Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method

Request details
Vandalism of introduction of the batesmethod article.

Who are the involved parties?

 * multiple IP-Addresses, ( currently blocked )
 * multiple IP-Addresses, ( currently blocked )
 * multiple IP-Addresses, ( currently blocked )
 * multiple IP-Addresses, ( currently blocked )
 * multiple IP-Addresses, ( currently blocked )

What's going on?
Request to give Famousdog warning. For vandalism by deleting references important information in the introduction Discussion has already led to semi-protection because of vandalism by multiple IP-addresses. Famousdog supported this multiple IP-Addresses.

To understand famousdog is far from neutral about this article see For the objective reader part 1 of x in the discussionpage.

The discussion is about the introduction of the article.

Quality fully referenced neutral version giving the opinion of three different parties. Advocate of batesmethod,skeptics and ophthalmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182418655&oldid=182363514

famousdog version unneutral version :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182363514&oldid=182359363

Note the defintion given by an authority-advocate of the batesmethod is removed. Explanation of what the batesmethod really is about is removed. I think it is important to note this article would not even be present in wikipedia if people promoting en teaching the method would not have been there.

For the total history of the latest discussions read the paragraphs for the objective reader in the article.

Note also opthalmology does not specifically say anything about the batesmethod. The batesmethod is almost 100 years old. Books are still being published. People are succesful with the method. And ophthalmology doesn’t even mention the batesmethod !! Is not that strange !


 * Regarding Seeyou's outrageous comments: For "vandalism" read: "reverting Seeyou's anti-consensus revertions". Quite how I am supposed to have "supported" the Open Proxy activity is unclear, since I was the first user to point out this suspicious activity . This only makes sense if you assume (as Seeyou does) that I am responsible for the Open Proxy activity on this article. I recommend anybody to have a look at the discussion page. It gives a good idea how possessive and disruptive Seeyou has become regarding this article. A quick look at Seeyou's contributions will show that his is a single-purpose account. Regarding the neutrality of the lead para., the consensus version says the Bates method "aims to undo what Bates claimed are strained vision habits (my emphasis)." The version that Seeyou wants to replace this with says the Bates method "aims to relearn the correct relaxed vision habits (my emphasis)." This is highly POV, since only Bates advocates believe that there are such things as "correct" vision habits. Who decides what is "correct" in the process of seeing? In addition, the term "relearn" implies that everybody starts off knowing the "correct" way of seeing and subsequently falls into "bad" habits. Just one sentence from Seeyou's version of the intro is hugely biased toward the Bates method. I could select more examples, but for the sake of brevity will not bother. Regarding Seeyou's assertion that "opthalmology does not specifically say anything about the batesmethod", I don't know where Seeyou gets this impression from. Several papers have been published by ophthalmologists on the subject of the bates method specifically (see the refs of the article), usually concluding that it is harmless rubbish. In addition, Seeyou obviously thinks that scientists are all in league with each other! "Ophthalmology" is a science, not an institution or a group or a secret society. Ophthalmologists are individuals and the vast majority of them think the Bates method is useless (or worse, harmful). Famousdog (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
to stop the vandalism

Mediator notes
Ok, so I'll be your mediator in this matter. This is my first case, so please excuse any technical errors I might make. I'm going to start reviewing the provided diffs, the article itself, related talkpages, etc. I'd ask the parties involved to keep their comments on the article-talkpage for the time being, since there already appears to be a discussion in progress. Also, I'll note that the Mediation process will never result in a block on its own, since its an informal voluntary process (and I don't have that power in any event). ArbCom, AN/I, AIV are all forums in which a block decision can be taken. Also, please sign any comments you make, so I can tell who is saying what. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Informed famousdog see : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Famousdog&diff=182825729&oldid=164953943 All users now informed of case opening. MBisanz  talk 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion
So I've heard from both sides on this matter, read into an interesting thing I'd never heard of before, and have some concluding opinions.  MBisanz  talk 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Mediation is not a process that blocks a user or automatically ends vandalism, those are things that are done in other forums. Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution process that does not assess penalties to either party.
 * 2. In reviewing this case, it seems there is an existing consensus among several users. This consensus is not to be taken lightly.  Evidence of off-wiki support for a position, is not the same as on-wiki discussion.  Further, as long as consensus is support by reliable sources and presented in a NPOV and does not violate a legal policy such as BLP, I am of the opinion that it should be given paramount respect.
 * 3. Further, as an independent third party, knowing nothing of the topic at hand, but having a year of college bio, a year of college chemistry and half a year of physics, I am of the opinon that the current version meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrally, factually, and fairly, presenting the topic at hand.  While there could be some stylistic changes in layout, I do not see any disputable content.
 * 4. In light of my inability (and unwillingness) to do what the parties seem to want, namely to block a user (WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM) or stop all vandalism (WP:RFPP), I am therefore closing this case.

Discussion
Seeyou thinks that I'm MastCell/AED/Jéské/or any other editors (some anonymous) who revert his anti-consensus postings. As far as I know there are at least 3 editors (myself, Jéské and MastCell) that are happy with the current introduction of this article. Seeyou keeps reverting it to a POV version and accuses any re-reverts of vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc. He's been incredibly disruptive over the last few weeks and at several points in the past. I have tried mediation and arbitration with this user before, but they have lead nowhere. Seeyou needs to calm down and perhaps a temporary block will give him time to reflect on his disruptive behaviour. Famousdog (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou claims that there is a posts-for-pastry deal going on at Bates method, and sayd that AED has been making money off of such edits. However, looking into the contribs of AED, I see zero evidence of any edits to Bates method recently, and I will state that before this, I never even knew who AED or Famousdog were. I welcome a checkuser; as a result of my past router going out my IP has changed and I will be happy to provide it to any checkuser (sans Alison) to check it. If anyone's being disruptive, it's Seeyou. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeyou would of course argue that AED has made no recent edits because I am AED. This is not true. I would appreciate if somebody could establish this fact to Seeyou's overly-exacting standards! Famousdog (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, under Requests_for_checkuser "unacceptable requests" point 3, Checkuser may not be run to prove innocence. However, if Seeyou does actually believe you and AED to be the same, person, then he should certainly file a report with Checkuser detailing the diffs and basis of the allegations, instead of repreatdly mentioning or alluding to it on talk-pages.  MBisanz  talk 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)