- Sam_Spade (talk · contribs · block log) - lack of neutrality at anti-gay slogan - Uncle Ed 00:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
? thats outrageous. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
applicable links:
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say, while Sam's problems remaining neutral on articles relating to homosexuality are well documented and constant, I find this proposal by Ed Poor (whose own neutrality on the subject is questionable) a little odd, and I don't--yet--support it since, while he's certainly been doing some questionable things, at least he's refraining from revert warring--for now.
- I do think, however, that this is a perfect opportunity to give Sam an official warning about his edits to said articles. Sam consistently refuses to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on gay-related topics and the suggestions and consensus of other editors, and inserts blantantly non-neutral claims into articles and/or makes subtle edits to insert his point of view. This is small-scale, but exceedingly detrimental to Wikipedia. I have long been considering starting an RFC and even an RFA to outright ban Sam from editing gay-related topics. In the meantime, I think a warning to change his editing habits on such articles is a start. Exploding Boy 01:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with you assessment of my editing (as ed's talk page displays), but I will say that I intend to avoid gay topics even more, due to this incident (and especially anti-gay slogan, obviously). I have been successfully driven off. Hooray for personal attacks and POV lobbying. Jeers for wiki-process resulting in article quality. And not for the 1st time. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam, who are you trying to fool? It can only be yourself, as the reaction to your edits and suggestions on myriad talk pages demonstrates that you are very much in the minority in your assesment of the relative neutrality of articles you get upset about. Frankly, it's not only in articles on "gay topics" that your edits are problematic. Your recent edits to Emo, for example, show a complete lack of knowledge on sexuality and a definite bias against non-heterosexuality. I've been watching your contributions and following your edits to a wide variety of articles recently. Your edits show a disticnt pattern, so please, once and for all, drop the facade; the one who engages in the most "personal attacks and POV lobbying" is you. Exploding Boy 01:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked over some of the edits, and while I don't agree with them, I wouldn't like to see Sam blocked for making them. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The question is, what am I supposed to do about this? Complaining about ed is useless, he's a bureaucrat,and upstanding community member. Altho I don't feel I am in the wrong, I already plan to avoid this article, and those directly related. The edit I made to Emo supported NPOV IMO, and was made before I was aware of this whole mess, btw. I'm certainly on no rampage of anti-gay bias, as my contributions will point out. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you're supposed to do is generally refrain from making edits related to sexuality, and particularly to homosexuality. I don't think Ed will block you, and if he does it will only be temporary anyway. Your edits to Emo were made on the 16th and 17th, at which point the whole Anti-gay slogan debate was well underway; dozens of comments about your lack of neutrality on sexuality topics have been made to you already. Please note that I never said you were on a "rampage," but I do stand by my assertion that you have an anti-gay bias, a bias to which you've conceded yourself. Sam, in all honesty I think you can be a valuable editor, but you need to distance yourself from sexuality-related topics in general, and if you see something you disagree with in such an article I strongly suggest you float it on the appropriate talk page before making any changes. Exploding Boy 01:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I saw anything wrong with Sam's edits to Emo, though I don't claim to be any great expert on sexuality myself. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
In essence, Sam made subtle changes that suggested, among other things, that women do not find homosexuality or bisexuality erotic. Exploding Boy 01:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I took out a suggestion that women found male-on-male homoeroticism attractive, because on average they don't. If they do, I'd like to see a cite for it, I certainly can't find one. I left in however the idea that emo girls have such a fetish, as I know it to be true, and it was cited. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam cannot be censured for editys saying most women don't find gay men erotic, or not without wikipedia losing any sense of NPOV in a desire to promote a pro gay agenda, SqueakBox 02:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- The Emo article said: "Though it is common in Western culture for men to find lesbianism erotic, females finding homo- or bi-sexuality erotic is erroneously thought to be a trend largely peculiar to the emo trend and sub-culture." The word "erroneously" here is POV, because it states as a fact, with no attribution, that women finding homosexual male sex erotic are not largely confined to the emo sub-culture.
- Sam changed the sentence to: "Though it is common in Western culture for men to find lesbianism erotic, females finding homo- or bi-sexuality erotic is an unusual trend largely peculiar to the emo sub-culture." Sam is also stating as a fact, without attribution, that women who find homosexual male sex erotic are largely part of the emo sub-culture.
