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

Can we have another week, please?
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking with the other drafters about this. Could you explain why you might need a full week? Otherwise, I really only see 3-4 days as reasonable (since evidence stopped on the 20th). -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger has asked if a non-party could concisely evaluate Vejvančický's evidence and Wifione's rebuttal. No one has come forward yet, and when they do they should have a couple of days to, at their leisure, examine the background where necessary. I think a 4 or 5 day wait to see if anyone puts their hand up, then a day or 2 prep time would be reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both DGG and PhilKnight have already agreed to look at this. In any event, as far as I'm concerned, a week's extension is not an issue,  Roger Davies  talk 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Roger. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to recruit NE Ent for the task. He said he was busy for a few days. Maybe he would agree to help. Jehochman Talk 11:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know NE. In terms of simple "clue", I hold User:Newyorkbrad, User:Bishonen, User:Johnbod, User:Doc James, User:Black Kite, User:Iridescent and User:Tarc in high regard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger Doug till what date can I post some proposed remedies that I think might be helpful? Thanks.  Wifione  Message 17:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Until 6th February, but basically the sooner the better.  Roger Davies  talk 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will do by tomorrow.  Wifione  Message 17:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As Roger just clarified with me, he meant the 30th, not the 6th :P -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I guessed as much. Thanks for the clarification.  Wifione  Message 21:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions for Wifione
Wifione:
 * 1) Are you, or have you ever been, on the payroll of IIPM or its owners or managers, directly or indirectly, as an employee, contractor, sub-contractor, or sub-sub-...-contractor?
 * 2) Do you or did you attend IIPM as a student or do business with them in any capacity?
 * 3) Do you have any close relatives or connections who meet the criteria of point 1 or 2?

Thank you for answering these below. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jehochman, I'd answered similar questions in my editor review. The requested answers are below.

