User talk:Jimbo Wales/Arbcom Appeal

Arbitration case appeal and irregularities

I wish to appeal an arbitration case " (Pseudoscience case Arbitration irregularities)", on the advice of Arbcom.[1]. I feel there are "irregularities" (during and after the case) that question confidence in the process.
To summarise: I (User:iantresman) brought the original arbitration case [2] presenting evidence that another user, (User:ScienceApologist, who tends to enforce the "mainstream" POV) was editing inappropriately by misrepresenting minority scientific views.[3] But User:ScienceApologist countered, complaining that I was involved with, or pushing pseudoscience.[4], but presented no evidence of actual inappropriate editing.
The resulting Arbcom findings:

Ignored all of my claims (some of which were incontestable), but criticized my "orientation"(!!!)[5], but gave no evidence of examples of inappropriate editing, nor any Wiki policies "orientation" is supposed to transgress.
When it was found that User:ScienceApologist had "strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks"[6], one of the Arbitrators retorted that it "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade". I believe there is no defense for incivility, and this comment is inappropriate.
Three editors were given wholly disproportionate enforcements/remedies; I was found to have infringed a number of guidelines, and put on probation. ScienceApologist was found to have broken official policies many times, but only "cautioned" (a meaningless label); another editor, user:Elerner (see also Eric Lerner) was alledged to have "Self promoted"[7], a guideline for which no evidence was presented, and he was banned.

I feel there is an unfair bias towards User:ScienceApologist and against myself, which has widened since the Arbcom case. For example:

After the case, I reported User:ScienceApologist's behaviour (eg. calling me a liar) to Arbitration enforcement,[8]. One Admin retorted User:ScienceApologist "was merely cautioned in the ArbComm .. Iantresman, by contrast, is on probation" and "there is little ground for complaint." (My probation means I can be called a liar from someone who is only cautioned? !!!).
I reported other questionable behaviour three more times [9] [10] [11], for example, User:ScienceApologist suggesting that a respectable scientist is involved in impropriety (cf. WP:LIVING), and starting an AfD on article using practices that seem contrary to "Abuse of the deletion process" (ie. misleading reasons, removing my corrections, and misused voting procedures). One Admin responded: "I advise you to be careful about what you are asking for here. If you drag me or some other admin into this, we're also going to look closely at your behaviour in light of the arbcomm ruling"
I was subsequently banned for three weeks,[12], but on requesting evidence of diffs to support the reasons, none was forthcoming.

Under the circumstances, I shall mention that User:ScienceApologist (under his previous username, Joshuaschroeder [13]) has claimed to be a professor (on a discussion page of an article his AfD successfully removed), and a "mainstream expert"[14], though both are unsubstantiated. I believe he is also responsible for vandalizing my Web site, www.plasma-universe.com using his IP addresses 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252 (as reported by my server log). --Iantresman 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest, Ian. If you want to appeal the ruling against you, there are established procedures for doing so. If you wish to allege misconduct against User:ScienceApologist concerning false claims of credentials, Jimbo's talk page is hardly the forum to do it--you might consider filing another arb case, or an RFC. And whether or not SA "vandalized" your website is irrelevant on Wikipedia. If you think a crime was committed, call the police--otherwise, leave it alone. --EngineerScotty 16:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I see now that the ArbCom directed you to appeal to Jimbo. --EngineerScotty 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Indeed, the procedure for appealing an Arbcom case ruling is also described here. I brought up User:ScienceApologist's credentials in the ArbCom case (after he highlighted my background), and the issue was ignored; I feel the recent news items [15] make this relevant. WP:NPA tells us that "Off-wiki personal attacks .. may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered"[16]. --Iantresman 17:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joshuaschroeder/ScienceApologist does indeed appear to be an instructor of physics, and a "mainstream expert" in the field in contention. "Professor" may be an exaggeration, but then I have no access to the deleted page to see what he actually wrote.Proabivouac 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]