Indian fakers faking again

[Peter Damian]

User:Peter Damian who is banned from editing en wiki and who leads an independent research on an external site (Wikipediocracy) should be in my opinion allowed to join this case as a party. In my own presentation, I focus mainly on providing examples of Wifione's tendentious and manipulative edits to Wikipedia articles about competing subjects. Peter Damian provides broader additional evidence which could be of interest to the committee. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But community bans are very important business:

There would need to be a very good reason for the Committee to override and overturn a community ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 4

But what was this 'community'?

January 2015 (UTC) I can tell you that what I've seen in Damian's research is a very good reason for his temporary (?) unban. Damian was banned years ago and many of the editors who endorsed his ban over the years are either retired or blocked (!) while P. Damian is still interested in Wikipedia. To me, such a "ban for life" is hardly understandable ... But above all, the ArbCom can reblock/ban in a second if he makes any inappropriate comments. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e/Evidence

[lilburne]

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.

Take the Cirt case that Andreas linked to above. 7 weeks went by after he posted the 'damning' evidence before the case closed. Anyone who had experienced Cirt's editing knew that it was politically motivated. Did they go and clean any of it up afterwards - no.

No one has induced anyone to go post stuff on 'that' site. It makes no difference whether some accusation on 'that' site is followed through on 'that' site. The evidence is here, and as such has been followed though. This isn't a question of some vague complaint. You have it well documented.

Why give the players on 'that' site any legitimacy? Its their site, and their credibility. Not ours, and we are not responsible for making 'that' site better.

[Lukeno94]

Because some of us actually still edit Wikipedia, and some of us would like to take any small chance to improve it, no matter how minor the improvement is.

[lilburne]

Because some of us actually still edit Wikipedia, and some of us would like to take any small chance to improve it, no matter how minor the improvement is.

You cannot improve it as it is currently run. The Arbitration Committee run as if they have some tome of evidence rules which are self contradictory. Using this system you need to show that wifione's editing has been egregiously biased. However, unlike with Sarah Stierch, you can't point to cause, motivation, or even the smoking gun.

Frankly it is pathetic and anyone with any sense of self-esteem should I believe eschew the whole thing.

[Peter Damian]

Because some of us actually still edit Wikipedia, and some of us would like to take any small chance to improve it, no matter how minor the improvement is.

You cannot improve it as it is currently run. The Arbitration Committee run as if they have some tome of evidence rules which are self contradictory. Using this system you need to show that wifione's editing has been egregiously biased. However, unlike with Sarah Stierch, you can't point to cause, motivation, or even the smoking gun.

Frankly it is pathetic and anyone with any sense of self-esteem should I believe eschew the whole thing.

Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of a foreign court, eh?

[lilburne]

Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of a foreign court, eh?

No it is refusing to participate in a sham process. Most foreign courts have a semblance of process, and a well established body of rules that are followed, not some pick-n-mix assortment. Most foreign courts don't punish the accuser if the accusation cannot be established.

What we have here is that X says that Y did something on behalf of Z. That Y did the something is beyond dispute, but we should assume that it wasn't done on behalf of Z. Further to establish that it was indeed done on behalf of Z you are not allowed to point to evidence showing that Y and Z are connected.

[Lukeno94]

Most foreign courts don't punish the accuser if the accusation cannot be established.

Wasting police time, libel, lying in court - pretty sure those are all punishable in a lot of courts.

[Peter Damian]

Most foreign courts don't punish the accuser if the accusation cannot be established.

Wasting police time, libel, lying in court - pretty sure those are all punishable in a lot of courts.

That is true (not sure about libel though). But the point was that courts simply don't punish a good faith accusation simply because it cannot be established. And let's remember that 'established', particular in the case of a Wikipedia administrator who is well liked and has the trust of the community, has a high bar indeed.

[lilburne]

Most foreign courts don't punish the accuser if the accusation cannot be established.

Wasting police time, libel, lying in court - pretty sure those are all punishable in a lot of courts.

In all such cases there is an element of maliciousness, that includes 'knowing' the report or statement to be false.

But as PD says the point was that good faith accusations are not punished. Otherwise we'd have all the cops in jail.

[Jim]

But as PD says the point was that good faith accusations are not punished.