Jehochman, may I also request you to soften your discussion with respect to the finality of my creating a sock account and your strategies to catch the same? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) (Yes or no): No
 * 2) (Yes or no): No
 * 3) (Yes or no): No
 * I will consider your request.  Next question.  Why, if you have no connection to this topic have you been supporting IIPM and criticizing its competitors with your editing?  You just randomly decided to help them?  From what I have seen of this business, their ethics are despicable. Why help them? Jehochman Talk 19:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've answered a considerable part of your query in the Background section of my reply in the Evidence page. (The why have you been supporting in your query makes it seem like present continuous; it should perhaps be why had you been supporting given the diffs are from two to five years ago). If you could read the Background section, it would help me save repeating the reasons. Also, I did develop a connect with the topic post my research on this area of management education, and that's how my views on these articles subsequently developed as explained exhaustively in the Background section. I've explained there why the effort to strike a balance in predominantly negative articles being hounded by a significantly large number of negative pov editors and socks, may be perceived as being supportive of the subject. And why any effort to strike a balance in predominantly promotional articles, while being hounded by a significantly large number of promotional pov editors and promotional socks, may be perceived as being negatively oriented towards the subject. I've also provided in the Evidence section diffs that show how I added positive material to the competitors too. A re-read of the Background section would help, I guess, as I've provided considerable diffs to support my viewpoint. With respect to ethics, I don't have a definite call on this. Leave a handful of business schools, I would say almost all have lacunae in one field or the other - some more than others. The bigger they are, the more their drawbacks are reported. My editing of the main business school article started, as explained in my editor review, because I think the business school was one of the largest in-the-face advertisers during those times. I would also mention that after my initial attempts to edit the page, I would most probably have moved on or might not have even continued on the project, had it not been for an editor Makrand Joshi, a tendentious editor on the page, with whom I had a prolonged editing dispute. During those times, I was driven purely (and immaturely, I should add) by the need to settle editing scores with Joshi, especially after he took me to SPI within a few days of my starting editing here. If I think about it now, he perhaps was the biggest catalyst for my sticking around the project and searching reliable sources to balance out material on the business school page. But as I proceeded on the project, I could understand the naivety and mistakes in my initial edits, some of which I've also pointed out in my responses in the Evidence section. So it was not about helping any entity; it was just the timing, situation and plain circumstance of my starting editing on the project. Does this answer your query? I'll be off editing for around 12 hours post this. So if you have follow up queries, please do wait till then for my reply. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the doubt that you might be telling the truth. If what you say is true, the solution is for you to agree to stop editing this topic area to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Would you agree to that? Jehochman Talk 23:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable keeping myself voluntary and completely away from editing these articles, but not for the reasons you mention (those of avoiding impropriety). I'm quite clear that there is no impropriety from my end. And for editors who believe there is impropriety, I am available to clarify each issue, as I've done till now. Nevertheless, and irrespective of that, I'm not intent on editing these articles and would be voluntarily keeping away from editing these articles. New editors can and should, as I've mentioned above, improve the same.  Wifione  Message 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So your position is that you have never, ever edited those articles improperly in any way at all, but you will voluntarily avoid them now that this has blown up, so as to allow "other editors" a chance to steer them? Just trying to be clear, here. Regards. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione, do you know who made this maintenance edit to your user page using an IP address registered to IIPM? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anthony, did you by chance read the reply that I had given to Andreas during my er? That might clarify your query. Write back if it doesn't. Thanks.  Wifione  Message
 * Thanks, Wifione. No it doesn't, actually. I'd prefer to believe the obvious than that preposterous conspiracy theory. Cheers all the same and thanks for taking the trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's very hard to explain away. Please snswer my question first and then this one. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain away? I don't know about that. If Wifione doesn't know who made the edit he/she can't be expected to explain it. If Wifione does know, I'd like to know - provided that's not a breach of privacy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence, and then Wifione's response at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence: I don’t have an in-depth response because of both word limits and time limits. But the essence of my view would be that the conjecture developed is not true and there is no such connection that exists. It's a coincidence, Anthony, one of many. Please kindly assume good faith. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wifione mentions anti-IIPM socks above. We have to remember that Mrinal Pandey was found to have used a very large number of socks (see Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey as well as Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrinal_Pandey/Archive) to argue that the IIPM controversy shouldn't be mentioned here. Mrinal Pandey signed an edit by the same 58.68.49.70 IP that made this maintenance edit to Wifione's user page. 203.76.140.130, too, has made edits signed "Mrinal" and once offered another editor to have "IIPM corp comm office" send them material: "I'll get all of them mailed in one go from the IIPM corp comm office to your email address." In other words, there is plenty of evidence of pro-IIPM sockpuppets with some sort of link to IIPM. I've seen no evidence of an anti-IIPM sockpuppet ring. Andreas JN 466 10:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder which of Wifione's IP addresses was suppressed here, a few weeks after that 2009 maintenance edit on Wifione's user page. Was it 58.68.49.70 as well? Oversighters should be able to find out. If it was, then in my opinion, the community has a right to know that Wifione has made edits from the 58.68.49.70 IP address. Andreas JN 466 11:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't that address.  Roger Davies  talk 13:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, has anyone ever edited IIPM-related, or Indian education topics using that IP address? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP address recorded for that edit also made one other contribution, which was to Talk:IIPM. Both edits have been suppressed as they were made by a user who was accidentally not logged in (the same user in both cases according to the following edit). There are no other contributions attributed to that IP address visible to oversighters. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thryduulf. Would you please point me to the edit they made to Talk:IIPM? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be this one, Anthony: --Andreas  JN 466 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roger. Just in case, do check for your own satisfaction whether that IP can be tied to any of the businesses or publications owned by Mr Chaudhuri. Andreas JN 466 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I second Jayen's request. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate a checkuser oversighter acting on this request. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No edits made by 58.68.49.70 have been deleted or suppressed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione, can you explain the remarkable similarity between the way you address others here and the way Mrinl Pandy (the IP who made a maintenance edit to your talk page) and his socks address people here (as Jayen pointed out in his evidence)?


