The whole Siegenthaler controversy seems to have emboldened all sorts of people with a gripe against Wikipedia or its editors to come out of the woodwork and start making trouble, even if they've previously simmered down. Now, Jack Sarfatti, who previously objected to the content of the article on him but ultimately calmed down, seems to be back on the warpath, and he seems to have decided that I'm his "Public Enemy #1". He left these comments on my user page:
| Stop your slander of me and stop vandalizing the page on me. The | New York Times article on Siegenthaler applies to you. You are a | political enemy of mine. You are a Liberal with a Mental Disorder. | Cease your defamation of me. Jack Sarfatti
He also left comments on the talk page of the Sarfatti article, and e- mailed me. Isn't it defamation on his own part to allege mental disorders on my part, or at least practicing psychiatric medicine without a license? (No, I'm not making legal threats against him, just making an observation.) And making (false) inferences about my political orientation is unwarranted.
Here are the diffs of my recent edits to Sarfatti's article; did I do anything out of line? Sarfatti's edits removed information, and were often formatted in an incoherent manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Sarfatti&diff=prev&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Sarfatti&diff=prev&ol...
Jack is his own worst enemy, but in my opinion he had a just complaint against Wikipedia because of several inaccuracies in the article, and a rather gross libel based on a misreading of a Usenet discussion. I don't know what became of that case--last I heard, Ed Poor was trying to fix it and facing stiff opposition. As with the Wollmann case, we have to keep nonsense from the less salubrious parts of Usenet from bubbling over into Wikipedia and landing us with a legacy of ill will.