Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by ParalelUni

First Assertion

We need a ruling on whether the page:

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

It's my contention that it doesn't. The fact that it's a state gov. page doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable. They do not reference where the information for this page is obtained or provide any references to appropriate primary research, materials, or methods used to gather this information. There's also no oversight of the ODA to ensure that the information contained on the page is accurate. It there is no oversight, no reference to how or where they got this information from and no verification of the information on that page it can't possibly meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Also, don't be fooled by the link at the top to the AACRAO publication, they didn't get the information for that page from that publication, it's the other way around. The AACRAO used the unverified and unproven data on that page for their publication, which is really a shame. Spike 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the ODA is not found to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, all other sources that use it as a major/only source of reference should also be banned from the article since that is just a roundabout way to include the same inappropriate material. Spike 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Assertion

Admin JzG engaged in personal attacks on ParalelUni.

Calling him a "Cunt" [[2]]

Also telling him to "Fuck Off" [[3]]

Third Assertion

User Azskeptic followed ParalelUni from another site and made threatening legal remarks to use his personal information and take this from Wikipedia into a real life confrontation: [[4]]

Fourth Assertion

Admin Samir threatened to send an e-mail about ParalelUni to his medical dean about his actions here on Wikipedia: [[5]]

And apparently did so according to his comment here: [[6]] which is a violation of WP:LEGAL and other potential WP policies.

Participation

I am allowed to participate in these proceeding according to Tony Sidaway:

"While you are blocked you can submit evidence and proposals on this page, and it will be copied to the arbitration case, or else you can email it to me at minorityreport@bluebottle.com or to any active arbitrator (their emails are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ParalelUni&diff=69830594&oldid=69795391

Evidence presented by bainer

I'm not sure how prepared the Committee is to rule on matters of content, but there are certainly matters of policy and matters of behaviour to be considered. My evidence currently focuses on behaviour. --bainer (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ParalelUni

Personal attacks
  • Note that the first of the three above edits provoked JzG into responding with this: [15]
  • When an anon characterised this exchange as JzG 'antagonising' an innocent user by swearing at him ([16]), JzG responded with this: [17]
Incivility
Miscellaneous
Removing warnings

Evidence presented by Newyorkbrad

I am not a participant in, and have no evidence to offer concerning, the underlying content dispute.

Continued need for arbitration?

This case reached arbitration largely because one user refused to participate in mediation or other dispute resolution. That user has subsequently been community banned for reasons discussed elsewhere on this page. The suitability of addressing the content dispute in a forum short of the Arbitration Committee should probably be reconsidered by the other editors who have worked on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine.

Addendum: I posted this suggestion on August 15 (see sig below). Since then, none of the editors on the article have endorsed it and the controversy on the article seems to be continuing unabated, so I think my suggestion is moot. (I would just remove it, but since this is the Evidence page, I'll leave it for an Arbitrator or Arb Clerk to feel free to refactor away if desired.) Newyorkbrad 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misconduct by ParalelUni

ParalelUni became embroiled in a dispute with JzG after JzG tagged a medical college as "unaccredited." Rather than resolve the issue on the talkpage or via dispute resolution, ParalelUni determined to retaliate against JzG and deliberately set out to do so in the most hurtful and offensive way possible. ParalelUni came upon a personal essay in JzG's userspace dealing with the recent, tragic death of JzG's sister and posted a series of edits that, among other things, purported to celebrate JzG's sister's death and hoped that JzG also would die. Most of the relevant diffs have been posted by Bainer above.

Soon after ParalelUni was blocked for these edits, he posted from an IP this message, which speaks for itself. When this repellent edit was reverted, IP's quickly reverted back to it at least four times, requiring JzG's userspace to be semiprotected.

