Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue

European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. claudioalv (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Guy (talk · contribs)
3. JzG (talk · contribs)
4. Damotclese (talk · contribs)
5. Vanjagenije (talk · contribs)
6. DGG (talk · contribs)
7. Martin (talk · contribs)
8. Topperfalkon (talk · contribs)
9. Contextualist (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. EGS - lack of info about E.U.accreditation - misleading links about US accreditation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:EGS#I disagree with the accreditation section

1)European Graduate School is accredited as a University in Malta. . Because Malta is a sovereign republic and member of the European Union, the current accredition is a European Union Accreditation. In fact, the rules are the same in each of 28 countries in the E.U. the so called Bologna process being a process of homogenization of Higher Education in an European Quality framework. Therefore the School is accredited as a University since February 29, 2016 and as a Higher Education Institution since April 27, 2015. This is easy to verify, I have written many times in the talk page but the article still does not mention that information. I have also open a RFC asking if user "Guy" is the final say or the consensus is the final say. I found user Guy's argument [Malta is a small country to confer global accreditation] very frivolous. In fact, It does not exist any global accreditation. The current European Accrediation is the so called Bologna process and the rules are the same for the 28 European Country, does not matter how many people live there. This is easy to verify and understand, but user "guy" is turning a deaf ear to that fact. The concept of "global accrediation" is also groundless because in EGS is a European School and their accreditation is regulated through a European Process called Bologna and not through "google search". I provided sources and external links to this argument. I have written in the article more than 15 times. 2)The Note and Reference number 14 at the botton of EGS Article is outdated (it dates back to february 2009) and false (it is not official).The Michigan Education Board no longer publish a list of institutions that might be degree mills and the current pdf does not have anything to do with the Michigan Education Board. In fact, it is a link of Arab British Academy for Higher Education and not of Michigan State. The most recent Michigan State link is the following . Despite having written this contribution 13 times in the talk page, editors and administrators are totally indifferent to that argument.

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

indifference of Wikipedia community to the European Union (Malta) accreditation. EGS is accredited as a University since February 2016 and as Higher Education Institution since April 2015. Why Wikipedia hosts a misleading link on the EGS article (Michigan information, see Notes and Reference n. 14)? wikilinks.Claudioalv (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

1. Agree. I had thought that this issue had been solved with the RFC. I posted a comment in the RFC that was opened previously, confirming that the accreditation is fully valid and the school should be listed. That RFC should have been the end of it. If there is an editor that refuses or is engaged in a revert war, that user needs to be sanctioned. Too many editors have spent too much time on this already, let's add the accredited school and stop wasting editor's time. Damotclese (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spending your time and writing again here. However the "Guy" editor reverted the article after an other editor attempted to edit the article with the new accreditation. I have also read that in the article talk page two different editors (Vanjagenije and DGG) have written that the school should be included. This user has added numeorus RfCs tot he article talk page, and How would be possible to add the accredited school if user "Guy" is the final say of what happen in the article? And what are the Wikipedia benefits to host a misleading and outdated article with false external links to support false statement (i.e. Michigan info)?Claudioalv (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is nothing to mediate. Claudioalv is just the latest in a looooong string of single-purpose accounts who are determined to whitewash legitimate criticism of a questionable school. The user has initiated numerous RfCs and refuses to accept any answer other than yes. The claim of "false external links to support false statement" says it all: the source is primary but unambiguous, whereas Claudioalv wants to use primary and ambiguous sources to assert "European accreditation", a concept that exists only in the claims of this school. All that's needed here is a topic ban for Claudioalv based on WP:TE, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and ultimately WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User "Guy" blocked me the first time without any reason, contesting I was a sockpuppetry, then meatpuppetry. I do not know what does it mean well, because I am not an expert user, I joined EGS talk page 3 weeks ago in order to support the argument that EGS content article is currently inaccurate and false statement are guiding the Wikipedia readers. I also wrote why the contributions is false (i.e. Michigan) but he has never replied on the merit of my contribution I provided what are sources, links, arguments regarding EU accreditation and the best thing to do according "Guy" is banning me so he would avoid any further discussion regarding this topic. His argument is that Malta is a small country and that the school is not accredited globally according to google search? Seriously? What does it mean being accredited globally? The school is not accredited globally (there is no school accredited globally), but is accredited according to Bologna rules. What I find very unfair is that Wikipedia policy allows him to make decisions about editing or not EGS article and no other editors are spending time to check and verify that information, except @Damotclese who has been quite clear.Claudioalv (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a false statement. I blocked you with' reason: your edits were identical to those of another, locked editor - passing the "duck test" for sockpuppetry. It turns out you are a different person, so you should now be blocked for tendentious editing and because you are not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia, you are here only to boost the reputation fo a school identified as questionable by numerous reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Guy You are totally blind to my post. I am a new user and I do not know any of the users who previously had written in the talk page and I do not care about them. What I care is about the article content. Why you are not able to block me again? It seems to me that you are here to build a "Guy"'s Encyclopedia and not a neutral encyclopedia. Even if you are an expert administrator, it does not allow to write false statements about the content of an article. You have reverted the article with false and outdated link [even if you know that are false, e.g. look at Michigan] and you are still able to do it because other administrators are totally indifferent to your malicious behaviour.Claudioalv (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Claudioalv 16:42, 10 March 2016‎(UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. This request is rejected for mediation because it fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." Unclosed and unexpired RFCs are a type of dispute resolution proceeding. If the RFCs do not resolve the disputes, this request may be refiled once they are closed. However, no proceeding here will be entertained so long as a request for arbitration is pending. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)