Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Callanecc (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Questions from arbitrators[edit]

Question #1 from Roger Davies

Comments

  • Definitely, in my opinion. They compete in the same field - higher education in India, and they are often compared in various surveys in Indian media: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. etc. Annual B-school rankings seem to be widely watched in India. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A quote from the book Indian Higher Education: Envisioning the Future by Pawan Agarwal, published by Sage Publications India, 2009, 9788132104094, p. 107, BOX 3.6 Spending on advertisements by educational institutions: "With increasing competition, educational institutions will apply all the marketing principles. A few institutions like IIPM, ISB, Amity International, Rai University [...] are using image-building elements to differentiate themselves from the rest of the crowd. It seems this sector will present some interesting challenges for the advertising industry in building brands that endure." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There does seem to be evidence of some sort of bad blood between Amity and IIPM that has played out in the blogosphere: [6] [7] [8] [9].--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll agree. Yes, they are competitors to the extent that Amity University is a university offering many more courses and programs than ISB or IIPM or the hundred other odd business schools in India. Wifione Message 19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These television debates should help fill in some of the background: [10] [11] Andreas JN466 16:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

Restored pages

The following pages are available for history only review, their original title is the subpage name:

Evidence presented by Kurtis[edit]

Current word length: 898 (limit: 500); diff count: 0. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

My evidence focuses exclusively on the alleged connection between Wifione and Nichalp.

Source of allegations

To the best of my knowledge, the possibility of a connection between Wifione and Nichalp was first raised in February 2012 on the Wikimediaindia-l mailing list.[12] Shortly thereafter, the issue was brought to Jimbo’s talk page.[13] Vejvančický notified him of these two discussions, and Wifione asserted that he had never edited as Nichalp. The perceived connection was once again brought to light in late 2013 on Wikipediocracy, and were also raised at Wifione’s editor review, where he reiterated that he was not Nichalp. It has never been conclusively determined that these two users are the same.

Activity and technical evidence

Nichalp ceased editing from his main account in January 2009. The Zithan account was originally registered in September 2008, and edited semi-regularly before being blocked on June 13, 2009. Wifione was registered in April 2009 and made a handful of edits before going on a two-month hiatus. He resumed active editing on June 26, 13 days after the ArbCom resolution pertaining to Nichalp/Zithan. He was the subject of an unrelated SPI case that very same day, and two checkusers were performed by Versageek and Avraham. The former used archived ISP data from prior checks on older accounts to determine that sockpuppetry was a possibility, but then-clerk Tiptoety opted against taking action due to insufficient evidence. Ironically, the edits that aroused suspicion were to Indian Institute of Planning and Management, the same topic area in which Wifione stands accused of paid advocacy.

If a checkuser was used on Zithan or Nichalp at the time, then it would also have picked up on Wifione, assuming it was being used on the same IP. The account was registered in April 2009 and Zithan was blocked a mere two months later. This would also be true for the aforementioned SPI case opened on June 26. Therefore, if Wifione is in fact the reincarnation of Nichalp, then the only way he could have conceivably evaded detection would be by using an alternate IP address to register the account and edit.

Comparison of editing habits

Nichalp and Wifione are both known to be prolific contributors to India-related topics, seeing as they are both from India. There are notable differences, however. Although a highly active bureaucrat, Nichalp was a content contributor first and foremost; on his userpage, he claimed credit for 17 FAs, 5 FLs, 2 FPs, and 19 DYKs. Wifione only has two DYKs to his name, and his successful RfA had a sizeable oppose camp due to his lack of content contributions. He has an icon at the top of his userpage identifying himself as an RC patroller, which was hardly among Nichalp’s areas of focus. Just looking at the last 50 blocks performed by Nichalp, I really don’t get the sense that he was heavily involved in that sort of thing. The same cannot be said of Wifione. Nichalp showed an interest in cricket, a topic which Wifione has basically never touched. The vast majority of his 252 articles are basic stubs for Indian villages; not a single thing pertaining to cricket anywhere.[14] Wifione has occasionally been known to edit articles related to Western pop culture.[15][16][17]

In Wikipedia space, there are few similarities. Both have demonstrated an interest in RfA,[18][19][20] with Nichalp being an active bureaucrat for most of his editing career. However, Wifione’s focus is very heavily invested in the help desk and other major administrative boards.[21] Most of Nichalp’s WP-space contributions were either related to bureaucratship (RfA, CHU) or article building.[22]

As Zithan, Nichalp accepted payments for new articles from a broad variety of different entities.[23] Three-quarters of his edits were in article space. Wifione’s disputed edits fall within a comparatively narrow topic area. Granted, his most edited articles are the ones where concerns have arisen: Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Amity University, Indian School of Business, etc.

