Wifione

From The Wikipedia POV
Revision as of 16:47, 30 December 2014 by Eric Barbour (talk | contribs) (→‎Early accounts)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 after being "outed" in a Wikipediocracy blog post.

Early accounts

Almost certainly edited as Drnoamchomsky (T-C-F-R-B), last edit 05:36, 28 November 2005. See the RFC in November 2005. In this diff he adds a claim supposedly sourced from Business Week, a subscription only publication. When an investigator paid to see the source, it did not contain the claim. "NOTE: FORE School of Management, New Delhi; IIM, Indore; IIM, Kozhikode; IIPM, Delhi & Mumbai; IRMA, Anand; and Osmania University, Hyderabad, failed to respond to our queries. All information has been collected from the schools before this section went to press on September 16."

So quite clearly, the user in question told a barefaced lie. You don't have to take my word for it. If you are unwilling to subscribe to Business Today, send me an email through Wikipedia and if you are a longstanding user of Wikipedia, I will respond by giving you access to the Business today site.

Chomsky replies very politely, saying there must have been a mistake. "All I can think of is that they have removed IIPM's name from the online version based on complaints from the institute that IIPM has been ranked inspite of not wanting to take part in this survey."

Note that here he writes "What controversy? Other institutes dont organise any lectures - we do".

The same insidious politeness

I'm assuming good faith on your part, and am not reverting your changes. Please let me know. Thanks, and best wishes as always, --Drnoamchomsky 11:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I urge you to place greater faith in me, and other fellow members who have recently found Wiki. I love the mission, and zeal, and enterprise, and principles, that drive this community. […]18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed account to Iipmstudent9 (T-C-F-R-B), as proved by this edit, blocked in February 2007.

Note this

K.Yes, this id is used by multiple students from the New Delhi campus. We were not aware that this was against Wiki policy, and have agreed to get new accounts for each of us. And we're just looking to protect our institute's interests - as current students and then alumni, unsubstantiated allegations by bloggers on a Wiki page make our institute look bad! :( But, in the process, we certainly have learnt and enjoyed using Wikipedia! :) --Iipmstudent9 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for issuing a legal threat.

My lawyers have advised me that under the Indian IT act, MakrandJoshi has been harassing me,. By revealing my identity, and continously harassing em online, it constitutes stalking. I will take it up this week with the Mumbai police authorities. [User:Iipmstudent9|Iipmstudent9] 11:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

See Archive 10. Name is Dipali Sakhare, employee of IIPM.

Classic style of editing:

Makrand's lack of Wikiquette Dear Makrand, you cannot simply revert and or delete constructive changes. Please review the information provided in the Help pages. The object of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedic article. All the other editors can see that you are consistently trying to make this an attack page. Please refrain from this behavior immediately, or you will be banned by administrators.
For example, you deleted the information on rankings, which has been on the page for over a year, and has been linked to online sources, scanned pages provided, etc. You simply deleted it?Further, you deleted the information on faculty the visit IIPM from global institutions - this information has been reviewed by many editors, and your act was pure vandalism.
Please look at the articles provided in the HELP section, and I am sure you will see the mistakes you have made. Thanks Iipmstudent9 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing edits

This needs further investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management&diff=prev&oldid=41795544

See my post here http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123320#p123320 .

Dipali Sakhare was employed by Chaudhuri. https://in.linkedin.com/pub/deepali-sakhare/18/5a4/a98 Was “instrumental in establishing the PR division of Planman Consulting in India.” Including Wikipedia?

Present employer, Global Consulting corporation, http://www.businessandeconomy.org/DTTB/DTTB-story.asp?s_id=180&pageno=1 seems to have some connection with IIPM.

E

Dipali Sakhare

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123320#p123320

Death threats against Makrandjoshi 2007

See the threats below. Ironically, Makrandjoshi (T-C-F-R-B) continued despite the threats. It was the meticulous and systemic approach of Wifione which seems to have driven him away at last.

