User:The Famous Movie Director/Draft RfC

Below is the template for a Request for comment on user behaviour. I've started to fill it out with regard to Michaellovesnyc's edits of the mail-order bride article. If you've been involved in trying to compromise with Michael, I encourage you to help add evidence, as the task is overwhelming. (Look in the article history and provide links to individual edits that show disputed behaviour.) I've never done this before and would also appreciate any help about wording, etc.

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Michaellovesnyc has been violating multiple Wikipedia policies in his attempt to push his point of view on Mail-order bride.

Description

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

Michaellovesnyc, who occasionally edits as User:24.45.47.102, and possibly other IP addresses assigned to Hofstra University, strongly feels that a marriage through a mail-order bride agency is better than traditional marriage, and that unfair stereotypes and laws discriminate against both mail-order brides themselves and the men who use these agencies. For some time, but especially since May, he has been significantly altering the mail-order bride article in ways that support his point of view. He frequently adds large sections that constitute original research or violate NPOV. He has admitted that he is trying to add a point of view to the article, which he sees as justified because it counters the anti-mail-order-bride point of view that the article allegedly already has.

Other users have attempted to explain to him why his changes are inappropriate, but this has failed. At one point User:Kaiwen1 started a poll over a disputed section, Demographics, which claimed that mail-order brides come from Eastern Europe in disproportionate numbers because of social problems like HIV and alcoholism and the fact that women outnumber men in these countries. The only source cited was the CIA factbook, which did not state any connection with mail-order brides. The section was clearly OR and in my view it should have been deleted without the need for a poll, but Michaellovesnyc had reverted every time the section was removed. It was explained to Michael why this was original research and inappropriate, and the poll seemed to show in favor of removing the section. An opinion from the Mediation Cabal was sought at this point and the mediator agreed that the section was OR and should be removed, but Michael has since incorporated it into the article again.

When other people attempt to make changes that don't conform to his point of view, he reverts wholesale. This has made progress on the article extremely difficult, as he reverts spelling corrections and non-controversial information along with the things he disagrees with. He cites NPOV as his reason for removing this information, even though he often removes information that is accurate and referenced. He has also left edit summaries demanding that anyone discuss any potential changes with him before editing the article.

Michael is hostile to other editors on talk pages and in edit summaries, frequently violating WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks when he accuses editors of lying, distorting the facts, vandalism, pursuing a racist and sexist agenda, and trying to intimidate other editors; he has also labeled editors "feminists" (pejoratively), as well as anti-female, "jealous ugly feminazi BBW's", and "cyberthugs".

The version other users revert to (see this version or the current, protected version) may have its own problems. In particular, there is debate about the extent to which abuse should be discussed, and about whether the term "mail-order bride" itself is offensive and the article should be renamed. However, I think these things can be resolved through civil discussion and consensus, if Michael is made to stop this disruptive behaviour. Reverting to that version of the article should be seen as an attempt to stop Michael from making major disruptive changes, rather than an attempt to push any point of view found in that version.

On 9 June User:AmiDaniel protected the article. Discussion has continued on its talk page in an effort to reach some kind of understanding with Michael. We continue to go through a never-ending cycle where an editor explains Wikipedia policy to Michael, he demonstrates that he doesn't understand it, and an editor explains it again.

After several months of this, it seems clear that Michael has an agenda he will not refrain from trying to insert into the article. He owns the domain imbra.org, which is an advocacy site against a law passed by Congress that requires men to provide documentation about their criminal history when seeking a mail-order bride. This site features a poll asking "WHO WOULD YOU RATHER MARRY", the options being "An [sic] Nasty Skanky Stupid American Feminist" or "An Intelligent Nice Beautiful Mail Order Bride" [1]. Another section features advice for married men such as "Set up a seperate joint account. This protects your money while allowing you access to hers. Regularly clean her account out." and "Try NOT to have a domestic phone line; this will prevent her from calling 911" [2]. This doesn't, in theory, affect the quality of his Wikipedia edits, but it seems to me that Michael has only one reason for editing Wikipedia: to insert his personal agenda into the mail-order bride article (which makes up the vast majority of his Wikipedia contributions). He doesn't seem to have read the Wikipedia policies, as we've urged him to many times, and I doubt he will ever understand how to make neutral contributions to this article.

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.)

Potential vandalism

1. March 10 edit to Sex
2. March 13 edit to mail-order bride.
3. March 13 version of his user talk page, showing vandalism warnings from User:BWD and User:Drini for the above two edits; he later removed these warnings
4. May 16 anonymous edit to Marriage article. Michael recently tried to insert an extremely contentious, blatantly sexist point of view on traditional marriage into the article on marriage. Michael had already been warned about vandalism and this may be reason for a ban. At the very least, his motives seem questionable. I believe the anonymous user is Michael because they make the same edits to Mail-order bride and he has replied on the anonymous user's talk page.

