fight" or "game of chess" going on here and she is trying to win rather than work with all editors to build consensus, diff.
 * Quote from above diff: "This is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest [sic]. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game."


 * WP:NOTBATTLE

Blackash has posted to approximately a hundred sites around the web claiming Arborscupture is not an agreed upon term for this art and therefore should not be used on those sites (link). This is fine. She also references the WP article in those posts. This is also perfectly ok. However, she has then continually fought to control the title and has systematically refused to consider any change that may lead back to Arborsculpture, in-spite of good-faith attempts by other editors to follow policy. She has made it clear that she demands "her art" should not be labeled with a term associated with someone else, diff. While I can fully understand why she feels this way, and even agree that Arborsculpture may not be an acceptable title, she is still editing to use WP as a tool rather than for the betterment of the project.

While posting on off-wiki sites is in no way inapropriate, and even quoting WP in those posts is also perfectly acceptable. Editing to make sure those posts remain accurate regardless of WP policies or the necesities of consensus building is a violation of policy.


 * WP:SOAP

In cases where no agreed upon term exists for a topic a descriptive phrase should be used
It is acceptable for the phrase used to describe a topic with no consensus name to be long. In fact I believe it is necessary for it to be long enough that it is clearly not the default name of the topic when the name is in dispute. If WP uses a short easy to use name that will become the default name for the topic, and WP will be taking part in the naming debate as an authority. Original Research at its worst.


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


 * Policy on title changes: "''While titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.'"

There was never consensus to keep the current title
This RfM ended with a result of "No Consensus", and I agreed with that decision at the time because there clearly was none. But that is not the same thing as a "consensus to keep". If there is no consensus you then try to build it.

Blackash refuses to assume good faith
During my initial involvement with this dispute I recommended reverting back to Arborscupture as it was the first non-stub title and Policy clearly calls for that. I have since then changed my stance on what the title should be but Blackash sees this as a plot to eventually get the article back to Arborsculpture. This is not the case as can be easily seen from my postings.

diff: In this diff Blackash clearly rejects using a long descriptive title because she states it is a plot to eventually move the title back to Arborsculpture. Quote: "At the Tree shaping talk Martin offered a solution of changing the title to a holding or temp name, while having the real discussion as to what the title should be. . I believe this was suggested to game the system. Once the title is moved again, the argument could then be made the title is unstable and needs to go back to the first non stub name which is Arborsculpture."

She also clearly demonstrates that she understands policy calls for returning to the first non-stub title in naming disputes.

She has not changed from this stance as this post shows (diff). I feel this is the real tragedy here as if she simply accepted that I have no ulterior motives we could have resolved most, if not all, of the issues being debated long ago.

Article expansion should never be used as an argument for keeping a title
If we use the expansion of the article as evidence of its name being acceptable what we are saying is "Do not edit this article if you don't like the name". I would also point out that in AfD Hero's link the second most prolific contributor is Duff, one of the strongest proponents of reverting back to Arborsculpture. Slowart, Griseum, Martin, and myself are also on the list. Those edits should not be seen as points in favor of keeping the current title.

