Wifione

Wifione (T-C-F-R-B) (see also Nichalp) is an editor who has made a series of promotional edits to articles about IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri. He has skillfully evaded detection even today.

2009

• First IIPM-related edit is on talk page 08:18, 26 June 2009. "I'm only making grammatical corrections, that are more or less minor." Second is 08:22, 26 June 2009 Removes 'approved' from "IIPM's programmes are not approved or accredited".
• 08:22, 26 June 2009 First edit to the article. Changes "IIPM's programmes are not approved or accredited by Indian regulatory bodies" to "IIPM's programmes are not accredited by Indian regulatory bodies". Changes "the institute has been involved in controversies related to its exaggerated advertising claims, investigation for unfair trade practices, tax evasion and plagiarism", to "the institute has been involved in controversies related to its advertising claims".
• [1] "Please check the following for me guys. Is plagiarism and tax evasion major controversies to be mentioned in the opening para? Tks Wifione (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)" "And please also help me clear out repetitive lines throughout the description. For example, in various sections, the non-accreditation is mentioned repeatedly. Can we reduce these repetitions? It looks a little too made up. But please discuss and give me suggestions (or kindly do it yourself). Tks Wifione (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)"
• 08:42, 26 June 2009 Removes the whole of the Careers360 information, including "Several companies such as Standard Chartered and Deutsche bank mentioned in the ads denied having ever taken part in IIPM's campus recruitment process. It was also found that the "foreign jobs" mentioned in the ads were primarily short term contracts in the Persian Gulf, with several visa restrictions, and relatively low pay packages of approximately 6-700 USD a month", "The story also carried first person testimonials from past students of IIPM who said the advertisements built up their expectations which were not met, and the jobs they got after studying at IIPM are barely enough for them to repay loans taken for paying the tuition fees at IIPM" etc.
• 09:09, 26 June 2009 Adds "At the same time, the institute has also been reported by various leading newspapers in India to have been amongst the top ranked management institutes in India".
• 10:14, 29 June 2009 He replies to charges of the Mrinal Pandey sockpuppet investigation. "Hi! I'm taken aback at the accusation within a day of my changing something that was not supposed to be seen this way. Dear Makrand, the only reason I changed the tax evasion and plagiarism stuff was because I did think that the plagiarim stuff didn't seem controversy! It's a plain statement of BusinessWeek to which IIPM has replied giving details of from where they have the copyright. With reference to the tax evasion part that I took out, when I saw the government link you had provided, it did not mention any detail of the tax being evaded." Etc. "Anyways I also have to say that despite what you are saying, I still haven't found any proof of JAM or careers360 being reputed third party sources." "t I do hope that accusing a fellow editor for being a sockpuppet within a day of her editing is not a display of your discontent at someone removing your third party sourced content from not reputed websites, which are still not confirmed news magazines."
  • While it's true that the IIPM article is plagued by sockpuppets bent on whitewashing the information therein, I do think an investigation of Wifione is a bit premature after only two edits to the article. I am not seeing the same editing patterns (characterized by blanket reverting to some old version of the article) but editing with talk page discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• 14:08, 30 July 2009 Chaudhuri article: removes "IIPM has been involved with numerous controversies over the years. Most them involve misrepresentation of accreditation and placements. Over the years, IIPM has claimed to have placed students in some of the top companies around the world. IIPM--best only in claims.
• 05:21, 17 August 2009 Adds [dubious – discuss] tag: "According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible. [dubious – discuss]"
• 14 Nov 2009 Reopens the question of source Career360 on the page on IIPM. "Hi editors, A few weeks back I had raised the validity question on a source called Career360 that has been used blatantly throughout the article on IIPM by a single purpose account editor. The problem is that the source has given points of view that are neither widely held, and in many cases, go totally against the widely held information in top newspapers." Shows a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of IIPM vs Careers360. " Career 360 is a minority view held by only a handful of sources. Minority views should not be included in the articles on Wikipedia."
• 05:49, 21 November 2009 Deletes 'unaccredited'. Adds "In 2009, the Union Minister of Education formally communicated his intentions of closing down AICTE and UGC - due to corruption and inefficiency charges against the bodies - in favour of a larger regulatory body with more sweeping powers".
• 09:45, 22 November 2009 Addesa biyt 'Useless bureaucracy' of NVAO. Also adds about IMI recognising the course structure of IIPM.
• 10:19, 22 November 2009 Adds "The institute has been reported to give its students a "hands on" approach to learning …"
• 12:21, 22 November 2009 Adds to the intro " In March 2009, the University of Buckingham announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with IIPM, mentioning that the Buckingham University is working together with the institute "towards the final accreditation of IIPM's BBA and MBA programmes." ".
• 10:58, 26 December 2009 Adds the italicised part to "IIPM has been the subject of controversy regarding accreditation, rankings, advertising claims, trade practices, job placement claims, and tax issues. At the same time, IIPM has also been ranked amongst the top business schools of the country in the years 2008 and 2009."
• 03:45, 29 December 2009 Changes "IIPM has been the subject of controversies regarding accreditation, rankings in third party publications, advertising claims, trade practices, and tax issues". To "IIPM was the subject of a blogging controversy in 2005." (With the comment about 'exceptional claims'. Wants to wait "till links are provided to prove a direct usage of the term "controversy"."
• 04:02, 29 December 2009 Removes the Stanford letter.

