Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Mr j galt

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
Since his first appearance aka anon  has concentrated his edits around the issue of Valerie Plame's covert status. He began by insisting that all the available evidence indicated she was not covert. When evidence indicating her possible covert status was presented, his argument shifted to requiring proof that in fact she was covert (demanding proof, in essence, of classified infrormation). When other users confronted him on the articles' talk pages, he revert warred and expanded the conflict, making the same contested edits to nearly a dozen Plame-related articles. Throughout the entire process of argument, he has consistently taken the approach of edit warring, personal attacks and incivility rather than discussion, and has not responded to the evidence presented - except to make the same contested edits and personal attacks again and again, and resuming his revert warring when contested pages were once again unprotected. Moreover, he has continued this behavior even after this RfC was filed, , a troubling sign that this user does not wish to reach a consensus. As this is a conduct RfC, at issue here is the user's conduct, not his opinion about Plame as he has expressed it in the articles involved.

Please note that a more detailed, cited narrative description has been written on this RfC's Talk page.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) ''Note: this section is under active editing.

NPOV / Revert Warring / Disruption of Wikipedia

 * 19 January (as anon):, ,
 * 21-22 January: ,,, (as anon)
 * 20-22 January:, ,, ,
 * 16-18 January (as anon):, , , ,
 * 21-22 January: ,, ,
 * 4 February (directly following the page's unprotection from prior revert war):, ,
 * 31 January: ,,,
 * 31 January: ,,
 * 31 January - 1 February: ,,
 * 31 January - 1 February: ,,,
 * 31 January:
 * 4 February: ,,
 * 5 February (after the filing of this RfC): ,
 * 31 January - 1 February: ,,
 * 31 January - 1 February: ,,,
 * 31 January:
 * 4 February: ,,
 * 5 February (after the filing of this RfC): ,
 * 31 January:
 * 4 February: ,,
 * 5 February (after the filing of this RfC): ,
 * 5 February (after the filing of this RfC): ,

Avoidance or abuse of article RfC and RfC process

 * (original text by csloat) His recent edits to Karl Rove, Downing Street Memo, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, James Marcinkowski, Non official Cover, and yellowcake forgery are all blatant attempts to circumvent the RfC on Plame affair, Larry C. Johnson, and Valerie Plame by spreading the disputed content to numerous other wikipedia entries.
 * As a result of this RfC, User:Mr j galt has, in an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, begun the unwarranted filing of meritless RfC's in retaliation against 2 of the certifying users of this RfC ,. In the message User:Mr j galt placed on a number of users' talk pages, he asks those users to participate in the various involved articles' 'talk' pages... not as a means of resolving the conflict, but as  'a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC'  (his words)., , , , , , , , , ,

Incivility and personal attacks

 * Hey, you just expressed your opinion. LOL! Please refrain from expressing your opinion on wikipedia. Unless I have stated otherwise, all of my edits have been factually justified.--Mr j galt 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as I suspected. You can't give any specifics because every point was addressed. Watch for my revert!--Mr j galt 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Yet another form of harrassment from Ryan Freisling. I will add any abuse of the RFC process to the POV violations, the original research violations, and the wikistalking violations in Ms. Freisling's conduct RFC. --Mr j galt 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Commodore Sloat believes wiki is to be used as an extension of his anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-rightwing blog.[18] If Ryan Freisling's longstanding support for CSloat's POV pushing is not apparent, one needs only to review the "medal" that Ms. Freisling awarded to Csloat on his talk page.
 * ''I can plainly see that there is a left-wing bias in many wikipedia articles, but I find it hard to believe that the bias is so pervasive that the Arbitration Committee would attempt to block me for standing up to these POV bullies. We shall see . . . Let's roll!--Mr j galt 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (after confronted by another user for a personal attack) ''Thanks for the advice, Jacoplane. Although I do not believe being referred to as anti-Bush is a personal attack (many actually embrace the label), I will avoid referring to individuals as anti-Bush in accordance with your guidance and focus on their POV edits. If someone's edits are anti-Bush, I will call their edits anti-Bush, not the editor. Thanks again.--Mr j galt 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (troll parroting (bolded) and threatening retaliatory RfC) In fact, I have discussed specifics on every page I have edited. You have attempted to harrass me, stifle me, silence me, and engage in edit wars with me every time I have attempted to restore NPOV to an article that reflects your extreme POV. You have wikistalked me and you are now threatening me with a conduct RFC, a gross abuse of the RFC process. Your contributions are welcome, but if you persist in harrassing me, it will no doubt lead to an RFC on your conduct.--Mr j galt 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 
 * (personal attack, based on perceived political differences) ''User:RyanFreisling, I assumed good faith on your part until you resorted to edit warring, personal attacks, wikistalking, and relentless POV pushing. It is clear that you share csloat's POV. By giving csloat a hammer and sickle medal in August 2005 for "the fight against rightwing propaganda," it is apparent that you are not a neutral observer to csloat's POV edits on this page and others.--Mr j galt 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}