Mail-order bride edits

1. May 4 - "Foreign women who are more intelligent and attractive offer enticing alternatives to the uneducated and overweight American Feminist culture and threaten their survival." Etc. Reverted here
2. [3], [4] - May 7 deletions by anonymous account, reverted here
3. May 15, a series of edits on "personal anti-fraud measures" (he later agreed to remove the section)
4. May 18, paragraph on demographics added, as well as stereotypes - "Mail order brides are usually younger, more attractive and much better educated than American women", etc. Reverted here

It goes on like this throughout May; these are just some examples. End of May:

1. May 22 - adds paragraphs that purport to show a connection with anthropological studies of migration patterns. The articles themselves have nothing to do with mail-order bride agencies, and their inclusion seems like OR. Michael also uses extensive quotes from his sources rather than paraphrasing, which is stylistically inappropriate. I'm not sure that this is the first time he added these paragraphs; over several days around this time Michael adds and removes material which is then reverted; he reverts back and makes further small changes, making it hard to keep track of the article's progress.
2. May 25 - I had read the USCIS article Michael previously referenced, and found that he had selectively quoted to support his point of view, because the article doesn't simply support it. It is nonsensical to say that men are simply "above average"; what the article actually says is that they seem above average in their communication skills, which seems hardly pertinent. Based on this same article I added the reference to "power and control" as being critical for men who order mail-order brides and the statement about the typical age gap, which are both from the same article. I also added a reference to a "gay mail order husband" agency that apparently exists in the Ukraine.
3. I'd be willing to debate the validity of all these edits, but Michael simply deleted them: here. I attempted to discuss it with him here.
4. He replied on my talk page, here, attacking me ("Why don't you join the KKK") and claiming that "his research" had been "distorted".
5. User Dcbiglaw attempted to negotiate a solution twice in recent weeks, to no avail. Michaellovesnyc insists on adding irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and in some cases blatantly defamatory commentary into this article.
6. Evidence of Michael's edit warring: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Michael labels most of these edits "Fixing Vandalism" in the edit summary, although William Pietri had warned him (see below) not to do this. Note that in the above edit war, Michael's edits are reverted by at least four different editors: User:Dcbiglaw, User:William Pietri, User:The Famous Movie Director and User:Kaiwen1 as well as anonymous IP User:70.62.21.164. The edit warring stops when the article is protected by User:AmiDaniel on 9 June. Discussion continues on the article talk page.
7. To some extent, the content of Michael's editing has been discussed on the talk page, but the discussion has focused more on his behaviour, with numerous editors trying to encourage him to be civil, stop making accusations, put his point of view aside, and negotiate. Michael continues to behave aggressively, insisting that other editors are lying and so on. This edit is particularly offensive, but there is more evidence below in the section labeled Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.

Maria Cantwell edits

1. [18] With Mail-order bride protected, Michael attempted to insert his point of view about the IMBRA law into the article on U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, who sponsored the law. It was reverted; he restored it again; it was reverted again; restored again; reverted again. Michael narrowly avoids violating 3RR here. Note that the editors reverting have never been involved in the mail-order bride dispute, so they're not simply biased through previous interactions with Michael. Note their discussion of the validity of Michael's edits on the talk page: [19] (shows several days of edits).

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:No original research
2. WP:Neutral point of view
3. WP:No personal attacks
4. WP:Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. The case was brought to the informal Mediation Cabal; see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 Mail-order bride. User:Mr. Lefty accepted and responded on Michael's talk page: [20] and [21]. (June 1st).

[22] Michael's response to Mr. Lefty. Uncooperative. He seems to think that neutral point of view simply means adding his point of view to counter the point of view he perceives other editors as having.

1. [23] User:William Pietri also warned Michael about edit warring on the same day.

Michael seems to agree to end the edit war [24].

After the series of warnings on 1 June, he continues to revert to his preferred version at least thirteen more times in the next eight days (see diffs above).

1. [25] Michael's attempt to justify his version on the article talk page.

1. User:William Pietri responded here, urging Michael to put his POV aside and work towards consensus.

1. [26] Michael's next response. Note that he still doesn't seem to recognize or admit that he has a POV. He also accuses other editors of operating sock puppets.

1. [27] User:The Famous Movie Director responds to Michael again, trying to explain again how his version violates the no original research policy. She also left a message on his talk page encouraging him to negotiate.

