User:Tianmang/sandbox

(reduced edition)

Expansive edition
To begin, there are multiple points to this user complaint. Specifically: 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. This is not limited to the prior examples, and demonstratively this editor entered the debate arena with first a declaration of an external-site affiliation (which is singularly focused on the topic at hand, leading to note of a vested interest, potentially large enough to constitute a conflict of interest) followed directly by an accusation that he arrived because somebody vandalized his website. I immediately noted that this was not an appropriate location nor argument and that his statement was poisonous to the actual debate at hand. Rather then recant, the editor then doubled-down by stating it was a wikipedia user specifically. I once-again warned him about his conduct regarding civility, instructing him to take his grievances to an appropriate place. At this point, the editor doubled-down a second time - naming one of our fellow editors who was involved in the debate with, notably, a Merge vote. The conversation, however, did manage to continue; although at various points the editor made various passive-aggressive and outright rude statements such as asserting I had failed to do my due diligence in acquiring a copy of a paywalled paper that was being utilized in our discussion. I had, at this point, already filed a request to have it retrieved after looking myself and being unable to locate it. At this point, I merely pointed out my positive feelings toward his assistance in retrieving it - while noting that it was not proper course to assert the actions of another without any backing reason nor evidence. Throughout earlier portions of the conversation, I did have a faux pas, and the editor did correctly point out that my assertion was itself a synthesis of multiple points. As such, I explicitly abandoned it, going as far as to strike through my own segment's use of this argument. Later, during a more contentious point of the debate, the editor chose to bring back not only arguments about synthesis in an erroneous manner about my arguments, but participated in such actions himself directly while at the same time brining up the now-irrelevant point I had previously abandoned. This all happened after I had explicitly abandoned the point, struck it out, conceded the correctness of his first assertion. At this point, I had begun pointing to the various personal affonts he was making, noting they were not being reduced by prior notifications nor attempts to simply ignore them and continue on. Throughout this discussion, I have made every attempt to not only be civil, but also provide the backing policies about my perspectives. I have also been open to new documents, and have spent time reading through them to identify if they do in fact, lend credance to his perspectives. In each and every case, I have found flaws which fly in the face of necessary requirements for the article to exist separately. Initially, my position was strictly deletion, however, at this point there is ample evidence that it would be potentially acceptable to merge the page, which my arguments section has been updated to reflect. The editor in question, however, is unsatisfied with any compromise and continues unabated to promote through uncivil means his own perspectives which do not reflect the current environment of verifiability and notability. Looking to the past, it becomes clear that this is not a necessarily isolated instance, as the user has been involved in the past as the target of an an ettiquette assistance filing (wherein also accused of sock puppetry).Within this argument, it was clear the filer was attempting to improve the document, however there was strong opposition due to the fact it went against the goals of the aforementioned editor's perspective (an ongoing theme I address in my deletion filing with multiple editors). Eventually, the editor again latched onto a single thing the filing editor said and used it to impede discussion and silenced the editor. To this day, the proposed improvement was not implemented even though it served as an excellent balance to the perspectives put forth by the otherkin page. 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). In and of itself, however, this is not substantial. There is also a significant vested interest this editor has toward these articles as he himself and by his own assertion is the owner and primary editor of the otherkin.net] page as well as the associated anotherwiki.org pages. This, I assert represents a significant conflict of interest as these pages are often served as "sources" for the otherkin page, and have over time. However, during the aforementioned debate on deletion, I did not defer to this fact, I merely accepted it as part of his bias; but in writing this complaint I cannot discount it as part of his measures toward having the page remain even though through my arguments I have demonstrated in several ways it is unable to remain a separate page due to lack of verifiable, notable, non-original/self-published works which establish consistently this topic as being necessarily distinct from other neigh identical ones such as originally furry or later after evaluating what did exist therianthropy. 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. Furthermore, his most recent appearance for this current debate was allegedly due to the supposed defacement of his own wiki. Meanwhile, there are clear indications that he merely watches the page and always comes in when he sees an edit which goes against a narrative he seeks to cultivate. Activations take place on the following dates in response to a variety of events which I attempt to isolate: 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 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 (I will pre-emptively apologize for any excesses in the amount of text in the following section, including full-on quotations from the debate page. I have specifically sought to provide ample perspective as to the arguments in order for it to be clear as to what I am talking about, and not merely implying anything. Furthermore, I welcome and encourage you to verify these claims for yourself, as this is all a transparent process, you will find therein I have not mis/re-contextualized these quotes, but rather provided them with the full relevant background for the claims):