 * This is just a sample
 * "Dear Deepak, Makrand, Sticking … I request you to kindly add all the controversies in the other section; while I delete them from here. As promised, kindly feel free to revert back any changes you think you don't accept. … Take care and have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Regards... Mrinal 125.19.3.2 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Deepak, I'm reverting back your changes, but perhaps for the last time as it looks silly that we're just reverting each other's changes. kindly notice that earlier archived pages do not hold relevance with the passage of time. … Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear System Controls, NishKid, though I appreciate the edit protect of the article, as it ensures that the immediate attempts to revert without giving logic go down, I shall still request that the edit protect is removed at the soonest. … I request you to kindly revert back the edit protect at the soonest possible and blank out only those ids that were reverting illogically Mrinal Pandey 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Group System Head, Syscontrol, Nishkid, Would like to bring to your notice and to that of all editors and administrator that despite being generally civil, in the very recent past user DeepakShenoy has gone against wiki policy by attempting to disclose personal information about user Mrinal on the discussion pages. … I wish you would kindly ensure that such a situation does not arise … Regards Desiree777 (T-C-F-R-B) 10:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Deepak Shenoy has left no stone unturned in making public his acerbic hostility towards allowing me to edit :-) Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Sir Mr. Administrator, you write in the above paragraph, *"My award to Deepak was a appreciation of his efforts...". Perhaps you mean, "an appreciation of his efforts." … Mrinal Pandey 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Makrand, I dont want to repeat what has already been said by others, and is in any case obvious from my detailed note above. … Iipmstudent9 12:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear HighBc, I noticed you had commented recently on a wiki site of IIPM. I wished to find out from you how to complain against a wiki administrator who, I have reasons and proof to believe, is misusing his powers to support one particular editor. … Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Ganesh, I accept your point of view with respect to English. … I shall once again request you to kindly not edit on this project. Regards and thanks for your reply, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Ambuj, just wanted to clarify, I notice you've put many details on each one of the paragraphs. … Do tell me your views on that. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Ganesh, I'm sorry I took so long in replying. Post Christmas, got totally busy in official work :-) … I also again request you to kindly not edit this project till you are an administrator. Best regards always, Thanks, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Ambuj, Rashmi being the 'editor' of JAM, I believe your reference to not making ad hominem arguments would not be sufficient. … Regards and best, Mrinal Pandey 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"
 * Makrand ji, aapko dar nahi lagta hain? Ye IIPM log aapko maarenge. [Translation: Makrand, aren't you scared? The IIPM people will beat you up/kill you] (AlamSrinivas at 17:19, 31 January 2007)
 * "Dear maximvs, There are no online sources, but I have found 2 newspaper clippings in the library that refer to various guest faculty. ... --AlamSrinivas 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)"
 * "Your house, car, family, any thing, will now be targeted--- watch out, they will get you.. I want to warn you because I know they have thousands of students, bhai! AlamSrini1 21:18, 14 February 2007"
 * "Dear editors, I propose and request that all future changes - any change, even a revert from here on - will be first discussed here and put up for open discussion for at least two or three days before being made. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Dear Makrand.. Pls add these too. … Shankarjaikishen (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Makrand, kindly remove the following:- … --Gurmeet singgh (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Makrand Joshi, I have to request you to write calmly. I feel you are trying to steamroll and harass an editor. If you're accusing me of being a person called Mrinal Pandey, I feel completely harrassed by your accusation. Wifione (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear editors, kindly do not revert or delete lines that do not have citations. … Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * "Dear editors, I propose and request that all future changes - any change, even a revert from here on - will be first discussed here and put up for open discussion for at least two or three days before being made. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * "Dear editor, kindly do not remove tags which have not been resolved. i had put up a tag that told readers that i have put up the controversy section for discussion in a forum. please do not delete tags which have not been resolved. cheers Wifione (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "
 * "Dear makrand, i also notice you have been regularly a 'single purpose account' for a large time. is there any reason that might be so or is it that you might be only interested in editing this page? cheers Wifione (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Nvineeth, perhaps you should look at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. cheers, Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Nvineeth, i request you to kindly note that the third party opinion tag is an informal tag put in good faith as i presume the career360 issue is between me and makrand. the 'fact dispute' tag is a tag that represents a clear factual dispute existing between editors. you cannot remove the same when there is a clear fact dispute. i am putting up this incident to the administrative noticeboard and requesting their comments. kindly do not remove the tag. Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear editors, is there any line or any lines that might seem not to have a neutral point of view? please discuss if you believe so. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Makrand. i request you to be calm in your writing and I put forward to you these poings … cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Editors/ Administrators, The controversy lines and its section doesn't seems to have a balance, neutrality required for the same.--Suraj845 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Dear Neil, then you should perhaps write that "objections with respect to its advertising" and "tax and trade practices investigations" which were resolved later. That is a neutral point of view, imo. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ [29 December 2009]"
 * "Amatulic, kindly consider WP:Synthesis along with WP:Avoid. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:58, 29 December 2009"
 * "Kindly do not remove the npov tag with a statement that discussions have winded up. ... ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:54, 8 February 2010"
 * "I invite other editors of this page to kindly comment on ways to delete repetitive information within the article, mainly relating to two entities ..." ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:25, 30 August 2010

