Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Diffs are listed from newest to oldest.

Several of Seeyou's recent edits have been (vague or otherwise) threats to bring the content dispute to Arbitration:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4] (See edit summary)
• [5]
• [6] (See edit summary)
• [7] (See edit summary; also an accusation of insertion of OR)
• [8]
• [9] (See edit summary)

When it was pointed out to him that the Arbitration Committee does not adjudicate content disputes, he threatened to escalate it to User:Jimbo Wales instead:

• [10]

Concurrently with the above, Seeyou has been accusing editors of deliberately inserting original research into the article, sans proof:

• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15] (See edit summary; also an accusation of conflict-of-interest)
• [16] (See edit summary)

Since before I first got involved, Seeyou has repeatedly, though mercifully infrequently, accused other editors of having a bias and/or accepting money to edit Bates method:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19] (See edit summary)
• [20] (This edit would be repeated on User:Seeyou; see above)
• [21] (Also includes an accusation of sockpuppetry)
• [22]

Seeyou has repeatedly posted screeds on the talk page which he titled "For the objective reader <foo> of x", which kept on getting removed straightaway by Ronz or myself:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]

(Plus many more; diffs ignored for length reasons) In some instances, he screamed bloody murder whenever the screed was removed, restoring it in the process:

• [26]
• [27]

Seeyou has also done this on the May 1st, 2008 MedCab case:

• [28]

Seeyou often filed baseless article RfCs or MedCab cases specifically to try and skew the content dispute in his favor or to deliver sanctions on his foes; said cases usually ended rather rapidly without action as the handler was unwilling to obey Seeyou's wishes or saw no fundamental issue with the article. These diffs deal with the article RfCs; the MedCab cases in question are 08/03/08, 05/01/08, 03/28/08, 01/07/08, and 02/10/07

• [29]
• [30]

When these kept failing, he resorted to creating POV forks of Bates method: Batesmethod of natural vision improvement (Deleted at AfD) and Natural vision improvement (Currently a redirect to Bates method).

Seeyou forum-shopped requests to other editors in good standing, asking them to get involved in the content dispute and side with him:

• [31] (Content also posted to Levine2112 (talk · contribs) and Zappernapper (talk · contribs))
• [32] (Content also posted, sometimes incrementally, to Dpbsmith (talk · contribs), Levine2112 (talk · contribs), and PhilKnight (talk · contribs))
• [33] (Contsnt also posted to WLU (talk · contribs), Thingg (talk · contribs), Darius Dhlomo (talk · contribs), Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs), EyeMD (talk · contribs), Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs), Levine2112 (talk · contribs), and Dpbsmith (talk · contribs))
• [34] (Content also posted to Xhienne (talk · contribs), Ekabhishek (talk · contribs), TimidGuy (talk · contribs), Oxymoron83 (talk · contribs), Dabbler (talk · contribs), Michael Hardy (talk · contribs), Tony Fox (talk · contribs), Kuru (talk · contribs), and Jossi (talk · contribs))
• [35] (Content also posted to Vannin (talk · contribs), Enric Naval (talk · contribs), JamesMLane (talk · contribs), Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs), Levine2112 (talk · contribs), and Dpbsmith (talk · contribs))
• [36] (Content also posted to Dpbsmith (talk · contribs), JamesMLane (talk · contribs), Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs), Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs), and Levine2112 (talk · contribs))

After he refused to stop when asked by PhilKnight, he was blocked for one week under the pseudoscience decision and then, after he started back up again after the block, was barred from making such edits for a year under the same decision.

Throughout the proceedings with Seeyou, I have been less than cordial with him due to his behavior - in fact, I took a long break from the Bates method article to keep away from him. I do not believe myself to be beyond reproach in this matter. Incidents include:

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]

Seeyou's evidence suggests to me that he still does not understand that the Committee doesn't involve itself in content disputes; almost all of it relates to content rather than conduct.

I'm afraid that Jeske has left very little for me to post! Here is some local colour that he may have missed. Apologies if he hasn't.

• [40] - Here Seeyou suggests that copyright laws are part of some huge anti-Bates method conspiracy.
• [41] - In this MedCab case, Seeyou suggests that the posting of an reference was carried out by someone who was not an "independent objective editor" and then tries to suggest that whoever added it was also responsible for the IP proxy posts. Unfortunately my suggestion that Seeyou is a conspiracy theorist appears to confuse him and he then makes a spurious accusation of conspiracy between myself and the anonymous IP proxy user.

• [42] - Implied that I do not have an "open mind."

• [43] - Inclusion as an EL of an article already cited in the text and linked to from the reference section. See the ensuing discussion.

• [44] - Here Seeyou brings new and interesting evidence to light, but when I attempt to clarify how to integrate the information with previously presented information, I receive no response.
  • UPDATE! As a result of this arbitration process, Seeyou has responded after FOUR MONTHS, by posting a link to the same article that Beresford cannot have been referring to and without explanation of how it bears on the Bates method. -> [45]
• [46] - Here I suggested that the Peer Review Wikiproject might be of assistance and tried to explain my problem with Seeyou's terminology. Neither attempt proved to placate him.
• [47] - PSWG1920 suggests that we include the numbers from the Woods study and let them speak for themselves. A suggestion that I (in a bit of a huff) agreed to and later actioned.
• [48] - In regards Seeyou's objection to the redirection of Natural vision improvement to the Bates method article (thereby implying that they are the same thing), I made this edit using Janet Goodrich's own words and definition of NVI which states that it contains elements of the Bates method. Unfortunately, this was reverted by PSWG1920 on the basis that Seeyou was not happy with it...!

• [49] - The lazy eye / tense eye discussion on the Amblyopia page was what originally brought me into contact with Seeyou. I thought the matter had been dealt with, but
• [50] - It reappeared here on the Bates method page.

• [51] - In this post and the subsequent discussion (and the following two), Seeyou claims that experiments with chickens prove Bates' discredited theory about axial elongation being responsible for moment-to-moment focussing. Whereas this research actually deals with elongation of the eyeball during development (i.e. from chick to chicken). It has not bearing on the Bates method whatsoever beyond use of the term "axial elongation" which it would appear Seeyou has simply Googled. It should also be pointed out that the material posted here is plagiarised (i.e. wholesale cut-and-pasted) from the abstract of the paper. In addition, Seeyou synthesises this with unencyclopedically long quotes from Bates' self-published magazines.

• [52] - I really lost my rag here after Seeyou drew spurious and unreasonable conclusions from a paper that actually seems to show that vision therapy is ineffectual.

• [53] - Now he's messing about moving other parties' statements to where he thinks them more appropriate! Famousdog (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Below an Introduction and 5 cases which explain the OR and level of past dicucssions.

List of Original research ( OR ) in the Bates method ant Natural vision improvement article.

Introduction. Since we wikipedia editors can be anybody. The only sources we can use for our articles are based on references. Books are in my opinion the best source since they can’t change after they are published. Websites are second best since the public can verify them very easily. Decisions on what should be mentioned must be based on references, arguments, weight, balance of sources ( skeptics versus advocates) , policies and guidelines. Publishing the opinion of a single editor or a group of similar editors must be unacceptable. In other words Original research should should be absolutly forbidden.

Original research can arise very easy. See [54] an example of how easy original research can happen. May be this example should be used in a guideline.

Advice : Arbitrators, please focus on facts and behaviour of my felloweditors and me to improve the content of the articles.

If only one reference describing a subject is available. There does n’t have to be any discussion unless another reference is provided. The discussion is simple this source should be used. Since the Arbitration Committee will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so. I will give the example and then will ask a general question regarding the example.

Hopefully your answer will direct us in a direction so we can move on.

Note : It was Seeyou who initially wanted involvement of Arbitration. The argument of Jeske which led to this case is in my opinion invalid.

Q 0. Do you also state that seeyou accusses any of his felloweditors according to this reference [55]

The Original research problems are connected to the behaviour of my fellow editors. ( meaning ignorance towards references and sources and alogical decisionmaking )

The Natural vision improvement article is about Natural vision improvement. We have one source available describing NVI. Below the source and the definition.

According to Janet Goodrich :

Natural Vision Improvement : A lifestyle method of improving eyesight by wholistic means without the use of optical devices. The Bates method merged with modern theories of brain function, character and responsibility for one’s self and state of being..^[1]

At this moment this is the only available reference. The reference makes clear the BM and NVI are not equal. By redirecting the NVI article to the BM article the suggestion is made NVI equals BM. This is Original research. Currently wikipedia states the BM and NVI are equal.

Evidence [56], [57]

I have asked my felloweditors to provide an other reference. They did not provide.

• Q1.1. : When there is only one reference available and there are no arguments provided to neglect this reference, Can this reference then completely be ignored ?

• Q1.2.: Is it OR when the opinions of editor(s) are presented and notable reference(s), stating something different, are ignored ?

