Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione

Wifione
Hello everybody. I'm requesting an Editor Review because I wished to have the community's feedback with respect to my editing of specific pages, namely Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Ashok Chauhan, Arindam Chaudhuri, Amity University and any other article that reviewers may wish to comment or ask questions on. The basic reason for this review arose after an article on me in Wikipediocracy said more or less that I was/or am a paid editor for the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and that I have consistently edited for the institute and against its competitors using my extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This was followed by some editors commenting on Jimbo Wales' talk page that some action needs to be taken on the issue. The discussion got archived subsequently, and unfortunately escaped my notice as I was on a winter break. As I returned today to editing, I noticed that Jimbo Wales has also commented that it would be best if he (wifione) just doesn't come back. With genuine regard for the Wikipedia community, I do put forward that I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims. At the same time, I believe it best to allow the community to ask me any questions and give me any feedback with respect to my editing. I do hope that through this review, I'm able to provide the community with the clarifications they may require, and am able to put into action the feedback they give. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review my edits.  Wifione  Message 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Reviews 
 * Review by Guy Macon
 * I did a quick Google search, and besides the sources listed above (Jimbo's talk page, Wikipediocracy), I found some more references. The following is a list of where this has been discussed on the Internet; I believe that there is a benefit to seeing exactly what accusations are out there. DO NOT assume that they are accurate or truthful.
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki-paid-y a? (The Times of India)
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_152
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4
 * User:Brumski/paid editing adverts
 * http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deep-focus/Wiki-paid-y-a/articleshow/28695840.cms
 * http://wikimedia.7.x6.nabble.com/Pure-Fiction-Nichalp-and-Wifione-td4373386.html -- Guy Macon (talk)
 * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2012-February/thread.html#6828 (The original email thread on wikimedia. Wifione  Message)
 * User talk:Amatulic/Archives/2010
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 39
 * http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3380&p=69465
 * http://www.prlog.org/12249994-wikipediocracy-detects-wikipedia-administrator-shilling-for-indian-diploma-mill.html -- Guy Macon (talk)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_99#You_might_want_to_see_this (This too. Wifione  Message)
 * Talk:IIPM -- Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you are paid or not, but I think that your editing is heavily biased. In my opinion, you knowingly tried to show some organizations and people (in their Wikipedia articles) in a bad light while on the other hand you quietly promoted interests of others. The articles in question are: Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Arindam Chaudhuri, Indian School of Business, Amity University and Ashok Chauhan, the most frequently edited main space pages by you (stressed because it shows where your main interests in Wikipedia lie):
 * Review by Vejvančický

With this edit to the article Ashok Chauhan, you basically turned it into an attack page, and you later watched the article to repeatedly restore the "Controversy" section. This, for example, was not vandalism. It is very strange when I compare with this edit to the article Arindam Chaudhuri, Mr. Chauhan's competitor and director of IIPM Think Tank at Indian Institute of Planning and Management. You wrote: "get multiple high quality sources for this exceptional claim" when you removed criticism from that page, however, the TOI (the same newspaper/source) was enough for you when you added (and restored) claim that Mr. Chaudhuri is a "management guru".

In this edit to the lead section of the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management (an institute led by Mr. Chaudhuri) you removed "non-NPOV UGC line". I'm not sure what do you consider non-NPOV, the source (India Today), the regulatory body (UGC) or the claim itself? You removed critical information from the lead section of the IIPM article and you wrote "dont belabour point in lede; it's already made extensively below", however, you have used different standards when you edited the lead section of the article Indian School of Business (a competitor of IIPM): "please read up Manual of Style (lead section) for understanding that all prominent controversies need to summarized in lede", or the lead section of the article Amity University (another competitor of IIPM, a school founded by Mr. Ashok Chauhan): "please do not remove controversial material from lede and other places without discussion". The same here: "Actually, prominent controversies have to be included in the lead as per editing guidelines." This edit to the lead section of the article Amity University was not "reformat intro" (as you wrote in your edit summary), but inserting of unsourced information mentioning (among other things) "an international arrest warrant against its founder president". This edit was not simple "adding more references" to the lead section of the article Amity University, but rather adding of negative information. This is an interesting edit to the lead section of the IIPM article: the AICTE and UGC (Indian education regulatory bodies) did not accredit IIPM's programmes, so you had to add to the intro the information how corrupt the AICTE and UGC are. I'll continue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC) In your edits to the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management (you mostly removed negative information) you wrote "use RS and not primary sources for exceptional claims" etc, however, it was OK for you to use a primary source in another edit of yours, not so critical. