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
Seems evident that the arbitration committee is so overloaded, and the case is so overdue that they are basically "dialing it in" on this case. For example, one arbitrator calling blackash a "he", when it would be extremely obvious that she is a woman from reading any of the evidence or workshop pages. Also thinking that reaffirming blackash and slowart's bans (they are already banned in case some of the arbitrators didn't bother to look into the case) would "break the back" of this dispute - that's not even the crux of the problem at all.
Failing to consider the conduct and actions of editors other than blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum is a massive oversight. Seems like the arbitrators are singling out blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum because they don't want to delve into the case, and are looking for some easy targets to ban so they can call it done and move on to the next case. To be honest, I feel this is disrespectful to all the participants here. AfD hero ( talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
For some of the arbitrators this may not be true but it would be a common psychological reaction to the misinformation given. Really this false information should be removed from the proposed decision page, other wise in the future it could lead to confusion about just when Sydney BlueGum was first topic banned. Blackash have a chat 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)I see by these diffs this editor is not being civil and is against another editor. Umm they are already partially topic banned. Well it doesn't seem to be working I'll vote for a full topic ban.
Elen, this is a different kind of remedy than we've seen before, which is much narrower than most topic bans. Could you please provide a bit of insight into your thinking here? Risker ( talk) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there are two other areas where Blackash's COI has been important, these are the mini bios on the practitioners of the art and the different methods used by different practitioners. For this reason I would ask the arbitrators to vote for a complete topic ban for Blackash. If you feel, as do, that a one year topic ban is too strong a sanction for an undoubted expert in the subject why not consider a ban of shorter duration. This would give non-COI editors time to sort out the commercial interest that has dogged this article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad I've commented on each of this diff's in my evidence but it may have been missed, so I'm copy and paste the diff's and my comments on each here. link to my original comments
1. canvassing her professional mailing list Blackash's comment
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.
2. promotional rewrite Blackash's comment
I was fixing Duff's business (unsupported) spin about Pooktre and adding a ref for when my partner had first started.
3. insertion of own website into article Blackash's comment
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.
4. shuffling list to put her professional name at the top Blackash's comment
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 [1]
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.)
5. adds brand name to caption Blackash's comment
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.
6. removes usage of the term Arborsculpture Blackash's comment
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.
I've posted this here to give the admins the history/reasoning behind each edit. Only one of these edits is recent and was discussed before I did it. One is 7 months old the rest are over a year or more ago. I've done a lot of editing in the intervening time, and as I learn of the policies and guidelines I follow them and don't repeat my mistakes. Blackash have a chat 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe you guys are voting with out even knowing what the current situation is, let alone the I know you guys are busy but if you are voting at the very least you should read the different pages that are part of the arbitration. The workshop page shows that some of the editors not listed in the proposal decision are behaving badly or clearly advocating for arborsculpture. Please take the time to read the pages pertaining to this case. Blackash have a chat 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The extremely long list of references added by Duff isn't ideal; that list is more suitable for the discussion page. However, we have proposed two solutions that I hope will resolve the issue:
John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that in fact I did add the PopSci reference, as determined by the editors @ RsN, to both the Pooktre & arborsculpture othernames. duff 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just glanced through the proposed decisions, and forgive me if this is already covered, but I couldn't see it. Is there a provision for dealing with the existing topic bans? If Blackash and Slowart are given ArbCom topic bans for one year, would these run concurrently or consecutively to the existing community bans? If Blackash and Slowart are not given ArbCom topic bans, would that overturn and terminate the existing bans? I suppose this is standard stuff that's covered somewhere.... SilkTork * Tea time 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie thank you for listing this for clarification. Blackash have a chat 10:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ellen of the Roads --- I would like you to explain your last diff titled "cutting up trees with chainsaws" In what context do you use this? . Explain to me what this statement has to do with this arbitration. Is this a case of not having time to look for appropriate diff and you have just grabbed this out of the air.
The second part refered to the diff you (Elen) provided in Blackash' section about her labeling her work Pooktre. In future Please take the time to read carefully.Blackash got the meaning of my comment in the edit above. Simple.