 * WP:POINT
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPA
 * and gaming of WP:3RR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Explaining bad faith edits that lead to another revert war by waffle iron
 * (User:Commodore Sloat) Apparently has decided to ignore Wikipedia policy on disputed content and circumvent the RfC on these pages. His recent edits to Karl Rove, Downing Street Memo, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, James Marcinkowski, Non official Cover, and yellowcake forgery are all blatant attempts to circumvent the RfC on Plame affair, Larry C. Johnson, and Valerie Plame 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. This is certainly grounds for a user conduct RfC; Mr j galt, I once again implore you to stop violating Wikipedia policies and engage in a civil discussion on these issues. Please revert your changes to those pages until the RfC process is complete. --csloat 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)'''
 * (User:Mr j galt's response to this attempt:) ''There is plenty of evidence of bad conduct on your part on this page and others to justify an RFC on your conduct. If that's where you want to go, we will do it together. I do not believe the RFC on this page prevents me from editing those pages. What policy are you referring to? I am new to wikipedia and I am unfamiliar with such a policy. Please cite it.--Mr j galt 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Name-calling and verbal abuse is not enough; you need to actually address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the WP:3RR and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. I see you engage in similar behavior on other articles according to what I see on this page. Your actions are destructive of wikipedia goals.--csloat 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC) csloat's talk page
 * (User:Mr j galt's response to this attempt:) ''My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as Commodore Sloat, attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. Larry C. Johnson is an obscure bit player in the Valerie Plame scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a covert CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. Commodore Sloat is a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. He writes an anti-Bush blog and has strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair : He even has a Plamegate poll![1] Commodore Sloat should not be editing wikipedia articles when he has strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (User:RyanFreisling) The edits anon continues to revert to have not been substantiated here. Please stop reverting en masse and make each edit separately, with corresponding discussion here on talk. What you have incessantly reverted has been refuted here in good faith by multiple editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC),
 * (User:Mr j galt's response to this attempt:) The changes were made by your fellow anti-Bush POV warrior, csloat, without consensus. Every point has been refuted here. The article should return to its prior state until a consensus is reached. I will also re-establish the NPOV tag which you have so rudely removed.--Mr j galt 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (also User:RyanFreisling) Re: Averting RfC. Please try to discuss the specifics of your edits on the relative 'talk' pages for the dozen or so articles on which you've been warring. Otherwise, the spiral of bad conduct and edit warring could lead us to an RfC. Your contributions are welcome, if they are factual and improve the article... please try to work collaboratively, instead of revert warring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)'
 * (User:Mr j galt's response to this attempt:) ''In fact, I have discussed specifics on every page I have edited. You have attempted to harrass me, stifle me, silence me, and engage in edit wars with me every time I have attempted to restore NPOV to an article that reflects your extreme POV. You have wikistalked me and you are now threatening me with a conduct RFC, a gross abuse of the RFC process. Your contributions are welcome, but if you persist in harrassing me, it will no doubt lead to an RFC on your conduct.--Mr j galt 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * waffle iron 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * User:RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * csloat 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (Please see my detailed narrative of events on the talk page.)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 *  Voice of  All T 23:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Derex see also this as part of wider pattern, when at most a tweak was needed. not sure npa was violated, but the other listed policies were. 00:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Kevin Baastalk 00:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC) He misrepresents information in a way that strongly favors a POV (for instance, toning down what critics mentioned in the article say), then pushes it as fact with a force disrespectful of the community.
 * Difficult editor to deal with; in particular, his sharp rhetoric as user:24.55.228.56 apparently became a major factor contributing to the decision by User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC to leave the Wiki. Ombudsman 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad faith accusation here. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly not willing to address specific questions and answers. When confronted with difficulties he will fall back on denial, shifting the goalpost or downright uncivil behaviour.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 19:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Calicocat 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC) There's no reason in the world any editor should have to put up with the kind of behavior exhibited by MJG; it really must stop.

