Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael H 34

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
is a civil and polite editor who, over the past three years, has shown ongoing evidence of advocacy and disruptive editing on articles related to fathers' and men's rights according to 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 and promotion of lower quality ones. Considerable feedback has been given over the years with little significant change in editing behaviour.

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 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 ; 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.. 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 to 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 of scholarly material.

Over the years, efforts have been made use dispute resolution boards and methods, including requests for comment, third opinions, reliable sources and neutral point of view boards. 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. More extensive diff collection available on request.

Advocacy editing

 * Deletions of well-sourced material and/or inconvenient citations contrary to FR tenets
 * 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;undue weight and unclear sourced to a phrasean opinion.
 * Uses the term "critics" or includes unnecessary attribution to marginalize mainstream opinion.
 * Seeks to include poor quality sources (opinion columns, website/postings) that are supportive of a FR rights viewpoint.
 * Edits identified as failing NPOV by multiple editors

Original research/verifiability/inaccurate sourcing citation

 * Addition of original research/unverifiable material, and again despite the problematic nature of the edit (and his source) being pointed out..
 * Adds unverifiable material/original research with the apparent goal of minimizing the scholarly research etc that follows.
 * Inaccurate quoting and citation corrected here. ;

Edit warring

 * Three blocks for edit warring
 * Slow edit warring: example 1 ; example 2; example 3

Rejects community input and consensus building

 * 3rd Opinion but a few months later
 * RSN but
 * TwoRFCs but returns after 4 months to the same arguments.
 * Responds to NPOV warning thus
 * Talkpages of Talk:Parental alienation syndrome; Talk:Parental alienation; Talk:Fathers' rights movement and their archives

Repetitious argumentation
Some inevitably tedious examples.
 * "The phenomena of PAS is universally accepted"
 * PAS/PAD do not differ
 * Scholarly research about demographics is a matter of opinion.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:DISRUPTIVE
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
 * WP:OR
 * WP:V

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Recent edits by administrators and editors addressing Michael H 34's overall editing
 * Postings to RSN, NPOV, 30, and RFCs as noted elsewhere.
 * Talk:Parental alienation syndrome
 * Talk:Parental alienation
 * Talk:Fathers' rights movement
 * Talk:Fathers' rights movement/Archive 3
 * Talk:Parental alienation syndrome/Archive 4

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Talkpages and as above in "Rejects community input and consensus building" section. Also...
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * --Slp1 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -- Cailil  talk 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

I assert that the fathers' rights movement is a balanced, NPOV article because I have worked in good faith to help it become a balanced, NPOV article.


 * The fathers' rights movement article still has an issue in that information about fathers' rights groups is being used to represent the fathers' rights movement. For example, unlike the feminist movement article, the fathers' rights movement article includes a section titled 'demographics' not 'demographics of fathers' rights groups' [and activists].  I am currently trying to work out this issue on the talk page.

I have added critics' views to the fathers' rights movement article. For example, I added the statement to the effect that fathers will not do their share of the caretaking and I also expanded the views of Michael Flood.

I also assert that I tried to help make the parental alienation syndrome article a balanced, NPOV article. I also assert that I respected the consensus that formed with respect to the parental alienation syndrome article. Most of my work on this article occurred on the talk page.


 * Although I have been criticized on this page for the number of my edits on the parental alienation syndrome talk page, they related to a complex issue. Truth or existence is not a proper term to use for evaluating the acceptance of a syndrome.  After many edits, WLU eventually agreed that truth was not a proper term to use.  Slp1 changed the term to existence, but this term is even worse because it confuses the existence of the symptoms with the acceptance of the syndrome.


 * I asserted on the parental alienation syndrome talk page that the existence of the symptoms are accepted. One source, Warshak 2001 was viewed by other editors as too old, and another source, Bernet 2008 was viewed as being about parental alienation disorder, something different.  I agree that parental alienation disorder is something different from parental alienation syndrome (for example, two requirements were added to address legitimate criticisms of parental alienation syndrome).  However, parental alienation disorder is based on the same 8 symptoms as parental alienation syndrome (as analyzed by user WLU), and the reference to Bernet 2008 was with respect to the "near universal" acceptance of the phenomena (the existence of the symptoms).  I also pointed out on the talk page that Drozd 2009, a source highly critical of parental alienation syndrome, noted that the symptoms exist in some children.

I have since given up trying to help make the parental alienation syndrome article a balanced, NPOV article.

Michael H 34 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

I would like to thank Cailil for stating that I have been polite and that I have not attacked other editors. In this regard, I will neither gather evidence nor make a statement about the behavior of other editors.

With respect to Cailil's statement that editors with allegiences or strongly held views should avoid editing articles connected to these allegiences or strongly held views, I disagree. First, as I noted above, I have added criticisms to the fathers' rights movement article. Second, more than one person can be responsible for different parts of an article. Third, a NPOV article is achieved through attribution, and in the balance of the article in its entirety.

In this regard, I will not make a statement about the allegiences or views held by other editors.

With respect to WhatamIdoing's statement that I would have to be "writing for the enemy" in order to contribute to make balanced contributions to the fathers' rights movement article, I disagree. First, I have no enemies. Second, as I noted above, I have added criticisms to the fathers' rights movement article. Third, more than one person can be responsible for different parts of an article. I assert that if I "consistently" (a term of requirement used by WhatamIdoing) wrote for both sides, the fathers' rights movement article would not be balanced. Fourth, a NPOV article is achieved through attribution, and in the balance of the article in its entirety.

Is it possible that other contributors to the fathers' rights movement article have strongly held views on this subject?

