Wifione arbitration case

From The Wikipedia POV
Revision as of 11:20, 31 December 2014 by Edward Buckner (talk | contribs) (→‎Assume good faith)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editor Wifione (T-C-F-R-B)

Arbitration case request posted 26 December 2014


Statement by PD

I find a pattern of edits that is extremely concerning. As Vejvančický has noted, Wifione has consistently added praise to articles about the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its owner, often unsourced, while repeatedly removing well-sourced claims that it is not accredited. He even removed a reference to this letter from the Stanford Business School, denying any kind of connection with IIPM. The intention was clearly to remove any suggestion that the IIPM's claims of affiliation were false.

He has also created an article on a living person – a competitor of IIPM – which consisted entirely of a poorly sourced claim that the subject was under criminal investigation, in an obvious attempt to discredit him. At the same time he was puffing up the article on Arindam Chaudhuri.

Wifione has never given a satisfactory explanation of his bias. He has been repeatedly asked about his conflict of interest, and has repeatedly evaded the question. After one question at his editor review in January 2014, about why he was interested in IIPM, he left the project for three months, and declined to answer questions until August. He has repeatedly accused people of being part of a Wikipediocracy conspiracy, rather than address the substance of the allegations. This is unsatisfactory. Administrators should at all times be prepared to answer questions about their conduct on Wikipedia. Nor has he explained how he came to Wikipedia in the first place. In his 24th edit ever to Wikipedia he displayed an impressive knowledge of how to provide a link to the official Registrar of Indian Newspapers.

The case has wider implications. Chaudhuri has been relentless in taking legal action against websites and publications which sought to expose his deceptive claims. In February 2013 he got over 70 URLs blocked, one of them belonging to the Indian University Grants Commission for publicising the fact that IIPM was unrecognised by them: see Cory Doctorow's protest.

Given this form of censorship, Wikipedia is often the only place which students can – in theory – depend on to check the misleading claims of such ‘schools’. One parent spoke of being ‘ruined’ after taking out a bank loan. “We got lured by the fake ads coupled with newspaper news praising IIPM institute”.

Astonishingly, while Chaudhuri’s lawyers were blocking official sites that might have helped students and parents, Wifione was at work on Wikipedia, removing statements like “Historically, IIPM has also been by far the largest advertiser among Indian educational institutions,” and “IIPM has been involved in controversies with respect to its advertising.” (Link). Despite the fact that the Institute was running a blatant scam, Wifione has, for a long time, been able to use his comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy and his trusted status as administrator to prevent this being divulged. It is sad that censorship and suppression has reached into the very heart of a project like Wikipedia, which was based from the very beginning on the principle that knowledge and truth ‘want’ to be free.

Background

The background to this case is a long-running edit war over the article on the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (T-H-L-F-C). Supporters of the school persistently remove negative references to the school, particularly to the fact that it is not accredited, but has falsely claimed accreditation or affiliation with accredited institutions such as Stanford Business School, University of Buckingham, and that it has claimed special relationship with employers.

IIPM is owned by millionaire businessman Arindam Chaudhuri. You cannot escape the Institute’s advertising presence in India: bold, glossy ads promising job placements for its students, multinationals recruiting on campus, affiliation with other accredited institutions, awards of degrees from those institutions and so on. Hundreds or thousands of supporters – almost certainly paid supporters – promote his interests on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Quora, other internet forums. Chaudhuri’s Facebook page currently has four million likes. Its ‘degrees’ are practically worthless, but unsuspecting parents are persuaded to mortgage the family farm, or take out loans of 10 lakh (about £10,000) or more to send children to the Institute.

See this New Delhi High Court order restraining Arindam Chaudhuri from using the words “MBA, BBA, Management Course, Management School, Business School or B-School” in relation to the Courses or programmes being conducted by them.


Using BLPs to further a dispute

Using BLPs to promote a dispute is strictly against policy. For years, Wifione persistently added derogatory and defamatory material into Ashok Chauhan (T-H-L-F-C), while at the same time puffing up the article on Arindam Chaudhuri (T-H-L-F-C).

