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

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia talk|

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}}

Question to all parties
Note, I've asked a question of all parties here, to find out if my general perception of the issue is correct. I've also posed a question specifically to Sydney Bluegum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to question from Duff
Duff, I started this arbitration in the hope of stopping persistent COI editing by Blackash. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Martin. At the point I asked that question (and in fact until quite recently) I was not aware of the main case page where it's clearly outlined.  Must've overlooked that link somehow. Cheers.   d u f f   19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved content related discussions from Blackash's evidence section

 * I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. But I don't mind if you put it here. I think you should reformat and sign the posts to avoid confusion though. Colincbn (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Move from Arborsculpture to Tree shaping
Please note I didn’t give any suggestions for the title before the move. After the title move I did state on the talk page I prefer tree shaping and give a few refs. I also offered other suggested titles. The discussion after the move involved 6 editors not related to the field of tree shaping and 5 people from this field, thats including Richard and myself. To put it in perspective there are only 19 practitioners in the world who do this and 4 of those are dead. discussion Blackash   have a chat  02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Title
In reply to martin's comment about the title. Words can have more than one meaning, this is why wiki has disambiguation pages. There are references for shaping trees starting at 1898. There are at least 27 different sources some with multiple references to shaping trees, tree shaping, shaping tree trunks etc...refs with quotes from sources. Blackash  have a chat  02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin section "The term 'tree shaping' is already in common ...."
Has three points I would like to address. 1) Martin"s " 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'. "
 * A lot of the quotes use a variation of Tree shaping, some examples shaping tree trunks, shape trees, shaping live trees, shaping trees or shaped trees. Going by the references the article title would be shaping trees, but Wikipedia titles don't lead with a verb, so I believe these quotes are still sound. I could have just given the references, but it not just up to me to decide which is a sound source it up to the wiki community. That is why I gave quotes so other editors could look and decide for them selves.

2) Martin's "Compare these to the 'arborsculpture' refs in the same link."
 * Please note most of these are either author interviews (Reames's books) or book reviews of Slowart/Reames's two self published books by a non expert Richard Reames who created the word Arborsculpture. I wasn't going to go into this, but it's come up. Richard knows most of the practitioners and a lot of the history, does this make him an expert on tree shaping practitioners or their history, I don't know. I do know he is not an expert on act of creating shaped trees. I have repeatedly asked Duff and Slowart for evidence he is an established expert and never received any.,  So the sources that are self published or based on self published work fall under WP:SPS

3) Martin's "In fact, this reference from Blackash's list"
 * The author of this article come to our garden to interview us. We told them we call our art Pooktre, they chose not to use Pooktre and to use tree shaping. I believe it was the whole tall poppy syndrome in action. Blackash   have a chat  02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

why edit wikipedia
The reasons people edit wikipedia are as diverse as the people editing. To insist editors must only be here to write an encyclopedia means you are going to have a very short list of editors. I believe wiki has an essay or policy about how all editors have bias.

I came with a vague idea of having the Arborsculpture article reflect what I was seeing happening around me in the real world. I had no idea how to go about this or what to do. One of the major things that has helped is that I not here to push or promote something. Yes I've made mistakes, but I've learned from them, and have found some things I like to edit on wiki example finding refs and orphan articles. So Colincbn you shouldn't expect all editors to only start editing for the reason as you have stated they should.

Any potential COI editor has the right to point out where other editors are going wrong either because these editors don't know the subject very well, or because the potential COI editor knows that the change doesn't meet wiki policies. Blackash  have a chat  02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you are mistaken. As I put forth in my evidence section the five pillars of WP state this site is an encyclopedia. Doing anything here other than building one goes against that principal. Here to build an encyclopedia Colincbn (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A Conflict of Interest is a state not an action
As we can not read other editors' minds we can't know when they are in a state of COI or not. We can tell once they have done an edit if that is a COI edit. For example on the Tree shaping page Colincbn tried to guess what content I wanted put back. On both guesses Colincbn was wrong and I even agreed with his reasons for removing them and added an extra reason why Colincbn had done the right thing. Now this edit of mine would not be seen as a COI though Colincbn believed I would be in a state of COI. This is why we must work with actual edits and not with what we guessing is another editors' state of COI. Blackash  have a chat  02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackash info from the evidence page please don't comment
Blackash this is a talk page, you can't just unilaterally demand that we don't post here. If you want to put this here that's fine. But you must accept that we all have the right to comment. Colincbn (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of Martin Hogbin comments
In Martin opening statement he points to and  on the article talk page. These discussions were a direct result of Colincbn not using {fact} tag. Colincbn also stated if I have the refs to let him know and he would replace the text. That is what those discussions are about.

