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: 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC).

• Martinphi ( talk · contribs · logs)

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

The user has demonstrated a clear pattern of tendentious editing on paranormal-related articles. It has become a chronic disruption on multiple pages, and there appears to be no end or even slowdown in sight: out of the user's 1300+ mainspace contributions, quite literally 100% (correction: 11 edits to the articles on Monument Valley and Navajo Nation were located, making the true figure 99.15%) have been on articles relating to parapsychology or the paranormal. In a significant portion of those, the user has been involved in content disputes.

Desired outcome

Ideally, the user will agree to drastically alter his editing practices to be more in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. Failing this, it should be sufficient that the user be admonished to significantly reduce (if not end) his participation in all articles related to parapsychology and the paranormal. He certainly has other interests and should contribute to articles related to those.

Description

The user

• consistently seeks on multiple articles to have parapsychology described in a way that is favorable to his POV (primarily via (1) having articles speak of parapsychology as a scientific field and (2) having articles speak of "psychics" as if their abilities are real—both extremely controversial views, to say the least).
• engages in POV-forking
• selectively applies WP:ATT and WP:CITE so as to achieve this goal.
• directs new users who are likely to be sympathetic to his views to an off-site, Wikipedia/paranormal advocacy webpage. (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist#Welcoming new users)
• has created sock/meat puppets to further his views and circumvent 3RR policy.
• has repeatedly engaged in revert wars.
• is chronically involved in content disputes.
• most recently made an unscrupulous attempt to get another user blocked based on a false allegation of 3RR violation.
• has created an essay detailing what seems to be his philosophy of editing articles, much of it in conflict with wikipedia policies and guidelines: User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer, which he has cited on article and user talk pages (update: this page has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer and Martin has moved the page to an offsite host and linked to it from his user talk page [1]). There's also a forking of wikipedia's NPOV policy in his userspace, although it is unclear what the intention of it is described by Martinphi as "Experiment to see how NPOV might work on another site or section of Wikipedia." [2]: User talk:Martinphi/NPOV The page has since been deleted at his request, but admins should be able to view the content that was there.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [3] sock or meat puppet created to advance his positions (resulted in indefinite block of sock account)
2. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] modifying sentences to insert positive appraisal or legitimacy to claims in/about parapsychology/the paranormal. Additional recent example at Dowsing: [13]
3. [14] [15] [16] edit warring on the crop circles article (did not result in block)
4. [17] welcoming a new user by directing him/her to off-site material warning parapsychology proponents about individual Wikipedia users and articles on the paranormal
5. [18] [19] [20] vowing to continue distributing the URI and accusing an involved admin of vandalism. Additional defense of the advocacy: [21]
6. [22]POV fork created, complete with an original title of " Criticism and response in parapsychology" and rebuttals of strawman arguments. Additional POV forking by insisting that information positive to parapsychology remain in the main article [23] while criticism stay in a separate article.
7. [24] enshrining his own position into a guideline by adding an example to WP:WTA related to crop circles while being involved in a dispute on the crop circles article
8. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] the edit war that ensued (did not result in block)
9. [31] [32] cherry-picking all and only the entries related to parapsychology for citation requests and later removal despite the problem being endemic to virtually all entries on the list
10. [33] the edit war that ensued (resulted in block)
11. [34]Attempting (3 days after his own 3RR block expired) to get a user blocked by alleging violation of 3RR on the basis of five reverts made, in different sections, over the course of two weeks. He later claimed to have not expected the report to be acted upon even before he filed it. In giving his reasoning behind the action, he wrote that he filed the report against the other user "because past reports seemed to be a factor in my own blocking."
12. [35] removing "parapsychology" from a disputed statement and then removing the fact-tag, leaving the statement to cover another field
13. [36] shifting POV slant from anti-parapsychology to pro-parapsychology
14. [37] Insistence on defining a fringe topic with unproven existence with wording that makes it sound like it actually exists. [38] [39] [40] [41] Insistence that it's OK to have sentences (in this case the opening sentence of the article, defining the term, violating undue weight by presenting a fringe view first and the mainstream view later: "We should define it as being paranormal (and we can just say that is what it actually is, and then say it may or may not exist). Right?") that aren't NPOV as long as the other side is given later in the article. Also, insisting that "majority view" of NPOV is defined as a majority of those studying a fringe topic and not a majority of scientists in general, or a majority of the general public ("Ok, please consider me to be yelling now: the majority view, not the minority view but the majority view, is that EVP is paranormal.") [42] [43] [44] "apeals to the authority of the mainstream must be avoided." [45] [46]
15. [47] [48] Repeatedly removing info sourced to Time Magazine, saying it's not a reliable source (while using references to fringe publications)
16. Using "according to the PA..." as justification for using fringe definitions defining terms like Psychic as real phenomena. [49] Calling definitions from mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias "the definite minority", "misleading", "those definitions say something different from what they mean" . Again, [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] "demonstrably untrue", in reference to dictionary definitions: "Do you really want Wikipedia to promote bunk?" "You are also eliminating a really good generall policy: define the phenomena as real, then say that there is skepticism about it. It is just an invitation to weasels. It is what the skeptics have been trying to do on here for months, in an attempt to discredit anything and everything psychic." [56] [57] Many POV edits to Psychic trying to change the definition from a claimed power to one that actually exists: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] (via meatpuppet, circumventing 3RR) [64] [65] (yet another meatpuppet) [66] "This is a better version" [67] (describing the removal of "purportedly" as NPOV) [68] [69] [70] [71] , moving the info about the existence to a separate sentence: [72] [73] (via meatpuppet, circumventing 3RR) [74] [ [75] (here calling the inclusion of the mention that existince is disputed "pov pushing") [76] (again via meatpuppet) [77] (again calling his version NPOV), addition of three fringe sources to support his fringe definition and a fourth which included multiple definitions, more than half of which included "apparently", a term martinphi has objected to and removed as "NPOV": [78]. Note that this has been going on for months, it looks like Martinphi has been trying to redefine "psychic" as if it exists since last October [79]
17. Added (swapping out telepathy for the appropriate subject) "There is a consensus within that field that some instances of telepathy are real." to a number of articles. [80] [81] [82]
18. POV pushing on John Edward: [83] [84] [85] (in this case with the misleading edit summary "replacing image" when he's also making a controversial text change) [86] [87] [88]. With this article, Martinphi repeatedly objected to wording such as "author and television personality who describes himself as a psychic medium" and "self-described" claiming POV, although wording like "says" is recommended by wikipedia guidelines as the most neutral alternative per WP:WTA.
19. Fact tag bombing and refusal to correct items he says are wrong, "I'd fix more for you, but my edits are deleted on this article." "I won't fix it because my edits get deleted" (and other similarly uncivil edit summaries) seemingly to make a WP:POINT: [89] [90] [91] making one fix [92] [93] [94]; continued uncivil/sarcastic edit summaries: [95] [96]
20. Impersonating the boilerplate ID of Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism to make a point: [97]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:DE
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:3RR
4. WP:SOCK
5. WP:SPAM
6. WP:FRINGE
7. WP:POVFORK
8. WP:RS
9. WP:POINT
10. WP:SCIENCE (proposed policy, but still many relevant points)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. [98] Crop circles
2. [99] Electronic voice phenomenon
3. [100] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Simões ( ^talk/ _contribs) 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. I certify and agree with description of disputed behaviour. If martinphi were to admit that he hasn't been following NPOV and change his editing habits, I think proposed outcome above wouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately based on his comments here and continued actions I think any voluntary improvement on his part is unlikely. As long as the POV pushing and disruptive editing stops, I'll be happy. -- Minderbinder 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (updated -- Minderbinder 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse. Bubba73 (talk), 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse Vsmith 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse LuckyLouie 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse Fyslee 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse Belbo Casaubon 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse Michaelbusch 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Endorse -- Shot info 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Endorse the summary, give or take the odd word. Guy ( Help!) 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Endorse AvB ÷  talk 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Endorse in general, now that the desired outcome has been changed. I was unhappy about preventing an editor from editing a range of articles that he clearly feels strongly about. — BillC ^talk 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
12. Endorse Durova ^Charge! 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
13. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
14. Endorse, with the modification to desired outcome. Martin is not single-handedly responsible for the contentious state of the articles in question, nor is he the sole source of problems. However, he does need to make some changes in his general approach to Wikipedia to line up with the site's policies and guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
15. Endorse •Jim62sch• 22:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Endorse with some sympathy to MastCell's comment. I am still optimistic that if the user can be made to understand how policy in fact functions then many of these problems will go away. Also, some of his edits are good so I still hope that this user can be made more productive. JoshuaZ 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
17. Endorse ScienceApologist 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
18. Endorse per JoshuaZ. Jim Butler^{( talk)} 07:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
19. Endorse. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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.

