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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Statement by Commodore Sloat 2 Non-endorsement 3 definition of a personal attack 4 this RfC is not just about personal attacks 5 Some comments for Ombudsperson 6 from the wolfstar 7 archive?

[edit] Statement by Commodore Sloat

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 (Mr j galt (talk · contribs) / 24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs)) 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 Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) 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 Mr j galt (talk · contribs) 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)

[edit] Non-endorsement

I am troubled that there is no place for users to state disagreement with the arguments offered. The RFC states that only statements endorsing the RFC should be placed on the main page, that other responses should be directed to the talk page.

I agree that the user's behavior is disruptive. I would add to that, however, that we have many users who are somewhat disruptive, and at the same time, good editors, and knowledgeable editors. There have been several RFC's to that conundrum lately (especially since 1/1/06).

The claim,

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).

Is not unreasonable in and of itself. In fact, the reason we have a "Plame affair" to document at all is that classified information has been made unclassified. Furthermore, we live in a time when much that is classified is being "leaked" to the press. In fact, Porter Goss has made comments to this effect recently.

As Ms. Plame's "covert status" is no longer relevant, providing citations regarding her previous covert status should not be difficult. I think also that it is a misrepresentation to argue that the CIA has stated she was "covert" originally. This "affair" has been highly politicized. To state that Ms. Plame was "more covert" than she is now would be accurate. However, the degree of "covertness" (vocabulary seems to fail in this discussion, apologies) is the important metric. Without going into my own experience with classified data, I will state that there are many degrees of classified information. I don't believe that Ms. Plame was ... overly covert. Certainly if information about her status was circulating in public forums, her status as a covert operative was marginal at best.

Thus, I feel that stating she was not "covert" is a reasonable statement. We aren't talking about deep throat or Mata Hari here. Further, she was not engaged in typically "dark" activities. What was "covert" was her association with the Agency.

I think rather than discussing whether the point of Mr. Galt was reasonable or not, we should be discussing his behavior. I think, also, that the nature of the articles should not be discussed as it is unnecessarily polarizing. To mention that the user is only "reverting" (some would say "editing") articles relating to the Plame affair is to invite politicized debate on the subject.

Lastly, I very much disagree with the way this has been carried out. While I for one do not believe that "vote canvassing" is a problem, one could accurately say that it is a social more on Wikipedia. On my watchlist alone, two different requests for "neutral" participation in this RFC have been made. For shame. This is a lynching, based upon political beliefs. Other users have had disagreeable behavior and been given mentors, not blocked and strung up. Avriette 01:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The CIA requested a criminal investigation of the public disclosure of her affiliation. Why? Because that was classified. That would be the opposite of "overt", now wouldn't it. Some might even say "covert". But, whatever. Derex 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with your points regarding the 'Plame covert' issue itself, I agree wholeheartedly that we should be discussing Mr j galt's behavior, as that is indeed the point of a user conduct RfC. Is there a format or content you think should be utilized on the RfC to make it more fair, and not appear to you as a 'lynching'? I'd hate to think that was the general opinion of the RfC filed.

As far as 'vote canvassing', the point of contacting prior editors of articles around which the revert wars focused for their view of the conflict should be evident - you'll note the individuals I contacted spanned the range of POV's and opinions. However, Mr j galt, the subject of the RfC, left messages on 'talk' on over a half-dozen editors with whom the certifying users of this RfC were previously involved in disputes, asking their help in substantiating retaliatory RfC's. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't my job to make this a neutral process. It is yours. I don't have a personal stake in this other than to say what is on the main page of this rfc rather disgusts me. I would hope you would do your best to remove the lynching content yourself, and focus on the behavior, rather than the content of the articles. Focusing on the content (as you have most certainly done) only encourages people to weigh in on their side of the content, rather than the behavior. Why don't you see if you can address just the behavior, rather than the constellation of articles? Avriette 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To the very best of my knowledge, the content placed on the RfC is accurate, and accurately describes the user's conduct - can you help me understand how the RfC is overly focused on the 'content'? I really just don't see it. In addition, the RfC consists largely of the user's own words. That, to me, seems fair, and I do feel that I have done the required due diligence in making this RfC fair, to the best of any one editor's ability. If you have specific suggestions, I am more than happy to review them with you. Likewise, if assigning a mentor for Mr j galt will help the articles to stay out of bitter revert wars dripping with personal attacks, I am all for such a proposal. - User:RyanFreisling @ 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: I updated the RfC's description to more clearly address the conduct issues, while leaving the context of the original argument. I hope this is clearer, and speaks to your concern. I am appreciative of your valid feedback. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan; I do not see evidence of a "lynching" here. The only users contacted by Ryan for this RfC were users directly involved in the dispute. (Please note by contrast that Mr galt contacted a number of users that are uninvolved in this dispute in order to get their support for a retaliatory RfC). Please also note that this RfC was filed only after weeks of painstaking attempts by myself and by Ms. Freisling to ask the user to stop edit warring and to resolve the issues via RfCs on the articles. He was repeatedly asked to explain his edits, and repeatedly asked to cease the disruptive conduct. The content dispute was basically resolved between myself, Ryan, and editors who agreed with galt about Plame's covert status -- many of us agreed that the term "undercover" would be used more often and that there would be a section discussing the disputes surrounding the term "covert." The point that everyone except Mr galt seemed to agree on is that both positions should be represented here. Galt, however, refused to participate in a discussion that would lead to such compromise and instead insisted on his one-sided POV. On the Larry C. Johnson page, his behavior was even worse, as he continually took quotes out of context and deleted entire sections of the article, and his only explanation was to return to Plame's covert status, an issue that was entirely irrelevant to the dispute on the Johnson page. I have detailed much of this above. There is no way this could be considered a "lynching," no matter what your politics -- Ryan and I and others have tried over and over again to settle the content dispute without a conduct RfC, and this one was filed only after galt began edit warring the instant a page was unprotected.--csloat 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't particularly like doing a drive by...but, The only users contacted by Ryan for this RfC were users directly involved in the dispute. isn't correct from just my watchlist [1] Arkon 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I had thought him involved - when there are twelve separate articles involved, it gets difficult to keep all the evidence straight. Noosphere responded indicating he hadn't been involved in any of the articles. [2]. You will note, however, that Mr j galt has invited literally a dozen unaffiliated users to comment here. Thanks for the drive-by, though. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In Ryan's defense on this point, he invited me, and I have (generally) been on the other side of this debate. I think it's fair to assume good faith. (And I appreciated the invitation). TheronJ 15:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definition of a personal attack

