Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 St. Chris IMD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-01 St. Chris IMD
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
- Request made by:
- Azskeptic 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#ODA
- Who's involved?
- Spike and myself
- What's going on?
- No matter what posts anyone else puts up Spike removes it,citing that it isn't correrct,etc.
- What would you like to change about that?
- Spike needs to allow links to official sources such as US and UK govt agency rulings to be posted.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- deanhughson@gmail.com
[edit] Mediator response
Ha! It looks like everybody started discussion even before a mediator was found. :D Taking the case, feel free to join in and help. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Mr. Hughson is not a qualified source to make official comments or statements on the cases, legal issues, or governmental matters pertaining to SCIMD in any capacity. He is nothing more than an egg broker with delusional behavior about any qualifications whatsoever. He has no medical training. NO governmental public health training. No formal training in evaluation of medical training, educational issues, didactic evaluations or governmental relations dealing with WHO, IMED, or any other professionally governed body. In short, he is not trained in anything whatsoever. Unqualified opinions are certainly welcome, but not when attempting to present what may appear as official statements or postings since they can be late, failure to have been updated to be current, and inaccurate. TO do so would present potential damage to the students of the School in question and make parties open to unwiting participation in consumer fraud which would be unfortunate.
I have spoke on offshore medical education to all state medical licensing boards, being a paid speaker at the AIM meeting and have appeared on BBC, Pacbeat, and numerous other programs on the issue of offshore medical education. I am the moderator of the State Medical Licensing forum of www.valuemd.com and am a consultant to medical boards. incidentally my other projects indeed include being a writer and egg broker. So what.--Azskeptic 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Azskeptic u volunteered for everything. You have self appointed and then rotated from one medical board to another requesting them to speak on your agenda for 1 hr in a whole day seminar for State Licensing Boards. Then, finally you got the chance. You have gone to valuemd.com which is a public site and has nothing whatsoever to do with credentialing or medical licensing boards and worked your way up to a mod. Also, you have not appeared but been in a phone conversation, at their time, on BBC, trying to ruin these SCIMD's poor students' lives who have worked hard and long to get to a position of becoming medical students after 4 yrs of health science related training in undergraduate, Medical College Admission Test, some having passed the United States Medical Licensing Board exams already and many having worked as EMS, nurses, PA and researchers for many yrs of their lives.
again, you are assuming and don't know the truth on this issue. The SC school imploded and students are having a tough time getting their transcripts. Potential studeents need to know the truth about this school and its history. --Azskeptic 10:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)--Azskeptic 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
any students who are having a tough time getting a transcript are likely having difficulty because they asked an egg farmer instead of their medical college for it... i had no trouble obtaining my transcript, nor did the other proud graduates of SCIMD who entered postgraduate medical training this july. you are not an authority on medical education and you are not an advocate of the consumer... you are a con man.Gabrielwerder 16:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Hughson (a.k.a. azskeptic) is also the subject of an ongoing fraud investigation as well as a named defendant in a civil lawsuit on account of his financial relationship with one "off-shore medical school" and his attempts to discredit competing institutions. Based upon his readily demonstrable bias, Mr. Hughson is a particularly poor candidate for making contributions and evaluating the contributions of others on this topic. In short, he is an agent of a competitor masquerading as an impartial advocate of the consumer. Gabrielwerder 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I am NOT a named defendant in a civil lawsuit and have NO financial relationship with ANY offshore medical schools. That is a blatant lie on your part pure and simple.--Azskeptic 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
the affable Mr. Hughson, I have spoken to small groups on football training. It doesn't make me qualified to coach the Miami Dolphins or St.Louis Rams. Anyone can finagle their way into anything given a certain compulsion and obsession. It does not make one an expert. You certainly are not and your credibility on these issues is extremely spurious, limited, and questionable at best. Your relationships with state medical boards should also serve to call into question their ethics, professional credentials, and vetting processes for accepting information from unqualified sources.
Well,we shall see what happens in the upcoming ruling on SC and SCIMD which will be coming in the near future, pure and simple. That will tell you and I whose information was right. So far, I have called it correctly each time but you see to think you have magic information so we will await the positive results you are dreaming for. --Azskeptic 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Hughson, your throwing mud on a wall does not amount to being right. It amounts to being lucky. There is no upcoming ruling concerning SCIMD and the former SCCM other than transcripts being handed out per court procedures, et al. Most here, except you are intimately involved in the knowledge of that and much more. You are privy to nothing other than pure speculation and in some cases, even slanderous by some standards. You don't really know anything. We already are privy to the GMC ruling while you are not. Why not call over there one more time and involve yourself in something none of your business? Give it up. Seek therapy for your OCD problem. Frogman
[edit] Spike's Rebuttal To Azskeptic
The only thing I have done is remove material from the article that doesn't meet WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. We took it to the talk page and are discussing it. We need an official wikiadmin. ruling on whether the ODA page does or doesn't meet the qualifications underWikipedia:Reliable_sources. I say it doesn't since they don't reference where the information for this page is obtained or provide any references to appropriate research or materials. It's basically no different than any other gossip page on the Internet that lists topics without providing an appropriate reference to where the information was obtained. Just having a .gov address does not make it reliable or appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Without reference to where the data was obtained from, what research methods and materials were used I don't believe it meets the qualifications for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Spike 14:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yaaay mediation!
Okay... so now that we actually have a mediator (me) to help you guys out... let's start fresh. Tell me what you think the problem is... give me a little information as to what's going on. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Spike has been rendered unable to post since he attacked some of the administrators. Problem in my opinion was that anything else that was posted, Spike immediately removed it. Now the administrators are involved and the page is reflecting the info that is available so I am currently happy with the factual status of the listing. Azskeptic 17:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- want me to hang around to do anything... or do you think that any lingering conflict is gone? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 03:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
my guess is we should put the conflict on hold until we see what happens on the page? we have a bunch of power on the talk discussion group but the page is protected so we don't know if people are happy or not. I'm happy myself..what sayeth the rest of the group? Azskeptic 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh... that sounds good. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 15:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
