Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 Mail-order bride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-05-24 Mail-order bride 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-05-24 Mail-order bride

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: The Famous Movie Director 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Mail-order bride, currently the section "Poll on edits by Michaellovesnyc" in particular

Who's involved?

Mainly User:Kaiwen1 and User:Michaellovesnyc; myself and a few other users have been occasionally involved.

What's going on?

an edit war over two sections Michael added to the article: Demographics and Personal anti-fraud measures. Now there's a poll about the inclusion of these sections.

Recently a huge amount of text was added by Michael and User:Thomusin that makes the talk page look a lot more confusing. Don't be frightened; it's all an argument about whether there is a shortage of men in the former USSR. The CIA Factbook suggests that there is. Thomusin (I think) disputes this. But the main question is whether the Demographics section should be included in the article. I think it should be removed, because we have no information to suggest that this gender imbalance is a direct cause of mail-order brides. Therefore the section is OR.

What would you like to change about that?

Michael seems to feel like User:Kaiwen1 has an evil, racist agenda and that everyone against Michael is a personal friend of Kaiwen's. Another impartial opinion might help clear things up.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Just my talk page is fine...

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I'd consider it, though I'm trying to spend less time on Wikipedia.

...

[edit] Mediator response

Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!}
Hello, I'm Mr. Lefty. Please note that this is my first mediation case, so if I don't get everything right, don't hesitate to correct me.

Now then, if the issue is including a demographics section, the simple thing to do would be to cite a source. If Michael has a reliable source saying that mail-order brides were ordered more less frequently in the former USSR due to a shortage of men, then it's perfectly fine to include that new section (as long as it's NPOV). If a source cannot be found, then we must accept it as OR and not add it to the article. If Michael persistently adds the section without a source or consensus, come back here and/or report it to an administrator.

A poll on the talk page is fine to my knowledge; that's the place you should go to discuss changes.

Hope that helps.

After I warned him on his talk page, Michael made a new series of edits, including re-adding the above disputed material, claiming "the mediator is on my side". As discussed above, the source he includes lists demographic statistics but has nothing to do with mail-order brides, so the section is still OR. His latest preferred version of the article is worse than ever, with vast amounts of OR and POV material, including blaming "feminist groups who distort the truth" for a law and bringing up unsourced stories "which the media will not report". He hasn't discussed any of this on the article talk page, but has referred to me as a "know-it-all" and "cyber thug" who is trying to "intimidate" him and others. I reverted the page and warned him again on his talk page but I suspect he will keep reverting to his favorite version. --Grace 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've come up with a possible solution. I say we leave the article more or less the way it was before Michaellovesnyc got to it, as his version is awfully complex and text-heavy. His additions could be put into a separate article, though I don't know quite what it would be. Controversy around mail-order brides? I don't know. But for now, stop reverting each other's changes and try to come to a consensus. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Michaellovesnyc 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc Hey Mr. Lefty; why do you feel that my version os "awfully complex and text-heavy". My opponent goes to great lengths with several pages to exaggerate and shamelessly distort the deaths of 3 women who have nothing to do with the general topic of mail order brides. I have proposed that you review my version and my opponents and tell me where you think I am being complex and text heavy and my opponent is not. Which version do you HONESTLY think is more neutral?

I felt your version was complex because you described several laws and incidents in extreme detail, and I didn't think it was really paramount to the understanding of the article. As for the descriptions of crimes against mail-order brides, I also think that extreme detail pertaining to that is unnecessary. There should not be mention of every crime against a mail-order bride, nor should there be mention of every law enacted relating to mail-order brides. Just give enough detail to make the situation clear. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

I suggest that the two versions be submitted to this mediator and let him decide what is the best solution. I have submitted my article below.