Nichalp and Wifione are both best described as level-headed and approachable. Wifione seems to be much more willing to respond to allegations of paid editing than Nichalp, so there's that.

Determining whether a link exists is important

Back in 2009, then-active contributor YellowMonkey participated in the paid editing RfC, in which he used Zithan’s editing as an example of why writing biographies in exchange for money is inherently non-neutral. According to YellowMonkey, negative information was completely excluded from at least one biography, which was deleted following a discussion at AfD.

If Wifione is conclusively determined to be the same user as Nichalp and a paid advocate for IIBM, it would mean that he has been accepting payments from clients to create pages or make non-neutral edits to existing articles on a continuous basis since at least 2008, despite being sanctioned for it in 2009. Were this to be the case, then a desysop and siteban would be absolutely warranted.

Conclusion

If Wifione is the same editor as Nichalp, then he would have changed his entire approach to editing. His focus has largely been on maintenance work, whereas Nichalp was a content contributor. It makes sense if Nichalp were attempting to avoid leaving a trail, but refraining from virtually all of his past interests as an editor? That would take a lot of willpower.

Ultimately, I don’t believe there's enough circumstantial evidence to indict Wifione as a sockpuppet of Nichalp. The lack of strong technical or editorial connections between the two users would indicate that any perceived connection is probably just a coincidence.

Evidence presented by Vejvančický[edit]

Current word length: 1210; diff count: 47.

In my presentation I'll focus mainly on providing examples of Wifione's tendentious and manipulative editing of Wikipedia articles on subjects competing in the field of education in India. In my opinion, User:Wifione engaged in unfair practices, used double standards and misused Wikipedia's rules and policies to promote interests of selected subjects and entities in a long time span (from 2009 to 2013). I'm firmly convinced that here on English Wikipedia, User:Wifione knowingly and deliberately promoted interests of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and its director Arindam Chaudhuri, while on the other hand he continuously edited the articles about Amity University, its founder Ashok Chauhan and Indian School of Business to defame or show the subjects in a negative light. The selection is not random, the above cited articles are the most frequently edited main space pages by User:Wifione. However, my presentation will also include evidence and diffs outside of this group of articles. I also consider my evidence as a follow-up of my previous comments at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Wifione and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione#Statement by Vejvančický.

Wifione's edits to IIPM (disambiguation page)

In his editor review, Wifione forgot to add that The Indian Institute of Planning and Management was not the only IIPM institute that interested him.

In the days before Abecedare's edit and in the following two weeks, Wifione creates multiple articles about entities supposedly known under the acronym IIPM:
I wondered why this sudden interest in various "IIPMs" and I found a plausible explanation in this edit (Revision as of 17:30, 13 January 2010 ) by User:Makrandjoshi on Talk:IIPM. I mean "plausible" in the light of my previous research and findings in this matter (tendentious editing of User:Wifione).

Wifione's edits to the articles Ashok Chauhan and Arindam Chaudhuri

Adding and restoring negative claims in the article Ashok Chauhan and related articles + further evidence:

Removing criticism, adding praise to the article Arindam Chaudhuri:

Wifione's edits to the articles Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)

Wifione's edits to the articles Amity University (AU) and Indian School of Business (ISB) + further evidence

Wifione's edits to deleted articles and redirects related to IIPM

Here, Wifione focuses his efforts on the main article about controversies and then mainly on redirects starting with or containing the acronym IIPM:

Evidence presented by Jehochman[edit]

Current word length: 370; diff count: 1.

Wifione has been editing Wikipedia in a way that benefits IIPM's SEO and reputation management

It is clear from V's evidence about Wifione's edits to the IIPM disambiguation page and creation of stub articles that Wifione's editing was advancing the SEO and reputation management of IIPM. Online reputation management is the practice of creating pages, such as that series of IIPM Wikipedia articles, to rank highly in the search results and thereby push down any negative pages about the subject. There is no other plausible explanation for what Wifione was doing in 2009 when creating this series of articles. This isn't somebody who's read some propaganda, taken away the wrong ideas, and been editing Wikipedia with a POV. This is a purposeful online marketing campaign that has somehow found its way into Wifione's editing pattern. There are ways to practice reputation management ethically, but using Wikipedia as a web host for spam articles isn't a good practice. Instead, one can place relevant content sites such as LinkedIn, YouTube or Slideshare, in compliance with those sites' terms of use, if one wants to increase their presence in Google search results.

