Have I really only been editing here for eight months? It seems like forever.
- May 3 2005, 00:33: I edit a medical sentence in Otherkin, on the grounds that "claim" implies slight disbelief. [2] I then follow this up with a comment on Talk:Otherkin. [3]
- May 3 2005, 01:07: I expand the section on schizotypal personality disorder in Otherkin considerably, breaking WP:NOR in the process. [4] Again I comment on the talk page. [5]. I also add a link to DSM cautionary statement. [6]
- May 3 2005, 05:53: DreamGuy points out that the new section breaks NOR (using facts to make a case). While I don't accept this, given the claims that were then advanced elsewhere in the article, I make essentially the same responding arguments that are being used right now, including that there are no medical sources for linking otherkin with any form of mental illness. [7] I then rewrite the section to try and improve its neutrality. [8]. I leave a comment on the talk page, describing some research I've done and questioning some weasel wording used in the article. [9]
- May 3 2005, 16:19: DreamGuy removes a large section of my edit, claiming POV. [10] He then claims on the talk page that the edit was original research and soapboxing. While he is correct that it violated NOR, this ignores that the entirety of the section also did so. [11] I respond with sources and citations to back up my claim. [12] DreamGuy then disappears [13] and is not seem on Otherkin or Talk:Otherkin again until July 27th. [14]
---
- Hipocrite attempts an edit on a controversial theme, which is not factually correct. [15]
- I attempt a rewrite for NPOV. [16]
---
Occasions when I have cited sources to back up my position:
- I give a list of published sources with material on otherkin. [19]
Trying to get DreamGuy to cite his sources:
- 22:15, July 30: DreamGuy suggests that the claims made by otherkin should come under WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. [20]
- 22:52, July 30: I suggest that perhaps WP:NPOV#Religion is more applicable than WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. This comment is ignored. [21]
- 22:46, July 30: DreamGuy states that in many cases, otherkin beliefs are "directly the same as a psychological disorder". [22]
- 23:05, July 30: I ask DreamGuy to provide references for this claim. [23]
- 05:26, July 31: DreamGuy says that he's been trying to introduce neutral material, not to introduce claims of mental illness. He also insists that there are many "reputable sources", but neglects to provide any. [24]
- 10:24, July 31: I point out that all the material has been removed, and that the article now makes no claims of any kind. [25]
- 01:07, August 1: DreamGuy counters, accusing me of "quite substantially misinterpreting the situation here for your own POV purposes." The version of the article that I first edited is here; while I agree that I misremembered the thrust of the paragraph, DreamGuy has immediately assumed bad faith. [26]
- 01:13, August 1: I reply that DreamGuy has not cited his sources. [27]
- 09:44, August 1: DreamGuy states his position that clinical lycanthropy is a perfect match for otherkin, and that the only people who disagree are "otherkin believers trying to justify themselves". He cites no sources. [28]
- 11:43, August 1: I ask DreamGuy if he can provide any links to the full texts of the medical sources he's cited. [29]
Medical perspectives section cut:
- 09:35, August 1: DreamGuy notices that the medical section has been cut from the article. [30]
- 11:47, August 1: I state that I've archived the section as deleted, in case it needs to go back. [31]
- 11:53, August 1: User:SlimVirgin explains why she thought the section was original research. [32]
- 12:06, August 1: I state that there is no literature which has linked otherkin and clinical lycanthropy. [33]
- 12:16, August 1: SlimVirgin states that she's read the section and considers the whole thing to be pure original research. [34]
- 12:35, August 1: I state that there is no research on otherkin at all, and that what we have here is a conflict between two personal opinions. [35]
- 03:54, August 2: DreamGuy states his opinion again, saying that it is "not original research, that's just the facts", and that "Denying it is a highly POV act". [36]
- 04:12, August 2: User:Friday asks whether it's possible that clinical lycanthropy contains the only documented sources on otherkin. [37]
- 06:58, August 2: I paste this comment in, in case people have missed it (it hadn't been responded to). [38]
- 07:05, August 2: SlimVirgin asks DreamGuy to stop implying that people who disagree with him have an agenda, and to cite his sources so that an acceptable section can be developed. [39]
- 09:13, August 3: GabrielSimon says that the consensus appears to be to leave the section out. [40]
