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

1. Deletions of well-sourced material contrary to FR tenets[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] [18]
2. Objects to scholarly sources with various arguments. e.g. it's wrong; illogical; undue weight; original researchpoorly sourcedoriginal research; not notable; sourced from a phrase; an opinion; an opinionan opinion. e.g. use of term "critics" or unnecessary attribution to marginalize mainstream opinion.[19][20][21][22][23][24]
3. Seeks to include poor quality sources (opinion columns, website/postings) that are supportive of a FR rights viewpoint.[25][26][27]
4. Edits identified as pushing a father's rights POV by editors [28][29][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. Three blocks for edit warring [37]

1. Slow edit warring:[38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

Other examples [45][46][47][48] [49]

Rejects community input

1. 3rd Opinion but a few months later [50][51]
2. RSN but [52][53][54][55][56][57]
3. TwoRFCs but returns after 4 months to the same arguments.[58][59]
4. RSN but [60]
5. Responds to NPOV warning thus [61]

Repetitious argumentation

1. "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted":

[62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]

1. PAS/PAD do not differ[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]

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

1. Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 4
2. Talk:Parental alienation syndrome
3. Talk:Parental alienation
4. Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3
5. Talk:Fathers' rights movement
6. Recent edits by administrators and editors addressing Michael H 34's overall editing [91][92][93][94][95]
7. 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

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.

[96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]