User:Tianmang/sandbox/minor

To begin, there are multiple points to this user complaint. Specifically:

Uncivil behaviour in a debate (what sparked off my investigation)
Potential single-purpose account
Conflict of interest in contents / Vested interest
Multiple poor debate/article-writing styles including but not limited to:

:* Pushing non-thorough research on fringe topics

:* Personal attacks and general lack of civility

First WP:CIVIL. This user has on multiple occasions, including right now (for which I have repeatedly pointed to the cause of incivility and requested it be ceased, but often it is followed shortly thereafter with more incivility - ranging from passive-aggressive behaviour to outright misusing refuted and retracted statements (by myself). This pattern of behaviour has been exclusively aimed at those who are in favour of Delete or Merge in this instance.

Second, it is very pertinent to address the behaviour of the overall account, having the appearance of a single-single purpose account in how it only is ever involved in the editing of a very small number of pages. This number of pages (although ignoring user page/talk) can be counted in this space without exploding this document's size:

This list may look diverse, but it must not be ignored two key facts: this list goes all the way back to 2005 and is exhaustive of non-user pages. Adding user pages would not be significantly more long. A third, more serious fact exists here is that in - at the minimum - 90% of edits for pages that are themselves not otherkin, it is for the singular purpose of editing links to, about or otherwise involving the otherkin page (to be abundantly clear, I was not able to locate any edits that did not pertain to otherkin, so I would assert based on that 100%, but reduced the number in case I missed anything). Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that in that this account only becomes active after long periods of time when there are "controversial" edits to one of the earlier cited pages, most notably otherkin which the author does not agree with. See also notes about conflict of interest which weigh in heavily.

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Otherkin&oldid=25445672 13 Oct 2005] - Initial activation, during which time he debated in Talk:Otherkin and later added, interesting enough due to current deletion debate, a reference titled "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". This activation continues on for the remainder of the month of October, but then quiets down through December until April 2006 when a single edit is made in the talk page again.

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raven_paradox&oldid=204155874 8 April 2008] - Second activation, three years later (there is a single interlude in the midterm consisting of a single edit to Talk:Reiki). The editor makes a non-productive statement to the Talk:Raven_paradox page which strongly suggests a complete lack of familiarity of the topic; there are no responses to the question, since it is clearly answered in the remainder of the conversation as well as the article itself. Within short course, the editor is back into editing otherkin and the associated talk page as well as revisiting Reiki. This continues on as a storm through mid-April, but again quickly dies off terminating altogether in the first days of August.

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Otherkin&oldid=464511421 7 December 2011] - Third activation, another three years later (without any interludes). Once again this appears to be in response to edits to Talk:Otherkin as well as associated Lycanthropy page. Incidentally, this is also the time at which the request for wikiquette assistance was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=469480122#Otherkin_and_Clinical_lycanthropy filed]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&oldid=469480122 Minor disruption due to holidays]. At this point, a neutrality dispute had been filed by the editor due to association of otherkin with clinical lycanthropy; however at this time it is noted by multiple editors that there is a significant conflict of interest.

:* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=746908081 30 Oct 2016] - Fourth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=746908081 vandalism on their page]. This activation is the most pertinant, see remainder of complaint.

Hopefully, this assists in demonstrating a single-purpose behaviour within this account.

Now, I will address what I see as a significant conflict of interest by this author. As previously noted, this author outright declares upon entry into the arena that he is the owner of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=746908081 otherkin.net as well as anotherwiki.org]. It bears noting that at times, these pages have been attempted to be used as sources for citations; at present, there is no direct reference (although there is a link to a DMOZ category which is headlined by AnOtherWiki as well as containing Otherkin.net), but the direct correlation between the author's ownership and oversight of these sites coupled with their disregard for wikipedia policies to maintain a page that only serves to validate their own fringe beliefs represents a signficiant case of vested interest on their part. Specifically, combatively going after the introduction of anything that might be seen as negative of the alleged otherkin subgroup demonstrates a defensiveness that negates from the potential accuracy and neutrality of the wiki article. In their place, often times there are placed in items which only lend to the suggestion of the "realism" of the purported beliefs.