Or deliberately discouraged.

By intentional creation of a "judicial" environment where folks fear reprisals for merely calling attention to obvious wrongdoing.

[Vigilant]

But as PD says the point was that good faith accusations are not punished.

Or deliberately discouraged.

By intentional creation of a "judicial" environment where folks fear reprisals for merely calling attention to obvious wrongdoing.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

ObMerkey

[Peter Damian]

User:Peter Damian has the option to appeal his community ban via the usual channels. A special exemption will not be given for this case --Guerillero | My Talk 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The c-word is the only thing that comes to mind here. Begoon (Jim) suggested as a compromise that I use my talk page to submit evidence. How just utterly beyond the pale.

Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders. [Larry Sanger]

[Notvelty]

User:Peter Damian has the option to appeal his community ban via the usual channels. A special exemption will not be given for this case --Guerillero | My Talk 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The c-word is the only thing that comes to mind here.

It's entirely possible that he's unaware of how offensive he sounds.

Schools these days do not teach "passive" and "active" sentences. He probably thinks it makes him sound more serious and that "I will not vote for a special exemption" would be a childish way to speak.

No, seriously. That's what they think.

Don't even start me on reflexive pronouns.

[Jim]

Begoon (Jim) suggested as a compromise that I use my talk page to submit evidence.

Yeah. Well, at least now we are clear. My suggestion was a perfectly sensible way to allow them to hear evidence without the horror of unblocking you.

It didn't even get a reply. Just a "hide" template. I read that as it was intended - "fuck off".

They don't want to hear the evidence - that's clear now.

Ostriches.

(Worse, actually, because ostriches don't really do that.)

edited to add - thanks for adding what you did , SB_Johnny - I was too stunned by the blatantly obvious "fuck off" to do more than I did there.

[tarantino]

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.

Here's Iipmstudent9 signing a comment left by 61.16.233.194.

Posts by 203.76.140.130 (T-C-L) are signed by both Iipmstudent9 and Mrinal.

Mrinal also edited from 203.76.132.74.

Queried whois.apnic.net with "203.76.132.74"...

% Information related to '203.76.132.72 - 203.76.132.79'

inetnum: 203.76.132.72 - 203.76.132.79
netname: IPM-NM
country: IN
descr: IIPM PLANMAN
descr: OKHLA KALKAJI
descr: DELHI
admin-c: JH1655-AP
tech-c: JH1655-AP
status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE

[Lukeno94]

Interesting. Wifione is going to attempt to defend themselves by... compiling a list of people who breached the outing policy. I'm still noting the lack of any response whatsoever to the allegations.

[Peter Damian]

edited to add - thanks for adding what you did , SB_Johnny - I was too stunned by the blatantly obvious "fuck off" to do more than I did there.

Thanks to SBJ also.

[Peter Damian]

Here's Iipmstudent9 signing a comment left by 61.16.233.194.

Posts by 203.76.140.130 (T-C-L) are signed by both Iipmstudent9 and Mrinal.

Mrinal also edited from 203.76.132.74.

Queried whois.apnic.net with "203.76.132.74"...

% Information related to '203.76.132.72 - 203.76.132.79'

inetnum: 203.76.132.72 - 203.76.132.79
netname: IPM-NM
country: IN
descr: IIPM PLANMAN
descr: OKHLA KALKAJI
descr: DELHI
admin-c: JH1655-AP
tech-c: JH1655-AP
status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE

You are brilliant. I was searching for a re-sign, but couldn't find one.

[Peter Damian]

Interesting. Wifione is going to attempt to defend themselves by... compiling a list of people who breached the outing policy. I'm still noting the lack of any response whatsoever to the allegations.

Link. You weren't joking, were you?

[Peter Damian]

It actually is Kafkaesque, or is that Orwellian.

Assuming Wifione isn't employed by IIPM, it isn't outing, as the thread here only concerns editing from IIPM IP addresses. But if Wifione is employed by IIPM, it is paid advocacy by an administrator, which is surely very bad indeed. I mean, does she say 'Look I was employed by Planman consulting and was instrumental in establishing their PR division, indeed we did a fantastic job promoting IIPM on Wikipedia and showing it in a fair and balanced light, removing all the defamation and slurs published by the University Grants Commission and other regulatory bodies and so on. These BAD PEOPLE from that BAD WEBSITE are trying to make this fact public, ouch, that's nasty outing, it hurts, it burns, punish them"

I mean. Words fail.