Is it possible that other contributors were "not getting it" on the parental alienation syndrome talk page?

Is it possible that a group of contributors might use a forum such as this to discourage and possibly ban another contributor, who is viewed as writing for the other side or even not "consistently" writing for both sides? Michael H 34 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Michael H 34

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Michael H 34 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Semi-Outside view by Cailil
Like SLP1 I first became aware of User:Michael H 34 in the days after User:Davidrusher's off-site call for meat-puppets for Men's rights topics. I didn't raise a conflict of interest issue at the time because I resolved to assume good faith, and because I was both new to wikipedia at the time and exhausted from the dispute with User:Davidrusher. Also for the record, I do not currently edit the Fathers' rights or Fathers' rights movement articles due to this issue. However, in the time since Michael's arrival at this site his editing of Father's rights topics has been contentious and tendentious at times. This is illustrated by his contestation of reliably sourced material (such as ) which can be evidenced from discussions (going all the way back to Autumn 2008 and before) as well as edits.

The following edits from Autumn 2008 show Michael removing references to a Men's rights organization, known as the 'Blackshirts', from Australia. I would ask readers to review the edit summaries with careful attention. This source was removed as "original research".

These edits demonstrate a subtle weasel wording of sources in a manner that discredits them.

Michael has also edit warred to keep sources out of the article in a manner that goes against WP:EP's core tenet of "correcting the inaccuracy while keeping the content" as well as WP:V. Michael has also edit warred to include poorly sourced material by Father's rights commentators, activists and bloggers in violation of WP:RS. This edit-warring included an op-ed piece from a regional newspaper that was brought to WP:RSN and found wanting. It is clear from a simple review of these edits that Michael is too close to this subject, and I believe the ArbCom's rulings in the COFS case has relevance here: "Editors who have duties, allegiances, or beliefs that prevent them from [editing] from a neutral point of view in certain subject areas are expected to refrain from editing in those subject areas." While at this time I don't believe that Michael should be immediately restricted from editing articles in the Father's rights topic area, I do believe that he has a similar "conflict of allegiance" as was seen in the above RfAR, and I suggest that if the behaviour illustrated here continues that the community should look into this.

To conclude, I cautioned User:WLU earlier this year to refrain from suggesting that they would seek a topic ban for User:Michael H 34. I believe that - although it should also be noted that throughout all communication I have had and that I am aware of between others Michael has been extremely civil and polite, and that he has never, to my knowledge, engaged in personal attacks or other in appropriate rhetoric - a degree of 'refusing to get the point' has led to a terse atmosphere in some communication with one another. For a number of months Michael blanked his talk space rather than reply to communication on that page. While this is his right I left Michael a note asking him to consider using his user-talk space to interact with others (which he has done since then) and I also pointed out to him that he was reverting and discussing an edit (the re-inclusion of the poorly sourced material) on Talk:Fathers' rights_movement that had been dealt with in June 2009 (see this. His reply to that was: "Cailil, please note that consensus is not formed by counting votes. Furthermore, with respect to the edits in question, Slp1 was the only person engaged on the FRM talk page." This statement is incorrect as it assumed that I had "counted votes" whereas I had investigated the source, the old WP:RSN discussion and read the comments of 4 editors (Michael, SLP1, WLU and Franamax - who alluded to an earlier discussion of the same topic themselves). In summary, I believe that there may be a conflict of interest for Michael in regard to this topic and that he should either consider the findings of the COFS RfAR or attempt to consider his editing in light of WP:NPOV

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Cailil  talk 17:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Cirt (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

View by WhatamIdoing
My experience with Michael H 34 is fairly limited, largely at the Parental alienation syndrome page. I have seen the behavior issues described in the main statement. Michael seems to be a basically nice person who wants to use Wikipedia to promote his point of view.

Wikipedia gets some POV-pushing editors that know their views are perhaps a little unreasonable, or at least that they are firmly rejected by relevant experts (e.g., people that believe in magic or conspiracy theories). Michael isn't like this; he seems to believe that any rational, honest person who properly looked into men's rights with even half an open mind would naturally come to the same conclusions that he has. When you believe that your belief is not "just" your personal belief, but a rational, reasonable, obvious, natural belief, then it's very difficult to write what opponents will consider a fair description of the idea. The desire to write "the truth" is unending, pervasive, and appears in Michael's work in large and small ways.

Unfortunately, Michael's personal views don't line up with expert opinion: for example, most people who look into these issues decide that the general expert opinion is that "PAS" is the same kind of social alienation seen the world over, and not some special form of psychological trauma that only appears in messy divorces. And Wikipedia doesn't want "the Truth™": it wants the verifiable, mainstream expert opinion -- and it wants that verifiable, mainstream expert opinion to be presented as the verifiable, mainstream expert opinion, and not as a series of propositions to be debunked by the authors whose views match the editor's.  This 'debunking' process regularly falls afoul of Wikipedia's standards, and not merely WP:NPOV; for example, Michael is fond of citing primary sources to debunk secondary sources.

In short, I think that for Michael to produce a neutral article on any issue connected to men's rights, he would have to be constantly "writing for the enemy". So far, he hasn't demonstrated the ability to do this at all, much less consistently. I therefore have little reason to believe that Michael can be a successful editor in this subject area, and I encourage him to find other ways of being helpful.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) With extra agreement on the CPUSH and expert opinion vs. truth points -- WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Cailil  talk 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Martin Hogbin
It is very hard to define neutral in articles like this, but compare the tone of this article with that of say, Women's rights, or Civil rights where the subjects are treated rather more sympathetically. In contrast, this article might be described as 'patronisingly neutral'; I think Michael has a point.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.