You can buy a 1993 paper on this exact topic for $15. It argues that “if he would have” was at that time entering the mainstream. It's true that the phrase gets 185 million Google hits today. Here's one:
Shaq said, if he would have not fell asleep the night biggie got hit up, maybe he could have saved his life.
This is definitely non-standard. It seems like it might be dialect, not a typo or a random mental slip.
Say we simplify these a little bit:
If the president asks me, I will tell him the same thing. (correct)
If the president will ask me, I will tell him the same thing. (wrong)
It seems to me that conditionals have a slightly different grammatical “frame of reference”. In the correct sentence, even though both clauses are set at the same point in time in the same hypothetical, they have to use different auxiliary verbs to express it.
Careful, it's very subtle:
If that fixes the problem, I will do it. (correct)
If that will fix the problem, I will do it. (also correct! wtf?)
Here the two sentences have two different meanings. The will in will fix is all right because it actually refers to future time, a time further in the future than the will in I will do it. Similarly:
If that would have fixed it, I would have done it. (correct)
To sum up: English auxiliary verbs, whaddaya gonna do.
Now in a content clause—say, one that functions as the direct object of a verb like ask—the pattern if X would have is fine:
They asked if I would have done the same. (correct)
This isn't a conditional at all.