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.
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.
Note: Much of the evidence listed below comes from, the past though the bulk comes from the last 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)
Evidence of disputed behavior
Advocacy editing
- Edits identified as pushing a father's rights POV by editors [4][5][6][7][8]
- Deletions of well-sourced material contrary to Fathers' rights point of view against consensus and posting at RSN etc.[9][10] More examples [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] [23]
- Objects to and/or seeks to marginalize scholarly sources when their views do not accord with his own. e.g. 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. e.g. use of term "critics" or unnecessary attribution to marginalize mainstream opinion.[24][25][26][27][28][29]
- Seeks to include poor quality sources (opinion columns, website/postings) that are supportive of a FR rights viewpoint.[30][31][32]
Original research/verifiability/inaccurate sourcing citation
Addition of original research/unverifiable material [33], and again [34] despite the problematic nature of the edit (and his source) being pointed out.[35]; inaccurate sourcing and citation [36]
Edit warring
1. Blocked for edit warring [37]
2. Slow edit warring of multiple days despite objections and reverts from 4 separate editors. e.g. May 20th to 27th 2009 adds material[38]; reverts against the consensus of 4 other editors on the talkpage.[39][40][41][42][43][44] Other examples [45][46][47][48] [49] [50][51][52][53] [54][55][56]
Rejects community input
Repetitious argumentation
- "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted":
[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
- Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 1
- Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 2
- Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 3
- Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 4
- Talk:Parental alienation syndrome
- Talk:Parental alienation
- Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3
- Talk:Fathers' rights movement
- Recent edits by administrators and editors addressing Michael H 34's overall editing [98][99][100][101][102]
- Postings to RSN, NPOV, 30, and RFCs as noted elsewhere.
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 [103] [104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113] [114]
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.