[edit] Comments by others

• I have tried a dozen times to work with user:michaellovesnyc. He apparently cannot be convinced that the material he adds to the article does not meet Wikipedia standards. It's POV, orginal research, how-to guides, etc. The mediator's assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Gavin 02:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into the matter some more, and I think there's a case for banning Michaellovesnyc (and the anonymous account he uses) from Wikipedia altogether, although I'm not sure how this happens and I'd appreciate it if someone would advise me. User:24.45.47.102 is pretty obviously him (they both edit mail-order bride almost exclusively and Michael responds on the anon user's talk page). When he's not editing mail-order bride, Michael makes totally inappropriate additions like this and this and this and he apparently added himself to the Schmitt disambiguation page (his first edit). Meanwhile the anonymous account makes edits so inappropriate they could be considered trolling, like this (gee, someone got burned) and this. He's stood in the way of any progress on the mail-order bride article and his recent edits show that he will persistently take out the bits he doesn't like, regardless of whether they are referenced. Is this the sort of thing you can be banned for? --Grace 21:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Viewing the history and editorial changes, I find that these complaints deserve some warrant. There is certainly an effort to working the issues out but it is heavily impended. -- ^Evanx(tag?) 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Michaellovesnyc michaellovesnyc I have offered many solutions and in fact the moderator said that if my facts are backed up by sources then it is fine. I have backed up my facts with the cia factbook and several articles. My version incorporates others opinions despite a heavy POV.

I would like to take this to the next step please.

The big problem with what you just said is the phrase "incorporates others opinions despite a heavy POV." There should never be any sort of POV in Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:NPOV. I did say if you had sources it was fine, but I was referring to sources that stated explicitly that mail-order brides were less common in the USSR because of a shortage of men. There should be no inference or speculation.

Do not violate WP:NPOV and there is evidence to suggest that you may also be violating the 3RR rule. You could be blocked for either of those things. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Michaellovesnyc 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc - So where do we stand on this mediation? I have not seen my opponents respond, other than reverting my articles despite my good faith attempt to mediate. They know that their POV can not withstand scrutiny as my facts can. Since they threatened to have me banned for providing facts instead of opinions and they keep reverting my fact based article, I would like to have them banned for violating policy of reverting and advancing a POV agenda and vandalizing an article on mail order brides with irrelevent nonsense about gay mail order brides and antecdotal stories of abuse.

Michaellovesnyc 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc

There are a number of issues I will address.

1. I agree that there should be never be any POV. The reason why I said I incorporated others opinions was I was hoping to forge a compromise to allow my facts to stand up against their opinions and POV. I know that anyone reading facts would be able to see through a hidden agenda. But you are right; ALL POV should be removed and only FACTS should be allowed which has been my intention all along. This article is about mail order brides. This article is not about abuse. It is not about IMBRA. It is not about Gay Male order brides. It is not a biographical analysis of every case involving male order bride abuse and using antectodatal evidence to prove a misleading claim.

2. The origin of a term should be included. I have included a reference for this. Because the POV against MOB is so strong, my opponents do not want to even include the origin of the term. Why is this? How can we have an article about something and nit even discuss the origin of the term?

3. The reason why demographics is important is because I believe it is obvious that when there is an imbalance of males and females, they will find a way to get together. I included information from the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) factbook to back me up. I included two articles, one from a biologocal point of view and the other from a socio-economic point of view to back me up on the Science. I included an article from Pravda discussing the situation that women face with men there. This is backed up and verified with data from CIA and USCIS (Immigration) reports. These are not opinions, these are not POV, but facts.

4. I do not believe the antecdotal stories of abuse should be included unless they include the response by Natasha Spivack and FBI reports detailing the overall abuse levels in the United States compared to the murder rates of MOBS. It is inherently unfair to present one side of a story. Both are POV. Either they both should be included to be balanced or both be excluded to prevent POV. I did not initiate discussion of abuse; my opponents did. I responded with factual information to balance the antecdotal stories.

5. It is not an artcle about other forms of dating. They can be referenced, but why go into it. I changed it to reference them without going into details.

6. More POV; Repeatedly my opponents deleted the fact that George Bush signed the law. Again the POV is so feminist, they do not want to give him credit (or I would say blame) for signing this bill. Furthermore, they repeatedly took out the name of the law IMBRA and only referred to the VAWA part of it. This is clearly an incorrect version of how laws are made.

My article can be seen if you pull up the revisions that I made. My version is fact based and accurate and free of POV. Everything is referenced and antecdotal stories are removed.