Evading the question

• wifione, you have indulged yet again in forum shopping. I am shocked, shocked, NOT! I have given reasons for every edit of mine. And given details for some here too. You know and I know why you are so pissed off. I caught your kapil-sibal-aicte-scrapping lie. And that has gotten you all upset. Either way, I have responded to you on that page. And I am disappointed to see another attempt of yours at forum shopping being so pathetic and half-hearted. No diffs, no details, just vague generalities. Ho hum. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• 15:51, 5 December 2009:"Are you denying being an IIPM employee? As I have already said before, I think you are a sockpuppet of the individual who has in the past gone by names like Mrinal Pandey, iipmstudent9, alamsrinivas, etc. And been banned for several reasons, from vandalism, to sockpuppetry to threatening to kill me. That individual had admitted to being an IIPM employee. I think you are the same person. Even a sockpuppet investigation against you ended with the judges saying "possible, but let's wait for more evidence". Your behavior and whatever you have been writing since then has made it even more obvious to me that you are the same person. For your information, I am compiling evidence to restart that sockpuppet investigation. Especially since you have gone back to sockpuppetry....Suraj845? LOL! Anyway, my opinion is that you are an IIPM employee. And a sockpuppet of a past banned editor. I have a right to my opinion. So I will not "desist using" any words. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)"
• December 2009 Amatulics talk page where he discusses the conflict of interest (and the revealed IP from New Delhi is discussed).
• Amatulic, your last reply on the talk page ended with the statement to me, "Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM?". In the past, I have noticed you to be a great contributor on many topics. You're one of the editors I notice has an editing history which is nothing short of brilliant. I have a polite request to you, and one you I hope you would not mind, given your positive past. Please don't use such statements. It is just a request. Thanks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [2]
  • The link at 'evaded the question' is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&diff=335033574&oldid=335033443, which now says "You cannot view this diff because one or both of the revisions has been suppressed", with the edit summary " Username or IP removed) (edit summary removed)".
• can you please take out your statement "What is your association with IIPM?" from all the places you have mentioned it? The statement goes beyond a CoI question and has been made on a talk page of an article. It is quite disparaging for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2010

• Adds information 14 February 2010 about the 'think tank' organised by the institute. On 10:18, 14 February 2010 he adds a quote from Chaudhuri: " According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, Careers 360 is a "poor in quality and shady new yellow journal that keeps doing illogical and brazenly false stories about IIPM! The latest being a story based upon the response to a false question sent to the education authorities in Europe where our partner Institute is based in – a process they followed in past too." "Arindam Chaudhuri also mentions that Maheshwar Peri, publisher of both Outlook and Careers 360, started this "malicious campaign" post Arindam's catching Outlook's "fraud" of using perception rankings to influence b-school ranks. As of January 2007, the online prospectus mentioned awarding of MBA and BBA degrees." As a source, he links to a story in The Sunday Indian, the newspaper edited by Chaudhuri!

