It needs to be organised into the key points, with evidence supporting each.
1. Obfuscation and evasion when challenged on COI. This goes back a long way, see the links
here. Some long breaks in editing following persistent questioning.
2. Alongside this, attempts to have people banned for asking polite questions, and blaming Wikipediocracy for outing, Badsites and so on. This is not consistent with ‘
admin accountability’: “Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their
Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed”. In the Stierch affair, it was claimed that it was only actions involving the tools that apply here, but the part in bold suggests otherwise. Might be a good test case, anyway.
3. Not using BLPs to promote a dispute – ‘
BLPCOI’. For years, Wifione persistently added derogatory and defamatory material into
Ashok Chauhan (T-H-L). At the same time he was puffing up the article on
Arindam Chaudhuri (T-H-L).
4. Removing reliable sources. This included
removing a reference to the
Stanford letter. This was a letter from the associate Dean of Stanford Business School, denying IIPM’s claims that the school has any kind of connection with IIPM. Or this edit
here where he removed the statement that “Several companies such as Standard Chartered and Deutsche bank mentioned in the ads denied having ever taken part in IIPM's campus recruitment process”.
5. Adding unreliable sources. For example, he was targeting a magazine called
Careers 360, which was trying to reveal the worthless claims of IIPM. He added a statement that the magazine was “poor in quality and a shady new yellow journal that ran illogical and brazenly false stories about IIPM”. I interviewed the editor Mahesh Peri who told me that Careers 360 is the largest career magazine in India, launched by Dr. Kalam, former president of India. “We knew who we were taking on, hence stuck to facts.” Stop press: Mahesh has just sent me this
High Court order against Chaudhuri in September 2014. “The respondent No.4 IIPM and its management / officials including its Dean Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri are restrained with immediate effect from using the word “MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or B-School” in relation to the Courses / programmes being conducted by them or in relation to the representations if any made to the public at large and/or to their prospective clients, customers or students”.
6. No coherent explanation of why he was interested in IIPM at all, particularly given its notoriety. At the editor review, SB Johnny asked “What got you interested in the IIPM-related articles in the first place? SB_Johnny | talk
23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)” Wifione replied “##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.” Now follow his editor trail from July 2009 onwards, removing all negative references to IIPM, puffing up the biography of its founder, and adding negative and malicious information to the biography of its main competitor.
7. Circumstantial evidence connecting him with the school, such as editing from its IP (see above).