I will address some of these in order.

1. It is incorrect that "Quite literally 100%" of my edits are in the paranormal.
2. I did not create a meat puppet. Another user did use my computer, and that user did agree with me. If this could be seen as meat-puppetry, then the issue is closed, as that user is no longer editing from my computer.
3. On this edit, since I had added the citation request, I felt justified in removing it when the content which needed citation was removed.
4. I have never engaged in POV-forking. This is one of the charges whose spuriousness would be easy to prove- if any evidence for the charge had even been offered, which I don't know that it has.

As for the others, this is an issue of whether the edits were in fact correct and whether they were NPOV. If anyone wants to take up the issues, I'll try to respond. I believe I adhere to NPOV strictly, even when it is not convenient to do so.

Left out are many of my edits which actually promoted inclusion of the skeptical viewpoint. I know this viewpoint better than most skeptics, and where it is needed, I have inserted it, in a fair manner, as on the article Controversy in parapsychology. If you want to see my version, which was in the wrong format, go back a ways. But you will see that I fairly represent the skeptical view.

I did not add the sentence to WP:WTA till after the offending sentence had been removed, if my memory serves. I feel that was fine, as it was a good example.

"Cherry-picking parapsychology entries for citation." Since most of the list falls within the obvious pseudoscience designation, or has scientific consensus behind, it, these were the main things which needed citation. I could have included others, but I felt that in order not to be disruptive I would only request those things about which there was some doubt in my own mind. If this is wrong, I will be glad to put citation requests on all the other items as well.

As far as warning others about the abuses of skepticism on Wikipedia, I am guilty as charged. I welcomed a new editor who I noticed was already in some contention (due to her extreme POV editing) with a skeptical, and very experienced, editor who uses the Wikipedia rules to advantage, and so I didn't want her to feel all alone. I directed her to a outside page which explicates some of the abuses on Wikipedia. This may and may not have been the right thing to do. The admin who took the entry out of the user page cited no rules which I broke, but left a rather abrupt entry on my talk page. His revert of the user page seems to me to fall under the heading of vandalism. If I broke any rules, I am not aware of them.