  • 17:19, 31 January 2007 Makrand ji, aapko dar nahi lagta hain? Ye IIPM log aapko maarenge = something like "Dont you get scared? these iipm guys will kill you".
  • AlamSrinivas - was blocked on 06:48, 12 February 2007 for death threats such as the first one above.
  • 21:18, 14 February 2007 "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!"
  • 21:20, 14 February 2007 "This blocking thing is a joke - I already found your address and it is being discussed how to destroy you... will watch u scream and enjoy, MJ!!! Can't wait to thrash you with my belt"

Makrandjoshi gives up

Makrandjoshi's last edit was on 25 August 2010. Wifione removed the reference to a UGC censure, a reference to EFMD removing an affiliated institution IMI from its membership, and a link to a letter by Stanford University repudiating IIPM's claims about links to the Stanford. "Any claims to this effect are false and misleading", said Stanford. The constant civility must have put him off. He asked Makrandjoshi to 'kindly see' a talk page, and 'kindly not to remove' Research and publications. After this, Makrandjoshi seems to have given up.

Connection with other sock puppets

IP edit to his user page is clearly connected with previous sockpuppeting by the institute. Spotted by Tarantino.

58.68.49.70 is the same IP that's used by Mrinal Pandey, who was indefinitely blocked in December 2008 for using 43 accounts to edit IIPM related articles. Arbcom unblocked her in August 2009, and she promptly changed her user name to Empengent (T-C-F-R-B) and blanked her talk page. The Wifione account was created months before and Makrandjoshi had her figured out soon afterwards.

Per Tarantino

Whois Server whois.apnic.net Status ALLOCATED Contact Email

Registrant IIPM IN Administrative Contact Rajesh Madhamshetti Dishnet Limited 19/32, Cathedral Garden Raod,, Nungambakkam, Ch Telephone: 914442280000 Email: Technical Contact Rajesh Madhamshetti Dishnet Limited 19/32, Cathedral Garden Raod,, Nungambakkam, Ch Telephone: 914442280000 Email: 58.68.49.70 is the IP address you have a ran a report for on December, 18, 2013.

Sockpuppeting 2008

Proposed deletion of controversy section

"As the controversy section is fairly outdated and holds no relevance now, given the High Court rulings favouring IIPM, I propose deleting the complete controversy section." says paid editor Mrinal Pandey. "What makes you say it is out of relevance?" asks Joshua Artgobain Benedict, a sockpuppet of Pandey. "Seems to be sensible". Says Addy kundu, another sockpuppet. "Yes, delete!" Deborah Fernandes adds her voice to the chorus. But she too is another sockpuppet. And so say sockpuppets -Sumitpatel12 and Ianchapell.

First edits

After Zithan is blocked, Wifione creates this article on Vanisha Mittal, complete with a citation template. [However, he omits to add the reflist template and so deletes the citation].

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]
  • 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].

Edits from IP

Also spotted on WO:

There is another IP edit of interest, this one even more interesting. An IP made a seemingly innocuous edit to Wifione's page, and was promptly reverted by Wifione. What is bizarre is that the revision has been altered to remove the IP from the edit, but it still remains in the subsequent edit summary. Seems Wifione, who was not yet an admin, had someone erase evidence of a logged-out edit, but the responsible admin did not quite catch it all. Said IP geolocates to Mumbai. As Nichalp is from Mumbai this could confirm Wifione as a returning Nichalp. The IIPM IP edit to his user page could be Nichalp editing from their offices or it could just be a sign that IIPM were keeping a close eye on the page of their paid editor. (Thu Dec 05, 2013 12:34 am).

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."
  • Denies he is Nichalp here: 08:39, 6 March 2012
    • Wifione, I think you should know about this and this. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Vejvančický. Appreciate the note. Replied considerably. Do contact me for any further assistance. Kind regards. Wifione Message 05:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you Nichalp? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Smokey. No, I'm not. Do write back for any other assistance. Best regards. Wifione Message 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 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." "[1]
  • 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".

