Indian fakers faking again

[Jim]

Best case after a month of the Arbcom circus - he gets topic banned and an admonishment for conduct unbecoming. Its a massive waste of everyone's time.

I predict otherwise. See you in a month.

[Lukeno94]

It also seems that Wifione doesn't understand the blocking policy, given that they blocked a user for "removing warning notices" indefinitely, less than 24 hours into an edit-warring block. The only thing that would apply to would be declined unblock requests - and yet this user had never filed one at that point.

[Peter Damian]

Why? What do you expect them to do that AN/ANI cant?

Good point.

Its a massive waste of everyone's time.

No, it would be helpful to establish that Wikipedia is completely toothless when it comes to administrator corruption. Again, this sort of editing has real life consequences, people spending £10,000 on a worthless education, no reliable information available on the whole web because of legal action against 'defamation'.

[Anthonyhcole]

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).

OK. Thanks Peter. I'm on my own today so can probably get this done now. I agree that all of these points should be made plain, with diffs, but none of it means anything without the case for egregious tendentiousness being well-made.

[Anthonyhcole]

As all issues are bog-standard editing issues (COI, NPOV etc etc) of which there is ample evidence, a simple topic ban from the areas would suffice. This is well within the ability of AN/ANI to impose (I did actually propose it, but any discussion or investigation was effectively cut off by this premature request for arbitration). ...

I agree that a well-made case at ANI might have resulted in a topic ban, but I don't personally think that is sufficient. Jehochman could have waited until the ANI discussion was finished and possibly saved the committee the trouble of both (1) assessing the biased editing claim and the question of a topic ban and (2) deciding whether the behaviour warrants desysop. It does need to consider the latter - though it is by no means certain they'll equate long-term, consistent, egregious tendentious editing of BLPs with conduct unbecoming of an admin.

Bwilkins's beahviour (swearing at editors and repeatedly getting blocks wrong) is something any decent admin can recognise and disapprove of, but I'll be interested to see whether they think that deliberately misleading our readers (a content issue) is behaviour that disqualifies one for adminship. Do any on the current committee have a history of content creation?

I was favouring a site ban but now think desysop and topic ban are appropriate - keep your enemies close.

[Peter Damian]

Mashesh Peri (the guy who took Chaudhuri to court) just sent me this.

High court censures IIPM, Arindam Chaudhuri for misleading students
The Delhi high court on Friday censured the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) and its dean Arindam Chaudhuri for misleading students into believing that it possessed the approvals to offer Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) programmes.

The ruling came on a public interest litigation filed by petitioner B. Mahesh Sharma, who alleged that IIPM was misleading, cheating and exploiting students by making them believe they will acquire an MBA or BBA qualification after studying at the institute. Chaudhuri said IIPM would challenge the ruling.

[…]

The court noted that IIPM was promoting an impression that it had recognition from a foreign management institute--International Management Institute (IMI), Belgium.
Live Mint 28 December 2014

Wifione, a Wikipedia administrator, was also 'promoting the same impression'. For example, here, and here, where he changes “IIPM students can apply for BBA and MBA degrees from IMI Belgium, an unaccredited business school”, to ““IIPM students can apply for BBA and MBA degrees from IMI Belgium”, which reverses the meaning entirely. And again here, and so on.

[Peter Damian]

This diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =335033443 is an interesting one. Who suppressed it? If you move to the next but one edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =335033574 you see that Wifione's reply has appeared as if by magic. The comment on the first diff says "Username or IP removed) (edit summary removed)".

[Lukeno94]

I think it was Wifione editing whilst logged out, signing the post when they remembered to log back in, and then requesting a RevDel of the IP address. That would make sense given the reply and Wifione's edit summary. The weird thing is that the suppression does not appear in the talk page log at all (which I presume is what you were alluding to?)

[Peter Damian]

I think it was Wifione editing whilst logged out, signing the post when they remembered to log back in, and then requesting a RevDel of the IP address. That would make sense given the reply and Wifione's edit summary. The weird thing is that the suppression does not appear in the talk page log at all (which I presume is what you were alluding to?)

Correct. Well I don't know the techy stuff, but presumably it should appear somewhere. It's not in the talk page log, or in Wifione's log.

[Black Kite]

I think it was Wifione editing whilst logged out, signing the post when they remembered to log back in, and then requesting a RevDel of the IP address. That would make sense given the reply and Wifione's edit summary. The weird thing is that the suppression does not appear in the talk page log at all (which I presume is what you were alluding to?)

Correct. Well I don't know the techy stuff, but presumably it should appear somewhere. It's not in the talk page log, or in Wifione's log.

Revision deletion was only introduced in 2010. Prior to that, to suppress an edit it actually had to be physically deleted (delete the article completely, then restore all the revisions apart from that one). However, it would still appear on the page log as a deleted revision, and be viewable by admins. To hide it from admins as well, it would have to be oversighted. That's what has happened to this edit, so it won't appear in any log apart from the oversight one.

