Looking at the edit history it doesn't seem like there's been many attempts at trying to revise her article to include her rape apologia, there was someone who made a post earlier on MensRights having their edit rejected for not including reliably published work by other people which seems consistent with how they conduct themselves across the site. The OP admitted he doesn't have an academic background and he also made four revisions in a very short time period before being blocked and having the article temporarily set to protected which tells me he didn't really put much effort into it.

​

The way I've usually seen it go is there's a 'Criticisms' section with outside references of the aforementioned. The only place I've personally seen an external criticism is on the AVFM website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is used by researchers so it makes sense that they uphold a standard. I do believe the mod is biased but there should be a well structured edit first before coming to the conclusion that the mod is allowing his personal politics to get in the way of contributing a revision to her page.

​

If someone would like to take a shot at it or provide some ideas that would be cool.