Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

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.

Involved parties

Locus of dispute

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.

Statement by User:Azskeptic

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)[reply]

Response By ParalelUni
  • We are a Medical School in England. We are a branch of a medical school that is physically located in England, it doesn't get any clearer than that.
  • We have plenty of proof that SCIMD is the continuation of SC, just check the IMED listing for SCIMD:
http://imed.ecfmg.org/details.asp?country=820&school=&currpage=1&cname=SENEGAL&city=&region=AF&rname=Africa&mcode=820020&psize=25
Under the "Notes" section:
"The medical college is affiliated with University El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse. Prior to 2006, diplomas are awarded from St. Christopher's College of Medicine rather than the university."
Contact IMED, they have all the documentation to validate that fact.
  • The article says that SCIMD is acceptable in most states in the US, and is true. Unless you can prove otherwise in accordance with
    WP:Reliable_Sources you are wasting your time. Spike 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Main Statement by ParalelUni

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)[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]

Statement by Leuko

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:

  • WP:3O, and states that he will only submit to an administrative opinion.diff
    .

Those are the major issues to be decided, as well as one minor issue:

  • ParalelUni has placed the article into 6 categories. 3 of these categories are subcategories of each other, and others are marginally related at best. I feel a single category would be most appropriate.

--Leuko 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response By ParalelUni
  • Re: Vtak - The information can be verified, but it can't be directly linked because the data produced is the result of a search query and the query expires shortly after it is completed. Even though it cannot be directly linked it would be possible to post a link to the database where the search can be done and anyone that wants to do the search can do so and verify the that information posted is factual. Spike 23:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the categories go, I don't see what the problem is. If having that many categories goes against WP policy, then it could be pared down to two, once category for medical schools and one for education in Senegal since the University/Colleges in Senegal are discussed and the medical college in the UK are both discussed in the article. Spike 23:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response by Vtak:

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)[reply]

Response by Leuko:
No one is trying to "sabotage" or "abuse" anybody. We are just trying to have the best, most accurate,
NPOV article possible. But your use of those words clearly indicates your intimate involvement with the subject and your POV views. Leuko 04:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Uninvolved now involved JzG

