Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence

Clarifications are needed
The big scary manilla templates at the top of the pages for this case might have something to do with why the crickets seem so loud. It seems to me that part of the meat of this particular case may be that a particular user (who also happens to be an admin) may have a pattern of accusing people of harassment if they might be seen as having questioned his actions. If the previous sentence seems a reasonable description of the case to you, then there's a serious problem.

If that's too philosophical, perhaps a direct question: will people be punished for linking to the (clearly relevant) Wikipediocracy blog posts and/or forum threads about this topic? If yes: why? If no: why not?

I think the committee needs to either answer these questions, or rescind the case, because I suspect that the interested parties on one or both sides will be unwilling to volunteer their efforts on this case if it looks like they're going to be shot in the back by you if they say something impolitic. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking myself, I feel that any presenting of initial evidence (subject to it not being outing or solely accusations) is not harassment. It's when users go to the point of excessively pinging each other, or continuing to initiate multiple replies that are not presenting evidence but only disrupting the case, and making more to read. Another issue is accusations without diffs. If accusations without diffs are presented as case evidence and are there just to disrupt the case, then I see enforceable action. Specifically in regards to Wikipediocracy, I think it depends on what they are linking too. If they are linking to outing, then that's not appropriate. They should also be able to present evidence in their own words, not point us to another discussion and read their views. Evidence is for us to hear from those members of the community, not removed members. If they have written something at Wikipediocracy, and wish to show it here, and it fits within our policies, then just post it directly. Does that explain where I feel the committee's intentions were in the notice? I encourage other Arbs to comment on this thread also. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with DQ, if you have evidence to present, please present it on-wiki and not via links to an external site. If it involves privacy issues, please email it to the committee. Evidence not posted here or emailed to the committee, but instead hosted solely on an external site, is likely to be ignored. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . The way the community and the committee has usually handled this kind of situation in the past is by holding the person introducing the link responsible for all the content of the link. So if the linked material outs someone, or makes personal attacks on someone, or is grossly offensive, then the person introducing the link can be sanctioned. Here, you should err on the side of caution. It's similar to the way the BLP rule works, I suppose. Safest might be to paraphrase factual stuff and present it as your own, complete with supporting diffs (and, as you know, the rule there is that if an allegation can't be fully supported with diffs it shouldn't be made).  Roger Davies  talk 08:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I completely agree with what my colleagues say above,  Roger Davies  talk 08:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem I have personally is that there appears to be so much off-wiki evidence that it simply wouldn't fit in the named party's evidence section, unless they're either extremely good at cutting things down, or have a massive expansion of the amount of evidence they can give. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone gives evidence in their own section and has their own limits so that doesn't really apply here;) Other than that, I'm not quite sure what this preoccupation with off-wiki evidence is all about. To expand a little ... COI-editing is not forbidden (though strongly discouraged) and an apparent COI doesn't matter if despite it the editor is able to edit neutrally. What's more, attempting to prove a COI is far from easy and usually involves all sorts of intrusion and speculation, which in turn are often prohibited by policy. However, the "big scary manilla template" doesn't mention COI or paid editing at all. Instead it talks about the neutral point of view policy. This explicitly prohibits POV-pushing and the possible breaches of it which are the usual consequence of COI-editing. In sharp contrast to COI allegations, POV-pushing can be determined fairly easily by examining diffs and doesn't usually need any off-wiki evidence at all.  