[EricBarbour]

I think it was Wifione editing whilst logged out, signing the post when they remembered to log back in, and then requesting a RevDel of the IP address. That would make sense given the reply and Wifione's edit summary. The weird thing is that the suppression does not appear in the talk page log at all (which I presume is what you were alluding to?)

Correct. Well I don't know the techy stuff, but presumably it should appear somewhere. It's not in the talk page log, or in Wifione's log.

Revision deletion was only introduced in 2010. Prior to that, to suppress an edit it actually had to be physically deleted (delete the article completely, then restore all the revisions apart from that one). However, it would still appear on the page log as a deleted revision, and be viewable by admins. To hide it from admins as well, it would have to be oversighted. That's what has happened to this edit, so it won't appear in any log apart from the oversight one.

The real point of all this is, Wifi is a damned paranoid fool. And PD and I are fascinated by his conniptions. He's getting an oversighter to cover up his IP address, even though we already know his real name, where he lives, his employer, etc. Because he really isn't very smart. And left traces of himself all over the web.

[Peter Damian]

On Goodman’s talk page:

Hi DGG. I think because we've interacted on the talk page of one of the articles involved in the case, in my editor review and also co-nommed one candidate in the past, some might view your participation in the case as being involved. I'll leave it to your judgment whether to recuse or not, but thought it better to leave this note in advance. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And on the case page.

… the named party asked me to recuse, so I shall. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Goodman is something of an expert on diploma mills. The analogy would be if a fraud case came to trial and the judge was an expert on fraud. The defendant objected that the judge had been involved in many fraud cases, so could he step down? – and the judge steps down.

Of course, Goodman did comment, once, on the IIPM case, and he commented on Wifione’s editor review. But then he generally comments on all such cases.

[Lukeno94]

On Goodman’s talk page:

Hi DGG. I think because we've interacted on the talk page of one of the articles involved in the case, in my editor review and also co-nommed one candidate in the past, some might view your participation in the case as being involved. I'll leave it to your judgment whether to recuse or not, but thought it better to leave this note in advance. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And on the case page.

… the named party asked me to recuse, so I shall. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Goodman is something of an expert on diploma mills. The analogy would be if a fraud case came to trial and the judge was an expert on fraud. The defendant objected that the judge had been involved in many fraud cases, so could he step down? – and the judge steps down.

Of course, Goodman did comment, once, on the IIPM case, and he commented on Wifione’s editor review. But then he generally comments on all such cases.

Sounds like a brilliant idea - trap all of the Arbs into commenting on something to do with you, and then trick them into recusing when you have a case filed against you!

[Anthonyhcole]

... Goodman is something of an expert on diploma mills. ...

Then I hope he has time to contribute to the case.

[Peter Damian]

Time to revisit this. Tarantino found that the IP address 58.68.49.70 was at the time registered to IIPM, and was provably the address of Mrinal Pandey, now known as Empengent (T-C-L).

Looking at the editing style of Pandey/Empengent, they are very similar to Wifione. The same fake politeness, the same cowardly behind-the-back appeals to administrators, the same obsession with Chaudhuri and IIPM articles.

[Sitush]

Time to revisit this. Tarantino found that the IP address 58.68.49.70 was at the time registered to IIPM, and was provably the address of Mrinal Pandey, now known as Empengent (T-C-L).

Looking at the editing style of Pandey/Empengent, they are very similar to Wifione. The same fake politeness, the same cowardly behind-the-back appeals to administrators, the same obsession with Chaudhuri and IIPM articles.

Woah, good catch.

[Peter Damian]

If vandalism continues, no one gets the advantage. So my request to the people whitewashing edits is that instead of trying to destroy relevant edits, kindly discuss on this page any changes you might want, however insensible they might sound. If there is general acceptance for the change, it will surely be included. Vandalism is of no use as administrators will end up blocking the page within hours of such whitewashing occurring. Hope sense prevails. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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. Please do give in your suggestions. Also, kindly do not revert changes blindly to previous editions. Try and rework the changes after discussing them here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Humble request to all of you Please if you intend to do changes even you are an administrator or an old editors, you need to justify your act other wise it will be considered as whitewashing. Kindly mind your acts... Even if you think my acts were not justified , you are always welcomed to notify me but in a right manner by justifying your act in respect proving that my act was wrong according to the rules--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(See sockpuppet investigation)

Dear editors, kindly do not revert or delete lines that do not have citations. I see one editor continuously doing that. On a civic level, kindly propose the inclusion of the citation. It will be done within a couple of days; and if not, then propose deletion of that line out here. I should request you all that if that is not done, I will surely request administrators to revert the changes as they would be akin to whitewashing. I propose a continuous discussion out here from here on. Please do understand, this is perhaps one of the most sensitive pages on wiki, and changing even one line from hereon without discussion could result in reverts from so many users whom we have no control on. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Makrand,

Kindly remove the following:-

IMI is an erstwhile diploma mill and a very private organisation whose degrees are not recognised by any Belgian or Flemish authority, and whose degree-holders can not make claims for further studies or access to regulated professions[16].