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthony. I guess this is the typical way people write English or address people from certain regions of the world. That's how they are taught in schools and that's how they address people in their communication. Kindly, kindly regards, regards, dear, wishes, best regards, warm regards, warm wishes, best, sincerely... and so forth, are quite common in communication on Wikipedia too among editors from certain regions. In fact, sitcoms and shows portray stereotypes of such people using these very typicalities. On the other hand, window dressing sign-offs like "with every kindest wish" or "love" are not what you'll generally find in communication representing such stereotypes. I also chanced upon now an interesting edit of Mrinal Pandey, one he made after I had started editing on our project. Here he edits his talk page. I found this interesting because at the same time, I was editing a Christina Aguilera article. I don't know whether this makes sense or is useful. But thought I'll put it across. Wifione  Message 18:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Wifione. No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain it. Most editors of that topic appear to be from India. If your theory were true, we'd expect to find the same style of language on both sides of the debate. I've just been through all thirteen archive pages of Indian Institute of Planning and Management searching for "kindly". It occurs 84 times and 81 of those are by Mrinal, his socks and you. (I recommend searching Archive 9 and Archive 14 for "kindly" to see the interesting usage pattern that emerges. I haven't counted them, but the exact same pattern emerges for terms like "Dear X" (and others not highlighted in these examples).
 * As for you editing from the Wifione account and the Mrinal accounts in the same minute: the Wifione edit was a typo' fix; the Mrinal edit was just blanking a section. You saved the Wifione edit at the beginning of the minute, logged out and in, and blanked a section at the end of the minute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony. I again don't know if this might help you understand the usage of these words, but here's a pattern of usage of the term "kindly" on our project. Quite common, as I mentioned, and not remarkable a word. One could repeat the same search for the other words. I'll leave it here. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 07:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another explanation is that Wifione and the other editor are Indian, and the editors on the other side of the debate are not Indian. These situations you are pointing out are suggestive, but not conclusive.  Indians make up 15% of the world population approximately, and a much higher percentage of English speakers.  If you look at the probability of two selected editors on this topic being Indian, the odds are sort of even. If she were showing a more unique sign, you might have something, but given "you're Indian" and "this other editor are Indian" it does not follow that "these two editors are the same person." Jehochman Talk 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read all (13) of the IIPM talk page archives. Only Mrinal, all of his socks, and Wifione speak like that. Only them. No one who has displayed a critical or neutral view of IIPM has spoken like that - none of the Indian bloggers and their Indian readers who descended on the article when the IBM blogger scandal erupted speaks like that. None of the editors who self-identify as Indian do. Only the sockmaster and Wifione. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Anthony hi. In the extended content examples above where you've claimed to document Mrinal's socks writing style, I wanted to enquire from where did you deduce these were socks of Mrinal? Requests for checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey is the page documenting Mrinal's socks. I don't find the names of any of the editors mentioned by you (except Mrinal) in this sock list. Please fill me in on this if possible. Another interesting coincidence that I see is this diff by iipmstudent9 (one name you mention in your extended content) and this diff by Mrinal. Again, both are at the same points of time. More interestingly, the editing from both these accounts continues during the same period for an elongated time. What I'm trying to signify is not just that iipmstudent9 may evidently be a different person than Mrinal, but also that it may be possible that different people may have the same writing style. And as far as having a common IP as some other user on the same page (as detailed below), that is quite possible. During those times, there was possibly only one countrywide internet service provider, MTNL. And there was then always a high possibility of the IPs matching up with some other user. Still, I think I'll close my replies here. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 11:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me Wifione. You may be right about Iipmstudent9 being a different IIPM person from Mrinal. Those two editing histories support that theory. Also, I think there may be something quite different about Iipmstudent9's and Mrinal's temperament. I'll take a closer look. As for some of Mrnal's socks not using "kindly", those on my list you claim are not socks of Mrinal, I'm looking into that and will get back to you soon. Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Correction - I misread your point. 06:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Wifione. That SPI you link to is not a comprehensive list of Mrinal's socks, unfortunately. There's this bunch of 37 socks blocked shortly before you created your account. And there are many more.
 * The first sock I mention in my small sample of editors using "kindly" the way you and Mrinal do is which was created 21 December 2006 and blocked 2 days later along with
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
 * who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.