2009 is a long time ago, but 2013 isn't

If Wifione was doing something wrong back in 2009, Wikipedia isn't likely to sanction them today, unless there's an ongoing pattern. I've checked Wifione's contribution history, and found that they have edited Indian Institute of Planning and Management as recently as Feb 21, 2013, including this bit of spin: "has been the subject of tax issues which have been resolved".[24] Essentially, Wifione continued the marketing activities after concerns were first expressed, until the scrutiny got so intense, they couldn't proceed.

No evidence of payment, none expected, none needed

I've seen no evidence presented that Wifione has been paid. Unless there's an admission or somebody finds a paystub, I don't see any way to prove this conclusively. Maybe Wifione is doing this as a favor or for ideological reasons. The motivation doesn't matter. Their editing related to IIPM has been improper, and ongoing, and they haven't been forthright with the Wikipedia community when called out.

No evidence of sock puppetry

Per Kurtis' behavioral evidence, Wifione and Nichalp very much appear to be different people. We don't need to speculate further.

Per evidence of Jayen466, it looks like Wifione may have had prior accounts and IPs. The disturbing thing is that there appears to be some interleaved editing [25], which is not good, but if there's nothing more recent than 2009, I don't think it's sanctionable. Whether these are accounts controlled by Wifione, or somebody in collaboration doesn't really matter. If the activity is old (2007), we can just ignore it as long ago. If the activity is recent, that would be problematic.

Evidence presented by Hipocrite[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

The following evidentiary page is not visible to all parties

Uninteresting. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User_talk:Iipmstudent9 - per [26], deleted as a "temporary userpage." The page history may or may not be relevant, but user talk pages are not supposed to have their history purged. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having reviewed the page in question, there's no there there. I request the committee's leave to delete my evidence section as non utile. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole[edit]

Wifione has avoided accountability

Vejvančický and others have made a good case for Wifione's biased editing. I've been a little under the weather lately and just not up to the meticulous sifting of diffs necessary to produce a good argument here, but attention needs to be paid to Wifione's attitude to accountability. User:Peter Damian has kindly produced a description with diffs of Wifione's disregard for accountability, which I have carefully read (including all diffs) and endorse:

I share Vejvančický's concerns about biased editing, and biased use of sources. I have a separate concern about the lack of accountability shown by this administrator. She has a long pattern of avoiding questions about a conflict of interest, or of requesting bans when challenged, or, frequently, of trying to "shift the burden through the fallacious argument of guilt by association" [27].

In December 2009 she was asked "what is your association with IIPM"? She replied "Please don't use such statements". When the editor persisted, arguing that conflicts of interest should always be disclosed, she replied " you are an editor with a good background and good editing history. It'll be good if you do not make statements such as "Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM?" [28]. Later, she asked an editor to "please take out your statement "What is your association with IIPM?" from all the places you have mentioned it? … It is quite disparaging for a fellow editor" [29]

In November 2013, when I (Peter Damian) politely asked her about her affiliation by email, she tried to get me blocked from Meta, claiming the emails were 'harassment'. After a Wikipediocracy exposé of her activities on Wikipedia on 2 December 2013, the issue was raised on Jimbo’s page. On 14th December, Jimbo raised the issue again. Wifione did not participate in either discussion. "It's striking that there's yet to be any comment whatsoever from User:Wifione" said one administrator.

On January 12, 2014, there was an article in the Times of India which mentioned the scandal, and it was brought up on Jimbo’s page for a third time. Jimbo commented “it would be best if he just doesn't come back.”. At this point, Wifione responded, claiming she had been on a break, and opened an editor review. On 18 January she asked for another day to answer questions, but then left entirely, apparently unable to answer the question "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?"