I would like to point out the comment by Colincbn which includes the words bile spite and verbosity. This comment just proves that the actions of editors Duff Colincbn, Slowart and others is exactly what AFDHero is talking about. Happy days Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 04:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If it is found by using the truth and the appropriate evidence that I have done the wrong thing I will go along with the topic ban. The other editors who have done the same or worse should also be topic banned. This is why I have requested Admin to look at other editors and their style and behaviour. If not they will continue to advocate for arborsculpture and push other truly neutral editors away. The recent discussion has focussed on changing the title after the arbitration is over. Please google the word 'arborsculpture' as it is a marketing funnel for Richard Reames which other editors chose to ignore continually. Colinnbc and Martin have stated that they are willing to change the title to a long discriptive name (Temporary holding name) and the arguement could be made that the title is unstable and should be reverted to the original name. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have entered a request about clarification of the official WP stance on editing WP articles and referencing the same articles outside of WP. I assume that there is no official position, however I feel clarification of this is in order. Although it jeopardises quickly reaching a resolution of the main conflict, I very humbly ask that this issue be addressed before this arbitration is closed. Colincbn ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Duff listed this Sock puppet investigation [5] but I gave behavior evidence as to why I believe Griseum is really Slowart/Richard. The investigation was closed on Ip evidence, not on the behavior edits. Please read my edit just above their reply in diff [6] Please also note how Duff states "I am neither the accuser nor the accused". He started this investigation and he also lists Sydney Bluegum as a sock or maybe my life partner.
Clerks: There's a small typo on this page: "done in repeatedly" should be "done repeatedly". Thanks, -- El on ka 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a completely non-involved party in this dispute, just reviewing the proposed decision out of curiosity. In the "Current name" finding of fact though, where it says, "The article reached its current name", there is no indication of what the current name is. This might make sense to those who are currently familiar with the case, but future readers (and future arbitration committees) might become confused by this, especially if the article changes title a few more times between now and then. Might it be wise to include what the current name of the article is, just for future reference? Or is it being deliberately left vague? -- El on ka 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
So does this mean we are being asked to find a consensus name in two months by holding a forum both Blackash and Slowart are allowed to participate in, in spite of the topic ban against them discussing the name? If this is the case what is the point of the topic ban? Colincbn ( talk) 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
For the pro arborsculpture group a surprising lot of things are connected to the title. Just read the workshop page to see how often discussions are dragged to the title. I can give other examples if wanted. Duff's last diff on this page (my reply) has just highlighted a problem I have with some of the editors at tree shaping. These editors have repeatably made false statements to which I've cleared up with diffs and such (can supply diffs). They will put a ugly slant on why I edited something diff with misleading info ( clearing up, read the 3th line), twist my comments as Duff did above or put words into my mouth (like Colincbn tried to here, short discussion.) As it seems I will not be allowed to discuss things to do with the title, what is my recourse if this happens and it is connected to the title? Blackash have a chat 15:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Mediators, several independent editors came to this page to give their view on a dispute between two editors, both with a potential COI.
Blackash has claimed that Johnuniq, Colincbn, Duff, Griseum, Quiddity, and myself have all taken against her and have used all sorts of dirty tricks to discredit her and promote the name 'arborsculpture'. Why? Why would a bunch of independent editors want to take sides in a dispute between two potential COI editors?
The above editors, on the other hand, believe that not only does Blackash have a potential COI but that this COI has been manifest in her editing and discussion throughout the article. I have to admit that I though this was obvious and therefore did not require proving' to the arbitrators.
I, and I believe most of the others, had never heard of the subject or the name 'arborsculpture' before and really do not care which term is used. On the other hand we do all care about the integrity of WP and its independence from commercial interference. That is why I called for this arbitration.
If you cannot see that one editor is using WP as a forum to push her own commercial and personal interests then I despair for WP. This is exactly the kind of thing that the arbitration committee is set up to stop. It looks as though you are going to fail. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Elen the problem as I see it, is in 2B) text. Quote "(this is the current situation)" This is what gives the impression that Sydney BlueGum already partially topic banned. Blackash have a chat 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, as I may be one of the admins enforcing these restrictions, I wanted to check for clarity on one part. In 1C (which is not yet active), it says, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject." My question is, would this include adding references? For example, would this list of edits, at a subpage where the name is being discussed, be considered a violation? [9] -- El on ka 16:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious to see what, if any, effect this decision has on the various community disputes/discussions that are ongoing which revolve around article titles. Does the statement of principle used here indicate an interpretation of
Wikipedia:Article titles, or is the committee... unwilling to make claims about how that policy (including COMMONNAME and it's potential impact on other areas) can and/or should be interpreted, or is it putting forward an interpretation that should be generally accepted by the community?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
23:54, 14 July 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
Seems evident that the arbitration committee is so overloaded, and the case is so overdue that they are basically "dialing it in" on this case. For example, one arbitrator calling blackash a "he", when it would be extremely obvious that she is a woman from reading any of the evidence or workshop pages. Also thinking that reaffirming blackash and slowart's bans (they are already banned in case some of the arbitrators didn't bother to look into the case) would "break the back" of this dispute - that's not even the crux of the problem at all.