 * Regarding the question of whether Iipmstudent9 = Mrinal, I went back over her talk page contributions again and am fairly sure she's Mrinal, despite those overlapping edits you pointed to above. If this is relentless deceitful paid advocacy over nearly ten years, then it's not out of the question that Mrinal shared access to one of those accounts with another person.


 * (Tarantino over at Wikipediocracy has pointed out that Iipmstudent9 and Mrinal shared at least two IP addresses:
 * 61.16.233.194 Iipmstudent9MrinalMrinal etc. and
 * 203.76.140.130 Iipmstudent9 Mrinal.
 * Best wishes, 06:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC))


 * I'll address your comment about India having just one ISP in 2006 and this somehow explaining Mrinal's IP performing a maintenance edit on your user page when I understand it. I'll re-read it later. Meanwhile, in case it's relevant to your theory, in 2006 there were 40 million internet users in India. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a response of administrator User:Versageek to Wifione from 1 July 2009: "You do indeed share an ISP with the Mrinal Pandey sock farms. Lots of people share ISPs, so I don't consider it enough to say with certainty that you are another sock of that user. You also share a number of behaviors with the Pandey socks, this - combined with the shared ISP is what led me to state that it's possible you are a sock. You need to tread lightly on the IIPM article, there is a long history of attempts to whitewash there. (...)" The oldest link I provided in my evidence is from 26 June 2009, the newest is from 27 August 2013. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to know exactly where to put this, in this mess, so I'll pop it here. Wifione, you say, in your answer above: My editing of the main business school article started, as explained in my editor review... That's not entirely honest and forthcoming, is it? You were asked that question on 19 Jan 2014. Then as Anthony's evidence states: "She made no edits at all between 18 January 2014 and 24 April 2014. On returning, she avoided the review entirely. She was reminded in June that she still hadn’t answered, and again on 22 July. She replied on 29 July, saying she had 'limited time', then archived the talk page. She was reminded again on 30 July. "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". Wifione complained that there was an offsite campaign against her, replied to SB Johnny's question about her motivation, saying that, as far as she could recall, she had been interested in the IIPM advertising campaign, then closed the review."

You answered the question in this unsatisfactory way (I think I did it all because they advertised a lot) on 2 August 2014. That's over 6 months later. Refer to my proposed finding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop#Wifione_has_repeatedly_attempted_to_avoid_accountability. here:] "Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability.", specifically "Good faith enquiries have been met with long periods of silence" I don't understand the reason for the delay, or the failure of the eventual "answer" to actually address the question in a substantial way, but please do tell me what I'm missing, so I can avoid similar mistakes in future. Regards. Begoon &thinsp; talk 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know what you're missing. If my responses don't seem enough to you, that's the best I can offer. Sorry for that.  Wifione  Message 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a long post, querying also your extraordinary, unexplained delays in replying, reasons you gave/failed to give for involvement in this topic at all, and the irrelevance of your reply. I'm unsurprised by the selective response. Rgds. Begoon &thinsp; talk  19:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for Jehochman
Do you think the way you earn a living might be affecting your judgement at all in this case? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence of something, do share it. Otherwise, refrain from making personal attacks by innuendo. The only reason I'm a party in this case is because I filed it as an uninvolved observer. You could ask the same question if any editor here including the arbitrators.  We all presumably make a living somehow, and of course people's work experience forms a basis for their views. So what? The reason to ask Wifione questions is that they are the subject of this case.  Jehochman Talk 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just thought, given how you make money, there might be some subconscious tendency in the way you think about the issues here. For instance, I think you're the only person who's looked at the evidence and expressed an opinion who hasn't supported either a site ban or a desysop. (Have I got that right?) And I was thinking maybe this is because of your expertise in SEO and the way the PR industry engages Wikipedia and the clearer perspective this brings with it. Or, conversely, you might be softening your approach out of self-preservation - hoping to set the tone for how we treat COI company shills in the future - just in case you ever get unjustly accused of shilling. I don't know. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't know how I make money. You've doubled down on your personal attack, again with the innuendo.  My interest is that I saw a group of editors discussing this at Wikipediocracy and it looks like another one of their axe jobs on our contributors.  Nobody has put forth evidence of paid editing.  I think the evidence of socking half a decade ago or further back isn't very useful or actionable. All I've seen evidence of is bad editing by Wifione.  The simplest explanation at this point is that she was duped. She saw some IIPM propaganda or was approached by some of their shills who convinced her that poor IIPM was the victim of a smear campaign.  Being naive isn't a reason for a site ban.  Topic ban, sure.


