Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/KarlBunker

Hello, I've previously been involved in what could be regarded in a favourable light as informal mediation with Karl and I was nearly but not quite an advocate for Selmo. These comments are however just as a very ordinary editor.

My comments regarding the evidence presented so far:


 * reverting good faith edits - a single revert does not infringe any policy, guideline or essay.
 * reinsertion of weasel words - entirely appropriate, because this game may or may not have involved telepathy.
 * forcing his opinion into articles - again entirely appropriate.
 * calling contributions "moronic" - ok, a single infringement of WP:CIVIL.
 * forcing a controversial paragraph into an article - introducing verifiable information without a citation doesn't infringe policy.
 * removal of tags requesting citations - other citations provided this information, so not a policy infingement.

Overall, I would suggest you have produced evidence of a single infingement of WP:CIVIL, which isn't sufficient to sustain a RfA. Addhoc 13:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem with #2-3: the word "supposable" has been badlisted.-- Selmo  (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would comment that WP:WTA gives examples of acceptable uses and this would qualify. Regardless, you don't have enough to sustain this RfC. Addhoc 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)