User talk:KeithTyler/Natasha Demkina

Natasha Demkina

My user talk page is not a place to debate the ND article. Please do that on the article talk page or in an appropriate place. I'd really hate to ask for protection on my own userspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you asked "If you have any advice on this dispute, it could be used." I've been thinking about it, and this is the best idea I can come up with: remove the lock on the page, and then put comments on the talk pages of related pages that are highly trafficked, such as Anomalous phenomenon, Extra-sensory perception, and James Randi. The visitors to those pages likely have very diverse views, yet they have managed to (mostly) come to a consensus on those issues. In the wake of l'affaire Siegenthaler, and in view Skolnick's claims of libel and his declared intent to undermine Wikipedia through his press relationships, I'll bet you could motivate at least a dozen people with subject matter expertise to get the Demkina page onto their watchlist. You can try a request for Wikipedia:Peer review too. This article is more contentious than most articles on peer review, but it's also better sourced, as a result of the longrunning dispute. Then nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It may fail, but the article should get a lot better in the process.

Also, did you notice that there is an interwiki link to a Russian version of the Demkina article? I doubt that either of the principals here write in Russian, so that page may serve as a good experimental control. Here's what it looks like through Babelfish.

Finally, if the emails you're getting seem belligerent or legally threatening, you might want to consider contacting User:Angela or even User:Jimbo_Wales (Jimbo's email is on his page, or you could leave a note on one of their talk pages.) Or you could join the mailing list, and ask those guys what they think.

Hope this helps. --Arcadian 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in mediation over this article? Please let me know! Dan100 (Talk) 10:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith. I acknowledge and understand your feelings over the Natasha Demkina article. I personally now wish I had never heard of the name; it was getting to the point when I was prepared to walk away from the whole deal. I wrote what I did partly in the hope that it might put an end to the war that has raged over this article for a long while, and yet be NPOV with a reasonable editorial balance. I have placed an article there; it was simply the best I could come up with. Regards, --BillC 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, an external control article that looks fairly neutral is from the Discovery Channel itself. My main view is that the article on Wikipedia is about Natasha Demkina, and not just the CSMMH-CSICOP investigation and test. You did an excellent job in combining the two viewpoints in your version. Dreadlocke 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Fairly neutral"? See for yourself: The Discovery Channel article begins: [[1]]

"Natasha Demkina has an extraordinary gift that means she can quite literally see right through people. Her story sounds like it has come straight from the pages of a science fiction comic book, but doctors have yet to disprove her amazing abilities. Natasha is able to look into people’s bodies and correctly diagnose their medical problems, without any help from ultra-sound or x-ray equipment."

Neutral?! It states that Natasha can "quite literally see right through people's bodies and correctly diagnose their medical problems." Although the Discovery Channel program is primarily about the scientific testing of Natasha Demkina, the article makes absolutely NO mention about any test or the researchers conclusion that she is doing nothing more than using a cold reading technique commonly used by astrologers, palm readers, and other fortune-telling charlatans.

But Dreadlocke insists that he's only interested in establishing a neutral point of view (NPOV) for the Wiki article. Yet he tells Keith Tyler that the Discovery Channel article, "looks fairly neutral." Nothing that Dreadlocke has posted shows his lack of neutrality as much as that statement. The article claims that Natasha has supernatural powers, which she uses to help people find out what is making them sick -- without any mention that scientific researchers tested her and found only evidence of deception. He calls that a "neutral" point of view.

It is clear why he's so unhappy with the Natasha Demkina article. And he won't be happy until it is as "neutral" as the Discovery Channel article, which claims that Natasha Demkina is helping people with her amazing paranormal powers and doctors are mystified. In Dreadlocke's lexicon, "NPOV" means "agrees with him."Askolnick 14:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My rebuttal here. - Dreadlocke 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Demkina article is headed for mediation or arbitration for the Josephson inclusion. Could use your insight and assistance in the matter. Thanks! Dreadlocke 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reversion in N.D.