November 2013

  • November 17 2013. When Vejvančický leaves a comment on W1's talk page, mentioning the controversy that has broken out, W1 revdels it, with the comment "changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:Wifione: content hidden (RD6: Non-contentious housekeeping, RevDel corrections, notes, conversion)"
  • This is the edit by Vejvančický.
  • 21:31, 17 November 2013 - archives the page with protection.
  • Cries of harassment: 14 November 2013.
    • I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. User Peter Damian is sending me harassing emails through this meta-wiki (as he is blocked since 2010 on the English wiki with his email being disabled). I wish to report these emails for their content and wish to request action on Peter's email account access on Meta and perhaps a block too, if the admins/bureaucrats here so deem fit. Is this the right forum to request so? Thanks.Wifione (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • November 19 2013 permalink.
    • It has been brought to my attention that Wifione has abused RevDel by using it to hide the history of his or her user talk page - 210 revisions hidden with a claimed reason of RD6 ("Non-contentious housekeeping, RevDel corrections, notes, conversion"). I am bringing this up here rather than simply wading in and resetting the visibility of the affected revisions because I am severely concerned at this misuse of a privileged tool.
    • Hi Scott. Sent you an email on this. Kind regards. Wifione Message 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't discuss apparent administrator abuse matters in private email. If you have anything to say to me on the topic, you can do so in public. — Scott • talk 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF - why immediately assume there is abuse of tools? GiantSnowman 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not assuming anything. Deleting conversations after a year and a half on the public record (as RD6, to boot) and then claiming the material is eligible for oversight removal is abuse. RevDel is not a convenient memory hole for administrators to remove chunks of their talk page history if they get embarrassed by it further down the line. — Scott • talk 15:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • After my communication to the oversight team as per the rev-del policy, they've replied a few minutes back saying that the edits do not meet the criteria of suppression. Again, as per what the rev-del policy advices, when the material is not found to be suppressible, the material may be restored or admin-deleted. Of the two choices, I've chosen to restore the material. Thanks. Wifione Message 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On 2 December, a lengthy exposé of Wifione's activities was posted on the Wikipediocracy blog. It attracted a number of comments from Indian users of Wikipedia. It also attracted a number of hostile attacks from someone calling themselves "Wikied", to wit:
"Ed if someone were to ask you repeatedly, whether your mother was a prostitute, would you believe the simplest way to answer the question is with a “No” everytime? The fact is that you’ll just start ignoring the idiots who ask such questions or report them to higher authorities. This is exactly what Wifione seems to have done with your repetitive queries. You surely are not Arbcom for him/her to feel you should be given an answer. Ed, I don’t mean it wrongly but your article is nothing but a cut copy paste job of an earlier anon email floating on the net. And the diffs you claim you’ve not revealed are no great shakes either as all of these are in public domain already since Wifione’s RFA. It must be quite clear by now to the readers of this article how you’ve misrepresented facts deliberately and claimed financial conflicts without supporting evidence. My parting take, be responsible in your future reporting and inferences."

Discussion on Jimbo talk December 2013

There were two discussions on Wales's talk page. The first was started on 3 December 2013, in the wake of the WO article.

Wifiones 17th edit ever to Wikipedia was to the talk page of Indian Institute of Planning and Management, where they stated that it was an interesting article and that they would do some "more or less minor" "grammatical corrections" whereupon they proceed to make a series of edits to that article which includes rephrasing: "In addition, the institute has been involved in controversies related to its exaggerated advertising claims, investigation for unfair trade practices, tax evasion and plagiarism" to "In addition, the institute has been involved in controversies related to its advertising claims", deleting sourced criticism based on investigative journalism and adding unsourced praise of IIPM.
Let us not forget that they did indeed post a series of polite but rather obvious comments on the talk page while they were doing that: "Is plagiarism and tax evasion major controversies to be mentioned in the opening para", "For example, in various sections, the non-accreditation is mentioned repeatedly. Can we reduce these repetitions? It looks a little too made up" and "Though JAM calls itslef JAM magazine (I guess Just Another Magazine), there is no confirmation that this is a magazine. There is no registeration of it as a magazine or a newspaper".
And after having professed innocence at the sock puppet investigation which a vigilant editor had posted about Wifione being a grunt in the sock puppet army of IIPM that had previously been active on those articles, proceeded, as their 38t-40th ever edits on Wikipedia to cleanse the article of director of IIPM Arindam Chaudhuri from criticism step by step.
Meanwhile they were continually busy trying to find an avenue where Makrandjoshi (T-C-F-R-B), the one single active Wikipedia editor that had actively been aware of Wifiones purpose, could be countered by claiming to be a completely new Wikipedia editor who for unknown reasons was being hounded by this malicious editor: 1, 2, 3.
You know, the kind of inexperienced newbie editor that in their 24th edit ever to Wikipedia knows how to provide a link to the official Registrar of Indian Newspapers in order to invalidate sources critical of IIPM. Much less damning editing behaviour has resulted in indef blocks for Wikipedia:WP:COI editing in the past. I would be interested in knowing what makes this case different? --Saddhiyama (T-C-F-R-B) 00:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wifione did not comment. Later, in response to an email from Peter Damian (Dec 14, 2013 6:57:38 PM) Jimbo raised the issue on his page again.

