This is a JzG edit (IP address, which also declared a Wikibreak for "JzG" recently).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229997949


What or who Michael Savage is doesn't matter. That edit summary is out of line. For the 1001th time.

Despite the fact that I completely agree with JzG regarding the wingnuttery of the writer of the book, I do think it's a bit OTT.

Savage's books are notable regardless of the absurdity of Savage's views. Since JzG isn't American, he may not realize how notable Savage is; if I didn't live here, I'd probably have trouble believing it myself...

Mmm, yes. If you weren't listening to talk radio, the sudden mainstream importance of illegal immigration 2.5 years ago would have been totally baffling. There was no notable incident, no sensible reason to make immigration Congress' top priority after years on the back burner. It was talk radio that beat the issue until it monopolized the Senate, and influenced the 2006 election. Savage liked to say he was in the front of that pack, attacking Bush for being pro-illegal before other talk radio hosts.

But yeah, stupid tag.

I'd agree with Fozzie's view myself. Savage is a bit of a weiner anyway.

Whether JzG was right or not is beside the point. Here's yet another example of the JzG problem. It could also be called an example of the BLP problem.

Now, what is ArbCom going to do about it, per the recent decision?

It'll probably do nothing until the next case spirals out of control. Like usual.

Notable in America, perhaps, Notable globally? No.

Herein lies a key problem of Wikipedia. Should all English soap opera characters have articles? I would say only if their notability outside of their fictional environment can be proved.

Though I realise my first sentence would lead to a mass deletion spree.

the article wasn't the point, the BLP attack in the edit summary was.

fwiw, the book was a best-seller in the US for more than just a week or something, so it's "notable". I don't think all English soap opera characters have won awards or equivalent. gary weiss on the other hand wrote 2 books that never made the NYT list, and has written a couple of cover stories for Business Week. So notability is relative on WP. The book could be rolled in the "wingnut"'s BLP.

Where JzG could then continue to violate more BLP policies there.

I see now. Just surprised to see Guy use terminology not in use in the UK.

Incidentally, the IP locates to:

SunGard Financial Systems Europe
40th Floor
25 Canada Square
London E14 5LQ

Guy mentioned how he could meet up with the various PoetEntities at Canary Wharf from time to time, to prove they were who they said. Canada Square = Canary Wharf.

Controversial people can create a template for defamation for non-controversial, less notable people it appears. Savage is not going to get much sympathy from anyone so many things that could be said about him will not be addressed as it would be for others. Other editors will see this and believe this is the norm and do it elsewhere and either defame more people or become confused as to why attacks are allowed in one place but then unacceptable in others.

Nothing to see there - he's discussed where he works and what he can see. What is newsworthy is proof that there is a Wikipedian with a career - kudos to the man - or woman.

How "bad" an accusation is the phrase "wingnut" anyway? It doesn't appear to be anything actionable.

Presumably it is a derivative of having a screw loose - not very bad at all, but typical childish Guy "What's wrong with calling someone a cunt?" Chapman rather than the wise and measured response that should be expected of an admin. The bears shit in the woods comment is a typical IT guy showing awareness of other cultures

According to Wiki itself ( ), wingnut it an abbreviation of "right-wing nut-job". Nice.

They have often been spotted meeting in the Androgyne Pub on the 13th floor of Canary Tower.

So is there a list that WP editors that refer to of which real-life people can be called "wingnut" (crazy) and which ones can't, by WP editors, inserting their own personal opinions on such matters?

For example, I've seen usenet postings from the 90's by a verified lil GW email address where he talks about his Alky Anon meetings. Can WP editors put "shut it, you drunk!" on an edit comment on the lil 'GW Autobiography page? Or is it just the JzG's and Gerards of the world, with their cute English colloquialisms, also known as the "c_nt", "fuck", "twat" trifecta, that are on the OK list to do so?

Just so WP editors can be clear of who BLP applies to and who it doesn't.

Piper: We agree with you that it's not good for the IP/Guy (if it is guy, I'm pretty sure it is, but you never know) to say that, but it doesn't mean that we can't agree about it to ourselves or elsewhere.

I'll never act as an administrator on Savage-related articles, because of my bias against the guy, for example

None of that would be actionable, in my opinion, however out of place such comments may be, though my training is in tabloid journalism (a few yards from Guy's IP address, incidentally) so my views on such things are biased.

Wikipedia is a better place for people like Guy, though. Without the pages and pages of cruft, which he so loathes, there would be less kids and other unsuitable editors to drift across to BLPs.