 * 1) Uncivil behaviour in a debate (what sparked off my investigation)
 * 2) Potential single-purpose account
 * 3) Conflict of interest in contents / Vested interest
 * 4) Multiple poor debate/article-writing styles including but not limited to:
 * Synthesis
 * Pushing fringe perspectives
 * Pushing non-thorough research on fringe topics
 * Personal attacks and general lack of civility
 * 1) Otherkin
 * 2) Talk:Otherkin
 * 3) Elenari
 * 4) Talk:Elenari
 * 5) Wikipedia talk: What Wikipedia is not
 * 6) Talk:Indigo children
 * 7) Talk:Vampire lifestyle
 * 8) Talk:Reiki
 * 9) Talk:Raven paradox
 * 10) Reiki
 * 11) Clinical lycanthropy
 * 12) Lycanthropy
 * 13) Theistic Satanism
 * 14) Wikiquette assistance
 * 15) Talk:Theistic Satanism
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 filed. This activation period continued on until December 25th, at which time it abruptly again went silent.
 * 4 January 2012 - Fourth (possibly continuation of third due to holidays) activation. 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 (albeit they are hostile and do not actually approach the issue with the dispassionate approach wikipedia requests of its editors) in that the claimants are themselves practitioners.
 * 30 Oct 2016 - Fifth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, as aside from only being come upon by the proposed deletion of a page for which by their own disclosure they have a vested interest and involvement in represents a large potential conflict of interest, they have utilized many dubious tactics in order to push their agenda to have the page kept, as per earlier and upcoming discussion points.
 * 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 filed. This activation period continued on until December 25th, at which time it abruptly again went silent.
 * 4 January 2012 - Fourth (possibly continuation of third due to holidays) activation. 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 (albeit they are hostile and do not actually approach the issue with the dispassionate approach wikipedia requests of its editors) in that the claimants are themselves practitioners.
 * 30 Oct 2016 - Fifth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, as aside from only being come upon by the proposed deletion of a page for which by their own disclosure they have a vested interest and involvement in represents a large potential conflict of interest, they have utilized many dubious tactics in order to push their agenda to have the page kept, as per earlier and upcoming discussion points.
 * 30 Oct 2016 - Fifth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, as aside from only being come upon by the proposed deletion of a page for which by their own disclosure they have a vested interest and involvement in represents a large potential conflict of interest, they have utilized many dubious tactics in order to push their agenda to have the page kept, as per earlier and upcoming discussion points.
 * 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:
 * 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.
 * as compared to
 * This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.”
 * Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. The author also articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, and often acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.”
 * which serves as a direct contradiction, demonstrating that even in academic sources, there is no consensus on the very existence of this group as the first (earlier published) treats one group as a sub-group of the other, and meanwhile the second source completely disregards any sort of distinction at all. Additionally from the second paper, a claim is made that may indicate this does not belong to be merged with furry but rather therianthropy instead:
 * Otherkin are individuals who identify as "not entirely human."
 * 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."
 * It also bears noting that the second paper cited is also the most recent, and lacks any and all references to the term "otherkin" altogether. It is suggestible that otherkin may simply be an alias or alternative moniker to therianthropy that is more "in vogue" for the constituent members, but mistaken for being distinct or dissimilar when the aforementioned papers provide strong evidence they are one and the same, sharing the same academic definition as well as having unclear super/sub-group classes. As such, it is strongly contestable as to the veracity of claims that these documents may be usable as the bedrock of a well-formed article, individually or even together. Lastly, there is the fact the first article sources therian.wikia.com, but it is important to note that this does not create authority within that page, and most importantly the author articulates the core principle independently and creates his own expression of it.
 * An important set of arguments arises from this. First is that if one were to reject the first article, the broad anti-furry statement in the second means this page belongs merged into therianthropy. If, on the other hand, the second were rejected then this page could be merged into furry. It is the position of this editor that it belongs in the former, as therianthropy bears most common ground with this page, as well as having the most background in the topics specific to this page - as compared to furry which would be more limiting.
 * Along with these citations, it is very important to note that the papers noted demonstrate there is no established convention among academics, as the latter of the two papers utilizes a different word while at the same time providing an identical definition. As such, this page on wikipedia is further pushed into the purview of the therianthropy page's content. It is also important to consistently remember that not only are the terms not consistent, but there is a distinct lack of documents which even provide sources which are not self-published or otherwise non-academic.
 * I utilize this contradiction in articles to show that there is no established consistency due to the latter document utilizing different phrases (more established ones), but identical definitions (thus merging the two groups), in a largely vacant area of study (I believe at this point we have mostly exhausted the majority of the papers which could be used to make any pointed arguments on the specifics to the otherkin label, anything else would be by-association only as is the case of the second paper). The editor in question, on the other hand, ignores the definition given in the latter document and the implications of this contrast, instead favouring the one provided in the earlier document, and utilizing the latter document where it suits his needs to eliminate the furry sub-group categorization, but at the same time refusing to acknowledge acceptance of one point in the article requires acceptance of the others - including the inherit contradiction I had previously noted:
 * 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: 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 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. The accusation of synthesis directed at myself is interesting, as I refute an overarching idea by means of two papers containing a demonstrable contradiction; I do not utilize portions of the papers to formulate any arguments one-way or another, only that the notability is called into question by the very simple fact that two papers cited are themselves inconsistent as to the term being assigned to the definition, and sub-group categorizations. I do this by means of taking two statements about the exact same topic and containing language which is itself indisputably related from two papers, and put them side-by-side; the obvious result is that these two papers which allegedly demonstrate notability of a group and its relationship, in-fact contradict one-another (and interestingly enough, from the same journal) in terms of group name, and sub-group relationship. Combined with the lack of much anything else, this shows this is not extensively researched enough given it is fringe content to pass muster of having a single, unique wikipedia page. Going with the more inclusive and exhaustive label, I recommend at this point of the argument that the page be merged into therianthrope based on the significantly larger coverage as well as the clear inclusiveness of the second articles' definition, completely disregarding the first as utilizing that in addition would then constitute synthesis for any purposes beyond the one I had already stated.
 * Fringe content / Unsubstantial research - I have observed distinct and significant use of fringe content incorrectly by this editor. I did somewhat note this above in the previous point, but it bears noting alone for a moment as there are very clear definitions of what constitutes as well as a higher standard of notability for an individual page on a fringe topic to exist. At this moment, it is sufficiently clear, through my arguments that this topic is - at the absolute most optimistic and positive interpretation - an extremely fringe set of beliefs, with almost zero independent research, contrary to the requirement of extensive coverage. Furthermore, news sources on this topic, as I again demonstrate exhaustively through each news article that has been cited in the argument, there is a distinct lack of verifiability, excessively sensationalism, as well as entirely lacking sustained coverage to support any degree of notability.
 * 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 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
 * Firstly, you've intentionally biased the conversation by means of your claims about the vandalism to the wiki which you manage. That is an external site and your claims have no bearing to the conversation here, they merely serve to introduce doubt to the legitimacy of the conversation itself, nothing more. Since you've already poisoned the well with this innuendo, I would highly recommend you submit to an arbitrator an unaltered record of the edit including IP, Username and/or Email address so it may be resolved by a third party and prevent such vandals from having an impact here.
 * to which a reply is posted
 * 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: 1 2 3 4 5.  I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.
 * where he begins by demonstrating complete obliviousness to what he has done to the conversation through his actions, even though I have stated quite clearly at this point what is wrong with the statement (and given my earlier evidence showing single-use behaviour as well as vested interest, I would mildly suggest that this is in-fact entirely a red-herring designed to intentionally load the conversation altogether, drawing attention away from the topic at hand and set people to be defensive or discredit them), but complying with my request he turn over evidence that can be used to substantiate his claims by an administrator, albeit on the discussion itself rather then to an administrative person. At this point, even a reasonably new user (let alone one who has been a member since 2005) would be aware that there are tools, processes and people to go to when there is belief that they are participating in uncouth behaviour, and may be involved within wikipedia. However, I observed specifically - and most importantly - the editor chose to double-down on his claim at this moment by stating it is a wikipedia user. At this point, I again confront the statement:
 * That very statement is made in bad faith. You allege that a wikipedia user did this edit without any actual backing evidence. The title of the page is publicly visible, and any individual on the internet is able to glean it and then turn around and do this. For the record, I will disclose my IP in fragment form since it is now readily apparent you're throwing out an actual accusation (...report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user ...): 162.253.xxx.xxx . I encourage administrators to validate this.
 * To attempt to salvage any hope of an impartial reader's not pre-conceptualizing the situation based on innuendos, I provide verifiable evidence that can be used to indemnify myself from accusations. At this point, to my amazement even though I have again pointed out the bad faith of the editor's actions, I am greeted with another reply
 * 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. This effectively to an impartial reader may produce a significant effect of entirely invalidating one of the Delete votes by calling - by name - into question the legitimacy of their stance. Furthermore, the editor bases their reason to make an accusation, in a debate page, upon an anagram of a username which could have been chosen by any person. Given the fact of the username anagram and the title of the modified page - it is only clear the vandal is aware of this page and the people voting on it, nothing more. I again, forcefully state the illegitimacy of this course of conversation within the given space as a last-ditch attempt to isolate and remove any bias
 * That's an extremely bad faith gesture, given that a name alone is not itself evidence. What your comment amounts to is character assassination with no actual evidence. I would recommend you to refrain from further attempts to characterise people in this thread based on what is nothing more then speculation and conjecture. If you believe there is actual reason, there are processes and people you can utilize to have your concerns addressed - attempting to address them here continues to poison debate on the subject at hand.
 * Followup: Please read the policy which is also incidentally cited at the top of the edit page. This entire segment above is disruptive behaviour and should be removed so as to not further taint the conversation.
 * 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
 * I have submitted a request to obtain either a copy or an impartial synopsis of the contents beyond the abstract for us to review. Tianmang (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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? 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 while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements
 * I appreciate you retrieving that for me, but please do not assert what I did or did not do given I actually went out and attempted to locate it, and having failed filed to have it retrieved.Tianmang (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I wrote it off as a minor infraction again, preferring the benefit-of-the-doubt, and politely indicated the appropriate policies to follow
 * Finally, please refrain from laying on the shift key when typing words such as AGAIN; if your point is refuted, then it is proper course to provide a refutation in return or move on. The point of the discussion is to remain cool in order to arrive at a consensus, and antagonistic behaviour will not yield useful results to this debate.
 * As this line of conversation continued, the editor continued to behave with the same manner of hostility when I continued to refute his points, making baseless accusations as well as leaving baseless (such as synthesis as noted earlier), and/or sarcastic remarks, and of great grievance utilizing a previous argument that I had already entirely disavowed (I previously noted this in this complaint filing)
 * I've already provided a WP:RS that very clearly states therianthropes are a type of otherkin, the Laycock article. You are ignoring that source in favor of your personal interpretation of the Robertson article supposedly providing an "identical" definition for therianthropy, similar to the way that you previously claimed the Otherkin article should point to various mental disorders based on your reading of the definitions for those disorders as identical.  This is, again, a violation of WP:SYN.
 * to which I respond very simply, pointing out the sheer contradiction in words and action by the editor
 * This is clearly not the case, you are the one who is producing synthesis (in the most literal of manners, by synthesizing points from multiple articles to produce a position that supports your own perspective, by ignoring points of one article which disagree with your proposed claims), by choosing to disregard the very definition provided by a reputable source which brings into contest your own definition. This is not an interpretation as you continue to insist despite being unable to actually refute, as I have refuted one article with another which establishes not only the claim you make is not accepted convention, but that there are entirely different ones which mirror meaning in its entirety (which incidentally actually meets measure of significance even at the level WP:NFRINGE); I have accomplished this without resorting to saying "one document is correct, but only in-part" as your arguments are prone to do (Claiming the group cannot be merged into therianthrope due to a small portion of one article which conveniently says that (itself unable to provide sufficient underlying content to support an article), about what you posit is a sub-group, but then disregarding the contradictory statement which works against your claim, which I have highlighted repeatedly due to its inherit importance. Please review it, as you are mistaking comparison of two articles - with no omissions of convenience - for synthesis, where I would be combining two articles language in a manner that only you have demonstrated throughout this entire debate). It bears specifically reviewing an important fact as to the second article - which deals exclusively with therianthropy, but not in any regard otherkin - makes points which you attempt to utilize in your arguments. Given the contradictory nature of the definitions I have cited, the reason why your argument is impossible to make without first rectifying this impasse is with the one contradiction, the two articles become incompatible. Also, significantly, your claim is that a statement drawn about what you allege to be a subgroup - that is they "are not furry", cannot be attributed to the super-set. This as such does not discount otherkin being merged into furry, only that therianthropy.
 * and (highlight added)
 * "There is a not a finite list of Otherkin "types," but some of the most common include faeries and elves, vampires, therianthropes (individuals who identify with animals and shapeshifters), angels and demons, and "mythologicals" (legendary creatures such as dragons and phoenixes). What is actually signified by these categories is often vague and highly subjective. For example, Lupa identifies as a therianthrope, specifically a wolf" Laycock, We Are Spirits of Another Sort again, already cited, and the second time this definition is clearly given in that text. Full text, again: 1
 * at which point I finally decided that, having my requests to have the conversation remain in a civilized tone, avoiding personal affronts entirely ignored - I decided it was time to issue a warning about future action should it persist
 * Furthermore as you have not paid attention to my continuous citations: you insist on making personal attacks, innuendos, and sarcasm upon myself and other editors who are for non-keep votes, which you have even to this moment still not recanted upon, despite having been explicitly cited each and every time. This is the last time I will address your incivility directly, the next step I will take is to file a complaint about your consistently adversarial conduct toward this debate which is well-founded. Let me be absolutely clear, this is a debate, not a soapbox for fringe theories. Tianmang (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * shortly later I was greeted with a new, short single rebuttal to my argument, wherein the editor attempts to establish some sort of authority, but again uses an irrelevant example and continues to swing accusations
 * There is no contradiction between the two articles. One focuses on the therian subgroup, the other on the broader otherkin community which contains the therian subgroup.  You, and you alone, are making the conclusion, not stated by any source and therefor WP:SYN, that the definition given for therians is "identical" to the definition for otherkin, despite every source including the one you have decided is somehow superior stating that therianthropes believe they are specifically non-human ANIMALS.  As for your statement that a statement about a subgroup cannot be attributed to the super-set, I believe it would help you to consider the formal logic: If A is a part of B, and A is not a part of C, then B is not a part of C.  A concrete example: If Kansas is a part of the United States, and Kansas is not a part of South America, then the United States is not a part of South America. Jarandhel (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * which I again refute, given the previously demonstrated means by which my argument is formed - as well as the shambling attempt at utilizing formal logic (to what purpose?)
 * First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa); your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset. A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.
 * Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy
 * This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)
 * Tianmang (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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
 * I have submitted a request to obtain either a copy or an impartial synopsis of the contents beyond the abstract for us to review. Tianmang (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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? 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 while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements
 * I appreciate you retrieving that for me, but please do not assert what I did or did not do given I actually went out and attempted to locate it, and having failed filed to have it retrieved.Tianmang (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I wrote it off as a minor infraction again, preferring the benefit-of-the-doubt, and politely indicated the appropriate policies to follow
 * Finally, please refrain from laying on the shift key when typing words such as AGAIN; if your point is refuted, then it is proper course to provide a refutation in return or move on. The point of the discussion is to remain cool in order to arrive at a consensus, and antagonistic behaviour will not yield useful results to this debate.
 * As this line of conversation continued, the editor continued to behave with the same manner of hostility when I continued to refute his points, making baseless accusations as well as leaving baseless (such as synthesis as noted earlier), and/or sarcastic remarks, and of great grievance utilizing a previous argument that I had already entirely disavowed (I previously noted this in this complaint filing)
 * I've already provided a WP:RS that very clearly states therianthropes are a type of otherkin, the Laycock article. You are ignoring that source in favor of your personal interpretation of the Robertson article supposedly providing an "identical" definition for therianthropy, similar to the way that you previously claimed the Otherkin article should point to various mental disorders based on your reading of the definitions for those disorders as identical.  This is, again, a violation of WP:SYN.
 * to which I respond very simply, pointing out the sheer contradiction in words and action by the editor
 * This is clearly not the case, you are the one who is producing synthesis (in the most literal of manners, by synthesizing points from multiple articles to produce a position that supports your own perspective, by ignoring points of one article which disagree with your proposed claims), by choosing to disregard the very definition provided by a reputable source which brings into contest your own definition. This is not an interpretation as you continue to insist despite being unable to actually refute, as I have refuted one article with another which establishes not only the claim you make is not accepted convention, but that there are entirely different ones which mirror meaning in its entirety (which incidentally actually meets measure of significance even at the level WP:NFRINGE); I have accomplished this without resorting to saying "one document is correct, but only in-part" as your arguments are prone to do (Claiming the group cannot be merged into therianthrope due to a small portion of one article which conveniently says that (itself unable to provide sufficient underlying content to support an article), about what you posit is a sub-group, but then disregarding the contradictory statement which works against your claim, which I have highlighted repeatedly due to its inherit importance. Please review it, as you are mistaking comparison of two articles - with no omissions of convenience - for synthesis, where I would be combining two articles language in a manner that only you have demonstrated throughout this entire debate). It bears specifically reviewing an important fact as to the second article - which deals exclusively with therianthropy, but not in any regard otherkin - makes points which you attempt to utilize in your arguments. Given the contradictory nature of the definitions I have cited, the reason why your argument is impossible to make without first rectifying this impasse is with the one contradiction, the two articles become incompatible. Also, significantly, your claim is that a statement drawn about what you allege to be a subgroup - that is they "are not furry", cannot be attributed to the super-set. This as such does not discount otherkin being merged into furry, only that therianthropy.
 * and (highlight added)
 * "There is a not a finite list of Otherkin "types," but some of the most common include faeries and elves, vampires, therianthropes (individuals who identify with animals and shapeshifters), angels and demons, and "mythologicals" (legendary creatures such as dragons and phoenixes). What is actually signified by these categories is often vague and highly subjective. For example, Lupa identifies as a therianthrope, specifically a wolf" Laycock, We Are Spirits of Another Sort again, already cited, and the second time this definition is clearly given in that text. Full text, again: 1
 * at which point I finally decided that, having my requests to have the conversation remain in a civilized tone, avoiding personal affronts entirely ignored - I decided it was time to issue a warning about future action should it persist
 * Furthermore as you have not paid attention to my continuous citations: you insist on making personal attacks, innuendos, and sarcasm upon myself and other editors who are for non-keep votes, which you have even to this moment still not recanted upon, despite having been explicitly cited each and every time. This is the last time I will address your incivility directly, the next step I will take is to file a complaint about your consistently adversarial conduct toward this debate which is well-founded. Let me be absolutely clear, this is a debate, not a soapbox for fringe theories. Tianmang (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * shortly later I was greeted with a new, short single rebuttal to my argument, wherein the editor attempts to establish some sort of authority, but again uses an irrelevant example and continues to swing accusations
 * There is no contradiction between the two articles. One focuses on the therian subgroup, the other on the broader otherkin community which contains the therian subgroup.  You, and you alone, are making the conclusion, not stated by any source and therefor WP:SYN, that the definition given for therians is "identical" to the definition for otherkin, despite every source including the one you have decided is somehow superior stating that therianthropes believe they are specifically non-human ANIMALS.  As for your statement that a statement about a subgroup cannot be attributed to the super-set, I believe it would help you to consider the formal logic: If A is a part of B, and A is not a part of C, then B is not a part of C.  A concrete example: If Kansas is a part of the United States, and Kansas is not a part of South America, then the United States is not a part of South America. Jarandhel (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * which I again refute, given the previously demonstrated means by which my argument is formed - as well as the shambling attempt at utilizing formal logic (to what purpose?)
 * First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa); your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset. A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.
 * Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy
 * This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)
 * Tianmang (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This is clearly not the case, you are the one who is producing synthesis (in the most literal of manners, by synthesizing points from multiple articles to produce a position that supports your own perspective, by ignoring points of one article which disagree with your proposed claims), by choosing to disregard the very definition provided by a reputable source which brings into contest your own definition. This is not an interpretation as you continue to insist despite being unable to actually refute, as I have refuted one article with another which establishes not only the claim you make is not accepted convention, but that there are entirely different ones which mirror meaning in its entirety (which incidentally actually meets measure of significance even at the level WP:NFRINGE); I have accomplished this without resorting to saying "one document is correct, but only in-part" as your arguments are prone to do (Claiming the group cannot be merged into therianthrope due to a small portion of one article which conveniently says that (itself unable to provide sufficient underlying content to support an article), about what you posit is a sub-group, but then disregarding the contradictory statement which works against your claim, which I have highlighted repeatedly due to its inherit importance. Please review it, as you are mistaking comparison of two articles - with no omissions of convenience - for synthesis, where I would be combining two articles language in a manner that only you have demonstrated throughout this entire debate). It bears specifically reviewing an important fact as to the second article - which deals exclusively with therianthropy, but not in any regard otherkin - makes points which you attempt to utilize in your arguments. Given the contradictory nature of the definitions I have cited, the reason why your argument is impossible to make without first rectifying this impasse is with the one contradiction, the two articles become incompatible. Also, significantly, your claim is that a statement drawn about what you allege to be a subgroup - that is they "are not furry", cannot be attributed to the super-set. This as such does not discount otherkin being merged into furry, only that therianthropy.
 * and (highlight added)
 * "There is a not a finite list of Otherkin "types," but some of the most common include faeries and elves, vampires, therianthropes (individuals who identify with animals and shapeshifters), angels and demons, and "mythologicals" (legendary creatures such as dragons and phoenixes). What is actually signified by these categories is often vague and highly subjective. For example, Lupa identifies as a therianthrope, specifically a wolf" Laycock, We Are Spirits of Another Sort again, already cited, and the second time this definition is clearly given in that text. Full text, again: 1
 * at which point I finally decided that, having my requests to have the conversation remain in a civilized tone, avoiding personal affronts entirely ignored - I decided it was time to issue a warning about future action should it persist
 * Furthermore as you have not paid attention to my continuous citations: you insist on making personal attacks, innuendos, and sarcasm upon myself and other editors who are for non-keep votes, which you have even to this moment still not recanted upon, despite having been explicitly cited each and every time. This is the last time I will address your incivility directly, the next step I will take is to file a complaint about your consistently adversarial conduct toward this debate which is well-founded. Let me be absolutely clear, this is a debate, not a soapbox for fringe theories. Tianmang (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * shortly later I was greeted with a new, short single rebuttal to my argument, wherein the editor attempts to establish some sort of authority, but again uses an irrelevant example and continues to swing accusations
 * There is no contradiction between the two articles. One focuses on the therian subgroup, the other on the broader otherkin community which contains the therian subgroup.  You, and you alone, are making the conclusion, not stated by any source and therefor WP:SYN, that the definition given for therians is "identical" to the definition for otherkin, despite every source including the one you have decided is somehow superior stating that therianthropes believe they are specifically non-human ANIMALS.  As for your statement that a statement about a subgroup cannot be attributed to the super-set, I believe it would help you to consider the formal logic: If A is a part of B, and A is not a part of C, then B is not a part of C.  A concrete example: If Kansas is a part of the United States, and Kansas is not a part of South America, then the United States is not a part of South America. Jarandhel (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * which I again refute, given the previously demonstrated means by which my argument is formed - as well as the shambling attempt at utilizing formal logic (to what purpose?)
 * First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa); your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset. A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.
 * Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy
 * This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)
 * Tianmang (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa); your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset. A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.
 * Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy
 * This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)
 * Tianmang (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)