Keith, question for you. I posted a comment on the Natasha Demkina Discussion page, then I realized what I wrote wasn't what I meant to say and I modified it. Then Mr. Skolnick reverted my edit to my first posting and answered that instead of my modified one. Is that at all improper? Thanks! Dreadlocke 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Nice job adding my original edit! I just noticed you took care of that for me. I was unsure what the policy was, thanks for clarifying for me. It will be interesting to see if Askolnick reverts me again. You may be right, it may have been just a mistake on his part. Thanks again! Dreadlocke 19:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND NPOV Dispute

Keith, a strange war has developed over the inclusion of the "Neutrality of this article is disputed" tag. I think the neutrality of the entire article has been disputed due to the completely one-sided view from the CSICOP perspective. Apparently, one of the disputants is essentially saying "well, just add stuff to make it NPOV"...but that's the issue under dispute, what exactly can be added. I bow to your greater experience in dealing with these matters. I'm not sure how much the tag even means... - Dreadlocke 01:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND Mediator

Our new mediator is active!

AMA Request

Responded to the one case regarding the X-Ray girl you were working on before, things seem to have cooled down but if you need another set of eyes and/or more help let me know. --Wgfinley 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cease your disruptive conduct over Natasha Demkina article: Final warning

Keith, I've put up with an enormous amount of abuse from you over the past three months, from unlawfully violating my copyright to posting false slurs, starting editing wars, and other disruptive conduct. Unless you stop, I will consider filing a user conduct RFC against you. You may not realize it, but I have considerable support from lurkers who do not like what you're doing. Askolnick 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

I have no objection for you to file a request for formal mediation; in fact I encourage it. Be sure however to get Askolnick's consent to this before you proceed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ND RFM, Keith! Looks good. I didn't see Professor Josephson's critique. in the list of links in bulletpoint #2, does it need to be included on the RFC page? I guess the the question of what constitutes a 'personal web site' is covered by that same bulletpoint? Thanks! - Dreadlocke 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfc

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. Maybe you can give some useful outside view. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing disputes fairly

Do you really think that "the Discovery Channel-aired test" is more fair and accurate than "the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal-administered test"? FeloniousMonk 23:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Keith’s description was fair and accurate; much more so than the statement it was replaced with. To cite CSMMH and leave out the other two major players is inaccurate and really makes no sense. The test was administered by CSICOP and CSMMH under the auspices of the Discovery Channel. The Discovery Channel is the overarching player in the entire production - using the Discovery Channel solo makes perfect sense, leaving it out doesn't.

The Discovery Channel produced and aired the show, they found Natasha to begin with, they investigated Natasha's background, and then engaged the services of CSICOP-CSMMH. As Keith pointed out, the article’s section is titled “Discovery Channel Appearance”. All three SI articles on the csicop.org website make statements about the Discovery Channel’s involvement that support this view and the documentary is what a majority of people actually viewed regarding ND. So yes, "the Discovery Channel-aired test" is fair, accurate and is NPOV. The mediators should be able to get the gist of the other participants from the Article and Discussion pages.

Besides the fact that you altered another editor's post, which is frowned upon, from the way I read the instructions on the Request for Mediation page, altering any content, including the post of another editor on that page, is considered vandalism:

(Note: Only committee members may remove text from this page; editing or otherwise altering any content on this page is vandalism.)

This is backed up by another statement in the instructions:

Editing of another party's section is not allowed.

And the kicker from the Requests for Mediation Guide which says:

"Do not edit the "Issues to mediate" section. If you feel that an issue has been incorrectly stated, restate it in your section with a simple note at the end of the line such as "(Restatement of second issue by User:Example)."

May I suggest you revert your change to Keith’s post?

- Dreadlocke 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next with ND?

What do we do next with the ND article? I don't believe AS will relinquish his death-grip on content. No comments from the other disputants either... - Dreadlocke 05:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right and he's gone, but you'll have to forgive me if I have my doubts. I'll be happy to work with Mikka and BillC and see if we can put a good article in place. Is it safe to assume that both the Siqueira and Josephson critiques are citable references? And, um, I will attempt to be as obstreperous-less as possible.. :) - Dreadlocke 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put together a rough draft of everything I think should be included in the ND article: ND First Draft. If you have the time, check it out and let me know what you think. I'll post a link on the ND Talk: page in a day or two for comments from the others. Thanks! Dreadlocke 21:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the draft rewrite on the ND Talk page is up! - Dreadlocke 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice on the ND draft rewrite and reduced the amount of Josephson and the number of math-related References; I also restructured the article to eliminate the entire "criticism" section, consolidating and placing the information in the relevant sections. Let me know what you think. Thanks! - Dreadlocke 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to incorporate both your and BillC's suggestions into the article, hopefully I've succeeded in doing so - but if not, I need a few more specifics about what to change. I've rewritten, removed or attributed the information I pulled from the Josephson critique - which I think covers BillC's concerns around that. I provided reasoning for the inclusion of the Siqueira and Zammit links from "External Links/Further Reading". I can put it up for RfC, if you really think I need to, but I was thinking (hoping!) that if you and BillC agree on my draft it would be sufficient to put it into place. - Dreadlocke 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put it under WP:RFC. It's not a exactly a dispute at the moment, more of a "check this out to see if it's ok" sort of thing... - Dreadlocke