  • wikipedia:Amity_University. Adds or replaces material about arrest warrant against Ashok Chauhan: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
  • wikipedia:Ashok Chauhan. Starts the article, then adds or replaces material about arrest warrant against Ashok Chauhan: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
  • wikipedia:Indian Institute of Planning and Management removes references to the investigative work of Maheshwar Peri, editor of Careers 360: [12], [13] adds the story about criminal defamation charges against Maheshwar Peri, [14] Removes statement by the Uttarakhand High Court that ‘A truth spoken for public good can never be called defamatory." and replaces with "In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360" and " In May 2010, it was reported that the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory".", [15] removes the court statement again.

Tendentious editing

  • wikipedia:Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Downplays or removes references to lack of accreditation: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] is egregious, changing "In June 2008, The Wall Street Journal's Mint carried an op-ed by S.Mitra Kalita about misleading advertising by educational institutes in which it mentioned IIPM's claims about foreign faculty" to "In June 2008, S.Mitra Kalita in an op-ed column in livemint.com (a Hindustan Times and Wall Street Journal joint venture) gives a mention to the JAM and IIPM issue", and removing ""In August 2007, India's Corporate Affairs Minister Prem Chand Gupta announced that IIPM is under investigation for running courses without AICTE approval", [26] changes "IIPM has been the subject of controversies regarding accreditation, rankings in third party publications, advertising claims, trade practices, and tax issues" to "IIPM was the subject of a blogging controversy in 2005", [27], removes story about student complaints in Bangalore Express, [28] removes "It has been alleged that IIPM engages in misleading advertising practices."
  • wikipedia:Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Positive slant: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] adding "In 2008, IIPM placed 2,670 students through campus placements. It was reported to be a record. In the same year, there were 165 international placements, reported to be "second only to the best in the country", [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] ("IIPM has been ranked #9 amongst India's top ten private schools by Hindustan Times in 2009"), [44], [45], [46], [47] "IIPM was ranked the 5th best business school in India and the 2011 Best B-school in Asia overall among B-schools from 29 countries at the second Asia’s Best B-School awards", [48] "In March 2009, IIPM received the “candidate for accreditation” status from International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE), an accreditation body for college and university programs.",
  • wikipedia:Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Disparages regulatory bodies: [57], [58] (removes "On July 31, 2010, the UGC has taken note of some IIPM ads that promise "UGC Recognised MBA Degree" and publicly stated once again that the IIPM "does not have the right of conferring or granting degrees as specified by the University Grants Commission".", [59] removes the UGC claim again, Accuses University Grants Commission of corruption. As noted by Vejvančický, when we compare some of his edits to the article Indian_School_of_Business (T-H-L-F-C) (ISB) with edits to IIPM article, note that here, he changes the lead section of the ISB article to insert information about ISB courses violating All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) regulations. Here, he repeats that "courses are not approved by AICTE", again, in the lead section. However, when he edits the lead section of the IIPM page, he adds a long and completely irrelevant explanation about how corrupt and incompetent the regulatory body (AICTE) is.

Evasion

At Wifi's editor review, he was asked on 19 January 2014 "*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)". This difficult question finally caused him to leave Wikipedia for seven months, even though he had himself started the editor review a week before.

At the beginning of August he finally 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. 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)

What was the edit war? He started editing the IIPM article on June 2009. That day he proposes the deletion of the JAM magazine reference. The magazine was one of those suppressed in India through 'defamation' legal action taken by Chaudhuri. He then removes the entire section on the Careers 360 claims, such as IMI Belgium not being recognized as an institution of higher learning in Belgium, Standard Chartered and other banks denying any affiliation, testimonials from former students etc. On the 29th June he was accused of being a sockpuppet of Mrinal Pandey.

The idea that he had 'no particular opinion' of IIPM is not borne out by these initial edits to the article. This edit on 1 July 2009 shows detailed knowledge of the investigative reports in the two publications he tried to remove mention of. On 30 July he is confident enough to report an editor at ANI, claiming 'harassment'. He repeats the accusations at Wikiquette alert, Reliable source noticeboard, and even the accuracy dispute board. He is always claiming harassment. "Dear Makrand Joshi, I have to request you to write calmly. I feel you are trying to steamroll and harass an editor. If you're accusing me of being a person called Mrinal Pandey, I feel completely harrassed by your accusation. Wifione (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)"

W1 has persistently evaded questions about his conflict of interest.