I came to this dispute as a result of the addition of this case to the requests for arbitration. I reviewed the evidence and commented. As a result of this review, summarised in /Evidence, I placed the {{unaccredited}} template on the article, which provoked an entirely disproportionate reaction from User:ParalelUni.
The issue of unaccredited universities is a long-standing source of controversy (for example, it was at the root of the Gastroturfing case). Understandably, faculty and graduates are keen to de-emphasise the importance of accreditation. Equally understandably, others are keen to ensure that the problems of degrees from unaccredited universities, which include the fact that use of unaccredited titles is illegal in some jurisdictions, is properly reflected. The template {{unaccredited}} was created for this purpose with a compromise wording which was subject to debate and discussion.
Many unaccredited schools are religious establishments, where accreditation is probably not that important in the global scheme of things. The fact that a fundamentalist preacher may be awarded a Doctor of Divinity for writing a dissertation on young-earth creationism based on the books of the founder of the awarding school is not going to get him a job in a mainstream theological seminary, and there is no real chance that he would ever apply for one. But this is not a religious institution, it's a medical school which is not recognised by either the US accreditation agencies or the General Medical Council, the main medical accreditation body in its base country. The fact that some graduates have managed to get onto programmes in the US is actually a dangerous distraction here - there have been instances of tenured professors in US universities turning out to have degrees from known degree mills, checking of credentials can be very lax. The fact that it is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body, and specifically not recognised by the GMC, is of paramount importance and arguably the single most important fact about the place, in terms of documenting it for an encyclopaedia. I don't know what ArbCom is being asked to do here; if it's a matter of stopping a minority view from skewing an article then that can be fixed by the involvement of admins (I'm over there now).
This institution is not accredited to award degrees in the UK and is not recognised by the CHMS [1]. It is my strong opinion that this body should notbe in any of the categories relating to UK higher or medical education, because according to the bodies which regulate UK higher and medical education it is not an accredited British instituion. One of the sources ParalelUni refuses to allow is the Office of Degree Authorization in the State of Oregon, which says about this school: Great Britain ceased accepting its degrees, March, 2006. No Senegalese school issuing degrees under this name exists as of March, 2006. Price, Waterhouse has taken over the entity's records (UK/Senegal) and students who want to get information must contact PWC. It was announced that a portion of Luton (UK) operation became a branch campus of Medical University of the Americas, Belize, March 28, 2006. See Medical University of the Americas. However, the school ownership is apparently in dispute at this time. [2] Medical University of the Americas, Belize almost certainly refers to American Global University School of Medicine, which is located in Belize, and is also unaccredited. Recognition from the Government of Senegal is the sole grounds for inclusion in IMED-FARMER, and the GMC has raised questions about the standards of quality assurance which attach to this accreditation, to the extent of explicitly stating that this instution is not recognised for the purposes of registration or the PLAB test [3] and listing it under medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC.
The principal proponents of restricting information on the lack of accreditation are
single purpose accounts and both admittedly associated with the subject institution (both use the pronoun we when referring to the institution). Gabrielwerder (talk · contribs
) is also an SPA editing thie article. Vtak's suggestion of placing the ODA statement in a "controversy" section is a poor one for two reasons: First, controversy sections are a bad idea generally; they polarise the article into opposing arguments, make it difficult to contextualise criticisms, and often end up giving undue weight to one side or the other. Second, the correct place for the ODA statement is as now, in a section on accreditation. ODA is a reliable source per policy, a Government agency, and is not alone among State educaiton authorites in listing this as an unaccredited institution. The same applies to the UNESCO list - frankly I don't care how many other African institutions are not listed, this school is presenting itself as English, being located in England, and there is no accredited English institution missing from the UNESCO list. St. Christopher's is absent from UNESCO, GMC, DfES and the US lists of accredited institutions. It is specifically (and unusually) listed by the GMC as not meeting their requirements. Someone who wants to study in a Senegalese university to practice medicine in Senegal is unlikely to do so in the UK, with the substantially higher costs that entails, and according to the BBC (apparently on the authority of the institution itself) most students are from the USA, which makes the various statements from US states entirely relevant. Another investigation by the BBC casts serious doubt on the quality standards applied.
As far as the content dispute goes, then, we have a private, profit-making college which operates in the UK but is not accredited in the UK, which trains mainly US students but is not accredited in the US, which claims accreditation in Senegal but with some question marks over what exactly that implies in terms of quality assurance and legitimacy of degrees outside of Senegal, which is explicitly listed as falling below the required standard by British and at least some American jurisdictions, but which has been subject to strongly sympathetic editing by single-purpose accounts which acknowledge they are connected with the school. In as much as there is anything for ArbCom to say here, I guess it would be that editors who are persoanlly involved with the subject should be circumspect when editing it.
As far as user conduct goes, User:ParalelUni is indefinitely blocked and should without a shadow of a doubt stay that way. You have seen what he said about the death of my sister, several uninvolved users have characterised this as among the most vile personal attacks they have seen on Wikipedia. I am not about to disagree. User:Vtak appears to show more restraint but having admitted a connection with the subject should in my view show more restraint when discussing this content. Just zis Guy you know? 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my rebuttal to this mods remarks are in my section below--Vtak 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting how the only editors who "understand" this subject properly are the ones who admit a connection with the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Statements Made By ParalelUni

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)[reply]

JzG called ParalelUni a "Cunt", which can be seen on that users talk page. He also violated 3RR with respect to the article in question. Shouldn't he be removed as an admin for his behavior?

