User:Slp1/draft2

Statement of the dispute

User:Michael H 34 is a civil and polite editor who, over the past three years, has shown extended ongoing evidence of advocacy and disruptive editing on articles related to fathers' and men's rights as recognized by multiple editors. His tendentious arguing and lack of respect for consensus is a cause of frustration, particularly when this involves the rejection of scholarly sources.

Desired outcome

That User:Michael H 34 will cease trying to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting his views and embrace neutral and consensus-based editing. This will involve seeking out and respecting high quality sources for editing even when they contradict his views, avoiding repetitious talkpage postings and edit warring, and more rapidly accepting that he does not have consensus even when he feels very strongly about the righteousness of his position.

Description

User:Michael H 34's WP career began 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 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] Overall, 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, recognized by multiple editors. Michael H 34's editing style has many of the features of disruptive editors, and those classified by some as civil point of view pushers. In Michael's case, he seeks give undue weight to poor quality, partisan, sources and to exclude mainstream academic research. He engages in short-term and long-term edit warring and has been blocked three times. He has difficulty accepting that consensus is against his preferred edits. He argues tendentiously on talkpages, making the same points and asking the same questions repeatedly without regard to responses given; alternatively, when objecting to an edit he runs through the entire gamut of possible policies and guidelines to argue against inclusion.

Over the years, efforts have been made use dispute resolution boards and methods, including requests for comment, reliable sources and neutral point of view boards have been used to involve other editors. Some of these have been initiated by Michael H 34, but none of them elicited support for his preferred edits. 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 and given, even returning to the topic, with the same arguments, months later. As an example, for almost a year now, Michael has been seeking to have the Fathers' Rights Movement article emphasize that many women participate in their movement, which is a FR talking point. Much of the evidence below relates to Michael's long term efforts to remove scholarly sources contrary to the FR POV, and include very marginal sources that conform to it.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Note: The evidence listed attempts a concise version, with a limited number of diffs given. Since Michael H 34 took a 4 month wikibreak from August to December 2009, some older edits are presented as evidence that this is a longstanding and longterm problem.

Advocacy editing

1. Deletions of well-sourced material and/or inconvenient citations contrary to FR tenets [4][5][6][7][8][9]
2. Objects to scholarly sources with various arguments (in edit summaries at times). e.g. it's illogical; undue weight; wrong/misinterpreting; original researchpoorly sourcedoriginal research; not notable; sourced from a phrase; an opinion; an opinionan opinion. Uses the term "critics" or includes unnecessary attribution to marginalize mainstream opinion.[10][11][12][13][14][15]
3. Seeks to include poor quality sources (opinion columns, website/postings) that are supportive of a FR rights viewpoint.[16][17][18]
4. Edits identified as failing NPOV by multiple editors [19][20][21][22][23]

Original research/verifiability/inaccurate sourcing citation

1. Addition of original research/unverifiable material [24], and again [25] despite the problematic nature of the edit (and his source) being pointed out.[26].
2. cInaccurate quoting and citation corrected here. [27];[28][29] [30]

Edit warring

1. Three blocks for edit warring [31]

1. Slow edit warring: example 1 [32][33][34]; example 2[35][36][37][38][39][40][41]; example 3 [42][43][44][45] [46]

Rejects community input

1. 3rd Opinion but a few months later [47][48]
2. RSN but [49][50][51][52]
3. TwoRFCs but returns after 4 months to the same arguments.[53][54]
4. RSN but [55]
5. Responds to NPOV warning thus [56]

Repetitious argumentation

Some inevitably tedious examples.

1. "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted"[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]
2. PAS/PAD do not differ[77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]
3. Scholarly research about demographics is a matter of opinion. [86][87][88][89]

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:DISRUPTIVE
5. WP:OR
6. WP:V

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. Recent edits by administrators and editors addressing Michael H 34's overall editing [90][91][92][93][94]
2. Postings to RSN, NPOV, 30, and RFCs as noted elsewhere.
3. Talk:Parental alienation syndrome
4. Talk:Parental alienation
5. Talk:Fathers' rights movement
6. Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3
7. Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 4

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

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.

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

[95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103]