Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione

Wifione

Wifione (talk · contribs · count) Hello everybody. I'm requesting an Editor Review because I wished to have the community's feedback with respect to my editing of specific pages, namely Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Ashok Chauhan, Arindam Chaudhuri, Amity University and any other article that reviewers may wish to comment or ask questions on. The basic reason for this review arose after an article on me in Wikipediocracy said more or less that I was/or am a paid editor for the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and that I have consistently edited for the institute and against its competitors using my extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This was followed by some editors commenting on Jimbo Wales' talk page that some action needs to be taken on the issue. The discussion got archived subsequently, and unfortunately escaped my notice as I was on a winter break. As I returned today to editing, I noticed that Jimbo Wales has also commented that it would be best if he (wifione) just doesn't come back. With genuine regard for the Wikipedia community, I do put forward that I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims. At the same time, I believe it best to allow the community to ask me any questions and give me any feedback with respect to my editing. I do hope that through this review, I'm able to provide the community with the clarifications they may require, and am able to put into action the feedback they give. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review my edits. Wifione ^Message 21:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

Review by Guy Macon

• I did a quick Google search, and besides the sources listed above (Jimbo's talk page, Wikipediocracy), I found some more references. The following is a list of where this has been discussed on the Internet; I believe that there is a benefit to seeing exactly what accusations are out there. DO NOT assume that they are accurate or truthful.

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki-paid-y a? (The Times of India)

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_152#User:Wifione

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Indian_Fakers_Teach_Wiki_PR

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Nichalp

User:Brumski/paid editing adverts#1st set of examples (Elance:Nicholas_A)

http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/indian-fakers-teach-wiki-pr/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deep-focus/Wiki-paid-y-a/articleshow/28695840.cms

http://wikimedia.7.x6.nabble.com/Pure-Fiction-Nichalp-and-Wifione-td4373386.html --Guy Macon (talk)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2012-February/thread.html#6828 (The original email thread on wikimedia. Wifione ^Message)

User talk:Amatulic/Archives/2010#Your reply to me on the Indin Instute of Planning and Management talk page

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 39#User:Wifione and The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3380&p=69465

http://www.prlog.org/12249994-wikipediocracy-detects-wikipedia-administrator-shilling-for-indian-diploma-mill.html --Guy Macon (talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_99#You_might_want_to_see_this (This too. Wifione ^Message)

Talk:IIPM#Redirecting IIPM to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Review by Vejvančický

I don't know if you are paid or not, but I think that your editing is heavily biased. In my opinion, you knowingly tried to show some organizations and people (in their Wikipedia articles) in a bad light while on the other hand you quietly promoted interests of others. The articles in question are: Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Arindam Chaudhuri, Indian School of Business, Amity University and Ashok Chauhan, the most frequently edited main space pages by you (stressed because it shows where your main interests in Wikipedia lie):

With this edit to the article Ashok Chauhan, you basically turned it into an attack page, and you later watched the article to repeatedly restore the "Controversy" section. This, for example, was not vandalism. It is very strange when I compare with this edit to the article Arindam Chaudhuri, Mr. Chauhan's competitor and director of IIPM Think Tank at Indian Institute of Planning and Management. You wrote: "get multiple high quality sources for this exceptional claim" when you removed criticism from that page, however, the TOI (the same newspaper/source) was enough for you when you added (and restored) claim that Mr. Chaudhuri is a "management guru".

