Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/North8000 Discussion

The purpose of ANI is for "Reporting and discussing incidents. " The preferred method for discussion of issue's with an editor is supposed to be [WP:[RFC/U]]. Obviously the ANI discussion has gone too far down the road to try to make that happen. Per sofixit and bold I've created this AN subpage so that:
 * It won't archive before it's done.
 * It has a distinct talk page (this one) like RFC/U's do.
 * Any actual incidents requiring short term admin attention will stand out more on watchlists.
 * Can be structured more like an RFC/U to make management and eventual closing by an admin easier. NE Ent 14:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I completely agree with your interpretation of IAR here. Moving it insures a more balanced discussion, anyone can find it, there is likely to be less drama, and is in the best interest of fairness.  And I'm not involved in the discussion, just agree that this is one of those times that policy didn't anticipate.  I have already seen at least one other agree with the move and proper linking. I'm assuming it will just be archived via template and stay here, relying on the bot to archive the link at ANI.  I would recommend future dating (if you haven't already) the link at ANI so it is live for as long as this subpage is. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea to move this to a sub-page (and to hat the more off-topic elements). While the discussion needs to continue, its size and intensity would be a distraction if it remained on the main AN/I page. I'd regard this intelligent action as a model for the future if a similar case came up. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is any change other than a different location, I do object to this unusual move. This has the scope, topic, venue, structure, fog, superficiality etc. of a (now moot) INCIDENT claim, and should be handled solely as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable. Ent only changed the location, not the format. I would agree with your logic.  We don't want to create some new forum, and it should be moved  only to insure there is less drama and a fair discussion using the existing methods in the very rare instances like this where the volume of material is greater than the whole of ANI.  Procedural-wize, it is still simply an ANI report. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * while well intentioned, this has turned into a cluster with no hope of providing much clarity about anything -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I may be reading this wrong but North8000 now seems to be holding their offer of a "quick and pragmatic" solution (presumably a self-imposed recusal from the homophobia talkpage) as a limited-time option before they widely advertise the discussion. Insomesia (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already enough people involved. What we need is for North to take some responsibility for his actions over the last 6 months. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this page the new second venue for some of the battlers (e.g. Jenova20 and Insomnia) to attempt to "work" the situation? Should the false implied premise in Jenova20's post here (that there are some wrong actions of mine to "take responsibility for") posted here be responded to/ dissected here? Further, the notifications of this to date consist only of individuals talk pages by the person making the complaint, and the LGBT project page and then LATER, BY ME, the talk page of the article in question. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In answer to your two questions North8000 - an emphatic "no". Please don't contribute to the further bloating of the discussion. I shall place a message on the talk pages of the chief contributors to this AN/I discussion to ask them all (including yourself) to let this AN/I run its course without further re-hashing old arguments. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "There's already enough people involved." That would indeed be a switch, because normally we want the widest consensus possible. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, i'm calling bullshit. If people still can't see issue even when North can show such an obvious unneutral POV here then this is a waste of time and we need to take it further. He's increased his accusations from a "trio" to more, and now he's attacking the entire LGBT studies wikiproject and labelling them activists. The thing is a farce ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I answered there, I don't see "activist" as a negative, so quit mis-characterizing it as an "attack" North8000 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You just labelled an entire wikiproject's members as activists and that's not a bad thing? You changed your comment so why do that if you don't think it's bad to label so many people in such a way? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is "activist" a bad thing? You may feel that that characterization is inaccurate, but it certainly isn't a bad thing. But I think that you already know that. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your editing patterns elsewhere, I'd suggest that using "activist" is probably not wise, lest it come back to bite you. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything has come out of this...
If anything has come out of this, it's the frank admission by multiple involved users on the associated project page that the wikipedia article does not adhere to a standard dictionary definition of the term: instead, it uses the very same definition of the term as used in homosexual slang, which of itself is highly questionable for the encyclopedic voice. I also fail to see why 'opposition to homosexuality' is any more "right wing" than the existing title societal attitudes toward homosexuality - I could easily see a logical split of the current homophobia into one for the clinical definition at the current title, as a subarticle of another title opposition to homosexuality with wider scope, itself a subarticle to societal attitudes toward homosexuality. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "it uses the very same definition of the term as used in homosexual slang". I have never heard so much bullshit in my life.  Please feel free to actually (a) read the archives, in which I have demonstrated the use of the word by British Government amongst many others, and then (b) read the actual dictionary definitions.  Not to mention the fact that we use WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:THENAMEIPREFER.   Seriously, competence is required here, you know? Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the UK regime uses the same 'popular' definition, it only raises graver neutrality questions, as I pointed out earlier, but never got a satisfactory reply. I realize that the English language originated in what is now the UK, but that doesn't mean we are beholden to side with the UK regime's political POVs, any more than we would be to the Saudi or Sudanese regimes' POVs, which assuredly would not at all be congruent. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just the UK, for crying out loud. That was an example. The common word for general opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia". This is backed up by any reliable research, Google hits, general reliable sources (i.e. high quality media sources), and anything else you'd like to consider regarding Wikipedia policy.  