Case Opened on 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 19:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
The locus of the dispute is St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Other discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine.
I believe that placing SCIMD in the category of Medical Schools in England is false advertising. The school is a Senegal chartered school that is squatting in the UK and not recognized. Also we have no proof that SCIMD is indeed related to the original SC and thus it isn't recognized in the same way SC was and wasn't. Numerous states won't accept SC diplomas and yet the website has been setup on wikipedia to act like it is widely accepted Azskeptic 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We basically just 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 requirments 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)
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)
During the course of the past few weeks, a number of issues on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine have come up which we were not able to resolve using the other steps in the dispute resolution process. They are:
Those are the major issues to be decided, as well as one minor issue:
-- Leuko 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I invite the arbitrator to email me and i can show him proof, however the way our college has been sabotaged and to protect the alumni from the abuse we face, I cannot put the proof out in public. Cheers..Also, kindly refer to my statements blow-- Vtak 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
my rebuttal to this mods remarks are in my section below-- Vtak 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone also need to do something about JzG, he is acting horribly for a wikipedia admin. Please check his edits on the article in question. He is adding content that is totally inappropriate, instead of discussing the material he is just reverting my edits stating "He is an admin" such that it explains his poor behavior, and threatened me that my editing abilities could be removed even though I am doing nothing wrong. Someone really needs to pull on his leash and rein him in. Spike 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Link provided as requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#SCIMD-COM
66.135.34.11 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no excuse for your behavior. You should be punished for what you did since you violated WP policy as well. I know this won't happen considering the type of person you are and the cronyism of the admins. here. 205.188.116.133 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Addition by Vtak: I know I should not be involved but I found this showing a similar pattern by JzG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Arbitration
-- Vtak 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the arbitrator takes all the evidence hence forth put forward to make a decision.
Firstly, i would appreciate if the arbitrator will email me to get more details on the licensed physicians' evidence as that cannot be discussed in public because of their privacy and the current prejudiced, rival colleges and their employee's attacks the college students are facing... my email is attached to my account and if u don't have access to it please message me and i will get back to you. If this comes true, i hope the "students claim..." phrase can be changed.
Secondly, Azskeptic is involved with AAIMG which is currently under-investigation as agreed by him on the following link. He has been linked to the defense "AAIMG" (the site of which is in Azskeptics control), in a defamation case between rival medical colleges. AAIMG is a non-accredited accreditation company of some odd sort that has been trying to falsely rate offshore medical colleges and is possibly owned by a medical college's administration itself. Azskeptic is the one who is talking on the BBC live report as linked on the SCIMD article and is thus rather prejudice, looking at the current situation.
The link to the site is:
Thirdly, we have a accredition from Ministry of Education in Senegal. The letter of them, agreeing to us having this accredition is here
[6] bottom of the page. For further details please refer to the WHO link which shows the college in the country.
[7] and to the IMED link refering to our ECFMG listing
[8].....The unaccredited listing is not true and is thus to be removed looking at the above evidence.
Fourthly, the UNESCO listing is not a complete listing of colleges and many colleges like Caribbean medical colleges are not listed on here, so it is unfair to note us being missing on there. It is nothing but a blatant negative statement.
[9]
Fifth, I recommend we move all the ODA, Maine GMC issues to a new section called Controversy or something so the whole page doesn't reek havoc on the fact that this is just a listing in an encyclopedia and not a Analizing contest.
"but whose degrees are explicitly rejected by a number of US states". 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)
Again, because there is some evidence provided by both sides 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)
Another thing, as a side note for the decision making process here, I have been very appropriate in the manner I have approached this venue or anyone on it, considering the sort of welcome I have received. I have been a long time member of several other medical forums for purely educational purposes posting questions and their explanations, aiding students with their studies and not for being a proponent of a college or otherwise. Bearing that in mind, I would like to argue why two individuals trying to prove or argue a point are seen in the same light. I don't compare all mods or admin of Wikicommunity to be like the gentleman who is so eagerly involved here. For me being a single-purpose account, I am taking a board exam soon and with all the time I have left in the tortorous 14 hr sitting and studying day, I can either argue my point against this group or contribute to the other medical or physics relevant articles here, which I know I will be able to greatly benefit. In addition, just as food for thought, how many other college's articles are not completed or added to or argued about by the folks with connection to the actual college and how many of them end up being single-purpose accounts? I have searched the history of edits in many colleges here and I notice that quite a bit.-- Vtak 22:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The US govt doesn't accredit any foreign college, the ODA and Maine have no authority to accredit a Senegalese college, (as doesn't the GMC). GMC scenario is tough for anyone to understand because this is the first college of its type and there needs to be a new statement as per what the actual laws are for professional colleges. This college is accredited via Senegal and no one else has the authority to say otherwise until proven.... the accreditation is from the site where the charter is (period). And should and therefore be changed from the unaccredited listing STAT.-- Vtak 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And for the Mod's information, the US medical licensure and training system is one of the most secure in the world and is not like any other educational training programs in the country, so fake MDs etc will be impossible to last with unless you are getting paid to sit on ur behind and do nothing. Here is what people go through to get licensed in USA and this is equal in standards and examinations for both US and International grads:
SO NOW THAT I HAVE WASTED MY TIME TO LET PEOPLE, WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE MEDICAL DEGREE PROGRAMS AND THE US SYSTEM AND ARE PASSING JUDGEMENTS ON THE LICENSEE'S, KNOW ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS and how competent any grad needs to be to get licensed I again say, if there are residents and graduated licensee's please don't pass judgements here (don't call licensee in US dangerous, they take care of people, and still get ridiculed by some people like here) .... This is not a lame college with everyone getting degrees with no work to show for it. Oh! by the way we have ECFMG which lets us do all our exams and aid our licensing.... www.ecfmg.org-- Vtak 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, it is interesting... that you would take one govt's word over anothers (though the country of charter clearly accredit the college)... jee maybe because its a Western govt? what other assumptions can we make here about the assumptions and reasons for the assumptions?-- Vtak 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
3) Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest.
4) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring or other unduly aggressive activities may be banned. Users indefinitely blocked for egregious behavior may be considered banned by the community if no one is willing to reverse the block, or when there is consensus in favor of the block.
1) ParalelUni ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in exceedingly offensive personal attacks and incivility, even revelling in the death of another user's sister. ( evidence)
2) ParalelUni has engaged in edit warring on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, leading to his first block. [10], [11]
3) On August 11, ParalelUni was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and harassment. [12] The block has not been overturned and appears to have strong support. ParalelUni can fairly be considered banned by the community.
4) Various other users have appeared for the sole purpose of editing pages related to this dispute. These users include Gabrielwerder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vtak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bts4202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and various IPs. ( evidence)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's ban of ParalelUni.
Rescinded by
motion
|
---|
2) Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned above, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits. |
1) Page bans shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week for repeated violations. After five such blocks, the maximum block length increases to a year.
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.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
A few more blocked and not logged:
Various dates and admins, will add data if need be but they should be uncontroversial. Guy ( Help!) 10:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
New batch of single-purpose advocacy accounts restricted to 1RR/24 hours, further restrictions to follow if needed:
Notices left on user talk pages. MastCell Talk 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Case Opened on 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 19:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
The locus of the dispute is St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Other discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine.
I believe that placing SCIMD in the category of Medical Schools in England is false advertising. The school is a Senegal chartered school that is squatting in the UK and not recognized. Also we have no proof that SCIMD is indeed related to the original SC and thus it isn't recognized in the same way SC was and wasn't. Numerous states won't accept SC diplomas and yet the website has been setup on wikipedia to act like it is widely accepted Azskeptic 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We basically just 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 requirments 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)
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)
During the course of the past few weeks, a number of issues on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine have come up which we were not able to resolve using the other steps in the dispute resolution process. They are:
Those are the major issues to be decided, as well as one minor issue:
-- Leuko 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I invite the arbitrator to email me and i can show him proof, however the way our college has been sabotaged and to protect the alumni from the abuse we face, I cannot put the proof out in public. Cheers..Also, kindly refer to my statements blow-- Vtak 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
my rebuttal to this mods remarks are in my section below-- Vtak 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone also need to do something about JzG, he is acting horribly for a wikipedia admin. Please check his edits on the article in question. He is adding content that is totally inappropriate, instead of discussing the material he is just reverting my edits stating "He is an admin" such that it explains his poor behavior, and threatened me that my editing abilities could be removed even though I am doing nothing wrong. Someone really needs to pull on his leash and rein him in. Spike 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Link provided as requested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ParalelUni#SCIMD-COM
66.135.34.11 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no excuse for your behavior. You should be punished for what you did since you violated WP policy as well. I know this won't happen considering the type of person you are and the cronyism of the admins. here. 205.188.116.133 22:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Addition by Vtak: I know I should not be involved but I found this showing a similar pattern by JzG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Arbitration
-- Vtak 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the arbitrator takes all the evidence hence forth put forward to make a decision.
Firstly, i would appreciate if the arbitrator will email me to get more details on the licensed physicians' evidence as that cannot be discussed in public because of their privacy and the current prejudiced, rival colleges and their employee's attacks the college students are facing... my email is attached to my account and if u don't have access to it please message me and i will get back to you. If this comes true, i hope the "students claim..." phrase can be changed.
Secondly, Azskeptic is involved with AAIMG which is currently under-investigation as agreed by him on the following link. He has been linked to the defense "AAIMG" (the site of which is in Azskeptics control), in a defamation case between rival medical colleges. AAIMG is a non-accredited accreditation company of some odd sort that has been trying to falsely rate offshore medical colleges and is possibly owned by a medical college's administration itself. Azskeptic is the one who is talking on the BBC live report as linked on the SCIMD article and is thus rather prejudice, looking at the current situation.