• Q1.3. : References regarding controversial subjects can have a advocate source and they can have a skeptic source. Should these source be equally balanced in a article or can only authority and skeptic sources be used ?

• Q1.4. :To determine which advocate source should be used. Are selling rates of a advocate book a valid tool to determine how much weight they should have to be used as for reference(s). (Some bookstore on the www show selling rates )

For further details / info history see [58]

The picture below is published by Bates in his book : Perfect eyesight without glasses. It is present quite early in his book, since according to Bates patients ( today students ) only have to get rid of the tension of the external eyemuscles so the eye returns to it original normal perfect shape. ( emmetropic eye ). Later in his book he explains how patients can achieve this.

The picture which it is about. See this link [59]

The reasons why this picture can not become part of the article. See the discussion [60] There has also been a RFC request. See [61]

Read how the discussion went ! Focus on facts and real arguments. Suggestions about backgrounds.

To my feffoweditors, How can the public verify the background of a wikipedia editor ?

Seeyou’s opinion : Not really a high level discussion I am afraid. My felloweditors completely ignore Bates method of explaining and mix it with their opinion or understanding.

• Q2.1 : Should suggestions about the background of an editor become forbidden, because the public and felloweditors have no tool to verify if this is really true ?

To my felloweditors, Do authorities always speak the truth ?

However something positive resulted in the discussion. Seeyou and PSWG1921 agree on this :

The controversy of the Bates method is according to the current editors of this article : Opthalmology ( science ) versus Bates ( controversial ) = lens of the eye ( influenced by the ciliary muscle ) versus shape of the eyeball ( influenced by the extraocular muscles).

See the last sentence [62]

Suppose this article was about someone stating our earth is flat and s/he would use a picture to show. Would this picture then also be ignored ? I don’t think so. The proof. See Flat_earth

According to [63] Describe the controversy An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. The situation : A creator of a certain point of view or theory uses a image to explain his theory.

• Q2.2. : In which situation is OR present in a article and when is no OR present in a article?

The situations :

• A. The editors create their own picture and show their picture in the article.
• B. The editors state they don’t understand the picture. ( Ronz)
• C. The editors use the exact picture of the creator to be as accurate as possible.
• D. The editors state it is to complicated to explain ( PSWG1921 )

Note : D is the current argument. Well we have an accepted authority regarding the subject of accommodation. It can be very easily solved by showing Bates picture and the authority picture. See both pictures [64] Note also the picture is correct about the shape of the eyeballs. A myopic eye and a farsighted eye have a differently shaped eyeball. Seeyou and PSWG1921 do agree on this. What is incorrect about bates picture can be explained textual with references. Note : Bates accommodationtheory is the most important part of his method. Myopia is the biggest problem today regarding eyesight. Do not underestimate the dangers of myopia.

• Q2.3. : Are wikipedia editors more or less forced to use the same picture, the creator(s) of a theory have used, to avoid any form of bias, resulting in OR ?

The picture it is about. See : [65] Note : also the open eyelid sunning picture is accepted without any problems. This picture is correct but is far less interesting since open eyelid sunning is not found in any new book about NVI or the BM published today. And Bates made a statement in his later Better Eyesight magazine. Quote Bates on open eyelid sunning

Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass.^[2]

Note Bates says : it is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. Note : Bates talks about closed eyelids and he said it in 1924. His book promoting sunning was published in 1921. Note : also : Books published today about NVI or the BM do not show any picture regarding open eyelidsunning. Only closed eyelidsunning. The situation : When editors emphasize on information which can be very easily misinterpreted and can be very easily used to ridicule a subject. And editors choose to not present the figure which explans the maintheory.

• Q3.1. Does a article in the sketched situatio above show the wikipedia wished Neutral point of view ?

Note : There is also a danger in showing this picture on wikipedia. Some people have trouble reading, but blindly believe in Bates his theory. Responisble felloweditors ? Seeyou’s question to his felloweditors : Why is the sunning picture accepted and why is fig 4 about bates maintheory unacceptable. My advice be short and very clear.

• Q3.2 : Can (dangerous) pictures be shown in wikipedia, or is it the responsibility of editors to act wisely regarding this danger ? ( Some people have trouble reading !)
• Q3.3: Does a article show neutral point of view when some pictures can be shown and other pictures are forbidden to be shown ?

The evidence [66] combined with staying passive by the others.

The link below can not be mentioned in the external link section. ( Source the American academy of Ophthalmology )

• [67] Visual training for refractive errors. Source the American Academy of ophthalmology.

