Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01 Bates method

Request details
Incredible reason I have to make this cabal case. Pure Censor. It is about the talk page Bates method / Natural Vision improvement. The bates method is a controversial system. So there are you could say 2 parties with a very opposite opinion. In the opinion of a advocates of the method the skeptics of the article do not really provide and make any constructive edits. So their argument against me for being disruptive is for me completely the same in the opposite direction. Simply look in the article itself and the persons who make proposals for improving the article. Look at the contributions of the other editors except for one named PSWG1920. To make this clear for the public who might read the article and to assist them in filtering valuable information as easy as possible I have created paragraphs with the header For the objective Reader part x of y, in which only facts are presented. Improving the article should be based on facts of reliable sources and independent editors. Since I am the only advocate of the method. It is as good as impossible to reach consensus. Anyone interested in facts could before Ronz edit very easy retrieve factual information about quite interesting aspects of the article. It has no become much harder to filter this information. An argument Ronz will use is that my edits are promotional. Problem is showing facts is promotional. So their argument is totally invalid and false. His latest edits in which he changed al the headers made the talk page quality worse. Look also at the latest discussions. Go to this link beneath since here the paragraph entitled for the objective reader are still present. Why can't Ronz simply make clear it is all quackery with words and arguments.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=209482269&oldid=209481641

By the way I have asked Ronz to give the paragraph and line which validates his edit(s). He did not respond. I would have totally no problem if the skeptics would mark their paragraphs in a similar way. For example For the public who sees it is all quackery part x of y.

If he really wants a description He can also use the second line or go for a merge. That would be an improvement for both parties.

Note also this action is timed on a moment the skeptics can not provide real arguments of the present subject. What a coincidence.

Who are the involved parties?
Mainly Ronz, Famousdog will off course support him.

What's going on?
All the headers For the objective reader part x of y are changed in a new header.

What would you like to change about that?
Revert Ronz illegal disruptive change.

Administrative notes
Ronz is informed : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronz&diff=209514441&oldid=208996762
 * There was a previous medcab case on this article: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Bates Method; some of the other involved parties have opened a user conduct RfC against Seeyou: Requests for comment/Seeyou. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Ronz (and myself) have merely changed Seeyou's headings "For the objective reader..." to more descriptive headings that reflect the content of the discussion. We have not deleted any of Seeyou's posts. Once his headings reached "...part 17 of ..." it began to get ridiculous. No censorship has occurred and Seeyou is overreacting. Famousdog (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete lie and not True See :


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=206317079&oldid=206309457


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=206317205&oldid=206317079

Again the facts are promotional. The fact can change can they !

Famousdog has made a habit of lying. For example see :


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=207861302&oldid=207775353
 * and one study showed that these improvements were not maintained at a 5-month follow

This is a complete lie, read the report : 2 patients) maintained this improvement at a 5-month follow-up.

And there are more examples. Seeyou (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the record state the accusation of lying. Firstly, I assumed that Ronz (who made those two changes) had moved those sections to the archive. Secondly, the changes to the article that Seeyou seems to think constitutes me "lying" were an attempt to NPOV a section that he wrote which was incredibly biased and furthermore plagiarised from the abstract of the cited source (which is copyrighted material, I might add). When he complained, I took his comments into account and made a further change to reflect Seeyou's concerns (here). Famousdog (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some factual objective information which indicate which sources also ( edit) this article
Look closely at the link below : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=179878554&oldid=179867729

IMPORTANT Note : There is not even a direct link to this document on the site. In other words the editor of this information is connected to or has connections with :

http://brain.berkeley.edu/

Is this person a general editor ? I do not think so. Is this editor an independent objective editor ? I do not think so. But he/she improved the article. So that is great. Pity he/she is gone now, because the multiple IP adressess editor was banned.

But the edit above shows how important it is to make clear the parties editing this article have an opposite background. Ophthalmology does not want a quality well referenced and factual quality article about the Bates method / Natural vision improvement. It might result in a lot of questions of the people who read the article.

