Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 19 November 2012

Request for article and/or topic ban

For the past year, user North8000 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive, tendentious discussions at the Homophobia article talk page. His 266 talk page contributions have consisted of mostly of claims that the article is poorly written, biased and that corrective edits to the article are being prevented by a "trio of editors". Notably North8000 has made exactly four edits to the article, consisting of reversions, restoration of reverted content and very minor edits.

His main argument boils down to the proposition that there are two etymological definitions to the term homophobia, and that the Misplaced Pages article is written to give undue weigh to one definition and is therefore a "POV mess". In his own words, "The core of the problem is that 80% of the article categorically calls ALL opposition to homosexuality "homophobia". When it does that it it uses only one of the definitions and pretends that the other does not exist. And, as such, the 80% weighs in on one side of the controversy." He has been asked repeatedly to provide sources to support his argument, or to simply edit the article, which he has agreed to do, but has consistently failed to follow through on. Instead he repeats the same argument, ad nauseum.

North8000's first talk page post at the Homophobia article on November 27, 2011 was titled "This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic item" and the post started with "What a mess!"

North8000 has repeatedly accused a "trio of editors" (presumably Jenova20, Dominus Vobisdu and Rivertorch) of conspiratorially preventing the article from being fixed. He has repeatedly made the same arguments that have been refuted by many other editors. The pattern then turns to accusations of blocking and chasing editors away.

Examples of accusations (emphasis added)

1. "...multitude of people who bring it up get ganged up on and chased away, one by one" (he later apologized)
2. "POV tactic straight out of one of the activists training session"
3. Well, the "big job" here is that there is a group of editors who LIKES that this article is badly POV'd, that it carries the torch for one side of the controversy, and that it states the view of one side of the controversy as fact
4. "...a group has simply harangued / intimidated away the people who make the point or used the "double standard" approach that I described to prevent resolution."
5. "The group here has been evading this topic, misstating it, and camouflaging it with a variety of insults, and even saying that sourcing is required to challenge the lack of sourcing."
6. "Of course, the trio here missed the third alternative when the same problem has been noted by an immense number of people for the entire history of the article which is to start listening."
7. "Just because the trio that likes it as-is has so-far managed to keep it that way does not make what is contained in that wide-ranging feedback a "dead horse". The only dead horse is thinking that any one of the trio would be swayed from their quest by any argument or sourcing."
8. "As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives."
9. "When folks responses go beyond disagreement into dirty pool tactics, as they continually have done here from the trio..."
10. "As per the tactics that the trio has continuously used here, you have just completely mis-stated what I said."
11. "No, an immense number of people have said the same thing about the article, and the trio keeps running them all off."
12. "And no, what I said it hasn't gained traction with the POV trio that has been blockading the fix."
13. "Of course the same group that blew them off and/or chased them away is not going to be convinced to fix it."
14. "An immense number of people have pointed out the problems with this article, but a trio who likes its current POV has delayed repair by chasing them away one by one, and embedding their argument in the header."
15. "There are things to be learned when a certain small group of people repetitively make false accusations and re-directs and avoid discussing the actual points of the conversation."

A pattern that has also been observed is that North8000 waits until a troll or an SPA posts a rant about the article, and then joins in the discussion, reopening the same arguments as before. Most times, he agrees to edit the article with sources, and then fades away, having taken no actual action to improve the article. Lather, rinse, repeat. Examples:

Warnings (from different editors)

Several editors have asked North8000 to stop the forum talk and edit the article, or move on. He has been formally warned on his talk page twice.

1. March 20, 2012: North8000 was warned about disrupting the Homophobia talk page by Seb az86556
2. June 18, 2012: "This is becoming disruptive, and it really needs to stop now. Please." by Rivertorch
3. June 21, 2012: "Frankly after 3 months this is just disruptive and using the talk page as a forum." by Jenova20
4. June 22, 2012: "Next stop is administrator support, this has been going on too long." by Insomesia
5. November 11, 2012: I gave him a final warning to stop the disruptive talk page editing behavior. Even after this warning, North8000 persisted in disrupting the article talk page with the same recrudescent arguments, complaints and accusations. It is evident that he does not see this behavior as disruptive, in spite of being told so by no less than ten other editors. He has steadfastly rejected all efforts by the community to curtail his disruptive behavior.

While I believe that North8000's contribution history reflects a sincere interest in improving the encyclopedia, he has clearly exhausted the patience of the community at the Homophobia talk page. These are text book examples of WP:IDHT, WP:WINNING, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEADHORSE. I recommend at minimum a permanent article ban, or possibly a topic ban, to protect the article talk page and restore a collegial editing environment. This will free North8000 to redirect his efforts to areas where he can contribute in a productive and non-disruptive fashion. - MrX 16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Response from North8000

I have just seen this. The above spins/misrepresents the situaition. A careful couple reads of the talk page history would dispel it and show that a boomerang is most appropriate. But the talk page is lengthy and not many are ready to do that. So it is going to take me at least an hour of work to prepare a summary of the relevant aspects of this, an hour which I won't have until tomorrow and even that will be a struggle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Quick note, I didn't say #8, it was a quote of somebody else. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd like a topic ban. North has a bias on homosexuality articles and was a problematic editor on straight pride with this same kind of thing if memory serves me correct. He believes the use of the word homophobia is used incorrectly in the article as it's not a real phobia (from past discussions on that talk page) and yet he never made the same arguments towards islamophobia or xenophobia. My assessment after so long is that he's too biased to edit the lgbt articles neutrally and his editing has been long since overtaken by talk page editing, instead of actual editing. Perfect example of his lack of neutrality, he's stated multiple times he wants the article renamed to Opposition to homosexuality, neutral or Wp:Commonname? no. He's just disrupting the talk page. I believe he needs a topic ban so that posting on the homophobia talk page on a daily basis is no longer a necessity for him or an issue for me and the 6+ other editors who end up replying to him with the same thing over and over...and over. Thanks ツ Jenova20 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do with North at this point. He has his own opinion on what homophobia is and how the article should be written, but doesn't present the sources to back up his opinion, instead spending his time complaining on the talk page. It really has gotten disruptive after months and tons of conversations on the same exact thing over and over. Silverseren 20:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, or at the very least page ban. North8000 is effectively the reasonable face of the various SPAs, shouty IPs ("this article is BIASED!!11!!") and even established editors with extreme views on homosexuality . He's made 265 edits to the talk page and hasn't come up with a single useful, policy-compliant suggestion for changing the article. Frankly every editor involved with the page is sick of having their time wasted by him - it is time that it stopped. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on all LGBTI topics, very broadly construed, anywhere on WP, including article and user talk pages in addition to article space. This is by far the longest dead horse argument I've seen in WP, with 266 posts stretching over a period of one year now, with no sign that he ever intends to stop. It is also not the only such months-long filibuster he has waged, having done so also on the article on Intelligent Design, though he finally dropped that stick. This is clearly disruptive and tendentious behavior, and has consumed countless hours of valuable editor time. His vague questions and concerns have been patiently addressed by me and numerous other editors many times over, but apparently not finding them to his liking, he has made numerous accusations of bad faith against a vague group of editors. He has been warned many, many, many times that he is abusing the talk page as a soapbox, but he absolutely refuses to listen. In the last two days or so, ten editors expressed agreement on the article talk page that he was being disruptive (see here: ]. Because of the considerable amount of editor time that this editor has wasted with his relentless filibustering and the fact that he has made editing on WP a very unpleasant and trying experience for his fellow editors, because he fails to treat them with respect and civility, and because he shows absolutely no sign of improving or at least stopping his disruptive behavior after six months, I have to conclude that this editor is a net liability to the project. Frankly, I would also support a community ban at this point, if it were proposed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support page bantopic ban broadly construed, at least. I haven't seen evidence of their intractableness elsewhere although it may exist. I gave up after many months of trying to see what reliable sources North8000 could be utilizing for their views. They were never forthcoming after many requests. I'm still open to Misplaced Pages-compliant changes to the article but instead it does seem North8000 would foment an argument until everyone else gave up, and then another SPA would pop up and off to the races with the same old discussion that had been long resolved as going nowhere. The FAQ on the page was created solely to address North8000's ongoing campaign. The archive counter is off, here is a link to see discussion that they've prompted starting in 2011. I think whatever point they wanted to make has come and gone with little evidence of the idea(s) taking hold. This has been explained many times over by many editors, some bluntly and some quite patiently, to little or no effect. Many hints at page and topic bans have been suggested and I don't think anyone was hoping it would get to this point but here we are. They may have very positive contributions elsewhere but this really has stalled any productive discussions on that talkpage and I don't think it's fair. Insomesia (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm amending to topic ban because it seems LGBT topics are a tough area for this editor to accept consensus and edit collegially. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support page ban or topic ban relating to homophobia. With regret, because I believe the user is a good-faith contributor on other topics, I must support a ban. Just to emphasize, this is not a content dispute—there are no article-space edits at issue—but a behavioral matter, a classic case of WP:IDHT and refusal to stand down and accept consensus. A multitude of editors, from longtime admins to newbies, have made innumerable efforts to engage constructively with the user at Talk:Homophobia and at his user page, to no avail. His response is typically to describe what's being said to him as "crap", lie low for a few weeks, and then reëmerge (frequently in company with an IP or new SPA) with the exact same tendatious arguments that have been refuted time and time again. Outside opinions have been sought at two separate noticeboards (I don't have diffs handy and am in a rush, sorry—I think they were at WP:NORN and WP:NPOVN Added: wait, here's one) with the same result: North's argument gains no traction but he refuses to accept that. I made several serious efforts to try to resolve the situation, including this discussion on his talk page, but in the end, no dice. At this point, the disruption has become mind-numbing and beyond wearisome, and it needs to stop. Rivertorch (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Opposed to topic ban. I was left a notice that this topic was under discussion. I do not now watch the Homophobia page, though I may have in the past. Couldn't find my edits with a cursory search. I have not noticed North8000 behavior on other related articles. If it had been bad, I think I would have noticed. I had no idea you could vote an editor you didn't like off an article page. I thought you had to go first through mediation, then arbitration, both rather time-consuming. Interesting information. I will have to remember that.