Link provided as requested:

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

66.135.34.11 21:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a response to the following comment from you, ParalelUni: "I truly feel sorry for you. It's no wonder your sister committed suicide, I would commit death-by-bottle if had you for family as well." I watched my sister die of multiple organ failure brought on by alcoholic liver disease less than three months ago. Have you ever watched a member of your family die? That is, without doubt, the most crass thing that anybody has said to me since. What precisely did you expect? You think I am a plaster saint? Guess again. Just zis Guy you know? 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(comment from uninvolved user) JzG truly understates the case. Not only was ParalelUni's quoted remark (which is just one of a long series of similar comments) undoubtedly the most crass thing said to him in the past few months, but it is probably the most crass thing I have ever seen written in any context anywhere -- certainly the most vile thing I've seen written on Wikipedia (and that is saying a lot, since I tend to follow
WP:ANI and this page). Sometimes a user's uncivil or uncivilized remark is just a moment of thoughtlessness, but in this instance, ParalelUni obviously visited JzG's userspace and carefullyly thought through how to say the most offensive and hurtful thing he possibly could, not just once, but on multiple occasions. JzG has shown great restraint under extreme and deliberate provocation, and under no circumstances should his words or behavior in response to these comments become a subject of this case (if indeed there remains a case in light of ParalelUni's indefinite block). Newyorkbrad 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

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

"Hello, please help with a case about alleged adminship abuse by JzG, which had been rejected by three arbitrators before an administrator warned the accused one and undid part of his actions. The conflict is going on and I do not know how to find a solution. The only arbitrator who has sinced voted on the case is one who in my eyes is in a conflict of interest as he did a very similar block on me in the past that I think was abusive and that was undone by Theresa as it lacked any evidence of wrongdoing by me. I had suggested a change to the blocking policy but the discussion about it has up to now been inconclusive due to a lack of participants. Socafan 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)"

--Vtak 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socafan (talk · contribs) has since been indefinitely blocked through a community ban for edit-warring over potentially defamatory content in a biography of a living individual. I did not enact that block. It is common for users who find their attempts to promote strong opinions through Wikipedia rsisted by admins, to complain about supposed abuses. Sometimes there is a grain of truth in what they say, but almost always it turns out that te actions about which they complain are in support of policy. Which was the case here. Just zis Guy you know? 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vtak

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:

[[4]] with Azskeptic (whose real name can be found quite easily online by googling the handle) admits his involvement with the case referred to below.
The actual lawsuit in pdf format can be read about here: #search='st%20matthew%27s%20university'
the bbc reference used on the article website with Azskeptic on it is: 4. Chapman, Matthew (6 November 2005). Some medical degrees ‘worthless’. BBC News. Retrieved on 2006-08-10. [5]


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.

Addition from the discussion section, appropriate on the main arbitration page

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, US states and medical boards have every right to reject the validity of degrees in their states, as Oregon, Maine, and others have done. In that state then, the College is unaccredited, since the degree is not able to be used, and graduates are not able to be licensed. If graduates want to work in Senegal, then the College may be accredited in that country (though I haven't seen an official charter yet), however my guess is that most graduates are looking to practice in the US and UK, where the degree may not be accepted for licensing = unaccredited in those jurisdictions. Leuko 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The student who want clinical training in US, even if national or international need to finish a 300 question 8 hr exam called the USMLE STEP 1 before their 3rd yr (the passing score is 70% and the mean score is 85%). Then the students need to take a Clinical Skills exam with actors pretending to be pts and a USMLE STEP 2 exam for Clinical knowledge (9 hrs, 370 questions, 70% minimum passing score) in their 4th yr. Then the students need to apply for NRMP a national residency matching program which puts their CV, USMLE scores and their data on the database annually and lets the programs in US decide who they want to interview. Then the students match if they are ranked by the residency programs they interviewed at. The student(who are by then graduates and MDs) go through a grueling 70-90 hr work week residency program in the speciality they matching in for 3-7 yrs and then they do their BOARD EXAMS in the speciality. Only after passing that can they apply for a full license in a state.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Courtesy

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

2)

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Community bans

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

ParalelUni is uncivil

1)

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
)

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ParalelUni edit wars

2) ParalelUni has engaged in edit warring on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, leading to his first block. [10], [11]

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ParalelUni banned by the community

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Other accounts

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)

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

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.

ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed

1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community's ban of ParalelUni.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts restrained

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 19:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

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.

Passed 7-0 at 16:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Amendments

Amendment (April 2022)

Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 19:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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 of blocks and bans

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Blocking following 1RR violation by Uponleft. This is the usual user/socks/meats, I will block all now. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher&oldid=1138654507"