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.
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.
{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.
(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
Mail-order bride edits
It goes on like this throughout May; these are just some examples. End of May:
Maria Cantwell edits
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
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 who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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:
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)
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.