I will have to leave it up to other editors whether to vote him off the article page. "Topic" seems too general as "topics" pop up everyplace: demographics in place articles, for Pete's sake! "Topic" just seems too broad IMO.

I would like to point out that the LGBT Project is extremely active, perhaps the only really active project in the English Misplaced Pages. There are few articles in which the topic of LGBT hasn't been raised. Are there other voices of dissent left in that article? Someone who is heterosexual should be watching the content IMO. Most people (and most readers) are not LGBT. This is not WikiLGBT! Student7 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this garbage. If you think those who disagree with North are all homosexual, you are very, very wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"There are few articles in which the topic of LGBT hasn't been raised."???? Out of the four million plus articles on Misplaced Pages, the topic has been raised in a tiny minority of them. Or didn't you mean that? I am bewildered as to what you did mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support article ban including the talk page. No reason exists at this time (or has been demonstrated here) for a wider topic ban.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all LGBT related articles - clear agenda here. GiantSnowman 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban What the first three people have said. Also, for his namechange to succeed, someone would have to come up with a new word that used neither "homo" or "phobia" and yet convey the meaning of both, which is frankly impossible. The rest is nonsense that I would like to see go away. --Auric 21:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Question: When everyone is calling for a topic ban, would this include everything the LGBT project decides to stick a banner on? My concern here is that the project has been a little, um liberal, in some of the articles they believe are theirs, especially some of the BLP articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As one of the editors that voted for the topic ban and strongly supports it, I would even more strongly oppose using the LGBT project banner as a criterion. Projects often use whimsical criteria on which articles to include or not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course we wouldn't take the fact that someone chooses to "stick a banner on" a page as being a criterion. We would take the criterion as being that the page, or North8000's contribution, or both, actually deals with the topic. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Let's not rush to judgement until we hear what North has to say. If, as alleged, the problem has been around for a year, another day or so doesn't matter. Leaky Caldron 21:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I hate AN/I Unfortunately, the AN/I process allows all kinds of nasty, unsupported allegations to be thrown at the target, in such volume that the subject cannot possibly respond to all of them. It's a forum where editors wanting another editor silenced, for political reasons or just disagreement, can go with the majority and create an online lynch mob. Yes, I've been the victim of such a process, and yes, I've changed my approach, but not because the AN/I process convinced me I was wrong. I've done it because I saw that the bigots here had a lot of power under this umbrella, so long as they are on the side of a majority opinion. We must be very careful to not let that happen here. Having said that, North8000 does appear to have a problem of perspective. We must note that he is not alone in his view. I think it is wrong, and have told him so. I don't think he sees me as part of "the group", and certainly not part of "the trio". Unfortunately, my comments have also been to no avail. What I hope can come out of this process is that, now that the issue has been brought to the attention of editors not previously involved, someone (more than one ideally) at a responsible level can talk to North, perhaps away from this thread, convince him of their impartiality, and politely point out the problem with what he is doing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A nice idea, but, I'm afraid, unrealistic. Numerous people have "talk to North ... and politely point out the problem with what he is doing" over the course of many months. He/she has never taken in what has been said, and I see no reason to suppose that he/she will suddenly do so because yet one more person does so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Editor has worn out his welcome, taking productivity away from other editors. He has refused to relent, so the community must now act. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - Seems to me his only crime here is accusing three editors of working collectively as a pro-LGBT group. Those sort of accusations are not abnormal on political or LGBT topic areas on either side. It seems to me this is a retaliation or response by those group of editors, who clearly resent North's opinion and views on them and the page; all three have formed a bloc here supporting his topic banning, but whether they want him removed for legitimate disruption or because he disagrees with them is really not certain to me. I'm not assuming bad faith on their part, but I can't say for certain this is isn't a move to get rid of an enemy. Banning North from commenting on the talk when he has clearly shown restraint from editing the article itself seems a bit unusual to me, but I await his explanation for his actions and views on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 21:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No, his accusations alone are not the problem. That would be a one off, and everyone could move on. The problem is North's persistence over a very long period, in the face of pretty strong but polite opposition, and the demands he places on those other polite editors of repeating responses uncountable times. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Making accusations against other editors on talk pages is disruptive and reason for a block. While unfounded accusations are always wrong, even ones made with good grounds should only be made in the appropriate fora, e.g., here at ANI. Battleground tactics are strongly discouraged. TFD (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Seems to me his only crime here is accusing three editors of working collectively as a pro-LGBT group."