Roger Davies  talk 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The mountain of evidence has already been presented off-wiki; I really don't personally feel comfortable supporting the case when you're not considering that evidence. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whereas I am not comfortable with evidence presented in some external venue the Committee have no control over being used to judge someone's actions on Wikipedia. We have no guarantee that any evidence that allegedly exists at an external site will remain there, nor that what it says today will be the same as what it says tomorrow. If you want the evidence to be considered as part of this case, then it must be presented as part of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The forum threads and blog post in question are well anchored by "diffs" from WP. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how well "anchored" (whatever that means) the content is, the issue is that we (the Committee) have no certainty that it will remain available and unchanged - diffs and/or context and commentary could be added, removed or altered. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see the evidence. This can either be done by posting it publicly here (subject to the caveats in the BSM template) or, if you have outing or personal attack concerns, send it to us by email. (The template says how to do this.)  Roger Davies  talk 20:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there's years worth of research on the subject on a blog post and on several forum threads (I'd guess about 300 posts, though over half of those are probably disposable silliness). If the Committee wants to get to the bottom of things, they should read it. If it's just a wikijousting match with high stakes for anyone who says something of substance, you'll only see (more of) the knowledgeable witnesses drop out, which might ironically simply serve to reinforce the problem that the case should be about (and it's not about getting paid, it certainly might be about gaming the system though). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Damian who is banned from editing en wiki and who leads an independent research on an external site (Wikipediocracy) should be in my opinion allowed to join this case as a party. In my own presentation, I focus mainly on providing examples of Wifione's tendentious and manipulative edits to Wikipedia articles about competing subjects. Peter Damian provides broader additional evidence which could be of interest to the committee. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There would need to be a very good reason for the Committee to override and overturn a community ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that what I've seen in Damian's research is a very good reason for his temporary (?) unban. Damian was banned years ago and many of the editors who endorsed his ban over the years are either retired or blocked (!) while P. Damian is still interested in Wikipedia. To me, such a "ban for life" is hardly understandable ... But above all, the ArbCom can reblock/ban in a second if he makes any inappropriate comments. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And he is free to appeal the ban to either the community or BASC, but appeals from third parties are rarely granted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an idea, but if ARBCOM is truly keen to get to the bottom of this case, and, given what folks above say about the large contribution Peter Damian could make to that thorough review, there is another option, surely. He could post evidence to his talkpage, to be copied here. I'm sure I've seen that mechanism used before. That way we could avoid the technicalities which are obviously causing a problem, and ensure that the committee has all the relevant, factual evidence it needs, to complete its analysis. No unblock necessary. Problem solved. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the courteous reply, and for considering this. Begoon &thinsp; talk 00:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