[Vigilant]

Interesting. Wifione is going to attempt to defend themselves by... compiling a list of people who breached the outing policy. I'm still noting the lack of any response whatsoever to the allegations.

It could work too.

It's not like wifione is a common editor or something...

Lèse-majesté (T-H-L) applies here.

[Peter Damian]

Not the first time.

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

MakrandJoshi reveals her identity here. Is it forbidden to provide a link to a Wikipedia edit as well? Or is it just external URLs?

[thekohser]

MakrandJoshi reveals her identity here.

I don't understand how that diff demonstrates that.

[Anroth]

Not the first time.

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

MakrandJoshi reveals her identity here. Is it forbidden to provide a link to a Wikipedia edit as well? Or is it just external URLs?

People are overthinking it.

If anyone wants to present evidence, they can use links *to* the evidence directly perfectly fine, if its on-wiki etc. If its also off-site, that isnt an issue as long as they are not linking to the offsite material. They cant link to say here (or elsewhere) and go 'look at all the evidence they have gathered!'.

There is also nothing preventing people from outing Wifione, as long as its sent direct to Arbcom rather than posted on the evidence page providing, as above, the evidence is from on-wiki. They havnt said 'we wont look at any outing evidence' they just said you cant post it on-wiki. Which is (unfortunately, due to the odd way wikipedia takes outing more seriously than paid/unpaid biased editing) the way the policy is written.

I am going to ping one of the clerks regarding a related matter, so will update in a bit.

[tarantino]

The Iipmstudent9 account claimed it was used by more than one person. Here on Konrad West's talk page in 2005, the newly created account Iipmalum says,

K, hi there, I've created a seperate ID for myself. So now IIPM Student9 abd me use seperate accounts, and whenever the others go online on WIki they will make thier own ID's. Thanks for the note on IIPMStudent9's page - he's got tests this month and told me he is pulling an all nighter. I'll fill in! --Iipmalum (T-C-L) 07:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Two years later, Iipmalum was autoblocked because they used the same IP address as Iipmstudent9. Luna Santin declined their unblock request, saying,

Doesn't appear to be a shared or widely shared IP address, which unfortunately makes it seem likely that you're the same person. If you are a different user, please be aware that autoblocks generally expire in about 24 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

MakrandJoshi reveals her identity here.

I don't understand how that diff demonstrates that.

The name mentioned in that diff is the same as the name that iipmstudent9 complained about earlier as revealing her identity. You would have to know the name mentioned in the deleted user page, of course. The name mentioned was the head of PR Planman consulting (part of IIPM), at that time.

[Peter Damian]

I had a note from one of the Arbs, saying that the identity of Wifione was not relevant to anything.

Why not? Let’s look at the bigger picture. IIPM, owned by Arindam Chaudhuri, has been running an advertising campaign for more than 10 years, the purpose of which is to persuade gullible applicants that IIPM is an accredited institution, or has affiliation with accredited institutions etc. This campaign successfully involved taking legal action against websites – including government websites - that tried to reveal this deception. Chaudhuri in effect managed to impose an information blackout on the medium that supposedly resists such blackouts.

Wikipedia was thus the only independent information source available. But in parallel with this, his PR department was operating on Wikipedia as a sockfarm, removing all reference to the problems about accreditation and affiliation and so on. This operation was not successful at first. However, the person responsible for this campaign managed to get elected as an adminstrator on Wikipedia, and was able for a number of years to use their position of trust and influence to suppress the facts about IIPM.

Even now, they are trying to use their position of trust to subvert reality.

Given these circumstances, I don’t understand why the identity of Wifione is not relevant. For a start, it severely damages Wikipedia’s reputation in the wider internet.

[lilburne]

Even now, they are trying to use their position of trust to subvert reality.

Given these circumstances, I don’t understand why the identity of Wifione is not relevant. For a start, it severely damages Wikipedia’s reputation in the wider internet.

Let me explain.