If that were the only reason for this ANI with 15 examples, that would be reason enough for a block. What we have in addition to that is disruptive domination of talk discussion, with hypothetical solutions to non-existent problems; followed by denial; followed by refusal to stop the disruptive behavior. - MrX 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - In case anyone is wondering, I notified the involved editors who interacted with North8000 on the Homophobia article talk page. If anyone is aware of anyone that I missed, please notify them as well. - MrX 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support LGBT topic ban Seems that North8000 is unable to contribute constructively to the article and therefore nothing is lost in a topic ban, and it will enable other editors to work towards improvement. A topic ban, rather than a ban on this specific article, is advisable, because otherwise this editor could just move to another article with the topic. TFD (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Toa Nidhiki05. The quotes do not appear to be disruptive from an outside perspective. This seems to me to be three editors retaliating because their preferred POV is being challenged. Since the Fae overuse of Homophobia for any of his critics, I am hesitant to support anymore labeling of that sort or topic banning because folks do not like criticism. The only thing North8000 is accused of above is in believing there is a cabal. Annoying? Always. Disruptive? Perhaps. Altogether topic ban worthy? Not in my opinion. However, I strongly recommend North8000 present hard policy based changes with supporting reliable sources quickly before this goes to Arbcom.--v/r - TP 22:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  Since the Fae overuse of Homophobia for any of his critics, I am hesitant to support anymore labeling of that sort or topic banning because folks do not like criticism.' - wow, just wow. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • FWIW. It's never been North8000 vs. "The unnamed trio". There is a growing list of editors that have had the same unproductive interactions and North8000 has done blanket accusations against all. I thought I was a part of the trio but I have no idea if I ever was or not. North8000 has been asked time and time again for any supporting reliable sources for the changes they seek. Instead it turns into meta discussions, again and again, despite quite reasonable efforts to solicit specific actionable edits/changes to the article. Insomesia (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • Fwiw, I think I was misidentified as part of the "trio". Feel free to take my place! Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • Maybe, but it's not supported by the diffs above. What is supported is that North8000 has been throwing around accusations of POV and a cabal. Given the topic, I'm not about to support a topic ban. The Fae issues are my reasoning. Fae called all of his critics homophobes and wanted them silenced. I am concerned this is more of that same attitude and until I see stronger diffs, I'm going to be cautious. If this were an WP:RFC/U, I might endorse a summary that required North8000 show his cards; if any. But I am concerned because we're in a topic area where folks will hold their tongues for fear of offending others.--v/r - TP 22:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. North means well, but he simply isn't making constructive contributions in this area. Disagreeing with consensus is not a problem, but pushing the same issue for months and months starts to become disruptive. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support article ban and/or topic ban. WP:DEADHORSE and WP:LISTEN, etc. to the point where I've stopped participating widely in discussions for quite some time. Repeating yourself isn't productive, nor fun. North8000 has apparently brought forth the same perceived issue for 1/3 of one year. User Toa is mistaken. North's disruption is in main part regarding the definition of homophobia and his edits. Though, I would think the WP:NOTFORUM discussions are not productive either. But, I don't believe North is a terrible person simply because he hasn't moved a discussion forward. Teammm 
  _email 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• not quite support I think he's wasting his time on this article because it has been owned by the LGBT project for years and always will be. Therefore while I suppose in some sense his resistance can be called disruptive, and I'm unwilling to read through everything to determine for myself exactly how well-grounded his complaints are, I cannot endorse the principle that one very POV-organized project can use AN/I to defend the editing of their topics from outside criticism. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What's this "owned by the LGBT project" claim all about? That reads at least as badly as North's accusations about the terrible trio here. Appalling generalisations like that never help these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe, you say "I'm unwilling to read through everything to determine for myself exactly how well-grounded his complaints are". Unfortunately, your comments confirm that you have not read through the relevant background, and so don't know what the issues are. (This kind of thing is one of the reasons I usually avoid AN/I like the plague: people who make often strongly opinionated comments without first finding out what the issues are.) This stuff about being "owned by the LGBT project" is nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, you really have missed the point if you think that this is a question of trying to defend the editing of a topic from outside criticism. It is a question of one editor who has been persistently disruptive, making literally hundreds of posts all plugging the same point of view, over a very prolonged period, long after it has become clear that he/she is flying in the face of consensus. And taht consensus is not just from "one very POV-organized project": I, for example, have absolutely zero connection to the "LGBT project", but I once, months ago, tried to help this editor to understand what the problems with his/her editing were, but to no avail. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. As an uninvolved editor, we need to hear from North8000, or a week goes by. If there is no defense within a week, or if the defense is weak, then I would support warning the editor. Until now, as far as I can tell, he has only received warnings from involved individuals who he understandably chose to ignore. An official consensus-supported warning from the community should precede an actual ban in such a case, and only after he has had a reasonable chance to tell his side. The apparent willingness here to article or topic ban someone without such a warning is worrisome. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"After he has had a reasonable chance to tell his side"? He/she has been telling his/her side for 6 months. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support article ban, I've watched and occasionally contributed at that page for some years, and this is an unprecedented bludgeoning of the already-pulped equine. William Avery (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Been at it since March. Still doesn't get what the issue is. Keeps ranting. Narrow topic ban is indeed appropriate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support talk page ban. This is kind of backwards from what we normally so -- that is, ban editing the article but allow commenting on the talk page -- but I'd be in favor of banning N8000 from the talk page, unless he is commenting on or responding to comments on his own edits to the article. This would encourage him to edit the article to correct the problems he sees, and, of course, those edits would be subject to the usual restrictions on OR, RS etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. At least for now. Only 4 edits? That means he's not edit-warring, he's talking - at significant length. So others don't like his opinions? Well, the word "homophobia" literally means "fear of 'same'", shorthand for "fear of homosexuality". However, the gay movement has hijacked the term for political purposes, to claim that any opposition to homosexuality is based on "fear" rather than on reason. But like it or not, it's in common usage. There's no getting around that fact. So, North simply needs to face the reality that, even though his argument is etymologically "true", common usage trumps the "truth". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors can still be disruptive on the talk page. Complaining about the same/similar things again and again without consensus ever forming is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose after reading the 10 pages of archived talk (which was necessary, because the archives could charitably be called "fucked up") I see no valid reason for a topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The archiving has been corrected so that the current talk and Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 - all 288k of it - are easily accessible. Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 shows how the same discussion came up, was refuted, and then was revisited time and time again to no change in consensus and complete with numerous ignored requests for reliable sources to support any changes. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support article ban and/or topic ban. Yeah, the line into tendentiousness has been crossed. Time to step away from the horse. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support kicking this joker to the curb. Reading through all those talk page comments is no different from the reams of crap from the likes of Grundle2600 at Barack Obama-related articles over the years. Sooner or later you just have to cut your losses and pry the crazies away from the topic that they obsess isn't Telling It Like It Is(tm). Tarc (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Basically his participation to the talk page is a promotion of his own views on the topic with hardly any references to reliable sources beyond some dictionaries. On Misplaced Pages that is (loftily) called WP:OR. Noth8000 keeps saying that 80% of the article is misusing the term, but provided no sources to back up his view that such-and-such topic is contested by some reliable source as properly falling under the homophobia umbrella. Nor has he disputed the reliability of any sources used in the article. His participation was just WP:SOAP. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I haven't read it all but I have read quite a few discussions from different time periods. Topic ban is ridiculous as it's confined to one article. Regarding a ban from that article, he makes well reasoned points and it's not trolling or vandalism. Whether his points have enough merit to change the article needs to be decided by a wider consensus than just people from the LGBT Project. If that consensus is against him and the talk page discussions are continued to an excessive extent, then I'd support a page ban. Zaalbar (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't read it, have you? The basic issue is that consensus IS against him, and he has been at it for almost a year. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The so-called consensus keeps getting made by people from the LGBT Project. A wider consensus is needed. Zaalbar (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was made repeatedly by all the editors there. Based on reliable sources. After many discussions where no valid rationale was presented for any change. Blaming a project, or any editors, isn't convincing. Start a neutral RfC and see if there is any reliable sources for the changes sought. The editors there have been extremely open to "fixing" perceived problems, using community-approved approaches. No reason to not insist we use reliable sources to back major rewrites to articles. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, consensus made by the LGBT or Conservatism Project is worth very little. A list of sources isn't required for the mainly structural changes North wants. Zaalbar (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was made by the editors at the talkpage who may or may not be a part of either project. And yes sources are definitely required to fundamentally change the structure in the ways proposed. We let the sources lead the way, if the majority of reliable sources were reporting something different then what we have then we must change what we have. No evidence that we are in conflict with the majority of reliable sources. That's been the point the entire time. You can opine that the sky is really a different color then what everyone else thinks, but we are still going to go with what the majority of reliable sources state. If a significant minority opinion supports a different color then we can report that a s a fringe view - also well sourced. But no reliable sources for any change to what we have has ever been presented. Insomesia (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No reliable sources were presented... do you mean No sources at all were presented? Or by chance would this be one of those cases where sources were indeed presented as evidence that a POV really exists, and those same sources were then adjudged to be "UNRELIABLE" as evidence that the POV really exists, and so therefore maybe the POV doesn't really exist? I've seen that scenario in a few of wikipedia's backwaters over the years. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean exactly that on Misplaced Pages we really on WP:Reliable sources, even if presenting WP:Fringe ideas. Without reliable sources to further your ideas the discussion is rather flat. I believe a ranty YouTube video of a preacher was presented to support the fringe position. That was considered and dismissed. You can read the archive yourself to see what sources were presented. Insomesia (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC

Moving the article to Opposition to homosexuality and changing some content to reflect this move doesn't require sources as the content is still maintained but the POV slant is changed. Whether that POV slant is more neutral or less needs to be decided by a wider portion of editors than it has been so far. Zaalbar (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Article Article Talk Page Ban As per Shirt58. The user's clearly being disruptive and isn't responding well to consensus. He may have some kind of bias, but he isn't causing problems as far as I saw outside of this single page, so for now at least, a topic ban is unwarranted. I think forcing him to take a break from this tendentiousness might do him some good as an editor, and certainly would benefit Misplaced Pages as a whole. Coppaar (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there’s always the "Reichstag Corollary to consensus", which is good to remember and meditate upon: To the same extent that ‘consensus’ is obtained by means of ejecting all the dissenting parties from the discussion, it ought to be questioned how much it can be termed a true ‘consensus’. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and second User:Mangoe's reasons - also seems overly punitive of dissenting opinion on talkpage discussion, based only on opponents' point-of-view, which is not how wp works in most other areas, or is supposed to ideally work. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No one is being punished for a dissent POV. They are being held accountable for holding the talkpage hostage by engaging a fringe view in a soapbox manner. This has been a chilling effect on any other real talkpage use. This has been a year of entertaining Noth8000's POV, with no reliable sources to support any change. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support article talk-page ban only.

• Title of this thread is "User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia".
• North8000 has been disruptively editing at talk:Homophobia.
• Talk-page ban for North8000 at talk:Homophobia solves this problem.

Anything else is superfluous to solving this problem. I've said my piece about why it's a problem above. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of broad LGBT topic ban across the entire encyclopedia. Talk:Homophobia isn't the only place where this problem has occurred, and I've previously raised the issue about his edit warring/tag teaming on homosexual agenda and other articles. User:North8000 has made 266 edits to the homophobia talk page for approximately one year, consisting of a single, tendentious argument to redefine homophobia. North's argument is no different than those of IP's on the racism and antisemitism pages who say people should be allowed to dislike and oppose non-whites and Jews because of the color of their skin and their religion without being labeled racists or antisemites. He should not be allowed anywhere near LGBT articles or their talk pages since he has shown no interest in improving them. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You have some gall stating what his intentions are. Whatever happened to WP:GOODFAITH? Accusing him of tag-teaming? Funny, because a quick glance of the archives seems to imply the opposite. His goal isn't to redefine "homophobia." It's to crate a fair and balanced page without a bias towards the LGBT movement. —Maktesh 06:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think TParis said it better than I could, but I concur with his reasoning (minus the Fae bit, which I have limited knowledge of and no opinion). While the accusations are a concern, I don't think that warrants a topic ban; I don't see that solving the accusations. I think that needs to be addressed, a topic ban isn't the way to do that. I'm not saying his arguments have merit, but I don't think an editor should be topic banned for being wrong. - SudoGhost 02:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The ban doesn't have anything to do with them being right or wrong. It's due to the tendentious nature of beating a dead horse after many discussions have gone nowhere and absolutely no reliable sources have been presented to defend some rather fringe opinions. The editors there have been waiting for collegial editing to appear. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• 'Oppose - as per ‘consensus’ is obtained by means of ejecting all the dissenting parties from the discussion, it ought to be questioned how much it can be termed a true ‘consensus’. From my experience of such wiki articles, North's concerns are highly likely to be correct - Youreallycan 03:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"likely"? Have you actually extended us the courtesy of reading the whole fucking farrago? William Avery (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• • No one has ever tried to silence consensus, what we have done is insisted on reliable sources to make vast changes to a well-sourced article. Insomesia (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hope I'm counting correctly: we're at 19-11. Not a vote, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• If there's a long term issue with an editor we should be doing an RFC/U, not an ANI. NE Ent 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Zaalbarand and Toa Nidhiki05. As one who's been involved with the discussion, I can vouch for North8000. He is simply calling out a problem, and challenging a page where the development has been stonewalled by LGBT activist users. If anything, they should be under review as well. Even bringing the discussion to this point is improper. They are continually attempting to silence a legitimate editor, and are even willing to stoop to this level? Shameful. —Maktesh 06:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Calling other editors activists isn't helping. We're talking about a behavior problem and it seems to be a recurring one. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I hate AN/I - Part 2 That's yet another post that proves why. It tells us that those opposing North are "LGBT activist users". Sorry. Wrong. And I've already pointed it out several times. I have opposed North. I am not gay, nor LGBT in any way at all. It's name calling, and /or incompetent editing. On top of this, we've had many posts saying that disagreeing is not a reportable offence, so North has done nothing wrong. These posts ignore the massively complex (that's sarcasm folks) double point of the report. It's not just disagreement. It's repeating the same refuted point over, and over, and over again, for almost a year. Yes, it's got two layers to it, but was that really too hard to understand? And, the name calling from North about "the trio" was also described as part of the problem. But I guess someone who feels it's OK to incorrectly lay all the blame at the feet of "LGBT activist users" won't comprehend this point. In other words, there's a lot of illogical, name calling, incompetent posts here. This is not a rational discussion. North's worst friends are some of those trying to support him here. I HATE AN/I. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is why I avoid ANI like the plague: discussions mushroom from their original scope to encompass everything but the kitchen sink, and if there's any opportunity to cast unfounded aspersions, someone invariably steps up to the plate. There is an incredible amount of baseless (gropes for polite word) nonsense occupying space in this thread. Yes, there are LGBT editors who watch Homophobia—no surprise. That's entirely appropriate, and I am one of them. Yes, there are members of WikiProject LGBT Studies who watch the page—also no surprise. That's also entirely appropriate, although I'm not one of them. Pardon me for rolling my eyes (incivilly, no doubt) at the thought—implied in several posts above—that the motives of LGBT editors or WikiProject members is somehow suspect by virtue of users' identities or affiliations. It's an ugly implication, and it's one we've seen at ANI before.

