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

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

Removed from workshop proposals section
''*Please try to largely restrict comments in the proposals section to comments ON the proposals. Thanks --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)''

Thanks for your reply. You did not address the subject of your misinformation about Mark Primack. Another untrue statement that you simply ignore and bury. Also Thanks for your huge interperation of a comment that you have never read and dont believe exists. It seems to me that you have a good understanding of how Reames thinks and feels. To my this implies a closer contact than you are admitting. What you have said about RRs'use of the word is correct and he has every right to put that label on his property but not everyone elses' work The reason I mentioned photos is that without them there is no proof that the Reames/Slowart/Grisium method really works. So if his method of tree training does'nt work - what can you do? Of course you can claim other artists work, and put your brand to on their work, and in some instances allow editors to claim that you have trained the others and put yourself in a mentor role. It is against wiki policy to name the artform and it has been a long drawn out discussion of back stabbing, lying, cheating, badmouthing and non-acceptance of true evidence as demonstrated from Duff's comment above (if there is one). Duff - This supposedly uninvolved editor who has not read any of the books on the subject, who claims he has knowledge, has the right to call me a liar. This reflects his attitude on the talk pages. The truth of the matter is I believe editors like Duff and the arborsculpture camp are pissed off because 2 editors keep pointing out where they are editing and not following wiki policy, lying and the fact that Blackash and Bluegum are there which is why those editors dont want Blackash & Bluegum on the page. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to ignore this topic because it is intensely irritating to see such strident advocacy being tolerated as people exploit the openess of Wikipedia to promote their position. However, Sydney Bluegum has just demonstrated why they need to be included in a topic ban: strident advocacy (while abusing good editors) is not helpful for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq will you please clarify want Sydney Bluegum is advocating Blackash   have a chat 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bluegum: You are welcome. You are also incorrect, in that I did indeed address your concern, but I did so in the section where the problem occurred, which is where your attention should have been focused, rather than here or down at the bottom of this page, where you have also expressed your beliefs in the incorrect place. I am going to try to address your post here point by point, but its a little confusing and you covered a lot of ground, so I may get off track, and so please try to be patient, and follow along with me.  -A comment I have never read?  You quoted it, I read it, and I believe it surely must exist, since you quoted it, but I do not have any way to confirm it because I do not own that book.  -I don't know how Reames really thinks and feels, other than to the extent that he has documented it by expressing himself here over the course of five years. What that says about me directly, not implies, is that over the course of the single year that I have even been aware of this article, I have cared enough about the topic, the encyclopedia, and every editor involved, to not only contribute significantly to the article itself, but to READ every stitch of text ever written, in talkspace & in mainspace, of this Wikipedia article, as well as those of the several related-topic articles that have become ensnared in the five-year long bitter debates around this, as well as the related userpage posts for each user.  Can you say the same?  -What you failed to grasp, from what I said about RR's coining of the word is that he does not use it as a label for his property nor does he use it as a label for anyone else's property.  Reliable sources do, though, as has been shown, and they do this only because the word is implicitly not his property. That is what free-use is all about.  Freedom from copyright, brand, or trademark.  It is ours to use to describe this, and we do.  -Ok, I don't see any truth to that, but let's entertain, for the purposes of debate, the possibility that Reames' methods do not work.  What of it?  Wikipedia is not the place to have a debate over whether one or any craftsperson's approach is successful or not.  That belongs off-wiki, where you are all welcome to argue until blue.  This is an encyclopedia & I am sorry to have to say it, but we really don't care about your real-world dispute until it is both noteable & citeable somehow in some reliable source.  I say 'your', because you are clearly involved and have something important at stake in that dispute or you would not be so angrily defending your position. -I am not aware of anyplace on wikipedia where Reames has claimed to have taught or mentored any of the others.  Is that part of the your off-wiki dispute too?  Because if it is, again, as a Wikipedia editor, I don't care.  -This next bit there, I won't comment on, but you really should take a few breaths and a few steps back and then apologize for saying these false and really mean things about me.  -Yes, Duff. I am involved, and I'll explain it to you again: I have contributed significantly to the article and its discussions, have some specialized knowledge of surrounding topic areas and so have been fascinated by the specific topic, by that name, arborsculpture for easily 20 years...They covered the Scotts Valley arborsculptures in a newspaper article where I lived at the time.  Though, no, I don't own the books & hadn't heard of Richard Reames until I read this article a year ago, & I am frankly sort of morbidly amused by the amount of backwash you've all created around yourselves over it. -I'm certain I've not called you a liar, since I don't use that sort of language at all myself other than to point out where others have used it, but if I've incorrectly identified something you said as false which you are saying now is in fact true, and you can back that up, then do it.  Show me the place that happened and & I'll gladly put it right. -Your last statement that begins, "The truth of the matter is I believe..." is a statement of your own faith in your own belief, and not a statement of fact, so even though it's rude & false, I'm not going to debate you on any of it, but I want to thank you again for inadvertently revealing there, twice, something truly interesting that honestly never caught my eye before:   Blackash & Bluegum.  Too pookity cute for words.  Thank you.    d u f f   03:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You inferred I was lying by questioning the truth of my quoted sentence from R.Rs' book. I will state again that I have no connection with Blackash or Pooktre as you have just stated. Lying again and spreading mistruths.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC) @Johnuniq Giving my opinion and trying to sort out what is true and what is not true is in no way advocating. You are quick to accuse me. You are wrong.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that really all you have to say for yourself? I did not infer that at all, and had you read any further on, even just finishing that sentence and the perhaps the next in their entirety, it would have become very clear to you that I took you at your word and considered that quote and the rest of what you said very seriously before I responded.  So, it's you who are wrong, dishonest, and quick to accuse.
 * Furthermore, your new comment suggests to me that you do not understand the difference between inferring that a person is lying (which I clearly did not do, and you have changed your story and are now at first accusing me of), and calling a person a liar (which I also did not do, and which you had just accused me of prior, and which you are now accusing me of again yourself)? Sydney, that's unacceptable and displays a scale of intellectual disintegrity that I've seldom witnessed and want no part of.  I've done my best here to treat you diplomatically and to give you the benefit of any doubts I might have had.  I now have none.  I therefore see no value whatsoever in responding to you any further.  You may rest assured, however, that I will see this arbitration through to its conclusion, which for the sake of everyone involved, I dearly hope is imminent.   d u f f   06:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Duff I did not say Richard Reames stated he trained other shapers. Please read my statement again. It is great that you have read the whole text etc. It is just a shame that you are not able to spew it back correctly. I am pleased that you have admitted you make mistakes. You seem to have made a few of them mainly connected to truth and honesty. If it takes discussion as we have been having to get you truthful then I will continue to question your spin. Your spin on my name (Bluegum)and reference to Blackash, is again dishonest and I will gladly accept your apology. It seems you can throw whatever at editors and expect them to cope it sweet. I had done a few edits when I was accused of being a sock puppet and this was proved wrong. I believe(feel) that it was because I did not agree, gave my opinion which was opposite to other editors and was then basically ignored. I came to wiki as an end user to gain info on tree training. I have both of RRs' books that I have read in detail. I have not been successful with many trees. The info I was looking for was - how to do it successfully. It was when I found the methods in Blackash's sand box. To date the other methods are working well. Excuses for failure are found throughout RR's books eg not enough water, too much water, not enough sun, too much sun. There is always an excuse for failure. My agenda after spending time and money is to get the correct information. This is what an encyclopaedia is about. As a new editor I was attacked after almost every edit. Any wonder I do not edit other articles. Please do not give me advice on where to put my comments. The reason being that you recently put your evidence on the wrong page then accussed Blackash of manipulating you evidence and you couldn't figure out how she did it. I hope you apoligised to her as you made some pretty foul allegations.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

bad faith
I see a lot of bad faith by the parties, both before and during the arbitration. Obviously we cant stop the parties doubting each other, but we can stop them mentioning their bad assumptions, as mentioning these assumptions causes discussions to go offtopic and turn sour. I think a principle & remedy about this could help keep people focused on the content. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)