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: 08:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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 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)
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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)
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?
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 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:
Recommendations regarding Strider12:
Recommendations regarding 3RR and all users:
(moved comment by IronAngelAlice to Talk page.) Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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: 08:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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.
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)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
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 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)
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)
Users who endorse this summary:
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:
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)
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?
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 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:
Recommendations regarding Strider12:
Recommendations regarding 3RR and all users:
(moved comment by IronAngelAlice to Talk page.) Sbowers3 ( talk) 13:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.