Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Parental Alienation

Request for Mediation

Parties/Users: Children&Families (mediation applicant) v. Mikeman67

Article: "Parental Alienation"

Issue: Should the two articles be merged?

Brief Facts re. Content: An international working group on parental alienation (from six countries), observing that the Wikipedia's current definition of "parental alienation" is incomplete, factually inaccurate, and is mis-attributed to a 20th century author (a concept thousands of years old), resolved to collaborate and improve and update, the current Wikipedia definition of "parental alienation." The new definition would also include the historical context of matrimonial/ child custody/access litigation, its widely swinging effects on each gender, and on children generally, over the past three-hundred years, and current definition fails to mention the actual/primary cause of parental alienation throughout the world, which is the use of adversarial means(litigation) to resolve common-place marital,custodial, parenting/child-access disputes between parents. Nor does the current article definition mention the remedies for parental alienation, defined by world-wide trends over last 35 years to treat parents equally in each case (not just generally treat genders equally), and to simultaneously replace marital/custodial/parenting (family) litigation with non-adversarial means of dispute resolution. Also the current Wiki definition, as defended by "Mikeman67," erroneously states that "parental alienation" does not apply in cases of child "abuse." Parental alienation exists to varying degrees in all cases of child custody/access litigation, which is normally one of the most extreme (parental conflict/violence-inducing) and abusive things that can happen to a child (and his/her parents) among modern legal systems.

Procedural: Mikeman67 did not attempt in good faith to resolve matters through Talk. E.g.: 1. Mikeman67 repeatedly "undid" or reverted a useful, more complete and accurate revision of an article on "parental alienation. In so doing, Mikeman67 vaguely asserted that the revision "does not appear constructive." Not in good faith because one cannot easily, if at all, reply to a vague, non-specific assertion or complaint.  2.  Mikeman67 failed to identify with what part of the revised definition he disagreed (instead using a vague statement to apparently justify its deletion). 3.  Mikeman67 falsely accused Children&Parents of "harassment" of users, but did not identify any act that would constitute harassment;" nor did Mikeman67 identify who was harassed or how. 4. Mikeman67 then engaged in recrimination by accusing Children&Parents of what Mikeman67 was doing, accusing Children&Parents of vandalism because they disagreed with another user's "edits," when it was actually Mikeman67 who disagreed with Children&Parents edits, not the other way around.