A personal attack can also be a failure to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and accusations of vested interests tend to fall under that category. KDRGibby has contested this with his outside view, but I do not think this mitigates the existing complaint, nor has he provided evidence which excuses Mr j galt from the current accusations. Note that KDRGibby currently has a requests for arbitration against him. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!)

[edit] this RfC is not just about personal attacks

The personal attacks are symptomatic of a deeper problem, which is an unwillingness to resolve our differences through discourse. The problem is that this user runs rampant with reverts and does not bother to explain his edits with more than a sentence, and when his arguments are decisively refuted he repeats the sentence. I don't expect to change his mind about the content issues but if he is unable or unwilling to think of responses to the points made by others, he really should not be changing the pages. Moreover, he often deletes well sourced claims and quotations, refusing to explain these changes (and then accuses me of deleting things). The frustration that Ryan and I and have had with this user has come not from his personal attacks but rather this destructive behavior. Those who are saying we have "thin skin" aren't looking at the issues here -- I could care less if this guy wants to call me names. The problem is that he insists on running roughshod over the process of deliberation, which is what is supposed to take place on the talk pages.

I'd also like to thank User:Silverback for his input, and remind everyone that he was admonished by the ArbCom for doing the exact thing he is accusing me of doing.

I welcome anyone to inspect my edits in their full context as regards this matter. I think I have been very patient in my attempt to engage User:Mr j galt in discussion about these pages. It gets tiresome to hear the same argument over and over and over and over again after making several efforts to resolve issues by patiently explaining my arguments against his version of a page, offering sources to support my claims (sources which he consistently ignores or dismisses without reason), and engage in attempts to produce compromise versions of the page that present both sides (rather than pushing my POV, as he accuses me of). This RfC was not filed off the bat in a moment of pique; it was filed only after many attempts by Ryan and myself (as well as others on the various pages involved) to resolve these issues on the discussion pages. The pages were protected and RfCs were filed on each page and both Ryan and I explained ourselves and supported our points with evidence over and over again, and we were met with repetitions of the same argument. He ignored our explanations and refutations and refused to even entertain discussions of compromise versions of the page. So let's not boil this thing down to the "personal attacks" issue, when that is merely a symptom of the above problems.--csloat 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone over a lot of the edits surrounding this issue, because I have found it so disquieting. I personally find the edits here to be the most egregious of the series. To hear the same "argument" over and over and over again is not reason enough to describe somebody as editing in bad faith. You and I could discuss the position of Mercury as the first planet out from the Sun. Despite your arguing to the contrary, there is no possibility that I would concede that you were right. As such, you would hear the same argument, "over and over and over" again from me. In some cases, compromise is silly. Presenting a counter-viewpoint is even silly. Let me make another correllary in the "september 11, 2001" articles. While there are many conspiracy theories (making it a very good parallel to this dispute) surrounding those events, they have been universally removed from those articles, and placed in a tertiary article (of which Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks is one). Furthermore, that article is annointed with the onerous "{{verify}}" tag. By this mechanism, a conflicting viewpoint has been presented, and marginalized into an article with a template atop it that essentially says "these people are crackpots; don't bother to read this."

If you re-read your own comment, above, you may realize you are doing the same thing here:

There is no way this could be considered a "lynching," no matter what your politics ...

This, quite simply, says "if you disagree with my point, you are being irrational." I take umbrage at this approach, and I feel that this entire process is, as I said, a lynching. You've asked for comment (this is a request for... what?), and then replied that any comments aren't based in fact. That regardless of my take on this, your view is the more rational, and that you have more understanding of the situation. You have asked for outside views on this (well, let's be clear, you've asked only for "inside" views, in a process which invites outside views), and then you get such views, only to argue that they can't possibly be correct.