By the way. If it is for this kind of editors possible is to provide this kind of information. It might also be possible to add for example the Woods research. Do you think this will happen ?.

Anyhow if one party does not allow the other to make her / his point clear or as clear as possible it is Censorship. I believe we have freedom of speech in our wikipedian World. Seeyou (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is anybody buying this crazy, conspiracy theory nonsense? Famousdog (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which conspiracy nonsence ? Can you explain ? You see something I don’t see !Seeyou (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. Famousdog (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which conspiracy nonsence ? Apparently so. That is not an answer I and other readers understand Famousdog. Conspiracy between who ? Seeyou (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

--- Okay, regarding conspiracies: I have no idea who posted that link (and frankly don't care, its just a link to a pdf of the article), but why on earth would you raise the issue of which university/research institute they are "connected" with? That sounds like you are trying to raise suspicions about other editors and their motivations rather than arguing your case and making sensible contributions. Frankly, it makes you sound paranoid. That is what I meant by "conspiracy theory nonsense." Why do you think it is important that people editing the article are identified? Science proceeds by anonymous peer-review. The papers that I publish are criticised anonymously. That is the best way to avoid arguments and rivalries from polluting the field. If the reviewers criticising my papers were known to me, I could just shout: "Reviewer X is a moron and I refuse to accept his arguments!" I instead have to argue my case and present evidence for my viewpoint. Even if Reviewer X has made stupid arguments!

Regarding censorship and freedom of speech: The point of WP is that anybody can edit it. Likewise anybody can edit other peoples' material if they think it is wrong and can provide evidence for their view. You say that "if one party does not allow the other to make her / his point clear or as clear as possible it is Censorship." Actually, I do not agree that this is the definition of censorship, but for arguments sake lets say it is. My problem with your edits is that they don't make your point clearly. You have never defined satisfactorily what you/Bates mean by "strain". This concept is central to the BM and yet it is left conveniently undefined. Until such time as a reliable working definition of this concept is presented, the BM is untestable and therefore pseudoscientific.

Regarding freedom of speech: You say, "I believe we have freedom of speech in our wikipedian World." Fine. I agree. The "bad" thing about democracy is that sometime you lose! There are at least 3 other editors on the Bates Method article who currently think that your posts are unhelpful. Historically, there have been many more. (MastCell, etc) These other editors are exercising their freedom of speech and action by arguing against your position. Rather than be disruptive. Why not produce better arguments or accept that there is far more evidence for the ineffectiveness of the Bates method than there is for its efficacy? Peace. Famousdog (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

involved parties conspiracy theory
That is long answer for such a short question and still no answer. The question I asked to famous dog was Conspiracy between who ? ( Note he is the one who mentiod a Conspiracy !! Why do you think famousdog gave such a long anwer. The answer to create diffusion. I think famousdog refers to a connection between him and the multiiple IP adress user. See the 2 links below :

Famousdog edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=142452954&oldid=142317940

Multiple IP adress edit :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=179878554&oldid=179867729

It is a possible Conspiracy theory tanousdog between you and multiple IP adress. You could be right. Thanks for bringing up this info famousdog. The amount of info famousdog gave above makes also clear you need a filter to scan through the constant growing discussionpage. Seeyou (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of discussionpage to show the advocate point of view without bias
Note this cabalcase is about the discussion page. Ronz has changed the headers of paragraphs named for example : For the objective reader part x of y. He says his action is legal by refering to WP.Talk and WP.Soap. But very strange he can not provide me the paragraph and line which validatss his action. Since people like famousdog create a lot of diffusion without giving any real argument(s). This paragraph headers provide a very handy tool to filter real informative factual information about NVI and the ignorance of other editors of this article. Is not it strange Ronz has stil kept his mouth shut.Seeyou (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the paragraphs :

26. Sunning open / closed eyelids Ridiculing 23. Removal of definition Bates method in the current discussionpage below.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bates_method

It should become clearer and clearer what is really going on in this article. Skeptics pushing through their opinion of the Batesmethod neglecting information published and available on the worldwideweb !! See also the latest discussion on hereditary. More than 100 year old W.H. Bates needs a judge.Seeyou (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I give up. I really don't care. Seeyou can argue himself into a hole in the ground, but I have work to do in the real world. Bye. Famousdog (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Optimism is a great help in obtaining a cure of imperfect sight...

