Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KarlBunker
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC).
- KarlBunker (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
[edit]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
[edit]{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} For about a month, Karl has been forcing his opinion on Wikipedia's paranormal-related articles. He refers to the rules when it suits his proposes. He's not afraid to contradict himself; he outright violates policies and guidelines such as WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:WEASEL and WP:CN. A request for mediation has been filed to deal with the content part of the dispute.
Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit](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.)
- reverting good faith edits
- reinsertion of weasel words
- forcing his opinion into articles
- calling contributions "moronic"
- forcing a controversial paragraph into an article, that at the time, failed WP:V claiming it's "obviously" correct.
- removal of tags requesting citations; and again. He then replaced one of the statements after the editor gave up and removed it. (Note that one of the original statements was incorrect and needed to be investigated and cited: Talk:Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal#Mencken qoute and the other was a direct quote which was unattributed.)
Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit]{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
[edit](provide diffs and links)
- Talk:Telepathy (exchange of unfriendly comments
- [1]
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit]{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
[edit]Response
[edit]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:
Outside view by Themindset
[edit]This RFC is ridiculous. KarlBunker's edits have been reasonable, scientific, and NPOV (at most, one of his summaries was mildly rude). To say that a parlour game in the Victorian era supposedly involved telepathy is entirely correct - to phrase Wikipedia in ways that quantify unproven phenomena as fact, or matter-of-course, is abhorrent to the sensibilities of any encyclopedic-minded editor. As such, not only is KarlBunker to be commended for his staunch defense of NPOV in such articles, but Selmo should be censured for his/her inappropriate POV editing. Themindset 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Partially endorse - Karl shouldn't have contravened WP:CIVIL. Nor should he be commended for defending WP:NPOV, as pushing skeptism is no better or worse than pushing any other belief system. However, this RfC has not demonstrated significant unilateral wrongdoing on his part. Addhoc 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Outside view
[edit]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.
{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:
Discussion
[edit]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.