  Focus, please. At the risk of repeating myself, this complaint (which I played no role in filing, although I confess the thought of doing so had crossed my mind) has nothing to do with the content of Homophobia, nothing to do with any article content whatsoever, nothing to do with the concept of homophobia or the etymology of the word, nothing to do with cabals or trios or WP:Ownership or silencing those with opposing views. It also has fuck-all to do with desysopped editors with three-letter usernames beginning with 'F'. It's very, very simple, and it goes like this: Over the course of a year, one editor has repeatedly engaged in WP:IDHT behavior on one talk page, and this behavior has continued in the face of countless polite requests to desist. As I said months ago, North is entitled to his opinion, but he is not entitled to repeat that opinion—right or wrong—ad infinitum; for any editor to do so on any talk page is always disruptive. There are troubling, battleground-ish characteristics to some of his comments that may warrant additional scrutiny, but what's at issue here is really very simple: disruption on one talk page and a request for relief through page ban. End of story, end of rant. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The talkpage archiving had a miscue on the counter. Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12 now has the North8000 discussions contained on one page in order for those interested. Insomesia (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The editor's persistent refusal to drop the stick and accept consensus is extremely disruptive, and is not going to achieve any useful result, no matter how long it continues. Most of the "oppose" comments are based on misunderstandings of what the issues are, such as the mistaken impression that the whole thing is a consiracy by the "LGBT project" to silence anyone who disagrees with them. I, for example, have no connection whatever with that "project", and no particular interest in articles on homosexuality-related issues (or "LGBT-related issues", as political correctness apparently dictates I should call it nowadays), but back in June I tried to explain to the editor what the problems were with the point of view he was pushing. Doing so was a waste of my time, jsut as simialr attempts by other editors have been a waste of their time. Many editors have wasted their time in sincere attempts to communicate with this editor, who is incapable of being communicated with, and persistently fails to hear what they are saying. Enough is enough: we must put a stop to this endless waste of hours of time that other editors could be using to make more constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose topic ban. Silencing the opposition is not right. Seems to me we have 3 editors who are passionate about the homosexual movement and want this guy gone because he doesnt support their political views. The article is a mess. It's a bloody POV and biased mess. Caden 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I've only started watching the talk page of the homophobia article recently and I've no emotional investment in the article either way. In my opinion, North8000 appears to be a useful editor of other sections of the encyclopedia and I don't think his/her participation on the talk page of the homophobic article is a deliberate effort to be disruptive. While we all have biases, some recognised some not, as editors we should edit articles and participate in article discussions in a way that respects authoritative sources even when these go against our personal view of the world. As stated above, North8000's main point of contention about the article rests upon a rejection of the meaning of the word "homophobia" as used in the article where he/she would wish the article to reflect the literal etymological meaning of the component parts of that compound term. Therefore, he/she argues, the article should cover only aversion to or fear of homosexuality while opposition to homosexuality on grounds that are determined by factors other than explicit fear or aversion should be covered in another article. He/she states explicitly that this is her goal so that people who merely think differently than he/she does about homosexuality (i.e. that is is "wrong") are not labelled as phobic. That may or may not be a supportable position to argue for outside of wikipedia but it ignores the actual wider meaning of the term in contemporary usage and as copiously supported in reliable sources which primarily understand homophobia as a form of discrimination rather than a clinical entity. He/she is mistaken in a normal moral confusion between "ought" and "is". He/she believes the word "ought" to mean one thing so as not to stigmatise opponents of homosexuality while ignoring the actual usage of the term. Over an extended period of time and when presented with reasonable and sourced rationales, he/she has not significantly altered his/her arguments to account for the fact that reliable sources do not support his/her contention of how the term "homophobia" ought to be understood. In fact, North8000 has largely neglected to present reliable and appropriate sources to support his/her interpretation. Instead, in many instances, the talk page has been utilised as a forum to disseminate his/her views on the topic. The argument, such as it is, that he/she has presented has been addressed repeatedly and there is no movement on the issue as the sources do not support it and it is extremely unlikely that the situation is going to change in the near-term. As such, her participation on the talk page is non-productive and a waste of everyone's time. A topic ban will allow everyone, including North8000, to redirect their energies to more useful encyclopedic tasks. As regards the allegation that a "trio of editors" are operating as "cabal", "chasing away" editors who disagree with them, etc, I find this a bad faith allegation that ignores the reasoned and generally civil engagement of those who disagree with North8000's position. Indeed, they've displayed more forbearance than I would have in waiting so long before initiating these proceedings. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - well I don't know about the topic ban, but I think that a block for calling someone a Nazi (whether to "make a point" or not) and then edit warring to keep these accusation is probably warranted, and that YRC's accusations about editors having a "focus on homosexuality" are equally unhelpful. Such behavior does nothing to help resolve the situation, and is not acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Would like to see North's observations but a topic ban is wrong if he's edited the article only 4 times. There is some (to some) very annoying and potentially unacceptable behaviour on the talk page. North needs to address that aspect, especially repeating the "trio" claims. Admin warning and voluntary agreement should be the first step. Leaky Caldron 11:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• But that's exactly the point, though - he's edited the page four times, but the talkpage 265 times, at all times pushing the same argument over and over again, even though it has been rejected by nearly every editor that has visited the page, not just those who are highly active on the page and/or part of the LGBT Project (I, for example, am neither). It is getting to the point that nearly every thread (and yes, I know it's difficult to search, because the archives are seriously fucked up), whatever it's about, gets hijacked by him, making his same argument over and over again and repeatedly attacking other editors there. He doesn't understand that his ideas are being rejected not because there's some sort cabal running the page, but because his ideas are not compatible with Misplaced Pages policy. It's a perfect example of WP:IDHT and it's a serious time-sink for everyone involved. Whether a topic ban is deserved or not I don't know, but if we don't at least get a talkpage ban from this one article, we are going to be back here again soon. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As usual, Draconian solutions are not a solution. The editor does not appear to have disrupted the article, and so the concept of a topic ban does not mean it will affect the project one whit. WikiChecker shows the editor with 266 talk page edits, or about 1% of his total edits - which is not an absurd number or percentage. And far less than I have seen other editors make on other talk pages by a large amount. Nor does his record show any super concentration on LGBT issues (heck - not even any concentration on LGBT issues on the past 10,000 edits!). Topic bans for people who are not heavily editing on the topic are simply silly - the guy seems much more interested in folk music than anything else. Thus this is a clear case of attempted over-reaction to something for which a topic ban is not a rational answer in the first place. Collect (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Draconian would be a block, a limited topic ban is not draconian. It's an effective way to deal with a specific issue. If it's not a large amount of the total edits, then it's not too onerous. A much stricter measure would be topic banning someone from a topic they primarily edit. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you quite realize how many articles are covered by "LGBT" broadly construed? We have four edits to one article - no sign of LGBT emphasis in the last 10,000 edits, and you would bar him from tens of thousands of articles? Nope - there is no reason for such a Draconian solution. Sorry -- and there does not appear to be WP:CONSENSUS for that result either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't add up. If North800 doesn't edit much in a topic area, but when the editor does it is disruptive, it is not draconian to topic ban from that area. It's effective, and will have little impact on the editor beyond that. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, you are consistently against topic bans of editors of a great number of editors:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Suggested topic ban for NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) on LGBT-related articles
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215#Propose_Topic_Ban
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#topic ban proposal
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive700#Extended_topic_ban
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Topic_Ban.3F

but seemingly no issues with other topic bans where editors have been disruptive with very different POVs, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Topic ban proposal for Sceptre, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Proposed topic ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that I have routinely opposed Draconian measures some dozens of times - so that sort of ad hom argument is unworthy of this noticeboard.

