Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Mr j galt

message: I'm not sure if this goes on the main RfC page so I aim placing it here.  The problem here is that a content issue has become a conduct issue because the user involved ( / ) will not deal civilly with those who oppose his content changes.  There are two main content changes at issue:  (1) on the plame-related pages, galt insists on removing all evidence of Plame's undercover status prior to her outing, and (2) on the Larry C. Johnson page, galt insists on an inferior version of the page -- he deletes entire sections with valid content and claims he is making a POV edit.  
 
His edits have been challenged (primarily by myself  but also by other users on these pages) and I have attempted to explain carefully the reasons why I thought my version of the page was more accurate.  My explanations were met with name-calling.  His responses to my arguments were to ignore most of them, argue a tangential issue, and start a revert war.  After some back and forth on talk, I laid out some of my arguments for changing back to the original version of the page and even numbered them for his convenience.  I also offered to put the matter to a vote.  His response was to ignore this explanation and revert.  Another user stepped in to mediate, and User:24.55.228.56 made an attempt to reply to the arguments, but when these responses were refuted, he chose to simply revert the article again without addressing the refutations.  Another user reverted his reversion.  Then the anon user came back as  to revert (this is apparently his id for a long time here, but he had not used the account except once since it was created until now).  Again he made the reversion without paying attention to the arguments. 
One of the substantive issues he contested was a basic question of fact that is of relevance not to Larry C. Johnson, but it is of relevance to the other two pages Valerie Plame and Plame affair.  The issue is one that is easily verifiable, and I presented the evidence verifying the fact quite clearly several times.  Nevertheless, he continued to revert to a version of the pages that censored this information.  I offered on one of those pages a clear explanation of all the changes I was making to the page, point by point, again numbered for easy refutation.  Anon user selectively refuted these points, ignoring some of them, yet reverted wholesale (including an embarrassing spelling error and several grammatical errors in his reversions).  Several users (including me) responded to his responses and he ignored them, came back as User:Mr j galt, made a comment in talk about adding a NPOV tag, then reverted to his version of the page, spelling errors and all, with a cryptic explanation in the edit summary.
This conduct is out of control.  Obviously there will be disagreements on these articles, even about basic factual questions that are easily verified.  And sometimes arguments will get heated.  But it is difficult when one party refuses to make any arguments but insists on reverting anyway.  And when basic issues of fact are easily verified with reference to published sources (and the specific question of fact at issue was that Valerie Wilson was an undercover CIA agent according to the CIA), those facts should be clearly stated in Wikipedia, rather than hedged around with weasel words.  
I implored the user on his talk page to stop the bizarre conduct, and I noticed there that he has been asked by other users to stop similar behavior on other pages.
I started RfC's on all the contested articles - Larry C. Johnson, Valerie Plame, and Plame affair.  I wrote additional summaries of the issues at stake on each page.  Galt made an attempt to respond partially to one or two of the arguments concerning the reverts, but he ignored most of the arguments, he did not respond to the evidence put forth on any of the pages, and he reverted, with obnoxious edit summaries warning other editors not to revert his changes.  He has continued to do this while trying to stay under the 3RR limit -- sometimes switching between being logged in as Mr j galt and being an anonymous IP in order to stay under the limit.  He is also continually inserting disputed content into the page Template:Plamefull.  He refuses to discuss any of these changes beyong a cursory mention in talk; he does not respond to counter-arguments of any users, and he continues to arrogantly revert while claiming in the edit summary that his changes are justified in talk.  This behavior is incivil and insulting.  While he stays just under the 3RR in order to obey the rules (and to avoid being blocked), it is clear that he violates the spirit of that rule by making his point by revert rather than by trying to encourage consensus.  
All of the articles were protected as a result of the RfCs; for the past several weeks me and several other editors have been explaining and re-explaining to him why his deletions and reverts are unacceptable.  Rather than engage this discussion, he continually repeated the same two arguments over and over, condescendingly including a link to my weblog in a strange attempt to undercut my credibility.  He refuses to acknowledge evidence and analysis that doesn't confirm his own perspective and he continually and repeatedly quotes ambiguous texts and then indignantly claims these texts conclude a particular way.  He has been repeatedly asked to stop doing this.  Other users who agree with some of his points have stepped forward and made efforts to establish consensus (notably User:Evensong).  By the time the pages were unprotected it seemed that the other users had made some progress towards avoiding edit wars.  Mr galt, however, remained obstinate, and absurdly charged myself and User:RyanFreisling with being obstinate about these issues.  His favored tactic is to parrot the charges made against him in a condescending and sarcastic manner.
After several weeks of this, he apparently decided that instead of continuing the arguments on the disputed page, he would take the disputed information to other pages -- his edits starting on January 30th of Karl Rove, Downing Street Memo, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, James Marcinkowski, Non official Cover, and yellowcake forgery are all attempts to circumvent the RfC on other pages by spreading the disputed content to numerous other wikipedia entries.  This is a destructive and uncivil way to deal with disputes over content, and I feel that this has gone way beyond a content dispute and into a conduct dispute.
Furthermore, when one of the pages, Larry C. Johnson, was unprotected, galt immediately jumped in with a series of edits that reverted the page to a slightly changed version of the version he was edit warring with.  His version has been disputed and thoroughly discussed and he refuses to explain his edits in talk other than to call the old version "csloat's POV version."  
He also went to the Yellowcake forgery page.  I had made changes on it that were unrelated to the substance of the RfC on the other pages, and he reverted them all, with the cryptic explanation "restored deleted content" -- an odd explanation since his version actually deleted much content!  I carefully explained each of my changes in a detailed post about it, which he ignored, reverting, and then offered another cryptic explanation in talk under a new section heading that did not respond to a single one of the ten points I made in that post.--csloat 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Commodore Sloat