- 10:35, August 3: DreamGuy says that "there is a well documented mental disorder covering exactly this topic", and cites Clinical lycanthropy as his source. He states his opinion that therianthropes and otherkin clearly overlap with clinical lycanthropy. Finally, he tells GabrielSimon that "his POV is already well established" and that he "isn't really reading the conversation". [41]
- 10:38, August 3: GabrielSimon asks DreamGuy to observe WP:CIVIL and to cite his sources. [42]
- 10:47, August 3: I repeat my request for links or copies of the medical sources, and disagree with DreamGuy's opinion. [43]
- 11:16, August 3: DreamGuy tells me to read the clinical lycanthropy article. [44]
- 11:22, August 3: GabrielSimon says that the issues are entirely unrelated. [45]
- 11:29, August 3: DreamGuy calls GabrielSimon "hugely biased". [46]
- 11:34, August 3: GabrielSimon again asks DreamGuy to be civil. [47]
- 11:45, August 3: DreamGuy says that the opinion that otherkin beliefs are a spiritual issue is "only the view of the true believers in it", and that another side is psychology. [48]
- 11:49, August 3: I disagree with DreamGuy about the relevance of the clinical lycanthropy article, and ask him if he's read the papers that he's citing. [49]
- 11:58, August 3: DreamGuy tells me I haven't read the article properly, ignoring my point about psychosis being part of clinical lycanthropy and my question about whether he's read the papers. [50]
- 12:10, August 3: I state that DreamGuy's opinion is not enough evidence of a connection, and my own opinion that clinical lycanthropy and otherkin beliefs are qualitatively different. [51] <-- got to here
Merging the therianthropy section:
- 04:19, August 2: Friday suggests merging the subculture section of Therianthropy to Otherkin. [52]
- 04:20, August 2: ... and asks what the difference is between the two subcultures. [53]
- 04:54, August 2: ... and then suggests that perhaps Otherkin should merge to Therianthropy. [54]
- 06:15, August 2: ... and then suggests definitions for each subculture. [55]
- 07:02, August 2: I agree with Friday's definitions, and propose merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [56]
- 09:39, August 2: User:Todfox supports merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [57]
- 14:38, August 2: Friday supports merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [58]
- 15:40, August 2: ...and states that it's a chance to rewrite all the articles from scratch for increased Wiki-soundness. [59]
- 16:27, August 2: Todfox creates a new section to discuss this, and asks whether we'd be coining a neologism with this plan. [60]
- 16:32, August 2: Friday suggests that "otherkin" and subcultural use of "therianthropy" are already neologisms. [61]
- 16:44, August 2: User:ContiE says that he likes the idea of creating a merged page as an overview, but thinks that the individual subcultures should retain their own detailed pages. [62]
- 16:54, August 2: Friday states his problems with the existing pages (WP:NOR, WP:CITE). [63]
- 17:07, August 2: I provide Google counts and print references to support the terms under question, and suggest that "non-human identity subcultures" is a page heading, not a neologism. [64]
- 17:29, August 2: ContiE suggests that this is an obscure topic which is hard to find good references for, but that that shouldn't necessarily lead to the excision of information. [65]
- 21:25, August 2: DreamGuy makes his first comment in this discussion. He says that he has "seen no consensus at all for the idea of merging all these articles into one" ([66], [67], [68] demonstrate at least an emerging consensus), and describes the idea of merging under a neologism as "absolutely ridiculous", describes the removal of the medical section as "nonsense" and the claims of original research regarding that section as "rather bizarre". He then accuses Friday and myself of "an obvious calculated runaround of WP:NOR and WP:V". [69]
- 21:55, August 2: Friday says that anything would be better than the pages the article currently cites as sources. [70]
- 02:08, August 3: Todfox suggests that I should publish my own research on a website because it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. [71]
- 04:02, August 3: User:Gabrielsimon says that he doesn't like the idea of merging all the pages. [72]
- 04:41, August 3: SlimVirgin comments on appropriate use of sources. [73]
Archival:
- 07:57, August 3: I ask how much of the talk people people think we can reasonably archive. [74]
- 08:56, August 3: GabrielSimon says that the RFC is quiet. [75]
Occasions when I have come around to DreamGuy's position, or proposed other concessions or compromises:
- 22:46, July 31: I list some changes I've made in an attempt for improved neutrality. [76]
- 23:51, July 31: DreamGuy disagrees. [77]
- 00:30, August 1: I disagree back. [78]
- 01:13, August 1: DreamGuy still doesn't think the phrasing works. [79]
- 01:18, August 1: I still don't buy it. [80]
- 13:02, August 1: I take another look, agree with DreamGuy and change the article accordingly. [81]