Failing to consider the conduct and actions of editors other than blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum is a massive oversight. Seems like the arbitrators are singling out blackash/slowart/sydneybluegum because they don't want to delve into the case, and are looking for some easy targets to ban so they can call it done and move on to the next case. To be honest, I feel this is disrespectful to all the participants here. AfD hero ( talk) 03:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
For some of the arbitrators this may not be true but it would be a common psychological reaction to the misinformation given. Really this false information should be removed from the proposed decision page, other wise in the future it could lead to confusion about just when Sydney BlueGum was first topic banned. Blackash have a chat 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)I see by these diffs this editor is not being civil and is against another editor. Umm they are already partially topic banned. Well it doesn't seem to be working I'll vote for a full topic ban.
Elen, this is a different kind of remedy than we've seen before, which is much narrower than most topic bans. Could you please provide a bit of insight into your thinking here? Risker ( talk) 22:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there are two other areas where Blackash's COI has been important, these are the mini bios on the practitioners of the art and the different methods used by different practitioners. For this reason I would ask the arbitrators to vote for a complete topic ban for Blackash. If you feel, as do, that a one year topic ban is too strong a sanction for an undoubted expert in the subject why not consider a ban of shorter duration. This would give non-COI editors time to sort out the commercial interest that has dogged this article. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad I've commented on each of this diff's in my evidence but it may have been missed, so I'm copy and paste the diff's and my comments on each here. link to my original comments
1. canvassing her professional mailing list Blackash's comment
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.
2. promotional rewrite Blackash's comment
I was fixing Duff's business (unsupported) spin about Pooktre and adding a ref for when my partner had first started.
3. insertion of own website into article Blackash's comment
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.
4. shuffling list to put her professional name at the top Blackash's comment
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 [1]
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.)
5. adds brand name to caption Blackash's comment
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.
6. removes usage of the term Arborsculpture Blackash's comment
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.
I've posted this here to give the admins the history/reasoning behind each edit. Only one of these edits is recent and was discussed before I did it. One is 7 months old the rest are over a year or more ago. I've done a lot of editing in the intervening time, and as I learn of the policies and guidelines I follow them and don't repeat my mistakes. Blackash have a chat 12:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe you guys are voting with out even knowing what the current situation is, let alone the I know you guys are busy but if you are voting at the very least you should read the different pages that are part of the arbitration. The workshop page shows that some of the editors not listed in the proposal decision are behaving badly or clearly advocating for arborsculpture. Please take the time to read the pages pertaining to this case. Blackash have a chat 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The extremely long list of references added by Duff isn't ideal; that list is more suitable for the discussion page. However, we have proposed two solutions that I hope will resolve the issue:
John Vandenberg ( chat) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note that in fact I did add the PopSci reference, as determined by the editors @ RsN, to both the Pooktre & arborsculpture othernames. duff 19:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just glanced through the proposed decisions, and forgive me if this is already covered, but I couldn't see it. Is there a provision for dealing with the existing topic bans? If Blackash and Slowart are given ArbCom topic bans for one year, would these run concurrently or consecutively to the existing community bans? If Blackash and Slowart are not given ArbCom topic bans, would that overturn and terminate the existing bans? I suppose this is standard stuff that's covered somewhere.... SilkTork * Tea time 15:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie thank you for listing this for clarification. Blackash have a chat 10:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ellen of the Roads --- I would like you to explain your last diff titled "cutting up trees with chainsaws" In what context do you use this? . Explain to me what this statement has to do with this arbitration. Is this a case of not having time to look for appropriate diff and you have just grabbed this out of the air.
The second part refered to the diff you (Elen) provided in Blackash' section about her labeling her work Pooktre. In future Please take the time to read carefully.Blackash got the meaning of my comment in the edit above. Simple.
