Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Salvio giuliano (Talk) & Dougweller (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Elen of the Roads (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 11:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Martin Hogbin[edit]

This is a request for arbitration regarding the persistent long-term COI editing of Blackash in the Tree shaping article (now restricted to disruptive editing of the talk page) and the supporting editing from the admitted SPA Sydney Bluegum.

I originally came to the page in response to this RfC [1]. After watching for a while, I suggested that the two editors with direct commercial and personal connections to the subject should withdraw from editing in areas with a commercial aspect, these being: the naming of the art, current practitioners of the art, and the specific techniques used by individual businesses[2]. One editor, Slowart agreed to do this but the other, Blackash did not.

Blackash continued to edit in areas where there is a direct commercial and personal interest until being banned from the main namespace. Blackash then continued to disrupt on the talk page with relentless argument over the same subjects. Martin Hogbin (talk)

As some of you may know I do believe that we need subject experts as WP editors and that we should not be too tough on COI editing by experts but these two diffs in the last couple of days in my opinion show a unacceptable COI involvement even on a talk page [3],[4] Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Slowart[edit]

Blackash's long running badgering and COI editing has resulted in topic ban. Talk page badgering and accusing other editors still continues on talk pages. Also a SPA is in the dispute,Sydney Bluegum. Is there any remedy? Slowart (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Blackash[edit]

Martin is one editor who has been using COI (not back up with any evidence) as one tactic, so as to not reply when asked content questions. I only have a potential COI as a artist in this field of Tree shaping. I find it interesting that Martin left out these editors rgpk and AfD hero. The ANI was closed (20 March 2011) then 9 days (29 March 2011) later Martin proposal for a full Topic ban [5] against myself and Sydney Bluegum (who is not banned at all) on Tree shaping talk. As one of the issues raised at the Topic ban was amount of discussion, I offered comprised of limiting myself 2 replies about edits I contest. Martin then listed at COI on the 2 April 2011. Now this. Blackash have a chat 01:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colincbn's claim about my internet campaign has been address by Blue Rasberry (talk) diff on the NPOV board, I clarified some points Colincbn misunderstood. discussion Blackash have a chat 06:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this issue of WP:COI should be clarified for all involved first. My understanding of COI is an editor who edits articles for promotional reasons before Wikipedia policies is in COI. Or is Martin right that even discussion on article talk pages is a COI? If my understanding is correct then this diff is the closest I can recall to COI editing. Discussion was here first and diff of my reasoning for that edit. I can also show multiple times where I have put wikipedia policies ahead of Pooktre (the name of my art.) Here is diff of a few examples. I go to other boards to get opinions on edits I've wanted to do, that may have be seen as COI example Third Opinion discussion. I have also called truces, tried various forms of mediation, as can be seen above. COI has been repeatedly used though the talk pages as a tool to side track content discussions. They give no supporting diffs of my bias editing to articles. These editors will refer to an earlier editor who stated I have COI (who also didn't have evidence) as evidence of clear COI. This discussion is a example of editors using COI (with out supporting evidence) to avoid answering/discussing content. This COI chant about my behavior (unsupported by evidence) seems to be influencing uninvolved editors' views. If needed I can find diffs. So this is why I feel COI issue needs to be cleared up first. Blackash have a chat 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Colincbn[edit]

I came to this dispute from the first(?) RfC. I have no real interest in the subject, but the policy on titles seemed clear so I joined in the debate and have attempted to keep Policy at the forefront. After the protracted disputes reached the point of, what seemed to me to be, ridiculousness I stepped away. Somewhere around five months later my name was dragged into a CoI Noticeboard discussion on Slowart, and I became involved in the subsequent ANI discussion on topic banning both Slowart and Blackash. While my stance has always been that policy on these issues is clear and therefore there is no reason for this kind of edit war, I feel both Blackash's and Slowart's CoIs have hindered the process. I was in favor of the Topic ban yet I opposed the proposal initiated by Martin of a talk page ban, based on the large amount of information Blackash and Slowart have been able to contribute to the article. However, recent events on both the article's talk page and mine have lead me to believe that Blackash may be incapable of looking at the problem with a cool head. I feel that she sees almost every edit made by certain editors as part of a plot to have the article name changed, and has knee-jerk reactions that have lead to verbose and hostile comments. I must admit that in frustration with the process I may have added fuel to that fire by allowing myself to get wrapped up in some of those confrontations.

Blackash is obviously a smart woman with a very good grasp of the rules of WP. She also seems to have a very large amount of time to devote to the encyclopedia. I feel that her work in other areas proves that she is a value to the project, however, her conflict of interest when dealing with the subject of her art is strong enough to cause her to edit disruptively when dealing with pages related to it. Colincbn (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but I agree with Blackash that the editors rgpk and AfD hero should be invited to comment here as involved parties. Colincbn (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition I think it is important to the issue to note that Blackash (Becky Northey) has been involved in an internet campaign against the word Arborsculpture. She has followed it around the web and refuted its use. In doing so she points to the Tree shaping article's name on WP and claims there is a consensus against the title being Arborsculpture, using that as proof that the word should not be used anywhere. 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.
Please see the link here for the details. Colincbn (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by AfD_hero[edit]

There are only a handful of expert practitioners of "tree shaping" in the world. Slowart is Richard Reames, one of the foremost experts in the United States. Blackash is Becky Northey who, along with her husband, are some of the foremost experts in Australia.

