Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Case Opened on 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Case Closed on 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
Practically every step attempted has been an RfC or informal mediation; part of the issue is abuse of such by Seeyou. As such, every RfC and MedCab case filed will be listed here:
Seeyou has been disruptive as regards Bates method and POV forks thereof that he tends to create for the past year-and-a-half, abouts. I initially got involved with the article after a bunch of open proxies targeted it; looking at the talk page then I had noticed that Seeyou was hurling accusations of bias on the talk page, especially towards Famousdog (talk · contribs), whom he was accusing of meatpuppeting on behalf of another user who'd only ever edited the article once. As I detailed in this user-conduct RfC, Seeyou has been less than collegial for most of the time he's been on the article.
Long story short: Seeyou has been accusing editors of loads of behavioral no-nos: payola, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and, most recently, deliberate insertion of original research. In each instance he has given zero proof for his accusations, while in the meanwhile violating several rules himself, particularly WP:Canvassing ([7], [8] as examples) and WP:Assume good faith. He has twice created POV forks of Bates Method in an attempt to circumvent the consensus, and has canvassed heavily, so much so that he is under sanctions specifically prohibiting him from making such edits ([9]). He has constantly posted "Objective reader" sections (links given are examples, but not the full extent) on the talk page and screamed foul whenever they were removed, including overuse of RfC templates on Talk:Bates method ([10], [11], [12] as examples). He has constantly used RfC and MedCab as his own personal pitbulls against editors in revenge for filing RfCs or mediations against him; see the MedCab cases above.
Even more recently, Seeyou has been threatening to bring the underlying content dispute to Arbitration, despite several editors warning him that the ArbCom does not interfere in such. So far as I am concerned, the only actual content dispute is in Seeyou's mind; the consensus was reached long ago and thus far only Seeyou has claimed otherwise.
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and to focus on the behavioral aspects, particularly as regards Seeyou in re Bates method. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Samuel, I feel obligated to point out that I have tried to be very careful to stay out of the content dispute, since I (α) do not know anything about the Bates method and (β) am incredibly leery of editing in areas that are political, polemic, or under ArbCom sanction (in this case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience). From what I saw as an outsider looking in, there was a consensus, so please understand that I mean no misinformation by my statement regarding a consensus. My main concern is Seeyou's behavior, which hasn't been collegial what-so-ever and in many cases has been downright childish. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeyou, it's your behavior since before I even started showing up at Talk:Bates method that is under review. It is your very recent, repeated, baseless accusations of WP:COI that prompted me to file the request. And, if you'll read below your statement, the ArbCom will open the case soon. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with everything that Jeske has said above. I have frequently been the victim of accusations of sockpuppetry ([14],[15]) and conflict of interest ([16],[17]) with regards my editing of the Bates method article. Despite my attempts to find a compromise ([18]) and the fact that I originally pointed out the suspicious proxy behaviour that Seeyou then accused me of ([19]) Seeyou has consistently assumed bad faith towards me. Seeyou is clearly scientifically illiterate ([20]) and has preferred to attempt circumvention of the fact that his (fringe) POV is not represented on Wikipedia by the creation of various POV forks and, lately, by simply attacking other editors on his talk page (the only forum he has left).
One final note. I realise that the anonymity of Wikipedia is one of its strengths, but I would be more than willing to reveal my true identity to a third party, if it will help to resolve this dispute. I have a PhD in vision science, work in an Optometry department and I have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on various aspects of the visual system. I suspect Seeyou will not be so forthcoming with regards the source of his expertise, but perhaps he will take this opportunity to establish his credentials. Famousdog (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In reference to this discussion Seeyou claims below that his sourcing of a new reference that clearly isn't the one that Beresford was referring to means that my "initinal (sic) argument is not valid anymore." Quite why it invalidates the argument is left unexplained. My original argument that neither experiment necessarily contradicts the "genetic theory" (a theory that still hasn't been clearly outlined by either Beresford or Seeyou) falls on deaf ears. When I simply reiterate my original argument and question how this new research fits into the story, he ignores me. Below, he claims that I "create" a new argument. An argument that according to him is also "invalid" - although no explanation is forthcoming either on the discussion page or here. This behaviour (vague language, the absence of any explanation or definition of terms and the making of unsupported assertions) is unfortunately typical. Famousdog (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I was the one against whom Seeyou made the most direct accusation of WP:COI (even though he can't spell my username). To explain what he said there, there is a document, the Woods report, whose general contents and conclusions we all know. Seeyou wrongly believes that it is crucial to his arguments. I have a copy. He blames me for the fact that the full text is not available on the web.
