Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

message: Massive incivility by User:ParalelUni here demands serious action. JBKramer 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has continued with numeorus edits to my user and talk space, including this gem: .  All for adding the  template to an unaccredited school.  This person is sick.  Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by uninvolved [[User:JBKramer]] 

message: After multiple requests, I have extended my block of ParalelUni to indefinite following the above edit noted by Kramer as well as 
. JoshuaZ 20:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: We do use  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Comments by other users moved from JzG's statement 

message: :Original discussion
Enacted –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Christopher (April 2022) 

message: ;Support
# Izno (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrator views and discussion