If wifione is a paid advocate working in our midst, a reincarnation of a paid advocate and a bureaucrat that we banned before, then our systems are shown to be useless, and that does no good. If on the other hand wifione is just someone that has been over eager to push some agenda then we can simply topic ban and move on. We only want evidence of the later not the former. Kthks.

[HRIP7]

I had a note from one of the Arbs, saying that the identity of Wifione was not relevant to anything.

Why not? [...] I don’t understand why the identity of Wifione is not relevant. For a start, it severely damages Wikipedia’s reputation in the wider internet.

The thing is, if Wifione were an IIPM employee/PR agent who edited neutrally, there would be no problem. Either the editing was non-neutral – in which case it does not matter for arbitration purposes whether Wifione was an employee or not – or it wasn't.

Evidence of non-neutral editing is all the arbitrators are interested in, and it has to be so, as they are operating within the Wikipedia framework. They are quite intelligent enough to draw their private conclusions.

[HRIP7]

Re this post from an older thread ...

Someone needs to ask Wifione about this, from earlier in the thread. At that time, the IP 58.68.49.70 that was used to edit Wifione's user page, was shown to be registered to IIPM. It's funny that it no longer does.

... note this 2010 diff:

Since your IP address is registered to IIPM, it appears you do have a conflict of interest. In the future, please suggest your changes on the talk page so others can review them. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[Jim]

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.

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)

That history has now been restored by Courcelles, prompted by this comment at the case.

The post you were looking for is here, for what it's worth.

[Jim]

Here's how Wifi "plays the game""

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =641115823

Also, you could perhaps (if you think it makes sense), soften the corners on the term "on behalf of IIPM" in your first assertion. Thanks.

soften the corners? I think I was just a little sick in my mouth...

Yet Hochman obliges. "per request"

You have to give Wifi credit. The slippery, tactical obsequiousness is strong and effective in this one.

Yet maybe not enough this time, I fancy...

[Peter Damian]

That was what I was looking for.

Hi Dipali. How're things at office? You've been overworked because of this thing I see. Miss those long chats we had in Delhi. I'm in Bangalore these days, with a training company. 24 hour net access. Hence, I will be on this wiki a lot. You know my yahoo messenger id. add me back, let's have a chat. Ponytailsnipper 05:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It’s possible he is inventing this, but Deepali/Dipali Sakhare has been employed by Planman (owned by Chaudhuri) for some time. Now she has her own consulting company, but it still contracts to Planman.

On the other hand, Wifione says, referring to that edit, “By revealing my identity, and continously harassing em online, it constitutes stalking”. The name he mentioned would not have revealed her identity, unless it was her name. Of course she might have pretended it was, in order to accuse him of harassment. But then she is either lying, or has a deep conflict of interest. Hard to choose.

Note that both iipmstudent9 and Wifione identify as female (as does ‘Mrinal’ Pandey, by implication).

On another subject, Vejvan's evidence page is excellent.

[Peter Damian]

Even now, they are trying to use their position of trust to subvert reality.

Given these circumstances, I don’t understand why the identity of Wifione is not relevant. For a start, it severely damages Wikipedia’s reputation in the wider internet.

Let me explain.

If wifione is a paid advocate working in our midst, a reincarnation of a paid advocate and a bureaucrat that we banned before, then our systems are shown to be useless, and that does no good. If on the other hand wifione is just someone that has been over eager to push some agenda then we can simply topic ban and move on. We only want evidence of the later not the former. Kthks.

Ah yes.

[Vigilant]

Quite the dilemma.

Do they:
1) Let the incontrovertibly paid POV warrior off, thus opening the flood gates forever, using the wifione account as a template, to corporate ownership of the corporation's articles...

2) Collude with the BADSITE to ban wifione and thereby admit that the safeguards they've been crowing about for years have proven utterly ineffective in the fight against bad actors...




What they actually look like when they finally make a decision...

[DanMurphy]

Even now, they are trying to use their position of trust to subvert reality.

Given these circumstances, I don’t understand why the identity of Wifione is not relevant. For a start, it severely damages Wikipedia’s reputation in the wider internet.

Let me explain.

If wifione is a paid advocate working in our midst, a reincarnation of a paid advocate and a bureaucrat that we banned before, then our systems are shown to be useless, and that does no good. If on the other hand wifione is just someone that has been over eager to push some agenda then we can simply topic ban and move on. We only want evidence of the later not the former. Kthks.

