Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

Case Opened on 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

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

• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Famousdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PSWG1920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SamuelTheGhost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jéské Couriano: Initiator
• Seeyou: [1]
• Famousdog: [2]
• Ronz: [3]
• PSWG1920: [4]
• SamuelTheGhost: [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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:

• RFAR March 2 2007 - Rejected
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Bates_Method
• RFAR April 24, 2007 - Rejected
• RFAR December 11, 2007 - Rejected
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01 Bates method
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-28 Bates method
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seeyou initiated March 27, 2008
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03 Bates method
• [6] RFC add wikiquote article

Statement by Jéské Couriano

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)

In re SamuelTheGhost's statement

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)

I completely accept that clarification and your good faith. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In re Seeyou's statement

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)

Jeske / Jeremy, Which accusation ? Provide the reference with my exact words. Thanks in advance. Seeyou (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[13] in particular, Seeyou. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I still do not read any accusation ! Which line which words ? Seeyou (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole damn thing, Seeyou. Now, do yourself a favor and stop playing dumb, please. Any editor can see that is a baseless accusation. Now, since ArbComm statements are not threaded, I'm going to segregate further responses from you into your section. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I have said on my talkpage. I do not accuse any of my felloweditors of anything ! I migth accuse you Jeremy of lying, but I won’t do that because it won’t solve the real enormous Original research problems of the Bates method and the separate Natural Vision Improvement article. Seeyou (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Famousdog

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).

Arbitrarors, Science and conclusions are based on facts. Discussions on arguments and provided quality sources. Take a good look in the archive of the BM article [21]. To help you I will make a list of the most important problems of OR. Seeyou (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators. Note reference 13, 14 and 15 are very old. In reference 16 I am not saying anything about anybody. ( Reference 16 Is according to Jeske the reason for this case.). Regarding reference 17. I just want the reader to consider what background the editors of the BM and NVI article might have. Myself included. In normal life skeptics and advocates do not really talk to each other. Wikipedia is not any different without interference.Seeyou (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog states : > various POV forks. Like the yoga article explains and provides explanations of the different Yoga varaints. In my opinion the NVI article should become similar. The suggestion of the current BM aricle is that the BM is very old method. For example by showing the sunning picture. The suggestion is also made the BM did not develop itself. This is not true ! See the coming OR list. Seeyou (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Famousdog, all you have to do is provide reliable quality sources and references. For example this reference [22] Research by the American Academy of ophthalmology.( it represent at least 1000 specialists) So the public can verify of what has been stated is sourced by a reliable source. By providing your identity to a third party the public is not helped. You can be Maradona or you can be person behind this site [23] :-). Seeyou (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In re Seeyou's statement(s)

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)

You can read my answer here [24]. Summarized Famousdogs statement became OR, but it still can't be mentioned in the article ? Seeyou (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SamuelTheGhost

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)

Sammy states >the project would be better off without him. That is a good one. There are 22 players on the soccerfield. 21 players want to score in the same goal. There is no referee. Your proposal is to also get rid of one of the keepers. Seeyou (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seeyou

To Jeske , Since my past behaviour did n't result in a arbitration case.

• Which recent contribution of me triggered this arbitration case ? Be very specific and clear Jeske !

To the arbitrators : Read wery careful what Jeske has mentioned.

And take a look if you have time in the archive in the discussionspages of the BM article [25] ( hint do a search on the words for the objective reader ) & the NVI article [26]. 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 [27]. The initinal argument is not valid anymore. So famousdog just creates a new one. Which is also invalid by the way. 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.

Arbitrators, Take a very good look at the dates of the edits which are provided. I have been blocked for a week the date 22 of december of 2008. There have been no editwars with Ronz or canvassing since !

Ask Jeske to make very clear which edit of me lead to this case. Jeskes Answer : ::[28] in particular, Seeyou. His answer does not validate this case. Seeyou (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeske states : Seeyou has been less than collegial for most of the time he's been on the article.

I have made famousdog laugh. I have thanked Famousdog for a quality link he provided. Purely Jeskes inerpretation. Sometimes we really do agree on something ! Seeyou (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeske, About jeske 2 paragraph above.

His evidence goes back quite a long time ago. It seems to me Seeyou is behaving quite well since his december 2008 block. Seeyou (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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.

This is true. That is why i have created a list with the most important examples combined with a abstract general question to the Arbitration Committee. So my question are not about the content. They are about the presence of Original research by various means. A very serious matter. Seeyou (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See the list on my userpage [29] Make your own choice which case you want to read.

Jeske > I urge the ArbCom to accept this case and to focus on the behavioral aspects,

I urge the Arbcom to focus on OR, created by the unfair behaviour of my felloweditors.Seeyou (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/1/0)

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Although the likely outcome here is acceptance, my preference would be wait another day or two to see if Seeyou posts a statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Presumptive Accept; multiple attempts to solve the problem failed and MedCom opines that this is strictly a behavioral issue. — Coren ^(talk) 21:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Wizardman 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept:  Roger Davies ^talk 09:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept: — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept to look at all parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Accept Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. Risker (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Remedies

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.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

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.