Indian fakers faking again

[Rembrandt]

Edits IIPM dab page as IP 58.68.49.70, then re-edits as Wifione. 58.68.49.70 is Mrinal Pandey’s IP.

Aha. Corrects one of the IP edits with comment “I had repeated the acronym. So corrected it”. Notice the pronoun ‘I’, which refers both to the IP editor, and to Wifione.

wifione is referring to this earlier edit where s(he) moved it to the top and added an extra 'IIPM'

[Peter Damian]

From higher up the same talk page, WifiOne argues semantics to get his IIPM pushed down the list

Question on what is alphabetical
I have two queries if editors are interested in answering:
Should IndianOil Institute of Petroleum Management be considered above the other Indian Institutes because it has "IndianOil" as its leading name?
Should The Indian Institute of Planning and Management be considered with "The" in its name or without "The"?
Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. And the IP is also insisting on the same alphabetical arrangement.

The reason I am banging on about the IP is the proven connection to IIPM and to Mrinal Pandey. If Wifione has been editing from an IIPM address, it is an open and shut case, for she has denied any connection to IIPM.

[Peter Damian]

Edits IIPM dab page as IP 58.68.49.70, then re-edits as Wifione. 58.68.49.70 is Mrinal Pandey’s IP.

Aha. Corrects one of the IP edits with comment “I had repeated the acronym. So corrected it”. Notice the pronoun ‘I’, which refers both to the IP editor, and to Wifione.

wifione is referring to this earlier edit where s(he) moved it to the top and added an extra 'IIPM'

Oh yes you are right.

[Peter Damian]

I came across this user page where a block had been made because of the ‘similarity’ of editing pattern.

Arindamp, after checking further it appears that you were blocked because of this edit, which is very similar to the kind of edits User:Mrinal Pandey makes with his numerous accounts. We might be wrong in our assessment and this might be a coincidence. Could you please clarify why you made that edit? Were you directed to that article by someone in particular? -- Luk talk 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But anyone with any sense would look at that edit, which adds ‘self-proclaimed’ to the description of the institute, and see that it was the kind of edit that Pandey would have removed. The point being that administrators don’t look very carefully at disputes, particularly if you are not an established editor or an administrator.

Jayron then rubs the salt in.

Wikipedia is not a moot court or a legal proceedings. There is clear behavioral evidence that this account does the exact same edits as the blocked user does. If you wish to be unblocked, you had better come up with an alternate explanation, as the evidence seems to be clearly availible in your contributions history as well as that of the various accounts listed in the case listed above. Alternately, you could contact the Arbitration Committee by selecting any member listed at WP:ARBCOM and emailing them privately, to request an independent block review. Since all ArbCom members have access to the checkuser tool, they could easily check your story. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I.e. there is no justice on Wikipedia. Bizarrely, Arindamp was unblocked in August 2009 together with Pandey after an appeal.

[SB_Johnny]

as we know, IIPM Advertising Controversy (T-H-L) is no more.

With the AfD started by one of our new arbs, no less.

[Peter Damian]

as we know, IIPM Advertising Controversy (T-H-L) is no more.

With the AfD started by one of our new arbs, no less.

Who is however recused from the case because Wifione asked him to.

[Jim]

as we know, IIPM Advertising Controversy (T-H-L) is no more.

With the AfD started by one of our new arbs, no less.

Who is however recused from the case because Wifione asked him to.

It'll be quite telling to see if he contributes, and if he does, in what way. "Recused" leaves him free to comment as a community member.
He's not a fool, so if he really looks at the evidence there's only one conclusion. But, BADSITES, OUTING, eek, what to do?

I think he may have preferred a different first case. Recused or not.

[Peter Damian]

This is an excellent case study in how to get adminship quickly.

Mrinal Pandey was already preparing for RfA in June 2008, but events got in the way of that, in December 2008. Returning as Wifione, she took much greater care.



The chart shows the number of edits by month. Notice the massive leap in edits between December 2009 and September 2010, the month of the RfA.

There were a number of strategies. First, create hundreds of stubs on Indian villages. “Meghpur is a village in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.” Leave tons of welcome messages. Participate in other peoples’ RfAs, always making sure of high visibility. In this RfA she initially opposes the candidate, but on receiving a ‘good reply’ from the candidate, moves to support. That way the candidate will remember.