In this edit to the lead section of the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management (an institute led by Mr. Chaudhuri) you removed "non-NPOV UGC line". I'm not sure what do you consider non-NPOV, the source (India Today), the regulatory body (UGC) or the claim itself? You removed critical information from the lead section of the IIPM article [1] and you wrote "dont belabour point in lede; it's already made extensively below", however, you have used different standards when you edited the lead section of the article Indian School of Business (a competitor of IIPM): "please read up Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) for understanding that all prominent controversies need to summarized in lede", or the lead section of the article Amity University (another competitor of IIPM, a school founded by Mr. Ashok Chauhan): "please do not remove controversial material from lede and other places without discussion". The same here: "Actually, prominent controversies have to be included in the lead as per editing guidelines." This edit to the lead section of the article Amity University was not "reformat intro" (as you wrote in your edit summary), but inserting of unsourced information mentioning (among other things) "an international arrest warrant against its founder president". This edit was not simple "adding more references" to the lead section of the article Amity University, but rather adding of negative information. This is an interesting edit to the lead section of the IIPM article: the AICTE and UGC (Indian education regulatory bodies) did not accredit IIPM's programmes, so you had to add to the intro the information how corrupt the AICTE and UGC are. I'll continue. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC) In your edits to the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management (you mostly removed negative information) you wrote "use RS and not primary sources for exceptional claims" etc, however, it was OK for you to use a primary source in another edit of yours, not so critical. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Vejvančický thanks for the review. I'll request you to give me a day more to reply. Post vacation RL piled up work has engulfed me; but I'll give a detailed response on this review in a day or maximum two. Thanks for the patience. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Any editor watching this should also check comments at Talk:IIPM (disambig. page). I would say that the arrival of User:TheDJ and his proposal was a relief for you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• It's a little difficult to offer an opinion without some further information: "... I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims" sounds (perhaps unintentionally) as if you deny only some of the off-site commentary. It would be helpful if you could answer the following questions: (1) Have you edited Wikipedia articles in exchange for money? (2) If so, which ones? (3) Did you previously edit as Nichalp (talk · contribs) and/or Zithan (talk · contribs)? WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• WJBscribe thanks for getting my attention to the perception my statement is giving out. (1) I've never edited Wikipedia articles in exchange for money. (3) I have never edited as Nichalp or Zithan (or any other editor); and had no idea about the existence of these individuals till the email thread popped up. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• In extension of the above question, are you the employee or contractor of these universities being discussed here, or any of their affiliated or sponsoring business or organizations, or of their principal officers or owners or any of their organizations? Are you a current or former student of either of the two universities and their affiliates? DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• DGG, hi. I'm not the employee or contractor of any of these universities being discussed here, or of any of their connected entities, directly or indirectly, or of their principal officers or owners or of any of their organizations. I'm neither a current nor a former student of either of the two universities or of their affiliates, or of their competitors. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hope I'm wrong, but that phrase raised a red flag for me, as well. It doesn't sound like a refutation of being a paid editor, but a refutation of being some specific paid editor. I look forward to clarification. In the interest of full disclosure, I have edited Indian Institute of Planning and Management, and some other related article now deleted.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Phil. I understand my statement gave off an unintended view. To be precise, I'm not a paid editor. I don't have any CoI with the said articles above. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Like those commenting above, I find your statement highly evasive, or at least woefully incomplete. It's impossible to offer any meaningful feedback without more information. Could you explain, in your words, your relationship to the article subjects in question? Ideally, your statement would address the questions raised above by WJBscribe and DGG. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• MastCell, I've answered WJBscribe and DGG above. If you'd require more clarification, do please tell. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I do require further clarification. Please see my follow-up comment below. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• At elance, there is a resume/CV that at one time read:

"Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name. I can help you by metamorphosing technical jargon into simple language that could be understood by a wide audience. If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience."

In the now-deleted feedback for that Elance user, there was once this comment:

"We would like a quote to create a wikipedia article about our CEO Brad Sugars"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars contains this claim:

"Zithan, who created most of the article in its present form, has been desysopped and blocked by ArbCom for failure to reply to queries about his paid editing."

and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Nichalp says:

"In response to community concerns about Nichalp using an undisclosed account (Zithan) for paid editing, and because of Nichalp's failure to reply to the Arbitration Committee's email enquiry about these concerns, Nichalp's bureaucrat, administrator and oversight status, and his access to the associated mailing lists are temporarily removed and Zithan is indefinitely blocked."

There are several more examples at User:Brumski/paid editing adverts#1st set of examples (Elance:Nicholas_A).

The Wikipediocracy article says:

"[A] rumor that he [Wifione] was the reincarnation of another editor (Nichalp), a Wikipedia 'bureaucrat' (senior administrator) who was forced out in disgrace after he was found to have used sockpuppet accounts to edit for payment. Nichalp was the first bureaucrat in Wikipedia history to be removed 'for cause'."

NOTE: Wikipediocracy is a completely unreliable source. Does anyone have any evidence supporting the above claim?