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)[/quote]
You evaded the question. My request regarding your affiliation with IIPM was legitimate. Conflicts of interest should always be disclosed. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Amatulic, you are an editor with a good background and good editing history. It'll be good if you do not make statements such as "Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM?" This is the second time you're writing this statement or a similar statement. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[/quote]
can you please take out your statement "What is your association with IIPM?" from all the places you have mentioned it? The statement goes beyond a CoI question and has been made on a talk page of an article. It is quite disparaging for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[/quote]
No, I will not remove the question, because it's a fair question. This has gone beyond a "clear content dispute". Your wikilawyering and content edits are highly indicative of a conflict of interest, to multiple editors, not just me. There is no disparagement intended; it's simply an observation of fact. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with a conflict of interest as long as you disclose it — so disclose it and we can move on with a clear understanding of where we all stand. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [2]

In November 2013, when Peter Damian politely asked him about his affiliation by email, he tried to get him blocked from meta.

I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. User Peter Damian is sending me harassing emails through this meta-wiki (as he is blocked since 2010 on the English wiki with his email being disabled). I wish to report these emails for their content and wish to request action on Peter's email account access on Meta and perhaps a block too, if the admins/bureaucrats here so deem fit. Is this the right forum to request so? Thanks.Wifione (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On 2 December 2014, Wikipediocracy published an expose of Wifione's activities on Wikipedia. This prompted further questions.

He made no edits at all between 18 January 2014 and 24 April 2014. This could hardly be explained as a ‘wiki break’, given that he started his editor review just a week before his break on 12 January 2014. Perhaps the break was unexpected, but then why didn’t he say so? Jimmy Wales commented "it would be best if he just doesn't come back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

On returning, he avoided the editor review entirely. He was reminded in June that he still hadn’t replied:

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)

Wifione didn’t reply. He was then reminded by Vejvančický.

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)

A week later he replied

Hi Vej... Don't wish to give you a wrong vibe. I think it's just a combination of too much personal work in my real life combined with the fact that when I log on to the project with my limited time, I invest that time doing things that have interested me and stuff that I enjoy... and have ergo kept on postponing spending the limited and valuable time I invest on the project to write answers for you. [b]That's an honest answer[/b][1]. My apologies for the delay. Should have done the same long back. Will try to block some time in the coming days to reply to you. Hope I don't end up disappointing you again. And yes, it's good to see you around the project; and I do mean it. Best wishes. Wifione Message 08:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC).
"Will try to block some time in the coming days to reply to you" is an old and bad song. I don't want to patronize you, but a response, and not only to me, should be the first thing you do after you "resume editing", now matter how much you want to invest your valuable time doing things you enjoy on Wikipedia. It's a matter of honesty and integrity, I'm not sure if you realize that. You have opened the ER as an indignant and righteous reaction to Jimbo Wales' comment, but now you are trying to sweep it under the carpet. That's what I think. Please answer or I'll start a request for your ban and desyssoping as I would be ashamed to collaborate with people who avoid honesty and responsibility in this way. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Vej, I know it sounds like an old and bad song... but it's not intended to slight you or the other editors on the review. Your queries (and so of other editors) deserve answers and I have no issues in answering them in the near coming days. Your threat to otherwise start a request for my ban and desyssoping brings down my respect for you considerably, especially in the light of information (as I'm now told by editors here) that it is copy pasted at the behest of some editors canvassing you for action on another external forum, where you are also perhaps an active member, apart from some other editors on my editor review. In the light of this, your allegiance to terms like honesty and integrity seems compromised. Irrespective of your canvassed threat, or of you coordinating your actions with editors on another site about your actions here, I shall surely look forward to answering your queries and those of other editors at the review this weekend or within a day or two of that, embedding these new details within my answers. Hope that seems fair... Regards. Wifione Message 05:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[/quote][/quote]

He then replied to SBJ's question, and closed the review.

Assume good faith

Understands that you must always project '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)
Dear Ravikiran, I am surprised at your RFC, and the tone, and the allegations made. I have been trying to learn Wiki rules and etiquette, and have NEVER purposely flouted them. 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. I have learnt a great deal from you. Hope you see the screenshots and verify them, and do as you see fit with the reverts. Hoping we can be friends --Drnoamchomsky 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

IP evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&diff=prev&oldid=335033574 (31 December 2009) Why was this deleted?

Edits


See also

Notes

  1. ↑ [My emphasis]
Retrieved from "http://www.logicmuseum.com/x/index.php?title=Wifione_arbitration_case&oldid=23384"