General observations
My involvement in this matter is limited and I don't follow it very carefully so here are a few general observations and hypotheses in no particular order of importance: --rgpk (comment) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Fact: The article title is the subject of much dispute. I closed a request to move the article from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture about a year ago as 'not moved' (reasons here). While I'm unsure whether Tree shaping is or is not the right title (though, as I stated in my close, it is generic and easily understood), Arborsculpture is clearly the wrong title. Many editors were upset about this (Martin Hogbin described it as an 'astonishing decision' []) and a campaign to rename it back to Arborsculpture started almost immediately. Various simultaneous attempts to invent a new name for this went nowhere.
 * 2) Conjecture: Most uninvolved users believe that Tree shaping is reasonably neutral and preferable over Arborsculpture., , , . However, this does not necessarily mean that there isn't a bias inherent in the name Tree shaping that is not apparent to editors not knowledgeable about the niceties of this art.
 * 3) Fact: Blackash has a declared COI in this article.
 * 4) Apparent fact: Slowart has a declared COI in this article. I'm not sure if he/she has formally declared this but this seems to be accepted wisdom.
 * 5) Hypothesis: Blackash is a significant contributor to the article but she is also good at protecting her interests. The first part is evidenced by the fact that she has the largest number of edits to the article by far and the second by the fact that she also has the largest number of edits on the talk page by a good margin . The sheer volume of article and talk page edits by one practitioner of this 'art' raises the potential for this article to be commercially skewed one way.
 * 6) Hypothesis: Martin Hogbin's main, perhaps exclusive, interest in Tree shaping is the article title. Martin Hogbin has few edits to the article itself (a mere 6 ) while also having a large number of edits (150) to the talk page, mostly either about the title or about Blackash, . To me, whatever the underlying motivation, this seems a tad obsessive. Colincbn, on the other hand, while also somewhat obsessed with the title, does not appear to be focused solely on it.,.
 * 7) Fact: Sydney Bluegum has absolutely no other interests on wikipedia. While there is nothing wrong with having a single article of interest on wikipedia, this is unusual enough to be worth noting.
 * 8) Conjecture: Slowart does not need to 'talk' as much as Blackash because various other editors are focused on changing the article title. Slowart has fewer edits on both the talk page as well as on the article, and I'm assuming that his/her main motivation is to protect the name 'Arborsculpture', so this seems to be a reasonable conjecture.

Evidence presented by Duff
I agree that further arbitration is needed around editing of the Tree shaping article and its talk page. The intended purpose of this specific arbitration is not entirely clear to me, as presented. I haven't worked on the article for some time, until quite recently, but I did make significant contributions to its content and talk page discussions over the period of time apparently being discussed here. My name has come up repeatedly in comments & assertions here and I did participate extensively in the discussions referenced. Before I comment further, I'd like to go back & evaluate the stimuli at the talk page.

I have worked on many different articles and topic areas. I gave this article a lot of time because I find its topic fascinating and the conflict around it both novel and challenging. Participation in that part of it enhanced my understanding of Wikipedia's meaning and its fundamental tenets, which I think was extremely valuable.

It's also true (and I've expressed this before) that I disagree with the initial shift in the title and with the way it was carried out. That action immediately preceded & in fact stimulated my interest in the article in the first place. The tedious nature of the arguments that arose while my attention was on this article are indeed what caused me to take several steps back from editing the encyclopedia. I have other important responsibilities and basically, I don't want to burn out on the encyclopedia over this topic or any other. That was beginning to occur. I was accused at various times of lying, of having my own COI, of being somehow allied with other editors against certain editors, of being more involved than I disclosed, etc., and I have no further interest in arguing about such matters. I found many of those comments mildly offensive, but I released each of them when I responded to them. I don't know anyone involved in editing this article and I am not a sculptor of trees.

If I'm perceived as an 'essayist', please note that I am a writer, a reader, a researcher, and a past recipient of the Barnstar of Diligence. As such, I made a sincere effort to be thorough in responding to the concerns expressed and to clearly address each dispute that arose (too many of these!), particularly those about which I had concerns. I am not attached to any particular outcome for this (or any other) article or its title & hope that it evolves in a healthy and encyclopedic direction. I do have some evidence to present surrounding the topics covered thus far, which I will add shortly. Thank you for the invitation to participate.

===That being repeatedly accused of lying, and wading through rafts of accusations of other editors lying, conspiring, and collaborating against another editor, week after week after week, is a big fat burnout===