As the sources provided by you are from a blog i.e. (http://thalassamikra.blogspot.com/2005/ ... -iipm.html) and not from the relevant cites.

--Gurmeet singgh (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Gurmeet

Kindly unblock this page as i feel there is lot more that people should know (the real missing facts). Lets have a healthy discussion and make it better and let people know whats is IIPM all about.--Preetigroverr (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I do appreciate that there has been a temporary semi-protect placed some time back, I believe this is a good time to remove it as (and I quote from Wiki policy), "Page protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." And I hope that this is not the case currently going on with this page as I find it strange that editors who have registered beyond three months are still not allowed to edit. I request administrators to kindly remove the edit lock. Sincerely, Dean.A.Sandeep (talk) 11:48, 31 March 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)

1. 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. I tried to search but could not find. I propose some editor kindly give confirmation of the same. As I guess we can give references of only authentic newspapers or magazines. To that effect, the Career 360 article doesn't pass muster. Even the link is some 'beta' version. So deleting the same. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And editors, also, hopefully the above two will come out registered. How important and long standing are these reporting agencies that we should dedicate paragraphs for their reports. I need your inputs please. (Kindly change the page yourself if you get the details). tks Wifione (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

But 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. In good faith, I request you to kindly not take this as a personal attack. I am reporting you in a day or two when I get time for this issue, that you have branded me as a sock puppet simply because of your personal sources have been removed. Thanks,Wifione (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

dear editor, kindly do not remove tags which have not been resolved. i had put up a tag that told readers that i have put up the controversy section for discussion in a forum. please do not delete tags which have not been resolved. cheers Wifione (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Current Editors, kindly note: this section is purely for Third party comments unrelated with this article. The link on the third party forum has already been put up. The policy guideline for this section mentions that current editors or those connected with current editors should not give comments on third party requests. So current editors, kindly do not give comments out here. cheers and thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Nvineeth, i request you to kindly note that the third party opinion tag is an informal tag put in good faith as i presume the career360 issue is between me and makrand. the 'fact dispute' tag is a tag that represents a clear factual dispute existing between editors. you cannot remove the same when there is a clear fact dispute. i am putting up this incident to the administrative noticeboard and requesting their comments. kindly do not remove the tag. Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

editors kindly note. do NOT remove the tag of factuality dispute till the dispute has been resolved. the relevant link is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, kindly consider WP:Synthesis along with WP:Avoid. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly do not remove the npov tag with a statement that discussions have winded up. If you see just one section above, we're still waiting to add relevant sections in the main article to balance out the size of the overall article. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite other editors of this page to kindly comment on ways to delete repetitive information within the article, mainly relating to two entities:
[…]
♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

"Kindly" check the contributions of the editors on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nal_Pandey for kindliness.

How did he get away with it for so long?

[Peter Damian]

[Wikimediaindia-l] Pure Fiction: Nichalp and Wifione
Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur at gmail.com
Tue Feb 7 18:47:17 UTC 2012
•Previous message: [Wikimediaindia-l] Pure Fiction: Nichalp and Wifione
•Next message: [Wikimediaindia-l] Pure Fiction: Nichalp and Wifione
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sad. In his time Nichalp was a legend. his edits along with those of
his compatriots gave a solid foundation to articles on India. I always
think that we Indians crucify a man for what is NOT a heinous crime,
yet we tend to be hypocrites in daily life all the time.

For my sake, I would rather weigh a man's good versus his bad in a
metaphoric balance with sight blindfolded. This is an appropriate time
to quote Shakespeare :

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft' interred with
the bones."

Warm regards,

Ashwin Baindur

[lilburne]

How did he get away with it for so long?

Could that be an oubliette I see him being lowered into?

[Peter Damian]

Would really appreciate a note either here or alongside the edit subject [which we can see in the history column]. Thanks and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope sense prevails. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I've redone the changes. Do discuss your points of view with respect to those, out here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Try and rework the changes after discussing them here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies again. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC);

Thanks to all editors for understanding. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Warm regards and cheers. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The view of Amatulic is seconded in toto. I've left my viewpoint on the editor's talk page too. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The source information has also been placed appropriately in the relevant section. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 09:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[Anthonyhcole]

Wow.

[tarantino]

Wifione and Mrinal Pandey at Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_13

Dear editors, kindly do not revert or delete lines that do not have citations. I see one editor continuously doing that. On a civic level, kindly propose the inclusion of the citation. It will be done within a couple of days; and if not, then propose deletion of that line out here. I should request you all that if that is not done, I will surely request administrators to revert the changes as they would be akin to whitewashing. I propose a continuous discussion out here from here on. Please do understand, this is perhaps one of the most sensitive pages on wiki, and changing even one line from hereon without discussion could result in reverts from so many users whom we have no control on. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear editors, I propose and request that all future changes - any change, even a revert from here on - will be first discussed here and put up for open discussion for at least two or three days before being made. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

dear editor, kindly do not remove tags which have not been resolved. i had put up a tag that told readers that i have put up the controversy section for discussion in a forum. please do not delete tags which have not been resolved. cheers Wifione (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dear editors, is there any line or any lines that might seem not to have a neutral point of view? please discuss if you believe so. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Carlisle_Rodham

Placed wrong version on IIPM by mistake, kindly unblock...

