I thought to invite Jack Sarfatti to post here, and I've been trying to contact him. One problem though is that he has a lot of invalid e-mail addresses around the web. Most likely he gets a lot of harassment, especially since the Wikipedia smear campaign, which they call the "biography" about him, started. But I'd like to hear his side of the story. At least to say what his biography should say, and what Wikipedia got wrong. And also to see what precisely happened in his case, as opposed to just what Wikipedia says happened.

Whether he has in-depth criticism of Wikipedia, I don't know. He doesn't seem to have written any anywhere. But since he's permabanned now, I can't see why it would hurt to ask him if he does.

He is 66 years of age, and I think would probably know quite a bit about the inner workings of Wikipedia. He would especially be interested in Daniel Brandt's case, and vice versa, since they were basically identical. Sarfatti, however, unlike Brandt, is very definitely famous.

So can anyone try to contact him? Just to let him know that this exists. And also to notify him of Daniel Brandt's case. Thanks. I've tried 4 e-mail addresses so far, and no luck.

Who next? Archimedes Plutonium? Is Sarfatti such a bad case?

Sarfatti was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia because he was editing the article that was made about him. The thing is that he didn't like the whole smear about him. He was happy enough for them to mention the criticisms of his work, but wanted more focus on the awards that he'd gotten, his influence on the scientific community, and science fiction culture, his work on black holes, and his continuation of Albert Einstein's theories, which had been lambasted in recent years.

All sound a bit familiar? This was an example almost identical to Daniel Brandt's, and yes, it is significant. Wikipedia people would have us believe that such things are anomalies, that they aren't the norm, and that this guy was banned because he was a whacko, because he made legal threats about the libellous content of his "biography". But when you consider how much Wikipedia damaged his reputation, its very notable.

I'm sorry, but Sarfatti is basically a crackpot. He's not as bad as fruitcakes like Archimedes Plutonium, but he's playing in the same league as that. I don't think the case is particularly similar to Daniel Brandt's one. Brandt's complaint seems perfectly rational to me. I know Sarfatti from "way back when", and I can guess what kind of nutty self-aggrandisement he was trying to put into Wikipedia. As you said about "Willy on Wheels", some people need to be blocked, and Sarfatti is probably a pretty clear-cut case of such. I don't see the point in trying to drag every single loser and blocked user onto this board.

Well, he was still banned for editing his own article. I think its good to hear his side of the story.

I was not a big fan of Larry Sanger, but I invited him here too. And Aerothemy and the like are meant to be crackpots, but they are still critics too.

Indeed, according to Wikipedia, every critic is a crackpot.

I must admit I haven't examined what happened to Sarfatti so I may be jumping to conclusions. Interestingly the article on Archimedes Plutonium actually says "he is almost universally regarded as a crank". I wonder what would happen if Archie P. were to visit Wikipedia.

I have no idea who Archimedes Plutonium is, but he has a stupid name, so I am sure that he is dumb. I mean, naming yourself after some ancient greek and the name of an element? Come off it.

But that's irrelevant really. We aren't talking about a list of kooks. We are talking about someone who was wronged by Wikipedia. Whether Sarfatti is a kook is irrelevant. He wasn't banned because he was a kook. He was banned because he tried to fix his bio. That's the issue here. And this is of course why he should write himself. Give some actual info on things. Right now we only know snippets.

Of course, he doesn't have to post. Dschor didn't want to post, nor did SPUI, and others who did post didn't post much, like Skyring. Its up to him really. He isn't actually known as a Wikipedia critic, although I am sure he could be if he wanted to be.

Okay, I had a look at Plutonium's Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium

I think its a good candidate for deletion, quite frankly. I don't see how the guy is notable, because of a few pranks on usenet, when he didn't use his real name. The whole article is basically opinions and original research, and doesn't belong. I would AFD it for sure.

However, Archimedes wasn't banned from Wikipedia, and hasn't even edited it, so its not really relevant as a comparison in that sense.

I think Archimedes Plutonium was notable enough. Just because people don't know about him now doesn't really change that. People AFD'd Kibo and Titor too though.
Is there enough that is verifiable for wikipedia's standards? Probably not. Wikipedia has some dumb standards though.
On the talk page someone says he has edited it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=36374528 this edit summary also alludes to it, along with many others.

Yes, this IP seems to be him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=216.254.227.57

But its rather flimsy evidence.

Was only used once, was used in a constructive way, and he wasn't banned.

Hence no point in inviting him to participate in this forum. He wouldn't be a critic of Wikipedia.

Of course, if he wants to come here then that's his business.