I would like to point out the comment by Colincbn which includes the words bile spite and verbosity. This comment just proves that the actions of editors Duff Colincbn, Slowart and others is exactly what AFDHero is talking about. Happy days Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 04:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If it is found by using the truth and the appropriate evidence that I have done the wrong thing I will go along with the topic ban. The other editors who have done the same or worse should also be topic banned. This is why I have requested Admin to look at other editors and their style and behaviour. If not they will continue to advocate for arborsculpture and push other truly neutral editors away. The recent discussion has focussed on changing the title after the arbitration is over. Please google the word 'arborsculpture' as it is a marketing funnel for Richard Reames which other editors chose to ignore continually. Colinnbc and Martin have stated that they are willing to change the title to a long discriptive name (Temporary holding name) and the arguement could be made that the title is unstable and should be reverted to the original name. Sydney Bluegum ( talk) 10:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have entered a request about clarification of the official WP stance on editing WP articles and referencing the same articles outside of WP. I assume that there is no official position, however I feel clarification of this is in order. Although it jeopardises quickly reaching a resolution of the main conflict, I very humbly ask that this issue be addressed before this arbitration is closed. Colincbn ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Duff listed this Sock puppet investigation [5] but I gave behavior evidence as to why I believe Griseum is really Slowart/Richard. The investigation was closed on Ip evidence, not on the behavior edits. Please read my edit just above their reply in diff [6] Please also note how Duff states "I am neither the accuser nor the accused". He started this investigation and he also lists Sydney Bluegum as a sock or maybe my life partner.
Clerks: There's a small typo on this page: "done in repeatedly" should be "done repeatedly". Thanks, -- El on ka 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a completely non-involved party in this dispute, just reviewing the proposed decision out of curiosity. In the "Current name" finding of fact though, where it says, "The article reached its current name", there is no indication of what the current name is. This might make sense to those who are currently familiar with the case, but future readers (and future arbitration committees) might become confused by this, especially if the article changes title a few more times between now and then. Might it be wise to include what the current name of the article is, just for future reference? Or is it being deliberately left vague? -- El on ka 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
So does this mean we are being asked to find a consensus name in two months by holding a forum both Blackash and Slowart are allowed to participate in, in spite of the topic ban against them discussing the name? If this is the case what is the point of the topic ban? Colincbn ( talk) 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
For the pro arborsculpture group a surprising lot of things are connected to the title. Just read the workshop page to see how often discussions are dragged to the title. I can give other examples if wanted. Duff's last diff on this page (my reply) has just highlighted a problem I have with some of the editors at tree shaping. These editors have repeatably made false statements to which I've cleared up with diffs and such (can supply diffs). They will put a ugly slant on why I edited something diff with misleading info ( clearing up, read the 3th line), twist my comments as Duff did above or put words into my mouth (like Colincbn tried to here, short discussion.) As it seems I will not be allowed to discuss things to do with the title, what is my recourse if this happens and it is connected to the title? Blackash have a chat 15:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Mediators, several independent editors came to this page to give their view on a dispute between two editors, both with a potential COI.
Blackash has claimed that Johnuniq, Colincbn, Duff, Griseum, Quiddity, and myself have all taken against her and have used all sorts of dirty tricks to discredit her and promote the name 'arborsculpture'. Why? Why would a bunch of independent editors want to take sides in a dispute between two potential COI editors?
The above editors, on the other hand, believe that not only does Blackash have a potential COI but that this COI has been manifest in her editing and discussion throughout the article. I have to admit that I though this was obvious and therefore did not require proving' to the arbitrators.
I, and I believe most of the others, had never heard of the subject or the name 'arborsculpture' before and really do not care which term is used. On the other hand we do all care about the integrity of WP and its independence from commercial interference. That is why I called for this arbitration.
If you cannot see that one editor is using WP as a forum to push her own commercial and personal interests then I despair for WP. This is exactly the kind of thing that the arbitration committee is set up to stop. It looks as though you are going to fail. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Elen the problem as I see it, is in 2B) text. Quote "(this is the current situation)" This is what gives the impression that Sydney BlueGum already partially topic banned. Blackash have a chat 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, as I may be one of the admins enforcing these restrictions, I wanted to check for clarity on one part. In 1C (which is not yet active), it says, "User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject." My question is, would this include adding references? For example, would this list of edits, at a subpage where the name is being discussed, be considered a violation? [9] -- El on ka 16:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious to see what, if any, effect this decision has on the various community disputes/discussions that are ongoing which revolve around article titles. Does the statement of principle used here indicate an interpretation of
Wikipedia:Article titles, or is the committee... unwilling to make claims about how that policy (including COMMONNAME and it's potential impact on other areas) can and/or should be interpreted, or is it putting forward an interpretation that should be generally accepted by the community?
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)