Dear Editors,

I request you all to kindly unblock me, as by mistake i have placed the wrong version on the IIPM page and i will make sure, that i will be much aware before making any changes to any of the pages. Regards --Carlisle Rodham (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ban appeals subcommittee has approved the ban appeal by Arindamp (talk · contribs), and we have also agreed to unban you and Mrinal Pandey (talk · contribs). All three users are topic banned from the article "The Indian Institute of Planning and Management" for 6 months. You may comment on the talk page, but may not edit the page until the six months has expired. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/3#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrinal_Pandey

Hi Versageek, I noticed you had commented on the investigation with respect to my id being suspected of being a sock puppet. I also saw a statement in my investigation from you that said it is 'possible' that I am a sock puppet. I just wished to find out the reasons you said that. Also, I noticed that against 'possible', a line was written - "same ISP than some previous sockpuppets" I wanted to know whether this is true or not; that my ISP is the same as some previous sockpuppets, and whether that would be enough reason to term this case as a possible case of sock puppetry. I wanted to request you to guide me to the right forum to find out the reasons, if this is not the correct place. Thanks, Wifione (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You do indeed share an ISP with the Mrinal Pandey sock farms. Lots of people share ISPs, so I don't consider it enough to say with certainty that you are another sock of that user. You also share a number of behaviors with the Pandey socks, this - combined with the shared ISP is what led me to state that it's possible you are a sock. You need to tread lightly on the IIPM article, there is a long history of attempts to whitewash there. Reliable sources aren't limited to large, mainstream western media outlets - especially when it comes to dealing with non-western subject matter. --Versageek 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Jim]

These similarities are interesting, but it's worth bearing in mind that lots of Indian editors use things like "Dear sir". "Warm regards", "kindly" etc in ways that we would find odd and quirky. It's very common, as if they are trying to write "formally", but comically missing.

I've even seen "kindly regards" used by more than one person on multiple occasions. No, really...

It's certainly very interesting, but not quite a smoking gun, IMO.

The Versageek conversation really does show some squirming, though. That's quite compelling, to me anyway.

[Peter Damian]

These similarities are interesting, but it's worth bearing in mind that lots of Indian editors use things like "Dear sir". "Warm regards", "kindly" etc in ways that we would find odd and quirky. It's very common, as if they are trying to write "formally", but comically missing.

I've even seen "kindly regards" used by more than one person on multiple occasions. No, really...

It's certainly very interesting, but not quite a smoking gun, IMO.

To be sure, but the only two editors who use that style on the IIPM page are (a) Mrinal Pandey (b) Socks of Mrinal Pandey or (c) Wifione. Wifione takes up the instant Pandey disappears, a fact noted by his disputant.

wifione...or mrinal pangey or carlisle rodham...or whatever name you want to go by. this pattern of yours has become so predictable, it is not even funny. whenever i come with a factual point by point argument like above, instead of addressing the argument or facts, you always respond with "please be polite and civil". Nothing else. Empty homilies. Ho hum. I have given the links to times of india articles above. Go through them and show me where Sibal said what you claim he said. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that Wifione is the editor known as 'Mrinal Pandey' and about a 100 other socks.

[Jim]

These similarities are interesting, but it's worth bearing in mind that lots of Indian editors use things like "Dear sir". "Warm regards", "kindly" etc in ways that we would find odd and quirky. It's very common, as if they are trying to write "formally", but comically missing.

I've even seen "kindly regards" used by more than one person on multiple occasions. No, really...

It's certainly very interesting, but not quite a smoking gun, IMO.

To be sure, but the only two editors who use that style on the IIPM page are (a) Mrinal Pandey (b) Socks of Mrinal Pandey or (c) Wifione. Wifione takes up the instant Pandey disappears, a fact noted by his disputant.

wifione...or mrinal pangey or carlisle rodham...or whatever name you want to go by. this pattern of yours has become so predictable, it is not even funny. whenever i come with a factual point by point argument like above, instead of addressing the argument or facts, you always respond with "please be polite and civil". Nothing else. Empty homilies. Ho hum. I have given the links to times of india articles above. Go through them and show me where Sibal said what you claim he said. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatsoever that Wifione is the editor known as 'Mrinal Pandey' and about a 100 other socks.

Yeah, the style is consistent, for sure. When challenged, deflect with a platitude, or several, wordy, vacuous platitudes. If necessary, hibernate till Springtime by switching to a sock or two.

I don't think there's any doubt, either, the problem is that on wikipedia, if you can successfully deflect or bullshit your way out of 1000 individual bits of evidence, nobody ever seems to say "hang on, 1000 pieces of evidence, all rebutted flimsily". That's how he's survived so long.