Meanwhile: Four edits != major disruption. No sign of LGBT emphasis in past 10,000 edits. Barring from tens of thousands of articles is disruptive. Unless, of course, you feel tens of thousands of articles is not "significant"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

North has made 14.5% of the total edits to the talk page over it's 5½ year history, even though he has only participated for less than a year. In that time, he has made 31.7% of the total edits. That's pretty extraordinary for someone who has only edited the article four times. By the way, we are talking about disruption of the talk page, not the article itself. The point that is being willfully avoided is that those edits were excessive in number, repetitive, nonconstructive and occasionally uncivil. Draconian would be to indef or ban North8000, which a few are calling for, but I believe he needs to be prevented from disrupting the article talk page and turning it into a forum. - MrX 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In which event it appears that his assent to avoid that talk page for a year makes this "topic ban" discussion a tad moot. Collect (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately his word that he was leaving the page before wasn't kept. It would be best if his takeaway from all this is that he needs to work with other editors and accept consensus even if it disagrees with his personal views. Reigniting the same discussion and convincing no one after a year is an indication that you are no swaying consensus. Being asked for sourcing to support your view, repeatedly, and failing to do so and instead arguing a hypothetical point even after many have tried to see your point ... shows an unwillingness to respect other editors. We don't have to be friends or even like each other but we do have to allow consensus to build and accept it when it doesn't go our way. North8000 has been unwilling to do this, apparently on a number of LGBT issues. No one says they can't have a POV, but we do insist on reliable sourcing to back up article changes and abiding by consensus. Insomesia (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support The editor is being disruptive on that talk page, repeating the same arguments, making the same points, and making the same accusations of a group conspiracy. Editors can be disruptive purely through talk page posts, and lack of clue in accepting that the consensus disagrees with them. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think North800's own statement below is indicative of a battlefield mentality, with it's continuous references to "the guardians" and a seemingly "it's everyone else's fault that there is a conflict" type responses. He has been disruptive, and relied on original research throughout much of it. Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12#What next, Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12#The irony: POV fork?, Talk:Homophobia/Archive_12#"Homophobic" is a Political Slur. As highlighted here: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Homophobia: "North8000, the current lead (with reliable sources to back it up) is the definition of homophobia, get over it. You can't just change the definition of a word just because you happen to disagree with its meaning. Arguing about the meaning with no reliable sources to back you up is your POV ranting. It is plain unhelpful and just a waste of time." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

• Comment I would praise some sort of voluntary "break" by North in that talk page, as that " beating a dead horse" appears to be not more than a waste of time. Over 250 edits, mainly about the same identical point, are a bit too much. On the contrary, to solve his doubts, he could/should raise an eventual RfC about that specific problem. Cavarrone (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • North8000 has made numerous declarations they were leaving the page and they have broken everyone of those pledges. The discussions tend to end when everyone else walks away leaving them with the last word and no one else willing to do battle. Insomesia (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately he already takes voluntary breaks. It would actually be better if he would stay involved by doing the research and editing the article, and then engage in discussions about those specific edits. - MrX 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Topic ban necessary because he was heavily involved in Straight pride on the talk page too and still doesn't understand the policies: WP:Burden, WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT. He has not learned since april this year what they mean and anyone here arguing or voting oppose with misleading arguments or labelling everyone on the homophobia talk page as an LGBT activist needs to stay on topic. North8000 is ignoring multiple policies to push a bias into LGBT articles, including redefining homophobia without presenting a single source and personally attacks those who disagree. He has been warned for 6 months plus yet carried on with his argument, breaching WP:IDHT and WP:STICK in order to accuse a vague group of editors (a "trio") of controlling the article (So add WP:PERSONAL ATTACK) even though there's about 8 people who in fact are regulars to the talk page. I don't even edit Homophobia yet i've had to watchlist the page for so long because of North8000, he's a nightmare and he's too biased to stay on any articles dealing with conflict between LGBT and heterosexuals (Straight Pride and homophobia). I'd support a topic ban just on that area and a reminder to him that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a forum where he can air his views endlessly without any comback. Thanks ツ Jenova20 13:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Using a talk page to discuss an article is not grounds to topic ban an editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is when it is disruptive. There are plenty of cases of topic bans being handed out mostly on the basis of talk page comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, if it's disruptive. - MrX 16:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support page ban. That's where the persistent disruption is. North8000 has not shifted the consensus in over a year, and is still beating this expired equine. I have nothing to add to the excellent arguments made above, except to concur. fishhead64 (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• comment North has stated that they will take a voluntary break for a year from the article. Let's all just take their word for it and be done until next November or until that word is broken giving fuller reason for the community to take official action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Officially support topic ban per the very eloquent argument made by FiachraByrne above. Very well laid out explanation on what the issues are here with North's actions. Silverseren 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - Seems over the top, but what do I know. Especially since there has been no article page disruption. Can't folks just ignore him on the talk page if they feel he isn't hearing them or whatever the case? At the most, maybe ban from the talk page for a month or something. It seems like North is going to take a voluntary break if not forced to. Good luck to all. --Malerooster (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There has been huge disruption and the talk page, which is there to address article issues, has not been functional as it's been the North8000 forum driving away any other discussion. Who wants to work in that battleground atmosphere? And their voluntary breaks are perfect until they decide to ignore them. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per FiachraByrne.--MarchOrDie (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban from this article's talk page, which is where almost all the trouble has arisen. I don't hold with voluntary recusals, which have shown themselves several times to be unenforceable. The editor changes their mind and with no community ban in place, there's no block. Plus, not impressed with a voluntary withdrawal which comes after seeing the way the wind is blowing here. Kim Dent-Brown 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems that the main accusation is that North8000 is "disruptively failing to edit the article". Yet it is to his credit that he hasn't engaged in edit warring. He is obviously a minority voice on the page, and as such feels marginalised. But having a minority voice doesn't get in the way of establishing consensus, even if it makes it more difficult. But I have to disclose that, (although things have died down now), I have had a number of run-ins with (some) of the editors involved in this issue, though possibly not the ones to whom North8000 refers. I found some of those editors very difficult to work with, and found myself being unjustly accused of all sorts of things, and so my sympathies lie firmly with him. So it would take a lot more evidence than what is presented here to make me think that North8000 should be banned from the article talk page. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope. "It seems that the main accusation is that North8000 is "disruptively failing to edit the article"" The main problem is that North8000 is holding the article's talkpage hostage with their original research, and claims that have thoroughly rejected by reliable sources. And as being an editor who has had very difficult interactions with you, also on LGBT subjects, I find your vague accusations against "some" unnamed editors equally as offensive as North8000's mysterious cabal trio. Frankly dealing with you and North8000 has left me feeling like Misplaced Pages isn't worth editing at all for the WP:Battleground mentality and willingness to assume bad faith. In fact the issue seem frighteningly similar: until a proven consensus has backed you into a corner the unceasing rhetoric about activist editors rails on. Meanwhile we insist on reliable sources to seek the changes being insisted on. Verifiability is a core principle, there is nothing wrong with insisting sources be presented for exceptional claims. Insomesia (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well "some people" includes you, and the accusations of a battleground mentality and the assumption of bad faith are exactly the sort of thing I meant by "unjustly accused of all sorts of things". So naturally it appears to me that you and other editors are trying to silence someone with whom you disagree. StAnselm (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is the bad faith in repeatedly asking someone to provide sources to support their position when they failed to provide them the last time you asked? While you could assume good faith once or twice that some exist and are going to be brought forth; after 6 months, there is no reason to continue assuming. AGF is not a suicide pact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to attack other editors, provide diffs at a minimum. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I've read through most of the past year's archive. North8000's stated motivation on the page is to oppose the "persecution that homosexual activists in the US have promulgated," including "defining beliefs as 'phobic'." Which in itself is fine - if an editor in good faith perceives that to be a POV flaw in the article, it makes sense to pursue its correction. I don't agree, but that's what talk pages are for. The problem comes where North repeatedly applies that general view to accuse editors who disagree in good faith of being a "trio" of activists acting in bad faith. Despite a wealth of reliable sources, North doesn't seem willing to consider that anyone could, in good faith, think homophobia refers generally to discrimination against LGBT persons; such a view is always masking a bad faith effort to label such discrimination as a clinical phobia. As North considers accusations of activism against him or her to be personal attacks, but levels them freely and broadly against others, I don't have any particular suggestion as to how this situation should be constructively remedied.--Trystan (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

North's overview

The beginning of my homepage says "When there is good to be done by taking a some heat, I don't hesitate to put myself on the firing line and do so. Please don't confuse this willingness to endure pain for the good of Misplaced Pages with being nasty." This does not refer to or involve working for or against particular points of view, it generally refers to situations where where the Misplaced Pages process is being mis-used to beat up people, or where the the process has been derailed or hijacked, and parrying nastiness (including abuse of the system) against people. Knowing that false accusations and nasty tactics are a common wiki-legal way to beat up people to pursue POV's, for my own sanity, I generally try to limit myself to one article where such a level of nastiness is the case. For better or for worse this has been that article for me.

My involvement at this article has centered on three threads and particularly activated by the last two:

1. A core structural problem which embeds a particular POV deeply in the article. So far the guardians-of-the-status-quo have refused / completely evaded a discussion on the points raised. But by itself this could and should be just a matter of friendly discussion / friendly disagreement
2. A range of mis-use-of-wikipedia and abusive tactics that have been used to chase away the immense number of people who have pointed out the severe POV problem with this article.
3. Particularly nasty tactics that have been used against me by two of the people involved. And by "nasty" I don't mean the blatantly-against-policy stuff that gets quickly reined in. I mean the continuous barrage of baseless accusations of violating policies and guidelines and complete mis-characterizaitons of what I said, and are certainly big attacks if the target who takes seriously trying to do things properly in Misplaced Pages.

