Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (DC) is on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles) which has been running for a few months. Sources:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio Most recent AfD where DC justifies the campaign on the basis of improving articles and uses a 'put up or shut up' argument that anyone is free to use RFC/U.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205#AfDs of unsourced BLPs of gay porn performers an ANI thread raised by DC to get backing for his/her campaign.

The issue is that these deletions constitute disruptive editing as the campaign has been deliberately applied (by the editor's own statement) in cases where the BLP is about a known awards winner (therefore meeting PORNBIO) and the AfD is raised against the guidance of BEFORE and NOTIMELIMIT as alternatives such as discussing improvement, flagging for rescue or further references have not been attempted. My question for this forum is that is his/her behavior sufficient grounds for RFC/U, should we continue to ignore this behavior or are there other potentially more constructive ways of handling the actions of this editor? Ash (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Make sure that there is no reason they can be deleted. It is frustrating when whole articles not connected with this project are unchallenged despite having hardly any sources. But, that is the nature of the beast. By ensuring articles are properly sourced and accurate, they will become better articles. The problem is that people create articles without proper sourcing, etc., and leave it to others to do the work of sorting them out. Mish (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to AGF a lot more lately. Is the user only submitting gay porn actors, and no straight porn actors? If that is the case, we may have a problem that needs fixing. CTJF83 chat 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of DC's deletion requests in the last couple of months have been specifically targeted at actors credited with gay pornography (using this articles created search). Some other articles have been raised for deletion (mostly gay related) but the pattern appears obvious and is supported by clear statements of intent by the editor in the discussions and on the ANI thread linked above. Ash (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mish. If the articles clearly have WP:RS for awards (and therefore pass WP:PORNBIO and/or have multiple third-party references (and therefore pass WP:N), then the articles probably won't be deleted. Look at it as an opportunity to better the encyclopedia, even if it's a backwards way to do it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Cool, so if I wanted to take a similar back-ass-wards approach, I could step through all the articles under Category:Christianity and raise anything I didn't fancy up for deletion and that would not be considered disruptive or a matter for administrator intervention? </sarcasm> Somehow I think Wikipedia has defaulted to LGBT always being a "special case" in comparison to any other genre. As appears to be the case with most members of this project, I'm weary of these endless debates too. Ash (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Ash :) As you mentioned above, there *are* avenues to take if you feel this user is being disruptive. RFC/U isn't specifically an Admin intervention issue, it's a community issue. Whether or not you choose to go through the sometimes overwhelming community process to use those avenues is up to you. Personally, I tend to stay away from PORNBIOs specifically because they're such a hassle, and because other editors can be so difficult. And I'm very tired of this project getting singled out, too. I'm hoping the RFC about our banner will help some, but I don't know that it will.

I am, I have to say, proud and happy that this project keeps soldiering on even in the midst of constant debates :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that many gay porn bios are not up to our standards, especially the BLP ones. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with what he's doing. A few months ago, I went through low-importance and stub-class articles in WP:FURRY, and I reduced the articles in the scope of the project by something like 20%. Many of them just didn't meet our standards, and they were eliminated. I am not, and never have been, a member of that project. It is just an area that I felt had a significant number of inadequate articles, where I could help out. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What does the user say about it in the AN thread (way too much to read) CTJF83 chat 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what Ash states above, I am not on a "deletion campaign against gay pornography articles" or gay content in general. I have taken pains to explain as clearly as I can to Ash and his assertion that this is "admitted" by me can best be characterised as deceptive. Anyone who cares to do so should read the AN discussion linked above. I don't intend to engage in yet another argument about this here, but I've had quite enough of these accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Although I have only had limited experiences with Delicious carbuncle, I can easily see some pattern of WP:TE in his recent history related to gay pornography star articles. And after pointing this out in the Admin Noticeboard AfD lead to a quick violation of WP:AGF of my editing. And given our brief encounter, that's all I'm comfortable saying on this issue. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just keep doing what you're doing, Carbuncle. Many of the articles in question were not up to scratch, and deletion was appropriate. I would ask that you try be a bit more selective with the borderline BLPs, but removing the worst of them is benefiting the LGBT project. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The Wordsmith. I will try to be a bit more selective since the borderline BLPs seem to cause more drama than they are worth (even though they are usually the ones that end up being most easily improved to the point of meeting the guidelines). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