W.H. Bates Better Eyesight magazine, Sept. 1925 Seeyou (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediator related discussion
Hello everyone, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to help solve your disagreement, please remember that I am here to help both sides and throughout any discussion I will maintain a neutral point of view, meaning that I will not be taking sides and will be centralizing on the subject of this particular case, the changing of talk page headings by Ronz. To summarize what I have gathered by studying this case: Atyndall93 |  talk  10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Ronz changed User:Seeyou's talk page headings on Talk:Bates method from a for the objective reader part x of y to a more understandable format.
 * 2) User:Ronz removed two of User:Seeyou's headings  with the edit summaries (→For the objective Reader part 17 of x:  off topic like the rest before) and (→For the objective reader part 16 of x:  off topic, promotional - like the rest before) respectively.
 * 3) User:Seeyou questioned User:Ronz on which part of policy states that this is allowed.
 * 4) User:Ronz opened a Request for comment on User:Seeyou's continuous use of the for the objective reader part x of y naming convention on Talk:Bates method.
 * 5) User:Seeyou opened this MedCab case.

On examining this information I have found that: Atyndall93 |  talk  10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The policy at WP:TALK states that It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss, conflicting with User:Seeyou's headers.
 * 2) WP:TALK gives a list of reasons why you should remove threads from a talk page, promotional material is not on that list.
 * 3) See 1.
 * 4) That may have been overkill.

Ok, from what I have seen here both parties are in the wrong in some way,

To User:Seeyou
The WP:TALK policy (see point 1.) asks for informative headings, the kind that you did not provide, for the objective reader part x of y is not a very descriptive heading, and if a new user came to that page to read what had been happening they would not understand those headings. You were rude to User:Famousdog in some of your comments on Talk:Bates method saying [you] don't know anything about ontology or genetics and are simply using this as a way to crowbar Bates' opinion back into the article, this is possible in breach of Wikiettiquite. User:Ronz change to your headings is not considered to be disruptive and does not affect your opinions in any way, User:Ronz should not have removed portions of your text, feel free to put them back, but under informative headings. Just because that User:Famousdog placed incorrect information into an article does not mean that he is untrustworthy, accusing people of lying can also lead to conflict. Under your heading Some factual objective information which indicate which sources also ( edit) this article on this page you talked about an IP address (217.198.148.36), this editor has been blocked for a history of vandalism on unrelated pages and is most likely a random coincidence. You stated that Ophthalmology does not want a quality well referenced and factual quality article about the Bates method / Natural vision improvement, regardless of what Ophthalmology wants, if you with articles to remain on Wikipedia they MUST be factually accurate and well references in accordance with Wikipedia's factual accuracy and reference policies. Any article that does not comply with these (and other key policies, such as notability) policies could be removed. Regarding your suggestion that there may be a conspiracy involving a connection between User:Famousdog, this is unlikely and irrelevant to the MedCab case. As discussed above, there IS sections in the WP:TALK policy regarding your headings, if you wish to be sure, you are welcome to read it yourself. To solve your problem I think that those headings do need to change to assist other readers of the talk page. Are you happy with this decision? Feel free to discuss in the heading below. Atyndall93 |  talk  10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Seeyou's report
The WP:TALK policy (see point 1.) asks for informative headings, the kind that you did not provide, for the objective reader part x of y is not a very descriptive heading
 * This problem can be very easily solved by merging For the objective reader part 12 of x Sunning open / closed eyelids Ridiculing. Another option is to the second line for a description. I already mentioned : If he really wants a description He can also use the second line or go for a merge. That would be an improvement for both parties.
 * I agree with the merging, but the more descriptive heading needs to take precedence (it needs to be the actual title) because the title is the part of the discussion that appears on the table of contents and it needs to have descriptive test to aid navigation. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed format : For the objectvie reader x of y | Sunning open / closed eyelids Ridiculing Seeyou (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A more useful format can be found here. Take a look and tell me if you agree. Atyndall93  |  talk  23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You were rude to User:Famousdog in some of your comments on Talk:Bates method saying [you] don't know anything about ontology or genetics and are simply using this as a way to crowbar Bates' opinion back into the article, this is possible in breach of Wikiettiquite.
 * Believe me in general advocates of the Bates method are far from rude people. In this case is a good example to opposite party is rude. It is something that happens on a quit regular basis.