Without getting into the specifics of the debates, an understanding of the structural side of them is essential context for the above accusations. At the core of this is a statement that there are TWO common definitions of "homophobia". I have (right or wrong) considered the following to be sky-is-blue-obvious / stipulated and nobody has disputed it:

Definition #1 What I have been calling the "phobia is phobia" definition. (e.g. "irrational fear") This is the one that is in ALL of the dictionaries and I believe is undisputed as been A definition Definition #2 What I have been calling the "all opposition is phobia" definition. This is also widely used, and also often controversial. This brands all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it as being a phobia, including that imbued by upbringing, religious doctrine, tradition, culture etc..

BTW, since some of the original allegations implied a certain POV of mine (which is opposite to my actual) although it should be irrelevant to articles, it now needs mentioning. I said most of it in one recent post on the article talk page which was: "As a preface, 99% of the time I am in conflict with Rivertorch regarding this nightmare POV of an article, which is a witchunt promulgation of the controversial characterization of any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia". But, regarding the "lifestyle" question, I must side with Rivertorch. I believe that the body of evidence indicates that homosexuality is an embedded attribute, which is much more than a lifestyle. IMHO folks with that attribute should able to lead good normal lives without hostility. Articles that promote the POV of villainizing (rather than a dialog with) people who believe otherwise (such as this POV mess of an article does) are delaying the day when that can happen. Sorry for the soapbox. Sincerely, North8000" To that I would add being in favor of full societal normalization. One of my opponents at this article subsequently barnstered me for assistance an a different LGBT article; the work was clear-cut for me; it did not have the structural POV problems of this one.

Back to the structural side (thread #1), the gist of my statement is that structurally the bulk of the article is structured to assert, in the voice of Misplaced Pages that definition #2 is an uncontroversial definition and that #2 is the ONLY definition. Roughly speaking, this has been via putting the main coverage of ALL forms of opposition to homosexuality, or to the societal normalization of homosexuality under the banner of "homophobia". The important point is is that it is an article-structural and wp:policy-related discussion, which did NOT involve or depend on any challenged assertions. Adding sources material would be completely relevant to the discussion, and I really see no place to even put in new material that is relevant to the discussion. Hence the vague "put in new sourced material" mantra was a diversion, and one used to avoid a discussion on the structural points raised and a tangent/ maneuver used to pretend that I was being unresponsive.

Since the problem is structural, solutions would also be structural. One key point is that this is the main repository for coverage of opposition to homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) in general The most graceful, complete and universal proposed solution would be to rename the article to a more neutral title along the lines of "opposition to homosexuality" and then cover the various meanings of "homophobia" as a section within that article, or to create that a a second article and then narrow this one to coverage of the term/concept. A less elegant plan B would be restructuring of this article. The point being is that saying "just start adding to this article or shut up" is an irrelevant tangent, not a reasonable offer.

Now on to thread #2. Since the day of its inception, an immense amount of people have raised an immense amount of well-reasoned concerns regarding the POV problems with this article. (plus, of course, some others which were more just "vents" ) The guardians have used a range of tactics to chase these people away. One of the more brazen ones is that they have embedded their POV argument (and a straw-man misstatement of the common complaint about this article) into the header of the article as authoritative-looking "FAQ's" and then essentially tell the people that raise concerns "you must have forgotten to read the FAQ's". When one of those people weighs in with a good argument, I generally try to support/defend them against the onslaught / beating that such folks are generally given by the guardians. I also see encouraging more participation / more eyes on the article as a part of the long term fix, and avoiding them being chased off being a help in that area. In a good indicator of the reception given these folks, the above complaint has characterized all well-reasoned and civilized arguments by others that I have supported as always being a "troll or an SPA".

Now on to thread #3. Two of the folks involved have subjected me to a continuous barrage of false (explicit and implicit) accusations, complete mis-statemetns and of mis-characterizations what I said. It is an unfortunate fact of life that these are often believed if not refuted, which has forced many threads to be needlessly long and painful. My responses have always been on a high plane. The real response to this should be a boomerang.

I've already spent over an hour on this before even putting in the available 100's of supporting diffs.

Finally, possibly most resolving, my LAST post at the article was a full 16 hours before the ANI report and said:

"Perhaps asserting a bunch of false accusations, insults and attacks as facts as you just did is not the best way to truly try to end an unpleasant exchange. I will try to do something different than that. While the calls to "add sourced material" have been somewhat of a diversion from the actual fixes needed, upon a closer review I can see a way that such could be a next step. I am redirecting myself to make that my next post in the pages of this article unless someone feels the need to again explicitly or implicitly do what I described at the beginning of this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)"

And IMO the response was apparently "Holy crap, North just agreed to do EXACTLY as we asked - trouble in river city - we'd better do something! and then 16 hours later filed a ANI which pretended that that didn't happen. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply

1) We know you disagree with the title/structure, but you only need to say that once (or a few times) before you seek dispute resolution; 2) We know you all have POVs (we presume you are all human). 3) You have a disagreement about what is NPOV (and what is article title policy compliant), you need to come to a consensus on that and accept when consensus is against you on that (try dispute resolution). 4) Talk pages are not well used for philosophical discussion, and repeated philosophical discussion becomes disruptive, it is best to talk sources. 5) When someone does not bring sources to the table at the outset, it makes it look like soap-boxing or dilettantism on the subject (e.g., "Why doesn't this article represent how I see the world? Why is everyone in a conspiracy against it?" is not a very useful discussion starter, and maybe pursued disruptively). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still concerned by "the trio" or "guardians of the status-quo" accusations. Can you name these people since i want to know if that vague attack is at me or not? Just because people disagree with your opinion i don't see how you earn the right to accuse them of being a collaborating group against you. Name them please North. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Alanscotterwalker, you seem to have the impression that I have been conducting an intense ongoing debate on the core question. Please take a look at the ENTIRE current talk page (which goes back to October 4th) and you will see that that is not the case. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20 that question includes so many false premises that it is impossible to answer. But you are certainly in the top 1 or 2 regarding the baseless insults, accusations and mis-characterizations against me which have drawn out what could be brief friendly exchanges into longer painful ones. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Cavarrone, good idea. There are plenty of less painful articles to work on. I'd be happy to voluntarily avoid the article for at least a year strictly to reduce my own stress level. If there are any hints of involuntary , not. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

North - can we tackle once and for all the issue of breaking a word down into its etymological roots to argue a point. I've tried to discuss this with you more than once before, but seemingly got nowhere. Your approach just doesn't work for the English language. As I said above more than once, an equivalent argument to yours would be to argue that this Noticeboard is wrongly named because it's not written on a flat piece of wood, as would be implied by the "board" part of the word. You may find it a silly, trivial example, and in a way, it's meant to be. It's meant to be a very simple example of the fact that English words mean what they mean, today, in their entirety, as used by the bulk of the English speaking population around the world. They do not mean what the sum of their etymological roots once meant. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that Webster defines "homophobia" as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." . So discrimination is included. Note that "fear of" is listed first. So, who should we believe? You? Or Webster? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian, I don't have much use for Webster, apart from when I try to understand the strangely spelt language Americans speak. But I wasn't actually discussing dictionary definitions. I was speaking of the falseness of the approach of breaking down a word into its etymological roots in order to prove its current meaning. It doesn't work. It should never be mentioned again. Discussing dictionary definitions could add something to this discussion. But I wasn't doing that. That you responded to a point I made by discussing something unrelated (in good faith, I'm sure) shows the difficulty of this whole process. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to read so much into the order of the words, Bugs. Bear in mind that the word is in use and given definitions in places other than dictionaries. The UK Government's Crown Prosecution Service goes for "a dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle" in its Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Homophobic Crime. William Avery (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Going by that definition, 1) 90% of human culture in the past several millennium is described by them as "homophobia" or "heterosexism", 2) 90% of world religions are described by them as "homophobia" or "heterosexism", 3) They even talk about "state sponsored homophobia" which underscores the point that this is all indeed nothing other than political rhetoric, because many other governments do not share the United Kingdom's perspective on this. The question ought to be "why is wikipedia taking a political stance in support of certain governments against others in this controversy. North's point seems to have been that the article definition is not NPOV. If I or another user were to place a friendly {{povcheck}} at the top, would it not be immediately reverted by the article's "keepers" who don't want it to be nominated for one, and don't want the article's POV to be scruutinized? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends on wether you actually bothered checking the article history before making that point. North's accused me of controlling the article. Now try actually looking at how many edits i've made there and how many times i've told North to edit the article. You'll clearly be surprised as your statement implies you don't know what's going on here in the first place. Thanks ツ Jenova20 00:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No shit Sherlock! Fucking tell *me* about it, having to run about and fuck women to look like a "real man". My question is where can the "dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle" article be placed? Does Misplaced Pages acknowledge that there is a requirement for such an article, orthogonal with racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc? William Avery (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Who says a "real man" is some kind of stud or playboy (I mean that as a serious sociological question), and who doesn't? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I can hardly believe you would be such an idiotic knob that you fail to realise from my comment that I've 'moved on'. William Avery (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