Just for the record, I have no WP:COI regarding Bates Method and Seeyou has no grounds to suppose that I have.
I must contradict what Jéské Couriano said above. There is a long-running content dispute about the balance of the Bates method article. In policy terms, an over-strict interpretation of WP:RS has been used as a major argument to infringe both the spirit and the letter of WP:NPOV. Amongst other matters, this has been used to prevent mention of the content or even in most cases the existence of pro-Bates literature and websites. The relative stability that has been achieved represents the balance of forces amongst the editors, rather than a genuine consensus, still less a true WP:NPOV.
Seeyou is frustrated by this situation, but has not dealt with it well. Instead of trying to get some sensible use of pro-Bates literature he has demanded that we recognise the primacy of his favourite authors. The other editors have strongly different positions from each other. Instead of seeking agreement from some of those editors on specific modest points, Seeyou has repeatedly accused them of being united against him, which of course has eventually become true. The record of his bad bahaviour is, regrettably, given accurately above. It is difficult to know what to do, but it has to be admitted that the project would be better off without him. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To Jeske , Since my past behaviour did n't result in a arbitration case.
To the arbitrators : Read wery careful what Jeske has mentioned.
I would really appreciate it if you would take a serious look, if you have time, in the archive of the discussionspages of the BM article [27] ( hint do a search on the words for the objective reader ) & the NVI article [28]. Focus on the facts and provided references and arguments. Then you might start to see what is really going on here. See also this link [29]. The initinal argument is not valid anymore. So famousdog just creates a new one. Which is also invalid by the way. Based on his assumed background I find it very hard to believe Famousdog really did not know. Seeyou (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Jeske statement : > Seeyou has been disruptive as regards Bates method and POV forks thereof that he tends to create for the past year-and-a-half.
Jeske, About jeske 2 paragraph above.
Jeske , > Even more recently, Seeyou has been threatening to bring the underlying content dispute to Arbitration, despite several editors warning him that the ArbCom does not interfere in such. So far as I am concerned, the only actual content dispute is in Seeyou's mind; the consensus was reached long ago and thus far only Seeyou has claimed otherwise.
Jeske states I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and to focus on the behavioral aspects,
All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas—such as advocacy or propaganda, philosophical, ideological, or political dispute, or the promotion of original research—is prohibited.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject, in accordance with their prevalence as reflected in the best and most reputable sources, and without giving undue weight to minority views. Where an article concerns a theory that does not have majority support in the relevant scholarly community, the article must fairly describe the division of opinion among those who have studied the matter. The contents of all source materials must be presented accurately and fairly, without advocacy. Good-faith disputes concerning article neutrality and sourcing, like other content disputes, should be resolved by a consensus of involved editors on the article, or if necessary through dispute resolution procedures.
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 in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
5) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.
1) The locus of the dispute is editing of Bates method, an article concerning a method of seeking to improve eyesight, and related articles.
2) For more than three years, Seeyou (talk · contribs) has edited Bates method and related articles in a disruptive fashion reflective of advocacy. His conduct has included continuous partisan advocacy, tendentious editing, incivility, unsupported or exaggerated allegations of wrongdoing by fellow editors, and misuse of dispute-resolution methods. (See diffs cited here and here.)
3) Numerous attempts at mediation and discussions in connection with prior requests for arbitration (see list) have not resolved the disputes created by Seeyou's conduct or led to any improvement in his editing.
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.
1) Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.
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.