Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 21 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: 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC).

• Strider12 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

• 3RR block
• Five reverts in 27 hours; no action was taken because there was no violation of the letter of 3RR
• Four reverts of abortion and mental health in less than one hour, not reported and no action taken: , , ,
• Describes her understanding of WP:3RR: "I have a right to edit this article and post it -- up to three times a day if I have the stamina for it."
• Responds to 3RR block by describing it as a "misleading, manufactured complaint intended to harrass me", the work of "a hard core of abortion defending editors who insist on censoring material that does not conform with their few sources..."
• Continuously reinserts the same disputed material, often 2-3 times a day, without any progress on the talk page and without attempting any form of dispute resolution

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):

• "At least I give you guys credit for being unrelenting in promoting your bias... You are the antithesis of encyclopdia editors. You are candidates for George Orwell's thought police."
• "I am posting a neutrality warning on this page due to a campaign to 'purge' peer reviewed medical journal articles by editors who have decided that they know better than peer reviewers at medical journals.", "Replaced purged materials which go against POV promulgated by some advocates", "Replace purged material", "Replaced purged findings... Please stop the PURGE campaign to advance your POV", "Replaced Purged material", "Repaired PURGED material", "Replacing Purge of material describing Reardon's studies and books", "Replaced purged material", ad nauseum. These examples, drawn from a single week or so, typify the constant drumbeat of 4 months of accusations that anyone in a content dispute with Strider12 is "purging" material from the encyclopedia.
• (After a complaint that constant accusations of "purging" were unconstructive and uncivil): "Editors who openly discuss purging should not complain when other editors argue against purging campaigns. To quote Stalin: 'Purging is civil. Complaints about purging will not be tolerated.'"
• "What really makes me doubt your good faith, MastCell is that you have not joined me in saying that the previous 'purges' were wrong."
• Describes content dispute as "VANDALISM" (also )
• Compares opponents to Holocaust deniers (and, later, "If 400 holocaust deniers have form a 'consensus' that inconvenient truths about the Holocaust should be purged because they violate WEIGHT or disagree with the expert opinion of their own experts, that is NOT justification for deleting FACTS."
• Describes the consensus against her edits as "false" and simply evidence of sockpuppetry
• Responds to requests for constructive engagement by insisting we use her version as a starting point: , , ,
• Following a 3RR block, makes an unblock request which consists mainly of personal attacks: ,
• Launches a content RfC with a highly polarized and inflammatory framing question

1. WP:Talk page guidelines

• Retitling talk page threads to attack other editors (and again)

1. WP:V

• Dismisses a review article from Annals of Internal Medicine as the work of "an aging abortionist trying to encourage other doctors to join the club"
• Continuously denigrates the New York Times and PBS as "biased" pro-choice sources (), while simultaneously adding material sourced to priestsforlife.org or other partisan newsletters to "balance" them.
• Bad-faith misrepresentation of sources

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

• ,

1. WP:USERPAGE

• Turns her user talk page into an inflammatory POV fork of the disputed article: "I do not want any of the POV pushers who are into purging verifiable information to alter this draft. This draft is only for those who truly wish to collaborate on an objective article... I have mostly concentrated to date on inserting missing material rather than cleaning up some of the nonsensical inferences which appear to have been inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns." This draft is still up at User:Strider12/Draft, with its header describing those who disagree with Strider12 as "high school students or Planned Parenthood interns".
• Compiling evidence of "disruption" at User:Strider12/Disruption. This page has been up for a month, in violation of WP:UP#NOT, and there appears to be no intention of pursuing DR on Strider12's part in the near future (see this discussion).

1. WP:Wikilawyering

• In response to a 3RR block: , ,
• Endlessly cites ArbCom principle that "Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive" to mean that anyone who reverts her edits is de facto disruptive (ignoring the fact that the very dispute is over the neutrality of the narrative). See , for example.

1. WP:COI

• I raised my concerns about a relevant conflict of interest directly here. Strider12 responded by suggesting that 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."

1. WP:Tendentious editing

• Repeating the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone ()
• As per all of the above, Strider12 fulfills nearly all of the Characteristics of problem editors.

1. WP:SOAP

• Strider12's edits are virtually all to 2 articles: abortion and mental health and David Reardon (see edit counter). Anyone willing to wade through those article and talk page histories will see that she is here on Misplaced Pages with a single purpose: to advocate as forcefully as possible for one side of a single highly contentious issue. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for advocacy.

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

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.