Support Your answers are appropriately put. Thanks for the patience. My support is offered. Best for your future as an able admin. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More support. Leaves congratulations. More, more, more, more. This one, for JamesBWatson (T-C-L), is especially sick-provoking.

Hi Jim, thanks for the message on my talk page. It's great you've got selected as an admin. I read every word of what you've written and surely think that you have the wherewithal to be a great admin, with experience. My best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A ton of work on the help desk and AfD.

It’s remarkably simple. Not that some people didn’t spot it.

Of the 251 articles created, over 200 are orphaned sub-stubs like this. … Alzarian16 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Anyone who considers that their best contributions to wikipedia have been their csd nominations and uaa reports and puts him or herself forward for the cloak of invulnerabity has my undying contempt. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned by this pro-forma behaviour too. Early in his career, the candidate was accused of being a reappearance of a prolific sockmaster. I would expect a smart person of this kind to work their passage up to admin status by perfunctory activity of the kind that we see. My impression is that there are still some unresolved COI issues around The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

The big scary manilla templates at the top of the pages for this case might have something to do with why the crickets seem so loud. It seems to me that part of the meat of this particular case may be that a particular user (who also happens to be an admin) may have a pattern of accusing people of harassment if they might be seen as having questioned his actions. If the previous sentence seems a reasonable description of the case to you, then there's a serious problem.

If that's too philosophical, perhaps a direct question: will people be punished for linking to the (clearly relevant) Wikipediocracy blog posts and/or forum threads about this topic? If yes: why? If no: why not?

I think the committee needs to either answer these questions, or rescind the case, because I suspect that the interested parties on one or both sides will be unwilling to volunteer their efforts on this case if it looks like they're going to be shot in the back by you if they say something impolitic. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. But he's right.

Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline.

As I have said all along.

You are aware that one of the longstanding allegations against Wifione is that he is a sockpuppet of Nichalp, right? [...] Kurtis (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That was discounted some time ago. They really should be looking at this thread, and in particular this post.

This post shows how particularly stupid the whole thing is.

@SB Johnny:. The way the community and the committee has usually handled this kind of situation in the past is by holding the person introducing the link responsible for all the content of the link. So if the linked material outs someone, or makes personal attacks on someone, or is grossly offensive, then the person introducing the link can be sanctioned. Here, you should err on the side of caution. It's similar to the way the BLP rule works, I suppose. Safest might be to paraphrase factual stuff and present it as your own, complete with supporting diffs (and, as you know, the rule there is that if an allegation can't be fully supported with diffs it shouldn't be made). Roger Davies talk 08:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[lilburne]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

[Vejvančický]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

Could you elaborate? You have something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... arch#Hello this no your mind?

[Peter Damian]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

Why? The problem is that they have made very serious allegations. If they walk away, then Arbcom, who rely almost completely on the evidence provided by different parties, will conclude harassment, the accusers will be sanctioned, perhaps banned, and Wifione will be vindicated.

My sense was that Wifione would not have allowed it to come to arbitration unless she had a strong sense of the likely outcome.

[lilburne]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

Could you elaborate? You have something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... arch#Hello this no your mind?

I suggest that ya'll are stymied by the stupidity of the rules. You can't present the case without falling foul of 'outing'. The whole thing is a quagmire and you are better off having nothing to do with it. You should all remove your comments as a collective act, you do it specifically in response to Davis' comment. The evidence is there and here for them to follow. If they are too dumb or lazy to do so then so be it. Record the history before Davis comment, record it after you've all withdrawn the comments. Link to the histories whenever the opportunity arises.

[lilburne]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

Why? The problem is that they have made very serious allegations. If they walk away, then Arbcom, who rely almost completely on the evidence provided by different parties, will conclude harassment, the accusers will be sanctioned, perhaps banned, and Wifione will be vindicated.

My sense was that Wifione would not have allowed it to come to arbitration unless she had a strong sense of the likely outcome.

The system is stacked against whistleblowers. Demiurge1000, Gender Gap, and your case. What Davis did was put up a big chill warning. Take him at his word.