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 (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by McClenon
I agree with some but not all of the concerns in this RfC. I think that there is a sufficient pattern of user conduct to be a cause for concern. I agree with a few of the criticisms of this RfC. In particular, I do not see a diff showing that anyone posted a polite suggestion to the editor in question to read the policies on edit warring and civility. I do see posts in which he was asked to "stop the nonsense". Those were efforts to resolve the content dispute, but they themselves were not exactly civil.

In response to Gibby's statement that there have been no personal attacks, I will not say that there have been no personal attacks, but I will say that I did not see evidence of personal attacks. I did see serious violations of civility by this editor, as well as some (less serious, but still real) violations of civility by the certifiers.

What I do see is a refusal to work toward consensus, in spite of requests by the certifiers to do so, and a refusal to discuss POV and NPOV issues in good faith.

I saw a long pattern of changing references to Valerie Plame from saying that she was a "covert CIA operative" to saying that she was a "CIA officer". Her actual status is, of course, a matter of dispute. Making those changes was itself a content dispute. Repeatedly making those changes without discussion is edit warring. However, at one point, this editor changed a mention of "the crime of identifying a covert CIA operative" to "the crime of identifying a CIA officer". There was no POV or factual issue there until he edited recklessly. There is no dispute of which I am aware as to what the IIPA says and so what is a crime. Identifying a CIA officer is not a crime unless she or he is covert. This edit indicates that he was simply editing all occurrences of a phrase without seeing whether they were correct in context. That sort of reckless editing is evidence of POV-pushing and edit warring.

There appear to have been insufficient efforts to resolve this issue prior to an RfC. Not all of the allegations in the RfC are substantiated. However, there are real issues, and the subject of this RfC needs to be more cooperative.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) TMac 05:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Calicocat 07:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Partial endorsement. Examples sufficient to show cuase for the RfC have, I think, been clearly and sufficiently established. That aside, you are right to suggest that notice taken of MJG's reckless editing, pov-pushing and edit warring which are all very counter-productive.  I hope punitive measures are not needed, but this user must change his immature ways.

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.''

From what I've seen the so called incivility and personal attacks are non existant. The complaining editors apparently have thin skin and do not handle criticism or disagreement very well. This complaint appears to be made to take up space and does not look legit.

For the record (and theirs) Incivility and personal attacks look something like this "You are a stupid moronic raving leftist retard" not "I think there is left wing bias". Please people, words having meanings, personal attack has a correct meaning, a meaning that is not used properly here.

I also do not find it objectionable to demand sources for material if the same was done to you.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Gibby 06:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Silverback 09:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) See my outside view comments below. --Ombudsperson 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Arkon 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) See my outside view below. --PhatJew 08:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Merecat 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Silverback
In my encounters with csloat he has been very territorial and inclined to claim his points haven't been responded to, when they have. And when you point out that they have been responded to, he has claimed that response wasn't good enough. Without other users to keep him in check, which often can't be done without revert warring, he will put false or misrepresented information into articles. I doubt he does this on purpose, because if you have enough reverts in your quiver he can be brought into conformance with the evidence, he just appears to confuse his POV with the facts and to make false accusations of bad faith.

I can document the specifics herein. With csloats history in mind, visitors should refrain from forming conclusions from selected snippets of evidence without fully immersing themselves into csloats web of territorialism.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) --Silverback 09:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Evensong 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Merecat 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Ombudsperson
First, I want to say that I have a strong distaste for conduct RFCs. There is absolutely nothing good that will result from this or the other expected conduct RFCs on Commodore Sloat and Ryan Freisling. This is not a productive way to resolve differences.

Second, the dispute resolution process was never followed in this case. The Wikipedia Policy on resolving disputes states that "If talking to the other parties involved fails, you should try one of these four methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved." They are: 1) Informal Mediation, 2) Discuss with third parties, 3) Conduct a survey, and 4 Mediation. None of these methods was followed.  Commodore Sloat and Ryan Freisling should have followed the Wikipedia policy for dispute resolution instead of using this misguided approach.

Third, I can find absolutely no evidence at all of a personal attack by Mr J Galt. Not even close. Another charge that has been made here is that Mr J Galt does not discuss his edits on the talk page. However, a review of his edits to date shows that more than half of his edits are on article talk pages. As for arguments that Mr J Galt is "edit warring," Ryan Freisling and Commodore Sloat are just as guilty. It takes more than one party to engage in an edit war.

Finally, more troubling than the accusations here is Mr J Galt's charge that he is being "wikistalked" by Ryan Freisling. I sincerely hope that is not true. Also, if indeed Commodore Sloat has a political blog on which he discusses the same topics that he edits on Wikipedia, that certainly raises a red flag.

