Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Topic-ban User:Seeyou and close the case
1) is a straightforward agenda account, whose sole activity over a fairly long career on Wikipedia has been to promote the Bates Method at the expense of Wikipedia's fundamental content (and, occasionally, conduct) principles. Seeyou is therefore banned from all pages relating to the Bates Method or vision, loosely construed, for 6 months, after which they may apply for restoration of editing privileges there.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This isn't going to stop him from the constant accusations he makes, since he has taken to placing these on his user page. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reasons given in MastCells's proposal are worrying in their implications. The dispute centres round the Bates method article. There are two regular editors on that article who are overtly and strongly anti-Bates in their views, so there is no danger that the anti-Bates case might be overlooked. It is entirely appropriate that one or more pro-Bates editors should take part in the work on that article. The difficulty with Seeyou has been his complete lack of skill, perhaps a lack of will, in attempting to create consensus. His approach has been consistently confrontational. Because he has alienated everyone he has been unable to achieve anything, so has had very little effect on the article. He has just annoyed everyone and wasted a lot of time and talk page space. Mentoring might help if he would accept that, but I don't see that as probable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with a topic ban combined with an injunction that he removes all related material and mention of other editors from his talk page. Famousdog (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Samuel, we don't develop good encyclopedic articles by balancing "anti-Bates editors" with "pro-Bates editors". We develop good articles by supporting editors who respect the encyclopedia's policies, and educating, redirecting, or as a last resort removing editors who persistently fail to respect our standards. You absolutely do not need a "pro-Bates" partisan to create a good article; in fact, such single-purpose promoters of minoritarian views tend to detract from a useful, collaborative environment, especially when their refusal to abide by this site's standards is as prolonged and substantial as in this case. MastCell Talk 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending Seeyou's conduct, but I'm insisting that his conduct is the only problem, not his views. Of course it would be ideal if all the editors on an article approached it with noble NPOV, but this article isn't like that. Two of the regular editors have made their anti-Bates views very clear on the talk page, so providing balancing views becomes essential. The article itself is on the "minoritarian" topic to which you refer. You can hardly expect an accurate account without the input of editors who are sufficiently sympathetic to the view to understand it properly and to present it with genuine neutrality. Fortunately there have been other editors, one in particular, who have been able to try and do that. There have been some fierce arguments, but all the other editors have managed to behave according to wikipedia's expectations, with only rare lapses. The trouble with Seeyou is that his frequent disruptions have actually damaged the cause that he claims to be supporting. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept your argument about Seeyou's behaviour being the issue not his views, but I don't see how you got from that to "the reasons given in MastCells's proposal are worrying in their implications." Please clarify. Famousdog (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather suggest we let it lie there. I think our discussion here has been helpful. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So to clarify, Samuel, would you feel that a topic-ban for Seeyou would be an appropriate next step in this situation? MastCell Talk 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's up to ArbCom, but such a decision would neither surprise nor dismay me. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with what SamuelTheGhost has said here. I have come to realize that there are actually rather severe limitations on how the subject in question can be covered in an encyclopedia such as this one. The way forward, particularly when you are sympathetic to the subject, is to accept those limitations and try to work within them. Unfortunately, Seeyou has shown little indication of even understanding that such limits exist. The resulting behavior will only make things harder for others who want to continue improving the article. Also, I see a real risk that it will be degraded as a result of attempts by others to pacify Seeyou. Further, I have aspirations of getting it to WP:FA, but I fear that Seeyou's antics will impede that. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This isn't a complicated case. I'm sorry that it got this far, because there is really nothing to see here other than one of the most persistent, sustained, and unrelenting single-purpose agenda-driven abuses of Wikipedia that I've come across. The fact that numerous levels of feedback have failed to make the slightest impression on Seeyou's editing suggests that it's time for a topic ban; six months should be sufficient to see whether this editor has any interest in the project in general beyond using it to promote the Bates Method. I don't see the need for a drawn-out case, and I apologize for not handling this administratively at an earlier juncture, thus allowing it to reach this point. MastCell Talk 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
2)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Purpose of Wikipedia
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&mdash;such as advocacy or propaganda, philosophical, ideological, or political dispute, or the promotion of original research&mdash;is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support this and all other propositions below. Wizardman  23:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * First sentence is fine and sufficient. Second sentence is already beginning to miss the point (see below). Agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Neutrality and advocacy
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. They must fairly portraying 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. 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SamuelTheGhost's observation here has merit. I will revise the wording accordingly in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Object to the second sentence. The article is about a minority view, so of course it should be given weight. A strict restriction to the "best" sources would lead to an extremely un-neutral presentation. I would support this paragraph with the second sentence removed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Conduct and 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 in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Aye. And repeated misconduct only ends in tears. It's so true that the most obvious things are oft overlooked. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts
4) 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 on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree that this principle is not essential to the decision. If an editor is disruptive on topic A, this is true whether or not he or she also edits on topics B and C. There are also arguments in favor of the formulation, but I don't think we need to discuss the issue further here as it is unlikely to affect the outcome of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Object. This is quite irrelevant. Other editors of this article are or have been quite narrowly focussed in their areas of contribution. If Seeyou were contributing elsewhere it would make no difference to our judgement of his behaviour here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This principle generally means that any SPA editor must do so while at least following NPOV. And, yes, if Seeyou was editing elsewhere he would be topic-banned, not sitebanned; note FloNight's comment in . -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "principle" here. WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy. SPAs have exactly the same rights and obligations as everybody else. Of course it is reasonable to take note of the fact that Seeyou is an SPA when considering the practicalities of how to treat him, but that status is irrelevant when assessing his breach of the rules.


