Case clerks: Callanecc ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.
From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present. However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline. No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using " Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement. |
![]() | The Evidence phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
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.
The following pages are available for history only review, their original title is the subpage name:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here, Wifione focuses his efforts on the main article about controversies and then mainly on redirects starting with or containing the acronym IIPM:
Current word length: 370; diff count: 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Uninteresting. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
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)
|
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
and withWhat 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? --SB_Johnny 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a long time back, but as much as I recall, I think IIPM was a big advertiser in India and would have pulled top-of-the-mind recall in many youth. That would have been the reason at that time that got me interested. ... Wifione Message 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.
Case clerks: Callanecc ( Talk) & Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) & DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Roger Davies ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages.
From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present. However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline. No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using " Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement. |
![]() | The Evidence phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
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.
The following pages are available for history only review, their original title is the subpage name:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here, Wifione focuses his efforts on the main article about controversies and then mainly on redirects starting with or containing the acronym IIPM:
Current word length: 370; diff count: 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
Uninteresting. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC) |
---|
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)
|
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
and withWhat 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? --SB_Johnny 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a long time back, but as much as I recall, I think IIPM was a big advertiser in India and would have pulled top-of-the-mind recall in many youth. That would have been the reason at that time that got me interested. ... Wifione Message 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
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:
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
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.
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.