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. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 10 January 2015‎

While I don't think it's necessary to demonstrate deception concerning COI or use of sockpuppets to avoid a block and topic ban here - the evidence of extremely biased editing of BLPs and company articles is clear enough to warrant a permanent ban on its own merits - it's worth comparing

with

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence and rebuttals presented by Wifione[edit]

Background

(a) The pages related to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and Arindam Chaudhuri have had a long history of tendentious, pov and disruptive editing. A significant majority of such editing, in my analysis, has been negative in nature than positive. For example, while we had IPs like this one from Indian School of Business putting the term “Fraud” within the name of Arindam Chaudhuri in the BLP (and undertaking further multiple violations of the BLP policy), we also had major editors like Makrandjoshi (with more than 650 edits on the business school page, Arindam Chaudhuri page, talk pages and related pages out of 826 total edits in his tenure) maintaining the same term (“Fraud”) in exactly the same manner, or adding websites like iipm2hell.com on the business school’s page. Edits by IPs from the office of Rahejas (Outlook office, publisher of Careers360, who brought out multiple investigative reports on the business school and were in litigation with them), NUS (“He is a fraud”), NTU (“a crook and a cheat”), exemplify the assertion. (For reader reference, here I’ve given a set of some 100 vandalism, blanking, negative pov diffs on Arindam Chaudhuri’s BLP). As described once, before my editing tenure, by another editor Amatulic on the business school talk page to Makrandjoshi, who I considered a tendentious editor, the article was turning into nothing more than a hatchet job.
Such slanted editing attempts continue till date. For example, on January 6, 2015, after filing this Arbcom request, Jehochman took an administrative action on the Indian Institute of Planning and Management page, semi-protecting it with an edit summary, Persistent sock-puppetry: Long term advocacy. I analysed all edits over the past 20 months on the page; exactly 20% of the total edits in these months were vandalism and POV edits, all negative save one (for reader reference).
(b) When I started editing the business school page, the version of the page as it existed then, in my analysis, contained material that did not display a neutral point of view, specially material that pertained to controversies. My view at that time was that if there were purely negative descriptions on the page, then they should be balanced out with the other side of the story, if one existed as such. In pages where there is a significant amount of tendentious negative editing, attempts to balance out such edits may be viewed as attempts to only push positive points. This was the situation in the business school page, the BLP of Arindam Chaudhuri and related pages. Editors like Atama in the past and Johnuiq more recently, have also perceived a similar aspect of this issue. I believe that could be a pushing reason for some editors in this Arbcom case to perceive that my edits have been to promote the institute and related entities. That is actually not the case, as I’ve enumerated above. The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Arindam Chaudhuri and related pages were, are heavily watched pages, with an active bunch of editors. All edits done by me were, because of the group of editors on the said pages, scrutinised, discussed if reverted, and confirmed, if consensus existed.
(a) When I decided to expand my editing beyond Indian Institute of Planning and Management, as explained to Jehochman below, one delimiting factor was that I was (and am) not primarily a content editor. Ergo, to expand my editing, I chose the area where I’d done considerable research earlier, and that was the Indian management education sector. Yes, I also created 250 odd stubby town/village articles. But given my primary research area, I started editing pages related to management education. When I started editing these pages, I found a few of them to be written like advertisements, and in some cases, complete copyright infringements. This was amongst my first edits to the Indian School of Business article, where I deleted large copy violations. In November 2012, after considerable edits to tone down the article, I removed the peacock tag. I did not edit the article again. The article again became promotional over time. Many editors deleted promotional material from the article since then, including Vejvančický, [30][31][32][33]. Mean as custard, another editor who removed promotional material from the page, added back the advertisement tag on 27 September 2013,[34] a tag which the article maintains till today, despite editors like Vejvančický editing the article. IPs from ISB (202.174.120.0 - 202.174.120.255) and editors like Student 2k12 were evident in ISB’s history page, receiving warnings from editors like Vejvančický and me.
(b) Similar has been the situation with Amity University and related pages. I started editing the Amity University and Amity Business School article in February 2011. This was the significantly promotional version of Amity Business School just before I started editing the article. In April 2011, I removed considerable promotional material from Amity University in a series of edits.[35][36]. Then onwards, I experienced a multiple number of socks and promotional editors – for example, editors like Amity University (blocked), [37] Higheredutrust (blocked as a sock after around 30 out of 48 promotional/pov edits on Amity University),[38] Cfiveindia (blocked as a sock after 32 pov edits to Amity University, Amity Business School, Ashok Chauhan out of 52 total edits),[39] Ajayphdmba (mentioned on his talk page he was an Amity professor),[40] Abhay Gupta (Student)(blocked as a sock),[41] Amity IPs from the range 202.12.103.0 - 202.12.103.255,[42] Poojasapra12 (blocked as a sock),[43], Rao61 (sock, blocked),[44], Rak1961 (sock, blocked),[45], Kaka0098 (sock, blocked),[46], Shuffleclick (spamusername, created a PR company’s page, then blocked after editing Amity related pages)[47] and many more. Editor Theroadislong added a CoI tag in November 2012, given the type of edits prevalent on the page.[48] This was practically my final edit to the Amity University page in January 2013 (post which, I had only two edits; one was an edit per an editor RegentsPark analysis on the talk page, and the other was a revert). Soon after this edit, Qwyrxian, who had taken admin action on the page, wrote in one particular revert the following edit summary, “Undid revision 534411762 by 94.56.72.83 (talk) except that you removed more, agreed upon info, and Wifone's changes look good to me. See talk”. Post this, more socks descended. Admin Ponyo protected the page in May 2013 for persistent sock puppetry. The promotional edits have continued since then, with many editors like Vejvančický attempting to revert unexplained removal of material or general promotion. Sock puppet investigations like Writer_Media, Higheredutrust and Rak1961 exemplify the assertions with respect to Amity University and related pages.
(c) Specifically with respect to the Ashok Chauhan page, not only were there significant promotion and copy violations (reverted by editors like Bishonen, Theroadislong and Vejvančický) the oft mentioned controversy section that I had added initially was also removed a multiple times by socks (like Art2edit, Kapilaa, Ravindaran Shastri, Akshwjas apart from some of the innumerable others mentioned in the section above), new accounts, IPs, Vejvančický and more recently, Binksternet.. Such removal was 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 "revert - BLP does not allow wholesale removal of unflattering content." Vejvančický took the issue of the Controversy section to BLPN. There was no editor who supported the removal of the Controversy section there. Vejvančický’s main issue with my editing of the Ashok Chauhan article was perchance that he believed that while adding the Controversy section in Ashok Chauhan’s article documenting charges against the individual, I had not added one particularly important line mentioned in a Mint report, that said that charges against Ashok Chauhan had been dropped – and this as per him was a non NPOV behaviour on my part. As I explained to him in my editor review, till 7th November 2012, when I last edited the BLP, the Mint newspaper did not have such an update. The April 2013 archive of the Mint story still did not have the update. The update appeared 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. While Vejvančický withdrew from BLPN, in one of his final comments in my editor review, Vejvančický accepted the following, ”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.” In other words, Vejvančický understood the relevance of the Controversy section in the said article and accepted the section with the update.
(d) In pages where there is a significant amount of tendentious promotional editing, attempts to balance out such edits may be viewed as attempts to only push negative points. In pages related to ISB and Amity University, that could be a reason why some editors in this Arbcom case may perceive that my edits to these articles have been to simply add negative material. That has not been my intent at all, as I’ve exhaustively explained above.

