Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Callanecc (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Seraphimblade (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 00:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by Jehochman

This is a case about accusations of serious misconduct by admin Wifione, including POV pushing, lying and paid editing. Accusations have been made by multiple editors; I've selected Anthonyhcole and Vejvančický as parties because their complaints seem more prominent and more persistent, though there may be others who could be added upon further review. If the accusations are true, Wifione needs to be desysopped, and possibly banned. Only ArbCom can take the necessary steps. The evidence in this matter is sufficiently voluminous that it would be unreasonable to expect passing editors at AN/I to fully familiarize themselves with the facts to make an informed decision. If the accusations are not true, there is a mob of angry editors hurling personal attacks at Wifione that needs to be disbanded. In my opinion, this is a matter where Arbitration could be very useful. Is this case ripe? Accusations have been floating around for more than a year, and still haven't been resolved one way or the other. I'd say this case is over-ripe.

Seraphimblade makes an excellent additional point that to prove paid editing, confidential off-wiki evidence might be needed, the sort of thing we don't post on Wikipedia. ArbCom is the only body capable of handling that sort of investigation of an editor. Jehochman Talk 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wifione

This is to acknowledge my presence here. If there are any clarifications that the community wishes on any diffs/actions (if the case is accepted), I'll be readily available to provide them. @Biblioworm, if you notice the complete set of my statements at ANI, I've mentioned that I haven't had any intentions of deleting the Editor Review. I was just put off by two commentators out there who were plainly discrediting the fact that I started the review and continue maintaining the review till date (despite the Editor Review process becoming redundant by community action) just to ensure transparency. My statement was more of an in-the-face reply to those commentators and shouldn't have been made that way. Thanks. Wifione Message 06:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthonyhcole

Gaaaah. I was hoping I could put together such a compelling executive summary here that you would deal with this by motion. But it's going to take ages to construct something short, clear and comprehensive enough. Do what you will. I'll keep working on this and post here if the request is still open when I'm done. If you go ahead with a case before I've posted here, I'll post it there.

Statement by Vejvančický

I already commented and provided relevant evidence, diffs and links at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione (the page also contains links to relevant discussions on-wiki, off-wiki, and mentions in the media such as the Times of India). Anyone who wants to comment on the case should read the review first. I don't think that the response by User:Wifione was sufficient, and I explained my opinion in the editor review. I'll continue here. I wrote in the review that in my opinion Wifione knowingly manipulated articles about educational institutes in India. In February 2011, he created the article Ashok Chauhan about the founder of the Amity group of institutions. The article started as a single sentence with a reference to a critical article published by the investigative magazine Tehelka. I'm convinced that the real intention of the creator was to highlight marginally important information about an arrest warrant issued in Germany against Mr. Chauhan to show this person in a bad light. Wifione later developed the information in this edit.

In Autumn 2011, another editor, Cfiveindia, started a conversation now archived at User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2011_(September)#How_Can_I_discuss_with_you.3F and later re-opened here. Cfiveindia, who guilelessly admitted that s/he is a part of the Amity Group, complained about the unfair manipulation of the articles Amity University and Ashok Chauhan. Cfiveindia also noted that the arrest warrant has been revoked and "the Tehelka article was removed by the publication after they were informed and realised the real motives of the journalist". It is true that the article has been deleted from Tehelka archives (see [1], June, 11 2005), however, it still remains here. Wifione promised his assistance to Cfiveindia, however, he quietly left the discussion, archived, and did nothing. A year later, in Autumn 2012, Wifione quickly spotted a post by another editor, Higheredutrust, and posted a threatening message on their talk page. Soon after that, he started a sockpuppet investigation which resulted in blocking of his opponent(s). Case closed.

Let's compare with another discussion, regarding Mr. Chauhan's competitor, Arindam Chaudhuri. Surprisingly, in this case Wifione attempts to whitewash and completely remove negative information despite more convincing evidence recording many controversies around Mr. Chaudhuri. Wifione removes criticism and negative information not only from the article, but also from the talk page [2], [3], [4]. It's being noticed by others, see for example Talk:Arindam_Chaudhuri#New_section or User_talk:Wifione/Archive_2012_(January)#Arindam_Chaudhuri, however, Wifione with his manipulative skills manages to enforce his version most of time. Wifione, in this edit you asked an editor who requested "criticism section" in the article Arindam Chaudhuri: "...what long term encyclopedic worth do you make of this?" Now I ask you: What "long term encyclopedic worth" you see in mentioning a marginally important, oudated and revoked arrest warrant against a living individual in an encyclopedic article? I have on my mind the article Ashok Chauhan (who is a direct competitor of Mr. Chaudhuri). You have removed a lot of content from multiple articles about Indian Institutes of Management (schools competing with Mr. Chaudhuri's IIPM) as "boosterism" [5], [6], [7] etc. I don't say all your edits were bad, but it looks strange when, on the other hand, you insert to articles - and insist on - statements like Mr. Chaudhuri is a "management guru" [8] [9] [10] or when I compare for example this edit to the article Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad with this edit to Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) - in the first edit you remove the same kind of information you add in your second edit cited here.

