Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Strider12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Strider12 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in long-term tendentious editing on a very narrow range of topics relating to abortion and mental health and David Reardon (a researcher in the field). Her edits to Wikipedia uniformly serve to advocate a single, particular agenda: that abortion has significant negative effects on mental health (a controversial area, to say the least). Her few edits outside these 2 articles consist largely of canvassing or attempts to amend fundamental Wikipedia policies to conform to her editing goals on these articles ([1]).

Strider12's approach is consistently abrasive, disruptive, accusatory, and fundamentally uncollaborative. Specific issues will be detailed below, but there has been edit-warring, inappropriate canvassing for support, constant assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (largely to the effect that other editors are "Planned Parenthood interns and high school students" out to "purge" or "suppress" Strider12's edits). She fulfills virtually all of the characteristics of problem editors. The underlying, fundamental problem is that it is abundantly clear that Strider12 is on Wikipedia to advocate as forcefully as possible for a single agenda and viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy.

[edit] Desired outcome

I am open to creative solutions. Ideally, more community input will help guide Strider12 to contribute within policy and accept consensus as a principle. Failing that, I would like to see a voluntary 1RR and a commitment for her to make at least an effort to obtain consensus, use WP:DR, and stop forum-shopping and canvassing. Failing that, a temporary topic ban may be in order. In any case, the current status quo is not working.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior and relevant policies/guidelines

[edit] 3RR and edit-warring

[edit] WP:CANVASS

  • Asks numerous like-minded editors to "jump in and help me out" in a "revert war" ("and bring some friends"): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Even after being directed to WP:CANVASS by a friendly editor ([12]), and a more direct warning from me ([13]), Strider12 maintained that these posts do not violate WP:CANVASS, as she issued only seven "limited invites" ([14]).

[edit] Bad faith and personal attacks (selected examples)

[edit] Talk page guidelines

[edit] WP:V

  1. Attempts to rewrite policy to further her side of the dispute

[edit] WP:USERPAGE

[edit] WP:Wikilawyering

[edit] WP:COI

[edit] WP:Tendentious editing

[edit] WP:SOAP

Addendum: Canvassing potentially supportive editors (read: those I've disagreed with in the past) to this RfC: [37], [38], [39]. Perhaps relevant since Strider12's earlier canvassing is dismissed as a youthful mistake. 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Talk:Abortion and mental health (see all archives if you're a masochist)
  2. Talk:David Reardon
  3. Content RfC on "post-abortion syndrome"
  4. I tried to get at the underlying issues in this lengthy thread on Strider12's talk page, which was genuinely interesting but fruitless in terms of improving her editing behavior
  5. Attempt to find common ground by User:Phyesalis
  6. I've also posted twice to WP:AN/I for assistance: here, several admins agreed that a block or topic ban was in order, but nothing came of it. Here, only 2 outside commentators braved the thread (User:Raymond arritt and User:Natalie Erin); both found Strider12's behavior problematic.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. MastCell Talk 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Phyesalis (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Addhoc (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kuronue | Talk 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Still supports post-changes Kuronue | Talk 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Yep Shot info (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. The claims in the other sections, that Mastcell has misrepresented Strider12 are demonstrably false as diffs are provided. ViridaeTalk 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. I helped out Strider12 with putting a draft into his user space and have looked in from time to time since. MastCell's evaluation unfortunately is accurate. I think Strider12 is capable of doing better and hope he takes these comments to heart. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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.}

  • As a careful observer will notice, most of the complaints and links are to edits I made in the first four to six weeks (November & December) when I tried to add well sourced material and began to complain of the openly discussed "purge" of peer reviewed studies. "Purging Campaign" Proves Extreme Bias of Article This RfC would be of more help if it were limited to 2008 edits--after I learned the ropes--so to speak. For example, once MastCell "slapped my hand" the "canvassing", I did no more. The continued hammering of me as a "problem editor" because of my early mistakes is not productive and represents a general trend of those who oppose my edits of attacking the editor rather than discussing the article.