Contemporary context

(a) None of these editors who are parties to this case have edited the pages in question while I was editing them, or discussed any edits with me on the said articles’ talk pages during the time I was editing them. Vejvančický edited some page(s) during the time I edited them, but never discussed any editorial issue with me on the relevant article talk pages during those times.
(b) None of these editors who are parties to this case have ever been approached with a complaint about me by any non-sock legitimate editor who might have been editing the said articles during the times I was editing them, to the best of my knowledge.
(c) Their issues are third party issues that have arisen significantly due to a third party website’s allusions about some of my edits that are quite some years old, and all editors in this case (except the filer) are members of the third party website.
(d) Post my opening the editor review, Vejvančický has continued slighting me across the project, despite my requests to him to not do so, and disregarding my earlier suggestion in my editor review that I'm ready to reopen my editor review in case he stops participating on a particular thread on the third party website that was attempting to out me. My reports at ANI document the said issue.[49][50]

Individual rebuttals

Vejvančický

Please refer to my complete documentation in the Background section above for my rebuttal on this assertion.
Please refer to my reply to Jehochman (Subsection A, a) for my rebuttal on this assertion.
Please refer to the Background section, Part B(c) sub-section, which documents the fact that you accept the version of the page as acceptable. The policy that I have followed with respect to the controversy section is WP:WELLKNOWN. With respect to your three year old diff illustrating my edit on Amity University, please refer to the Background section, Part B(b) sub-section, which, apart from other relevant details, illustrates how, when I practically left editing the article, an editor like Qwyrxian, who had taken admin action on the page, wrote in one particular edit the following edit summary, “…Wifone's changes look good to me. See talk”. That is, the changes post my cumulative edits (rather than seeing just one edit in isolation) were well accepted by trusted editors on the page. With respect to the five diffs pertaining to Amity Business School, apart from referring to my statements in the Background section, Part B(b), I would mention the following details. Irrespective of the fact that two out of five of the edits shown are reverts of a sock and an apparent CoI editor, the fact is that in my edits to this business school article, I’ve basically attempted to replicate the editing patterns I’ve been exposed to while editing articles like Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Due to the fact that various editors at the Indian Institute of Planning and Management page impressed upon me the need to have a mention of controversies in the lead section, and a separate sub-section of controversies if such may exist, in the Amity Business School article too, I created such a section, as I believe there were enough RS to document the same. But then, I also added other quite positive information in the Amity Business School article (as I did to other Amity related articles). It would have been fair if you had documented those too. For example, here I added the programs of the school, history, ranking of Amity Business School, deleted a negative news item, added fresher rankings of the school. In other words, my intent has been developing an article that documents all issues, and not just those favoured by the many socks and promotional editors evident on the Amity pages. The version of Amity Business School just before I started editing was blatantly promotional. My last edit to the Amity Business School page was two years ago. As I’ve recommended before, any editor concerned with the contents of the particular page(s), should simply undertake bold edits to improve the page. My response to your diffs are as follows (read as per your sequence).
1. Looks perfect.
2, 3, 4. Edits are acceptable per WP:WELLKNOWN. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
5. Wrong choice of edit summary, prompted by the editor who reverted the blocked sock Cfiveindia one edit earlier, with the edit summary, "Reverted 4 edits by Cfiveindia (talk) identified as vandalism".
6. The blocked sock was appropriately guided. The sock's claim that the magazine removed the article stemmed from the original link being dead. The magazine had kept an archived link on its website, which existed at the time of my Editor Review and was documented on my Editor Review too. I recommended to the sock that if they wished, I'll put an NPOV tag to attract the attention of other editors. They refused.
7. Seems acceptable per WP:LEDE, which mentions the lead section should mention prominent controversies.
8. Perfectly appropriate to archive my talk page discussions, and to revert a CoI editor blanking controversies as minor edits.
9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15. Acceptable per WP:LEDE and WP:WORDS: "...give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy..."
13. Getting sock puppets blocked is perfectly alright.
Please refer to the Background section, Part A (all sub-sections), for my responses. Apart from that, I’ve responded to the 15 diffs illustrated by you in a sequential manner.