Ah yes.

Some years ago, I was involved in cleaning up a Wikipedia article about a novel from the 1930s that's only remembered today because it is a lippogram. In this case, the letter "e" appeared nowhere in the book's 200-odd pages. A small number of Wikipedia's typical man-children/trolls/whatever the hell they are had decreed that the article itself should be written without using the letter "e." They had successfully defended the unreadable pile (and we're talking unreadable by Wikipedia standards) for some time by using this formula:

"1. It's not against the rules to write lippogramatically if it's superior to other options, is it? 2. Assume good faith! 3. The version without the letter "e" is clearly superior in every way, says me, Mr. Sox, and Mr. Box. 4. No consensus for change! Default to status quo."

This pathetic little Wikipedia story seems relevant to discussions of "good" paid advocates at the online encyclopedia administered by teenagers, obsessives, SEO manipulators, and political propagandists.

[tarantino]

Here's an interesting meatpuppet who edited IIPM related pages for three months in 2007, Sunilalagh (T-C-L). His user page says, "My name is Sunil Alagh, and I am primarily a consultant in Mumbai, India." That implies he's this Sunil Alagh, founder and chairman of the consulting firm, SKA Advisors, which advises clients on marketing strategies. He's on the governing board of the Indian Institute Of Management Indore (T-H-L), and a graduate of Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

Wiki bio: Sunil_Alagh (T-H-L)

[Nw~]

Here's an interesting meatpuppet who edited IIPM related pages for three months in 2007, Sunilalagh (T-C-L). His user page says, "My name is Sunil Alagh, and I am primarily a consultant in Mumbai, India." That implies he's this Sunil Alagh, founder and chairman of the consulting firm, SKA Advisors, which advises clients on marketing strategies. He's on the governing board of the Indian Institute Of Management Indore (T-H-L), and a graduate of Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

Wiki bio: Sunil_Alagh (T-H-L)

Interesting to see one of Mrinal's IPs edit Sunil's request for protection.

[tarantino]

Re this post from an older thread ...

Someone needs to ask Wifione about this, from earlier in the thread. At that time, the IP 58.68.49.70 that was used to edit Wifione's user page, was shown to be registered to IIPM. It's funny that it no longer does.

... note this 2010 diff:

Since your IP address is registered to IIPM, it appears you do have a conflict of interest. In the future, please suggest your changes on the talk page so others can review them. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also in an edit summary, here.

(cur | prev) 09:18, 7 January 2010‎ Wifione (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,539 bytes) (+466)‎ . . (→‎GOTA programme: Explaining the GOTA programmes new areas and added two organisations names)
(cur | prev) 08:48, 7 January 2010‎ Wifione (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,073 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved The Indian Institute of Planning and Management to Indian Institute of Planning and Management over redirect: Removing the term 'the' As per naming guidelines.)
(cur | prev) 12:28, 6 January 2010‎ WeisheitSuchen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,073 bytes) (-73)‎ . . (undo grammar error, name dropping by IP registered to IIPM)
(cur | prev) 10:52, 6 January 2010‎ 58.68.49.70 (talk)‎ . . (38,146 bytes) (+122)‎ . . (→‎Job placement: wrds)
(cur | prev) 10:49, 6 January 2010‎ 58.68.49.70 (talk)‎ . . (38,024 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Facilities and faculty)
(cur | prev) 10:46, 6 January 2010‎ 58.68.49.70 (talk)‎ . . (38,016 bytes) (+125)‎ . . (→‎Relationships with other educational institutions: adnl wrds)
(cur | prev) 10:31, 6 January 2010‎ 58.68.49.70 (talk)‎ . . (37,891 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (→‎Courses: cos)

Mrinal more or less admitted to working for IIPM here.

Will do that. Do give me an idea about what all you would need. I'll get all of them mailed in one go from the IIPM corp comm office to your email address. That way you'll be able to verify the same appropriately.

[Jim]

Will do that. Do give me an idea about what all you would need. I'll get all of them mailed in one go from the IIPM corp comm office to your email address. That way you'll be able to verify the same appropriately.

Wow. I'm no forensic scientist, but that's Wifione's stilted phrasing, style, tone and voice, right there.

