Case clerks: Salvio giuliano ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive
Recused
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)
Duff, I started this arbitration in the hope of stopping persistent COI editing by Blackash. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 07:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'. "
2) Martin's "Compare these to the 'arborsculpture' refs in the same link."
3) Martin's "In fact, this reference [3] from Blackash's list"
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)
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 [4] and I even agreed with his reasons for removing them and added an extra reason why Colincbn had done the right thing [5]. 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 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)
In Martin opening statement he points to [6] and [7] 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.
I believe they have always stated they are an end user of wiki. As to the purely for the purpose Martin please give diffs.
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, [8] yet he also states its not close enough to tree shaping to be used for a reference for Tree shaping. [9]
Here are a few examples of Blackash on the talk page [31] (Martin's link), Please also read Colincbn talk page
[32] (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.
[33] (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.
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 [34] [35], I also created this table of suggested title names with quotes and refs [36] though Slowart/Reames did fill in the Arborsculpture section.
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"
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."
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.
No. 5 The article was basically a coat rack for Arborsculpture. [44] 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. [45] 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. [46] 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.
No. 8, I believe your assessment is correct.
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 [47]. 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 !"
Griseum One example and opinion from a neutral editor who contributed a lot but is no longer helping. [48]
Duff contributed the most to the article, at one point he said this about the Title. [49]
Stated I didn't understand how the English language works [54], they next stated they were willing to fix my "broken sentences" [55] 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. [56], [57] Not once did they fix any of my "broken sentences" instead they would only revert [58]. They refused to work towards a consensus.
They removed Peter Cook (my life partner) from a caption of an image showing him. [59] 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. [60] 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 [61], edit summary [62]
They apologized for over reacting but then later removed their apology
[63].
When I called a truce [64] here is their edit summary in reply [65].
Griseum was both rude and uncivil [66], [67]
SilkTork came and meditated and for a while Griseum was civil, until [68] for example.
Griseum added this image to the right [69] after going on about "pooktre" being a generic term [70]
Griseum strongly disagreed to SilkTork's suggestion of having pooktre as a generic term in the lead sentence. [71], [72], [73] 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. [74]
This [75] 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. [76]
Duff did a lot of edits that were just shuffling the page around [77], [78]. Check same sentence as first diff.
Even on minor issues Duff tried to link my editing to pushing preferred names [79]
They were quick to assume bad faith, [80] 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 [81] 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. [82]
Duff decided to take issue with me comment splitting his comments [83] yet he feel free to do so with my comments. [84] Other editors had also split their comments [85] and they didn't complain.
Duff has come to my talk page and thrown around a lot of claims [86] 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 [87]
Tree shaping is not a Neologism but Colincbn keeps commenting as though the present title is a neologism [88], [89] and wanting to apply the policies from WP:NEO to finding a new title. [90] read near the end. Colincbn stand on this basically hasn't changed. [91] Though he knows of secondary sources that use the term Tree shaping, he is sticking with the WP:NEO policies. [92]
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. [93] read first two comments
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 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)
!!!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'.
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)
Case clerks: Salvio giuliano ( Talk) & Dougweller ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
Inactive
Recused
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)
Duff, I started this arbitration in the hope of stopping persistent COI editing by Blackash. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 07:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'. "
2) Martin's "Compare these to the 'arborsculpture' refs in the same link."
3) Martin's "In fact, this reference [3] from Blackash's list"
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)
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 [4] and I even agreed with his reasons for removing them and added an extra reason why Colincbn had done the right thing [5]. 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 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)
In Martin opening statement he points to [6] and [7] 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.
I believe they have always stated they are an end user of wiki. As to the purely for the purpose Martin please give diffs.
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, [8] yet he also states its not close enough to tree shaping to be used for a reference for Tree shaping. [9]
Here are a few examples of Blackash on the talk page [31] (Martin's link), Please also read Colincbn talk page
[32] (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.
[33] (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.
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 [34] [35], I also created this table of suggested title names with quotes and refs [36] though Slowart/Reames did fill in the Arborsculpture section.
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"
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."
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.
No. 5 The article was basically a coat rack for Arborsculpture. [44] 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. [45] 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. [46] 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.
No. 8, I believe your assessment is correct.
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 [47]. 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 !"
Griseum One example and opinion from a neutral editor who contributed a lot but is no longer helping. [48]
Duff contributed the most to the article, at one point he said this about the Title. [49]
Stated I didn't understand how the English language works [54], they next stated they were willing to fix my "broken sentences" [55] 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. [56], [57] Not once did they fix any of my "broken sentences" instead they would only revert [58]. They refused to work towards a consensus.
They removed Peter Cook (my life partner) from a caption of an image showing him. [59] 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. [60] 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 [61], edit summary [62]
They apologized for over reacting but then later removed their apology
[63].
When I called a truce [64] here is their edit summary in reply [65].
Griseum was both rude and uncivil [66], [67]
SilkTork came and meditated and for a while Griseum was civil, until [68] for example.
Griseum added this image to the right [69] after going on about "pooktre" being a generic term [70]
Griseum strongly disagreed to SilkTork's suggestion of having pooktre as a generic term in the lead sentence. [71], [72], [73] 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. [74]
This [75] 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. [76]
Duff did a lot of edits that were just shuffling the page around [77], [78]. Check same sentence as first diff.
Even on minor issues Duff tried to link my editing to pushing preferred names [79]
They were quick to assume bad faith, [80] 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 [81] 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. [82]
Duff decided to take issue with me comment splitting his comments [83] yet he feel free to do so with my comments. [84] Other editors had also split their comments [85] and they didn't complain.
Duff has come to my talk page and thrown around a lot of claims [86] 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 [87]
Tree shaping is not a Neologism but Colincbn keeps commenting as though the present title is a neologism [88], [89] and wanting to apply the policies from WP:NEO to finding a new title. [90] read near the end. Colincbn stand on this basically hasn't changed. [91] Though he knows of secondary sources that use the term Tree shaping, he is sticking with the WP:NEO policies. [92]
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. [93] read first two comments
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 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)
!!!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'.
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)