[edit] Mast Cell's Misrepresentations

  • Other complaints by MastCell are misrepresentations. For example, s/he states that I suggested: "we were likely "paid employees of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NAF, the APA, or other organizations that lobby for abortion and are insistent on denying the mental health effects of abortion." Instead, as the link shows, she accused me of a COI and I responded that I did not have a COI, and suggested that "Perhaps you should poll those who are busy purging the article if peer reviewed material to see if they have conflicts of interest as paid employees...." That is far different than accusing anyone. Furthermore, even MastCell confirmed my concern that there may be paid obstructionists of material, writing: "Oh, I have no doubt (in fact, I have concrete examples) of people editing Wikipedia specifically to advance an organization's interests, in both paid and unpaid capacities. I can't vouch for anyone except myself, though there are editors I trust more and editors I trust less based on their contribution patterns." That I should raise this concern is hardly a reason for censure. I could go on to point out other misreprentations, but really don't have as much time as MastCell.
  • She states above that I constantly engage in "personal attacks (largely to the effect that other editors are "Planned Parenthood interns and high school students" out to "purge" or "suppress" Strider12's edits."
    • First, the purge issue. The discussion of editors to "purge" information supporting the abortion mental health link is a matter of record.[40] I frequently remind editors that this has happened in the past and have even asked them, including MastCell, to at least acknowledge the past purging of reliable data, to agree that it should not have been allowed, and to indicate that they will work to oppose such "purges" in the future. MastCell never responds to this but to complain that I quote these past editors (one of whom is still active" by using the word "puirge", and then goes on deleting my material.
    • Regarding "high school students." I've accused no one. But made the reference in my sandbox for a draft of the article[41] thinking of a prolonged conflict with 131.216.41.16 who insisted that the Elliot Institute wasn't a "real institute" because it didn't own buildings.[42] Beside the juvenile absurdity of her definition of an institute, she didn't even have any evidence that it doesn't own buildings. Yet this editor with clearly limited general, much less specific knowledge, was making a tremendous number of edits with many inferences. Whether or not he or she was a high schooler, she did teach me one of the problems with Wikipedia...there are no qualifications for being an editor.
I really tried to be patient with 131.216.41.16 [43] and sought outside help to no avail.[44] I just noticed in the diff above that ··coelacan 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) note indicates that User talk:131.216.41.16 was actually a sockpuppet account for User:IronAngelAlice.[45] Though IronAngelAlice has been one of the most aggressive deleters of material in both articles for several months, I have not spotted MastCell reverting her edits nor warning her to avoid edit warring.
By the way, I just discovered that one of the parties in the "purge" wasIronAngelAlice)[46] aka 131.216.41.16 with the consent and encouragement of Saranghae_honey(aka mirageinred and миражinred), who together agreed to "purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon."[47] Reardon's studies are peer reviewed and reliable[48], but are still excluded[49].
    • Regarding "Planned Parenthood interns"--that idea sprouts up when one finds one's edits deleted literally within minutes after entry...even though no one else appears to be working on the article. This is generally done by just one or two people who appear to be "gaurding" the article from any material that does not comport with their "official" view. How anyone has time to monitor the article that closely, I don't know. But it does strike me that big organizations might have people on that job. Ironically, MastCell agrees[50] (not necessarily about Planned Parenthood, but that this may be true on Wikipedia in a general sense).
    • What MastCell misrpresents is that I call any editors these names. I have not. I've only raised the question that some editors may have more passion than information (ie. high schoolers) and others may have the job of keeping "undesirable information" out. Neither point is disrespectful. They are thoughtful reflections on the nature of Wikipeida.
  • The accusation that I have made a "Bad-faith misrepresentation of sources" is simply false. MastCell asserted that Grimes had published an independent review of the literature on abortion and mental health. I provided a source, in the discussion page...not the article, demonstrating that he had not and even a letter from Grimes admitting that he had not. MastCell wrongly suggests that I stated or implied that Grimes had converted to a view that abortion does hurt mental health...but I did no such thing. As the extended discussion shows, I simply showed that his article, cited by MastCell, does not represent a new, updated, independent evaluation of abortion and mental health but was merely an article that reasserted an assessment by Stotland in a 1992 commentary. Details matter. And calling attention to details is NOT a "misrepresentaiton of sources."
  • I feel this RfC is simply an extended effort to put a "Scarlet Letter" on my chest to further MastCell's attempts to portray my edits as the problem rather than the continued efforts of editors to blank material critical of abortion. MastCell has repeatedly wikistalked me to tell other editors that I am a problem editor.
    • In this post, for example, Scientific Studies As Reliable Secondary Sources, MastCell shows up and the first word's out of his/her mouth are ad hominum attacks on me rather than discussion of the topic: " would strongly oppose any alteration in policy made at the behest of a single-purpose tendentious agenda account and designed to benefit her in a specific content dispute."