1. I stand by it as it was at that time. The removal was of an opinionated statement from a source that was a fresh magazine. Took the issue to Talk following BRD appropriately.
2. Same reason mentioned above.
3. The editor who was reverted was then a student in a competing school. But the reason I reverted are explained better in the talk page of the article here. For your records, I myself added the Caravan magazine issue on 20 February 2012 to the Arindam Chaudhuri article in this edit in an NPOV manner post talk page discussions. The term “management guru” is well supported by reliable sources and can be understood from talk page discussions here
4. Stand by my edit; it was a BLP attack removal of the term “fraud” on the talk page.
5. Stand by it. See reason above.
6. Stand by it. “Illegal Idiotic Ponytail Moneymonger” on the talk page is vandalism and a BLP attack that should be reverted.
7. “Quack” is a BLP issue. Stand by the revert.
8. Stand by it. Added the Caravan link properly on 20 Feb 2012 as mentioned above.
9. Same reason as above.
10. Stand by it. The edit summary invites the reverted editor to already existing talk page discussions on the issue.
11. Primary and SPS are used by me as per BLPPRIMARY and SPS in our Verifiability policy. The sources have been used to confirm whose son Chaudhuri is, and whether he is the founder of his own organisations. That is not self-serving.
12. Stand by the edit per the edit summary.
13. Stand by the edit as the term “management guru” has enough RS, and the deleting editor’s reasoning was his personal opinion.
14. Stand by the edit as per the statements on the talk page and as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:WELLKNOWN.
15. Stand by the edit. As per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:WELLKNOWN, you need multiple reliable sources for exceptional claims to be added to BLPs.”If multiple sources don’t exist, leave the claim out,” is what policy says.
Please refer to the Background section, Part A (all sub-sections). Apart from that, my response to your diffs is as follows (read as per your sequence).
1. My reasons were listed down at the talk page in multiple sections. While I believe that the reasoning as of then was valid (new magazine, having a COI with the institution), a blanket removal as shown in this five and a half years old diff should not have been done in the manner that it was done.
2. Newbie edit. Not the best way.
3. I simply reworded the paragraph from Makrandjoshi’s previous diff. Helps achieve a neutral point of view.
4. I would have preferred the term “not applied for accreditation” or “non-accredited” as explained by Amatulic in this edit, given that applying for accreditation was not compulsory.
5. Silly edit. The paragraph was unrelated to the article and should have not been included.
6. Should not have been removed without the proper creation of footnotes, as recommended on the talk page.
7. Editorially incompetent line. Goes against WP:UNIGUIDE, especially against the subsection contents which I authored later after learning from such editing mistakes.
8. Nothing wrong with starting a talk page discussion as per editorial guidelines at that time.
9. Incompetent edit.
10. Out of place and not the best source.
11. Stand by the edit. It was a lounge piece and a copy vio.
12. Stand by the edit. It was primary, CoI source, making exceptional claims about themselves. Any other RS would have been accepted.
13. Seems an acceptable standard NPOV edit.
14. Stand by it. See the talk for reasons. I’ve brought back the DGG version.
15. Stand by the edit. Bemoaning the belabouring of points is similar to what editors like Amatulic have done on the article before.[51][52][53]
16. No criticism has been removed. Seems a perfectly neutral edit. The edit summary clarifies my position clearly, "Removing non-NPOV UGC line. Include IIPM's version before reincluding it or maintain DGG's version; please don't discredit months of discussion; and please keep historical data in the main section than in the lede)" In other words, I suggested to the editor to include the UGC line placing IIPM's response too, or maintain DGG's version.
Please refer to the Background section, Part B (all sub-sections), for my statements on the edits to these article, on why you should view the end result of all my edits on the articles rather than singular edits, and on how other editors like you and Qwyrxian accepted the end version with controversies et al of the articles in question. Apart from that, please also additionally see Part C for clarifications on my edits to Amity Business School. Responses to the diffs you've detailed (read as per your sequence) are as follows.
1. The definition of an attack page is one that contains biographical material that is “entirely negative in tone and unsourced”. The diff that you claim is an attack page, is not as per policy, as it is well referenced and not entirely negative. Inclusion of controversies is acceptable per WP:LEDE, WP:WORDS. This is an editorial perspective and can be discussed on the relevant talk page.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. Quite acceptable edits per WP:LEDE and WP:WORDS. Notable controversies have to be mentioned in the lead and main body with appropriate references.
9, 17. Removal is perfect under SYNTHESIS and WP:UNIGUIDE. The previous diff had synthesised conjectures and not referenced claims, as you mention.
19. Removal is post editor regentspark’s talk page discussion. Doesn't seem an issue.
I basically stand by the edits that you’ve mentioned, given the edit summaries and clear edits that have been undertaken.