I believe that there is significant POV bias in paranormal articles on Wikipedia. It has been my experience that when citation requests for this material are inserted, they are almost never provided, which suggests that I am correct that these are merely POVs.

I suggest that this edit is a good example of many of the things I do on Wikipedia: I simply gave adequate attribution. This is seen as POV, but what would a skeptic think of a parapsychologist who was described in a similar way?

I do not know what sanctions may be enforced, but I will state now that I will, if I can, continue to NPOV articles on the paranormal. I will continue to insert citation requests where needed, I will continue to challenge POVs wherever they assert themselves. This should not be seen as disruption. It is merely following NPOV and ATT, and asking that others do the same.

I would ask whoever comments on this to actually follow the links above, such as this, and notice how my edits are the more NPOV. Notice also that these were the best Simoes could come up with. Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I want to repeat that. Please follow all the links! I am proud of most of those edits, and if I'm going to be hung, I want to be hung proper! Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

My edits from here down inserted after Wooyi's endorsement below: Re uncivil edit summaries on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. It is a fact that it seems that nearly all actual edits I make to that page are automatically deleted. When I removed "cold reading" and other topics which parapsychologists would not say were part of parapsychology from under the heading "Parapsychology," even that edit was removed [101], even though the cold reading one was later acknowledged to not be part of parapsychology [102]. These and other reverts were made even though my edits were in accord with the facts, and also mandated by the tiering system used in that article per the sources given in the article. I also believe I mentioned some of these faults on the talk page. Because others seem determined to treat my edits there uncivilly and because they seem to revert without first evaluating whether the edits were good or not, I am reduced, through no fault of my own, to what is termed above "Fact tag bombing." This is not something which I did lightly, or willingly, or in a spirit of malice. I just don't know how to correct the article in any other way. Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you want to know the reason I am described as a disruptive editor? It is often because I ask for sources for controversial statements. Later, I come and take out the uncited material. Look at these edits [103] Granted, so many fact tags looks like overkill, but I didn't want it to be reverted when I came back and took it out. But, someone reduced the fact tags to 1, [104]. I later come and take out the uncited material [105]. JoshuaZ reverts me [106]. So I am forced to do this [107]. And hopefully, -one can always hope- someone will read the template when it says "Any unsourced material that has been or is likely to be challenged may be removed at any time." These people don't have the right to call me a disruptive editor. Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like to register my contempt -a word chosen with meditation- at the inclusion in the charges above of edits such as this which by not including this attempt to cast my edits in a negative light through cherry-picking the information. This is contemptibly biased behavior. Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Update April 13: Jim Butler seems to think that I was actually endorsing the use of the methods described by Tom Butler on his page. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would never endorse such tactics. Such tactics should never be used. Why anyone would think I have endorsed them is absolutely beyond me. Martin^phi _{( Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

{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:

1. Endorse -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with the Statement of the dispute. I've long had concerns with Martin's widespread and vigorous advocacy of paranormal/parapsychological POV on Wikipedia. His creation and posting of an article entitled "Criticism and response in parapsychology" [108] which was essentially his personal essay containing a list of critiques of parapsychology and refutations of each critique (using quotes favoring parapsychology to "answer" each criticism), seemed to indicate a gross misunderstanding of NPOV. Others felt that way as well, [109] and only after protestations from other users did he agree to modify the article title and format, however retaining a number of the original "defense of parapsychology" arguments within it.

Regarding his campaigning against WTA, it might be characterized as noble, but I see it all too often used by Martin as a tool for deleting NPOV qualifiers in the lead sections of paranormal articles, such as here: [110], where he relates that the reason for defining (a paranormal subject) within parapsychology was to get rid of such words as "proposed".

He also sought to further his advocacy of parapsychology by creating a category called "Pseudoskepticism" [111] and applying it to (paranormal) subjects, which, in his opinion, were subject to "abuses of skepticism". Despite non-support for such a category, he continues to tag articles [112] containing paranormal content which he feels are subject to unfair skepticism.

The fact that we differ strongly on how legitimate scientific research and majority scientific views differ from fringe views (and how these should be weighted in an article) has put us on opposite sides of the fence in the Electronic voice phenomenon article and its subsequent mediation. [113]

Since Martin's continuing advocacy of parapsychology and paranormal subjects affect large numbers of articles, guidance from the WP community and admins would be helpful. Thanks, -- LuckyLouie 05:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse. Bubba73 (talk), 16:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse Fyslee 17:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse Simões ( ^talk/ _contribs) 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse -- Minderbinder 17:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse -- 86.148.33.241 19:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse -- Shot info 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Endorse Belbo Casaubon 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Endorse JoshuaZ 00:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Endorse -- Pjacobi 11:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Endorse -- ScienceApologist 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've only been on Wikipedia for a short time, and even though Martinphi and I may disagree on a number of things, I would have to support a fair number of Martin's edits cited above. There seems to be a scientistic movement here at Wikipedia to make articles "more scientific" rather than "more neutral". Anybody who doesn't believe parapsychology to be a pseudoscientific load of rubbish (despite its marginal acceptance in academia) is accused of pushing POV. And unfortunately, most editors here don't understand the irony of that last statement.