There are limits to this seemingly systemic failure to see the obvious, though. Providing the case is made as well at Arbcom as it's been made here, once the case is accepted, I truly don't see his charmed existence continuing.

[Zoloft]

Cleared topic of IAC member's posts and replies to them. If your post was removed, and you want part of it restored, contact me and I will put the portion that does not contain their posts back.

[Peter Damian]

I just looked further back. Drnoamchomsky (T-C-L) began their wiki career in November 2005. His or her style bears a remarkable similarity to our friend. He or she changed their name to Iipmstudent9 in February 2007.
There is an unexplained gap in the edit history from 26 December 2005 to 1 March 2006. Perhaps no one edited at all, but it seems odd given the edit war raging all through December.

Mrinal Pandey (or Mrinal Sinha) first appears on the IIPM page on 30 June 2006, editing as IP 61.16.233.194. Changes “the institute was involved in a major controversy regarding the veracity of its claims in print advertisements” to “the institute was involved in an issue regarding its print advertisements". Also edits from 203.76.140.130. “Kindly do not revert to past versions without leaving a comment or opening a discussion.”

Begins editing as Mrinal Pandey on 22 December 2006.

The death threats began in early 2007

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"

The identity of the culprit is not clear.

I think it’s 99% certain that Mrinal Pandey is our friend. I think it is reasonably certain that he (or she) began editing much earlier as NaomChomsky/Iipmstudent9.

There is also a curious edit here where Iipmstudent9 claims harassment because his/her real name (“Dipali Sakhare”) had been used. Editor ‘Max’ replies that his/her name has already been mentioned on his/her user page, and refers to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... #Hi_Dipali . That was in February 2007. Yet when we look at the history of that page, it is completely blank except for an edit by Wifione on 12 January 2010‎. Charitable interpretation is that he was leaving a welcome message “Hello, Iipmstudent9, and welcome to Wikipedia!”. Uncharitable interpretation: he was using this as a cover to delete the talk page history. Clearly it existed at some time.

According to MakrandJoshi, “Dipali Sakhare” is an employee of IIPM, and not a student.

[Vigilant]

Glorious!
Simply glorious!

I stopped tracking after I got bogged down in the dozens of socks, but this person is a persistent, patient, dedicated sockmaster who has darkened the awesome sight of checkusers and sock hunters across da 'pedia for nearly a decade!

New measures are needed!

Perhaps they can bring Durova out of hibernation to track down the miscreant?
She could team up with Risker to make half a poorly functioning neuron.

[Black Kite]

There is also a curious edit here where Iipmstudent9 claims harassment because his/her real name (“Dipali Sakhare”) had been used. Editor ‘Max’ replies that his/her name has already been mentioned on his/her user page, and refers to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... #Hi_Dipali . That was in February 2007. Yet when we look at the history of that page, it is completely blank except for an edit by Wifione on 12 January 2010‎. Charitable interpretation is that he was leaving a welcome message “Hello, Iipmstudent9, and welcome to Wikipedia!”. Uncharitable interpretation: he was using this as a cover to delete the talk page history. Clearly it existed at some time.

According to MakrandJoshi, “Dipali Sakhare” is an employee of IIPM, and not a student.

Iipmstudent9's talk page was deleted per G5 (creation by a banned user) by User:Ohnoitsjamie. However, I can't see that they're banned; they were however blocked indefinitely for making legal threats in this edit.

The name mentioned above does appear in the deleted talk page, but not by MakrandJoshi; a user Ponytailsnipper (T-C-L) left a message addressing Iipmstudent9 by their first name and suggesting they should catch up sometime (they clearly know each other). However, Ponytailsnipper appears to be an account devoted to the opposite view - their contribs show them de-whitewashing the IIPM article i.e. this.

All very odd.

[Peter Damian]

[...]The name mentioned above does appear in the deleted talk page, but not by MakrandJoshi; a user Ponytailsnipper (T-C-L) left a message addressing Iipmstudent9 by their first name and suggesting they should catch up sometime (they clearly know each other). However, Ponytailsnipper appears to be an account devoted to the opposite view - their contribs show them de-whitewashing the IIPM article i.e. this.

All very odd.

Arindam Chaudhuri wears a ponytail, hence 'Ponytailsnipper'. I have verified that there was a person (a woman) going by that name he used, who worked as a PR agent for Chaudhuri for some time. But I wonder if Ponytailsnipper was merely speculating that she was the same person as Iipmstudent9. There is a reference on another of the talk pages to her being out of the office, after one of them called. But then she would hardly divulge that she was editing Wikipedia, would she?

Of course, we also know that some of the socks, including Mrinal Pandey, were editing from an IIPM address, so it's not out of the question.

[Black Kite]

Incidentally, Wifione's single edit to the deleted talk page does not appear to be dubious; he had sent the redirect IIPM Controversy (T-H-L) to AfD and used Twinkle. The Twinkle script not only drops the AfD notification on the talk page of the creator (Iipmstudent9) but also adds a welcome template if the page is empty - which of course it was as it had been deleted.