 * The one good bit of evidence is the IIPM network editing her user page, but even that isn't conclusive. Any IP can edit anybody's user page. So they were manipulating her and watching her. Again, so what. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks, here, JEH. I'd wondered the same thing myself. Not because I doubt your integrity (I don't), but because you make money through SEO, and large parts of this are about SEO. I program computers. If I was part of an "anti computer programming" discussion, and someone asked me if that affected my judgement, I'd be happy to answer. I'd advise a thicker skin and a wider view of the question here. Begoon &thinsp; talk 19:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , just for the record, I completely disagree with your statement: "The simplest explanation at this point is that she was duped. She...was approached by some of their shills who convinced her that poor IIPM was the victim of a smear campaign." As I said, this is for the record so that it's clear that my stand is extremely against presupposing any topic ban, especially when I've not seen any policy/guideline based analysis of any diffs that I've backed and stood by. (It almost feels like a group discussion where everyone's disagreeing with each other on purely their personal opinions. Anyway...). Thanks.  Wifione  Message 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you all deserve each other. Jehochman Talk 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Any more to add?
I think this is as clear as we can make it. The tendentious editing evidence (Vejvančický's evidence, Wifione's rebuttal) that DGG dipped into here is clear. For those who wish to do the reading, this table makes it easier by linking Vejvančický's evidence with Wifione's rebuttal.

And the same is true, IMO, of the COI and socking evidence above in. The latter evidence will take about an hour's reading to get a firm grip on; the TE evidence, about two or three, I think, for those who want to form their own judgments.

The evidence for avoiding accountability is here.

If you have any questions at all, please ask.

Wifione is accused of editing tendentiously and avoiding accountability. The topic area is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), its owner Arindam Chaudhuri, and its competitors (including IIM and Amity). Two sock farms (sockmaster named Mrinl Pandy) dominated the topic until they were exposed shortly before Wifione arrived.
 * A few background details.

The sock master, Mrinl Pandy, edited from an IP address that later did a maintenance edit on Wifione's user page and was identified as being registered to IIPM. Registered to IIPM, not just sharing the same ISP. Wifione shares a unique style of address with Mrinl Pandy and his socks.

DGG's above-linked statement is probably a good place to get oriented.

