Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement by uninvolved User:JBKramer[edit]

Massive incivility by User:ParalelUni here demands serious action. JBKramer 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has continued with numeorus edits to my user and talk space, including this gem: [1]. All for adding the {{unaccredited}} template to an unaccredited school. This person is sick. Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly concur - this degree of behavior is uncivil, and the additional comments are totally inappropriate, unwarranted, and should be met with a reprimand, short-term ban, and if it occurs again, a permanent ban. Would recommend, however, not responding in kind by calling the individual names, as that's counterproductive and will only spool them up further. Keep it professional and avoid being a party to the arguement. Mugaliens 17:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ[edit]

After multiple requests, I have extended my block of ParalelUni to indefinite following the above edit noted by Kramer as well as [2][3] [4]. JoshuaZ 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User ParalelUni was provoked by admin. JzG by calling him a "Cunt" and engaging in edit warring, 3RR violations with regard to the article in question. Does he deserve an indef. ban in light of how the admin. acted? If nothing else the admin. should have his position revoked for his behavior.

Link provided as requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#SCIMD-COM

66.135.34.11 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's comment was in response to you mocking his sister's death. Given the circumstances his single comment seemed to me to be restrained, and was in any event only after you had made repeated attacks on him and his sister. To even think about this being in the same scale is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 21:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC) I will note that since this user is Paralel by his own admission, he has now attempted to avoid edit avoiding a block on the relevant article. JoshuaZ 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken the liberty of blocking the above IP address for 24 hours since the user attempted to use to continue edit warring on the page in question. JoshuaZ 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only made one comment and he then insulted me. Two wrongs don't make a right. He should be punished as he also violated WP policy. I know you admins stick up for each other so I realize that that nothing will happen. It just proves how disgusting this place really is. 152.163.100.9 22:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, he continued vandalism to JzG's user space. I will now use the rollback tool on all edits that this user does. JoshuaZ 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users moved from JzG's statement[edit]

Response to this is in the talk page at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=71403886

rebuttal by Vtak

The fact that you don't care doesn't mean much in an arbitration, I understand what you are saying but why don't we claim this for other offshore colleges, (BY offshore i mean a whole other beast that is well described by CAribbean, Eastern European and African colleges for US postgraduate students.) However, unlike those colleges we have a very big community of students in Dakar which we cannot even mention on there because we get reverted back. We do infectious disease and tropical medicine cores and electives there. Many students have even been going and doing their BS in French to get rid of the NJ issue, that is not even an issue but a choice for students, who don't care to practise in NJ. And again it is "claimed". Not written in stone.

the issue with having ODA and GMC where it is now has been discussed by me at the bottom and all I am saying is that we need to come to a concensus. Its not you are all right and we are all wrong. It has to be a concensus. And another thing, I have never said anything about posting ODA, Maine and GMC on there. I could care less because those states have not done any formal accreditation investigation and gone by W of M of random people and the admin is working on the process currently.

One more thing, in the [5] investigation, every other college discussed has closed down and ran away, SCIMD is large, well organized institution that has stayed in there, gone through the whole debacle with ECFMG and now are working with GMC to get over this current issue. --Vtak 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do use {{unaccredited}} for other offshore colleges, and we do make extensive reference to their problematic acreditation status. The solution is not for those associated with the school to edit-war over a Wikipedia article, but for the school itself to raise its standards to the point where the GMC recognises them. Right now this is a school located in England whose degrees are explicitly rejected by the British regulatory authorities, whose students are mostly American but whose degrees are explicitly rejected by a number of US states. There is no way we can have an article which does not make those points. Just zis Guy you know? 11:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

child I am not saying lets not have the ODA, maine, which as I count are 2 (not a number of, as you kindly put it) states. You can use unaccredited template for other colleges there is not a problem with that but when you have a letter from the Senegalese gov't you need to take that in account, or are we considering one gov't's over another, taking in account the gov't which accredits the degrees is completely behind the college. I say unless you have a rebuttal with the senegalese rejecting the college, we cannot have this discussion any further. Again, the students are not mostly American and the Senegalese campus has more than students than the UK campus. Also, if it is unaccredited, how come students still sit for the boards, and are able to go into residencies and are still able to RE-APPLY and get ECFMG after a brief suspension because of that skewed BBC story you keep refering to. Please peep at the timeline and how it relates.--Vtak 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who are you calling child here? I am pretty confident that I am at least two decades past the age of majority in your jurisdiction. ODA is one state authority which has been listed as specifically identifying this school as unaccredited. Others are listed on the Talk page of the article. Hence "a number". Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry i said it per habit, i just took my youngest brother out to get school supplies, lol... "but whose degrees are explicitly rejected by a number of US states". NOw does that mean those states that don't let many colleges to be accredited until they do a formal investigation, because if we are talking of California and New York, they could allow SCIMD after an application is submitted and they go through their accreditation process. You and I talking of it here is pure speculation. Kansas will start accepting several degrees in 9 yrs and one of them is SCIMD. Its just their 15 yr rule. It doesn't explicitly unaccredit SCIMD. Fl and Tx will only be known once one of our grads applies for licensure. Sir, one thing all USMBs say is licensure applications are processed by case to case basis.. So lets not put our speculations on here... its explicitly rejected in 2 US states. --Vtak 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, because there is some evidence provided by you and I that shows both ends of the spectrum we need to come to a collaborated decision. I propose a separate section in which you,Sir, can put "the speculations" about those states and the ODA/Maine unaccreditation along with the ongoing GMC fiasco on there, but only after posting the facts about ECFMG re-accepting our application and the bias in the BBC report, which lead to the ongoing controversy, and the Senegal acceptance and accreditation as supported by Ministry of Education, Senegal letter in the link in my evidence below.--Vtak 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid the logical fallacy of the false middle. My view is not at one extreme, my view is a considered one which is some way from the extreme (which would be, I guess, that this is a degree mill and a scam). Your view is not at the extreme either, it is somewhere inside the extreme but definitely on the side of strong support. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that is one of he most confusing things I have been forced to read, the other one was the complement cascade in hematology. However, so you are saying you are "Some way from the extreme" and I am "somewhere inside of the extreme as well" so we should not mediate this and agree on common grounds, but keep wasting my time (and yours possibly?!?!)... so lets see--Vtak 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in summary, you don't agree with the middle as put here in a pseudodiagram: extreme----------You------middle---------I-------extreme --Vtak 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will only tip to your side when you unaccredit my comments above, in the collaborated decision argument, which you have so cunningly moved to the discussion section.--Vtak 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logical fallacy of false middle is the assumption that if there are two sides in an argument, the truth lies at the midpoint between them. But since my position is mild scepticism whereas yours is very close to uncritical support, the middle almost certainly lies closer to my view than to yours. As an example, you discount the Oregon state government. That is something which, per WP:NPOV, we should almost certainly not do. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher (April 2022)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enacted –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force.

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

Support
  1. Izno (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clearly no longer needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Donald Albury 18:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • I found a talk page notice for this while wikignoming. No actions have been logged in over a decade, and I have a feeling that current policy and policy enforcement around promotional editing and single-purpose accounts also make this remedy essentially obsolete. --Izno (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher&oldid=1084816405"