'Moved on', eh. Well, perhaps if you'd been more wary, you'd have ended up in a happier state. But at any rate, cheers for all the personal attacks, foul language and gratuitous insults, it's editors like you that truly make WP a memorable place for millions! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a political term, purposely abusing the real meaning to put a POV-pushing twist on it. Like the ballplayer who had a Spanish-language gay slur in his eyeblack at some point this past summer. It was a joke term that Spanish-speakers use to rib each other... and was tagged "homophobic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

provide reliable sources to support your claim that the widely used meaning as used by many many many reliable sources is "wrong" - thats the same unsubstantiated extraordinary claim that North has been making and not providing any sources to back up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen and Hilo48, your recent posts mis-fire / do not relate to the discussion at hand. I was not arguing that the the "all opposition is phobia" definition is wrong or does not exist, I was arguing that the other "phobia is phobia" definition also exists, and that the structure of the article pretends that it does not. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

At some point you just have to give up. You and I are right, and the others are wrong. But they have consensus and "common usage" on their side, and you can't win the fight. So rather than being banned, you'd be best off to take it off your watchlist and focus on something safe, like Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As a sidebar, it's interesting that people fight like hell to brand all differing opinions as "homophobia" specifically because it identifies it as a "phobia", and then when the usage is challenged that take cover by reversing and saying that homophobia doesn't mean phobia. But either way, per above I already took your advice, as I said:

"Responding to Cavarrone, good idea. There are plenty of less painful articles to work on. I'd be happy to voluntarily avoid the article for at least a year strictly to reduce my own stress level. If there are any hints of involuntary, not."

North8000 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

North, after seeing your work on the Straight pride and homophobia talk pages, i'd still push for a topic ban on anything related to a conflict between heterosexuality and LGBT as you show a bias.

If voluntary evasion of the article to reduce your stress is an option then i find it even worse that it had to go this far for you to see how much trouble you've caused everyone else and it seems like you're just trying to punish yourself to avoid a community punishment.

I still like how you earlier mentioned me as one of your "trio" though but left out any mention of my edits to the article itself. How can you accuse me of controlling the article yet not even count how many edits i've made to it or look at how long ago they were? Or leave out the mention of me telling you to edit the article yourself so many times? That's quite deceptive isn't it? Was your entire counterargument based on deception?

Thanks ツ Jenova20 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That such a complete mis-represtation in such a multitude of ways that its impossible to respond to. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not, you're just trying to avoid the question. Were you or were you not told multiple times to edit the article yourself? For that matter, were you or were you not told multiple times to present references to back up your argument? Silverseren 01:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my summary which already answered that that was a diversion given the nature of the problem, and that there was no challenged claims or material to reference.

Now I'm going to call Jenova20on one big BS that they just put out there, which is implying that there were issues with my work and posts at the Straight pride article. My entire work there is a few low key posts and additions of material. IMO you are hoping that people won't check and believe your mis-representation. So, what specifically is your claim of what was a problem there? North8000 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The "nature of the problem" is that you dislike the term homophobia, because it sounds like people are afraid of homosexuals. And you would prefer that the article was moved to a title that didn't use phobia in it. Failing that, you want to make sure that the article primarily discusses fear of homosexuals or at least that literal definition of it.

The problem is that the etymological meaning of the term homophobia is irrelevant. What the article is documenting is how it is actually used in the world. Sure, the article documents its etymological origins as well, but since the term is only very rarely used in the literal meaning, at least as documented in reliable sources, the article doesn't focus unduly on that.

The main point is that, if you want the article to have a different focus, then you need to present the sources to show that a different focus is indeed common and not a violation of WP:UNDUE. This is something that you haven't done, even when asked to do so multiple times by various editors. Silverseren 02:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I really think answers to my question, posed above, would be useful. Is there is a requirement an article on "dislike of LGBT people or aspects of their perceived lifestyle", orthogonal with racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc? Then we could argue about what it should be called. William Avery (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

While trying to answer that question just now I ran across this, at first glance it doesn't seem half as bad as the other one: Societal attitudes toward homosexuality Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few questions to ask North8000 in hopes to better understand his POV on all this, because sometimes people have difficulty explaining things in a way I can easily understand.

• Do you merely want homophobia as defined as an actual phobia to be included in the article, or do you want the entire article to observe this POV (seeing it as the "real" definition of the word)?

No, if I stayed, my recommended fix would be to rename the article to "Opposition to homosexuality". And then it would have a significant section on the "homophbia" term, which would include BOTH definitions.North8000 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• What obstacles prevent you from making bold edits to the article in an attempt to fix the problem you perceive?

The most severe problems are the tactics of the guards, and that was the focus of my efforts. I saw the main first edit there needed as deletion of enshrinement of their argument in the header as "FAQ". Maybe I should have tried that edit. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you willing to accept consensus, even if it contradicts what you think is best for Misplaced Pages, both in the context of this article and in general?

Yes, certainly.North8000 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you still assert that you have been obstructed or suppressed by a small number of POV-pushing editors (an aforementioned trio)?

There are so many serious errors in that wording that I'll keep it short to the literal answer to the literal question. No, I never said that and am not saying that. What I did say in that general area in my overview above. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• If so, will you call out these editors by name so that their behavior can be objectively investigated?

See answer to previous question. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• What is the ideal outcome of this discussion in your opinion? What do you want from this community?

The semi-ideal and realistic answer would be to simply close this as it is now moot. The ideal answer would be to analyze, sanction and stop the intimidation activities of the guards so that more people will stay at the article so that it can eventually get fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Have your views on this issue changed in any way over the past year?

In the area that I'm passionate about (the intimidation and chasing-away-editors tactics of the guards) my views have been confirmed and reinforced.North8000 (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• What makes this issue so important to you that you have been willing to stay with it for so long?

It is not that important. If you will review it closely, you'll see that my intent and pattern was just brief occasional posts supporting other editors and briefly occasionally saying that the problem exists. Then I keep getting lured in deeper by carrots and sticks. Carrots when it looks like someone really wants a proposal, sticks when the nastier of the guards start hurling false accusations and mis-characetizations that require a response.North8000 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you admit to having any bias in relation to this topic?

Outside views are irrelevant, but on the underlying topic, (societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality) my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me. On the topic of tactics, my bias is on the side of saying that branding everybody who feels the opposite of me as having a "phobia" is not right. But again, we check those at the door when we put on our editor hats. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you believe that you have any chance of convincing other editors that your POV is correct?

The question has a false implied premise that convincing somebody of a particular POV (in the Misplaced Pages sense of the word) is my goal. It is not. On some of the individual topics (e.g. tactics of the guards, structural problems) if I stayed with the article and put some sunlight on those issues I think it would be easy to convince impartial folks. The 2-3 most zealous of the guards will never be convinced. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your responses to these questions will improve my (and other editors) understanding of your arguments, and may help us see your side of things as a whole. I think there may be a little more truth that's as yet unrevealed, but since nobody seems to on your side, that's for you to demonstrate. Coppaar (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. We're getting seriously off-track again. This is ANI—not a good place for content discussions. For many months, content discussion has been happening at Talk:Homophobia, where North8000 has presented the same arguments repeatedly. Discussion has also occurred at WP:NPOVN and, at considerable length, at User talk:North8000. North8000 has been free to initiate an RfC and has failed to do so. He has been asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources to support his contentions and has failed to do so. This ground has already been covered numerous times—read the archives, for god's sake—and there is absolutely no reason to be rehashing this stuff here and now. There is an open proposal to ban an editor with extreme WP:IDHT issues from a single talk page of the English Misplaced Pages—not a big deal, not worthy of its own ANI subpage and 116 KB of redundant questions, disparagement of minority editors, ignorant twaddle about "Webster" . . . not worthy of one more minute of anyone's time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why people are dancing around the facts. We know for a fact that North8000 and those who oppose his article/topic ban are explicitly pushing their own religious POV. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Never mind other editors. With regard to North8000, I certainly don't know that he's pushing a religious POV. Can you provide evidence? In any event, it's his behavior on a particular talk page that's in question, and I couldn't care less what motivates it; I just want it to stop. Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I must say, I don't know whether User:Viriditas is being ironic or not. If Viriditas isn't being ironic, it's a sad indictment on wikipedia that people can make such wild accusations and get away with it. StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Sadly, wild accusations are unexceptional at ANI. (Did you see the outrageous denigration of LGBT editors earlier in the thread?) There's a proposal on the table, and anything else is extraneous. Page-banning North8000 will solve the problem and close the book on this sorry mess. We can always come back if, god forbid, the same problem erupts at another talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, there is no relationship between homophobia and religion. None whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Did I say anything implying that? I did not. How did we get from proposing a solution to one editor's persistent disruption at a talk page to a discussion of religiously-motivated bigotry? Your post was not germane and was serving to create more heat than light. This is one more example of the reason why I rarely participate at ANI. Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Rivertorch, if you haven't already seen the archives of talk:straight pride you'll see North did a lot of the same tricks there early on. He has a POV issue with articles dealing between conflict between LGBT and heterosexuals, and that's why ideally i'd like a topic ban on just that area for him since he hasn't earned what the policies were that were used against him and still doesn't (as we've cited a lot of them and more on talk:homophobia). Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Jenova, I think it would be most productive to narrow the focus of this discussion as much as possible. Assuming there isn't a current, ongoing problem at that other talk page, that is (and no, I haven't checked whether there is). Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And North, "my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me", that's the strangest shittest reply i expected from you and doesn't make sense. Were you on the side of the consensus then we wouldn't be here and you would have provided at least one citation in 6 months after our discussions. No one has attacked you, but you have made a lot of accusations to people including me, calling us guardians and a trio controlling the article, when in fact you have been causing a nuisance and attacking us for attention, rather than edit the article and discuss the changes!