Sydney Bluegum is a SPA
I believe they have always stated they are an end user of wiki. As to the purely for the purpose Martin please give diffs.

Blackash has edited with a persistent, conflict of interest
Tree Shapers, is a descriptive term. Martin states that tree shapers is a variation of Tree shaping which means tree shaping can't be neutral, yet he also states its not close enough to tree shaping to be used for a reference for Tree shaping. 


 * March 2007 Martin link . First Pooktre is not our business it is the name of our (my life partner and I) art. SharBrin Publishing Ptd Ltd is our business. Yes I did put pooktre web site in the article, it was on my 2nd day of editing Wikipedia and my 7th edit. I didn’t know any better. I would not do that now, Pooktre site was removed from the article diff (21 May 2010), though I believe it should be part of the article, I haven’t even asked for it to be replaced, it will happen when it does or not. I was allowed to edit the article during this time.
 * Aug 2008 Martin link I changed the word Arborsculpture on Axel Erlandson’s image with the wording Circus Tree which is what his trees are known as. It is also what the present day owners call his trees. As to the 2nd removal it was referring to grown stick men, no one else in the world has shaped trees into men except us to date, so this was referring to our art which is known as pooktre. I removed the sentence and added some useful info instead about bonsai.This was my 3th day of editing or my 12-19th edit
 * Aug 2008 Martin link 2nd link for this date To create this sentence I used an earlier editors words with my own. diff of the earlier editor's sentence. This was my 5th day of editing or my 23th edit
 * Jan 2009 contacting 500 mailing list. Martin link Yes I contacted our emailing list on 19th Aug 2008. Being a new editor I had only done 7 days of editing Wikipedia or 26 edits at the time I didn’t know that I shouldn’t have done this. Please note this was some time before the title was changed (Jan 2009). I only had 3 people reply. If any admin would like to see that email I’ll be happy to forward it to them.
 * Jan 2009 Martin's link 2nd for this date, this editing was done after the title change where I was changing/removing Arborsculpture to the new title or rewording the sentences so the title was no longer needed. Please also note I removed Pooktre as well. I was also clearing up some details about pooktre section. This was my 27th day of editing or my 98th edit. There were 11 editors who were commenting on the talk page during this time none chose to comment about my edits. 6 of those editors were not part of the art form and 5 editors were.
 * April 2009 Martin link If the title had been Tree training I would have used that there.
 * Jan 2010 Martin's link I don’t see where this is showing bad behavior. I contacted this editor to ask for editor assistance, due to some trouble I was having getting another editor to work towards consensus . I laid out my pov to this assistant editor (so that they knew where to look for bias) and asked them to check my edits and help me change my editing if it was necessary.
 * Jan 2010 Martin's link 2nd link for this date I changed the wording to remove woody plants. I have had long discussion with Duff about this wording in the past as Martin knows because he commented about the term didn’t suggest trees to him, and he suggested using trees, shrubs, and vines instead of woody plant, to Duff and myself.
 * May 2010 Martin's link Just like there is Arborsculpture in the captions of Richard Reames's images. I also added Grownup Furniture to Dr Chris Cattle image and Treenovation the fig tree drawing. Our art (my life partner and I) is better known as Pooktre rather than our names, Try googling Peter Cook for instance.
 * May 2010 Martin's link 2nd link for this date For some reason the editor Duff was pushing that Pooktre is a business and tried to have the fact that my life partner and I live together removed from our section. This is a bio we are a couple and Pooktre is not a business it is the name of our art.
 * June 2010 Martin's link I was removing plant and changing it to tree. Also in Slowart's books he uses the wording shaping trees.  to read quotes from Richard Reames's books check 05 and 11 in the reference table.
 * August 2010 Martin's link Martin had done a revert of Sydney BlueGum edit, thus removing all her changes. I revert Martin edit to put Sydney BlueGum changes back and then in my next edit put arborsculpture back, diff.
 * Sept 2010 Martin's link This was not attack on Arborsculpture rather it was about the fact that no name has emerged for the art form. Mainly due to the fact there are not many people who create art with trees in this way. Those who do have named their own art or methods. The only person to use their own name for other's work was Richard and this was mentioned in this context. This has since been worked on disscussion (sort of a long discussion) and now reads well in the article.
 * Nov 2010 Martin's link I was fixing Duff's business (unsupported) spin about Pooktre and adding a ref for when my partner had first started.
 * Feb 2011 Martin's link I had added that text to the page in the first place diff and it was pointed out by ([User:WhatamIdoing]) it shouldn't be there, at the COI notice board. diff So I removed it.
 * March 2011 Martin's link I wonder why Martin didn't use this diff  of  mine that shows the edits he complaining about and in which the edit summary explains why I did those changes. Instead he chose to add two extra diffs in the comparison in which I'm only adding a ref. I put artists in date order to echo the rest of the page. As to adding pooktre to the lead sentence I've twice pointed this out as being the closest I can recall to COI editing. Once at COI noticeboard COI noticeboard listing diff and  my opening statement
 * The closest I have come to COI would be when I added Pooktre to the lead after discussion on the talk page about which words should be in the lead.discussion my reasoning diff after 10 days with no comment on the talk page I put in the comprise diff I believe there should be no alternative names in the lead as this gives to much weight to these words in an art form that only has 4 books in English published and 3 of them write about there is no established name. From my POV ideally all alternative names would be removed from the lead, this meet wikipedia style guide lines about alternative names. On the other hand I do think Afd Hero has some valid points as to why the names should be in the lead. diff Which is why I offered the comprise and then 10 days later put it up. (This is my comment from COI Noticeboard.)