"There was a discussion about this here a while back that got a bit heated. I'd like to restart that conversation primarily by asking people to post a neutral summary of what is known and not known. I'd appreciate Wifione commenting here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)" Link

Much talk was posted, no action was taken. Wifione did not participate in either discussion. "It's striking that there's yet to be any comment whatsoever from User:Wifione. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)"

2014

Jan 2014 Times of India

Wiki-paid-y a? Sandhya Soman,TNN Jan 12, 2014, 04.13 AM IST. Mentions Eric Barbour. Brought up on Jimbo's talkpage.

"it would be best if he just doesn't come back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)"
"Mr. Wales, at the outset, let me offer my apologies to you and to the editors concerned that I couldn't comment on the discussions on this issue the last time you had initiated the same on this talk page. As Vejvančický mentions, I was on a wikibreak (which I generally take during this time of the year). I do wish to mention here that I've initiated an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. I'll be grateful if you and concerned editors could direct all your questions/comments with respect to my editing to the review, as this would allow the community to have a consolidated platform for current and future use, to review my editing. In case you should wish me to respond to specific questions, please do list them out at the review and I'll try my best to provide comprehensive clarifications (and apologies, in case I've made editorial mistakes). Thanks for the patience. Best regards. Wifione Message " 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC), Editor Review.

Apparently Wifione retired from editing in January 2014 after a series of damaging accusations at his editor review. Even Jimbo thought it would "be best if he just doesn't come back".

July 2014

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 Wales' talkpage – 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)

Carcharoth:

Wifione, you haven't had much response here. One reason might be that there is rather a lot of material to wade through (I have, for the first time, read all the way through that editor review). This matter (and the various associated allegations) have at times over the past few years come to the attention of ArbCom. If you or Vejvančický are not satisfied with any resolution of the matter that is proposed here, and/or the community are unable to deal with this to your satisfaction, it may be time to raise it formally as an arbitration request to get an in-depth review of this and finally put things to rest one way of the other. I'm saying this as one of the outgoing arbitrators. For the avoidance of doubt, I would recuse from any case request that was made on this matter before 31 December 2014, and I do hope that you get sufficient responses here that it can be dealt with at a lower level of dispute resolution. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

WO thread. Shortly thereafter, Vejvančický, an English Wikipedia user since 2008 and a content writer of some value, left en-WP.

On 24 December he complains on ANI again but is given short shrift. He closes himself (although it is then reopened by Cole - links to follow).

Arbitration

And with no warning, on Boxing Day Jonathan Hochman decides to file an arbitration against Wifione, for the same things pointed out in the Wikipediocracy blog post a year prior: paid editing, lying, and "POV pushing". See Wifione arbitration case for further evidence. Virtually all the posted comments agreed that Wifione had violated Wikipedia policies, yet they differed on what action should be taken.

Ira Matetsky weighs in, despite the impending end of his Arbcom term: "Given that realistically this case even if accepted won't get underway before my term expires on December 31, I will leave it to my colleagues to vote on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)"

See also

Links

Notes

  1. ↑ It would be good to understand what he did here. It looks as though it is replacing a redirect. In fact, he seems to have added this information himself.
Retrieved from "http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?title=Wifione&oldid=23368"