For prove here is the edit (I admit it appears to by my words when you look at the discussionpage. Fact is they are not. I cleaned the confusion on the discussion page. )
 * Ok, I believe you, but to eliminate any possibility of inaccuract, could you provide a link to prove that User:Famousdog added that remark BEFORE you? Thankyou. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the poove :
 * * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=209452107&oldid=209419951
 * Ok. Atyndall93  |  talk  23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

change to your headings is not considered to be disruptive and does not affect your opinions in any way,
 * It is dirsuptive for other people to filter the advocate point of view. When you read the information you will see I constantly present facts. I do not present my own opinion.
 * Please do not change the subject, I was merely pointing out that none of your CONTENT is affected by the heading change. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The main subject of this cabalcase are the changed paragrapht headers ! Seeyou (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ronz should not have removed portions of your text, feel free to put them back, but under informative headings.
 * Thank you it is a start.

accusing people of lying can also lead to conflict.
 * I accuse Famousdog of lying. See his suggestion about chickens and goldfish. But he made me laugh.
 * Yes, I understand that, but do realize that things that you find funny, User:Famousdog may find insulting. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

this editor has been blocked for a history of vandalism on unrelated pages and is most likely a random coincidence.
 * His edit is to complicated. Do a search with google you won’t find the added document very easy. Opthalmology is involved in ediiting this article. That is a great thing in my opinion. Look how hard it was and is to get some factual informatio of a reliable source mentioned in the article. Paragraph Ophthalmological research. It still contains bias by the way. Statement : No corresponding physiological cause for the observed improvements has been demonstrated. The report does not make clear this is true. Still it is mentioned as a truth.
 * In response to it not being easily found on a google search: It may have been posted by a vandal that already knew of the location of that document and was trying to promote it, or perhaps they used a different search engine. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

if you with articles to remain on Wikipedia they MUST be factually accurate and well references in accordance with Wikipedia's factual accuracy and reference policies.
 * I fully agree. See above how hard it was just to get this factual info in the article. See also below famousdog behaviour:
 * Yes, I will be adding that to my report on him. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion that there may be a conspiracy involving a connection between :User:Famousdog, this is unlikely and irrelevant to the MedCab case. The conspiracy theory was mentioned by famousdog. I just tried to get more info about it. Detective do the same thing.
 * I'm sorry, I must have misread. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, in my opinion both parties can live quite happily ( Ronz and Seeyou ) when headers are merged. It would be a great improvement. But by deletion you remove a tool for the public to read efficiently in the discussionpage about the advocate point of view. ( A lot of information is far from interesting ) Deletion is a missed chance to improve wikipedia. Note : The discussion page keeps growing and growing. Seeyou (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, the next step in this process is it (once User:Ronz and User:Famousdog have discussed their reports with me) is to try communicating directly. I will contact you when I think all parties are ready for this. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To User:Ronz
The WP:TALK policy does state that informative headings are required but I would suggest that next time you goto change them as you did, discuss them before hand with the discussion's author before changing them, and if the author refuses to allow you to try and create consensus between other poster's on the talk page before making the change. When making these kind of changes and you are demanded to know what policy backs you up, it is better to provide a direct quotation to prevent people from doubting your judgment in the situation. It was discussed above about how you removed some of User:Seeyou's paragraphs because they were considered by you to be promotional, deleting other people's discussions when they are not outright spam can lead to conflict over the reason for doing so, also, the paragraphs you removed may have been promotive but there was some valid points hidden in there so it would have been better to just leave the paragraphs and just change the headings. I have said to User:Seeyou that he/she can re-add their paragraphs if they wish. Going to the Request for comment page may have caused User:Seeyou to bring this case to MedCab in the first place, if you two can discuss this together, I think you should withdraw the Request for comment as this MedCab has produced the same result. Are you happy with my statement? Feel free to discuss in the heading below. Atyndall93 |  talk  11:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Ronz's report