That redirect incidentally was to a much-renamed article Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (T-H-L) which was finally deleted by AfD in 2013.

[Peter Damian]

Incidentally, Wifione's single edit to the deleted talk page does not appear to be dubious; he had sent the redirect IIPM Controversy (T-H-L) to AfD and used Twinkle. The Twinkle script not only drops the AfD notification on the talk page of the creator (Iipmstudent9) but also adds a welcome template if the page is empty - which of course it was as it had been deleted.

That redirect incidentally was to a much-renamed article Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (T-H-L) which was finally deleted by AfD in 2013.

Yes I noticed that after I had made the post, but figured out some clever person would spot it

[Black Kite]

I do note that one of the reasons that Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (T-H-L) was deleted was because it was a short article that could be covered in the IIPM article. That was because Wifione hacked practically all of the negative (but sourced) claims about IIPM out of it on 20 January 2012, reducing it from 22K to 8K.

[Vigilant]

I do note that one of the reasons that Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (T-H-L) was deleted was because it was a short article that could be covered in the IIPM article. That was because Wifione hacked practically all of the negative (but sourced) claims about IIPM out of it on 20 January 2012, reducing it from 22K to 8K.

So, why aren't you guys all over him like white on rice?

Looks like ARBCOM is going to accept as of Jan 1.

You guys need to nuke this turd from orbit.
I hope you don't.. Hasten the afternoon.

[Peter Damian]

I do note that one of the reasons that Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (T-H-L) was deleted was because it was a short article that could be covered in the IIPM article. That was because Wifione hacked practically all of the negative (but sourced) claims about IIPM out of it on 20 January 2012, reducing it from 22K to 8K.

So, why aren't you guys all over him like white on rice?

"Either we have an administrator who is editing in defiance of the terms of use, or we have a group who is unjustly making an accusation of such." says one of the arbitrators. That's right. You have conflict of interest, which is bad, and you have personal attack and outing, which is bad. It's difficult to have one without the other. Usually 'no harassment' trumps 'conflict of interest'.

In the real world we resolve this dilemma by having auditors, police, regulators and so on. It's their job to probe conflict of interest or wrongdoing all the time - although because everyone recognises this is their job, it is usually never seen as a problem. Wikipedia has absolutely no such mechanism.

Wifione/Mrinal/NaomChomsky understands this perfectly. At the faintest whiff of a challenge, s/he/it is off to the nearest forum to scream about harassment, and the Wikipedia culture does the rest. It's a perfect test case.

[EricBarbour]

So, why aren't you guys all over him like white on rice?

Probably because Wifi and friends (if they are even different people) seem to have little difficulty finding other administrators to help by deleting things. Any other admin who walked into the middle of this would end up in a messy (and typically stupid) AN/I dispute.

Looks like ARBCOM is going to accept as of Jan 1.

You guys need to nuke this turd from orbit.
I hope you don't.. Hasten the afternoon.

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)
Based upon the background here, we have one of two possibilities. Either we have an administrator who is editing in defiance of the terms of use, or we have a group who is unjustly making an accusation of such. I offer no opinion as to which of those might be the case, but given the likelihood of private handling for at least some portions being required, I'm minded to accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Provisional accept. This will come into effect on 1 Jan unless I state otherwise. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Provisional accept. This will come into effect on 1 Jan unless I state otherwise. I agree with Seraphimblade's opinion above. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Provisional accept. Seraphimblade pretty much laid out my thoughts on the matter. Courcelles 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Provisional accept, effective Jan. 1. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

the named party asked me to recuse, so I shall. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Accept though the case will need some clear ground rules and tight clerking, Roger Davies talk 07:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Non-acceptance "accept" safe in the knowledge that I'll be gone before it's open... WormTT(talk) 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Another provisional accept which will become official January 1st. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Given my comment made here, I'm recused on this request (though I would not have remained active on the case if accepted before 2015 anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept. LFaraone 20:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Accept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Provisional Accept. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And my crystal ball says Arbcom will fuck it up hopelessly anyway.

[tarantino]

Iipmstudent9's talk page was deleted per G5 (creation by a banned user) by User:Ohnoitsjamie. However, I can't see that they're banned; they were however blocked indefinitely for making legal threats in this edit.
All very odd.

The talk page was originally deleted by that stoner H, now known as "Chillum", in April 2007, using a bogus reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... pmstudent9

23:54, 9 April 2007 H (talk | contribs) deleted page User talk:Iipmstudent9 (Deleting temporary userpage that is in no other category, and has not been edited in one month)

[Peter Damian]

So many problems here that illustrate the wider problems in Wikipedia as a whole. First, the appeal to ‘true Wikipedian values’.

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. [...] Drnoamchomsky 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Second, appealing to the dichotomy between those who have ‘true Wikipedian values’ and those who don’t. Those who don’t are obviously bad, and must be blocked by the good Wikipedian administrators.