Take a look at this edit. Saying that the Journal of the American Society Psychical Research (JASPR) is a 'journal of pseudoscience', in addition to being uninformative and pejorative, is simply false. JASPR is a peer-reviewed journal that contains articles on parapsychology, and yes, in addition to containing articles about history, phenomenology, and anomalous experience, it also contains articles of a scientific nature. Saying so is not pro-parapsychology; it is simply a matter of fact. I suspect that the person who wrote the edit before that never picked up a copy of JASPR.

And anybody who finds fault with this edit probably doesn't understand the difference between the reality of subjective experience as opposed to the question of whether an experience is objectively real.

As editors, we are told to avoid words like "alleged", "purported" or "supposed", so I can understand why Martinphi makes a habit of deleting them. These statements should probably be reworded entirely instead just having the words deleted, but I think they are still good faith edits.

As far as the arguments for cherry-picking and only editing parapsychology-related stuff, Wikipedia editors are here to lend their expertise. Of course Martinphi would take issue with the misrepresenation of subjects that he knows something about.

I can't attest to the validity of the other complaints, but I hope that other editors will recognize that many of the edits cited as evidence of disputed behavior reveal more about the prejudices and the presuppositions of the user(s) who brought forward this complaint then they do about Martinphi. The only thing I see him disrupting is other editors' scientistic agendas and their outright dismissal of subjects about which they have little or no expertise. -- Annalisa Ventola _{( Talk | Contribs)} 08:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse. -- Nealparr ^{( yell at me| for what i've done)} 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. -- Dreadlocke ☥ 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- Davkal 11:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. -- perfectblue 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse. -- Tom Butler 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse. -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a pretty serious action against an editor and it poses serious implications for Wikipedia. I do not see the names of Martin's accusers, but I am comfortable that they will include several members of the Wikipedia skeptics club. As stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Rational_Skepticism. they are a well organized cadre of editors who are determined to promote the Skeptical Dictionary point of view. Their style is to bully, be stubborn until the opposition resorts to edit wars, tag-team and find ways to deny sources that do not agree with their view.

An example of this is the introduction of editor, Mshyde, whom we later found had been previously banned. That one attacked by insisting that references such as skeptical dictionary be equal to science and references such as the society for psychical research not even be accepted. I was banned for a day because of my efforts to counter Mshyde and the others.

In another example, ScienceApologist came in with two different IPs, rather than his usual screen name, and refused to acknowledge who he was when Martin challenged him. His edits were especially aggressive while hiding behind the IPs and his choice of names for people and organizations were outright insulting.

The paranormal section is essentially a platform for skeptics to espouse their view of the world, and only a few editors have had the courage to take them on. It is impossible to seek an informed consensus in those articles without being a little aggressive, and the skeptical editors are very good at baiting people into edit wars. If you allow them to begin eliminating their opposition in this way, you will assure that Wikipedia is seen by the world as a skeptic's tool. Tom Butler 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse. -- Dreadlocke ☥ 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. -- Davkal 11:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- perfectblue 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

To further make my case that the skeptical community has mounted an organized effort to disable paranormal "proponent" editors, I see that some person calling himself "Guy" has been called in by the skeptics to get rid of one of the last remaining "proponents."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon&diff=119554638&oldid=119554067 "At this point I think the arbitrators will reject the case. I suggest an RfC, and if Davkal does not quickly show signs of willingness to accept others' perspective on his work, which at present he appears to reject, then we should simply take this to the community sanction board and go for a community editing restriction or ban. Simple cases do not require extensive processes. We have restricted less bothersome users from editing nominated articles before now. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

Davkal is also aggressively seeking a fair representation of these subjects, and the measure of his aggressiveness is a function of the refusal of the skeptics to seek a compromise. If Martinphi and Davkal are both barred from participating in paranormal edits, then there cannot be any doubt that Wikipedia is in the hands of pseudoskeptics. Tom Butler 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

This whole issue with Martin's aggressive editorial style is a symptom of a much more insidious problem with Wikipedia. I have also found myself becoming aggressive, and because for me it was like arguing with pseudo-intellectuals who were in control but with whom there was no possibility of reaching an informed consensus, I no longer edit in the article that is most important to my field of work. I also authored the article at Etheric Studies, and if you can find something that is not factual about it, I will change that part. I look forward to taking it down entirely as a "no longer the case" article. It was written as my only way to counter the misinformation written about EVP in Wikipedia and to protest the fact of who is in control, of the encyclopedia. Absolute refusal by the skeptics to reach a fair consensus left me no choice since I have no citizen's voice in Wikipedia.

There is an assumption amongst some that all of the paranormal subjects are impossible, can't be, and therefore, cannot be supported by good science. This faith-based view is resulting in edits to paranormal subjects that go way beyond simply pointing out that the beliefs or practices are just those held by those who believe or practice them and are not held by the majority. Instead, the edits cast doubt on the sanity of "proponents," their ability to be critical thinkers and the wisdom of anyone reading the article if they think these things may be true.

No one can reasonably argue that the skeptical editors are not well organized and dominant in these edits. I have shown that skeptical sympathizers are some of the administrators. That is why I say I have no citizen's voice other than to "howl at the moon" as I am doing here. Is it no wonder that the few "proponent" editors who dare to contribute here have learned from the skeptic to be equally aggressive. The only difference is that it is the skeptics who are going to write the history of this battle and will undoubtedly show that Martin must learn to agree with the skeptics or he must go. Tom Butler 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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.}

I've agreed with Martinphi on several occasions and have disagreed with him on other occasions. In each of these experiences, I have found that he is always willing to take it to the talk page. That's been my observation in each case. He might make edits that people disagree with. But the point is that he is always willing to discuss his edits and work with the person who raises an objection. If he just went around making edits and being disruptive, that'd be one thing. A difference of opinion is an entirely different matter. Those are my past experiences and looking over the edits linked to, I see a lot of discussion and trying to work with people. That doesn't seem disruptive, but more a difference of opinion.