ParalelUni's remarks about JzG and his family have been described by several users as the most despicable comments ever made on Wikipedia. They reflect not a passing lapse from civility and politesse, but the deliberate and calculated infliction of emotional harm upon a respected member of this community, pursued for no comprehensible reason and in an escalating fashion over a period of several days. The initial block placed upon ParalelUni for this conduct was lengthened into an indefinite community ban by general consent as discussed on WP:ANI. He has never questioned the ban or sought to explain his behavior. Instead, ParalelUni has used IP's to post additional offensive edits (including the one cited above). He has also used IP's as well as sockpuppets such as User:MiloMein to harass other users in posts to WP:ANI and WP:PAIN, using as a pretext the completely understandable reactions that he deliberately set out to provoke with his intentionally hurtful comments.

Given the existing and uncontroversial community ban on this user, good-faith editors and the overburdened ArbCom should not have to expend further effort dealing with him. Recent ArbCom precedent is that the committee will not take cases just to sanction users whom the community has already banned for good cause. ArbCom's recent rejection of the cases involving User:Ste4k and User:GeneralTojo are examples. On the other hand, in cases such as Tommstein the ArbCom has voted to "acknowledge and endorse" an existing community ban.

In view of the length of time for which ArbCom cases often remain pending, an open-ended dialog on ParalelUni's behavior could constitute the care and feeding of a particularly offensive troll, a result that ArbCom should exert best efforts to avoid. It may be that this aspect of the dispute can be disposed of in some fashion early in the proceedings. However, if this case is pursued to conclusion and ParalelUni's conduct remains a focus of the case, then the Arbitration Committee should acknowledge and endorse the existing ban of ParalelUni to reinforce the community's strongest sense of revulsion and disapproval. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by JzG

Content

Several editors have investigated the accreditation status of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM). I see no evidence that any editor not associated with the school accepts that it is properly accredited, as normally understood. I see no evidence that the accreditation claimed by the editors known to be associated with the college is recognised as valid in the country of operation or the country from which SCIMD-COM draws its target students.

As a matter of principle, in as much as ArbCom takes an interest in content disputes, the sources cited below are reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the status as unaccredited for US and UK students is verifiable per Wikipedia:Verifiability. In terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view the statements regarding placement of students in US programmes should be regarded as special pleading since accreditation by a recognised accreditation body is of crucial importance in US secular professional education.

As a matter of principle, editors closely associated with the subject of an article should exercise caution in editing that article. ArbCom may wish to make this explicit in any findings.

As a matter of principle, by extension from previous decisions, editors with a vested interest in the content of an article should probably not normally edit that article other than to correct verifiable errors of fact. ArbCom may wish to make this explicit in any findings, since as far as I can see most precedent relates to autobiography not to content which relates, for example, to the credibility of qualifications awarded by an institution. An explicit ruling on the appropriateness of editing on subjects where there is a vested interest in content as well as subject may assist in future dispute resolution.

