Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Cool Hand Luke
 * 3) Coren
 * 4) David Fuchs
 * 5) Elen of the Roads
 * 6) Iridescent
 * 7) Jclemens
 * 8) Kirill Lokshin
 * 9) Mailer diablo
 * 10) Newyorkbrad
 * 11) PhilKnight
 * 12) Risker
 * 13) Roger Davies
 * 14) SirFozzie

Inactive
 * 1) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
 * 2) Xeno

Recused
 * 1) John Vandenberg

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
Initiated by  Colincbn (talk) at 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Notified
 * Notified
 * Notified

Statement by colincbn
I request clarification of Remedies 4) Article and subject scope. Specifically: "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."

In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also Blackash is being asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.

I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).

Also the statement: "This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.

I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear. Colincbn (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Elonka's statement below is an accurate and concise assessment of the situation. Colincbn (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @Jclemens I would then request the ruling is amended to say:
 * "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, to participate in all RfMs, RfCs, or other threads related to the topic, and to answer any queries addressed to them, so long as they keep their posts to 500 words or less. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area. "
 * This would be an accurate description of the current situation, and I would no longer have any issues with its interpretation (the lined out section is simply intended to note that it should be struck, I would not expect that section to actually remain lined out). Not amending this section simply means the ruling, as it stands now, is being ignored. I honestly don't have any problem with the current state of the page, just that the ArbCom ruling specifically spells out what is to happen, yet that is not what is happening. Colincbn (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the only way we can know your desired result is if you tell us what it is. If the current situation is in fact the desired result the wording should be modified to show that. Colincbn (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So far all the arbitrators who have commented here have agreed with the current implementation, I have no problem with that. However I hope you will amend Remedy 4) Article and subject scope to be an accurate reflection of this position. I think the wording suggested above is appropriate. Currently the remedy is worded much more strictly than it is being interpreted as. Colincbn (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka
Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors, is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However, multiple checkuser requests have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. --Elonka 06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of clarification: Regarding Martin Hogbin's diff of Blackash's comment, I am in agreement that Blackash's language was not appropriate. However, I would also point out that I contacted Blackash with my concerns, and she voluntarily edited her post within the hour, to more appropriate language. So the version that Martin diffed, is not the one that is currently on the live page. Which doesn't mean that Blackash's initial comment was okay, but it does mean that the banned editors appear to be responding fairly well to the ArbCom-authorized administrative supervision. I, as monitoring administrator, have only needed to offer some general nudges and cautions, and no additional bans or blocks have been required so far. --Elonka 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin
I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens:I think that the comments of Blackash have disrupted the encyclopedia-building process by once again focusing on personal and business rivalry rather than what reliable sources say. Blackash's latest response  shows what she thinks other practitioners of the art think about the name of the art, to the detriment of her personal and business rival Slowart.  Discussion should not be about this but about what reliable sources say about the name. That discussion has already taken place and there is strong agreement amongst both regular and uninvolved editors that the sources support 'arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my diff was not to complain about the language used but to point out that Blackash's comment was simply her opinion on what other practitioners thought. We do not base decisions in WP on what one person thinks another thinks, we base them on what reliable sources say. The problem with allowing this kind of input, especially from a banned editor, is that it disrupts proper discussion on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Blackash
I believe Elonka's interpretation of Remedy 4) seems to working. Blackash   have a chat 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC) In reply to Martin's comments above.
 * Please note ?oygul asked Slowart a question first then when Slowart wouldn't answer, ?oygul then rephrased it to Slowartdiff. After no reply for a few days, ?oygul then asked me diff. This lead to Colincbn asking for clarification here.
 * Please note in my comment that Martin refers to I address the references first and what is said in them. diff Then I give my knowledge about the different practitioners, and whats is happening in the art, which is why I'm allow to comment.
 * I'm going to try and point out Martin's inconsistency please note that and not the topic.
 * Martin has repeatedly stated at Tree shaping he only cares about policy. It appears to me he is not just here for wikipedia policy. Example:
 * If the word arborsculpture was independent of Slowart, what anyone says about it wouldn't matter. Yet here is Martin concerned about "the detriment of ... Slowart". Shows he knows that arborsculpture is not independent of Slowart. To use this word as the title would go against the core policy of neutrality.  Martin has consistently ignored or dismissed this policy when it is point to.  Blackash   have a chat 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Slowart
As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off. Slowart (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I see nothing objectively unreasonable in Elonka's interpretation. The point of the remedy was to tone things down so that discussion could continue, without silencing these editors entirely.  I'd be interested in hearing if and how the participation that has been allowed has disrupted the encyclopedia-building process and has therefore failed to achieve our desired result. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Elonka's interpretation of the remedy is eminently reasonable and in line with the committee's intent. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On balance I agree with Elonka. The remedy's aim was to prevent good-faith comments from being squelched but cut down on opportunities for disruption, and keeping discussions of the involved editors short and succint seems to be the best interpretation of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka is implementing the remedy in the way that I anticipated when I first wrote it - the editors concerned had their opportunity to put their view, but every discussion did not degenerate into walls of text. I note that a RM was submitted recently, and turned down by Silk Tork on the grounds that it was premature, which I think it was, but I thought that on the whole the discussion was proceeding productively.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this, Blackash has asked if she can post a response to Martin Hogbin above. This would be acceptable under the terms of the remedy as intended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks as though this is being interpreted in the manner intended. Risker (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)