Perhaps you'd like to rename racism as opposition to people with a different skin colour?  Ludicrous, yes? Well, it's the same thing you're suggesting. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that legless argument will never wash with me, because skin colour is not widely perceived as a vice, immorality or sin. That's why we have societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but don't have societal attitudes toward skin color. A more apt comparison would be alcohol, gambling, incest, or heroin abuse - of which we can speak in every case about "societal attitudes" and "opposition". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Til Eulenspiegel. As an American, I can say that "homophobia" is not a term used to define opposition to homosexuality in the the States. Here, it is a derogatory term used to slam and insult people who's ethics, culture, and traditions are non-supportive of homosexual behavior. Another object to look at would be liberalism in the UK. The society as a whole is far more accepting of homosexuality than almost any other region in the world. I'd say that fact gives them a general POV. Wikipedia is being used as a tool to redefine a word's usage to promote a political viewpoint. —Maktesh (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "as an amurican" you can say that all you want. as a wikipedian and a missourian, I say show me if you want me to actually believe it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "amurican"??? Getting a little ad hominem in the rhetoric. In any event, the talk page of the article itself is the preferred place to have the discussion as to whether the article is named correctly or not. NE Ent 03:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If anything productive has come out of this, surely it's the recognition that the way out of a prolonged, entrenched talk page dispute is to simply go through WP:RM, WP:RFC, or one of the other mechanisms designed to establish and clarify a broad consensus.--Trystan (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And to not allow ANI to become a tool for furthering one's viewpoint in that debate. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, you really just undermined all weight you have as a Wikipedian. You clearly have a poor, ethnocentric attitude, and I have nothing to prove to you. —Maktesh (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Here, (homophobia) is a derogatory term used to slam and insult people who's ethics, culture, and traditions are non-supportive of homosexual behavior". Interesting - revealing a little too much of your own POV, perhaps?  Please feel free to come back with reliable sources for that one, won't you? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I know that you meant that as a slam, but I thought I would answer with a sincere overview in that area. My real-world POV is irrelevant to editing in Wikipedia but might still be useful context. I am a LGBT activist with respect to full societal normalization and acceptance of gays, bisexuals transgendered folks, and everything related to those attributes.  This arises from two areas.    One, I am a libertarian. (NOT a conservative)  Using the US meanings of the three terms (which are different than the European meanings) this means that my views on size and scope of government match those of conservatives, and my views on social issues match those of liberals. Second, after extensive research, including talking to some of the best experts, I have concluded that homosexuality is an embedded attribute of human beings, not a "choice" nor merely a behavior.  And so it would be immoral to persecute  folks, or even make their life more difficult because of an embedded attribute of the individual. However, this does not extend to (as the nastier of LGBT activists do) branding everyone who feels opposite to me as being evil or having something wrong with them.  However, my basis for calmly standing firm at the article is not my POV, but instead for various Wikipedian considerations, including application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually wasn't a slam at all, North8000, it was purely a note to User:Maktesh, whose quote it was. Whilst I obviously think that it would be good for you to step away from the subject a little, in no way am I impugning your motives, whereas Maktesh's issues are on display for all to see through a simple perusal of his edits. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, who are you to judge my point-of-view? Regardless, I need not source statements I make on talk pages. This has nothing to do with POV. It has to do with culture. In my own, personal experience, labeling someone a "homophobe" is the polar opposite of labeling one as a "faggot." I'm simply noting as a Wikipedian, that my experience shows that this is a politically charged word. My actual POV, which I set aside as an editor, is that homosexuality is an abnormality. As such, the normalization of it within our society is rendered foolish. Also, I would match it up with the Theory of Evolution, as it serves no real purpose to humanity's growth and/or development. That's my take on the topic, and I like to think of myself as middle-of-the-road, perhaps leaning a little to the politicalright. I certainly don't support homosexuality, but I'm not on a "morality quest" here. But let's remember: WP:NOTAFORUM.

Dammit, you want sources? Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster or thefreedictionary.com


 * 1. "a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality."
 * 2. "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"
 * 3. "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men, Behavior based on such a feeling."

Honestly, I'm still scratching my head as to why that hasn't settled the debate. When will you learn that "disagreement with" ≠ "hatred of"? That's math and English 101... —Maktesh (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I certainly don't support homosexuality"? Personally, I don't support poor weather conditions, but I have to live with the fact it exists and it would be pretty pointless for me to go the page rain and start complaining that our coverage on it was not negative enough. On a serious note, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we go on what reliable sources say.  A simple trawl of reliable sources will confirm that the word is almost never used in the sense of "fear", and is most often used in the sense of dislike, contempt, action against, or simply disagreement with. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...although I don't know why I'm bothering saying this again, because it's been endlessly hashed out by others on the talkpage already. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you can't back up this edit with evidence, I suggest you remove it. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprising how most sources would use it. In many geographic locations, one hardly hears or sees the word being used by anyone else but a certain genre of media! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the interests of transparency: User talk: Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)