I do not endorse or support this RFC. I recommend that Ryan Freisling and Commodore Sloat go back and follow the dispute resolution process instead of trying to gang up on an editor who disagrees with them.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) --Ombudsperson 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Arkon 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) RonCram 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) OnceBitten 00:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) thewolfstar 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Merecat 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Tbeatty 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside View of RonCram
I cannot endorse this RFC either. My experiences with csloat and Ryan Freisling have usually been unnecessarily confrontational. Both csloat and Ryan have a particular POV that is anti-Bush and they are loath to allow any information into any wikipedia article that is favorable to Bush, no matter how relevant and well-sourced. csloat and Ryan have both acted in a derogatory manner to many editors and chase many of them away from wikipedia. These people simply figure "With people like csloat and Ryan around in revert every entry, why bother to try to bring balance to this article?"

Ryan and csloat have been editing a long time and have wikipedia administrators who share their POV. This makes it difficult for anyone in dispute with them to seek mediation. As long as they are allowed to continue chasing off editors who wish to seek balance, csloat and Ryan will continue to make certain wikipedia in an unbalanced source of information.

This RFC is the result of a certain perspective. csloat and Ryan seem to think they can and should control what people know and think. Not only do they disagree, they are insulting about it. After reading some of the interactions between csloat and Mr j galt, I believe Mr j galt has shown restraint while being persistent.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with RonCram 13:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)):
 * 1) RonCram 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Evensong 14:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) thewolfstar 09:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Merecat 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside View of PhatJew
I have not have any experience with the complainers, but from reading some of the links it wasn't hard to see that they are making the situation worse and would be doing that elsewhere. Even in the links they provide, the evidence of their own personal attacks is clear. This looks like a case of someone trying to tone down a politically charged page and being thwarted by biased crusaders, leading to frustration and everything that goes with it.

Clearly, there are problems when there are revert wars over "concerning the unauthorized disclosure" and "concerning whether there was an unauthorized disclosure." The assertion that there was a crime committed is nowhere near NPOV when there is an ongoing investigation in an article about a political scandal. The complainers are pushing a PoV and thwarting attempts to make the article have neutral language.

I do not support this RfC. I think some cooler heads need to take interest in the page.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) -- PhatJew 08:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- thewolfstar 10:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Merecat 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside View of thewolfstar
I do not support this rfc on my experience with the editors that requested the rfc. They are exclusive and territorial in their editing. They flip out on the arrival of anyone who is not in their little cliques. they tend to accuse these 'invaders' of the very things that they themselves do. They use nasty underhanded maneuvers to rid themselves of their perceived threats. I, frankly have lost so much faith in them as a group, I would doubt everything they say. I know this a terrible thing to say. But fact is fact. thewolfstar 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Merecat 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside View of Merecat
As I see it, this RfC is simply a petty and vindictive effort being advanced by a small group of anti-Bush POV editors. Of these signing above, Ryan, Nescio, Kevin, Csloat and Derex are several with whom I have interacted with unpleasantly. Of them, I've found Derex to be the most overtly rude - just recently Derex called me an idiot in great detail on my talk page. Prior to that, he's made other overt insults. This most recent one appears to be because I contradicted his edit at Killian documents, though it may also have been him complaining about Plame affair, he didn't say. Kevin has spent much time coordinating complaints against edits of mine - that can be observed at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Csloat I have less experience with, but I see argumentative bias in his dealings towards me. Of the these I mention by name, by far the most difficult to communicate with is Nescio. At just about any political related article he edits, if you oppose any of his edits, conflict results. See the full edit history of Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Regarding Ryan, I wish Ryan did not hobnob with these others so much. Sometimes Ryan actually makes thoughtful points. However, it seems that when this mob gets worked up with complaints Ryan goes along for the ride - and even makes (I feel) unhelpful attempts to pile on complaints. Suffice it to say, these editors who I mention by name, are the same basic group that's trying to bully me regarding political edits as well. See Requests for comment/Merecat for more details. The only thing I would say is that all editors have to stop being so quick to whine and cry about others who edit political articles. There will always be conflicting emotions and conflicting facts at such articles. If Mr j galt has been harsh on some talk page or edit summary comments, then he should apologize and be more careful. However, this group's track record of harassing other editors with trumped up RfC complaints so as to bully opposing views into silence is very troubling. Of all the complainers here, I am most disappointed with Ryan. Ryan should know better and should not be stooping to these petty and vindictive tactics. Merecat 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) thewolfstar 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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.