As Delicious carbuncle has seen fit to raise an ANI complaint about this discussion in LGBT studies - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks - I shall not be making any more comments on this thread. I was obviously mistaken in thinking this would be a safe forum for open discussion on these matters. Ash (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Second ANI

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent referencing Delicious carbuncle has taken an issue on referencing Dave Awards and used it to continued a similar campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to. Rather than discussing improvement to these articles on article talk pages, Delicious carbuncle has chosen to use the ANI forum in an attempt to get some sort of ban against me based on his/her fishing through edits of mine dating from 3 or 4 months ago. You may feel I deserve a ban, or not, I am adding a link here as the discussion itself is of LGBT project interest rather than to garner support for or against these accusations. Ash (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of confusing somebody who focuses on LGBT porn articles as having a campaign against LGBT articles. Perhaps such articles would be more appropriate alongside non-LGBT pornography, say in WP:Pornography? Mish (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Understandable. However my edits (the subject of the ANI's being raised) do focus on LGBT articles rather than general pornography as a topic. Pleasuredrome is not actually a pornography article and yet that is an example being raised by DC. Ash (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Category:Gay Saunas in the United Kingdom, I see. I can see why he might think this was promotion. We don't have a similar Category:Straight Massage Parlours in the United Kingdom, do we? I'd expect LGBT studies articles on gay saunas and bath houses to be more analytical, looking at the role they play in the LGBT community, the dynamics, rather than their etiquette in handing out towels and condoms, and various scandals associated with them. How do you see this as relating to LGBT studies? Mish (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'd find the article much more interesting if it went into the dynamics of how sexual interactions there are played out, the proportion of customers engaging in bareback riding and in protected sex, and so on. Mish (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

But, on the other hand, I'm not sure why anybody would get so pedantic and hot under the collar about the article. Are you saying this guy is stalking you through the encyclopedia, or is it just that he has an interest in articles you just happen to edit? If you suspect the former, then you have a responsibility to act on that to ensure this is safe place for all of us. Mish (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I might offer a little context, the ANI thread (which was initiated by another editor) concerns Ash's use of citations. Ash invited comment and I obliged with an example of some very dubious sourcing on a BLP. You can see all of that in this section of the ANI thread. I used two articles on gay bathhouses to supply further evidence of what I strongly believe to be the fraudulent use of sources. These articles were chosen not because they have anything to do with LGBT issues, but because they were almost solely created and edited by Ash, so they are responsible all of the text and citations. Perhaps it would be wise to look at the ANI thread before making any more assumptions about what is really being discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to what is written here rather than there - if I wanted to respond there I would, but it is long, complex and torturous, and forks off into different areas, and TBH, life is much too short. Please try to keep these things short and succinct, otherwise it puts uninvolved editors off. Thank you for confirming that your interest is on Ash and what he edits, and not LGBT articles in general. Mish (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is actively fishing though my 3½ year long edit history, as well as watching my contributions on talk pages, I have no wish to comment with regard to his/her motivations here. It is a matter of record that I have contributed on a wide range of topics, only LGBT related articles have been highlighted by Delicious carbuncle on ANI. Note I clearly used the phrasing "campaign for LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to", I highlighted this of interest to the LGBT Project, this is quite distinct from an allegation of a campaign against LGBT articles. You may feel that DC is policing these articles to the benefit of the project, or not. My perception is that this is a campaign against my contributions to gay-sexuality related articles based on doubtful and thin evidence considering my good history of contributions. Possible motivation for treating another contributor in this way rather than collaborating and discussing improvement in a non-threatening way is incomprehensible to me anyway. Ash (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Third ANI

