Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-28 Bates method

Request details
I have created this cabal case for the following reason. Deleting of a valid true factual editsummary by two other editors in the discussionpage. So it is only about the discussionpage ! The reason is simple the information presented is in favour of bates method advocates and it makes clear skeptics in general want to ridicule the bates method without knowing the details. It also makes clear the skeptic editors of this article want to ridicule the bates method. This factual information confirms this is very true by tempering pro bates information and exaggerating anti bates method information. Since the neutrality of the article is disputed. This info gives the objective reader quite a clear signal why and how.

The editsummary is about the following :

You must be very ignorant to deny this article is not being edited by skeptic editors. Skeptic editors ridicule the method also in this article. Just read these three versions of explaining Bates on sunning :

THESE EDITS SIGNAL WHY THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED !

Initinal info :

Advocate edit :
 * But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.

Reference :* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195631148&oldid=195461884
 * Skeptics often use open eyelid sunning to ridicule his method as is done above. However Bates did withdraw his claim regarding 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.

Bates did temper his claims regarding open eyelid sunning in later editions of his magazine, Better Eyesight. 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 Reference : * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195653612&oldid=195631613 Seeyou (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Skeptic edit by famousdog or AED :

The current RFC Jéské Courianois just to create diffusion about what is really going on. Why did he start this RFC so recent while he talks about edits of the past ?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou

In my opinion censor of the discussionpage is taking place I like to hear the opinion of others. The edit summary does not contain one lie.

Who are the involved parties?
Jéské Courianois

What's going on?
deletion of factual information on the discussionpage. Which makes clearer why the neutrality of this article is disputed.

What would you like to change about that?
The editsummary is valid and has value. So it should undeleted.

Mediator notes

 * I'm not accepting this case as I'm busy with other things, but would like to point other mediators who are looking at this matter to my findings at Talk:Bates_method in an earlier MedCab on this article.  MBisanz  talk 06:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Jeske Courianos is informed about this cabal case. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano&diff=201540438&oldid=200854026
 * Use my talk page. I have rolled back your info on my user page. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 17:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Unfortunately for Seeyou, I'm not the only one removing the section, which contains some incredibly strong accusations towards. Ronz has also removed it, for the same reason I have - it's disruptive.

Given the timing of this mediation and the fact it targets me and me only, I'm wondering whether this is in retaliation for the RfC I filed on him yesterday. This case has no merit. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, Seeyou has continued to post threads on the talk page that do nothing but poison the well. An example: -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest this case is closed - article talk pages aren't the correct forum for comments about editors. There are various processes for resolving problems concerning editor conduct, including WP:WQA, WP:SUSPSOCK, and WP:RFC/USER. These processes should be used in preference to making accusations on article talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An RfC/U is active; the timing and scope of this mediation suggests to me that Seeyou filed it out of spite. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll close this case - medcab primarily assist with content disputes, and this appears to be user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion on the discussion page about the subject above And there is no discussion in this cabalcase on the subject above. Wikipedia is about improving the quality of articles based on facts and with objective editors. If editors can not critize each other the articles will never represent a neutral point of view. If there is anything I have said which is not true. I have got totally no problem when somebody counters it in detail. ( Something I am still waiting for ). I would be glad if a thing like that happeened. I constantly show editfacts with a reference and then give my opinion, that is all. We live in a free world. Simply the removal without giving any detail about the reason makes clear it is not right. I have read WP:TALK.-- and I have not found anything any argument. If I am wrong please give one argument which is valid according to you. And by you I mean Philknight ? Seeyou (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment "If editors can not critize each other the articles will never represent a neutral point of view" is nonsensical, so I'm closing the case. The concept that talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not criticizing editors isn't negiotable. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My Question to you : Simply the removal without giving any detail about the reason makes clear it is not right. I have read WP:TALK.-- and I have not found anyng any argument. If I am wrong please give one argument which is valid according to you.

Thank you for your input Seeyou (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll answer - Do not comment on the contributor unless you've got good proof that he's engaging in wrongdoing. Comment only on the facts being proposed, not the people proposing them. That's part of the reason why you now have a certified RFC on you - you're just not getting it. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 20:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)