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vejvančický thanks for the review. I'll request you to give me a day more to reply. Post vacation RL piled up work has engulfed me; but I'll give a detailed response on this review in a day or maximum two. Thanks for the patience. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any editor watching this should also check comments at Talk:IIPM (disambig. page). I would say that the arrival of User:TheDJ and his proposal was a relief for you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Morning Vejvančický. May I request you to give me perhaps another day to provide you comprehensive clarifications? I don't wish to delay this but my real life work is giving me extremely less time to answer. So I'm pinning my hopes on this Sunday to give you comprehensive and in-depth clarifications. I hope that sounds okay with you. Thanks (again) for the patience. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Will try to block some time in the coming days to reply to you" is an old and bad song. I don't want to patronize you, but a response, and not only to me, should be the first thing you do after you "resume editing", now matter how much you want to invest your valuable time doing things you enjoy on Wikipedia. It's a matter of honesty and integrity, I'm not sure if you realize that. You have opened the ER as an indignant and righteous reaction to Jimbo Wales' comment, but now you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. That's what I think. Please answer or I'll start a request for your ban and desyssoping as I would be ashamed to collaborate with people who avoid honesty and responsibility in this way. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vej, I know it sounds like an old and bad song... but it's not intended to slight you or the other editors on the review. Your queries (and so of other editors) deserve answers and I have no issues in answering them in the near coming days. Your threat to otherwise start a request for my ban and desyssoping brings down my respect for you considerably, especially in the light of information (as I'm now told by editors here) that it is copy pasted at the behest of some editors canvassing you for action on another external forum, where you are also perhaps an active member, apart from some other editors on my editor review. In the light of this, your allegiance to terms like honesty and integrity seems compromised. Irrespective of your canvassed threat, or of you coordinating your actions with editors on another site about your actions here, I shall surely look forward to answering your queries and those of other editors at the review this weekend or within a day or two of that, embedding these new details within my answers. Hope that seems fair... Regards. Wifione  Message 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "With this edit to the article Ashok Chauhan, you basically turned it into an attack page, and you later watched the article to repeatedly restore the "Controversy" section. This, for example, was not vandalism."
 * I expect my answer to you to be quite long, as I'll quote your links and provide my replies.
 * Please read our WP:Attack policy to understand attack pages. An attack page is one that is entirely unsourced and negative in tone. All four words mentioned are important for your understanding, most importantly the conjunction and. I do not believe there was any part of the BLP which was unsourced. This is apart from the due diligence that I took up at RSN with respect to doubtful sources. The next diff you provide is where I have reverted a confirmed COI sock puppet on November 19, 2011. The subsequent diff you have provided is of November 7, 2012, where I have reverted a vandal who deleted all the contents of the BLP and wrote Ashok Chauhan should be our next prime minister. The next diff you provide is my reverting of the same COI sock, who was reverted one edit earlier to mine by Theroadislong who reverted the sock's edit as vandalism. Why do you believe these edits should not have been reverted? Did you note that the Controversy section was in fact reverted and kept in place repeatedly by other much established editors like Materialscientist, Bill william crompton, Theroadislong, Snow Blizzard, TheRedPenOfDoom, Ugog Nizdast, Flyer22 with edit summaries like unexplained removal of sourced content, revert - BLP does not allow wholesale removal of unflattering content? Don't you believe that with so many editors editing the BLP, some established editor would have subscribed to your viewpoint? Interestingly, if you notice the completely revision history till date of Ashok Chauhan, the only established editor who actually removed the Controversy section en masse was you. And of course, the other editors who removed the controversy section were only socks and meat puppets, many who appeared in the recent past exactly at the time that you were deleting the Controversy section multiple times. You're currently involved in a BLPN dispute about this same article with some editor/IP accusing of you being related to the sock puppets deleting the Controversy section and calling you on your Wikipediocracy connection. I have not noticed any established editor supporting your contention of deleting the Controversy section till now at BLPN. I for one do not think you are related to either the socks or meat puppets. Your Wikipediocracy connection does unfortunately bring some level of suspicion and mistrust. I would suggest that you desist from discussions on such web forums, as discussions off the project for consensus action are generally discouraged. I would strongly suggest that as per policy, you should hold Wikipedia-related discussions on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants. Coming back to the topic, while all established editors editing the article chose to protect the Controversy section, you've done otherwise. You might have failed to note that on 17 March, 2012, as no further sources were available to strengthen the BLP, I redirected the article to Amity University. I brought it back on 1 November, 2012, after getting more sources that described the BLP's personal