A concise, readable timeline of the IIPM controversy (to help make sense of DGG's statement and the tendentious editing evidence) is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For readers' benefit
 Wifione  Message 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This arbitration case is about an administrator (me) editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. This arbitration case is not about an administrator socking.
 * 2) The general contention of the opposing group on the evidence and workshop pages has been that while each edit more or less may be justified using policies and guidelines, the overall picture shows me supporting one organisation while opposing its competitors
 * 3) I've provided responses on the evidence page why such an impression might have arisen, and why Wikipedia's robust policies and guidelines are strong enough to restrict such issues (and therefore my judicious compliance to them should be heeded), and why most of my edits have been consensus+policy+guideline based changes.
 * 4) In general, all evidence provided on the evidence page has been responded to as per required and admissible procedure in an arbitration case, quoting policies and guidelines, to the best extent possible. Any new evidence provided after the closure of the evidence period (including DGG's analysis) despite being procedurally inappropriate, has been answered to the best extent, again quoting policies and guidelines wherever appropriate.
 * 5) Anthonycole has repeatedly claimed here that my writing style is similar to the writing style of the socks of Mrinal Pandey. To support his assertion, no diffs were provided, only copy-pasted statements of editors that Anthonycole claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey.
 * 6) When I requested him to provide the past SPI/CU evidence that these editors were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey, Anthonycole ignored the request in his reply.
 * 7) Anthonycole rejected my response that different people could have similar writing backgrounds because of their ethnicity.
 * 8) Anthonycole rejected my response that there was evidence of the sockmaster Mrinal Pandey and me editing different articles at the very same moment of time.
 * 9) Anthonycole proceeded to assert that I was definitely Mrinal Pandey and was simply logging in and logging out to edit from two accounts at the same moment of time.
 * 10) When again shown evidence using diffs by me that his non-diff assertions of editors being socks was wrong, as the people he claimed were socks were editing different pages at the same moment of time, Anthonycole subsequently accepted that at least one editor he claimed was a sock of Mrinal Pandey seemed to be a different person.
 * 11) Anthonycole subsequently also accepted that it seemed that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey may have writing styles different from Mrinal Pandey.
 * 12) Till the moment of this posting, Anthonycole has not retracted his assertion that I am Mrinal Pandey. Till the moment of this posting, Anthonycole has not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey, were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey.
 * Hi Wifione. I won't be reading the above, but if anyone has questions, I'm at your service. I couldn't help noticing the last point, though - Anthonycole has not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey, were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey. Please see above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding Anthony. You've still not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that the editors you'd named in your assertion are actually socks. You've also responded above with the statement "I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks...". And here too you've commented, "I won't be reading the above...". Serious accusations require serious evidence. You are a party in this Arbcom case. You do need to either support your assertions with diffs when challenged, or retract them completely. If you retract your assertions of socking in this Arbcom case, I'll retract the complete section on proposed decisions that I have suggested regarding you.  Wifione  Message 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the status quo. But thanks for your kind offer. All the best, Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would Anthony want you to retract your proposed remedies? Those remedies are more likely to get you sanctioned than him. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wifione, I am not on the Committee so my vote doesn't count, but my experience does. Having been around a lot of cases, more than many of the present members of the committee, my opinion is that there's enough evidence to substantiate the allegations.  At this point your only realistic move is to either directly refute the evidence in a way that's a lot more convincing than what you've said before, or else plead the Alford doctrine.  If you don't want to out yourself, you don't need to.  Just admit that the evidence is sufficient to substantiate the allegations (though you don't admit them), and promise (1) not to touch IIPM ore related pages again, (2) to immediately disengage from any editing that creates the appearance of impropriety, whether actually improper or not, (3) retract any accusations you've made against others, (4) request an opportunity to continue your participation here.  Whatever might have been done 6 years ago is ancient history.  If you stop making the history relevant by accusing others, it will have less weight.  Jehochman Talk 15:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I've provided all the required responses and clarifications on the evidence and related pages. I am not questioning your experience, because you have been here for a considerable time and understand the process much better. I'm quite clear of my stand on the issues brought forward, and would be completely in acceptance of whatever the Arbcom decides based on my responses. Nevertheless, thanks for the suggestion.  Wifione  Message 17:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this case, but I would like to make the suggestion would really help your case here to see you tackle Jayen's evidence (if you have time in the next week or so). The edit summaries are very similar, you do all edit the same pages, and you all do tend to remove controversies from the IIPM page. It would be helpful for you to expand on your reply to him and justify your views. Just place it on this talk page if you plan on it.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

PD date
I've pushed this back to 5 Feb as one or two thins are taking longer than expected. Apologies,  Roger Davies  talk 09:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite block of
indefinitely blocked yesterday. Makrandjoshi stopped editing in 2010. Prior to their departure, they had received a number of death threats/threats of violence here on this site for their editing of the IIPM article. Their editing was from a POV critical of IIPM.

I haven't reviewed Makrandjoshi's edit history, but their name pops up a few times on the evidence page. Given that the arbitrators have presumably been looking into the edit history of these articles in some detail, would it be possible for the committee to review (and if appropriate, endorse) this block as part of these proceedings? Andreas JN 466 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * During my review of the article histories, I actually made four blocks: (for being an anti-IIPM SPA),  (for spamming), and two small rangeblocks, 202.12.103.0/24 and 202.174.120.0/24. The ranges are allocated to Amity Univeristy and the Indian Business School and addresses within both ranges had a long history of vandalising competitors' articles and other unhelpful edits. As I mentioned, these article have a long history of abuse, not just from Wifione. In fact, they probably need permanent semi-protection and a lot more watchers.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth,, I don't think this block has any direct bearing on this case and thus there is no real basis for doing anything other than leaving community processes to run their normal course. Roger Davies talk 05:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)