I also wanted to mention that in many of these cases the dispute was over words like "claimed" and "alleged" or similar harsh wording. Though Martinphi removed these words based on words to avoid guidelines, and that some feel that's an abuse of the guidelines, it's been my observation that removal came only after months of trying to work with editors to use softer alternatives that aren't in the words to avoid. Claimed, alleged, and so on are harsh POV words. Even when a compromise was suggested, edits changed them back to alleged and claimed directly after.

My observations from the somewhat outside is that there does seem to be quite a bit of disruptive behavior on these articles. However, this disruptive behavior involves many editors pushing various points of view and opinions, strong points of view that aren't neutral at all. Singling Martinphi out as the cause of all this disruption is ignoring what is really going on: A lot of POV pushing by a lot of editors. Some editors, not all, have engaged in the same practices they are criticizing him for.

I feel that the requested outcome is much too strong, especially for the reason below.

Parallel dispute resolutions

I am a third-party to most of these disputes, however in the interest of disclosure, I do sometimes agree with Martinphi's reasoning. Definitely not always, but sometimes. I've also participated in at least two of the articles used as evidence, mostly to help it along towards neutral wording. I have no strong opinion on the outcome of any of the disputes listed, however, except for this RfC where the requested (a possible) outcome is for Martinphi to be directed to not participate in the discussions at all, versus some softer request like being directed to follow guidelines as they are perceived by the complaining parties.

Having read over more of the edits being used as evidence, there's an apparent (there's a possible) conflict of interest (impact on parallel dispute resolutions) that should definitely be considered. Many, if not most, of these edits are differing opinions of Wikipedia guidelines. Some of these disputes have even gone to mediation. There's two sides in this mediation and endorsements of this complaint are coming from editors on one side of it.

The requested (possible) outcome of this RfC is that (he might be "admonished to significantly reduce (if not end) his participation in all articles related to parapsychology and the paranormal. He certainly has other interests and should contribute to articles related to those").

"It should be sufficient that the user be admonished to significantly reduce (if not end) his participation in all articles related to parapsychology and the paranormal. He certainly has other interests and should contribute to articles related to those."

It's being asked that he refrain from editing these articles, and that request was endorsed by editors involved in the parallel dispute process, despite such action circumventing the mediation that is, again, going on elsewhere. In addition to the mediation, it's been asked that [114] it be moved to arbitration. The requested (possible) outcome here would (might) penalize the other half of the editors that would be involved in that arbitration (mediation or future arbitration).

The requested outcome circumvents normal dispute resolvement by barring Martinphi from participating in the articles and disputes. This mediation involves other editors besides Martinphi, and they would be penalized as well through the requested (possible) outcome of this RfC. It is unfair to at least in part determine a dispute that many editors are involved in by trying to remove one of them through an RfC, as the requested outcome asks.

The requested outcome doesn't ask for Martinphi to be directed to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't ask that he be warned of possible penalties of disruptive action (if any). It asks specifically that he be reduced or removed from editing the articles completely. This RfC, whatever its original intent, has become a dispute resolvement forking that (if the requested outcome were fulfilled) would obviously help the mediation along in the complaining parties' favor, despite that mediation involving editors other than Martinphi who share his position.

That's an apparent (That might be a) conflict of interest (There may be an impact on parallel dispute resolutions involving other editors besides Martinphi that share his position.), or at least it's apparent to me and I believe anyone who would look at this RfC request who isn't directly involved in the disputes. It may not be the original intent of the original complainer, but this RfC has become a dispute fork through endorsers of the complaint. I've asked that the original complainer, or anyone, soften the requested outcome to simply remove the conflict of interest (not to prevent the RfC from otherwise continuing) and so far there's been no action to do so, eventhough the dispute resolvement forking has been clearly pointed out and suggestions offered.

The requested outcome could be something other than removal from the mediation. There's a number of ways this could be handled that are not conflicts of interest or dispute resolvement forking. It's an apparent lack of patience and an extreme way to get what the endorsers of the complaint want, when the first thing requested in a mediation is patience.

See additional comments on the talk page of the RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi#Possible_conflict_of_interest

The mediation that involves many of the editors who endorsed the complaint: [115]

[Updated by strikethroughs per compromise, and reworded to more accurately reflect current situation.]

-- Nealparr ^{( yell at me| for what i've done)} 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse. -- Dreadlocke ☥ 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. -- Davkal 11:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- Tom Butler 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. –  Lantoka ( talk) 03:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I note the following from the guidelines of this page:

“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 [to resolve the dispute].

Firstly, it is hard to see how much of this is confined to a single dispute. The diffs listed point off to a variety of articles and talk pages, and following them, in many cases, leads only to some obscure or trivial word change here or there which in no way I can see could count as evidence of disruptive editing or POV pushing. There seems, then, to be a significant number of different disputes here, perhaps with a common theme perhaps not, which could only be counted as being the same under a heading such as “I disagree with Martinphi’s general outlook”, or some such thing.

Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence of efforts to resolve “the dispute” is conspicuous by its absence. All we have are links to three talk pages. And all these seems to show is that the complaining editors have made a number of points on those talk pages (some silly, some serious, some offensive, some tendentious, some obviously wrong, some obviously right, some aimed at Martinphi, some not) and Martinphi has not immediately agreed with these points and acknowledged what, in their eyes, is the error of his ways.

However, when one looks at those talk pages in more detail it is hard to resist the conclusion that Martinphi has got it (partially) right. For example, on the EVP and Crop Circle pages there is a constant claim being made that the current “scientific consensus” is X. This is the consensus that Martinphi is accused of riding roughshod over in his attempts to push a minority POV. The problem is, however, that it is well known (and often admitted by the accusing editors only a few lines previously) that there is no scientific consensus on these topics. For example, on the EVP talk page, one sceptical editor wrote “Science has not considered EVP. Science has not accepted EVP. Science has not purchased or subscribed to EVP. Science has not disproved or adopted EVP. Science has not respected or cooked a meal for EVP. Science has not been returning EVP's calls.” And yet, in the article at that very time we had the claim that “there are scientific explanations for EVP events”.

What is happening here, then, is that (pseudo)sceptical, certainly non-scientific, speculation (i.e., not by scientists, not in their field on expertise, not in peer-review journals) is being treated as the default mainstream scientific position and all the Wiki rules for the defence of mainstream scientific positions are being misused in support of what is, in actuality, a minority view – a minority view held by certain ideologically motivated groups and individuals. What Martinphi is trying to do in many cases, in my opinion, is to tone done the rhetoric and false authority/credentials which surround such claims. In this respect he is probably operating far closer to the spirit, and the letter, of Wiki law than those who accuse him.

Two further points on the talk pages (the supposed evidence of efforts to resolve the dispute). First: here, in their entirety, are the direct responses to Martinphi’s edits/points from the current EVP discussion page:

On reflection, I don't think Martinphi's contribution is at all bad. Let's see how others feel about it. SheffieldSteel 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I think you were absolutely right to put the paranormal before the skeptical. It's more in keeping with the wikipedia style. SheffieldSteel 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And both of these from the same sceptical editor.

Second: mediation has been requested on EVP and some of those who accuse Martinphi above are now trying to have the mediation stopped before it really starts.

In light of these points, it is hard to resist the conclusion that no real attempt has been made at (and in some cases things have been done to avoid) resolving these disputes. The current RfC is, as far as I can see, simply an attempt to have an editor who disagrees with certain other editors’ views removed from the debate. This in itself seems to me the antithesis of Wiki - the encyclopedia anyone can edit as long as they agree with me! Davkal 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Endorse. -- Dreadlocke ☥ 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. -- perfectblue 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- Tom Butler 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like to make one very strong point about this case. Most of the criticism of the user appears to be based on the fact that has trodden on skeptics toes by deleting weasel words, pointing out their own POV pushing, and requiring that skeptics provide a reliable and quantifiable grounds for their skepticism.

On the charge of dispute mongering. I have personally worked with the user on a number of drafts and have engaged in a number of fruitful talk page discussions. I find him willing to justify his edits and to discuss any issues that arise.

I have also reviewed his edits re:physics etc and I see little wrong with them. Few are over zealous, but many are POV removal, or the removal of loaded phrases designed to make it appear that there is a consensus against something, when there has been insufficient work done for a valid scientific consensus to be reached.

Now for the charges.

"having articles speak of parapsychology as a scientific field" Actually, this is a verifiable fact. If you care to check This page you will see that the American Association for the Advancement of Science recognizes the work done by the The parapsychology Association into psi etc, being scientific research. I submit that this fully validates parapsychology as a field of science.

1. Not involved, so can't comment
2. Mostly these are attempts to provide a definition of something. This is perfectly permissible as you must define something prior to debating it. Not POV pushing. Most are reasonable.
3. Not involved, so can't comment, except that it takes 2 to edit war
4. Is this actually against any rules?
5. As above. It's also on talk pages rather than the main Wikipedia.
6. This article was put up for AFD and was kept. I notice that critics of the page were more keen to delete it than they were to replace the strawman arguments with acceptable alternatives. I believe that this is more a case of skeptics angry that they are being questioned. Precedent for having criticism articles has already been set with Criticism of Scientology, Criticism of the Catholic Church and Criticism of Microsoft. Criticism and response in parapsychology is simply a badly named example of the above.
7. The example he added seems fair. It is not POV pushing and it is factually correct. I see no problems with it.
8. This appears to be skeptical bullying.
9. Skeptical perspectives are not exempt from WP:V. Award a barnstar
10. It takes 2 to edit war
11. Not involved, so can't comment
12. Not involved, so can't comment
13. See above, Parapsychology is recognized by the AAAS. The user corrected the page.
14. The topic clearly exists, it's the phenomenon that is disputed. More skeptical bullying
15. The user was simply defining a term in relation to its use. No case to answer
16. The user was quoting somebody with experience of the topic. Both source should have been used
17. The user actually removed a lot of anti-psi POV pushing and aggressive wording.
18. The Parapsychology Association is a recognized affiliate of the AAAS. They pass WP:V and WP:RS and are a valid source for this statement. This is more skeptical bullying
19. The first two edits are OK, the third edit actually corrects a violation on the biography of a living person. The fourth edit is correct: The man wasn't a self described TV-physic, he was actually employed as one. His physic ability should be questioned, not his job description. The fifth edit is correct because the show is based on the assumption of psi, not the assumption of a claim of psi.