  • SCIMD-COM is not listed in the authoritative database of accredited degree programmes in the UK maintained by the Department for Education and Skills [27]
  • SCIMD-COM is explicitly not recognised by the General Medical Council (GMC) [[28]
  • SCIMD-COM is not recognised by the Council of Heads of Medical Schools (CHMS) [29]
  • SCIMD-COM is listed by name as unaccredited by US state governments including Oregon [30] and Maine [31]
  • SCIMD-COM is not listed as accredited in the authoritative database of the US Commission for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) [32]
  • SCIMD-COM is not listed as accredited in the authoritative database of the US Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) [33]
  • SCIMD-COM is not listed as a recognised UK institution by UNESCO [34]
  • SCIMD-COM is not listed as a recognised Senegalese institution by UNESCO [35]
  • Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN), the body which is claimed as the originating authority for degrees, is not listed as a recognised Senegalese institution by UNESCO [36]
  • Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), the Senegalese body named as corresponding to SCIMD-COM, is not listed as a recognised Senegalese institution by UNESCO [37]
  • Regarding practice in the UK, WHO has this to say: Registration is obligatory with the General Medical Council, 178 Great Portland Street, London W1N 6JE, after postgraduate general clinical training. GMC does not recognise SCIMD-COM
  • Regarding practice in the USA for overseas graduates, WHO has this to say: Graduates of foreign medical schools must be certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMGSM), 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2685, to be eligible to enter accredited programmes of graduate medical education (GME). ECFMG certification is also a prerequisite for licensure to practise medicine in most states and is one of the eligibility requirements to taking Step 3 of the United States Medical Licensing ExaminationTM (USMLETM). Students and graduates of foreign medical schools should refer to the current edition of the ECFMG information booklet for detailed information on eligibility and requirements for ECFMG certification. I should have checked that out while I was in Philly last week, I must have walked right past the ECFMG building. ECFMG is assessed on a per-individual basis, so while it may be true that graduates of SCIMD-COM may pass, it is certainly not the case that they are entitled to practice or continue training in the USA.
  • The BBC characterises degrees from this college as "worthless" [38]
  • There is no apparent dissent from the conclusion of the BBC report, that this college draws its student body primarily from US nationals
  • There is no apparent dissent from the conclusion of the BBC report, that this college has in the past actively pursued accreditation in the UK, with a clear implication that it aspires to be a British institution
  • The two editors who acknowledge involvement with the school present it as a Senegalese school, but have failed to satisfactorily explain why a Senegalese school which seeks to offer an identifiably Senegalese qualification would want to set up in the UK with its much higher costs and regulatory requirements. Other editors have concluded from the college's promotional material that it seeks to present itself as a British institution offering opportunities in the UK and US.
  • Ability of individual students to obtain credit for degrees in individual states is irrelevant to accreditation status. The {{unaccredited}} template says: {school} is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. That does not mean they are guaranteed to be unacceptable, but that they are not guaranteed to be acceptable.
  • The sole basis for claiming accreditation seems to be a letter from the Sengalese minister for education reproduced on the parent body's website, this falls short of any reference to known and verifiable academic quality standards (which is what accreditation is about). There is some evidence that even this limited status is disputed.
  • The school states that it is listed by the WHO directory of medical schools. WHO says: WHO has no authority to grant any form of recognition or accreditation to schools of medicine or other training institutions. Such a procedure remains the exclusive prerogative of the national government concerned. The database lists one school in Senegal [39] and 27 medical schools in the UK [40]. SCIMD-COM is not on either list, neither is UEIN the listed Senegalese school. There is a mention in one of the addenda to the WHO list of the commencmeent of teaching at SCIMD-COM, but no reference is made to accreditation or to the parent institution.
  • SCIMD-COM was claimed as the accreditnig body for St Johns University School of Medicine, which has been issued with a restraining order by the State of Oregon, which is taking measures to shut it down due to lack of acceptable accreditation.

No school is accredited at birth, it does not work that way. It takes time. In this case there seems to be some past evidence of a reasonable education from this institution, but more recent evidence, specifically from the GMC, indicates that this may no longer be the case. There is evidence of recent changes in administration which may be pertinent. Reliable sources in respect of this institution are few and far between, and this is itself significant since "real" medical schools are in the main long-established institutions with a significant presence in the research databases as part of their postgraduate training. In the UK, medical training is at medical schools associated with teaching hospitals, or at university hospitals. My wife started as a medical student, her institution was the Southampton Medical School, which was linked with the Royal South Hampshire Hospital. There is no credible evidence of a comparable link with the Luton and Dunstable Hospital, which is not a teaching hospital.

SCIMD-COM does not follow the usual British model for medical education, a five- or six-year programme. If you check the article on Medical school (United Kingdom) as of Aug 19 2006 [41] you will see the obvious disparity here: every other school apart from SCIMD-COM is accredited, accepted by GMC, part of a university, attached to a university hospital or teaching hospital, has a website on the .ac.uk TLD. SCIMD-COM was added by User:Gabrielwerder [42] and User:ParalelUni edit-warred over the verifiable fact that it is not accepted by GMC [43].