The information posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userpage_issue has caused me a great deal of concern. I have halted all contributions to LGBT topics as a result. Ash (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This link (or any of the previous versions) yeilds me nothing related what you describe. So, give us a clue what you are on about? Mish (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I found what I think you are referring to - but you would need to spell out any threats against your personal safety, as all I see here is an allegation of such, without any sign of what those threats were. I have a big two-handed axe myself, which covers chopping wood and personal safety requirements. I don't think the encyclopedia will be diminished if it loses a few articles on gay porn stars, this is peripheral to LGBT studies. Mish (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that we are losing a few, it's more akin to all content in this one area being targeted regardless of notability. No one disputes that non-notable stuff should likely be removed but folks who seemingly have an agenda to simply remove everything they can are likely not objective enough to know the difference. Much of the drama in this one subject area stems to one editors who has had repeated uncivil interactions with a stunningly high percentage of LGBT, or LGBT-identified editors. Ash was targeted offsite, also a stunningly poor behaviour for anyone, to out their real world identity and generally smear their character. This was during an MfD discussion on on evidence page being worked on for an RFCU to get more eyes and possible concensus on the best way to address perceived uncivil and tendentious behaviours looked at. It's a complicated case but this latest round of harassment leads to more likely including the connections between Delicious carbuncle and Wikipedia Review rather than excluding those connections. -- Banjeboi 11:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any threat either - I'm more puzzled why so much time is tied up with peripheral articles on gay porn stars when so many important articles are in such a sorry mess? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Okip! I've added our project to the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome ;) good to see you again. If your project is ever interested in tagging more articles with a bot, please see: Category talk:WikiProject tagging bots Okip 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 22:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

problem with Homophobia

Somebody keeps trying to replace sourced material on the origins of the term with unsourced material & circular linked material that "bigs up" a particular individual. I don't want to end up edit warring to retain the previous version, but there seems to be a tag-team of one user and and one anon-IP doing the reversion/insertion supposedly at the request of the individual concerned. I have already had to go to Oversight because they tried to stick the guy's phone number in an edit heading. I have told them to tell the guy to write in if he has a problem. Mish (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors trying to keep a table which plays down HIV transmission risks

Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and drug use?"

OMG!!! I couldnt believe this. Not only this guy is calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours", he is also comparing them to drug use. And wait, here's the "best" part. This guy is an admin. See: [1] Also see HIV, it seems like it is infested with heterosexism. Phoenix of9 06:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not saying it himself; it's a frequently asked question, which is asked by other people, which is answered in a collapsable box. I see no issue with it. And even if there were, there's absolutely no warrant to embark on a moral crusade like you've done. Zazaban (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This FAQ could have been constructed without the word 'immoral' quite easily, without losing anything apart from its appeal to certain POV. Whether people do ask this precisely worded question or not, or if it is homophobic to construct the FAQ this way - I have no opinion. Mish (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading that with an eye to your perfectly valid concerns, I apologize for my wording. I am openly bi and intended that FAQ question to address the problem of people bringing their prejudices to that page. The point is that neither HIV nor any other encyclopedia article should be describing anything as immoral. I see that that FAQ has received some work today, might I suggest Talk:HIV as the best forum for improving wording? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your homophobia is unacceptable, I cant believe you are an admin (Copied from User Talk:2over0 )

Not only you are calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" here [2], you are also comparing them to drug use. I cant actually believe you can be so openly homophobic. Stop spreading such BS in Wikipedia. Phoenix of9 07:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is being discussed also at: User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies Phoenix of9 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, I'm not seeing anything of the sort in that diff. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" Phoenix of9 07:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla, have you tried reading the page? 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. The depiction of homosexuality as immoral is certainly displaying a particulat point of view, one that could easily be called homophobia.

I hope that 2over0 has some explanation, homophobia seems at odds with the skills needed to be an effective administrator. Weakopedia (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest a different approach, such as asking something like, "What did you mean by how FAQ #3 is phrased? I have NPOV concerns over the use of the word "immoral." Don't you think that might help resolve your concern in a more congenial way? Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. It is FAQ, a list of frequently asked question with answers, and the question worded that way is a frequently asked question, whether or not we find it a repulsive thing to ask. No use dumbing it down when people actually ask it. Zazaban (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hello??? How about reading things in context? It's a FAQ question. It looks to me like a way of telling the kind of person who would ask this kind of question in this way that they are not particularly welcome. I had a quick look at the archives and couldn't find any question that is openly like that, so if it's a frequently asked question then I guess it's also a frequently deleted one. But I am sure it's a frequently thought question, and I guess it motivates at least some of the people who start unconstructive discussions on the talk page. Hans Adler 07:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec but agree with above) This concern was also brought to Jimbo's talk page, and I had a go at answering it here. I'm pretty inclined to assume that, given that we are talking about an FAQ, "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?" is indeed a rough approximation of a type of Frequently Asked Question on that page. Several other editors also worked on the FAQ and did not take issue with this wording, and unfortunately it's hardly surprising that lots of people would ask this question (which is, of course, wildly homophobic). Remember that the whole point of FAQs is to answer questions, including ridiculous ones coming from a place of deep ignorance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, you 2 are being quite silly. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If people frequently ask them, yes we do. Zazaban (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Phoenix, a more serious issue here, IMO, than your disagreement with the wording of the question is your approach to resolving your concern. Why do you feel that the correct approach is to immediately throw accusations of homophobia and intolerance here and on Jimbo's talk page without even trying to await a response from 2/0 first? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, if that is your opinion, I see no need in discussing anything further with you. Cla68, if you think that my response is more serious, you are too biased for me to take you seriously. Phoenix of9 08:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please. For everyone's sake including yours, for you will not last long here if you continue to jump the gun so dramatically. Zazaban (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is written the way a homophobic person might write such a question. It is not answered from the perspective of a homophobic person though. If anything, it's potentially inflammatory toward homophobes due to the assumptions about how they'd phrase such a question. It was not written by a homophobic person and the intent was not to promote homophobia. Reach Out to the Truth 22:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Jimbo Wales