The reason according to my felloweditors : it is already a reference in the article. Note : Seeyou introduced this link. This authoritylink ( represents at least say 1000 specialists ) regarding a controversial subject The link makes a lot of statements, provides a lot of date for further and future research and improvement of the article.

• Q4.1 : Is it logical to leave a very important authority link almost unnoticed regarding the subject. is it okay to leave this link hidden in a enormous reference list ?

Note : The link needs further investigation. Note : Ophthalmology states in their conclusion : no corresponding physiological cause for the improvement has been demonstrated. They might indirectly talking about the shape of the eyeball. So they might make indirectly state the Bates maintheory is not demonstrated. Quite an important link in my opinon. Note also they do not make a clear statement regarding the BM. They do not state the BM is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience was mentioned for quite a while in the header of this infobox. The evidence : [68]

This header has been changed very recently. See [69] Question to be asked : Is there a connection between this arbitration case ? Note the header is still OR since no reference is provided. Seeyou thinks after arbitration has ended the infobox will return to the headertext pseuoscience.

• Q5.1 Can the subject of any article given a label via the infobox, without provdiding the reference validating the given label ? Seeyou (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• [70]
• [71] Another editor agreed with me about the bahaviour of my felloweditors. Seeyou (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's introduction

It seems that the first link is intended to direct here. While in principle I agree with the points made by ReTracer (talk · contribs), I conclude that rather than demonstrating flaws in the article, s/he in effect illustrated the limits of how this subject can be covered in an encyclopedia such as this. I have previously suggested that a Bates method article be created at Citizendium, perhaps that would work better. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's first point

The short answer is that Goodrich's book is a primary source for this subject. As such, there is no way we can justify creating a new article based solely on the content of this book. I see no indication in either WP:OR or WP:Redirect that a redirect can be considered original research in any case, but if the redirect of Natural vision improvement to Bates method is really a problem, the solution may be to simply delete the former. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's second point

The assertion that the image in question is a graphical explanation of Bates' main theory is highly questionable. See its context. [72] It's simply presented as a "Diagram of the Hypermetropic, Emmetropic and Myopic Eyeballs" in Bates' introductory chapter. In regards to Seeyou's statement that "What is incorrect about bates picture can be explained textual with references." Not unless we have a source which specifically addresses that illustration. Short of that any explanation of how it might be flawed would be a synthesis, which is a form of original research. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's third point

This was discussed here, where it was pointed out that Wikipedia is not censored. Also, the current Sunning section does note that Bates modified his recommendations regarding this practice, using his latest available writings on that point. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's fourth point

I will stand by my point that that exact page (not merely the AAO domain) is currently referenced five times in the article. The citation contains the link. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's fifth point

I have no plans to revert back to the pseudoscience infobox, and will now oppose any attempt by others to do so per this discussion. In regards to the current infobox title, "Alternative/fringe therapies", it's obvious that the Bates method is very far from the mainstream. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Famousdog's comment

In regards to my revert which Famousdog refers to, it occurred after Seeyou's restoration of his preferred Natural vision improvement page. [73] I took that as an indication he was not satisfied by Famousdog's attempts to integrate that information into Bates method. [74] My underlying reason for reverting this was that there had previously been a lot of concern, expressed mainly by Ronz (talk · contribs) (with apologies for discussing him here), that the article was giving coverage to non-notable aspects of the subject. And there doesn't seem to be any independent evidence of Goodrich's notability. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Seeyou's points which were removed from the Workshop page

The biggest problem with using Goodrich's or Quackenbush's definitions in Wikipedia is that there is thus far basically no independent evidence (i.e. prominent mention by a source not associated with and not promoting the subject) for the notability of either. In addition, the last part of Quackenbush's definition is telling: commonly misunderstood as only "eye exercises"—even by many "Bates Method" teachers. This really illustrates the problem with defining the Bates method precisely and objectively.

In regards to the Leo Angart video, I don't really see how this could be used in the article, especially without any independent evidence of his notability. You could try adding it to External Links, but my guess is that it would be removed.

Regarding "classical vs. second generation Bates method", the source, http://www.i-see.org, is hardly the type of source which the article needs to be based on.

Finally, in saying I didn't care about the "Pseudoscience" infobox header, what I meant was that I wasn't going to defend it. In hindsight adding that particular infobox was a bad choice on my part. "Alternative/fringe therapies" I think is far better. Seeyou's preference, "controversial method", doesn't do well as a label. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.