Martin's links to Talk page
Here are a few examples of Blackash on the talk page (Martin's link), Please also read Colincbn talk page

(Martin's link) This one shows I'm doing the right thing by opening discussion on a potential COI edit and listing on NPOV noticeboard.

(Martin's link) I point out that Slowart should not be removing cited information about the naming of the artform. Then I'm pointing out that Colincbn and Martin should not have supported removal of cite/referenced text and why.

internet campaign Martin and Colincbn
Martin created a heading about internet campaign, Colincbn commented about internet campaign and stated in his intro "She has subsequently put a huge amount of effort into editing to ensure that the article name does not change back, thereby guaranteeing that the approximately 150 posts she put on various websites are still accurate." Multiple times I have offered suggestions of different title names. A couple of examples,  I also created this table of suggested title names with quotes and refs  though Slowart/Reames did fill in the Arborsculpture section.
 * As I have said in other places it has less to do with alternate names and more to do with making sure the title does not revert to Arbo (the first non stub title). Colincbn (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn section Blackash sees WP ...
Colincbn's statement "she has then continually fought to control the title and has systematically refused to consider any change that may lead back to Arborsculpture"
 * Other editors have pointed out where Arborsculpture doesn't meet wikipedia polices, . I haven't fought, I have always shown why and how wikipedia policies don't support changing the title to Arborsculpture.


 * I also do not want the title to be Arborsculpture. SO I don't see what this has to do with me. Colincbn (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn's statement "Editing to make sure those posts remain accurate regardless of WP policies or the necesities of consensus building is a violation of policy."
 * Part of my online posting comment is "At Wikipedia there was a consensus that a neutral name was needed for the artform, and Tree shaping was decided upon." (Note, I made no suggestions to the title name before the move to Tree shaping) Assuming Colincbn is talking about keeping the wording Tree shaping accurate, then I disagree with Colincbn statement. I have on multiple occasions offered other title suggestions a couple of examples . I created a source table with quotes for the other suggested titles names  (Slowart did fill in the Arborsculpture section), to help editors work out the verifiability of each title suggestion.