I totally agree with you about getting more feedback on the draft before putting it into place. I'll at least put another note on the talk: page and prepare for serious sparkage when I actually put it into place, but it would be nice to get a few more opinions first. Hmmm. I'll scan through the RfC stuff again to see about trying to squeeze it in there, or maybe your suggestion about putting it in WP:3O would be a good start - although it's listing requirement seems a bit too specific for what we need...unless it's just you and me in a controversy on how to get more opinions.. :)

And, wow! Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Criticism, that's a very interesting article and one that really applies to some of my questions around the "skeptics vs paranormal" content in some articles. - Dreadlocke 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This totally has to be a "Star Wars" Freudian slip edit summary...C-3PO :) - Dreadlocke 23:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could re-open your Peer review or at least contact the two editors who responded to it. Looks like they had some suggestions that are incorporated in the draft. - Dreadlocke 17:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Natasha Demkina/archive1? It's old, but it might be helpful. I see RJH has given you some feedback recently. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure did! I noticed it the other day and I pinged both of the editors who initially responded to your request, and as you saw, RJH responded with some good feedback! I'm not sure how much further I can push this forward, I'm thinking of posting one more statement on the ND Discussion page saying that I'm going to move forward unless there are major objections or more feedback from anyone, then wait a bit before posting it. I'm tired of looking at it, if the truth be told... :) - Dreadlocke 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that you make sure you don't libel anyone. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, yes! I want to avoid the screaming banshee cry of LIBEL!! at all costs! :) It's almost frightening to think I'm actually close to trying to get this thing posted...thanks for your help. Hopefully the sparks will be minimal. - Dreadlocke 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND Draft

Should I move the whole thing to the ND talk page, or just post a link to it's current location? - Dreadlocke 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Askolnick is back

Askolnick reverted virtually the entire ND expansion and is continuing the dispute over sources and content. What do we do now - arbitration? Dreadlocke 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never left. What you should do now -- finally -- is to respect Wiki pollicies and guidelines against using disreputable sources. You may have thought the coast was clear to renew adding falsehoods and statements unsupported by reputable sources. You were wrong. Askolnick 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was your expansion to the article the same content as the draft that you've been working on, inviting input into, getting feedback on from various editors, etc.? Also, I see there is a Wikiproject applicable to the article; I'd suggest drumming up advice on the Talk page there. Presumably those editors have had to struggle with NPOV conflicts in these matters before. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was exactly the same content as in the draft, but I hadn't yet added the expanded sections on Japan and CSICOP, just the History and Appearance in London sections of the draft. I'm the one who added the "Project Paranormal" tag to see if the project was still "alive" and to see if there is anyone who can give advice and assistance in evaluating the disputed sources and content. I really don't see much of an alternative to arbitration at this point, we've been through all the other steps of Dispute resolution. It's the same old story, and the bottom line is whether or not Natasha's own website, Pravda.ru, and Josephson's pages are acceptable references, which apparently needs arbitration - unless consensus overrides the objections. Dreadlocke 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I see Askolnick has pretended to leave Wikipedia again..heh... Hope you're doing well, Keith. I probably won't be able to edit Wikipedia again until the end of 2006, but I occasionally check to see what's happening. Earthquakes, floods and hospitals have been keeping me busy... Dreadlocke ☥ 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he could actually be gone for good this time. We'll see what happens when I start work on the ND article again. I've been out for a while and just got back - been busy with other projects. Hope you're doing well. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus vote on sources for ND

I would appreciate your vote on the source dispute for the Natasha Demkina draft.