life, career, awards and recognitions. I'll continue my answer after a break, but while taking this break, I would wish you could ponder over why would you want to remove a well referenced section from a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, despite your going against established policy? I would advise you to keep your prejudices and presuppositions aside, and look at this as an English Wikipedia editor. I realise you are from Europe, where, some regions recommend that if a charge is dropped against an individual, all references and news reports with respect to the earlier charge should be removed, whether online or offline. That is a humane move and that seems fair. But that is not BLP policy especially when there is all but one reliable reference which quotes the dropping of such a charge (and that too with spelling errors). If you wish, I can support a BLP Policy change to this effect. I authored WP:BLPCRIME for low profile individuals, so can propose such a move. Changing the policy first is the right move than removing material outright going against policy. Change the policy and then undertake the removal of such material not only from Ashok Chauhan, but from all public figures where charges have been dropped. That said, I'll continue this answer after a break. Wifione  Message
 * I removed the controversy section only when someone intentionally restored the revision omitting the Mint update, and I brought it to WP:BLPN immediately after my second revert. I've never removed that section or any other critical information before. It would be better to re-add the update instead of deleting the whole section, I realize it now, but I've searched for an independent opinion in a transparent way and I wrote at WP:BLPN that the current revision is acceptable. I've no special interest in the article. On the other hand, it was you who created the article to make the subject look like a criminal, which is more troubling when compared to your edits to other articles about competitors, where you repeatedly removed criticism and added praise. Now you obfuscate and speak totally out of context. As for my Wikipediocracy participation, I've posted my research and all important facts here, not there. On Wikipediocracy, I speak openly and under my own name. I'm not hidden in chatrooms with members there. The forum is open and anyone can read what I wrote there. You resumed editing and completely ignored the questions and objections here. I found it so unacceptable that I started discussion about your ban and desyssoping. Now we are moving forward so maybe it wasn't so bad. Canvassing by user Jayen on Wikipediocracy? I'm old enough to decide on my own and I reserve to myself the right to speak where I consider appropriate. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that you are accepting you were wrong in deleting the Controversy section to the BLP rather than re-adding the Mint update. It's also good that you're accepting the current revision of the BLP. That's a far cry from a person who just a week ago was scrapping the section out. Now some details on the Mint update of Ashok Chauhan's dropped charges. Till 7th November 2012, when I last edited the BLP, the Mint newspaper did not have such an update. In fact, if you see the April 2013 archive of the Mint story, it still did not have the update. The update appeared with all its English errors only in the month of May 2013. In other words, it was simply impossible for me to have even considered adding the update when such an update did not exist in November 2012. And no, I was not watching the article as you forcibly confirm; if I would have, I might have even reverted some or the other vandalism attempt in between. I am of course watching the article now. The other part of your reply, where you again write that the article was created by me to make the subject look like a criminal..., seems to be almost as if you've not read any word of my answer above; and I feel you're steadfastly moving around in a circle having pre-decided to not give credence to any statement or justification I write in my answers. With due regards, you seem to be simply repeating the same lines again and again irrespective of how deeply I analyse and justify each edit I've made or show the widely spread discrepancies in your review. Did you chance upon our Attack policy, as I had requested above? Do you acknowledge the other established editors who maintained the article in the version that it was? But really, you don't need to answer these questions. Unlike your affirmation, there is no obfuscation of the issue. I can provide extensive justifications to editors who acknowledge my reasoning, whether in a positive or negative manner. What do I do for editors who choose to continuously ignore my responses with dismissive statements? In case you've already decided to disregard any statement I make, do tell so in advance; as then, it makes no sense to make the effort.
 * As for the justification you've provided of your Wikipediocracy participation, it leaves me in quite some doubt of your intentions and honesty, as what you've mentioned above seems to be an outright lie, given the fact that I've now had the opportunity to myself witness the interactions. Firstly, the Wikipediocracy discussions forum that you're participating in, has members who're regularly attempting to out my identity and even guess my name within that very forum. There is no question of your justification of transparency. If such a discussion had happened on Wikipedia, many members within that discussion forum would have been instantly blocked (most already are, I guess). If you're comfortable discussing me with these editors and are openly belligerent about the same, then I don't believe there's any interaction we should be having on this project. Secondly, canvassing is quite evident on the discussion forum you're participating in, and I'm quite astonished at your rejection of the same. Here are a few canvassing examples:
 * Mon Jan 13, 2014, Tarantino writes on the Wikipediocracy discussion forum, "Someone needs to ask Wifione about this, from earlier in the thread. At that time, the IP 58.68.49.70 that was used to edit Wifione's user page, was shown to be registered to IIPM. It's funny that it no longer does."