In the light of your opening statement, ("I am not the paid editor that the Wikipediocracy article claims"), would you care to comment on the above? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Guy, good to see you here. Similar to what I mentioned above, I'm not the reincarnation of Nichalp, apparently a former bureaucrat. Far from it, and unlike Nichalp (who I'm given to understand was a respected editor till his undoing), I've been, I think, one of the more bumbling editors around this project. The connection between Nichalp and me was alleged through an anonymous email on the Wikimedia mail lists. As much as I can understand, it could be just a prank pulled on that email list by someone slighted by some past action of mine - and latched on to by the Wikipediocracy article. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although you are not required to do so, would you be willing to voluntarily list all active Wikipedia accounts that you control? -Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Apart from my primary account, I control an alternative account (almost never used), which is always listed at the top of my user page and talk page. Apart from these, I don't control any other Wikipedia accounts. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Although you are not required to do so, would you be willing to voluntarily list all inactive Wikipedia accounts (including blocked and deleted accounts) that you once controlled? -Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have and I've not had any active or inactive Wikipedia accounts, apart from the two I mentioned above. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay Guy. Wifione ^Message 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• For my part, I am 100% satisfied. I have seen no actual evidence for any Nichalp/Wifione connection, and I did look for one. Nor has anyone posted anything even slightly resembling evidence. Listed in order of decreasing reliability, I have The Onion, The Weekly World News, Graffiti I once saw under a bridge, Wikipediocracy, lawyers, and finally politicians. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Clarification: I am 100% satisfied about the main Wikipediocracy claim (Zithan=Nichalp=Wifione) -- if there was a shred of evidence for that claim it would have been posted by now. I am still agnostic on the diffs MastCell has brought up below and what they imply. I have no opinion on that because I haven't spent the time to check the evidence for myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate your clear and direct answers, but I'm still very concerned by some of the diffs identified above by Vejvančický (talk · contribs). Here you insert an accusation of criminality against Ashok Chauhan, citing only a Commission ruling (in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Here you remove an accusation of criminality against Arindam Chaudhuri, a competitor of Chauhan's, even though it's actually properly sourced.

  In one case, you added poorly sourced negative material, and in the other you removed properly sourced negative material. At first glance, these edits give the impression that your goal is to promote one individual and disparage the other, rather than to follow where reliable sources lead. Can you explain the disparity in your handling of these two biographies? MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes surely Mastcell. I'm answering the shorter queries including yours before providing comprehensive clarifications to Vejvančický in some more time. I'll directly address the two links that you've provided here. As I understand, you've requested a clarification on the contradiction you see between this diff, which you mention is in violation of BLPPRIMARY, and this diff, where you mention that properly sourced data is being removed. I'll start by explaining the validity of the first diff. Reviewing a statement in BLPPRIMARY might be pertinent here; namely, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." On 24 April 2011, after I added the first source, on the same day, in continuing edits, I added other secondary reliable sources to the article (apart from one reliable source already existing within the article which I had added earlier) that either discussed the primary source and/or the fraud/arrest warrant charge. I'll list out all the secondary sources (all of which I had added) within the article that existed after my edits on 24th April 2011: Schooled in deceit, Tehelka (the original link seems dead, the archived version of the same source from the Tehelka website is here, see Page 14); MEA protecting individuals with criminal past: CIC, Tribune; and Controversies dog Amity but students keep streaming in, Live Mint & Wall Street Journal. If you open all these sources that existed in the article on that particular day after having been added by me, you'll see how they've all discussed the fraud charges and/or the arrest warrant. These secondary sources were used to quote material within the article. Therefore, I don't believe that BLPPRIMARY was compromised here. With respect to the second diff that you quote, it may again be good to view the policy that I've quoted while reverting the change, namely, the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, which quotes, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The emphasis is on having multiple, and not just a single source for exceptional statements. I believe the statement being added was exceptional, and in case multiple sources had been quoted, the revert would not have occurred. WP:WELLKNOWN similarly quotes, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting an allegation or incident, leave it out." I hope this provides you the required clarification. As I had mentioned earlier, please feel free to ask me any further queries with respect to any other diff. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I too can see no interaction. But usually the combination of supporting one institution and denigrating a competitor indicates coi of some sort. In any case, POV editing is bad editing regardless of motive: Do you accept that some of the edits listed by Vejvančický, especially those highlighted by MastCell, are inappropriate? DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi DGG. I've answered Mastcell above; do tell me if the answer provides the clarifications you seek. I'll be reviewing Vejvančický in a few hours (or on Sunday at best, if I run out of time), and would request you to go through that answer too. Should you wish me to provide any further clarification after that (or in the meanwhile), please do ask. Thanks again for taking the time to review. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note this edit to Wifione's talk page by 58.68.49.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – according to this cached WHOIS query (Google cache snapshot dated 9 Jan 2014 23:19:02 GMT), the IP belonged to IIPM. (It now shows a different owner.) Andreas JN466 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Jayen. I've noted the edit by the ip. I had noted this edit earlier too, but had dismissed it as being a general ip vandal edit, actually until now. The ip edit was in a month (October 2009) when I hadn't edited Wikipedia at all due to my traveling. In fact, it seems to fall somehwere in the middle of the 70 odd days when I was traveling and couldn't edit Wikipedia even once. I didn't know that the ip belonged to IIPM, because if it did as you say, it'd then really be quite strange an edit. Wifione ^Message 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why did you delete your own edit counter opt-in page? At the time of your RfA you'd editing the IIPM page 180 times and IIRC it was your most edited article; given that you have no connection to this institution and you were not engaging in paid editing, why is/was this article such a draw for you? benmoore 18:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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)