05:10, 23 March 2010 " As per IMI, students already are additionally awarded the University of Buckingham MBA and BBA degrees, which are Quality Assurance Agency accredited."

• 15:33, 20 August 2010 Anti-IIPM editor: "Added new information in which Careers 360 publisher publicly tweeted how an article in the Pioneer against Careers 360 was actually a paid article by IIPM)"

Complaint on COI noticeboard

Jan 2010.

Wifione's editing of The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE#ADVOCATE. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take this as an example or this or this or this edit which does not do what the editsummary says. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info. Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question.

WP:OUTING is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- Atama頭 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance. Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent weeks of relentless and disruptive wikilawyering to remove each and every source containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest. I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Atama supported Wifone's RfA. Amatulic is not so supportive.

Amatulic, 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?" This is the second time you're writing this statement or a similar statement. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather, it'll be good if you don't evade the question. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed, per the official guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." Your edits are contested by multiple editors here, and your edits and arguments (some of which seem to me to be grasping at straws) appear to lean not so much toward balance as toward painting IIPM in a positive light. So I think the question is fair. Need I ask a third time? What purpose is served by evasion? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit on 08:51, 22 November 2009 is particularly bad.

Students who complete the certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from the International Management Institute (IMI) Belgium, which describes itself as an autonomous, not for profit institution.[30][20][31]. Career 360, an Indian career oriented magazine, reported unidentified sources in NVAO, the accreditation organization for Dutch and French courses offered in Netherlands and Flanders(Belgium), commenting through email that "IMI Belgium is not a recognised higher education institution (neither in the Dutch nor the French speaking part of Belgium). Since it is not recognised it cannot award recognised degrees." However, NVAO, as per its memorandum, does not have the powers to oversee English degrees and does not operate for the English areas of Belgium. [32] IMI degrees are offered in English. [33] NVAO's usefullness has been criticised by some commentators in the past (Thus Bram Delen, student at the University of Leuven, called it a "classical example of useless bureaucracy",[34][35] Prof. Arnold Heertje and Anne Marie Oudemans have argued, in response to an appeal by Karl Dittrich, Chair of NVAO,[36] that the process bureaucracy of NVAO is swallowing up substantial funds, especially in the field of Higher Professional Education, without producing reliable results.[37].

2011

• 16:30, 9 August 2011 reverts " A truth spoken for public good can never be called defamatory" para with comment " Pl don't use "Lounge" pieces for exceptional claims; also, you're violating copyvio rules completely; and don't delete RS while editing.
• 04:07, 23 August 2011 Again removes the High Court judgment with comment "Exceptional claim; use RS and not primary sources for exceptional claims; once you put RS, place only relevant portions".