[Peter Damian]

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

Could you elaborate? You have something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... arch#Hello this no your mind?

I suggest that ya'll are stymied by the stupidity of the rules. You can't present the case without falling foul of 'outing'. The whole thing is a quagmire and you are better off having nothing to do with it. You should all remove your comments as a collective act, you do it specifically in response to Davis' comment. The evidence is there and here for them to follow. If they are too dumb or lazy to do so then so be it. Record the history before Davis comment, record it after you've all withdrawn the comments. Link to the histories whenever the opportunity arises.

I strongly agree with this. If you are presented from making an adequate case by the absurdity of the rules, walk away from it. Make it very clear why you are walking away, also. This case will always exist.

[Peter Damian]

However, the "big scary manilla template" doesn't mention COI or paid editing at all. Instead it talks about the neutral point of view policy. This explicitly prohibits POV-pushing and the possible breaches of it which are the usual consequence of COI-editing. In sharp contrast to COI allegations, POV-pushing can be determined fairly easily by examining diffs and doesn't usually need any off-wiki evidence at all. Roger Davies talk 17:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Surely it does mention Conflict of Interest, unless ‘COI’ above means something else?

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.

[DanMurphy]

Evidence not posted here or emailed to the committee, but instead hosted solely on an external site, is likely to be ignored.

Why would anyone waste their time dealing with such morons?

[Jim]

Evidence not posted here or emailed to the committee, but instead hosted solely on an external site, is likely to be ignored

Why would anyone waste their time dealing with such morons?

As is often the case, Dan has it right here.

If the horse, when led gently and carefully to plentiful and easy to consume water, nevertheless just snorts, looks pointedly the other way, and refuses to drink, then its dehydration and decline becomes difficult to prevent.

[lilburne]

We should protect this watering hole by laying rolls of razor-wire around the perimeter less the ArbComm asses decide to take a draught of wisdom as they pass by.

[Lukeno94]

Thryduulf's excuse for not accepting the evidence here? That they can't guarantee the evidence won't magically change by the next day.

[Peter Damian]

Thryduulf's excuse for not accepting the evidence here? That they can't guarantee the evidence won't magically change by the next day.

Whereas I am not comfortable with evidence presented in some external venue the Committee have no control over being used to judge someone's actions on Wikipedia. We have no guarantee that any evidence that allegedly exists at an external site will remain there, nor that what it says today will be the same as what it says tomorrow. If you want the evidence to be considered as part of this case, then it must be presented as part of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I emailed the arbs to ask if I could send them a nicely formatted version of the evidence compiled here, carefully summarised with diffs, and in wiki format but they said they couldn't because if they posted evidence on behalf of someone, they would have to 'take ownership' of the contents, and that would put them in an impossible position.

I don't quite see why. In other cases outside Wikipedia, you know, real world, I have sent evidence by a third party which has been published with careful disclaimers that they are not taking ownership. So I don't follow.

[Jim]

Thryduulf's excuse for not accepting the evidence here? That they can't guarantee the evidence won't magically change by the next day.

I used to have some time for Thryduulf.

Hey, Thryduulf, link rot - your encyclopedia is riddled with it. It's built on it. Delete the whole thing now, even the sources you think are reliable now could disappear in a flash. Just close it now.

[Jim]

but they said they couldn't because if they posted evidence on behalf of someone, they would have to 'take ownership' of the contents, and that would put them in an impossible position.

I don't quite see why. In other cases outside Wikipedia, you know, real world, I have sent evidence by a third party which has been published with careful disclaimers that they are not taking ownership. So I don't follow.

er... why would they need to post it if that made them uncomfortable? I'd need ten hands to count the number of times they've acted on private evidence, published nowhere.

No, what we have here is a case of .

Fuck em. You can't help them.

Get a Signpost piece, blog it here, and move on.

It'll come round again - these things always do.

[Peter Damian]

but they said they couldn't because if they posted evidence on behalf of someone, they would have to 'take ownership' of the contents, and that would put them in an impossible position.

I don't quite see why. In other cases outside Wikipedia, you know, real world, I have sent evidence by a third party which has been published with careful disclaimers that they are not taking ownership. So I don't follow.

er... why would they need to post it if that made them uncomfortable? I'd need ten hands to count the number of times they've acted on private evidence, published nowhere.