User conduct

Several single purpose accounts are associated with this article. Of these, one, ParalelUni, is permanently blocked under a community ban for gross personal attacks and block evasion. I request that ArbCom endorse this ban. Behaviour of these accounts:

  • Gabrielwerder (talk · contribs) reverted wholesale twice [44], [45].
  • Vtak (talk · contribs), who acknowledges being associated with the college, has introduced a number of edits which appear designed to obscure the college's status such as removing the date of establishment, changing the accreditation status, allusions to the GMC position, unverifiable claims re placements of graduates (irrelevant in context since there are known cases where graduates of unaccredited colleges and even degree mills have managed to pass off their degrees), introducing a laundry list of modules which would be pretty much generic for a medical school, de-emphasising the fact that it is not recognised by some states (regardless of whether it is explicitly listed as unaccredited, an unaccredited college is unaccredited in all states). I have not seen any serious incivilty or other major infringements from Vtak other than aggressive (as distinct from assertive, which is acceptable) defence of the institution here and elsewhere. Finally, Vtak vigorously asserts that this school is accredited by the government of Senegal ([46] being one of many examples). All well and good, but it is not in Senegal and most of its students are American, not Sengalese. I'm reaosnably sure that it is possible to get a Government official from at least one African state to endorse any institution. That endorsement, plus a buck ninety-five, will get you a cup of coffee.
  • Bts4202 (talk · contribs) has also changed the accreditation status [47] and removed references to the Oregon state documents [48]
  • ParalelUni (talk · contribs), who acknowledges being associated with the college
    • violated WP:OWN [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], Talk including most of [54] etc.
    • removed cited verifiable relevant detail of lack of GMC recognition [55], made statements which are contradicted by verifiably unaccredited status in US, e.g. [56]
    • Adopted a highly confrontational approach which denied proven facts regarding accreditation [57], [58]
    • Archived pertinent discussion re accreditation at a time when accreditation was a core part of the Talk debate [59] after refusing to take part in mediation and with arbitration pending.
    • violated WP:NPA per evidence above
    • removed statements in an ArbCom application per evidence above
    • evaded block in order to further pursue campaign of attacks and harassment, e.g. [60], [61]

ArbCom may also wish to rule on whether my reaction to ParalelUni's attack was unacceptable. I would suggest that it was a natural reaction to an incredibly crass remark which was clearly made in a calculated way with full recognition of the recent and exceptionally traumatic nature of the events in question. To be honest, I had to read it twice before I could believe that this user would say anything so vile, and it required great restraint not to indef-block the account myself.

Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by JoshuaZ

ParalelUni's behavior and edits are only one more example of a very general problem, repeated POV pushing and whitewashing by representatives and members of unacreddited schools. The most extreme such example is the now banned User:Jason Gastrich. (other examples forthcomng) At this point, since User:Arbusto is largely inactive, JzG is responsible for dealing with and maintaining neutrality on a large swath of these articles. The best thing for the Arb Com to do is to endorse his actions and to create a strong precedent that this sort of behavior is not tolerated at all. JoshuaZ 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Samir (The Scope)

In these diffs, User:ParalelUni asserts that he or she is affiliated with St. Christopher:[62], [63], [64]. The following comments made by User:ParalelUni targetting User:JzG were especially caustic as they were targetted on the sensitive issue of his recently deceased sister: [65], [66], [67] (and many others above). As a concerned clinician-educator, I dictated a letter to Dr. Jay Mohite, the dean of St. Christopher, describing questionable internet conduct made by individuals purporting to be affiliated with his medical school. This is independent of my on-wiki activity. No legal threats were made on or off wiki. -- Samir धर्म 10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related fake med schools in edit wars


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher/Evidence&oldid=431111365"