2012

• 04:55, 24 January 2012 Removes "UGC and AICTE objections". This is where he finally removes the section about Careers 360, with the comment "add reformatted article vide talk page note".
  • Permalink – talk page "Therefore, under Exceptional, I feel there’s some weight to removing them. Please suggest as these links also qualify on being Primary, as well as now being questionable due to parties being involved in the court cases with IIPM with judgments coming in recently. This is apart from investigative reports like those of Careers360 being primary in nature. And there being no other sources that confirm the details. So going by Exceptional, I feel that unless there are independent multiple reliable sources that support what Careers360 says, it should be removed being a primary source with a conflict of interest. I also feel the IIPM links that talk about these people are also questionable using the same viewpoint. In this discussion, I do not include the Uttrakhand issue as there is the Tribune story to back it up too." [ Wifione Message 11:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)]
• 11:05, 2 February 2012 The whole section on the Outlook judgment now reads: " In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360.[101] According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360.[93] In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360 magazine.[101] In September 2011, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Outlook Publishing Private Limited and Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Outlook and Careers 360, and "upheld the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate" with respect to a criminal complaint filed by IIPM's sister concern, Planman Consulting India Pvt Ltd. The Delhi High Court held Outlook Publishing Private Ltd, publisher Maheshwar Peri, Outlook editor Vinod Mehta[102][103] and other petitioners (except the Directors of Outlook) "prima facie liable for publishing [the] derogatory and defamatory article."[104] Both Maheshwar Peri and Vinod Mehta resigned from Outlook in early 2012.[105][106]" Ref 105 actually says that Peri went to pursue other interests, and would still contribute to Outlook. Note this says "The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Outlook Publishing Private Limited as a publisher company along with other petitioners including the editor of the magazine, Maheshwar Peri, publisher and author and its printer IPP Ltd and upheld the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate in a criminal complaint filed by Planman Consulting India Pvt Ltd. The High Court observed in its order on September 13, 2011 under the provisions of the Section 7 of the Press and Registration Act, 1867, that above mentioned petitioners are prima facie liable for publishing the alleged defamatory article and for harming the reputation of the Planman Consulting, a sister concern of IIPM without any reasonable grounds. The court did not find any merit in the petition to overrule the order passed by the magisterial court. The case was filed by Planman Consulting under Section 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC against the editor, Maheshwar Peri of IPP Ltd along with its directors for publishing derogatory and defamatory article. The metropolitan magistrate had taken cognisance of the offence and issued process in its order on September 30, 2009. However, the HC set aside the order of the lower court against the directors of Outlook Publishing and accepted their plea that as directors they were not involved in day-to-day operations."
• 15:00, 6 February 2012 Adds "an August 2011 UGC meeting decided that Amity University Rajasthan be asked to prepare a compliance report on their response to the expert committee's various observations on "deficiencies" still existing and other suggestions."
• Here(15:12, 6 February 2012), Wifione seems to be working on IIM and Amity ( Competitors to IIPM) articles, as well, possibly trying to show them in bad light. E.g. "The university has been involved in controversies, including refusal by the Universities Grants Commission (UGC) to recognize Amity University and an international arrest warrant against its founder president Ashok Chauhan.
• He changes policy pages 05:11, 7 February 2012 – "A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review".
• 05:58, 10 February 2012 ISB adds "None of the institute's programs are accredited by All India Council for Technical Education, the government accreditation body in India. ISB is accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business."
• 05:27, 16 March 2012 "The Ministry of Human Resource Development (India) announced in April 2010 that ISB was among 201 Indian institutions that were "identified as unapproved institutions which are running courses in violation of regulations of All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE)." "
• 16:57, 4 July 2012 Removes 'this section reads like an advertisement', and replaces it with "The institute states that "Rankings don't matter" and it has "strong reservations on the methodology applied by most of the magazines to rank b-schools.", cited from the Institute's own website.
• Removes advert template 17:39, 4 July 2012.
• 17:44, 4 July 2012 In the book The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India, it is stated that he makes money from the students who do not have money or do not qualified to get into wikipedia:Indian Institutes of Management.
• 12:19, 26 October 2012 Adds to the lead: "ISB has been involved in controversies in the past, including not being accredited by the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and its founder Chairman Rajat Gupta being sentenced for insider trading", with the comment "reformatted intro to balance the whole article".
• 11:16, 1 November 2012 Adds "Tim Sullivan of Associated Press describes Ashok Chauhan [founder of Amity U] as "a man far from the typical educator, he's an industrialist, a businessman -- and wanted in Germany on fraud charges. He's a self-proclaimed philanthropist who is often surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards: grim-looking men in polyester safari suits." "
• 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC) "Dear wifione, I really thank you for taking such active interest in the Amity page. I need your help in the issue of Dr Ashok Chauhan as over the years he has undergone a lot of pain due to a ring of blackmailers who from all sides have tried to damage him. you are well aware of many of the articles which came out. sadly journalists and other people can be bought to write anything. further sadly good journalists and editors take what has been written and take it for the truth and write an article based on it. Thus a chain reaction starts. herewith i would like to direct you to a scan of an original letter from the German Criminal authorities confirming that there is no warrant/search and also that there is no interpol search.<small<(redacted) a humble request is that do not circulate this or put it up on websites. i am taking a step of deep trust in you. This issue, after many years, because of your putting up on wikipedia is causing damage to so many students of Amity. I would really request for your judgement on this. There cannot be any document more clear than the one i am giving you. With many thanks. Higheredutrust (talk) " (who is blocked, [3] the next day).
• 07:06, 8 November 2012 Adds back whole 'controversies' section. To Amity University.
• Amity university again 15:57, 26 November 2012
• 09:32, 28 November 2012 Indian School of Business: Removes "However ISB has never used the words diploma, certificate or degree in any publicity material, choosing instead the neutral appelation "Post Graduate Program". " [Although this is exactly the kind of statement he adds to the IIPM article].