Anthonycole

(a) The December 2009 diffs shown do not show me avoiding the question of CoI, and in fact they show me responding to each query of the editor. The conversation ended, as your diffs show, with me clarifying I have no CoI.
(b) The November 2013 email from the banned user Peter Damian was avoided on personal discretion and judgment. His newest sock has been blocked a couple of days ago after your discussions on how to welcome him back to our project.
(c) In early December 2013 when the issue was raised on Jimbo's page, I followed it for some time and would have responded in case there was a formal call for response. I'd been advised just some days before by a member of the current Arbcom (in personal capacity) about the Streisand effect, and I did not have the guts at that time to test the theory out, specially given the drama Jimbo's talk page discussions cause. To the best of my knowledge, from 13th December 2013 I had gone on a wiki-break for around a month, so could not follow Jimbo's subsequent note on his talk page. I would have responded then, if I had had been active.
(d) When I opened the Editor Review on the first day of my return, it was a good faith attempt to answer queries of members from Wikipedia. I did too to most of this project's members. One of the key reasons I delayed answering questions of certain editors on the Review was because all of these editors (except one, and even that I was unsure of for quite some time) were members of Wikipediocracy, coordinating their questions from a thread that was second guessing everything, from my name to location details, and prompting its members to ask certain questions or post messages on my talk page and on the editor review, which these editors were promptly doing. I've listed out the canvassing on my editor review. Irrespective, I decided to close the review after answering all questions, and after extending an olive branch to Vejvančický that if he were to confirm that he wouldn't post on the particular Wikipediocracy thread, I would re-open the review. He refused to accept the condition.