The only arguments that stand against the user are edit waring. It is my opinion that this This RFC is harassment by skeptics who are angry that they are being questioned. Wikipedia would be a far better place if more skeptics were reminded about WP:V and WP:RS.

perfectblue 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Endorse. -- Dreadlocke ☥ 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. -- Davkal 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- Tom Butler 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. -- Wooyi ^{Talk, Editor review} 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

More

Having been the subject of an unpleasant ad hominem comment on the talk page because I didn't comment on issues that I believed I was not qualified to comment on, I am adding the following. The fact that skeptics saw fit to make such comment, I believe, is proof of my point. They do not like being asked for the same evidence that paranormal entries are asked for.

• 1) This appears to be a valid complaint, but it has already been dealt with and has not been done again. It is irrelevant now. Character assassination?
• 3) It takes two to edit war. If this user is sanctioned because of it, so should the other users
• 11) I don't understand this. So cannot comment.
• 12) This looks like a regular editing mistake to me. A section was deleted without paying attention to the rest of the paragraph. A mistake, not a crime.

perfectblue 07:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've had my problems with Martin and his mate Dreadlocke, I think they act like a mini cabal with regards paranormal subjects, I dont think this action is likely to be productive it will just get paranormalists pissed and make the sceptics feel smug, and both sides less likely to try to be co-operative , he just needs to chill out a little. Anyway...have a nice evening. Belbo Casaubon 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have been involved in two disputes with Martinphi concerning the Crop circle article. Martin has repeatedly added 'citation needed' tags to already referenced statements of scientific consensus, and also flagged the article with the category Pseudoskepticism, which seemed based only on his opinions of editors of the article.

I appreciate Martin's zeal, but in my opinion he must do two things: first, he must become more familiar with Wikipedia policy (e.g. the recent meatpuppetry case involving him and User:Myriam Tobias) and second, he must accept that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for skepticism, however that may be defined. It can be argued that the true skeptic is un-trusting of everything, but there is such a thing as beyond reasonable doubt. To take an example from Talk:Crop circle: it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that crop circles are made by humans. To say otherwise mis-represents scientific consensus and grants false legitimacy to pseudoscience. Per the ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience, Wikipedia must accept present scientific consensus. If and only if there is not scientific consensus, NPOV may be invoked. If the views of the scientific community change, then Wikipedia may be modified. But this is very unlikely to happen with the majority of articles that Martin edits. Michaelbusch 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Endorse -- Minderbinder 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse -- LuckyLouie 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse -- Fyslee/ talk 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. –  Lantoka ( talk) 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Partial endorsement. I think that this overstates what the ArbCom ruling was, but is by and large accurate. JoshuaZ 00:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse Bubba73 (talk), 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Endorse ScienceApologist 21:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

While I decline to comment on the specific content issues here, I am very troubled by the conduct of Martinphi. The website he has been "welcoming" users by directing them to has such gems of advice for new users as "If you outnumber the people with an opposing view, you do not have to listen to their argument. If you do have to listen, only respond to the last point made in a post. That way, the opposing person will have to repeat the point over and over again," and "Eliminate your opposition by saying they have a conflict of interest. If you examine the credentials of the opposition--especially if they are using their real name--you are certain to find some level of conflict of interest. For instance, any research scientist can be disqualified from speaking about his or her field of interest because doing so may enhance the chances of receiving a research grant." If this is Martinphi's idea of how to welcome a new user, thanks but no thanks. Let someone else do it.

Martinphi did indeed engage in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, as was confirmed by Checkuser [116], and has engaged in edit warring. I also note with some dismay an essay kept in his userspace, entitled "Paranormal Primer." A more appropriate title appears to be POV Pushing 101. Of course, there's quite a bit of latitude with what's kept in userspace, but not necessarily when new users are being directed there, too [117].

In conclusion, I strongly urge Martinphi to accept that minority views must be clearly treated as minority views even when they also happen to be one's own, to use only the standard welcome template to welcome a new user and not send such users to material that coaches them how to disrupt (whether that material is in his userspace or offsite), and in general to moderate his combative attitude. Sometimes working cooperatively with those who disagree with you is hard, but for those who wish to edit here, it's the only acceptable way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I was asked to comment here by Minderbinder, as I've previously blocked Martinphi for a 3RR violation and that was at issue here. However, my views are my own.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Users endorsing this summary