Alright, I read the last several weeks on the talk page and on second thought, no. I am not interested in digging out and providing another whole raft of links to that distasteful and voluminous material. If that means my comments are not considered here, so be it. Enter the two words 'Blackash' and 'lying' or perhaps also 'Blackash' and 'lie' into the Wikipedia search, to get a sense of the scope of that ongoing problem. Just studying Blackash's extensive comments and links here in this proceeding has given me a really uncomfortable sensation, that no other article I've worked on has stimulated. Reading over recent comments on the article's talkpage, I see that not much has changed, topic-ban notwithstanding. Even the editors who are still willing to consult or help her with the edits she insists on are badmouthed and browbeaten. I frankly want nothing further to do with that. When I was still avidly interested in this page, I did extensive cleanup of her grammatical nonsense and her multitude of self-serving references, including right down to the refnames of the references. I also did an exhaustive and well documented study of the so-called reliable references, which led to just about halving the number of references originally cited, as they were drivel. I felt pretty good about having improved the article and still do. I'd just as soon leave it at that. d u f f  11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackash Buried My Evidence? Amazing!
I do not know how she did it, but she did indeed bury the evidence that I prepared & entered yesterday AT HER OWN REQUEST. It clearly states at the top of this evidence page that if evidence is placed in the wrong place (which I think mine was, and so said, when I posted it), it should be left for clerks & admins to move. As will be seen, I even specifically put, at the top of my post, that I was fine with a clerk/admin moving it to the correct place, because I was, for some reason that I do not understand, unable to locate my Evidence section in the TOC for the Evidence Page I found her comments on. It almost seems like there are two separate evidence pages here, each with their own TOC. What's the deal with that? For some reason that I also do not understand, the only way to locate my most recent post after she moved it, was by following her diffs for the change she made and copying my post from that diff in edit mode. I do not find the comments that she moved (of mine) on the TOC here at all and although her edit note says that she moved it to my evidence section, it is not in fact here in my evidence section. I think this is my evidence section. As I say, I've dug it back out by copying my moved post from her diff record (which I hope is appropriate; rather than trying to move it again) and here it is:
 * "This evidence page is so tangled up now that it is impossible to make sense of where this should be typed, so if it belongs elsewhere, a clerk or admin is of course free to move it to a more appropriate location. Blackash has asked me on the Workshop page to point out which statements in this rebuttal I claim are false.  These are the ones:


 * 1.FALSE: "the truth is, they had only checked the refs (13 out of 92) for a tiny section of the article."
 * Blackash's statement is false, as is plainly documented by the dif[ that she provided to support her claim that my quoted statement, "I also did an exhaustive and well documented study of the so-called reliable references." was false. Indeed I did painstakingly research every single reference extant on the article at that time with no preference for anything but good solid references, striking out and leaving visible on the page all of the ones that did not pan out, and documenting carefully my reasons for doing so at each step, so that other editors could consider & verify everything.  I had accepted advice from another editor to step away from the unceasing conflict with Blackash on the talkpage and work instead on something more productive, like checking the references.  On advice of another editor, I moved it to an addendum talkpage (because of its sheer volume) and stickylinked it at the top of the talk page for easy access.  Very few of the references checked stood that test and it became clear that significant portions of the article, those which had been supported by all those faulty citations, would require reworking.  Blackash was arguing and editing the talkpage heavily during that period and was well aware of this work, which as I noted, started on the talk page.


 * 2. FALSE: "Because of Duff's earlier claim I have taken it upon myself to systematically check all the references."
 * Blackash's statement is false, again, as is plainly documented by the dif that she provided to support her claim. She did not in fact systematically check all the references.  She did duplicate and reconfirm my work on a small fraction of the citations there, but she stopped working on citation verification right after she found her two targets, the two resources by Richard Reames. That sparked a whole other episode of arguing over whether Reames was an expert or not & and whether he might have become an expert before the second book, etc..  That's not "taking it upon [oneself] to systematically check all the references."  The whole campaign was and is aimed at discrediting Reames, his books, and his work in furtherance of her own self-stated superior worldwide acclaim.  She still insists he is not an expert.  I don't know if he is or isn't, but I'm not convinced that she is either, frankly.  I think she doth protest to much & that expertise is recognizable without bulldozers & trumpets where it exists.
 * I find it really interesting (and confusing) to note that even though she vehemently refused to honor either of those books as self-published sources by an expert, and so relegated them to use only in his bio section during my period of active participation in the article (which I guess is ok, because maybe he isn't an expert)....She nevertheless apparently sees no problem with using these same reference extensively now, as her basis for establishing that his 'methods' are separate from and inferior to hers in the Techniques section of the article. I just noticed that last night while scanning for easy copyedits and I left a note and question on the talkpage about it.  d u f f   21:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 2a. Regarding the above piece of evidence, Blackash went on, during THIS arbitration proceeding, to MOVE AND BURY my response to her rebuttal of this evidence on the talk page for this evidence page. This is my comment on that, submitted as yet another instance of incivility and outright dishonesty:
 * It is important to clarify that the article talkpage subpage in question, the EXHAUSTIVE AND WELL DOCUMENTED STUDY OF CITATIONS FOR ALTERNATE NAMES, this one: (page as of my last edit there), was never intended to encompass ALL the references in the article (though that also needs to be done). As the users @ User:Blackash are well aware, and attempting to mischaracterize here, that subpage was created in an effort to distill the solid references and sort out the faulty references that were being flooded forth at the time, by User:Blackash, who (as it turned out) was purposefully POV/COI influencing the serious discussions and RfM to arborsculpture, which were underway at the time.  This document was only created to be used as solid evidence for the validity of the citations being flooded to support each of the various alternate names that were being proposed at the time.  I researched them all.  Every last one. I followed up by removing the dross from the Alternate Names section of the article.  Every last instance.  This was done so that we could all get a clearer picture of the ACTUAL scene around the use of all the terms that had been presented, it turned out, solely for the purpose of muddying the water during that RfM to arborsculpture.  I considered that dishonest. I consider this most recent action of mischaracterizing that document, also dishonest.   d u f f   20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 3.FALSE: "Duff has some commercial interests in arborsculpture. (This in no way outs him) my talk with duff"
 * Blackash's statement is false. The diff provided as evidence contains no evidence and there is no such evidence.  It's an utter fabrication & completely without merit.
 * This was also found in her rebuttal to my evidence. Under the same heading there are easily 30 different instance of her involving my username in evidence statements which are either patently false or just really misleading. I want to believe this is all just a cross-pond misunderstanding of some sort, but it ain't, and I'm not that stupid or that generous of spirit anymore.  I'm not going to waste any more time tickling these all out to rebut each and every one of them.  These three examples ought to be ample demonstration of the scope of the problem and the lack of any substance to her so called evidence.  Dig deeper into any statement of 'fact' she has made about me anywhere on this proceeding or on the article talk page and witness the vacuum that lies therein.   d u f f   22:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)"