I hope this is a good idea...should I expand it to an RfC? Dreadlocke 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"DL". I love it! What a great nickname! Thanks for added clarity on the "dubious source" issue! I have searched high and low for more sources - I did find this interesting source: Iran Daily.com, short and sweet.. :) DL - 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I further translated Natasha's Russian website and found information there about the trip to Japan! I've re-sourced the draft and put the remaining comments sourced from Pravda.RU on User:Dreadlocke/Sourced_from_Pravda.RU. I also gave a shot to using the Iran Daily as a source. Hmmm. Dreadlocke 06:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem with the translation above, the information I downloaded was from this now-dead link: [2]. How can I use that information? Dreadlocke 06:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, interesting point. I didn't even consider a translation as a possible violation of WP:NOR. The way I read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English doesn't make it look like OR since it has an original source that anyone can verify for themselves. Looks like we can get full consensus on Natasha's Russian website, Mikka's offer to translate has apparently assured Askolnick. Dreadlocke 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My other question is whether I can use information from a link that's no longer available. It looks like I can as long as I give an access date WP:CITE#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 for the information. This is for the trip to Japan, the info used to be on Natasha's website, but now I can't find it. I downloaded it, so I have the actual copy - which is more or less what Pravda.RU said about the trip. I still think we can include comments from Pravda.RU according to dubious sources - although the wording of that article was fluctuating until it was protected. Dreadlocke 15:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone should be held accountable for their actions and their statements. That's why I'm posting here the outrageously false statement Keith Tyler recently made in his campaign to use one of the world's sleaziest news tabloids as a source of information supporting paranormal belief in Wiki's Natasha Demkina article.

A few days ago, he voted in favor of using information from Pravda.Ru and falsely claimed:

"In fact, no one has presented any evidence why Pravda.Ru is any less reliable than, say, People Magazine or the Washington Times. The only reasons presented against its use are undefended accusations of its character. We aren't talking Weekly World News here. - Keith D. Tyler" [3]

That is such a whopper of a falsehood, considering how other editors and I repeatedly pointed out to him just how sleazy Pravda RU is. It only takes a pair of eyes and honest intent to see this. For example, these are just from TODAY's "science" news headlines:

"Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ"

"Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England"

"KGB ran secret laboratories to study extraterrestrial civilizations"

"US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs"

"Aliens probably build their bases on Earth’s seabed disturbing submarines"

"U.S. scientist says scores of UFOs fly around the Sun"

"Dragons came down to Earth from Sirius to share their wisdom with humans"

"Mankind descended from civilization of Atlanteans in the Arctic"

"Blind Russian mystic discerns colors by touch"

"We aren't talking Weekly World News," Tyler argued. Right. We're talking Pravda RU -- which regularly stoops far lower in the journalistic gutter than the Weekly World News ever does. Yet Tyler continues to defend Pravda RU's reputation in his campaign to use the sleazy tabloid as a source of information for the Natasha Demkina article. People who come here to learn about Keith Tyler's editing record should know this.Askolnick 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is hardly a track record in my edit history of pumping Pravda.Ru. Nice try, though. Meanwhile, the previous commenter's non-talk edit-history is littered with edits dedicated inserting his own name and improving the image of his financial benefactors (especially before I first pointed that out). I have never worked for or financially benefitted from Pravda.Ru, or any other Russian news organization, for that matter. This is more than the previous commenter can say for himself and SI/CSICOP/CSMMH. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Tyler. But I didn't say you pump Pravda RU. I said you keep defending it as a reputable source, with one absurd argument after another. And now you're stooping to the lowest part of your barrel to accuse me of having dubious financial motives. I no longer work for the Center for Inquiry. My editing for Wiki is -- as it has always been -- something that I do for no financial compensation. You should be ashamed. But I doubt anyone who would stoop so low is capable of that feeling. Askolnick 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demkina sources

Your dispute with askolnick has long since been heated, and I have no intention of getting to that state with anyone over that or any article. I am unsure why you chose to respond to my talk page almost 2 weeks after I posted that opinion, an opinion moreover that I was requested to make by two parties, one on either side of this dispute. I stand by that opinion, and am not going to get dragged into further debate on the issue; I have been courteous to you throughout all this. BillC 22:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ND RfC

I put up an RfC for ND. Let me know if it looks ok, especially my somewhat long statement. The actual request is here: Biographies RfC. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

Just fyi, Askolnick has placed a complaint against an Administrator who gave him a warning: WP:AN/I#InShaneee_is_abusing_his_administrative_authority. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]