And yes, I think that the article should be wiped.

There are many more edits that fall in the same IP range that people say is him, and the edits might be him. Of the ones I checked they were never blocked though.

Anyway, even if he did edit Wikipedia, it wasn't a big scandal, he wasn't blocked for trying to edit his user page or anything like that, and its nowhere near the same kind of issue. Did he even object to his Wikipedia article?

Not really, from my brief glance. It seems like he wanted to use it to push his theories more though.
Donny wondered what would happen if he did find it and you said he hadn't edited. There is at least a small assertion that he has.
Should someone invite him? I don't know. You don't have to be banned to criticize wikipedia.

You want to invite Archie P to this forum? Wow. It might be worth taking a long look at some of Archie's masterworks before thinking about inviting him anywhere.

Look, you can invite anyone you like. But I am specifically going out there to invite people who might have a good criticism.

Apparently there's a slight bug in the forum software, whereby if a thread is moved from the "Forum Information" subforum (which is visible to all but read-only for everyone but the staff), into the "Articles" subforum, it retains the permissions of the more restricted forum, so nobody can post to it.

In this case, the "Jack Sarfatti" thread seems to have been moved from "Articles" into "Forum Information" and then back again, probably by accident, but that has effectively locked it, though it doesn't show up as closed. So I'm going to try to merge its contents into this thread instead.

If I don't make it, tell my kids I love them very much...

(Five minutes later)

Did I ever mention that I don't have any kids?

My email is sarfatti@pacbell.net
I have 3 degrees in physics (including PhD) from real universities (Ivy League Cornell, & University of California). I am not a janitor like Archimedes Plutonium who is probably dead by now. He was active in the 90's as I recall and it was an obvious spoof. People who cannot tell the difference between me and Archimedes P are in over their heads and should take Wittgenstein's advice.

That which cannot be spoken of in words must be passed over by making phunny phaces.

Welcome Jack Sarfatti. We are honoured to have you here.

I am now on FACEBOOK also on http://www.youtube.com/user/lensman137
There are still many false slanderous lies about me on Wikipedia mostly in discussion pages.
Calton Bolick mainly prevents accurate information on my work from being presented on my page - mostly now sin of omission - some "editors" have cleaned it up a bit, but Bolick prevents truth about me and Uri Geller. I am on my way to Trinity College Cambridge for a week (in Faculty Housing).
PS "Archimedes P" was clearly a spoof and only people without a sense of mirth would take it seriously.

PS I see nothing wrong with people correcting lies about them posted anonymously on the Wickedpedio Filesl

Compare what Calton Bolick allows about me and Uri Geller on my Wiki page with this
http://www.peterblloyd.org/essays/sentientcutlery.htm

Wow, that Calton Bolick sure does know how to make an annoyance of himself.

Anyway, it looks like Jimbo finally got a talking to from Sarfatti, and the wipers took it from there.

Do you think the article isn't improved now though?

It looks nicer to me.

Needs a shrubbery. Ni!

*applies gas-powered hedge clipper to scurrilous bit snuck into 'Ideas'*

Yeah, and it only took them six years to do it! Gosh, that's great!
And most of it was the work of SlimVirgin! Golly, what could go wrong!!

The current article is pretty much a whitewash, with only the slightest hint of all his crackpottery. It no longer even mentions that he claims to have gotten a phone call from either aliens or time travelers when he was a teenager.

Is that important for an encyclopedia, especially one that anyone can edit?

I suppose it is important for "the sum of human knowledge", but so also would be which of his grade school teachers most influenced him, and perhaps even his blood type.

I see that SlimVirgin is complaining about Stanistani, saying that he is only commenting on the article because of his involvement in an "off-Wiki site." This leads me to believe that she still lurks at the Wikipedia Review.

I find articles on Wikipedia to edit by any number of means. The Review is one of them. I'm sure either SlimVirgin looks here or one of her cohorts does. SlimVirgin and Will Beback and other editors take the random potshot at me. Since I don't edit war, or engage in name-calling, so far they have found no excuse to take me to one of the drama boards - yet.

I warn you re libel laws.
The above is libel.
I never claimed I was contacted by aliens.
I reported strange incidents with witnesses in which the entity on the phone said it was an alien et.
I never said I believed it.
This distinction is obviously too subtle for your IQ.
Slim Virgin is allegedly an alias for a team of CIA mi6 analysts.
Everything in her version is true and i approve it.

I hope you're talking to Dan, Jack, and not me. I'm on your side!

Alleged by whom? The only allegation I'm aware of is that she was used by MI5 to disrupt Pierre Salinger's investigation of Lockerbie.