 * The thrust and purpose of your postings around the net was to discredit the use of the word Arborsculpture for the art you practice. Therefore it has very little to do with the term "tree Shaping" and a lot to do with "Arborsculpture". You will do whatever it takes to ensure that the article does not go back to Arbo regardless of WP Policy. That is the problem. I also don't want Arbo as the title but I accept that Policy may call for it. Colincbn (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Colincbn "Blackash..."
I don't see Colincbn as changing their stance as a plot. I believe changing the title to a holding/temporary name is a way of trying to game the system. Colincbn please don't put spin on my comments, Colincbn you have repeatedly stated the title needs to go back to the first non-stub title. Not a big leap to guess you go back to the same argument.
 * Ok in your very first sentence above you say my stance is not a plot, then you describe it as a plot to game the system in the same sentence. Do you know what the word plot means? In this case I am using it as a synonym for a conspiracy.
 * But that is just semantics, you are certainly not assuming good faith, which is a fundamental principal of WP. But that does not upset me as much as knowing that if you did just work with me we could resolve almost every issue here without any need for ArbCom or anything else. This has all just been a giant waste of time that we could have avoided if we just worked together. I do not want the title to be Arborsculpture do you understand? Do I need to say it again? I do not want the title to be Arborsculpture, Is that enough? What do you need me to do to accept this?!?!?!


 * Also I redacted my statement on the evidence page about you removing the statement I quoted, and I apologize. It is sometimes hard to see what is happening with this much text and your move of content here and rearrangement confused me. Again, my apologies. Colincbn (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 [Edit: She just changed that wording so I guess she does not want me posting here]. Can you just lay out your rules for me posting so I know what is going on? Please? Colincbn (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by RegentsPark
No. 5 The article was basically a coat rack for Arborsculpture. My editing on the article was done to improve it. Which is why the bulk of my editing has been adding content and references. For example have a look at the article just after Pooktre was merge in. The first issue I saw was the article was over weighted with the practitioners of Richard and us (my life partner and I Pooktre). Early on I added most of the different practitioners, and I had added the tree list. I contacted Dr Chris Cattle and got one of his images for the article and Slowart did added the images from John Krubsack and Axel Erlandson pages to Tree shaping in the right spots. Look at the differences it is a much more neutral article. I believe differences between these diff shows that I'm trying to improve the article not push a view.

No 6 To me Martin seems fairly focused on the title and your assessment seems to right. As for Colincbn he is a much subtler editer, though he doesn't seem to be as obsessive about the title and his comments are quite often ambiguous he circles around the changing of the title to arborsculpture, sooner or later he get there.


 * This is incorrect. I do not want the title to be Arborsculpture, although I do recognize Policy may call for that. Colincbn (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No. 8, I believe your assessment is correct.

Treeshapers.net
I believe treeshapers.net is a good example of my ability to edit from a NPOV. This site has pages for 19 of the practitioners and some history. See how a site looks when I have complete control, look at any of the practitioners pages and see if I'm pushing any wording. Link to Richard's Reames page. I contacted all artists, I had no complaints. Some like Slowart/Richard Reames creator of the word Arborsculpture made statements like quote "Looks like you have done a lot of good web work there Becky !"

Main contributors and some battles
Griseum One example and opinion from a neutral editor who contributed a lot but is no longer helping. 
 * Rebuttal Slowart you know what Griseum states in your link is not true, under meditation Arborsculpture was in the lead, until Griseum insisted that the lead sentence was unacceptable and they suggested to remove all alternative names from the lead. SilkTork's attempt close discussion of lead, with arborsculpture in lead Link Griseum restarting the discussion about the lead. Link and in this diff is where Griseum suggested a new lead with all the alternative names removed.

Duff contributed the most to the article, at one point he said this about the Title. 
 * Rebuttal This link is miss leading and Afd Hero reply at the time rebuts it already. Link to the RfMove of Tree shaping to Arborsculpture that was only closed 9 days earlier as no move.

