User:Slp1/draft2

Statement of the dispute

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

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Description

User:Michael H 34's WP career in January 2007, hours after User:Davidrusher issued an off-wiki call for leaders of men's rights to "eras[e] the years of misconceptions about the movement" on Wikipedia. Since then his edits have consistently, but generally civilly, promoted a fathers' rights perspective often in contravention of WP policies and guidelines. He has admitted his focus and goal on talkpages [1];[2] Since then, 80% of his main space edits have been in the area of fathers' rights and related articles, with 67% article and 82% talkpage edits dedicated to two articles Fathers' rights movement and Parental alienation syndrome.[3]. There would be nothing wrong with this singular focus if it were not for the POV nature of his edits, including additions of original research and deletions of well-sourced material, attempts to marginalize academic sources as "critics".

There have been significant problems with the policy WP:CONSENSUS. He has been blocked 3 times for edit warring, but also engages in slow edit wars with other editors over months and weeks.

Over the years, efforts have been made use dispute resolution boards and methods, including requests for comment, reliable sources noticeboard and neutral point of view board. Some of these have been initiated by Michael H 34, but none of them elicited support from others for his editing. While at times Michael has recognized and learned from other editors, but very frequently he has continued to argue and even edit war about the specific points on which dispute resolution has been sought. As an example, for almost a year now, Michael has been seeking to have the Fathers' Rights Movement article reflect a FR talking point that many women participate in the movement. Much of the evidence below relates to Michael's efforts to remove scholarly sources contrary to the FR POV, and include very marginal sources that conform to it.

Note: Much of the evidence listed below comes from as long ago as 6-9 months. Michael H34 took a 4 month WP from August to December 2009, but his editing patterns are unchanged. The older edits are presented in part as evidence that this is a longstanding problem, longer, indeed than even these selected edits indicate. --Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy editing

1. Edits identified as pushing a father's rights POV by editors [4][5][6][7][8]

2. Deletions of well-sourced material contrary to Fathers' rights point of view against consensus and posting at RSN etc.[9][10][11][12][13]

• More examples [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

3. Particularly troublesome BLP article editing: deletes "positive" interpretations about the subject's feminist views sourced to a scholarly journal; leaving negative analyses (sourced to an opinion column in the Daily Mail) intact) [38]

4. Marginalization of academic viewpoints e.g. use of term "critics" or unnecessary attribution to marginalize mainstream opinion.[39][40][41][42][43][44]

5. Addition of original research [45], and again [46] despite the problematic nature of the edit (and his source) being pointed out.[47]

Edit warring

1. Blocked for edit warring [48]

2. Slow edit warring of multiple days despite objections and reverts from 4 separate editors. e.g. May 20th to 27th 2009 adds material[49]; reverts against the consensus of 4 other editors on the talkpage.[50][51][52][53][54][55] Other examples [56][57][58][59] [60] [61][62][63][64] [65][66][67]

+Rejects community input=

1. RSN but [68] 2. 3rd Opinion but[69][70] 3. RSN but [71][72][73][74] 4. TwoRFCs but returns after 4 months to the same arguments.[75][76] 5. Responds to NPOV warning thus [77]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:CONSENSUS
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:EDITWAR
4. WP:OR
5. WP:DISRUPTIVE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(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.)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Failure to seek dispute despite encouragement

to come

Other problematic editing

misleading edits summaries [78] [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88] [89]

Failure to engage in consensus building

Discussion is difficult as there is almost no movement forward, because he rejects suggestions, ignores reasoning, fails to reply to questions, requests and issues identified.

Repeating talkpage the same arguments over and over (and over) again

Example:

• Argues over and over again that "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted":

[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109]

• • Argues over and over again that PAS/PAD do not differ

[110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118]

• Argues over and over again that this is an edit "sourced from a phrase"

Tendentious objections to edits sourced to scholarly sources

When objecting to an edit through the entire gamut of possible policies and guidelines to argue that the information should not be included. As each argument is countered, he moves onto the next.

Example: it's wrong; it doesn't compute; it's given undue weight; it's original researchit's poorly sourcedit's still original research; it's not notable; my edit is preferred; we can't source a sentence from a phrase; it's an opinion; it's just an opinionit's an opinion.

• argues in favour of attributing comments, apparently with goal of marginalizing a mainstream opinion.

[119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]