 * Thu Jan 16, 2014, Jayen466 (a Wikipediocracy member on that particular discussion forum) writes here in the Editor Review, "Note this edit to Wifione's talk page by 58.68.49.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – according to this cached WHOIS query (Google cache snapshot dated 9 Jan 2014 23:19:02 GMT), the IP belonged to IIPM. (It now shows a different owner.)"
 * Sun Jan 19, 2014, AfadsBad writes on the Wikipediocracy discussion forum, "Has anyone bothered to ask him yet what his connection is, rather than continuing to guess?"
 * Sun Jan 19, 2014, SB_Johnny replies to Afadsbad on the forum, "I just asked."
 * Sat Jun 21, 2014, EricBarbour comments on the discussion forum, "(He's back, kind of). Doing only dull, inoffensive bureaucratic tasks. Give him several more months, let's see if/when he decides no one's "watching"."
 * Sun Jun 29, 2014, Vejvančický replies to EricBarbour, "I'm still watching:User_talk:Wifione#Wikipedia:Editor_review.2FWifione (T-H-L), and others as well: User_talk:Wifione#Reminder (T-H-L)."
 * Mon Jul 21, 2014, User:Peter Damian writes on the discussion forum, "Nonetheless he is back, and with this brazen puff piece too." (...where Peter alludes to an article on a model/news reporter that I had saved from deletion on AfD).
 * Tue Jul 22, 2014, Vejvančický writes on my talk page, "...Now, he (Wifione) edits articles about supermodels (among other things) and don't bother to answer/clarify. What am I supposed to think about that?"
 * Tue Jul 22, 2014, User Peter Damian again writes on the Wikipediocracy forum, "Clearly Vejvančický is reading Wikipediocracy..."
 * Sun Jul 27, 2014, Vejvančický writes on the Wikipediocracy forum, "It is true that my interest in this story was revived by Wikipediocracy. I have to follow this thread because it is a part of a story in which I can't see any satisfactory/fair conclusion. This forum seems to be the only place where people are interested in some sort of conclusion."
 * Tue Jul 29, 2014, Jayen466 writes on the Wikipediocracy forum, "The next step in such situations is usually an RfC/U, followed by an arbcom desysop and/or community ban. Just sayin'..."
 * Wed Jul 30, 2014, Vejvančický writes on my talk page, "...Please answer or I'll start a request for your ban and desyssoping as I would be ashamed to collaborate with people who avoid honesty and responsibility in this way...."
 * Vej, your claims of "I'm old enough to decide on my own" seem really shallow right now, given the above evidence. Please realise. This Editor Review is for the Wikipedia community. Not the Wikipediocracy community! If your allegiance to the Wikipediocracy community is unfailing, especially to a discussion forum intent on outing me and canvassing such efforts through you and others, then do pardon me for refusing to invest any more effort to answer you or others from the Wikipediocracy forum. I can imagine in advance your response to this view of mine - one that would allude to me attempting to escape answering queries here on the review. I believe any neutral reader would be able to assess the real picture with even a passing view of the amount of words I've written on this review and the justifications provided to various questions from each and every editor, that is, before realising who some of the editors were. I do hope that you're able to understand my perspective... even though I think you would simply be dismissive about it. It's with disappointment at your unfortunate pro-Wikipediocracy stand that I bring this Editor Review to a close. I've already provided required justifications to all the established, respected and trusted Wikipedia editors below. To the rest who qualify otherwise, including you and other Wikipediocracy members, I should request that they introspect on their actions and improve their credentials on the project rather than off it... If you have anything further to add, please feel free to do the same on my talk page. Thanks and best regards.  Wifione  Message
 * Wifione, I posted on Wikipediocracy to let you know that the issue is not forgotten. You promised responses with great kindness but after that you vanished for more than half a year. You came back after the issue faded out, decided to ignore it and you resumed editing as if nothing happened. I know you are no fool and I think that you was familiar with the Wikipediocracy thread a long time before you presented it here as a big revelation, along with your objections against my alleged incompetent edits to the article Ashok Chauhan. A kind of an counterattack, I understand that. It would be strange if you did not follow Wikipediocracy - your editor review started after they posted an article about your editing. But maybe it was the IP from WP:BLPN who inspired you - your arguments are very similar. Your responses here are evasive at best. I would not question your edits to the article Ashok Chauhan if I didn't notice your edits to another article about Mr. Chauhan's competitor, Arindam Chaudhuri. The differences in your attitude are striking. It is the comparison what is important and what you completely omit in your responses. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is the comparison what is important and what you completely omit in your responses." Please see my replies to Mastcell below for my responses to trusted Wikipedia editors on comparisons between the two BLPs. "I know you are no fool and I think that you was familiar with the Wikipediocracy thread a long time before you presented it here as a big revelation." I do not follow Wikipediocracy and prefer to be quite far away from such a forum. Not to forget, leaving two canvassing/call-for-action examples I've given above, all the others are extremely recent, and the critical ones involved you - quite some revelation for me. "You came back after the issue faded out, decided to ignore it and you resumed editing as if nothing happened." I hope I've measured up now. "Your responses here are evasive at best." In my opinion, I've made quite some effort to answer everybody. I don't think I've been evasive and my answers have taken up the core of each issue presented. But more importantly now, as a matter of judgement, I would not wish to answer editors active on Wikipediocracy threads that are attempting to out me. I have no issues with criticism on this project and I've answered all trusted and respected editors to the best of my efforts. But I draw a line given the antecedents of the group of editors from that thread. Having said that, this is my final olive branch. If you confirm that you will not be active on the particular Wikipediocracy thread any more, then drop me a note on my talk page and I shall re-open this review. Subsequently, I shall continue interacting with you on the project and answering all your queries, here and everywhere. But if you believe that's not possible for you, then there's no need to leave me a reply, in which case, I would request you to kindly stop interacting with me on this project till the time you change your stand. I really do not intend to be the sounding board for Wikipediocracy editors. I'm not trying to dictate your freedom of expression, simply ensuring you're clear of my stand on forums and threads attempting to out the identity of editors. Do go through three of our policy pages on pitfalls of consensus building, off-wiki issues and off-wiki attacks whenever you have time. That's about it. Thanks for taking the time out to comment out here. I'm archiving this page now. Regards. Wifione  Message 11:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

 Questions
 * It's a little difficult to offer an opinion without some further information: "... I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims" sounds (perhaps unintentionally) as if you deny only some of the off-site commentary. It would be helpful if you could answer the following questions: (1) Have you edited Wikipedia articles in exchange for money? (2) If so, which ones? (3) Did you previously edit as and/or ? WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WJBscribe thanks for getting my attention to the perception my statement is giving out. (1) I've never edited Wikipedia articles in exchange for money. (3) I have never edited as Nichalp or Zithan (or any other editor); and had no idea about the existence of these individuals till the email thread popped up. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In extension of the above question, are you the employee or contractor of these universities being discussed here, or any of their affiliated or sponsoring business or organizations, or of their principal officers or owners or any of their organizations? Are you a current or former student of either of the two universities and their affiliates?    DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, hi. I'm not the employee or contractor of any of these universities being discussed here, or of any of their connected entities, directly or indirectly, or of their principal officers or owners or of any of their organizations. I'm neither a current nor a former student of either of the two universities or of their affiliates, or of their competitors. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm wrong, but that phrase raised a red flag for me, as well. It doesn't sound like a refutation of being a paid editor, but a refutation of being some specific paid editor. I look forward to clarification. In the interest of full disclosure, I have edited Indian Institute of Planning and Management, and some other related article now deleted.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil. I understand my statement gave off an unintended view. To be precise, I'm not a paid editor. I don't have any CoI with the said articles above. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Like those commenting above, I find your statement highly evasive, or at least woefully incomplete. It's impossible to offer any meaningful feedback without more information. Could you explain, in your words, your relationship to the article subjects in question? Ideally, your statement would address the questions raised above by WJBscribe and DGG. MastCell Talk 17:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I've answered WJBscribe and DGG above. If you'd require more clarification, do please tell. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do require further clarification. Please see my follow-up comment below. MastCell Talk 00:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * At elance, there is a resume/CV that at one time read:
 * "Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name. I can help you by metamorphosing technical jargon into simple language that could be understood by a wide audience. If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience."
 * In the now-deleted feedback for that Elance user, there was once this comment:
 * "We would like a quote to create a wikipedia article about our CEO Brad Sugars"
 * Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars contains this claim:
 * "Zithan, who created most of the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for failure to reply to queries about his paid editing."
 * and Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4 says:
 * "In response to community concerns about Nichalp using an undisclosed account (Zithan) for paid editing, and because of Nichalp's failure to reply to the Arbitration Committee's email enquiry about these concerns, Nichalp's bureaucrat, administrator and oversight status, and his access to the associated mailing lists are temporarily removed and Zithan is indefinitely blocked."
 * There are several more examples at User:Brumski/paid editing adverts.