2013

• 17:29, 8 January 2013 Adds "The school has been involved in controversies in the past, including withdrawal of recognition by AICTE and an international arrest warrant against its founder president Ashok Chauhan". " As per a 2009 Central Information Commission appeal ruling, German judicial authorities have issued arrest warrants against Ashok Kumar Chauhan and Arun Kumar Chauhan, directors of the Amity group of institutions on charges of fraud in Germany.
• 18:35, 24 January 2013 Removes commendatory reference to Amity U " removed fluff piece references".
• 07:53, 21 February 2013 Adds "IIPM was ranked the 2011 Best B-school in Asia overall among B-schools from 29 countries at the second Asia’s Best B-School awards held in Singapore. It was the second Indian B-School to win this award". Removes "IIPM has not been accredited by any Indian agency such as AICTE and UGC, nor is it recognised under any state acts." The 'best B-school awards' are organised by Business School Affaire. The basis of their award is not known. Removes " In July 2012, UGC issued a notification regarding unrecognized status of the institution taking note that the institution is not entitled to award BBA/MBA/MCA degrees".
• Removes "It has been alleged that IIPM engages in misleading advertising practices" 14:20, 21 February 2013
• 18:01, 23 February 2013 Removes "Historically, IIPM has also been by far the largest advertiser among Indian educational institutions." Removes "IIPM has been involved in controversies with respect to its advertising."
• 16:16, 6 November 2013 adds a disparaging reference to a rival. "That year, AICTE also brought out an advisory for students to "avoid 168 unapproved colleges"; the list included Amity".

Wifione has also manicured the article on the Chaudhuri himself. Edits include:

• Removes [4] information about a police case 12:44, 27 August 2013 ("get multiple high quality sources for this exceptional claim"). The source was Times of India. " In past few days several students have raised their voice against the institute's management in the city. They also sat on protest outside the institute demanding refund of fees, said reports."
• He removes material that includes "Chaudhuri had earlier got an injunction from a court in Silchar against the publishing of an article on him and IIPM in Caravan magazine. This censorship was called a clear abuse of the judicial process by legal experts in the media, and led to a huge outrage in traditional as well as social media". His reasoning is on the talk page 14:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) is that "I see no personal involvement of Chaudhuri in this. Chaudhuri's role is only as an official spokesperson". "Your sources too are far from exceptional. For exceptional claims, you need multiple, non-primary reliable sources". Links to Wikipedia's policy on exceptional claims and exceptional sources
• The Hindu February 19, 2013 "Governments and official agencies try very hard to control the Internet, but the design of this global network with no physical centre makes it difficult to achieve. What is blocked in one territory is accessible in the rest of the world. More importantly, scrubbing is counterproductive. That bruising lesson must have been learnt by all actors involved in the blocking of over 70 web pages containing content critical of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, an agency that widely advertises a variety of study courses and degrees. The online community has responded with a counter-offensive against the institution on a devastating scale, and called attention worldwide to precisely what the institute wanted purged".

2014

Apparently retired from editing in January 2014 after a series of damaging accusations at his editor review. Even Jimbo thought it would be "be best if he just doesn't come back". However he returned in July 2014 to reply to the accusations, with counter-accusations of 'harassment', collusion and canvassing at Wikipediocracy and so on. The review ended inconclusively. He closes the review himself:

It is the comparison what is important and what you completely omit in your responses. Please see my replies to Mastcell below for my responses to trusted Wikipedia editors on comparisons between the two BLPs. I know you are no fool and I think that you was familiar with the Wikipediocracy thread a long time before you presented it here as a big revelation. I do not follow Wikipediocracy and prefer to be quite far away from such a forum. Not to forget, leaving two canvassing/call-for-action examples I've given above, all the others are extremely recent, and the critical ones involved you - quite some revelation for me. You came back after the issue faded out, decided to ignore it and you resumed editing as if nothing happened. I hope I've measured up now. Your responses here are evasive at best. In my opinion, I've made quite some effort to answer everybody. I don't think I've been evasive and my answers have taken up the core of each issue presented. But more importantly now, as a matter of judgement, I would not wish to answer editors active on Wikipediocracy threads that are attempting to out me. I have no issues with criticism on this project and I've answered all trusted and respected editors to the best of my efforts. But I draw a line given the antecedents of the group of editors from that thread. Having said that, this is my final olive branch. If you confirm that you will not be active on the particular Wikipediocracy thread any more, then drop me a note on my talk page and I shall re-open this review. Subsequently, I shall continue interacting with you on the project and answering all your queries, here and everywhere. But if you believe that's not possible for you, then there's no need to leave me a reply, in which case, I would request you to kindly stop interacting with me on this project till the time you change your stand. I really do not intend to be the sounding board for Wikipediocracy editors. I'm not trying to dictate your freedom of expression, simply ensuring you're clear of my stand on forums and threads attempting to out the identity of editors. Do go through three of our policy pages on pitfalls of consensus building, off-wiki issues and off-wiki attacks whenever you have time. That's about it. Thanks for taking the time out to comment out here. I'm archiving this page now. Regards. Wifione Message 11:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is taken on 07:16, 12 August 2014 to JW talk page – no one is interested.

December 2014

After Vejvančický (T-C-F-R-B) had a go at him on Jimbo's talk page, Wifione lashed out with a complaint at ANI.

Dear all, I need some intervention/suggestion on how to handle former admin Vejvančický. Post my editor review, where I had requested him to stop discussing me on Wikipediocracy if he wished me to answer his queries further, he seems to have been personally attacking me repeatedly. I've been ignoring him till now (and can continue to do so, if that's the suggestion here), but need your views on three particular instances:

On 23rd August this year, Vejvančický wrote on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, "Please remove the admin user right from my account. I don't want to be in the same elevated rank with dishonest manipulators, such as User:Wifione".[81] My name was soon enough redacted from his statement by another editor. I felt Vejvančický's statement was an unnecessary personal attack, but ignored it. Others on the BN noticed this too.

Later on, in a recent RfA, Vejvančický asked the candidate a question that ended as follows: "Would you trust administrator User:Wifione as your "confidant" after reading the review?"[82] Again, this was an unnecessarily constructed question, apparently intended to be a personal attack as I had asked a question to the nominee just some time before Vejvančický had. I ignored this too. Seeing that the candidate had my support, Vejvančický then proceeded to oppose the candidate giving the additional reasoning, "Also the presence of User:Wifione in the role of a polite and discreet behind-the-scene mediator is unacceptable to me. Find a better company next time.".[83]

On 9th December, after I had congratulated Jimmy Wales for a recent award, Vejvančický immediately posted the following comment: "What a cordiality and friendly speech from someone who has been told "not to come back" (by Jimbo Wales himself), not long time ago! I admire your ability to forgive, User:Wifione. Btw, you don't work for Mr. Chaudhuri anymore? I mean, you don't manipulate those articles since it was exposed in your editor review and in other places ..."[84]

For once, I did not ignore this and I immediately requested Vejvančický to remove the personal attack and allusion that I was working for some person. Today, Vejvančický refused to remove the personal attack, and wrote this as his reply to me on his talk page: "I've seen a lot of your "work" (many examples of your manipulation and subsequent super civil prevarication/obstruction) to be sure that I'm not mistaken, so I won't redact anything. The rest is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione"

I don't know how else to request him to stop his personal attacks. I would have expected him to get blocked for such repeated comments, if he had been any other editor. Vejvančický does good work around the project and somehow, if someone knows him well and could convince him to stop making such statements, it'll be helpful. If not, I'll appreciate some sort of a ban on him either interacting with me, or discussing me like this. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thanks. Wifione 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

See also

• Nichalp
• Arindam Chaudhuri

Links

• • WO thread, December 2014