Referring to this: calling homosexuality and bisexuality "immoral behaviours" and comparing it to drug use. [3] What is the procedure here? WP:RFA/U? Phoenix of9 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, why does this even belong on this talk page? (It doesn't) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why the assume good faith policy is so important. The page (and edit) to which you are referring is a Frequently Asked Questions page about HIV. The point of any FAQ is to answer questions that people might ask on article talk pages, even ridiculous ones, and even ones that exhibit intolerance in one form or another. For example on the Barack Obama talk page one of the FAQ questions is "Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?" It's there because many people have showed up on the talk page in the past shouting, "how come you're hiding the fact that Obama is a Muslim?" These individuals can quickly be referred to the FAQ which saves time. With respect to the HIV FAQ, my assumption would be that the talk page has received a lot of "how come you don't discuss the fact that the disease is always spread by homosexual sinners?" type comments. So the administrator to whom you refer almost certainly was not endorsing those kind of comments/questions (which are indeed very homophobic to my mind), but rather creating an FAQ to that would preempt them and hopefully keep some of them off the talk page, or at least not force people to answer them for the hundredth time. It would have been helpful for you to read more closely, or at least to wait for a reply from the admin in question before running over to Jimbo's talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you could have asked him nicely about what he meant in that diff. Instead you make severe accusations on his talk page then immediately bring it up here on Jimbo's page. Do you honestly think that this is the best way to handle it when you have a disagreement with another editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That the FAQ should reflect commonly asked questions is a good thing - that FAQ question would have been equally well served by the stating 'Q3: Why does the article omit that AIDS results from homosexuality, bisexuality, and recreational intravenous drug use?'. That would have answered any question on the subject. Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article. Many people will come to the article who have heard that homosexuality causes AIDS. A smaller portion of those will identify with the 'immoral' statement. People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic. Weakopedia (talk) 07:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that this person is an admin, I honestly dont see anything wrong in bringing that here. Do you really think we need a FAQ in Talk:Black people about Black people's intelligence? How about a FAQ in Talk:Jews about if Jews are really Untermenschen?? Do we really have to include racist, sexist, homophobic questions in FAQ sections while retaining their offensive wording? Phoenix of9 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Even so, there's no evidence that this person is openly homophobic. Honestly, I don't understand these people who need to find Fred Phelps around every corner and behind every bush. Zazaban (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in USA, these things are more common. Being in Canada, I am honestly surprised. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I happen to be Canadian as well so please don't automatically assume I'm American, thank you. Zazaban (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why didn't you give 2/0 some time to respond before coming here? And why did you automatically assume some foul agenda was at play without waiting for a response first? Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How can I not assume "some foul agenda" was not "at play"? The wording and comparison is pretty clear. Phoenix of9 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no it is not clear at all, it's fairly obviously the opposite, actually. Zazaban (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> The first steps of the procedure to follow when you notice that an administrator is openly homophobic are as follows:

• Make sure not to check the facts. Homophobia is one of those crimes that are so egregious that the presumed perpetrator is not worthy of a presumption of innocence.
• Leave a message on the admin's talk page. This is required for purely formal reasons, but this step should not be left out as it will give you an advantage later on in case other homophobes try to defend the criminal.
• To avoid giving the culprit any chance of defending themselves, start the escalation immediately afterwards by posting an inflammatory message to a high-profile page. Don't risk that the admin comes up with twisted arguments that somehow convince the secretly homophobic majority of editors that the crime was a mere misunderstanding.