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. [...] Thanks Iipmstudent9 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sometimes it is a genuinely good Wikipedian who is behaving in ‘bad’ ways, but who can be redeemed, if only he would see his errors. Although if he can’t, he must be banned.

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)

Right. You don’t need diffs or details or anything related to content. It’s all about ‘Wikipedian values’ and Wifione understands this well. Later on, as this affair received traction on this site, the dichotomy was ‘good Wikipedian’ vs ‘Wikipediocrat’. Bad people from bad sites, who are ganging up on good Wikipedians. From his editor review:

Your Wikipediocracy connection does unfortunately bring some level of suspicion and mistrust. I would suggest that you desist from discussions on such web forums, as discussions off the project for consensus action are generally discouraged. I would strongly suggest that as per policy, you should hold Wikipedia-related discussions on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants.

Firstly, the Wikipediocracy discussions forum that you're participating in, has members who're regularly attempting to out my identity and even guess my name within that very forum.

If your allegiance to the Wikipediocracy community is unfailing, especially to a discussion forum intent on outing me and canvassing such efforts through you and others, then do pardon me for refusing to invest any more effort to answer you or others from the Wikipediocracy forum.

It's with disappointment at your unfortunate pro-Wikipediocracy stand that I bring this Editor Review to a close.

At the risk of slighting you and your colleagues at Wikipediocracy, a forum where I'm told you are discussing my replies and canvassing future moves, I feel your expansive opinion is hindered by your lack of ability to fully understand certain specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines correctly

[Peter Damian]

Off topic but "I am new to Wikipedia" generally means "I am not new to Wikipedia".

[Lukeno94]

Bloody hell, I've been away from here for two days and all of this has been found? There's so much here that it'll be impossible to get it to fit in the evidence word count! I'd agree with you Peter on this being a great test case for the new ArbCom; if they do nothing or cock it up, it'll make them look toothless and useless throughout their entire term.

[lilburne]

Bloody hell, I've been away from here for two days and all of this has been found? There's so much here that it'll be impossible to get it to fit in the evidence word count! I'd agree with you Peter on this being a great test case for the new ArbCom; if they do nothing or cock it up, it'll make them look toothless and useless throughout their entire term.

Unlike the previous one, or the one prior to that?

[Jim]

Bloody hell, I've been away from here for two days and all of this has been found? There's so much here that it'll be impossible to get it to fit in the evidence word count! I'd agree with you Peter on this being a great test case for the new ArbCom; if they do nothing or cock it up, it'll make them look toothless and useless throughout their entire term.

Unlike the previous one, or the one prior to that?

Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss.

Thanks to Kiefer for this one. It's in the history somewhere.

[Lukeno94]

I think if ArbCom is to survive, that they actually have to start doing *something* right for once.

[Poetlister]

Bloody hell, I've been away from here for two days and all of this has been found? There's so much here that it'll be impossible to get it to fit in the evidence word count! I'd agree with you Peter on this being a great test case for the new ArbCom; if they do nothing or cock it up, it'll make them look toothless and useless throughout their entire term.

Useless, quite possibly. They're not toothless, of course; it's just that their bad eyesight might lead them to bite the wrong people.

[Peter Damian]

A fascinating post from ‘Kurtis’.

I'm actually inclined to support Wifione, insofar as it pertains to the question of whether or not he is a paid editor on behalf of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management. The whole point of AGF is that we base dispute resolution around the presumption of innocence. Unless there is incontrovertible evidence that Wifione is engaged in paid editing — not just editorial tendencies or things that can be chalked up to mere coincidence — I do not think he should be desysopped or banned. Is it possible for someone to have a strong bias pertaining to a specific topic without having any direct affiliation with it? Absolutely, and it's important to remember that Wifione likely saw himself as attempting to prevent the perception of bias in the articles referenced at his editor review. The fact that he has at least responded to the concerns raised shows that he is someone who can be reasoned with. Having said that, I think it would be best if he agreed to a voluntary restriction against editing pages related to IIPM or Almaty University, broadly construed. Those are the areas in which his edits have been questioned, so ceasing his activities there should resolve the issue at large.

I disagree with a number of other commentators who believe that this can be handled via motion as opposed to a full case. We're not just looking into whether or not Wifione's edits are biased; he stands accused of paid advocacy, which is a far more serious allegation and brings the credibility of his edits into question. A case is needed to determine whether these accusations have genuine merit. It would also give prospective participants the opportunity to provide the committee with any relevant non-public information, assuming such evidence exists. Kurtis (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

His first point, that there needs to be ‘incontrovertible evidence’ is fundamentally the problem of Wikipedia. As Greg Kohs has repeatedly pointed out, there is little economic benefit in paid editors operating above the line. Far better below the line, where the evidence against you has to be incontrovertible, at least if you are a trusted administrator.

However, the idea that Wifione has ‘responded to concerns’ is risible. The timeline is as follows.

Wifione has been asked in the past whether she had some financial connection with IIPM. She had always avoided the question.