The link to the site is:
Thirdly, we have a accredition from Ministry of Education in Senegal. The letter of them, agreeing to us having this accredition is here
[6] bottom of the page. For further details please refer to the WHO link which shows the college in the country.
[7] and to the IMED link refering to our ECFMG listing
[8].....The unaccredited listing is not true and is thus to be removed looking at the above evidence.
Fourthly, the UNESCO listing is not a complete listing of colleges and many colleges like Caribbean medical colleges are not listed on here, so it is unfair to note us being missing on there. It is nothing but a blatant negative statement.
[9]
Fifth, I recommend we move all the ODA, Maine GMC issues to a new section called Controversy or something so the whole page doesn't reek havoc on the fact that this is just a listing in an encyclopedia and not a Analizing contest.
"but whose degrees are explicitly rejected by a number of US states". 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)
Again, because there is some evidence provided by both sides 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)
Another thing, as a side note for the decision making process here, I have been very appropriate in the manner I have approached this venue or anyone on it, considering the sort of welcome I have received. I have been a long time member of several other medical forums for purely educational purposes posting questions and their explanations, aiding students with their studies and not for being a proponent of a college or otherwise. Bearing that in mind, I would like to argue why two individuals trying to prove or argue a point are seen in the same light. I don't compare all mods or admin of Wikicommunity to be like the gentleman who is so eagerly involved here. For me being a single-purpose account, I am taking a board exam soon and with all the time I have left in the tortorous 14 hr sitting and studying day, I can either argue my point against this group or contribute to the other medical or physics relevant articles here, which I know I will be able to greatly benefit. In addition, just as food for thought, how many other college's articles are not completed or added to or argued about by the folks with connection to the actual college and how many of them end up being single-purpose accounts? I have searched the history of edits in many colleges here and I notice that quite a bit.-- Vtak 22:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The US govt doesn't accredit any foreign college, the ODA and Maine have no authority to accredit a Senegalese college, (as doesn't the GMC). GMC scenario is tough for anyone to understand because this is the first college of its type and there needs to be a new statement as per what the actual laws are for professional colleges. This college is accredited via Senegal and no one else has the authority to say otherwise until proven.... the accreditation is from the site where the charter is (period). And should and therefore be changed from the unaccredited listing STAT.-- Vtak 01:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And for the Mod's information, the US medical licensure and training system is one of the most secure in the world and is not like any other educational training programs in the country, so fake MDs etc will be impossible to last with unless you are getting paid to sit on ur behind and do nothing. Here is what people go through to get licensed in USA and this is equal in standards and examinations for both US and International grads:
SO NOW THAT I HAVE WASTED MY TIME TO LET PEOPLE, WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE MEDICAL DEGREE PROGRAMS AND THE US SYSTEM AND ARE PASSING JUDGEMENTS ON THE LICENSEE'S, KNOW ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS and how competent any grad needs to be to get licensed I again say, if there are residents and graduated licensee's please don't pass judgements here (don't call licensee in US dangerous, they take care of people, and still get ridiculed by some people like here) .... This is not a lame college with everyone getting degrees with no work to show for it. Oh! by the way we have ECFMG which lets us do all our exams and aid our licensing.... www.ecfmg.org-- Vtak 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, it is interesting... that you would take one govt's word over anothers (though the country of charter clearly accredit the college)... jee maybe because its a Western govt? what other assumptions can we make here about the assumptions and reasons for the assumptions?-- Vtak 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
2) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.
3) Users who have made little or no other contributions outside a single narrow article or topic may be treated as meatpuppets and regarded as a single individual. When it becomes clear that such accounts are only concerned with advocacy or other disruptive activity, they may be banned from their area of interest.
4) Users who disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring or other unduly aggressive activities may be banned. Users indefinitely blocked for egregious behavior may be considered banned by the community if no one is willing to reverse the block, or when there is consensus in favor of the block.
1) ParalelUni ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in exceedingly offensive personal attacks and incivility, even revelling in the death of another user's sister. ( evidence)
2) ParalelUni has engaged in edit warring on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, leading to his first block. [10], [11]
3) On August 11, ParalelUni was blocked indefinitely for personal attacks and harassment. [12] The block has not been overturned and appears to have strong support. ParalelUni can fairly be considered banned by the community.
4) Various other users have appeared for the sole purpose of editing pages related to this dispute. These users include Gabrielwerder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vtak ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bts4202 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and various IPs. ( evidence)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's ban of ParalelUni.
Rescinded by
motion
|
---|
2) Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned above, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits. |
1) Page bans shall be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week for repeated violations. After five such blocks, the maximum block length increases to a year.
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.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
A few more blocked and not logged:
Various dates and admins, will add data if need be but they should be uncontroversial. Guy ( Help!) 10:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
New batch of single-purpose advocacy accounts restricted to 1RR/24 hours, further restrictions to follow if needed:
Notices left on user talk pages. MastCell Talk 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)