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.

[the fieryangel]

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.

Why then has no one mentioned anything about this on WP? The fact that Guy, as an admin., made this highly offensive redirect (on top of all of the other "incidents" that he's been a part of these days) has not been mentioned anywhere.

Just because you're depressed doesn't give you the right to do things like this. Why didn't one person say "That was really offensive, Guy. Don't do it again."?

It's as if there's some sort of cordon sanitaire around him these days, in spite of being as uncivil, uncouth and offensive as he ever was. People keep saying "come back, you're one of our best" and the like....which gives him yet another reason to come back and do the exact same things. When are you guys going to call him on these things?

I'm starting to think that the problem with Guy is simply that he's not very intelligent. I mean, saying that no women are important composers because there are none on his Ipod was simply a really stupid thing to say. This redirect is another shining example of that. And he's "one of your best"? Shirley, you gest!

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Why then has no one mentioned anything about this on WP? The fact that Guy, as an admin., made this highly offensive redirect (on top of all of the other "incidents" that he's been a part of these days) has not been mentioned anywhere.

Just because you're depressed doesn't give you the right to do things like this. Why didn't one person say "That was really offensive, Guy. Don't do it again."?

It's as if there's some sort of cordon sanitaire around him these days, in spite of being as uncivil, uncouth and offensive as he ever was. People keep saying "come back, you're one of our best" and the like....which gives him yet another reason to come back and do the exact same things. When are you guys going to call him on these things?

I'm starting to think that the problem with Guy is simply that he's not very intelligent. I mean, saying that no women are important composers because there are none on his Ipod was simply a really stupid thing to say. This redirect is another shining example of that. And he's "one of your best"? Shirley, you gest!

I've asked JzG to tone it down in the past. It does no good, and in fact, my interference seemed to just egg him on further, making things even worse. There isn't a point in asking someone to stop doing something when it seems it will only cause them to continue the behavior, or that's my feeling on the matter. I'd guess some other folks on WP may feel the same way. And some people genuinely like him very much.

[GlassBeadGame]

I'm starting to think that the problem with Guy is simply that he's not very intelligent.

I've asked JzG to tone it down in the past. It does no good, and in fact, my interference seemed to just egg him on further, making things even worse. There isn't a point in asking someone to stop doing something when it seems it will only cause them to continue the behavior, or that's my feeling on the matter. I'd guess some other folks on WP may feel the same way. And some people genuinely like him very much.

TFA: Yes, I think it is very likely that JzG is not very intelligent.

Firsfron: Of course JzG doesn't listen to you. You are less prominent and have less status than he does. He simply does not have to listen to you no matter how wrong or stupid he is. Not to worry though. You also benefit from this aspect of a dysfunctional social networking community. There are people more intelligent than you that you get block, ban and generally push around irrespective of the the merits of the particular matter that is the vehicle of your game play.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

Not to worry though. You also benefit from this aspect of a dysfunctional social networking community. There are people more intelligent than you that you get block, ban and generally push around irrespective of the the merits of the particular matter that is the vehicle of your game play.

Eh? Where did I do that? (I'm not saying I didn't do that, but where? Maybe I can apologize to the user I pushed around, blocked, and/or banned.

[GlassBeadGame]

Not to worry though. You also benefit from this aspect of a dysfunctional social networking community. There are people more intelligent than you that you get block, ban and generally push around irrespective of the the merits of the particular matter that is the vehicle of your game play.

Eh? Where did I do that? (I'm not saying I didn't do that, but where? Maybe I can apologize to the user I pushed around, blocked, and/or banned.

I was referring, of course, to your being an admin. This is really not the right forum to seek approval and praise or to be a boyscout/cheerleader. You might try MySpace.com or given your social pretensions FaceBook.com.

This guy had you spot on from jump.

[guy]

I was referring, of course, to your being an admin.

[moderating]We shouldn't automatically assume that all admins are the same. Some are quite nice, really, and AGF let's assume that Mr Firsfron is.[/moderating]

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

I was referring, of course, to your being an admin.

[moderating]We shouldn't automatically assume that all admins are the same. Some are quite nice, really, and AGF let's assume that Mr Firsfron is.[/moderating]

Thanks for assuming a little good faith, Guy.

[GlassBeadGame]

I was referring, of course, to your being an admin.

[moderating]We shouldn't automatically assume that all admins are the same. Some are quite nice, really, and AGF let's assume that Mr Firsfron is.[/moderating]

Thanks for assuming a little good faith, Guy.

Look, my problems with you are as follows:

• You do not contribute posts that either develop a criticism of WP, nor do you contribute any discussion (including rebuttal) of criticism of WP. You offer only banal, pat orthodox responses as if you were in a AfD discussion on WP.
  
• You make posts designed to draw attention to yourself.
  
• You are condensending .
  
• You hold yourself out as some model admin, as if that had anything to do with, or was some kind of reply to, the trainwreck that is wikipedia.

For some time I voluntarily held back from confronting you. I thought based on the nature of your contributions to WP that you were either a little kid or perhaps disabled. It appears you are neither, but merely drawn to juvenile matters. That does not get you the kind treatment I would have afforded to a child.