Subjective, I know, but it's just like when you hear a voice in the next room, and think "I know that person..."

"Do give me an idea". Uncanny.

[tarantino]

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)".

Why did Wifione ask for that edit to be oversighted? She didn't when she made edits logged out from 59.161.122.127, 59.161.112.6, 59.161.123.187 or 115.117.148.79.

You arbcom members with oversight powers following along at home will probably find in the logs Wifione editing from 58.68.49.70 or another IIPM associated IP.

[Peter Damian]

Here's an interesting meatpuppet who edited IIPM related pages for three months in 2007, Sunilalagh (T-C-L). His user page says, "My name is Sunil Alagh, and I am primarily a consultant in Mumbai, India." That implies he's this Sunil Alagh, founder and chairman of the consulting firm, SKA Advisors, which advises clients on marketing strategies. He's on the governing board of the Indian Institute Of Management Indore (T-H-L), and a graduate of Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

Wiki bio: Sunil_Alagh (T-H-L)

Interesting that the article on Alagh was created by Aurorion (T-C-L). It seems to have started life as an attack BLP.

Sunil Alagh is an Indian business executive. He is a former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Britannia Industries, an Indian food products corporation. He was asked to quit by the Board of Britannia in June 2003, for alleged misuse of company funds for his personal use.

If you look at Aurorian’s contributions to Chaudhuri’s article, they are negatively slanted, e.g. this. Note Wifione immediately reverts. So it is like a war being waged on all fronts.

My question is, how can you ensure any kind of objectivity in such a process?

[Anroth]

In Indian-related articles? Generally by topic-banning anyone from India...

[Jim]

Interesting. Wifione is going to attempt to defend themselves by... compiling a list of people who breached the outing policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on-parties

Wifione Thank you for your email. After reviewing your statement and the supporting evidence, we have concluded that the request be declined. Roger Davies talk 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Which does them some credit, I admit. After all, the only thing really trying to be established here is that Wifione edits on behalf of IIPM, which is quite evidently important to the case.

And quite evident.

[tarantino]

Eight years of the page history of Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy have been restored for perusal during the arbcom case.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_advertising_and_blogging_controversy (T-H-L)

I've exported and saved it. Consider archiving any interesting diffs for easy referral.

The history of seven redirects have also been restored.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/IIPM Controversy (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/IIPM Advertising Controversy (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/IIPM Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/The Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising controversy (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence/Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising controversy (T-H-L)

[Vigilant]

Never mind. Something weird with my browser agent string.

[Jim]

Ladies, Gentlemen, we have an early contender for Ironic Wikipedia Post of 2015.

After four days of silence, Wifi drops by the case page to add ...

- a heading...

Then, this important step in the pursuit of justice, openness and self-reflection complete, it's off to a user talk page to explain how to win friends and influence people at wikipedia:

Your reasoning doesn't seem true and transparent. I don't think such a reasoning will get you unblocked. Come clean and accept your mistakes. That's a good way to start.

You couldn't, as they say, make this shit up...

Yes, Wifi, that is excellent advice. I look forward, breath unheld, to watching you follow it.



edited to add: Ah, they started adding some stuff - alleged BADSITES and OUTING which postdates the behaviour is still the justification for the behaviour. Yeah, that'll fly...

Try harder.

Come clean and accept your mistakes. That's a good way to start.

[Peter Damian]

In early December 2013 when the issue was raised on Jimbo's page, I followed it for some time and would have responded in case there was a formal call for response. I'd been advised just some days before by a member of the current Arbcom (in personal capacity) about the Streisand effect, and I did not have the guts at that time to test the theory out, specially given the drama Jimbo's talk page discussions cause. To the best of my knowledge, from 13th December 2013 I had gone on a wiki-break for around a month, so could not follow Jimbo's subsequent note on his talk page. I would have responded then, if I had had been active.

Which member of the Arbcom was this?

[Anroth]

I imagine the recused one?

[Notvelty]

edited to add: Ah, they started adding some stuff - alleged BADSITES and OUTING which postdates the behaviour is still the justification for the behaviour. Yeah, that'll fly...

Don't see why not. It works all the time in the real world, unfortunately.

"Look what you made me do" is practically gospel.