Why did JzG redirect "Turd burglar" to "Gay"?, Can you say "homophobic"? I know you can.... Options

[the fieryangel]

See for yourself....

Then he protects the page in an "obvious" move...

It would seem that the article in question doesn't exist...So why did he do this in the first place?

Sheez, what more proof do you need that this guy is homophobic? Why is this person allowed to remain an admin?

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Sun 22nd July 2007, 9:57pm

[Somey]

Ah, but for a non-admin, there's no essential difference really. And nobody is going to restore a couple of revisions for a deleted article called "Turd Burglar" just to show the world that JzG is capable of losing his temper, are they?

I mean, it's not as though everyone doesn't know that already...

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Ah, but for a non-admin, there's no essential difference really. And nobody is going to restore a couple of revisions for a deleted article called "Turd Burglar" just to show the world that JzG is capable of losing his temper, are they?

I mean, it's not as though everyone doesn't know that already...

There's no difference for a non-admin, but an admin can still see non-Oversighted pages and logs. The information would be available to that WikiTruth admin I keep hearing about.

This page hasn't been oversighted; it's just deleted and protected from editing. No one violated the Oversight policy by Oversighting a page that shouldn't have been Oversighted. And I think JzG's comment about "obvious" was concerning the page protection: it's been repeatedly recreated, so it's obvious it needs some protection. JMO, of course.

[the fieryangel]

Ah, but for a non-admin, there's no essential difference really. And nobody is going to restore a couple of revisions for a deleted article called "Turd Burglar" just to show the world that JzG is capable of losing his temper, are they?

I mean, it's not as though everyone doesn't know that already...

There's no difference for a non-admin, but an admin can still see non-Oversighted pages and logs. The information would be available to that WikiTruth admin I keep hearing about.

This page hasn't been oversighted; it's just deleted and protected from editing. No one violated the Oversight policy by Oversighting a page that shouldn't have been Oversighted. And I think JzG's comment about "obvious" was concerning the page protection: it's been repeatedly recreated, so it's obvious it needs some protection. JMO, of course.

If it hasn't been oversighted, why is this edit no longer in JzG's edit history? Even if the redirect is no longer there, shouldn't the edit in which he created the redirect still be there? That's why I said "oversighted", because the entire history of that action is gone. It looks pretty suspicious to me....

...about the "obvious" comment....um, how is it "obvious" that "turd burglar" needs to redirect to "gay"? And if "turd burglar" is an obvious redirect to "gay", then why not redirect "flaming faggot", "goddamn queer" and "fuckin' pansy" to "gay" as well? Aren't they just as "obvious"? Perhaps you need to start a WP:Obvious Redirects to Gay Task Force to identify and redirect all of the terms which "obviously" need to redirect to "gay". There must be lots of them.

When you finish with the "obvious redirects" to "gay", you can then do the "obvious redirects" for black, jewish, latino, asian etc etc. The list goes on and on...


This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Mon 23rd July 2007, 9:40am

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

...about the "obvious" comment....um, how is it "obvious" that "turd burglar" needs to redirect to "gay"?

It's not. His comment about "obvious" was on the page protection action, not the creation of the redirect. I think the summary was meant like "obvious" this page needs protecting, since it's been recreated multiple times.

[the fieryangel]

...about the "obvious" comment....um, how is it "obvious" that "turd burglar" needs to redirect to "gay"?

It's not. His comment about "obvious" was on the page protection action, not the creation of the redirect. I think the summary was meant like "obvious" this page needs protecting, since it's been recreated multiple times.

Well, according to this, the redirect was speedy-deleted because it fit into the criteria of "attack pages". Since the redirect was set up by JzG as an "obvious action", it goes without saying that he intended this as a homophobic action.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Well, according to this, the redirect was speedy-deleted because it fit into the criteria of "attack pages". Since the redirect was set up by JzG as an "obvious action", it goes without saying that he intended this as a homophobic action.

This crappy page has been deleted six times now. It's obvious it needed protecting from recreation. The (luckily deleted) redirect to gay is offensive.

[the fieryangel]

Well, according to this, the redirect was speedy-deleted because it fit into the criteria of "attack pages". Since the redirect was set up by JzG as an "obvious action", it goes without saying that he intended this as a homophobic action.

This crappy page has been deleted six times now. It's obvious it needed protecting from recreation. The (luckily deleted) redirect to gay is offensive.

Okay, we can agree on that....

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Okay, we can agree on that....

Sorry, I thought it was clear that redirect is offensive, and didn't even bother mentioning it (because it seems self-evident, lke directing the "N"-word to [[African American]]). Two of my siblings are gay, and I'd absolutely hate to see either one of them see something like that; this isn't 1952 or something. I'm sorry if I got off-track with the clarification about the exact action the "obvious" comment occurred on. It should have been protected, but it shouldn't have been redirected there.