- The problem is a lack of sources, not rampant POV pushing, and both versions need a source, in my opinion, not just Sam's. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm ok w the current version tho, which allows for the male-on-male erotism being enjoyed by females of othjer subcultures. I admit my edit wasn't perfect, but its a difficult matter to claify. It probably should be cited, as slim says, I just can't find a cite. I know from being a pscye student that girl-on-girl is the number one male fantasy, but that male-on-male sex is considered repulsive by most women. Thats obviously not a cite, just my personal knowledge, but whatever. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a note @ Talk:Emo#male-homoeroticism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam: Wikipedia:No original research (and please invest in a spell-checker!). For examples of women finding male-on-male homoeroticism attractive, see slash fiction, Yaoi, and Shōnen-ai. Kasper Gutman 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's relatively common, in my experience, for women to find male/male sexual beheviour erotic jamesgibbon
- OK, we've all got our original research, but how about some citations, this being an encyclopedia and all? Also, what does this all have to do w me being potentialy blocked? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this: eroticism is erotic. Anyone can be sexually attracted by other people having sex, or even just turning each other on.
- If you think this may be possible, google up some references, read them, and summarize what they say in the relevant articles. Uncle Ed 10:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
How about you explain why I should be banned, instead of making inane suggestions about research? As far as I can tell, your completely disinterested in improving the articles in question, and focused rather on behaving in a bizaree and controversial manner. Maybe this is some oddball attempt at mediation? Frankly I have no idea what your doing ed, or why. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't explain it, because it isn't true: I never said you should be Wikipedia:banned.
- I agree that inane suggestions aren't helpful, though. Please responed only to my useful ones and just ignore the inane ones.
- You mean uninterested - disinterested means "neutral" and "unbiased", which is the way I want you to write when you contribute to Wikipedia articles
- If you can't or won't conform to NPOV, you should take a break. There's is nothing bizarre or controversial in this suggestion; it's actually quite ordinary and mild. Uncle Ed 12:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Look, if you think I have violated the NPOV policy, explain to me where. Give specific links. I don't see it. In any case, the way NPOV disputes are handled is by soliciting outside input (as I did, filing an RfC and so forth) and comparing evidence on the talk page. NPOV is never supposed to reflect the majority opinion of wikipedians (as you made sure it did in this case), but rather the concensus based on the facts, a concensus which all reasonable, informed parties can accept. Your descision to remove me from the equation was far more a violation of the NPOV process than any edit I made to that page. So assuming I was way out of line w my POV, you still handled the situation in a manner harmful to the article, and in rejection of the wiki-process. Frankly, you let me, and the readers down. They deserve to have access to those studies I cited.
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your constant protestations of neutrality are beginning to annoy me. Your lack of neutrality has been pointed out to you on countless occasions. Only the threat of blocking has made you demonstrate even the most grudging willingness to acknowledge it. Exploding Boy 20:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say I'm not neutral? Have a look @ User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases, I obviously have opinions. Hating others based on homosexual sex acts they may perform is not on there. If you think I edit in such a manner as to warrant blocking, please take the matter up a ArbCom. I'd rejoice in the opportunity to clear my name in an open manner, after all this behind-closed-doors ugliness. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many times? How many different ways? Once and for all, your edits to sex-related articles, particularly those related to homosexuality, are too often non-neutral. Exploding Boy 15:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- As you surely are aware, I feel that you are worse than biased on articles of that subject, I feel you are an agenda driven POV inforcer w a page owner mentality. I further feel that Ed has chosen to enable you in this, for know reason I can readilly discern. But who cares what we think about each other? Isn't our job as wikipedians to focus on the facts (like the quote and links I tried to cite in the article) rather than each other? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm quite aware. On the other hand, you're one of the very few who think so, and I'm one of many who find that your edits lack neutrality and are indeed often factually inaccurate. Whatever. I'm not discussing it any more since you still, incredibly, refuse to acknowledge your problematic editing. I'll be watching your contributions. Exploding Boy 16:07, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Now how about you ed, what do you and I need to accomplish so as to end this? Or are you simply making use of this farce to sit back and laugh? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]