Johnuniq 
 * Rebuttal I had just asked Martin Hogbin a question about content (as can be seen in the above link, which Martin never answered). Johnuniq come back in and changed the focus to be about the word Arborsculpture which I dispute I wasn't on about Arborsuclpture Earlier in the same section I asked Johnuniq content questions  and he never answer those either.

Griseum who is also 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199
Stated I didn't understand how the English language works, they next stated they were willing to fix my "broken sentences" which would have been fine if they had done so. I would edit their new sentences to address what I thought was wrong with their version my diff and I would then have asked for them to fix my grammar. , Not once did they fix any of my "broken sentences" instead they would only revert. They refused to work towards a consensus.

They removed Peter Cook (my life partner) from a caption of an image showing him. They didn't remove any of the other artists' names from their images (4 artists). Please note the aggressive edit summary. Then later they added in Dr Chris Cattle name into his image caption diff which shows they didn't remove Peter Cook's name as a principle but to score a point.

Made COI claims of bad behavior about me without evidence. I asked for diffs here but never received any. I have asked them multiple times not to use COI as an excuse to not answer questions, edit summary

They apologized for over reacting but then later removed their apology.

When I called a truce here is their edit summary in reply.

Griseum was both rude and uncivil ,

SilkTork came and meditated and for a while Griseum was civil, until for example.

Griseum added this image to the right after going on about "pooktre" being a generic term

Griseum strongly disagreed to SilkTork's suggestion of having pooktre as a generic term in the lead sentence. ,, Then he recreated the Pooktre article with the stated outcome of removing the Pooktre content from Tree shaping and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. 

Duff
This was my first interaction with Duff, and he was right to point to policies of which I wasn't aware. Their other comments shows their bias.

By his 3th comment on the talk page he states the article should go back to Arborsuclpture, his reasoning has quite a few faults. 

Duff did a lot of edits that were just shuffling the page around,. Check same sentence as first diff.

Even on minor issues Duff tried to link my editing to pushing preferred names

They were quick to assume bad faith, the failure of the site was a hosting problem and nothing to do with me. Just shows what their underlying believes are about my motivations.

On one hand Duff states length of time is enough to mean Slowart/Richard Reames is an expert quote diff "10 years later, same topic, much practice, not an expert? Who says he's not?" and really long diff quote diff "It can certainly be argued that Reames was an expert by 2005 at the publication of his 2nd book in 2005. By that time the term arborsculpture was in widespread usage and not any longer considered a neologism as has been repeatedly alleged. Now we are here in 2010 and he's presumably learned from even more mistakes, like all of us, and is likely even more expert now than in 2005.". On the other hand he wants either my partner or I to have some advanced degree or professional credential to be considered as expert. 

Duff decided to take issue with me comment splitting his comments yet he feel free to do so with my comments. Other editors had also split their comments and they didn't complain.

Duff has come to my talk page and thrown around a lot of claims for which I wasted time rebutting. long discussion

Duff repeatably tried to imply that when I edit as part of pooktre I was editing as a WP:ROLE

Colincbn
Tree shaping is not a Neologism but Colincbn keeps commenting as though the present title is a neologism, and wanting to apply the policies from WP:NEO to finding a new title. read near the end. Colincbn stand on this basically hasn't changed. Though he knows of secondary sources that use the term Tree shaping, he is sticking with the WP:NEO policies. 
 * I am sticking with Policy. That is what matters. There are multiple policies that all say we cannot invent names. Also the specific section of the WP:NEO policy I refer to talks about the exact situation we are in. How is that not applicable? Colincbn (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebut Duff's section That being repeatedly accused of lying...
Duff is staying true to form. Making claims without supporting diffs.