 * Please place any discussion of the above report under this heading

To User:Famousdog
I am not quite sure what your involvement in this discussion is but you seem to have adopted the role of User:Ronz's advocate. I have had a brief look at your contributions to Talk:Bates method and cannot find many faults with your actions, one thing that I did find (diff provided by User:Seeyou in the discussion of his report) is that you did lose your calm at one point and resulted in yelling at User:Seeyou (Get a grip! You'd be sued for malpractice. And you would deserve it. I suggest you learn basic maths and science before making any more of your cretinous, partisan, pro-Bates posts or edits. -- from ), it is important to stay calm in heated discussions as it prevents others from becoming angry in response. I suggest that you help to foster lines of communication between User:Ronz and User:Seeyou in an attempt to help reach consensus in the issue and help both parties to forgive and forget and stop this from happening in the future. Atyndall93 |  talk  12:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Famousdog's report
Firstly, I am not anybody's advocate. Making that suggestion unfortunately only confirms Seeyou's opinion that anybody making an edit to this article is in league against him. I appreciate that you stated that you cannot find fault with my contributions and edits. At the end of the day I am trying to help construct an article about a fringe theory, lacking in scientific validation and heavily promoted online, that is unbiased and factual. Regarding the topic of this discussion, Seeyou's headings were uninformative and therefore useless. Ronz changed them, and I support his action in doing so. Ronz did, however, remove some material (possibly because it was off-topic), as have other users. I think once things have been stated on the discussion page they should be left to stand. You are right that I have on several occasions lost my cool with Seeyou. However, this user is incredibly disruptive and frequently poisons the well on the BM article/talk page. He even manages to object to edits by other users that (in my opinion) support his position. His edits to the article are of peripheral importance/relevance. See, for example, his attempt to include a reference to the Megan & Megaw article, which I am sure is a very important study (and relevant to the development of myopia), but only supports Bates if you have misunderstood their reference to "axial elongation" - they are talking about elongation during development (ontogeny) not in terms of any role it might play in moment-to-moment accommodation. I will attempt to be more civil in my dealings with Seeyou, but I very much wonder how long I can keep my cool. Famousdog (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am not anybody's advocate. Making that suggestion unfortunately only confirms Seeyou's opinion that anybody making an edit to this article is in league against him. -- It did seem that way, but I believe you. Atyndall93  |  talk  23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently we are discussing the proposed talk headings if you could give your opinion about them here, it would be helpful. Atyndall93  |  talk  23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That format is fine with me. I'm just sick of Seeyou's headings not telling people what the topic of discussion is, which gives him a free hand to change the discussion at whim to whatever interests him. I also object to his insulting references to "objective readers" in these headings, which is meant to imply that anybody disagreeing with his posts is being non-objective. Famousdog (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * but I very much wonder how long I can keep my cool -- if I can manage to convince User:Ronz to come back to this discussion it could be over as soon as Friday. Atyndall93  |  talk  23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

 * Please try and talk to each other to help solve the problem