1. Endorse. Martinphi's concept that he is the very embodiment of NPOV bothers me, and this leads to all sorts of unfun things as he tries to enforce his brand of neutrality rather than engaging in discussion. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. -- Martinphi's insistence that guidelines of his own devising ("Paranormal Primer") are more suitable than Wikipedia's is highly disturbing. -- LuckyLouie 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. Vsmith 16:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse -- Minderbinder 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse — BillC ^talk 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse -- Fyslee/ talk 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Endorse AvB ÷  talk 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Endorse Durova ^Charge! 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
10. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Endorse Michaelbusch 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
12. Endorse The statements on the website are so fundamentally assuming bad faith and advocating bad faith behavior that I have to seriously question the possibility of us resolving the issues with this editor. Obviously, as a first measure, directing users to a website that advocates such disruptive and uncooperative behavior must stop. JoshuaZ 00:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Subsequent edit)- I'm also profoundly disturbed that the website in question appears to be written by another user here who seems to engage in POV pushing. JoshuaZ 01:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
13. Endorse Just finished reading that website and it's a blatent "Ignoring WP Policies 101". If anything, "Tom Butler" should hang his head in shame and very disappointing that MartinPhi feels this is how newbies should act. Shot info 11:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
14. Endorse Bubba73 (talk), 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
15. Endorse ScienceApologist 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Qualfied endorse. Perhaps I'm naive, but I'm hesitant to criticize User:Tom Butler (I have no relation to him) over the content of his web page. Tom's criticisms of WP are not entirely unreasonable, and the quotes posted by Seraphimblade appear to me to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. However, I agree that Martinphi appears to have taken them as prescriptive, and that the results of doing so are poisonous to collaborative editing. I don't think Martinphi's citation of that page should be taken as evidence of bad faith either, nor do I believe he endorses the practices described there. Still, IMO, the trend of Martinphi's editing has not been positive, e.g. compare 12 February with 27-28 March and today. A course change is needed here. [118]. thx, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 07:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (I apologize; my struck comments above were unwarranted, and I'm reversing them. -- Jim Butler^{( talk)} 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)) reply
17. Endorse VanTucky 22:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not commenting on the content issues, because I'm not intimately familiar with them and this is a user-conduct RfC rather than a content RfC. I think Martinphi has made a number of mistakes that are very common when people with strong views first come to Wikipedia (I've made some of them myself). The most apparent issue is a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Views which are considered minoritarian or "fringe" (to use an unforunate perjorative) need to be described as such, and not presented uncritically as the equal of widely accepted scientific fields or constructs. Advocates of minoritarian theories often complain that their views are not being treated "neutrally" or uncritically, but in fact this is what WP:NPOV mandates. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to defend or advance minoritarian beliefs; it is a vehicle to describe those beliefs in the context of their level of acceptance by the "mainstream" community of experts in a given field.

Activities such as the welcome link and meatpuppetry are unacceptable, but (at least in the case of the meatpuppetry) I accepted Martin's explanation that he was not aware this was against policy, and I'm not aware that the issue has come up again.

My main quibble with the wording of the RfC is the desired outcome. Yes, it would be nice if Martin branched out into other areas, but coercing him to leave paranormal topics when these are his major area of interest seems unfair. I think Martinphi has the potential to become a valuable, law-abiding contributor to paranormal articles; whether that potential will be realized is up to him. I would state the desired outcome as, "Martinphi will edit paranormal articles in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies, including WP:WEIGHT." The RfC is supposed to be a gently suggestive or corrective measure; my hope would be that Martin can take away from this a better understanding of why some of his actions haven't jibed with Wikipedia's particular way of doing things, and become a better editor as a result. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Endorse, see talk page for further thoughts Davkal 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse, particulary the suggestion on tweaking the desired outcome. If martinphi refuses to follow NPOV (or at least how the rest of wikipedia interprets NPOV) and other policies, a content block would come from arbcom or community ban. I'd much prefer to see voluntary improvement and not need further DR. -- Minderbinder 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Endorse. Martinphi was not blocked for the (sock|meat)puppetry (though the other account was, of course), I believed as well that it was an isolated incident and an honest mistake. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse. Also dislike the desired outcome. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Endorse. I think Martinphi presently does understand WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT, but seeks to reinterpret them via rhetorical argument [119] and misapplication of guidelines such as WP:WTA. If he will voluntarily accept and agree to abide by these policies (specifically as how the rest of wikipedia interprets them) and retire his relentless campaign of parapsychology advocacy, then the outcome of this RfC should be tweaked according to MastCell's recommendations. -- LuckyLouie 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse (highly) the suggestion on tweaking the desired outcome, abstaining from other comments. -- Nealparr ^{( yell at me| for what i've done)} 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse with the qualification that Martinphi actually concede that his editing tendencies have not be in line with WP:NPOV. I don't see any reason to change the desired outcome without this, and so far he still maintains that his NPOV interpretations are immaculate. Simões ( ^talk/ _contribs) 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Endorse only on condition that Martin shows evidence right here at this RFC that he understands NPOV. So far I have seen no such evidence, but let's hope it happens. -- Fyslee/ talk 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Qualified endorse per Fyslee. Durova ^Charge! 01:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Endorse I think this is a fair summary. However, I take issue with the demands by the above endorsers that Martinphi make concessions regarding WP:NPOV because I feel that many of the editors making these demands have failed to promote NPOV as well. For example, demarcating topics as 'pseudoscientific', especially when you haven't read any of the relevant literature, is not being neutral. Editing article pages so that they represent your atheistic (as opposed to agnostic) point of view is not neutral. Dening the relevance of parapsychology's affiliation with the largest general scientific body in the world (the AAAS) during discussions of the discipline's scientific validity, represents ideological denial at its very worst. When these editors come forward to admit to their own failures at promoting NPOV, then I will ask Martinphi to do the same. -- Annalisa Ventola _{( Talk | Contribs)} 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Endorse. –  Lantoka ( talk) 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
12. Endorse per Fyslee, Seraphim and Simoe'ss remarks. JoshuaZ 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
13. Endorse -- as above Shot info 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
14. Endorse Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
15. Endorse ScienceApologist 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Endorse per Fyslee and Simões. -- Jim Butler^{( talk)} 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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.