 * Comment by others:

Tendentious editing
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.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee
6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Again, an easy thing that's oft overlooked. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 23:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of the dispute is editing of Bates method, an article concerning a method of seeking to improve eyesight, and related articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Seeyou
2) For more than three years, 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.)


 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current wording. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Delete the repetitive phrase "reflective of advocacy". Otherwise agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Prior dispute-resolution attempts
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The list shows that there have been significant past attempts to assist Seeyou in learning better approaches to editing. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I feel obliged to point out this misses some of the story. Seeyou has proven willing to file MedCab cases over such petty things as frank disagreements, and even filed a MedCab case against me specifically because I had filed a user-conduct RfC against him. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 07:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is meant to be picked up by "misuse of dispute-resolution methods" in 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification, NYB. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Seeyou banned
1) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Proposed. It's well-known I'm pretty much the last proponent of banning almost anyone, but I see little alternative here. I have considered proposing a topic-ban in lieu of a full ban, but the issue appears to be moot as to my knowledge Seeyou has never expressed interest in editing on any other subjects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this ban. If Seeyou decides to edit other topics then he can contact the Arbitration Committee Unban Subcommittee and he could possible return with editing restrictions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Unfortunately, agreed. If there was any evidence he would be at least willing to branch out and not treat Bates method as his sacred cow and its editors as heretics, I would have supported MastCell's proposed topic ban up top.  However, much of his disruption, especially as of late, has been to accuse editors of wrongdoing on his userpage and (more recently) this RfArb. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 23:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something just struck me: Seeyou is presently under ArbCom discretionary sanctions in re pseudoscience. I know the siteban will supercede the sanctions, but will the sanctions run while the ban does or be suspended for him until his siteban ends? -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With regret, agreed. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am another who is going to reluctantly support this ban. It's apparent that Seeyou continues to lack a grasp of how Wikipedia operates, and the resulting behavior, as long as it is allowed to go on, will only make more difficult the continued improvement of the Bates method article. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * It's a bit disorienting to find myself on the lenient side in handling an agenda account. I must be getting old. Anyhow, this sounds reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the reason it's a siteban is because Seeyou is an agenda account. Topic bans tend to be effectively sitebans for such accounts. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Cardmaker ) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since arbcom does not hand out bans longer than a year (yes, I know it does, it just says it does not), this seems like the appropriate sanction.  MBisanz  talk 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Seeyou has previously attempted to circumvent objections to his edits by creating obscure POV forks such as the "NVI" or "BM of NVI" articles or simply using his user page as a soapbox, I believe that a complete ban is the only way forward. Famousdog (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: