Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

10 February

• [2], Connecting therianthropy to clinical lycanthropy, a mental illness:

In cases where someone actually believes to personally change into an animal form, or to possess supernatural animal traits, the term clinical lycanthropy is often used. This is a form of mental illness.

30 July

• [3], Statement of POV:

If I was really pushing my side the Otherkin article would start out something like "A bunch of raving lunatics who need psychiatric help claim to have animals and other species inside of them based upon their need to be highly dramatic and self-important because they can't get any self-worth in their pathetic, miserable lives any other way..."

21 August

• [4], Otherkin are stated to be "highly delusional".

23 August

• [5], Adding a See also link to therianthropy from clinical lycanthropy.

August 22

• <18:50, August 22, 2005>

[6] he assumed I was the sockpuppet of a very inexperienced user in order to engage in edit warring because he did not believe in my good faith but instead assumed my bad faith (sockpuppetry, etc) on my part. Frankly, from the speedy delete tag being applied for no genuine reason I assumed it must have been this girlvinyl person trying to get rid of the RfC improperly.

September 16

<22:07, September 16, 2005>

[7] he accuses me of just turnming up to an atrticle because he was making the comment. I get that feeling that you and xxxx just showed up because you two have a history of false complaints against me.

There is no history of false complaint against him, and this is an article I had been watching since Deeceevoice came under attack from WareWare.

<15:47, September 16, 2005> [8] Slightly earlier he also engages in a bad faith attack against the same Deeceevoice.

5 October

• [9] Possibly uncivil edit on Talk:Otherkin, the first thing he's said to Gabriel/Gavin/Gimmiet since his return.

<7> <October>

rudely removing valid things without discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lycanthropy&diff=prev&oldid=25008986

look ath the comment in invisible quotes, and then look at the rudeness in what else he tried to place in the n4ext edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otherkin&diff=next&oldid=25010380

this is typical, and shows no sign of stopping.

15 October

• • [10] and [11] False claims of having consensus on his side are things DreamGuy makes a lot, and these are but two examples of reverts he made without discussion based on this "consensus" (an examination of the case would quickly reveal that he is pretty much alone on the matter).

• • [12] A personal attack on myself and User:Llywrch (calling us "stubborn"), as well as another claim that myths being "believed to be true" is the most important part of the definition, despite not appearing in any dictionary I have consulted. DreamGuy consistently refuses to cite sources for such claims.

• • [13] Claim to be restoring a balanced opening to an article, when in fact giving precedence to his rare definition and blatantly misinterpretting the one I advocated and its origins, as well as an assumption of bad faith on my part.

• • [14] More assumptions of bad faith, and a claim to want to compromise despite later refusing to allow me to include my consensus-acknowledging edits.

• • [15] Continued refusal to acknowledge obvious facts (which has apparently stopped recently, but could rise again). Notice the lack of specific sources: the only scholars he's mentioned are "classical authors", with no specifics. He also again shows a misunderstanding of my definition of "mythology" as being a collective noun.

• • [16] A few blatant personal attacks against me - including the latest in a string of claims that I am delusional and a reference to me as a "problem user". Also, an assumption that I only edit the Mythology article for revenge against him, and a claim that consensus is against me despite facts.

• • [17] Apparently a blind revert of my overall positive edit just because it was made by me, as it seems unlikely he would not notice all the other changes I made as he later claimed.