Jehochman

(a) As a person initially researching IIPM, I did come across material referring to these additional institutions. I would tend to think that anyone researching such a term would. Although I have not been a content contributor (and less so now), in my effort to expand the coverage of this project, I created these articles to differentiate the term IIPM and to assist in clearing the confusion the term might create to an individual searching for other institutions with the same title; this in my opinion actually is a considerable benefit.
(b) On our project, we have editors who edit across discrete topics; at the same time, we have editors who may choose to contribute only in the areas that interest them. It’s a matter of personal interest and choice, and I’ve not had the interest to become either a major content contributor or to expand my areas of editing. The creation of the articles related to the dab page was just as it was – a personal interest to contribute, nothing more; and not at all for SEO and reputation management. In my opinion (I might be wrong but), there may be a significant number of editors like me who create similarly named articles and disambiguation pages in the area that relates to their field of research. Editors like Wcquidditch and JPG-GR, for example, have created multiple acronym based articles, redirects and acronym based disambiguation pages in specific media areas ([54][55]). One could investigate and infer analogically that KUBD, KUBD (TV) and KUBD-LP are SEO attempts by Wcquidditch; and WBCH, WBCH (AM), WBCH (FM) and WBCH-FM similar attempts by JPG-GR. Many other examples could thus be drawn up from their contributions to support and defend this hypothesis. But such an inference would be mistaken and misdirected in my opinion. As I mentioned, creation of articles are a matter of choice, and given my area of research, I created these articles simply to document the institutions on our project.
(c) At the same time, editors can and should discuss the relevance of these articles and the disambiguation pages on the respective talk pages, and do what consensus suggests. Redirect them, if that seems sensible. Delete them, if they look spammy. Add more content to them, if that makes the articles more encyclopaedic. That perhaps is the better route here.
(a) Wifione continued marketing activities: I don’t find any basis provided for this assertion.
(b) Continued editing the specific page and stopped when scrutiny got intense: I would say that the reason almost all of my content creation activities decreased was purely because post my RfA, I got involved into considerable administrative activities. In the period right after my RfA, I think I had 5 edits to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management article in 2011, 14 in 2012, 4 again in 2013. If you compare this with my admin stats since late 2010/early 2011 till date (e.g. 1030 users blocked, 1272 pages deleted, 176 pages protected), you may see how my activities increased in administrative areas. I have no issues in continuing editing of these articles, as long as I feel I’m contributing to the project.
(c) Wifione added this bit of spin: "has been the subject of tax issues which have 'been resolved' as recent as in Feb 2013": The diff you provide does not illustrate any new sentence that I have added. To understand the diff you’ve provided as evidence, you’ll have to see a diff dated 29 December 2009 by the editor NeilN, who changed the term ”and investigations regarding accreditation, rankings in third party publications, advertising claims, trade practices, and tax issues” from my edit diff to ”with respect to its advertising and tax and trade practices investigations which have been resolved” after talk page discussions. The sentence has existed in the article since NeilN’s 2009 addition, since DGG’s 2012 edits and till 2013, when an editor Vvarkey blanked out the complete section from the lede, to replace it with a smaller section, which continues till date.
I don’t find any basis provided for this assertion. If you’re alluding to Vejvančický’s edits, then I have provided rebuttals in the relevant section.

Jayen466

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.
      • I hope the responses given to all the individual editors suffice. I expect there to be writers' block errors with dates of diffs and sequence of events. Please do point them out as they would have been made inadvertently. Thanks.

Evidence presented by Jayen466[edit]

IP 58.68.49.70 reverts edit to Wifione's user page made less than two hours prior.

Several Wikipedians have in the past commented on the fact that 58.68.49.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) used to be registered to IIPM (it was so registered until early January 2014):


Interleaved editing: [61]


Edit summary similarities:


Also note

And

And


Edit summary similarities:


Numerous edit summaries relating to removal of content describing the IIPM controversy:


Intersect contribs:


The following might warrant further research:

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

More