So what do you want, here? Outside opinion? Help in resolving this? Or to kick a user out of the community (or out of the discussion) who has clearly shown to be a useful editor (this recent edit strikes me as being a responsible, proficient edit. I offer that the only complaint that could be made is against content -- the user is clearly a good editor)?

The wikipedia is full of people who don't get along. The trick is to bring them into the fold so they can work together. I don't know how you would go about bringing this user into the project more successfully, but what you've got here isn't going to help. They're either going to leave, or become a real problem to the encyclopedia through vandalism or other disruption.

I don't think the organizers of this RFC have been fair at all. As an example, this edit seems little more than a thinly veiled threat.

I suggest all of you go back to the drawing board and try to work this out. Because there are more people on your side, you have taken that as freedom to suppress conflicting views. How could that possibly be good faith? Avriette 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To claim that this RfC as an attempt to suppress conflicting views, and simultaneously to claim that 'in some cases, compromise is silly' seems to me completely off-base. This RfC was brought after weeks of disruption, in which the user participated in argument and discussion until his points were refuted - at which point he then spread the contested edits to nearly a dozen articles. It is the user's disruptive behavior, and a seeming preference for revert warring over 'working it out', that is at the core of this conduct RfC. It's that simple. It's not political, as the user has alleged on numerous occasions with personal attacks against perceived political differences. And it's not personal - it's about the conduct on the part of this user on 3 articles thrown into protection, and the dozen or so articles that followed. No one is suppressing anything... that's why a user conduct RfC (which by definition invites comment) has been entered. Honestly, I think you are misrepresenting a great deal of what has taken place, and implying a lot of bad faith on the certifying users, in your insistence that this is a 'lynching'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Avriette, it's pretty appalling that you took one sentence I wrote out of context, interpreted it in the absolute worst possible light, and ignored everything else in order to accuse me of bad faith. After glancing at the "no liberals allowed" comments at the top of your talk page, it occurs to me that this is for you a political dispute. For me it is not -- I have been over and over the content issues with the user, as have other users, and he will not engage in civil discussion about the issue. That is the problem. This is not a question about Mercury and the sun; content-wise, this is a dispute about proper sourcing of information, and Ryan and I have provided the proper sources and he has consistently ignored them. That alone would not be problematic as conduct, if he edited in a civil manner; instead he has persisted in constant revert wars and other instances of disrupting wikipedia to make his point. You may agree with his point in all this, and that is fine, but it is the conduct that brought the RfC, not the content of his edits. And, in fact, we spent weeks and weeks trying to resolve this as a content issue rather than a conduct issue. Meanwhile, galt, from his very first edit on these pages made clear in his edit summary that this was a personalized campaign against me rather than an attempt to deal with content issues forthrightly.

Now, all that said, I am more than happy to deal with the content issues here separately and in a civil manner (on the proper pages). If you would like to explain on the Plame affair talk page (or wherever you like) why we should make the changes he suggests (including changes that, politics aside, are to me demonstrably destructive of readability), then we can have a rational discussion about it, and I would welcome such a discussion. In fact, I have welcomed such discussion and participated in it for weeks (months even, since his earliest edit on these things seems to have been Nov 10th) but have found no attempt on his part to engage in such discussion in a civil manner. And that's what this RfC is about, not your general feelings about liberals-as-lynch mobs.--csloat 21:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have requested comment. I have commented. I don't doubt that you disagree with my perspective on this disagreement. Presently I see no reason to elaborate on what I've said, nor to restate it. Avriette 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am appreciative of your comment, whether we agree or not. An honest thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments for Ombudsperson

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)

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)

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)

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)

I understand cstoat's frustration, but I generally agree with Ombudsperson that there has to be a better way. As far as I can tell, the core of this debate is that (1) jgalt will not accept any reference to Valerie Plame as "covert" and (2) cstoat and ryanf won't allow galt to remove the word "covert." Both sides are convinced that the other side's argument is sufficiently marginal as to be forced down the pages, and that the introductions, in particular, should be phased the way they think is correct.

I will say that cstoat and ryanf are much, much, easier to deal with on the talk pages though -- if jgalt approached this as constructively as cstoat and ryanf, I suspect the problem would have resolved. (All that waffling is why I haven't voted on the main page, btw). TheronJ 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from the wolfstar

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 thewolfstar 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Give me a break, you phony snivelling brat thewolfstar 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're vocabulary is impressive, remember WP:CIVIL. More to the point, what have I done to you that warrants such a comment? Nomen Nescio 10:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I think thewolfstar is suggesting that you have "sniveled" or are in some manner being a "brat". I offer no opinion on snivel, but I find brat an amusing, if not exaggerated characterization. As an aside, why don't you stop baiting your responses to thewolfstar? Merecat 13:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] archive?

This has been open almost 3 months. Time to die? Derex 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Turns out it already was archived. Maybe it needs to be protected. Derex 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)