Here is a good example of how it works in practice. </sarcasm> Hans Adler 07:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful Phoenix of9 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Cla68's questions are valid ones, but probably it's best if this gets taken away from Jimbo's talk page, because it never belonged here in the first place. There's already a discussion happening at 2over0's talk page (though ironically that editor has not even had the chance to say anything), so probably this should continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales would not be interested at this specific case (User:2over0), he might be interested at:

1) Question of offensive FAQ's in general. Looking at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, this question could be relevant.
2) What to do with homophobic admins in general.Phoenix of9 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not be mincing FAQ questions just because we don't like how they are usually worded by the people asking. Real people are often nasty my friend. Zazaban (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia put it best: "Adding the word 'immoral' does not add anything to the understanding of why specific material isn't in the article...People who believe that homosexuality is immoral would still have their question answered by leaving out the immoral bit. Adding 'immoral' was superfluous and changes the tone of the FAQ from neutral to potentially homophobic.". Your defense of homophobia is disappointing, Zazaban. Phoenix of9 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that I'm openly gay myself, I doubt that I'm defending homophobia. And I suppose that could work, but the specific wording really isn't the issue more than your aggressive manner of handling it. Zazaban (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you are gay, thats why I said your defense is disappointing. Given that this person is an admin, I'm much more concerned about this than I would be if it was written by a regular editor. Phoenix of9 08:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has happened. It's phrased the way the average homophobe would word it, and is refuted in nearly the same breath. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, maybe you might want to sleep on it - then if you feel the same in the morning, take it from there. If youre really Canadian like us, What are you doing up? I'm going to bed. Have fun Zazaban. Outback the koala (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I should be writing a book right now, but now my focus has been pulled, and it's after one in the morning. Maybe I should go to bed too. I can see this isn't going anywhere anyway. Zazaban (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Outback the koala, given that you have an anti-gay userbox in your page, I dont think you are neutral here. Phoenix of9 08:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me.. Note to others; Don't feed the trolls. Good night. Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All he said was that we should go to bed; I don't see what being pro or anti gay has to do with it, that's good advice at this early in the morning. Incidentally, I don't approve of the institution of marriage for any sexual orientation. Zazaban (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you think it is appropriate for this project talk page to move copies of entire conversations from other people's user talk pages and dump them here? Did you get permission from these users to recycle their discussion? I collapsed the above text to avoid overly disrupting this talk page, that was a compromise as it is hard to understand why this blanket cut & paste should not just be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea was that this is needed to understand what is going on, and the conversation should be here anyway. Somebody at Jimbo Wales' talk suggested that it should be moved somewhere else, so it was. It seems to be over with now, so I would say collapsing them would be fine. I just felt that when they were still active, they should be open. I wouldn't have reverted a second time. Zazaban (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking of gay and lesbian terms offensive

This is a matter I have been meaning to raise for a long time. I fine it offensive that common, everyday items such as "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian", and "bisexual" and the like should be marked by linking as a matter of unvarying formula in biographies. It says to me: "homosexuality is exotic, marginalised, relatively unknown to mainstream thought, and therefore we've linked it so you can discover for youself what these terms mean". That is the inescapable spin-off from the formula of blanket linking in every article. Why not (announce and) link "heterosexual" for every BLP who is not gay?

I believe such linking should be used very cautiously. I unlink every one I can find. You all should too, if there's any self-respect left. Tony (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point but these terms except for gay which is used wholly in an umbrella-like fashion, often pejoratively, are not always well-understood or even universally understood even within LGBT communities. Many time they are used without context like Marge Snarge is a Shriner. This is all well and good with the presumption that the majority of readers actually knows what a Shriner is and I think explains why generally something does need to be linked and it's better to do so in context. Does that always happen, hardly. Frankly this project has to spend much of its time just keeping LGBT content from being deleted and otherwise rolling back wildly POV content of all manner. At some point we could add onto our general page some hints on ways to present this information but I think delinking across the board would be a mistake just as you see the formulaic linking as also problematic. As this content area is often vandalized we have to take that this remains a sensitive area for many people who may simply be poorly expressing their sexuality angst onto Wikipedia. This is not group therapy but we do need to be reality-based that in the US this remains a major cultural battle and is heightened during election periods. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)