Talk:Tree shaping

Sock accusations

I don't think Blackash responded on my talkpage about that topic of the "4 second error", though I questioned her comment first. Anyhow, I went and looked at the response given at the section there entitle User Talk:Sydney Bluegum#Griseum/Reames, and basically it is an extremely suggestive accusation that Griseum and Slowart are one and the same person. I looked at all the diffs and the links provided, and frankly, I'm a little confused. Was the mistake Griseum made, one of simply misreading the ip address in the HI comment, thinking it was his own somewhat similar IP address, then catching his mistake? If that's what happened, what is the big deal? SilkTork did a checkuser apparently, and found they were unconnected. They surely do not (to me) seem like even similar editors. Suggesting that Reames is Griseum, and is involved in a complicated scheme using scrubs to evade detection of socks is pretty serious. It definitely does not AGF and should not be left out there hanging. There has also already been at least one formal sock puppet investigation on this article, instigated by Blackash, and that was found to be without merit, if I remember correctly. I'm not entirely convinced either that Blackash and Sydney Bluegum aren't socks (or meats, or roles) fabricating the entire sidewindy mess. So what is the proper procedure to force all those cards face up, once and for all? It's leaving a really bad taste in my mouth. Duff (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can support it, you can file a request for a checkuser at WP:RFCU. — e. ripley\^talk 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, who knows? Still, reluctantly, and only in the spirit of 'all cards on the table now, face up' and 'let's move on suspicion-free', I have taken your advice and asked them to please sort it all out, here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199/Archive#03 July 2010, where I added it to the previous related case investigation, as instructed. My sincerest apologies for any further disruption this may cause to any of the parties involved and/or to the improvement of this article. It is intended to end the existing and persistent disruptions, of this specific nature, only. Duff (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The submission has been assigned a new case, separate from the previous incident, but linked, and now waiting for clerk attention at [1]. Duff (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Me cutting and pasting the incorrect IP address in a message is the entire story of that. For User:Blackash to still be making insinuations based on that is per her character. To address a comment made by User:Sydney Bluegum, I don’t have “cohorts” involved with this page. I have nothing in common with other editors involved with this page under than shared concern and indignation about Becky Northey’s deliberate mis-use of Wikipedia. This inappropriate term of use of the term “cohorts” seems to disparage those editors who have given their time to improve Wikipedia rather than mis-using it for a selfish agenda. By the way, Northey does more that argue about big things, like the name of the article. When these skirmishes settle down and most people look away, she goes back to micromanaging the article as if she owned it – the main reason the article flows so poorly.--Griseum (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The case has been re-listed for a second CU opinion as of 7/8/2010. Standing by. Griseum & Slowart may both wish to comment and/or submit evidence, or not, at [2]. duff 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 DonePer the CU staff all accounts are  Unrelated, so let's put that stuff to bed for good please. duff 08:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus ignored? Why?

This comment was made today by Blackash, above, in a (now-stale?) discussion thread on this page Talk:Tree shaping#Shaping woody plants?.

By your continual use of the wording uninvolved editors came to a consensus implies all the other editors in the survey were involved which is not true. There were other uninvolved editors who did not agree with you. Blackash have a chat 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel this should be nailed down firmly, again, so here we go again, for the umpteenth record:

No such implication was intended, though you may color it as you wish. Nonetheless, a clear consensus did emerge as noted, (one you might call broad, though not sweeping, nor unanimous, which, again, is not required or even desired as an outcome), during a protracted 4-step process of consensus-building beginning at Proposal to Move, and then again during the RfC which was needed after that discussion, and then again during the subsequent discussions on changing the page title, and then again during the Rfm which culminated in a very clear consensus, between the following editors: User:MDVaden, User:Griseum, User:Duff, User:Colincbn, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Slowart, User:Quiddity, and I believe, also User:Johnuniq, which I will be very pleased to summarize AGAIN, with quotes, if that's really necessary, in another new section, as time permits. This consensus and the process to get to it passed the smell test, the vote test, the vast-preponderance-of-reliably-sourced-citations test, the WP:CONSENSUS test and the WP Policy test. What more proof or demonstration could anyone possibly need? duff 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to get this vibe from Duff's repeated statements of "given the consensuses that were reached by non-involved editors" Regents Park's reply to Duff hinted at it quote "made by all uninvolved editors" [3]

The fact the you and a group of editors have a consensus that the article should be moved to Arborsculpture didn't bear fruit in Duff's requested move Give it 12 months or so and see how things stand then about the word arborsculpture. Let work on improving the article. Blackash have a chat 07:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. As the reciprocal self censoring offer has been rejected, I'll briefly chime in. @ Sydney Bluegum what is your connection to this topic ? Why have are you here ? Single purpose accounts at this stage of the title debate will be suspect of course, same for the new ISP # accounts. Well reasoned, well cited varifiable sources and statements should now trump emotions and quick favors from friends.