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)

In November 2013, I emailed Wifione, politely asking if she had any form of connection to IIPM. She responded by trying to have me blocked on Meta. This is not ‘responding to concerns’.

On 2 December 2013, an expose was published on the WO blog. The following day, it was raised on Jimbo’s page. There was no 'response to concerns' from Wifione. I emailed Jimbo on 14th December, he 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. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)"

On January 12, 2014, there was an article in the Times of India which mentioned the scandal. It was brought up on Jimbo’s page for a third time, by our friend Vejvančický. This was when Jimbo famously said “it would be best if he just doesn't come back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)”. Finally Wifione responded to concerns.

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)

This was what prompted the ‘editor review’. However, having started the review on the 12th January, Wifione abruptedly left it when SB Johnny asked the following 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? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

She returned in April 2014, but did not address the questions in the review, despite a few reminders.

You may remember writing "Morning Vejvančický. May I request you to give me perhaps another day to provide you comprehensive clarifications? I don't wish to delay this but my real life work is giving me extremely less time to answer. So I'm pinning my hopes on this Sunday to give you comprehensive and in-depth clarifications. I hope that sounds okay with you. Thanks (again) for the patience. Kind regards." I'm sure we'd all appreciate the in-depth clarifications. Please review the new Terms of Use that you have agreed to as well - "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reminded again in July.

User:Wifione asked for another day in January 2014, more than half a year back. I reminded him the unanswered questions in June, after he wrote that he plans to resume regular editing. "Surely. Thanks for the note", he responded. Now, he edits articles about supermodels (among other things) and don't bother to answer/clarify. What am I supposed to think about that? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally replied to SB Johnny’s question on 2 August, with a totally implausible answer.

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. When I think of it now, I suspect that if I hadn't gotten into an edit war with another editor within a handful or so of days of landing up on that article, I might perhaps not even have stayed back on that article. As a newbie, the way I handled conflicts then was quite different from now. I have no particular opinion about IIPM. As mentioned in my RFA, the article itself could be brought up with some work to a GA status; I might try to do that in the coming months if it interests me any more then. Wifione Message 06:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly ‘responding to concerns’, Kurtis.

[Lukeno94]

The case is open now.

[tarantino]

Here's a selection of articles created by Wifione.

Indian Institute of Pharmaceutical Marketing (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Personnel Management (T-H-L)
International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine (T-H-L) (since deleted)
Indian Institute of Port Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute for Production Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Project Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Plantation Management (T-H-L)
Indian Oil Institute of Petroleum Management (T-H-L)

[Peter Damian]

Here's a selection of articles created by Wifione.

Indian Institute of Pharmaceutical Marketing (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Personnel Management (T-H-L)
International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine (T-H-L) (since deleted)
Indian Institute of Port Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute for Production Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Project Management (T-H-L)
Indian Institute of Plantation Management (T-H-L)
Indian Oil Institute of Petroleum Management (T-H-L)

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.

[Jim]

Redirecting IIPM to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management

Now go to google blog search and enter "IIPM". And just look at the results. Splogs upon splogs upon splogs, all saying nice things about Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. Splogs linking to each other. All have the name "iipm" in the URL. All created by people with similar names - pankaj or sonu. And even more interestingly, almost all blogs created or updated during what will be working hours or office hours in India. If you connect the dots, it is clear what the splogging campaign by IIPM is all about. Manipulating google search to push all negative information to latter pages. And it is working. A lot of the splogs are steadily moving up the search results and pushing back sites which criticize IIPM.

However, one search result that can not be pushed back is wikipedia, because of its high google page rank. So whenever someone searches "IIPM" on google page, the IIPM page is going to be in the top results. Until recently, it pointed to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. So people searching for information on the institute went to the article and found balanced information, including criticisms and controversies.

But now that this disambig page has been created, eventually, a google search for IIPM will lead to this page. And it has already been populated, by one single individual wifione, with a bunch of other IIPM's of questionable notability, and which no one else has ever had the inclination to create pages for or update. If you know the basic of web usability, you know this adds to the search costs for the average user. It is likely that several people searching, instead of looking on the IIPM disambig page for Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management among all the other IIPM's that wifione has created and will create (created a new one only in the last couple of days), will just move to the next search result. The next search result, due to the incessant splogging, is likely to be one that praises IIPM.

One more point. Ever since the disambig page was created, one page that started appearing in the google search for IIPM was the redirect IIPM_Advertising_Controversy. Not surprisingly, in the last couple of days, wifione first tried to get the article deleted and then tried to get the redirect deleted, without informing anyone on the article's talkpage that he/she was making the nominations. Both requests were obviously denied. But this eagerness to get the acronym "IIPM" out of the title, if not delete the article altogether, is interesting.

Like I said, it's all about connecting the dots, with the splogs, the splog-infested search results, and this eagerness to dissociate the acronym "IIPM" from any wikipedia article about Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. And the fact that searches in non-sploggable google results overwhelmingly link IIPM to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. In my humble opinion, it is pretty clear. Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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)