Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seeyou

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
has been having a hard time following the consensus on Bates method. He disagrees strongly (and vocally) with the consensus on the page, and has even created a fork article to support his view (see Articles for deletion/Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement) and recently has taken to reinserting disproven sockpuppetry accusations on the talkpage, screaming censorship each time someone removes the section containing them. Until recently, he had been complaining that there was paid editing going on on Bates method, but he has (α) not provided any evidence, and (β) the editor he accuses of such has only made one edit to the article, and it was a minor one at that. He further does not recognize others' reasoning to remove his posts.

Desired outcome
For Seeyou to stop being disruptive with regards to Bates method and its talkpage.

Description
From day 1, Seeyou has been working on articles related to optometry, and specifically Bates method, where he has been most active and most disruptive. Shortly after a section Seeyou added to the talk page called "2 Experiments" was dismissed as "drivel", Seeyou added a section on citing sources to the talk page, likely to rile Famousdog, who had dismissed his claim and criticized Seeyou for not explaining what the BM was in an earlier post. This dispute led to a MedCab case, which was rejected when Famousdog refused to go to mediation, saying that Seeyou was "adjusting goalposts". Seeyou refused to let the issue die, and attempted to reopen it only to have it closed again by.

Shortly after, Famousdog culled the links section of the article and left a note to that effect on the talkpage. Seeyou's response was this, accusing AED (whom had added a few links previously) of COI issues. After Famousdog dismissed his claim as baloney, Seeyou accused him of being AED, which he flatly refuted. Fed up, Famousdog took it to ArbCom, but it was rejected.

After Seeyou posted a dissertation and dissection of Famousdog's rebuttal (and Famousdog again rebutted it), he once more played the Socky card. In response, Famousdog lost his cool and called Seeyou a "f*ckwit" (censorship in original). Shortly after, an edit-war broke out on the article. After MastCell culled the external links section, Seeyou posted a mass of ELs to the talk page. After MastCell and Famousdog told him he was in the wrong, he posted another EL to the talk page, which (despite his assurances) was regarded as spam as it was a "list of Bates [method] practitioners advertising their services".

After the creator of the See Clearly Method posted on the talk page asking for help recreating the article, Seeyou responded with an accusation that he, MastCell, AED, and Famousdog were all one and the same, and again reiterated that AED was having his nontyping hand greased. MastCell flatly denied it, as did Famousdog (whom immediately retaliated by accusing Seeyou himself of sockpuppetry).

I got involved shortly after the article came under attack by open proxies. At about this time, Seeyou started posting sections on the talk page "[F]or the objective reader", targeting Famousdog's (and IPs') efforts on the article (and, once again, accusing him of trading beads for trinkets and sockpuppetry (this time with the open proxies), which was responded to with an accusation of Wikistalking). Another ArbCom case was attempted and, again, shot down. After I made a post suggesting WP:AN/I, he filed a MedCab case in an attempt to get consensus for his version and failed at it (case).

When the mediator posted on the talk page, Seeyou presented his case in a manner befitting Artemis Fowl, characterizing the consensus version as "vandalism". The mediator did not agree, and (as I said above) stated that Famousdog's version was the better one in re policy. In response, Seeyou characterized one of the links in the article as a "created link". When I told him to get sources himself, he responded with an ArbCom threat (quickly changed to an RfC after MBisanz told him that it had been twice rejected before). I told him that it would be seen as forum-shopping and urged him to withdraw it (which was echoed by MBisanz), especially after I pointed out that his version was "fundamentally biased".

It soon came to my attention that, after his attempts at getting consensus for his version on Bates method failed, he made a fork at Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement. I took the article to AfD. On the AfD, Seeyou argued that the article should be allowed to stay because it had sources, completely ignoring the fact that I'd nominated the article as a POV-fork (despite the fact that I had twice told him that the article was designed as a POV fork and my deletion rationale). The debate closed as "delete". Just before the debate, he restored some of his sections that had been archived, claiming that it was necessary to "(make) clear the background of the skeptic editors".

Seeyou would then be absent from the talk page for almost a month, returning last week to post another "objective reader" section. Ronz removed it as "improper", and Seeyou has (for the most part) been fighting to have that section reincluded on the talk page ever since, and has filed a MedCab case. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE) Recently, after Ronz filed an RfC in re Bates Method, Seeyou filed a MedCab case against him and Famousdog. It has since been referred to formal mediation.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * (edit summary, reinsertion of section containing disproven sockpuppetry accusations)
 * (Sysop access required; history of the POV forked Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement article)
 * (one example of disregarding what had been stated on the page)
 * (Accusation of bias towards AED, whom he would later accuse other editors as being sockpuppets of)
 * (Total disregard for consensus)
 * (accusation of sockpuppetry in re, , , and ; accusation of edits-for-money)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:TALK
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:CONSENSUS

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * See the second link in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Detarder ) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ronz (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Famousdog (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
''The cabalcase below is the reason which started this RFC. What Jeske Mentions has all happenend quite a while ago. Why did jeske start this RFC so recent ?

The reason is below :

'' Seeyou (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-28_Bates_method

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.