It is important to note that the article was vastly improved and expanded by 4 times over by editors who disagree with the current title and prefer 'arborsculpture' instead of 'Tree shaping'! @ Regents Park, Your conclusion may have been flawed IMHO, when you said (archive 9)"The 'original title' argument would carry some weight but the article itself is more than 4 times the size it was before the move so the stable article argument is not a strong one." I think the policy you refer to was written with assumption that improvements and expansion were done by a multiplicity of editors who likely agree with the title, this was not the case at all.

COMMON NAME Policy says, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." Logically, a move back to the original stable name of 'arborsculpture' will resolve this issue that was crated by WP bold move. Reverting the bold move may be the solution to the problem. Slowart (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the bold move is the solution to the problem; I concur.

Re: preceding critique of fruit-bearing: It bore adequate fruit to the task, and no, thank you, (Re: 12 month wait and free advertising of the trademark/service mark in the interim.) Instead, we'll proceed as planned, K? Please stop attempting to exert any influence on the page title and/or content, Ms. Blackash. Your pressure is unwelcome. Read this carefully: Vast preponderance of reliable sources. I know this because I actually have been working on and improving the article, studiously, as you are well aware, and which you should not (please) also do, as implied by your "Let work on improving the article." By the way, is the omission of the 's from that, any indication that you meant "let me", instead of "let us", like let's? If so, please know that enough eyes have this page on their watchlist now that no further shenanigans will stand, and keep that in mind. Peace. duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys Regents Park has clearly stated in hasty close what to do if you disagree with the result of Requested move dispute resolution process

Either take the recommended action about the title or stop talking about it. Blackash have a chat 08:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, gal, No, there is also the option to talk about it, and there is no big hurry, as long as its done right. I have that link, thank you. Again, let me reiterate: Please stop attempting to exert influence on the page title and/or content, including the content of discussions on the talk page, and the directions taken by other editors relative to this page, Ms. Blackash. Your suggestions and ideas are welcome, but your pressure is unwelcome.duff 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackash has, from my outsider's viewpoint, demonstrated a better understanding of our naming guidelines (and a greater ability to separate the content of one's comments from the person making it) than many of those opposing her. As such, I would consider her suggestion to be a wise one. Filling this talk page with rhetoric or quite plainly false assertions that there is consensus for a move is not conducive to getting some action here. FWIW I saw the suggestion "tree art" on the previous talk archive which looks uncontroversial, if you'd like to restart the naming discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

New Basket Tree image

Very nice shot and thank you for it, Slowart!duff 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a comment re sock puppet accusation on the relevant page. Slowart -I cant believe you have talked about the very nice shot and thanked duff for it when you asked me the question Why have are you here? I dont understand the question and I dont have to explain what when, how, or why, I am involved. People makes mistakes and I dont think it should be thrown up at them. The arbour sculpture camp seem to attack editors rather than comment on the content. The title 'New Basketree' Should it be Basket tree ? Sydney Bluegum (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, please, Sydney Bluegum. That was my comment, thanking User:Slowart for the cool new image submitted. As for the section title, it matched the original image's filename, and isn't a big deal on talkpages (or on image filenames), but I've fixed this talkpage section heading so it won't confuse anyone else. I left a comment on your talkpage as well, on the editorial issue.duff 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

The word Arborsculpture or variations thereof are being given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Tree shaping has more book references available about this art form than Arborsculpture does, yet that is not reflected in the article. Not to mention various editors have an issue with the definition of arborsculpture link This undue weight occurred when some editors where trying to make a WP:Point during the survey about changing the title to Arborsculpture. Article before The word Arborsculpture and variations needs to be pruned back on the article. Blackash have a chat 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)