  • got to go. more to come.--Strider12 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. NCdave (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

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.

{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.}


[edit] Outside view by 7390r0g

This editor needs a wikimentor. If she is trying to see things from a differeing pserpective, we should encourgae her to learn how to do her edits the wiki way.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 7390r0g (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by NCdave

I ran across this RfC by accident, while reviewing the David Reardon article, to which I've now made one small contribution, which was immediately reverted. I had sought to fix an edit to the article by IronAngelAlice, which introduced an inaccuracy into the article. In 1988 Surgeon General Koop wrote to President Reagan, and in his letter he said that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, IronAngelAlice's edit replaced that quote with a transplanted fragment of a statement that Koop had made elsewhere, and reported it as being in the letter to Reagan. She also made her edit with no Talk page discussion.

Rather than just fix it in the article, I sought consensus by discussing the problem on the Talk page; I then edited the article with what I hoped would be wording that would be acceptable to all: I included both the accurate quote from Koop's letter to Reagan, and also the quote which Alice had inserted, but with a correct attribution to where Koop had said it. The response I got was an immediate revert, with no Talk page discussion at all -- which gave me a taste for what Strider12 has had to put up with. (Here's another taste.)

Then I visited Strider12's Talk page, and learned that someone was trying to get her banned. I was appalled! That's how we reward excellence from new contributors around her?? Sure, she's still learning the ropes (as am I, actually), but she's doing a fantastic job for a beginner.

I am shocked at the striking mischaracterizations in this RfC of Strider12's contributions! What I noticed, before seeing this RfC, was a series of careful, well-written, well-sourced contributions by someone who obviously has a wealth of knowledge to contribute. Strider12's contributions do not in the slightest resemble MastCell's description of them. Rather, Strider12 has diligently sought to make constructive, well-sourced contributions, in the face of tendentious edit-warring and POV-pushing by MastCell, IronAngelAlice, and a few others. IronAngelAlice, in particular, has a history of abusive behavior. Her previous ID was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's at it again. NCdave (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC), 23:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I just noticed that MastCell is trying to ban Ferrylodge, too. As it happens, Ferrylodge and Stider12 just happen to be the two editors who have made the most constructive, well-sourced, consistently encyclopedic contributions to these abortion-related articles. What a shame. NCdave (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Raymond arritt has quite correctly pointed out that part of my comment above was nonconstructive and discourteous. I would just delete it, but that might be construed as being an attempt to hide my own misbehavior, so instead I've struck through it. Please accept my apology. NCdave (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Addendum: It seems ironic to me that a prominent part of the complaint against Strider12 is that she has engaged in "inappropriate canvassing for support." In particular, she was faulted for notifying two other editors that this RfC had been filed against her. That is ironic because both of the editors (other than the complainant himself) who certified the basis for the dispute did so as the result of being explicitly canvassed to do so, as was one of the endorsers, too.[51][52][53] How, then, can it be inappropriate for Strider12 to make such requests? I am no Wikilawyer, and I'm not clear about just when it is and is not appropriate to canvass. But if it truly is appropriate for the complainant to canvass, yet inappropriate for the defendant to do so, regarding the very same RfC, that seems similar to a legal case in which only the prosecution is allowed to call witnesses. NCdave (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave, those 3 people I notified were directly involved in the dispute with Strider12 on the relevant article/talk pages, prior to this RfC being filed. There is a big difference between notifying people involved in a dispute that it has progressed up the ladder of WP:DR, and identifying specific outside editors on the basis of their likes and dislikes to solicit for commentary. A criminal case is not the right analogy to use here, either - it's more like an intervention. MastCell Talk 21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. NCdave (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ferrylodge

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.