Finally, I shall conclude with the multiple poor debate/article-writing styles which consist of the following:

:* Synthesis - I have noted the behaviour of the editor is to often bring into the debate what amounts to synthesis of multiple articles' perspectives in order to push their own perspective (interestingly, they also like to accuse of this at the same time). Take for instance the following clip from one of my arguments:

:::Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin: It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

:::Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: [http://www.academia.edu/1851789/The_Beast_Within_Anthrozoomorphic_Identity_and_Alternative_Spirituality_in_the_Online_Therianthropy_Movement_Nova_Religio_16_3_2013_ 1]: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

::and again later doing the action while at the same time slinging an accusation (and other errors noted below):

:::Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the [http://www.dmoz.org/Society/People/Otherkin/ DMOZ.org Otherkin Category] will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

::which commits the egregious error of utilizing entirely unverifiable original works, including citing DMOZ, which is not an authoritative source, merely an aggregation point along with the wiki (attempting to bleed the authority of the paper's citation as an endorsement of authority to the entire source). Of critical importance as I note in my first quote of the document is that the author, while citing raw text from the aforementioned wiki, actually sets out and articulates the concept in his own words - going directly in the face of the given definition in the previous document utilizing the term as well as the otherkin page itself, using identical language. All the while the author is utilizing a paper where he rejects the definition provided, but adopts the language of why it should not be merged into furry. At this point, the editor has not put forth further evidence why the page should be stand alone, but merely utilizes this two-paper synthesis repeatedly while also making aggressive uncivilly loaded and impatient phrasing.

:* Fringe content / Unsubstantial research - Largely covered in expansive edition, mostly user is utilizing fringe sources primarily and treating them as authority without meeting the requirements.

:* Personal attacks - This is the most egregious offence by the editor, and I will take the time now to list off the worst, and ones with most possible consequence to the outcome of the debate as well. First, I will cite the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746908081&oldid=746885261 introductory portion] of the editor's text:

:::I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.

::while this may serve as a somewhat harmless statement, it is clear that the editor's position is already loaded on the pretense of a negative situation. Shortly thereafter, I point out that he has intentionally introduced bias by starting with a claim of vandalism specifically which is in bad faith to the conversation

:: later followed by upon being pointed out

:::I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/getor78ewjq8iuo/Nafokramkat1.png?dl=1 1] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/1igkcbkvpm2pnhr/Nafokramkat2.png?dl=1 2] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/xhzgjy4mk4xd14y/Nafokramkat3.png?dl=1 3] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/a3zp2pl3vahiain/Nafokramkat4.png?dl=1 4] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/p10c00yc9m827vx/Nafokramkat5.png?dl=1 5]. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.

:: then

:::I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

::Where the editor in question now states a specific user by name. It is at this point replies cease in this thread, however, even after my additional followup, no effort or attempt is made to negate or otherwise remove the offending and loaded content in this vein or any other. Later on, I had my efforts to retrieve a paywalled article somewhat frustrated, so filed to have it retrieved and/or summarized by the appropriate parties to which I was met with equal measure of shock and gratitude when the editor produced the article for me, but felt it necessary to again take another chance to take a shot

::: I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? [https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-kWtLdyW6qEJefGUy/We%20are%20Spirits%20of%20Another%20Sort%20-%20Ontological%20Rebellion%20and%20Religious%20Dimensions%20of%20the%20Otherkin%20Community%20%20-%20Joseph%20Laycock_djvu.txt Full Text via archive.org] Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

::at which point I simply went with the typical advice, and allowed it to slide and thanked the editor while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements. Unfortunately, this was not the last incident of the editor making use of these types of tacts, later in the debate becoming aggressive again when the circumstances demanded he provide further evidence to his point

:::From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

::Shorly after which I prepared this document since it became necessary to seek external remediation to this situation that I had been unable to satisfactory solve myself. (since the time of this last post, more has been posted, but it has been unremarkable. It contains not much else in terms of accusation, but more hampered logic which I again refuted, etc.).

:At this point I would like to conclude by stating that I cannot suggest any course of action, nor comment upon my own behaviour as it would be inherently self-serving to do either; both to my side of this debate, which is on-going, but also to myself directly. I will state, in no uncertain terms, that I have presented the facts here with citations in the manner consistent with how I understand them to be, including the alleged fact that I did not participate in the behaviours that I am accusing the aforementioned editor of conducting, and have addressed to the best of my ability any short-comings pointed out to me in my own arguments and style. As such, by these circumstances, you're more then welcome and encouraged to weigh in on myself as well, and the argument if you have any points that can break the impasse which is as yet unresolved. I for one would like to continue on in this debate, however I also do not wish to be personally attacked any more - I want my points to be refuted coolly through sound logical reasons, not personal grudges, pet theories, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

::I don't think I have ever seen such a long ANI submission. If you want anyone to even read this, let alone act on it, I recommend that you reduce it by at least 90%, since nobody is going to wade through all 7000 words. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)