No, what we have here is a case of "shutters up".

Then you should withdraw from the case.

That said, they did agree that if the external evidence contained a minimum of speculation then it would be OK for someone to post it.

[Jim]

Then you should withdraw from the case.

I can't.
I never commented at the case, just the ANI that led to it - It was obvious they would accept, so I was going to post evidence later.

lilburne's right though, the prohibition on anything that could vaguely be construed as outing makes it Mission Impossible.

Your honour, here the defendant edits logged out as an IP used by IIPM - Ooh - outing - disqualified

I mean, look, reductio ad absurdum:

Here the defendant is incontrovertibly revealed to be an IIPM employee by info on site X. - Ooh - outing - disqualified, and we can't see that anyway - not looking, can't make me...

You can't play those "rules".

[Peter Damian]

Then you should withdraw from the case.

I can't.
I never commented at the case, just the ANI that led to it - It was obvious they would accept, so I was going to post evidence later.

My apologies. Given that Wifione will stay well in the background, it is just Anthonyhcole and Vejvančický who are in the firing line.

[Jim]

Then you should withdraw from the case.

I can't.
I never commented at the case, just the ANI that led to it - It was obvious they would accept, so I was going to post evidence later.

My apologies. Given that Wifione will stay well in the background, it is just Anthonyhcole and Vejvančický who are in the firing line.

And Luke, I guess.

They'll certainly have my support on-wiki if anyone tries any silly "Boomerang" shit.

I doubt anyone would - they just want it to go away.

[Lukeno94]

I'm not officially a "named party" in the ArbCom case, at least, not at the moment.

[Jim]

I'm not officially a "named party" in the ArbCom case, at least, not at the moment.

You're not.

I think we should all disengage from it for at least a few days, and see what the wise monkeys of arbcom do.

That, in itself, will be extremely illuminating, given that they all know where to find the evidence anyway, and that the conclusion is simple once that evidence is considered.

Let's see who's doing the job for the right reasons.

A very visible character test for new, and old, arbs, if you like.

[Peter Damian]

Just noticed this.

Thanks Callanecc, but I've decided not to participate. I'm just not motivated enough. Sorry. Please consider inviting User:Peter Damian to participate. He's across the evidence far better than I am, and I'm sure he'd be happy to help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So Anthony is out, which just leaves Vejvančický.

And yes I would be happy to help but I am not allowed to edit Wikipedia! Bizarre.

[HRIP7]

It's not that difficult, really. Just present diffs without commentary (under headings like "Wifione removing well-sourced criticism of IIPM", "Wifione adding criticism of IIPM competitors", "IIPM-registered IP address reverting change to Wifione's user page", "Wifione using poor sources" etc.), fastidiously abstain from any speculation as to motivation or identity, and make the case on NPOV grounds. After all, this is what the complaint is about.

Arbitrators care about diffs, not theories; moreover, theories can get you into hot water.

For reference, an arbitrator once said to me (well after the case) that this was one of the best evidence submissions they had ever had.

[lilburne]

It's not that difficult, really. Just present diffs, fastidiously abstain from any speculation, and make the case on NPOV grounds. After all, this is what the complaint is about.

Better ...

[HRIP7]

It's not that difficult, really. Just present diffs, fastidiously abstain from any speculation, and make the case on NPOV grounds. After all, this is what the complaint is about.

Better ...

Well, I don't plan on participating, but some people here are invested in this issue, and I would not like to see them get sanctioned instead of Wifione.

[lilburne]

It's not that difficult, really. Just present diffs, fastidiously abstain from any speculation, and make the case on NPOV grounds. After all, this is what the complaint is about.

Better ...

Well, I don't plan on participating, but some people here are invested in this issue, and I would not like to see them get sanctioned instead of Wifione.

As the system is fucked up I don't plan on participating to give it any credence either.

[Notvelty]

Evidence not posted here or emailed to the committee, but instead hosted solely on an external site, is likely to be ignored.

Why would anyone waste their time dealing with such morons?

They have learnt nothing, not one single thing from the Gary Weiss case.