Now, let's compare some of your edits to the article Indian_School_of_Business (ISB) with your edits to IIPM article. Here, for example, you changed the lead section of the ISB article to insert information about ISB courses violating All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) regulations. Here, you repeat that "courses are not approved by AICTE", again, in the lead section. However, when you edited the lead section of the IIPM page, you've added a long and completely irrelevant explanation about how corrupt and incompetent the regulatory body (AICTE) is.

Wifione, all I can see in a sample of your edits to the articles about education in India is fraudulent behavior, use of double standards and misuse of Wikipedia's rules and policies to promote interests of selected subjects and entities. Your edits to the above mentioned articles are prime examples of dangerous manipulation. One has to examine your "work" in a broader context and compare your edits to articles about competing subjects in this field to see your real intentions. I did that in your editor review and I continue here. All I can tell is that I'm deeply ashamed to collaborate with a person like you on this beautiful project. In my opinion you should resign as an administrator and retire immediately. I apologize for the length of my post, but this is a very complex story.

Statement by Indiaresists

I believe this case is actually about at least 2 rival paid editing syndicates fighting for the lucrative Indian PR market. All of them with multiple batteries of sockpuppets. This extends not only to Indian B-schools like IMT Ghaziabad but also editing for Indian political parties. I'll be submitting the bulk of my evidence by email.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Wifione: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <12/0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other) Number in brackets includes incoming arbs

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)  Clerk note: This arbitrator's term has expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Accept. AGK [•] 23:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional accept. This will come into effect on 1 Jan unless I state otherwise. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Provisional accept. Seraphimblade pretty much laid out my thoughts on the matter. Courcelles 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional accept, effective Jan. 1. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the named party asked me to recuse, so I shall. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept though the case will need some clear ground rules and tight clerking,  Roger Davies talk 07:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-acceptance "accept" safe in the knowledge that I'll be gone before it's open... WormTT(talk) 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)  Clerk note: This arbitrator's term has expired. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Neutral point of view

1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality of sources

2) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts to evade scrutiny

3) The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. The use of sockpuppets to run for adminship deprives the community of the opportunity to properly scrutinise all a candidate's contributions and thus arrive at a genuine fully-informed consensus.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets or several users

4) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Determination of motives

5) For dispute resolution purposes, POV-pushing and paid editing have many common features. The Committee has neither the mandate nor the resources to pierce the veil of editor anonymity. Given the practical limitations of arbitration, the Committee is unable to determine what motives impel misconduct but will instead make findings of fact from what is observable (and occasionally what inferences may be drawn from these observations).

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

6) The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Search engine optimisation (principle)

7) It is a serious abuse of Wikipedia to utilise editorial and structural features of the site—such as disambiguation pages, internal links, external links, and templates—in violation of policies in an attempt to artificially manipulate search engine results or engage in whitewashing. (See Policy: "POV forks" and the Manipulation of BLPS case.)

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators

8) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Limitations of arbitration

9) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration final decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Return of administrator tools

10) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against them will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Background

1) Wifione (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) first edited in April 2009, and, until about February 2013, worked primarily on articles about private Indian business schools and the people associated with them. These articles fall into two distinct groups and Wifione has:

  1. Added positive material to, and removed negative material from, the first group of articles ("IIPM") about the Indian Institute of Planning and Management and its founder, (Arindam Chaudhuri);
  2. Added negative material to, and removed positive material from, the second group of articles ("Competitors") about the Amity University and the Indian School of Business and management, Ashok Chauhan.

This is not in serious dispute: see "Background", Wifione's evidence.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article editing

2) Although Wifione has provided rationales for individual edits, they have not satisfactorily explained the overall pattern of clear bias, prohibited by the Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons policies, spanning a four-year period. (See Vejvančický's evidence, DGG's workshop commentary and Harry Mitchell's analysis.)

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Search engine optimisation (finding of fact)

3) Wifione has edited Wikipedia to the advantage of the IIPM and to the detriment of its competitors, in a manner consistent with attempts to optimise search engine results. (See Jehochman's evidence and Harry Mitchell's analysis.)

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

4) Following a review of Jayen466's evidence and a historic CheckUser result, the Committee considers it likely that User:Wifione is a sockpuppet of User:Empengent, formerly Mrinal Pandey. The User:Wifione account was created and operated while Empengent (talk · contribs) was blocked.

Passed 10 to 2 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Endless disputes

5) Commentary – varying from constructive criticism to ad hominem remarks – about Wifione has been posted in many forums on many occasions over five years without resolution. Forums include: Wikiquette assistance ([11], [12], [13]); the Administrators' noticeboard, ([14]); the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([15], [16]); Jimmy Wales' talk page ([17], [18], [19], [20]) and Editor review/Wifione [21]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione's resignation of adminship

6) On 10 February 2015, Wifione resigned their adminship in controversial circumstances.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Wifione restricted (I)

1) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from editing any pages relating to or making any edit about:

  1. any Indian commercial organisation founded after 1915;
  2. any Indian educational institution founded after 1915;
  3. biographies of any living or recently deceased person associated with (i) or (ii)

and is restricted to one account.

Passed 10 to 2 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione: return of administrative tools

2.1) Wifione may only regain administrative tools via a successful request for adminship.

Passed 10 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wifione site-banned

3) Wifione (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 12 to 0 at 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.


Amendments

Amendments to the case, once closed, may be requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione&oldid=1137490050"