There are nearly as many names for the artform as there are practitioners - "tree shaping", "arborsculpture", "pooktre", "circus trees", "tree training", etc. Whichever word wins out, the artist associated with that word will have commercial/professional advantages in terms of book sales, news coverage, name recognition, etc. Reames coined the term "Arborsculpture" in his books, and would like it to apply to the artform as a whole. It is arguably the most popular, but it has yet to fully catch on and is controversial among many artists. The Northeys coined the term "Pooktre" to apply to their specific style. The Northeys also control several websites that rank highly in google searches for "tree shaping".

Despite the constant arguing over the name (literally megabytes of text, the best condensation of which can be found here IMO: [6]), the quality and detail of the article has consistently improved over the last couple years, with many quality contributions coming from blackash and slowart. Furthermore, there has been very little actual rule breaking by anyone involved, just an unending stream of the same points repeated over and over on the talk page with no progress being made. AfD hero (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark[edit]

My "involvement" in this dispute is limited to the closing of a move request [7], having the talk page on my watchlist, and the making of an occasional administrative comment. I think AfD_hero sums up the dispute well - that the article is informative and appears to be comprehensive, mostly because of the work of the two COI editors slowart and blackash. I also think that the current restriction, allowing blackash to comment on the talk page but not edit the article is working quite well, thanks partly to the efforts of colincbn in working positively with blackash. All in all, I consider this article to be a positive, if difficult, example of how wikipedia can make good use of COI editors to create quality articles. Watching the talk page from afar for over ten months, I have come to believe that the problems on the talk page are not primarily because of the COI editors and will be happy may be able to elaborate on this if the case is accepted. However, I believe that the article ban should be given more time to work and that this arbcom case, which is premature at best, should be declined. --rgpk (comment) 13:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and undue weight

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 12 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and page move discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

5) Editors may choose to focus their contributions to Wikipedia narrowly or broadly. However, editors who focus primarily or exclusively on a narrow subject—sometimes referred to as single-purpose accounts—are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus is on advocacy rather than neutrally presenting information.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

6) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

7) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing

8) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be subjected to editing restrictions on the articles in question or be banned from the topic or the site.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Expert editors

9) Expert editors are welcome on Wikipedia, including expert editors with a professional or commercial interest in the subject of articles they edit. However, the guidelines concerning conflicts of interest must be observed where applicable, and expert editors must at all times avoid editing (or appearing to edit) the encyclopaedia in order to promote their own professional or commercial interest.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputes regarding article titles

10) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Passed 12 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Neologisms in article titles

11) In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Passed 12 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Focus of the dispute

1) This dispute focuses on article content covering a relatively new art form in which three-dimensional works of art are created by modifying the growth of living trees. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what title to give the article on this subject.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No single name for this topic

2) Practitioners have developed their own names for their particular techniques and forms of the art, some of which have commercial status as brand names. As well, there are a variety of terms from arboriculture and elsewhere that are used to describe both the techniques used and the final results. Editors of the article have not reached a consensus as to a consistent preference within reliable sources on the use of any one term, and the title of the article has continued to be disputed.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have a potential conflict of interest

3) Some of those editing the article are themselves practitioners of the art, or have a professional or commercial interest in the art. These editors potentially have a conflict of interest, as it may be in their professional/commercial interests to have the title of the article reflect the description used for their their own artworks; and this may conflict with Wikipedia's policies.

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current name

4) The article reached its current name ("Tree shaping") following a merge in 2009 between two articles, neither of which used the current name. While the name change was not discussed beforehand, it was done in good faith. Subsequent discussions have never established a consensus for the article title.

Passed 12 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash has a conflict of interest

5) User:Blackash has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic, and in the terminology used for the art [9], and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has overriden the interest of the project.

Passed 11 to 1, with 1 abstention 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Bluegum is an SPA

6A) User:Sydney Bluegum is a single purpose account, whose edits to the project have been solely on this topic [10], and largely in opposition to User:Slowart

Passed 13 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart has a conflict of interest

7) User:Slowart has confirmed that they have a commercial/professional interest in the topic (File:Arborsculpture.jpg), and in the terminology used for the art, and has at times edited in such a way that this interest has compromised collaborative editing. [11] [12]

Passed 11 to 1, with 1 abstention 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Blackash

1C) 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.

Passed 10 to 1, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sydney Bluegum

2A) User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Passed 12 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Slowart

3C) User:Slowart 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.

Passed 10 to 1, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Article and subject scope

4) The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. 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.

Passed 11 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

5) The topic covered by the article currently located at Tree shaping, interpreted broadly, is placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 11 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Community restrictions superseded

6) Unless otherwise noted, these restrictions supersede any existing community-placed restrictions on the above named users.

Passed 10 to 0, 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or ban imposed in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the ban or topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 10 to 0, with 1 abstention 14:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Amendments by motion[edit]

Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014)

Following a request to amend several prior decisions to terminate discretionary sanctions provisions that may no longer be necessary,

  1. Remedy 14 of the Ayn Rand case is rescinded;
  2. Remedy 5 of the Monty Hall problem case is rescinded;
  3. Remedy 1 of the Longevity case is rescinded;
  4. The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
  5. Remedy 5 of the Tree shaping case is rescinded;
  6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
  8. In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
  9. A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
Passed 11 to 0 by motion, 11:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Category