At this point, exactly how much doubt is there that the only useful purpose of the place is as a quick reference guide for B-Arc candidates.

[Lukeno94]

I've knocked up an initial list of about 35 diffs in a similar format to how HRIP7 described; it's currently sat in a Notepad file on my desktop.

[Vigilant]

It's hilarious!!!!

They KNOW to their bones that the evidence presented here is DAMNING!
They KNOW that wifione is a sockmaster injecting paid POV into everything they do.
They KNOW, KNOW, KNOW that he's a bad actor in their midst...

They just won't do anything about it because ... BADSITES
They'd rather let this obvious paid actor corrupt the project than take action that validates concerns raised here.

HI-FUCKING-LARIOUS!!!!

With such narratives to hand who would read fiction?!

[Peter Damian]

For reference, an arbitrator once said to me (well after the case) that this was one of the best evidence submissions they had ever had.

It's nicely done.

[Anthonyhcole]

I've just noticed lilburne's

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

I pulled out of the case before I saw that, and pulled out for the reason stated: I'm just not motivated enough. I get depression and have been in a very deep slump since a couple of weeks after Wikimania (pretty sure there's no causal connection ... although...); and I literally don't have the mental energy for that kind of focussed complex thought. I'm not writing content for the same reason. Usually, these things resolve in a couple of weeks or months - but this episode is just going on and on.

I agree with Andreas that all ArbCom needs is a list of diffs demonstrating a pattern of favouring one party and undermining the other, and a list of diffs demonstrating misrepresentation of sources (if there are such).

Pairing a diff that puffs one party on one point (say, accreditation, when both are effectively in the same situation wrt accreditation) with a diff that denigrates the other on the same point would be useful.

Biased editing is the problem here. Try to establish that beyond reasonable doubt. Speculation about paid editing, socking, etc. may eventually bear fruit but anything other than a cast-iron case may turn into a distraction and, should one or other of these theories be proven false, that may well be finessed into a vindication on all charges.

I'd like to see what this ArbCom does with an admin simply proven to be editing consistently tendentiously on a topic.

[Peter Damian]

I've just noticed lilburne's

My advice to anyone that has already posted anything on those pages, is that they delete their posts and walk away.

I pulled out of the case before I saw that, and pulled out for the reason stated: I'm just not motivated enough. I get depression and have been in a very deep slump since a couple of weeks after Wikimania (pretty sure there's no causal connection ... although...); and I literally don't have the mental energy for that kind of focussed complex thought.

Sorry, but if the reason was lack of motivation following Wikimania (in August last year) then you shouldn't have made the comments about Wifione's biased and tendentious editing at ANI, causing you to be named as a party.

There is a real risk that Wifione will be vindicated because the 'Wikipediocracy conspirators' that she identified simply did not have the evidence to support their case. That makes us look foolish and vindictive.

Lilburne's reason is perfectly acceptable: if the arbs refuse to consider certain evidence then one is perfectly entitled to walk away from the case. But not for lack of motivation or because the case is too difficult and complex. This makes us into fools. Sorry for the harsh words.

I'd like to see what this ArbCom does with an admin simply proven to be editing consistently tendentiously on a topic.

No proof has been given.

[Anthonyhcole]

... you shouldn't have made the comments about Wifione's biased and tendentious editing at ANI, causing you to be named as a party.

True. But until I confronted the task of building the case, I didn't realise it was beyond me.

As for Roger's warning about linking to outing - that makes clear sense to me. If you're going to link from en.Wikipedia to any web page, be sure you're not linking to "outing."

You, Peter, have a better grasp of this case than most, and the drafting Arbitrators should simply invite you to participate - there is nothing preventing them from doing so (they could temporarily lift your block), and having you involved would improve the likelihood of a sound finding. Alternatively, if you have the motivation and time, you could produce a concise, compelling case here - along the lines Andreas recommends above. I'm pretty sure there's no outing on this page. And one of the parties could link to it from the evidence page.

[Peter Damian]

You, Peter, have a better grasp of this case than most, and the drafting Arbitrators should simply invite you to participate - there is nothing preventing them from doing so (they could temporarily lift your block), and having you involved would improve the likelihood of a sound finding.