EVIDENCE FORK EVIDENCE: This is what is happening & it's a serious problem with the evidence page
Blackash is carrying on a separate evidence page on the talk page of this main evidence page. It's BRILLIANT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Evidence

Evidence presented by Sydney Bluegum
Is this the behaviour of uninvolved editors.

Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, created purely for the purpose of supporting Blackash. Rebuttal to Martin
See here. Specific diffs to show support for Blackash: adds Pooktre image -, Removes 'arborsculpture' - , Removes info about Reames , accuses me of attacking Blackash, claimed I am biased on favour of Slowart, defends Blackash and attacks Slowart on an editors talk page, accused Slowart of 'spamming the world'. These are taken from Sydney Bluegum's first 18 edits.

My rebuttal to Martin
 * I added the image of Becky's Mirror there had been discussion about about restoring it, after Blackash had removed the watermark because this piece is historic as it has both trained roots and limbs. It appeared to me the other editors were making all sorts of excuses not to put it up. Blackash was obviuosly aware of her COI. Quiddity replaced an image of Blackash's tree person after the watermark was removed.
 * I removed the information about Richard Reams/Slowart/Griseum as there had been a citation needed tag on that information for longer than necessary. There seemed to be no ref. coming.
 * Links 7& 8 are the same I claimed bias  because there is on Martin's behalf. He continually supports arborsculpture which is a marketing funnel for Reams /Slowart.  After looking at his talk page it seemed to me that he "liked stirring the pot" amongst other editors.
 * This link 9 is total stuff and nonsense and is an excellent example of how the pro arborsculpture camp twist the truth. I checked out Slowarts example of Blackash supposedly "spamming the world" (Slowarts words on the link)and gave an unbiased opinion.
 * Link no 2 I have addressed this edit in my response to Ellen of the Roads. I will state again that I also removed other alternate names as well as "arborsculpture" according to wiki policy on alternate names as there was a list of alternate names in the article. This again shows Martin's bias towards Arborsculpture/Reams.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Link no 10 leaves out the comment made by Slowart to Zachlipton. This was after Slowart refused to mediate with Blackash. I gave Zachlipton my opinion on how I saw the situation.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not Peter Cook and I am not the partner of Blackash. This has been repeatedly stated by Duff and is a mistruth Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Beware of the Pizza man below.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre is the name of a company specialising in tree shaping
The company "Pooktre" is a company that is specialising in performing tree shaping art works. Pooktre is not a general name for the art of tree shaping and should therefore be removed from the article.