message: My apologies to everyone who feels we did not follow the proper process - it was my perception that we tried everything possible before taking this step, and I will gladly back off this step if others show how we can resolve this problem without it.  This is not something I wanted to do and I'm sure it is not something Ryan wanted either.  Going over your list, (1) was certainly tried to no avail.  Galt's response to this attempt to refuse to reply to the arguments and go ahead and revert anyway.  (2) was also tried on all the pages; there were several outside voices who tried to find compromises and common ground.  The RfCs on the articles were designed for that purpose.  I believe (3) was offered at one point but I can't find the diff yet, but if there is something we could survey that would lead to a resolution of this problem I would definitely participate and I would prefer that to this RfC.  The same with (4) -- please, if this RfC is not the best way to handle this, by all means let's find another way.  I am appalled at being accused of wikistalking or lynching -- this user was picking a fight with me from the very beginning for no reason other than a difference in POV.  This RfC was meant as a last resort, not a first, and I hope people can understand that regardless of political differences.--csloat 21:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that a peer review (by parties uninterested in the content of the article group) would be helpful, and possibly seeing if Galt would accept a mentor to help them better fit in. Thoughts? Avriette 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds productive to me.  By the way, I'd like to add that the substantive content issue has been settled thanks to a the release of documents substantiating that the Special prosecutor has indeed made a clear and direct finding that Plame's status was "covert."  I hope this will end the nonsense as far as the content issue goes; if Mr galt can be persuaded to stop edit warring and to actually keep an open mind towards evidence that contradicts his POV, then there should be no reason for the RfC.  As I said, this is not my preferred choice of manner to deal with this problem, and it is not likely Ryan's either.  So by all means, if a mentor will help the situation, let's have one.--csloat 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to comment that the matter might resolve itself now.  Galt seemed hell-bent on removing the word "covert" & synonyms (other than "classified"), and that seemed the root of the conflict.  Hopefully, with that bone of contention out of the way, he will be less frustrated & more civil. Derex 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments for Ombudsperson 

message: You people who harass, belittle, ignore, threaten, condescend to, insult, and use nasty tactical maneuvers against anyone who disagrees with you, and especially who write these nasty petty rfc's ought to be shot.
Why don't you grow up. You act like a bunch of priveleged spoiled children who throw tantrums when they don't get their own way. The thing that bothers me the most is the way you are collaberating together to destroy Wikipedia.You aren't going to get rid of me that easily so you may as well give up.Why not stop putting iron gates on your articles and listen to reason every once in a while? You may end up with better less biased articles.Take your medication and chill</font> thewolfstar 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing. However, you might consider less explicit language, since "ought to be shot" does not sound very civil to me. Sincerely. Nomen Nescio 09:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Wolfstar says that nescio 'ought to be shot', is 'collaborating to destroy wikipedia' and 'a phony snivelling brat', and you're amused - but nescio asks 'what have I done to you that warrants such a comment?' and you are genuinely concerned that nescio may be baiting? Tsk. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from the wolfstar 

message: This has been open almost 3 months.  Time to die? Derex 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The conflicts over which this RfC was started appear to have been resolved a while ago.  It seems that certain users revived this RfC in order to make a point.  Galt has been back since the RfC, and has been up to his old tricks (this time gaming the 3RR over an article he showed no evidence of having bothered to read, apparently to support  -- see the April 4-9 edit summary for Operation Iraqi Freedom documents as well as the Larry Johnson history).  But these have been hit-and-run attacks; while annoying, I'm not sure they justify continuing the RfC.  My preference is for galt to actually discuss the issues on talk reasonably.  He might learn that those he disagrees with are as anxious to avoid POV bias in the articles as he is.  But he seems much more driven by personality here than by concern for the quality of the articles.  In any case, however, I think this RfC should have been considered closed a while ago.--csloat 18:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out it already was archived.  Maybe it needs to be protected.  Derex 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive?