Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-27/Tree shaping

Where is the dispute?
Tree shaping article Tree shaping talk page COI Noticeboard

Who is involved?

 * Blackash (me)
 * 208.59.93.238
 * Slowart (has only been editing on the talk page)
 * 96.233.40.199

Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are one and the same person. They outed themselfs in the section Recap "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person." Blackash (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
208.59.93.238 made a minor change to Tree shaping. I changed it back and give reasons. This editor overreacted generally threw different accusations around while also claiming I had a COI. I modified the changed sentence and replied to the COI. Initially I said that I didn't see we had a conflict, but then I read the article and this was my reply after that.
 * Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been change from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At some point during this process I contacted three different editors who were involved in the changeover or the third opinion, including one who had criticised me. I just asked for them to come and give their opinion, I didn't lay out any of the issues. During this process above 208.59.93.238 listed COI on the noticeboard

I have contacted Andrevan to ask for editor assistance NPOV needed to check my editing and to improve my editing to ensure that I'm editing from a NPOV. (He hasn't replied yet) I listed the in and outs what editor is doing what there to date of 26 January 2010. Of couse more has happened.

Basically these three editors are attempting to give undue weight to the word Arboursculpture. They are claiming that I have COI so they don't have to give reasons or to come to a compromise for their changes.

208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 have implied I only edit for self promotional reasons. Check out some of my editing of related articles, I don't promote Pooktre, but try to improve Wikipedia in general. They have also accused me of micromanaging when I asked them for the reasoning for the change/s to the content. These editors plus Slowart insinuate that the original naming of the article was instigated by me. Which is not true. My reply to this was "I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborsculpture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)"

I refute the point, I do research and give quotes as to why it is wrong, I contradict what I believe the issues are (as they don't say why it can be a bit confusing) and find evidence to back up what I have said.

I have repeatedly asked them to give reasons for the changes. I have attempted to work towards a compromise, between their view and mine. Any changes I make are basically undone or they change the sentence to give more weight to the word Arborsculpture. Example they asked a citation after three days they removed the content from the page. This content was related to the usage of the word Arborsculpture. I have a feeling they are trying to modify the content of the article so that later date they can comment that Tree shaping is not different enough from the other Plant shaping forms and that it needs a word that is truly unique.

What would you like to change about this?
Ideally I would like the article reverted back to before all these contested edits, I understand that this probably won't happen. I want the wording of distinction to stay instead of relationships. I believe having the name of the art form above each individual's section does help people to independently research any one person in this field. So I think that should stay. To have the lead in sentence to be Tree shaping, also known as Botanical architecture and other names, to stay instead to have it modified again to give too much weight to the alternative names.

How do you think we can help?
Can you please ask these editors to justify why their changes improve the article. Please research the word Arborsculpture and see if it deserves to be in the lead sentence. Can you please ask the editors to allow me some time to find a citation asked for and not to remove the sentence. Can you also read the article were talks it about Distinctions from other plant-shaping arts
 * How the page looked before these edits
 * How they edited last
 * How it looks with the modified between us both Blackash (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
SilkTork has done a beautiful job of steering the discussion at Talk:Tree shaping, and while not everyone is in agreement, it seems that everyone is getting along. Some compromises have been reached and the current discussion about the article name is civil. I don't think that mediation is necessary at this point. --  At am a  頭 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to come and check out the dispute, and yes we agree about SilkTork Blackash   have a chat 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I disagree with how User:Blacklash characterizes this situation on multiple levels. At Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard I have posted a "RECAP" which pretty much sums up what I have to say. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your version, and rebutted your summary below your edit "RECAP" in section I also rebutted on COI Noteboard under your edit.Blackash (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)