Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Strider12: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:28, 25 February 2008 editStrider12 (talk | contribs)1,243 edits →Response← Previous edit Revision as of 10:24, 26 February 2008 edit undoNCdave (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,315 edits →ResponseNext edit →
Line 110: Line 110:


Users who endorse this summary: Users who endorse this summary:
# I ran across this RfC by accident, while reviewing the ] article, to which I've now made one small contribution, which was . I had sought to fix an 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 the problem on the Talk page; I then 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 , with no Talk page discussion at all -- which gave me a taste for what Strider12 has had to put up with. '''I am shocked at the striking mischaracterizations here 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 of abusive behavior. Her was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's ]. ] (]) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
#


==Outside view== ==Outside view==

Revision as of 10:24, 26 February 2008

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 21:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC).

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies to conform to her editing goals on these articles ().

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 Misplaced Pages to advocate as forcefully as possible for a single agenda and viewpoint. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for advocacy.

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.

Evidence of disputed behavior and relevant policies/guidelines

  1. WP:3RR and WP:Edit war
  1. WP:CANVASS
  • Asks numerous like-minded editors to "jump in and help me out" in a "revert war" ("and bring some friends"): , , , , , . Even after being directed to WP:CANVASS by a friendly editor (), and a more direct warning from me (), Strider12 maintained that these posts do not violate WP:CANVASS, as she issued only seven "limited invites" ().
  1. WP:AGF and WP:NPA (selected examples):
  1. WP:Talk page guidelines
  1. WP:V
  1. Attempts to rewrite policy to further her side of the dispute
  • ,
  1. WP:USERPAGE
  1. WP:Wikilawyering
  1. WP:COI
  1. WP:Tendentious editing
  1. WP:SOAP

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.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. MastCell  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)

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)

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.
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
  • 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."




Users who endorse this summary:

  1. 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. I am shocked at the striking mischaracterizations here 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 . NCdave (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2008 (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.

{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.}

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)

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.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Strider12: Difference between revisions Add topic