I believe that Strider12 is very knowledgeable about the subject at hand, and has the potential to be a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. The mere fact that she has contributed to a narrow range of articles should not necessarily be held against her, nor should it be held against her that she has primarily contributed to those articles in a way that supports a particular POV, if she reasonably believes that the article is currently biased against that POV. The goal here should be arriving at neutrality.

Also, it seems like Strider12 deserves a little slack here, seeing as how she has only been editing since November (judging by her contribution history). I have had virtually no interaction with Strider12 until the past several days, although I have had considerable interaction with some of the people Strider12 has been in conflict with, and I especially mean Iron Angel Alice (IAA). IAA has a history of POV-pushing,[54] and I can say from first-hand experience that she has been successful thus far in conforming many aspects of the fetus article to her POV. IAA has been extremely argumentative, uncooperative, and disrespectful of Wikipedia policy, and so Strider12 has my sympathy. But of course that does not excuse Strider12's own violations, one of which led to a block last month. My block log is much longer, which I'm sure does not add to my credibility, but such is life.

I have advised Strider12 that simply adding all relevant sources to a Wikipedia article on both sides of the issue, and letting them accumulate indefinitely, is not a good procedure, because it can lead to an overly long article, and because the article can get seriously unbalanced if the sources on each "side" do not accumulate in the Wikipedia article at appropriate respective rates.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. NCdave (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications to "Statement of dispute"

I'd like to briefly note my concern that the "Statement of the Dispute" is being expanded after it has already been endorsed. In a situation like this, I suspect it might be a better approach for someone who wrote the original RfC to post his or her own view, in a separate section with his or her name on it, as an "Inside view" or "Involved view." In most cases, people who bring an RfC don't post individualized views, "but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion."[55] The main problem I see with expanding and amending the "Statement of the Dispute" after it has already been endorsed by several people is that those people have not seen (nor approved) the expansion and amendment, even though it looks like they have endorsed the revised "Statement of the Dispute." Does this seem like a reasonable concern? Plus, the "Response" by the subject of the dispute appears to be ignoring the added material, when actually the "Response" was written before that material was added.

Here, the "Statement of the Dispute" was first endorsed on 21 February at 15:21. Subsequently, the "Statement of the Dispute" has been significantly expanded and revised.[56][57][58] All of those expansions and revisions also occurred after the Response was written on 25 February 2008.

Additionally, I would like to suggest that it might be helpful if those who wrote the original RfC would indicate what they deem the most serious and troublesome aspect of the subject's conduct. That way, the subject will understand what the biggest concern is, and others can weigh in about it. That would not be brushing aside or minimizing the subject's conduct that may be less serious or troublesome, but rather would allow us to focus on the most serious and obviously inappropriate stuff first.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sbowers3

As far as I know I have not previously had any contact with any of the users or topics involved in this RFC. I have no particular interest in the topics.

What does interest me is fair and appropriate process - and I think this RFC is somewhat flawed. The evidence section is good, better than many RFCs I have seen. The structure of the section is good - it lists particular policies and diffs to the "accused's" (is there a better word?) behavior.

So why do I say the RFC is flawed - somewhat flawed?