1. [28] Michael's next response. He still doesn't seem to understand "original research".
2. [29] The Famous Movie Director: again, trying to explain why his edits aren't appropriate and the value of civil discussion and consensus.
3. [30] Michael continues to respond by discussing the content of the article and demanding that other users agree with his version. Still using combative tone.
4. [31] William tries to explain that Michael is using a contentious tone.
5. [32] Michael's response: he still seems to think that he owns his edits ("my stuff was deleted again") and that simply admitting he has a point of view justifies including this point of view in the Wikipedia article.
6. [33] William continues to try to explain what tone is.
7. [34] Michael posts this comment in response. This may be one of the best examples of how Michael's strong point of view seems to prevent him from discussing the topic neutrally, and perhaps prevents him from understanding the meaning and value of some Wikipedia policies.
8. [35] William continues with commendable patience.

Discussion has continued in the same vein with no progress. Please take a look at the lower third of the talk page at this revision to see the full discussion.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Dcbiglaw 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
2. --Grace 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
3. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
4. William Pietri 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Tentative Endorsement. I have reviewed the evidence provided and I believe that The Famous Movie Director has made a strong case with reasonable and coherent points already outlined above. I am tentatively endorsing the summary but would like to view evidence presented in defence of Michaellovesnyc.

1. Strong Endorsement.After reviewing the defence, I have no choice but to agree with the overwhelming verdict. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

From the beginning of this dispute, I presented a fair and balanced approach to the topic allowing for both sides of the debate. Time and time again, this person (and I believe it is only one person using various IP addreses) has deleted my entries regardless of how relevent and entered irrelevent, sexist, racist and offensive entries.

A primary example of one of my entries that this person has repeatedly deleted was the origin of the word. This person is so biased and has such a strong POV, that the mere origin of the word was deemed offensive. Furthermore, when I put forth some demographic statistics to portray the situation in terms of gender imbalances, they declared that the CIA factbook was wrong and again deleted information without ever discussing it. I presented many sources to back up my article and they deleted them all. Instead, they entered text of THOUSANDS of words, many times more than the entire text combined about three criminal cases that distorted the rest of the article. When I tried to enter some information to balance this but was deleted.

Another example of this persons POV was the multiple times the person deleted my entries with regard to a reason law called IMBRA. This person kept incorrectly or intentionally referred to it as VAWA and that she insisted on taking out the fact that George W. Bush signed it. This persons POV is so extreme and pursues a radical agenda that she can not tolerate the fact that a Republican signed the law.

Instead of discussing the issue in a mature way, this person has instead been obsessed with getting me banned. They claim that they have no POV at all and that I do. I openly admit my POV and I have taken out my POV as much as possible and included other POV as much as possible. This persons POV is many times stronger than mine and they can not write anything without having a POV or present a fair and balanced viewpoint.

This person has consistently pursued an agenda that White American men are abusers. They have consistently pursued an agenda that Foreigners are stupid. These are racist stereotypes and inapppropriate.

This was not enough for this person and they began their jihad to have me banned and attacked me personally. Typical of their comments is the following: "you will learn that he was apparently jilted by his first mail order bride". This statement is not only rude, it was a lie. I was never married to a mail order bride and this person knows it. However, they wrote it and any impartial observer would find that statement extremely outrageous. I believe that this statement shows what kind of person we are dealing with. 24.45.47.102 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc

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:

I have found Michael's behavior and tone in dealing with most of us throughout the discussion so outrageously over the line that I cannot think of any alternative other than the admittedly drastic step of removing him from the community. Last night, as the latest in a seemingly endless string of infantile battering, he responded to another editor as a "femi-nazi" and compared the editor to "a two year old who doesn't get their way, they wet their pants, break their toys and cry like babies...." He is fundamentally unable to operate in this community. --Patchyreynolds 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael is active at various men's rights blogs and often goes off on tangents like I've seen happen here. But he understands that IMBRA is controversial in terms of what even the US Attorney General and Tahirih Justice Center admit is a "small burden" on free speech (they insist that it is neglible). I saw this morning that the article hadn't really bothered to mention the controversy and legal challenges to IMBRA until a link was made at the bottom to the restraining order text (which was probably originally submitted by Michael). According to the standards of professional journalism, the controversy needs to be identified as quickly as the law is mentioned. Michael doesn't represent the typical user of 'Mail Order Bride' sites in that the typical user dates American women as well as foreign women. I just checked the history of his experience here and I would agree that he never should have lost his temper or called anyone names, nor showed disdain for American women in general. However, the Mail Order Bride article as I found it today was badly biased against the mail order bride industry and its customers. That can only lead me to the conclusion that Michael was faced with non-neutral intransigence. Opposite sides seem to have locked horns. Meanwhile, I think IMBRA.ORG has improved recently to remove material offensive to reasonable American women. If anyone has suggestions as to how IMBRA.ORG can be made more neutral and non-offensive, please let me know and it will be discussed on relevant IMBRA blogs.--EnglishGarden 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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.