I have been corresponding with one of the arbs, and suggested that some third party posts factual evidence on my behalf. He has so far refused. Or rather, whenever the question came up, he pointedly did not reply.

[Anthonyhcole]

You, Peter, have a better grasp of this case than most, and the drafting Arbitrators should simply invite you to participate - there is nothing preventing them from doing so (they could temporarily lift your block), and having you involved would improve the likelihood of a sound finding.

I have been corresponding with one of the arbs, and suggested that some third party posts factual evidence on my behalf. He has so far refused. Or rather, whenever the question came up, he pointedly did not reply.

Sorry I edited my above comment while you posted this reply. If you want to construct a clear, concise case along the lines recommended by Andreas, I'll be happy to cite you, take "ownership" and, with your permission, paste or paraphrase it into the case. We don't need anyone's permission for that - it's essentially what Roger suggested.

[Peter Damian]

You, Peter, have a better grasp of this case than most, and the drafting Arbitrators should simply invite you to participate - there is nothing preventing them from doing so (they could temporarily lift your block), and having you involved would improve the likelihood of a sound finding.

I have been corresponding with one of the arbs, and suggested that some third party posts factual evidence on my behalf. He has so far refused. Or rather, whenever the question came up, he pointedly did not reply.

Sorry I edited my above comment while you posted this reply. If you want to construct a clear, concise case along the lines recommended by Andreas, I'll be happy to cite you, take "ownership" and, with your permission, paste or paraphrase it into the case.

Just saw this. OK.

[lilburne]

As for Roger's warning about linking to outing - that makes clear sense to me. If you're going to link from en.Wikipedia to any web page, be sure you're not linking to "outing."

The thing is that any one that participates in this sort of thing is going to have to dance about not falling foul of some stupid rules. As it drags on for weeks one of you is going to end up doing the Watusi:
they accepted the case because the evidence for shenanigans is beyond doubt. Now they expect people to pussyfoot about with that evidence and place themselves at peril should they make a misstep.

So now lets leave them in their cosy little rooms and get back to normal service

[Vejvančický]

So now lets leave them in their cosy little rooms and get back to normal service

I wish to get back to my "normal service" but I can't unless I know what is response of Wikipedia's authorities to this case.

[Peter Damian]

Here is some more stuff that will not be allowed to be seen on wiki. This edit by the 58.68.49.70 IP to the Hindi Wikipedia on 09:23 , 24 March 2010 adds a link to the article [[Okareshwar Pandey]]. "Executive Editor , The Sunday Indian , Hindi and Bhojpuri" The article was deleted "Doesn't belong on Wikipedia". LinkedIn confirms the identity of Pandey, as does his Wikipedia user page. He was executive editor of the Sunday Indian from 2008-10, and managing editor from 2010 to 2013. The paper is published by Planman, a company owned by Chaudhuri.

Whether this is the same as Mrinal Pandey (female name), who has edited from the same IP, is anyone’s guess. The IP locates to Chennai, where the paper has an office.

[lilburne]

So now lets leave them in their cosy little rooms and get back to normal service

I wish to get back to my "normal service" but I can't unless I know what is response of Wikipedia's authorities to this case.

Normal service is that wifione or, if banned, the next account will continue doing what they have been doing and nothing much will happen. Wikipedia is punctuated by this sort of thing. WillBeBack, Cirt, Qworty, ColonelHenry, Johann Hari, Demiurge1000, Beta M, Jagged85, all the others documented in the blog. Do they ever clean up afterwards - no they never do. Do they ever learn for next time - no never. Each instance is treated as a unique and special one off case, none are detected by the wiki-system, even though most of them operate in plain view, and after they have been dragged kicking and screaming into action the denouement is that every thing is well again as the one and only cancer cell has been eradicated.

Document, link, educate, and mock. The site and its systems are too screwed up to fix.

[Peter Damian]

Document, link, educate, and mock. The site and its systems are too screwed up to fix.

Normally I would agree, and that has been the policy for ages, but here is a situation where four WO members have made accusations, some of them quite serious, on the site itself. The question is whether they should contribute to the case or not. What we don't want is an accusation that we can't follow through.

An alternative would be to post the evidence on the blog.

[Peter Damian]

Pandey (left) pictured with Chaudhuri (right):