 * The Wikipediocracy article says:
 * "[A] rumor that he [Wifione] was the reincarnation of another editor (Nichalp), a Wikipedia 'bureaucrat' (senior administrator) who was forced out in disgrace after he was found to have used sockpuppet accounts to edit for payment. Nichalp was the first bureaucrat in Wikipedia history to be removed 'for cause'."
 * NOTE: Wikipediocracy is a completely unreliable source. Does anyone have any evidence supporting the above claim?
 * In the light of your opening statement, ("I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims"), would you care to comment on the above? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, good to see you here. Similar to what I mentioned above, I'm not the reincarnation of Nichalp, apparently a former bureaucrat. Far from it, and unlike Nichalp (who I'm given to understand was a respected editor till his undoing), I've been, I think, one of the more bumbling editors around this project. The connection between Nichalp and me was alleged through an anonymous email on the Wikimedia mail lists. As much as I can understand, it could be just a prank pulled on that email list by someone slighted by some past action of mine - and latched on to by the Wikipediocracy article. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Although you are not required to do so, would you be willing to voluntarily list all active Wikipedia accounts that you control? -Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from my primary account, I control an alternative account (almost never used), which is always listed at the top of my user page and talk page. Apart from these, I don't control any other Wikipedia accounts. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Although you are not required to do so, would you be willing to voluntarily list all inactive Wikipedia accounts (including blocked and deleted accounts) that you once controlled? -Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have and I've not had any active or inactive Wikipedia accounts, apart from the two I mentioned above. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay Guy. Wifione  Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part, I am 100% satisfied. I have seen no actual evidence for any Nichalp/Wifione connection, and I did look for one. Nor has anyone posted anything even slightly resembling evidence. Listed in order of decreasing reliability, I have The Onion, The Weekly World News, Graffiti I once saw under a bridge, Wikipediocracy, lawyers, and finally politicians. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I am 100% satisfied about the main Wikipediocracy claim (Zithan=Nichalp=Wifione) -- if there was a shred of evidence for that claim it would have been posted by now. I am still agnostic on the diffs MastCell has brought up below and what they imply. I have no opinion on that because I haven't spent the time to check the evidence for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your clear and direct answers, but I'm still very concerned by some of the diffs identified above by . Here you insert an accusation of criminality against Ashok Chauhan, citing only a Commission ruling (in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Here you remove an accusation of criminality against Arindam Chaudhuri, a competitor of Chauhan's, even though it's actually properly sourced. In one case, you added poorly sourced negative material, and in the other you removed properly sourced negative material. At first glance, these edits give the impression that your goal is to promote one individual and disparage the other, rather than to follow where reliable sources lead. Can you explain the disparity in your handling of these two biographies? MastCell Talk 00:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes surely Mastcell. I'm answering the shorter queries including yours before providing comprehensive clarifications to Vejvančický in some more time. I'll directly address the two links that you've provided here. As I understand, you've requested a clarification on the contradiction you see between this diff, which you mention is in violation of BLPPRIMARY, and this diff, where you mention that properly sourced data is being removed. I'll start by explaining the validity of the first diff. Reviewing a statement in BLPPRIMARY might be pertinent here; namely, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." On 24 April 2011, after I added the first source, on the same day, in continuing edits, I added other secondary reliable sources to the article (apart from one reliable source already existing within the article which I had added earlier) that either discussed the primary source and/or the fraud/arrest warrant charge. I'll list out all the secondary sources (all of which I had added) within the article that existed after my edits on 24th April 2011: Schooled in deceit, Tehelka (the original link seems dead, the archived version of the same source from the Tehelka website is here, see Page 14); MEA protecting individuals with criminal past: CIC, Tribune; and Controversies dog Amity but students keep streaming in, Live Mint & Wall Street Journal. If you open all these sources that existed in the article on that particular day after having been added by me, you'll see how they've all discussed the fraud charges and/or the arrest warrant. These secondary sources were used to quote material within the article. Therefore, I don't believe that BLPPRIMARY was compromised here. With respect to the second diff that you quote, it may again be good to view the policy that I've quoted while reverting the change, namely, the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, which quotes, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The emphasis is on having multiple, and not just a single source for exceptional statements. I believe the statement being added was exceptional, and in case multiple sources had been quoted, the revert would not have occurred. WP:WELLKNOWN similarly quotes, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting an allegation or incident, leave it out." I hope this provides you the required clarification. As I had mentioned earlier, please feel free to ask me any further queries with respect to any other diff. Thanks. Wifione  Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, it was important to you to search and add more sources about the fraud charges against Mr. Chauhan but you didn't bother to search for sources reporting in a negative tone about Mr. Chaudhuri and you simply deleted that addition, even though multiple reliable - and updated - sources were available at the time when you deleted it:  Live Mint & Wall Street Journal,  Outlook India,  (The Times of India). You created the article Ashok Chauhan and I'm sure you carefully watched it - you repeatedly restored the negative information. Have you noticed the "updation" section at Talk:Ashok Chauhan from November 2013 (you were active on Wikipedia in that time)? Your interpretation of Wikipedia rules and policies in your explanation above is clever, but it is also important to see your contributions in a broader context, it is not about two edits. When I check most of your edits to Indian Institute of Planning and Management + Arindam Chaudhuri and then to Ashok Chauhan + Amity University, I can see a very unballanced approach and attitude. I can see a very dangerous kind of editing, all the more dangerous because your unfair manipulation might affect the decisions of real people in real world, the decisions of parents searching for neutral information about the educational possibilities for their children. You are clever and polite and you learned to play well with WP policies, but I don't trust you. It is just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Vej, it'll be helpful for my replies if you could keep your review consolidated in the section above where you've done the review rather than spread them all around over a period of time. This would help me track your review better and answer you in one place. In other words, rather than provide your comments after my answers to other editors, try and stick to the above section which you started. While I will continue this answer above (after your primary review), I'll comment on a few of your statements. You write that "your interpretation of Wikipedia rules and policies is clever". You also write that "you are clever and polite and you learned to play well with WP policies, but I don't trust you". At the risk of slighting you and your colleagues at Wikipediocracy, a forum where I'm told you are discussing my replies and canvassing future moves, I feel your expansive opinion is hindered by your lack of ability to fully understand certain specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines correctly, and your lack of ability to understand nuances in balancing of articles, especially those like IIPM that are initially extremely negatively sourced. Any edits to balance out such articles would seem to be prejudiced to editors who either are looking at singular edits of their choices to prove their personal hypothesis or do not fully well understand our project's policies and guidelines, especially with respect to notability (or non-notability) of news items, BLP and NPOV. Your recent edits in Wikipedia strengthen my view with respect to your lack of understanding of some critical policies and guidelines. To that extent, as your comment immediately above was quite wide and expansive, my reply here is also as such. I'll continue the answer in the section above where your primary review exists. Would suggest you to write above than here if you wish to continue the review. Thanks.  Wifione  Message


 * Yes, I too can see no interaction. But  usually   the combination of supporting one institution and denigrating a competitor indicates coi of some sort.   In any case,   POV editing is bad editing regardless of motive: Do  you accept that some of the edits listed by  Vejvančický,  especially those highlighted by MastCell,  are inappropriate?    DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG. I've answered Mastcell above; do tell me if the answer provides the clarifications you seek. I'll be reviewing Vejvančický in a few hours (or on Sunday at best, if I run out of time), and would request you to go through that answer too. Should you wish me to provide any further clarification after that (or in the meanwhile), please do ask. Thanks again for taking the time to review. Wifione  Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note this edit to Wifione's talk user page by – according to this cached WHOIS query (Google cache snapshot dated 9 Jan 2014 23:19:02 GMT), the IP belonged to IIPM. (It now shows a different owner.) Andreas  JN 466 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayen. I've noted the edit by the ip. I had noted this edit earlier too, but had dismissed it as being a general ip vandal edit, actually until now. The ip edit was in a month (October 2009) when I hadn't edited Wikipedia at all due to my traveling. In fact, it seems to fall somehwere in the middle of the 70 odd days when I was traveling and couldn't edit Wikipedia even once. I didn't know that the ip belonged to IIPM, because if it did as you say, it'd then really be quite strange an edit. Wifione  Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That IIPM ip restored material that you had added to your own user page. Then you were accused of being a sockpuppet, then deleted the material you had added, and the IIPM ip restored the material less than two hours later. I find it odd that an IIPM ip should be watching your user page closely enough to revert a major deletion within two hours, and restore content that you had added to your user page. To me the most plausible explanation is that that ip edit was done by you, from an IIPM computer.