To refute this with the evidence against you is a joke. You're a liar plain and simple.

...And before you claim that i have misrepresented your statements again despite them being quotes from you, how about you actually address these concerns in a reply in good faith.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You just mis-stated another one, you just said that my response "but on the underlying topic, (societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality) my bias is ON THE SIDE OF the people who have been attacking me." is the "shittiest" reply and is refuted by the fact that I did not agree with you on the other issues with the article and talk page. Those two aren't even related. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dissection of a myth

Some folks have been trying to leave an impression that I have been pursuing a hot and heavy debate of etymology of the word. Lets look at my posts from the entire talk page (I just undid today's archiving) which goes back to October 3rd, plus I went back two more weeks before that (the next one even before that also had no posts but I didn't list it)

Week 1

• No posts

Week 2

• No posts

Week 3

• October 4th Make a comment agreeing with the guards on the topic at hand, and made a side comment that the article has other big problems.

Week 4

• No posts

Week 5

• No Posts

Week 6

• October 28th Friendly brief side comment on a discussion unrelated to the issues of the article

Week 7

• No posts

Week 8

• November 8th 3 brief posts in a discussion with a new poster. Ended with me criticizing the embedding of the one side of the argument into the header as "FAQ's"
• November 11th Brief post that Black Kites post is proving something that we all already accept but is not on the topic at hand.
• November 13th Comment disagreeing a proposal to quickly hat any future posts from anybody who raises the issues again

Week 9

• November 15th Brief post pointing that the "adding material" idea is not the solution to a structural problem.
• November 15th Responding (high road) solely to Dominus Vobisdu's post which was solely (otherwise-content-free) an attack on me.
• November 16th Post agreeing with the guards' request, and 16 hours later the ANI was posted. Hence my comment "Oh crap, he agreed with us, we better do something!"
• November 17th Added missing mention of the ANI. Invites were sent to about 20 individual editors, but notice was not put on the page itself.

OK, where is the continuous debate on semantics / entomology / the word? Actually, where is there an ANI-grade problem of ANY type in the above? North8000 (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you do know there are archives to that page, right? The posts from you began just short of a year ago and are there for all too see. (Someone recently made adjustments to the archiving instructions, and MiszaBot has been mighty busy.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Added: I have warded off the bot] until this discussion is closed. Rivertorch (talk)

Yes, this is ALL of my edits to the article (zero) and article talk page for the last 9 weeks. So where is the "incident"? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No one has taken issue with your edits to the article, and no one (except you) has focused on your talk page edits over the last nine weeks. Your edits to the talk page over the past year are at issue; they comprise an ongoing "incident". Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is no specific violation but just a general grudge against his input extending over a year, it makes zero sense to penalize him. How is one to know where exactly he broke the "rules" to avoid doing it again, as any kind of remedy? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you read the complaint and followed the links? The rules (scare quotes unneeded) are codified in a behavioral guideline, and their violations took place over many threads and many months. I doubt that the Misplaced Pages community would ever agree about the precise point at which one should stop beating a poor dead horse, but surely we can find consensus that such acts do become disruptive at some point and must stop. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So: *No* specific infraction, only so vaguely defined a grey area 'at some point' that presumably anyone can be clamped down on 'by consensus' for opposing your opinions. What I figured. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, specific infraction. It occured cumulatively, over the course of months, not in a vacuum. Does that make sense or do you think disruption happens only in discrete episodes? Should we remove the part about IDHT in the disruptive-editing guideline and nominate WP:STICK for deletion? Rivertorch (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

In order for all future editors to avoid the same consequences, a clear line needs to be drawn - one where it can be said 'you crossed the line on such and such a calendar date' - none of this nebulous 'whenever we get tired of seeing your opinion' stuff which only serves double standards to restrict opposition while holding your friends to a lower standard. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, that clearly is not what ANI is about or suitable for and with good reason. Take the deceptive/manilupalitave opening complaint for example. Building a "picture" by compiling selected diffs out of context selected from a years worth of edits and trying to get people who no way are taking the time to look through the year for themselves (in contrast to an actual incident situation where this is feasible) to "pile on" based on that mis-representaiton. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, ANI is often used to discuss ongoing problems, not isolated incidents. But if you'd prefer this to be at WP:AN instead, I personally would have no objection. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If this wasn't already moot, the only venue suitable for dissecting such a wide-ranging construction is arbcom. Once it is reviewed closely, a boomerang against the other nastier folks (not you) is the most likely result. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so. Arbcom is suitable for intractable disputes where community consensus has failed to resolve a problem; it is not a substitute for seeking community consensus in the first place. If I had filed this, I probably would have gone with RFC/U (with misgivings, because that can get even messier than ANI) or AN, but at this point I don't think the venue much matters. The community is now aware of the alleged problem, and I'm hoping to see this thread closed with a useful result before much more time goes by. As far as what you call "nastiness" goes, I've seen some sub-optimal word choice from you and from others, and none of it would have happened if you had simply dropped the stick months ago. Rivertorch (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. For the record North8000 has displayed a similar edit pattern at Talk:Intelligent design. He/she has edited the article Intelligent design 8 times (all barring one of which sought to link the meaning of the term "intelligent design" to its first appearance in the mid-19th century; a position which the sources do not support ) but made 210 edits to the talk page from 6 November 2011 until the 16 September 2012. The edit pattern was one of periodic rather than day-to-day engagement. By no means could all the edits be described as disruptive. However, there was clear, if not necessarily conscious, point of view pushing and the pursuit of arguments without supporting sources to the point of tendentiousness and redundancy. As North8000 declares himself/herself supportive of the "societal normalization of homosexuality " so she/he proclaimed her/himself "a 100% evolution & natural selection person" that does not "believe in I.D."; his/her position was that the term intelligent design was being used inappropriately in the article in referring only to the version promulgated by the Discovery Institute; by March of this year and having failed to produce reliable sources to support his/her position (that there is a form of ID either distinct from that of the DI or the teleological argument) she/he was accused of flogging a dead horse, etc.; and similarly, beating a dead horse; by September of this year he/she was alleging that there were structural problems with the article in that the article did not follow the common meaning of the term "intelligent design" and that a "group" of editors were "guarding" the article who "shouted" them "away" with "bogus non-germane chants"; he/she then formulated more detailed criticism of the article (principally focused again on the purported common usage of the term); she/he was then asked by the other page editors to drop the stick, stop wasting everyone's time and they clarified that the article was about a topic not a phrase; Professor Marginalia, ever polite and patient, took the time to explain to North8000 the principal behind article naming policy where terms may also have archaic meanings; as North8000 was unsuccessful in changing the article (due to the absence of supporting reliable sources) he/she made reference to a "trio" on that page "flinging crap" at him/her and "avoiding the core topics". I'm not sure at what point such exchanges become disruptive but, lacking a sustainable argument derived from reliable sources yet pursuing said argument, if episodically, over an extended period of time is hardly a profitable use of everyone's time. I also think it might be instructive to view North8000's comments at the talk page of the "Political correctness" article on the proper interpretation of that term for the purposes of wikipedia where, more than three years ago, he/she wrote:

While one can search for dozens of antique definitions and usages to cloud the issue, or seek to hijack, dilute, discredit or otherwise get rid of the term due to it being a useful tool used mostly by persons of conservative political persuasion, Misplaced Pages should not be a venue for such efforts.

It's real meaning is defined by it's common usage!! Which is that it is a term (used by persons of a more conservative political persuasion) to disparagingly refer to a sort of "rule book" generally "written" by persons of liberal political persuasion.

Come on, you all know that it really means the above! Why not just say that with a neutral wording, including it's context/ usage? By Misplaced Pages guidelines, this could be so simple!! I took a try at a first sentence of such:

'The most common meaning here is a pejorative term to refer to excessive deference to particular political sensibilities at the expense of other considerations, and carried to the extent of dis-allowing other reasonable viewpoints.'

I think this is instructive for two reasons. It shows consistency in his/her belief that terms such as "homophobic" and "politically correct" are pejorative terms applied to one's political/social/moral enemies (a similar stance is also evident in his/her interpretation of the "intelligent design" article) and that they should be characterised as such on wikipedia articles. However, there's a selectivity here in advancing an argument about how one term should be understood in terms of its common usage rather than archaic meanings ("politically correct") while pursuing the exact opposite argument for other terms ("intelligent design" and "homophobic"). I also think that there's a problem in this type of talk page engagement which, while not requiring character assassination, might be recognised by North8000 as non-productive. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

On the road to nowhere

Are we there yet? I've been on the edge of this issue for many months now. Frankly, I see no progress. Can anyone outline a pathway that will definitely take us somewhere? (Please don't respond to this question by discussing something else. That's the big problem here.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a community consensus deciding if the article should be moved to Opposition to homosexuality (among other changes) is the best option. Zaalbar (talk)

we take North up on his voluntary self removal from the article for a year and we all go home. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop others from taking up the crusade and that'll still leave us where we started in a year. If the regularly proposed changes to Homophobia is definitively decided then a lovely notice can be added to the top of the talk page that links to the consensus. Zaalbar (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)