  • The purpose of an RFC is not to punish past bad behavior; it is (one hopes) to eliminate future bad behavior. So the evidence should show recent bad behavior. Much of this evidence is from more than a month ago, or even two or three months ago.
  • An RFC must show "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". This section is not so good.
    • The first two items do not provide any diffs; they invite us to wade through very long talk pages to find the evidence.
    • The middle three items appear to be (I have not read through them) good evidence of trying to resolve the dispute.
    • The AN/I reports are not so much evidence of trying to resolve the dispute but of getting other admins to stop the disputed behavior.
  • The RFC must show "Evidence of ... failing to resolve the dispute" - i.e. evidence that the attempts to resolve the dispute resulted in failure. The only evidence that would show the attempts failed is evidence of bad behavior after attempting to resolve the dispute.

Because the only relevant evidence is evidence that occurred after trying to resolve the dispute, I discard evidence from before 21 January. Some of the remaining evidence is weak and implies that Strider2 has improved her past bad behavior.

  • I see no recent evidence of violations of WP:CANVASS, WP:Talk page guidelines, WP:V, WP:COI, or WP:Tendentious editing. (Telling a total of two editors that they might be interested in this RFC hardly seems like canvassing to me.)
  • The WP:AGF and WP:NPA complaints seem weak to me. Her response to the 3RR block was mostly about content and not about persons. The analogy to holocaust deniers is no worse than the common use of "global warming deniers" as an analogy to holocaust deniers.
  • Strider12's user of her WP:USERPAGE is - so far - within the spirit of the guideline. She is explicitly allowed a "reasonable time" to prepare material for a dispute resolution procedure. As a relative newcomer she reasonably needs more time to prepare, and she has updated that page within the last week. I would suggest that she remove material that is older than one month and that she delete the page within one month or initiate DR.
  • WP:Wikilawyering is an essay rather than a guideline so technically is not germane here but even so I read her comments as being about the principles involved, not nitpicking about the letter of the policies/guidelines.
  • The WP:SOAPBOX case seems weak. I suspect that most editors concentrate in one topic area at the beginning. (Remember that she has edited for little more than three months.) I edited almost exclusively on one topic for about three months before I branched out and then rarely returned to that same topic area.
  • The 3RR evidence is the most compelling but has some weaknesses.
    • There are no diffs for the accusation that Strider12 "continuously reinserts the same disputed material, often 2-3 times a day, without any progress on the talk page". The evidence should include diffs for every complaint or the complaint should be omitted. Assuming that there are diffs to support this point, then her behavior is troubling - but has it occurred recently?
    • A 3RR notice that resulted in no action, only a warning, is not strong evidence.
    • The four reverts in one hour appear to be two reverts plus two additions of new material. There might be other diffs to show that the additions were reverts, but the supplied diffs do not.
    • Her comment in response to the 3RR block is certainly not evidence of 3RR or of edit warring but does indicate that she may not fully understand the principle of 3RR.

I have found that many editors (myself included at one time) have misconceptions about 3RR. The wording of the policy is pretty clear - except that what actually consitutes a revert is not so clear - but the wording of warnings issued to users is not at all clear. The warning points them to the policy but the warning could explain more clearly exactly how the user ran afoul of the policy. Strider12, like many other users, thought that three reverts applied to reverting the same material ("I thought 3RR was reverting the same material back and forth." and "A review of the four edits provided by MastCell will demonstrate that I was adding new and DIFFERENT material each time. This is not a violation of 3RR."). Looking through her User talk page and its history, I don't see a single warning that clearly explained 3RR before she was blocked.

Recommendations for all RFCs:

  • Provide diffs for all complaints or omit the complaint.
  • Focus on recent behavior, and particularly on behavior after trying to resolve the dispute.

Recommendations regarding Strider12:

  • Clearly explain the principles of 3RR. Each time she comes close, warn her with specific diffs. If she persists, then report to 3RR each and every time to establish a record of her behavior. Let a neutral admin at 3RR evaluate her edits.
  • Request her to delete User:Strider12/Disruption within a month unless she files a DR request.

Recommendations regarding 3RR and all users:

  • When warning users about 3RR and prior to reporting violations, clearly explain with diffs to her edits and with quotations from WP:3RR exactly how she is in danger of violating the policy.

(moved comment by IronAngelAlice to Talk page.) Sbowers3 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. NCdave (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.