about Peter Damian
I don't know why the arbs and clerks are being so quick to shut down discussions here... it's just discussion, and discussion is rarely harmful. Please stop doing that.

As far as Peter actually coming back "provisionally", that's probably not going to happen. He's a scholar with The Big Degree, an Academic Position, and has had an awful lot of bad experiences with people ordering him around and demanding apologies that he doesn't feel had any right to order him around or demand apologies, and whether you think he's right or wrong to see it that way, that's how he sees it, and if you look at it imagining yourself in his shoes you have to admit he's got a point, if you happen to see it as he does of course.

Anyway I don't think it's much of a big deal because he's going to help someone else put together a compactly worded case, BUT that brings us back to the need for clarification: will the person who has helpfully volunteered to do this be strung up for acting on the behalf of a banned user? If someone on Wikipediocracy says "fuck it" and doxxes Mr. Wifione (his identity has already been established, I'm told), will the helpful volunteer -- who is, after all, only giving evidence because he thinks it will improve Wikipedia -- "Hasten the DayTM" Wikipediocrats wouldn't bother -- be tarred, feathered, and forced to walk the plank?

Yes, my metaphors are colorful and perhaps I'm not seeming serious, but I really am asking a serious question. This is the first case for a very new Arbcom, and it's a doozie of a case you've picked to start things off with. I don't envy you even a bit, but you do need to clarify the stakes for anyone who bears witness here, because part of the meat of this case is that an administrator has (allegedly) made a habit of intimidating people who have tried to bear witness against her. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy is that anyone can post at the behest of a banned user but not on behalf of a banned user. Simply ut, this means that the person physically posting assumes full personal responsibility for the content of the post. In other words, they can't say (for example, in an article context): "I didn't know it was a copy vio, I just posted what XXX asked", or "I don't know what the sources say, I've just cut and paste this from an email". And, or course, any material touching on privacy needs to go by email to ArbCom (instructions above) rather than being posted publicly.   Roger Davies  talk 01:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger. I'm not seeing why this has to be so complex. If you have evidence you want to post, then post it. If it involves privacy or outing concerns, email it instead. If you post at the behest of another person, be aware that you become responsible for the contents of what you post or send. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also agreed with Roger. There's not an issue with a user posting evidence, even if it's been assembled by a banned user. The issue arises only if the evidence contains information disallowed onwiki, such as privacy violations, because the poster is taking responsibility for that evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the simple and clear answer :-). -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 03:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for exemption
I'm in the midst of assembling a large volume of evidence that focuses on whether Wifione is the same person as Nichalp. This would obviously exceed the maximum character count, so I was hoping I could receive an exemption in order to do so. Kurtis (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How many characters do you think you need? -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel any sock-puppetry issues are better taken up at the proper venue, rather than the ArbCom case, and then based on the result of that you should be able to input within the limit into your evidence. Though, stand-by while I get the exact venue cleared up with my colleagues. Would also be nice to know the character count. Maybe a "best ____ characters that presents the evidence the best" with a collapsed additional section? -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  07:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are aware that one of the longstanding allegations against Wifione is that he is a sockpuppet of Nichalp, right? I think it's perfectly relevant to this case. Remember, I'm not necessarily trying to prove sockpuppetry; it could also be an attempt to disprove the allegations based on my investigative work (or more accurately, presenting the evidence that I've gathered and leaving it open for interpretation). Kurtis (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that this is more or less similar fact evidence. While proving (or disproving) a correlation between Nichalp would potentially show a tendency in behavior or character, it in no way shows that Wifione engaged in these behaviors: only that he has a higher tendency to. When Nichalp halted editing, they were not under sanctions, or discussion regarding conduct. Hence, they could have utilized clean start. And we're five years past the retirement of this particular user (quite a long time on Wikipedia). At the end of the day, evidence relating Nichalp to Wifione would need to be both strong and relevant to present behavior. In the current situation, I find it very doubtful any evidence would be strong and clear-cut, and I'm concerned it would lead to further non-evidence based speculation (i.e. these two users may be related, hence there may be a higher chance that they violated said policies, hence they may have). Along these lines, I'm not inclined to grant your request for an exemption. NativeForeigner Talk 10:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I sent it to you in private, then? I don't feel that much of what I've written is speculative &mdash; and anything that is would have been based off of observation. Kurtis (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While your evidence could be based off of observation, I'm concerned it would just lead to massive speculation in practice. If you have something concrete and clear (clearly put, a smoking gun), send that to Arbcom for consideration. Personally, due to the amount of scrutiny already applied to both accounts, I find such a smoking gun almost impossibly unlikely. NativeForeigner Talk 10:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've sent you a private message with my prepared evidence (however, it is written in Wiki-markup, so you may want to use a sandbox + preview feature to see it as it was intended). Kurtis (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, based on what I've read (and sent to NF), I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to implicate Wifione as a sockpuppet of Nichalp. Kurtis (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by the evidence you've posted, you need around 1000 words. Or is there more you're planning to post? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all I'm intending to post. I've since trimmed some of the evidence so the word count could go down, meaning that 988 is no longer an accurate number. Kurtis (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm too aware that my presentation is too long, is there any chance that the ArbCom would accept if my evidence exceeds the limit? I'm trying to focus on diffs with brief explanations, but this is too complex. Thank you for your consideration/advice. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Try and keep it as concise as you can manage but as there are so few parties here, I'd personally have no trouble with 2000 words and 200 diffs as the evidence limits for this case. I would need a great deal of persuading to go further than that though. I'll discuss this with the other drafters and we'll confirm. But in the meantime, you can proceed on the assumption that it will be increased. Roger Davies  talk 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently I'm at 1281 words according to wordcounter.net but I realize I use a lot of unnecessary repetition (Removes criticism ... etc.) I'll try to correct that as soon as possible. 200 diffs should suffice for what I want to say here. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , might I assume the above mentioned limits (of 2000 words and 200 diffs) for my rebuttals too on the Evidence page? Additionally, due to the fact that apart from the rebuttals, I might place further evidence, would there be some leniency on the 2000 word limit (till say, another 1000 words)? I'll try my best to stick to 2000, whether or not there is approval for the requested leniency. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, yes. I'm proposing an increase right across the board for all the existing parties.  Roger Davies  talk 17:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Wifione  Message 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , two suggestions if I may. To the best of my knowledge (I might be wrong but, as I've not researched that deeply), Nichalp never edited the IIMP article. You could perhaps correct that evidential statement to that small extent in your last assertion. Also, you could perhaps (if you think it makes sense), soften the corners on the term "on behalf of IIPM" in your first assertion. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vejvančický I had a request of you too. Would you consider, if it's possible, numbering your diffs in the evidence section? It would help me in referring to them sequentially in my rebuttals. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 20:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I'm not yet finished - I plan to add more diffs and if I add numbers now it could make confusion. You can use sections and dates (chronological order) I provide in most of the diffs as a clue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks. I had a slight issue - even though I'd like to start providing responses to your diffs, I realize that in case you're going to add more diffs in the between, then my responses might miss the additional points or might even be completely misdirected. So whenever you believe you've put all the evidence links in your section, do tell me and I'll start responding. I hope that sounds sensible.  Wifione  Message 09:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there, then, some sort of "taking turns thing" here? I have a tiny little bit of evidence I haven't decided whether it's worth posting or not yet, but I'm damned if I can work out the dance steps from this conversation. I thought there was just a date everyone posted by, and that was it. I can kinda see the value, from one side, of a "have you finished yet?" question, but the implications do boggle the mind, I confess. Understand why you are concerned, though. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You needn't concern yourself with "dance steps" as you put it. Just post the evidence in the ordinary way,  Roger Davies  talk 15:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. My concern was more the waltz above about "numbers" on diffs, and whether it was important if someone had "finished" or not. If I think my evidence is important at any point, you may be assured I will post it. I was also confused about why one party would be continually be pushing their requests for "finesse" to comments already made in evidence towards other parties, on the talkpage, resulting in several retrospective alterations to the evidence page. Probably unimportant, but felt wrong to me. Your quick response to my concerns is appreciated, and impressive. Thanks for that. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , requesting permission for going beyond 2000 words to hopefully a maximum of 3000 words. I'm right now at around 1300 words I think. I expect my responses to Vejvančický's evidence would take me beyond the 2000 word limit. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this presents a problem in this case as there are so few other participants. Try to keep your evidence as concise and factual as you can. You also need to get a move on as the evidence phase closes later down.  Roger Davies  talk 08:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jayen466 just added evidence. Wifione should be given sufficient time to respond to this and any other evidence that might be posted today. Jehochman Talk 10:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I'm open to any reasonable request from Wifione,  Roger Davies  talk 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Guidance required on non-parties
& other arbitrators, needed guidance on a particular issue. Can evidence be provided against non-parties at this stage? If no, then is there a procedure for me to request Arbcom to include the non-parties as parties? Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can certainly consider it. Who would you like added, and why, and wny now not a week ago?  Roger Davies  talk 18:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can provide a list by this evening or maximum by tomorrow morning. The main reasons would be to document evidence of breaches of the outing policy. The reason I may request now is because it took me some time to read and connect threads on this project. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Who do the breaches concern?  Roger Davies  talk 19:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The breaches concern me.  Wifione  Message 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Roger was asking who you are requesting to be added to the case based upon the incidents you reference. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We will want to see example diffs (email them if sensitive), demonstrating outing and (obviously) identifying the alleged outers. Roger Davies  talk 10:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Seraphimblade Roger I've sent the email.  Wifione  Message 18:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your email. After reviewing your statement and the supporting evidence, we have concluded that the request be declined.  Roger Davies  talk 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger thanks for the note.  Wifione  Message 15:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope any alleged outers will have to be named on-wiki, so that they know they've been named and have a chance to explain/defend themselves. No issue personally with particularly sensitive diffs being handled privately though. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If we add parties, they'll be added to the case in the usual way and, if they are mentioned in FOFs/Remedies, have an opportunity to comment either onwiki for public stuff or by email for private stuff. This is outlined in ArbPol.  Roger Davies  talk 12:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Query
In order to avoid going over the evidence limit, is it against the rules for me to provide evidence compiled by someone else? This is related to User talk:Vejvančický. I can't see why it would be, but I want to check. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably just easier and clearer if asks for an extension of the word/diff limit and post it themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And quicker. So in the interests of expediency, Vejvančický could just post the extended evidence and we'll see where that takes us word-lenbth wise.  Roger Davies  talk 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence phase closure
Just a note to remind everyone that the evidence phase for this case closes in around 18 hours, meaning that submissions and rebuttals will not be permitted after that time. If you have any concerns regarding that please reply below (or email the Committee if required). As as a case clerk for this case I just want to thank everyone for the way they have behaved throughout the case so far! It's been a wonderful break from what other cases are sometimes like. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a flaw in this process. Some apparently new evidence was just posted. Wifione should be given for chance to respond to it.  What if somebody posts new evidence at 23:59?  Jehochman Talk 10:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and I'm open to any reasonable request from Wifione,  Roger Davies  talk 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally if evidence is presented close to the closure time parties whom the evidence is presented about will be given extra time to respond. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * May I request for a general time extension for posting my rebuttals and updating rebuttals already posted to around 24 hours from right now? I'll try and finish my replies today itself. Just in case I am not able to, would appreciate if the extension requested is granted. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 12:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wifione, that sounds reasonable. Let us know if you need a little while longer. A word length extension for up to 3000 words is also acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Doug. Let's say by 23:59 UTC on 17 January.  Roger Davies  talk 15:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug, Roger.  Wifione  Message 15:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, , I am not able to complete my rebuttals despite the extension given. While making the rebuttals, the editing and re-editing (to ensure I am able to concisely present the issues concerned) took away some considerable time. I don't want this to be seen otherwise, but may I please request for 24 more hours as an extension (to 23.59 UTC on 18 January)? I shall not require more than that. I'll be thankful if this final extension requested is granted.  Wifione  Message 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wifione granted, hopefully that will suffice. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, I'm about to post my response. Due to the fact that the issue had to be responded to in-depth, and there were multiple diffs, I've unfortunately and obscenely exceeded even the advised word count limit. My current word count is 4900 (including word counts of diffs). For the sake of covering the issue appropriately, I request an exemption and permission to post my response with the current word count. In case the same is not accepted, then I request that I may be allowed to post the response now and given a day more to reduce the word count to the advised limit. I'll do as per your advice. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please post it now and then cut it down by midnight tomorrow UTC,  Roger Davies  talk 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Roger Can I get allowance till 4000 words? That would assist me considerably.  Wifione  Message 21:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the interests of expediency, yes.  Roger Davies  talk 08:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, I have tried hard to cut. Yet, have been unable to progress significantly on limiting the word count. With the number of diffs I have had to respond to, and given the fact that I've addressed each party's concerns separately to provide as much clarification as I could, the current word count without counting diffs+section headings is around 4575 words, and counting diffs and section headings is 4971 words. May I request the response posted to be considered despite the same exceeding the allowed word limit? I'd appreciate this extraordinary leeway, if the same is granted. If this request is not accepted, I'll propose simply cutting the Contemporary Context section from my reply. But of course, I'll request otherwise. Thanks to all for the patient replies to each and every query of mine and the support granted for my earlier requests.  Wifione  Message 19:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

More background reading

 * Stacey Mickelbart, Siddhartha Deb’s Publishing Odyssey, The New Yorker
 * Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, ‘Why I Took On Arindam Chaudhuri’, Wall Street Journal --Andreas JN 466 13:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request to clerks
In the Contemporary context subsection, I had had to put a wrongly titled ANI link because Kudpung, when he had archived the said ANI discussion, had missed a section header. Now the section header in the archive has been corrected, therefore the said link should be replaced with the correct link as follows:. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Wifione  Message 10:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)