 * Your logic is presumptuous and faulty, with an incorrect timeline and outdated links. I was accused of being a sock within one day (June 26, 2009) of editing the IIPM article by an editor, Makrand Joshi. The SPI on me was completed in a week's time on the 1st of July with the result of possible where the closing admin commented that the IP was same as that used by some earlier socks. I realised that that was quite possible, as in the year 2009, the largest ISP with over 90% subscribed retail internet connections in India was a government company called MTNL. I had discussed the issue later with one of the admins involved in the SPI (Versageek) and put a close to the issue. The diff you provide where you claim that I was accused of being a sock by Makrand Joshi on August 1, 2009, was in fact a personal attack where he had tagged my user page as a sock on August 1, 2009, despite repeated requests to him to not do so, despite a month having had passed after the SPI got over. He continued doing so repeatedly in various forums, over the next several months, until I placed a complaint against him at ANI in December 2009. He was given a final warning at ANI and on his talk page, post which he finally apologised and stopped his personal attacks. In the light of this (and if I were to follow your faulty presumptive genre of reasoning) then one could presume that perhaps Makrand Joshi was some IIPM employee or student or an individual who didn't like the institute and was editing the article from his personal net connection while working at IIPM, and seeing me land up on the article - given the past socks on the article - decided to attempt a one-up by editing my page through an institution owned ip in October 2009 when he might have realised that I was inactive in editing. He might have believed that such an editing of my user page could well have reinforced his position, as he wished to file another SPI against me. That could also have justified the fact that he might have continued using the IP address to ensure that a few neutral edits to the IIPM related pages were made, so that whenever he would file a new SPI against me, he could showcase this IP's edits as being final proof of my being a sock. And perhaps the ANI complaint against him with the administrator block warning put him off his tirade. But like I said, such presumptive reasoning is faulty, illogical, convoluted, and not just because of the fact that the Google cache link where you claim the ip belonged to an IIPM address also seems to be outdated and doesn't confirm your statements. Wifione  Message 08:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * About a week later, the same ip made this edit to Arindam Chaudhuri, mentioning that the film "The Last Year" had won a prize, without adding a new source. Where did this information come from, given that there was no source? Later on, in this edit, you removed an advert template from the top of the article, and at the same time now added the source that the present version of the article cites for "The Last Year"'s prize win ("Pro Kerala image reference"); also added by you to the ip's sentence here. Andreas JN 466 03:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the question asked by you here is how did the information about the Last Lear winning a prize come to the know of the IP on 29th October 2009 when the IP made an edit adding the same information, I notice in the diff of the IP that you've provided that there was already a source link of some page called Business of Cinema with the film's title. Did you check the source? Do you want me to check that source? Did you check the history of The Last Lear where, on 7th September 2009, some editor had already added the National Award details? Could it be possible that the news was already floating around in the media in the year 2009? I am unclear about your query; or was this a hurried question? Other than that, do you feel there is a problem in my adding a Times of India link to the article almost one year later on 29th September 2010 and on 23rd May 2011? Do read up the answer above for my views on your questions. Thanks. Wifione  Message 09:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete your own edit counter opt-in page? At the time of your RfA you'd editing the IIPM page 180 times and IIRC it was your most edited article; given that you have no connection to this institution and you were not engaging in paid editing, why is/was this article such a draw for you? benmoore 18:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ben, I don't recall any particular reason why I might have deleted the edit counter opt-in page. It might have been a post RFA move or something like that. But as much as I know, there are similar tools available on labs to instantly do the same review. If you might search around, I think you can easily find them. On your second query, I think the IIPM article was a draw due to a combination of (a) comfort with information that I had researched during the start (b) resistance to change over to other genres or articles for editing due to the initial comfort I think (c) conflicts with editors on the article that led to many edits, discussions, disputes, re-edits... reverts, edit wars and so on; at one point during the initial year or so, I think I was checking the page many times a day to check if someone had commented, replied or changed my edit; I think almost like a video-game obsession. I suspect that articles with edit wars involving newbies might involve a considerable number of such edits. Post my RfA (or even a few months before that if I'm correct) I think the number of edits must have gone down considerably with me pulling away to a large extent from the article, relative to the initial years or so. Haven't counted the comparative edits but I'm sure a quick history check could confirm that. Wifione  Message 05:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What got you interested in the IIPM-related articles in the first place? Do you have any opinion about the IIPM that you'd be willing to share? -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a long time back, but as much as I recall, I think IIPM was a big advertiser in India and would have pulled top-of-the-mind recall in many youth. That would have been the reason at that time that got me interested. When I think of it now, I suspect that if I hadn't gotten into an edit war with another editor within a handful or so of days of landing up on that article, I might perhaps not even have stayed back on that article. As a newbie, the way I handled conflicts then was quite different from now. I have no particular opinion about IIPM. As mentioned in my RFA, the article itself could be brought up with some work to a GA status; I might try to do that in the coming months if it interests me any more then. Wifione  Message 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)