As to Duff's "I also did an exhaustive and well documented study of the so-called reliable references." Duff has made this claim before the truth is, they had only checked the refs (13 out of 92) of 27 references before the Duff strike out out of 75 references on the article for a tiny small section of the article. Duff created a separate talk page for this page at Duff's last edit there. Where it appears Duff was very hash on any ref that didn't support the wording of Arborsculpture as the art form's name. Example this ref, was a source of the alternative name Botanic Architecture. This is a Museum website of a past event where an established expert Mark Primack gave a presentation "The Tree Circus of Axel Erlandson" discussion

Because of Duff's earlier claim I have taken it upon myself to systematically check all the references. I've followed on the same talk page created by Duff Check all refs for reliability. Most of these refs need to be checked at the reliability notice board. I haven't done much work on this lately because of SilkTork's concern. Tree shaping article is causing other editors too much grief. read first two comments


 * @Blackash: Because this is a TALK page (AND NOT YOUR SECTION OF THE EVIDENCE PAGE), please leave this comment where it sits, below your post, to which it directly pertains:  It is important to clarify that the talkpage subpage in question, the EXHAUSTIVE AND WELL DOCUMENTED STUDY OF CITATIONS FOR ALTERNATE NAMES, this one: page at my last edit there, was never intended to encompass ALL the references in the article (though that also needs to be done).  As you 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, specifically to be used as evidence for the use of each of the various alternate names that were being proposed at the time.  We were in the midst of serious discussions and an RfM.  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 solely for the purpose of muddying the water during the RfM to arborsculpture.   d u f f   19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

why I seem to talk 2-5 times more
This evidence page is a good example of why I seem to talk 2-5 times more than other editors. This is aggravated by the unsupported claims COI editing as though I'm behaving badly. I address each editors' statements and questions, they don't always reply. This pattern has happened in multiple discussions threads.

Colincbn comments
Colincbn when asked politely to not comment with in a section, it is common courtesy to not edit that section even on the talk pages. I was advised to move some of my evidence to the talk page by one of the clerks, I believe the admins would have a good reason why they don't want us to comment within each others' evidence. So I will not be replying to any of your comments seeded throughout my evidence. I'm happy to discuss things but please create a new section and please don't comment further though out my evidence. Blackash  have a chat  04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blackash this is not an evidence page. You can't use this as a way to get around the limits put in place there and still receive the benefit of not having your comments disputed. Colincbn (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, fine. Where am I allowed to comment? You tell me. Are you going to reply to my post above in the section you created to rebutt me or do I need to copy that down here so that we can both make comments on it? Just lay out all your rules for me editing here so I know what they are first. I assume I am allowed to edit right? Colincbn (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Duff's Evidence

 * 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)


 * 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)

'''!!!WARNING!!! THIS IS NOT THE EVIDENCE PAGE!!''' IF YOU CAME HERE TO POST EVIDENCE, DO NOT BE FOOLED! THIS IS THE TALK PAGE FOR THE EVIDENCE PAGE (even though it looks VERY similar due to copying of the evidence page to here). THIS PAGE IS BEING USED TO BURY INFORMATION INFORMATION & EVIDENCE MEANT FOR THE EVIDENCE PAGE!! THE EVIDENCE PAGE IS HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping/Evidence AND CAN ALSO BE REACHED BY CLICKING THE TAB AT THE TOP OF THIS TALK PAGE LABELED 'PROJECT'.
 * This comment is a set-up by Duff to put a negative spin on Blackash who moved her evidence to the talk page on Clerks advice. The experienced ? editor Duff made a mistake as to where he put his evidence and has blamed Blackash for burying his evidence. More spin from Duff to create confusion for Admin and editors and to bad mouth Blackash. This comment is not meant to be advocating for Blackash. I am just pointing out how some editors make huge mistakes and don't own up to their mistakes. I would make this comment if the same was done to any other editor.Happy days.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop now please
Can I ask you all please to stop posting attacks on each other (with a side order of not putting pseudo-official notices at the top of the page). There is no point to it, I won't take any more notice of you if you shout, or if you are rude to your fellow editors with whom you disagree. Thank you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course. It seemed appropriate and was sincerely well-meant, but I think I overreacted. Also, while I do see that my use of capitals may have easily been understood otherwise, I didn't intend that to come off as official, but instead to emphasize it as important, and I'm sorry for overstepping. It probably wasn't that important either.  If that or anything else I've written here comes off as an attack, I apologize too for any grief I may have caused any other editors.  That's opposite my intent and I don't want to be rude or make anyone feel bad, ever.   d u f f   17:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)