Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

• Can we have some input on analysis of the evidence please? We have two accounts in evidence, those of Wifione and Vejvančický (links: Vejvančický's evidence, Wifione's evidence) providing incompatible and contradictory interpretations of the same edits. After discussion with my fellow drafters, we therefore invite analysis of the evidence. Such analysis must be done (i) without introducing new material but instead pointing to policy and guidelines and (ii) without editorialising. At this point, best is to take a straight range of diffs, say all those within a given month or two, to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking. Please follow the model adopted here, by PhilKnight for what is expected.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger. As I mentioned on your talk page, I've only just read this. User:Begoon has posted a table analysing Vejvančický's and Wifione's views on individual diffs at User:Begoon/Wifione_evidence_summary. If that's the kind of thing you have in mind, should we paste it into the evidence analysis section (with a couple of blank columns so others can add their views)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer any analysis to closely follow the model by PhilKnight I mention above, which has brief factual comments and little editorialising.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone actually need the extra time we've provided? Or shall we just move to the PD?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll need a couple of hours to place my proposals for the committee's consideration. Wifione ^Message 09:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Roger, I'll give it a bye. Please go ahead to the PD. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

About analysis

OK. How's that format, Roger? Should I paste the first two columns here, with a few blank columns for analyses? --Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs • email) 05:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: To me, it makes little sense to briefly comment on individual diffs in a way User:PhilKnight did in a different ArbCom case. I would like to emphasize the comparison and broader context in Wifione's edits to the mentioned groups of articles, not separate edits. I've checked all Wifione's edits to those articles, and I've selected only the most striking examples of tendentious and manipulative editing. I'm fully aware that my evidence is subjective. I can speak only for myself so it must be so. I've provided my interpretation to ArbCom and my question to the committee is: Is this kind of behavior acceptable and allowed on this project? If it is, then my place is somewhere else. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Vej, it's trees and forests, isn't it? The edits are the trees, the intent is the forest. You look at the forest and you know it's wrong, it shouldn't be there. Now, do you painstakingly measure every tree, agonisingly concluding each one could be just about ok, even if twisted, or out of line, or the wrong height, and then conclude "no, each tree can be justified in a roundabout way, if I squint and AGF till I die each time, so the forest must be ok"? Or do you say "no, hang on, this forest is just damn wrong, and intentionally so. It should not be here.", step back and see the clear reason the whole thing was planted as far more important?

The evidence clearly demonstrates this forest was planted to beautify IIPM, hide the faults of IIPM, and do the reverse to IIPM's competitors. That didn't happen by accident, and no careful analysis of bark thickness or leaf circumference of individual trees will show that it did. Sorry about the bad metaphor, but I find the unnecessary focus on small detail rather than the big, important, obvious picture difficult to stress otherwise. Narrowly justifying individual edits while steering the wider POV is exactly how tendentious editing works, and by allowing oneself to be steered into that mindset, one allows it to succeed.Begoon ^talk 12:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A very good metaphor/analysis, actually. I have nothing to add. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also taken a look, and, frankly, I think it's obvious that the edits are designed to promote one university-- which is inappropriate enough -- but also to denigrate the other, which in my opinion is a particularly virulent form of POV editing. I've checked some of the edits Vejvančický highlighted, and I would have interpreted them the same way. (I'm replying as an ordinary editor; I'm recused from this case at Wifione's request; he is aware that this leaves me free to comment. If you really think it would help, I can repeat it, but in any case I see no point in taking a random sample: the point is finding the particular inappropriate edits.

He is not the only promotional editor in this field, but that's another matter, and it, too, is quite obvious. My personal opinion is that over the years I have found that most university articles -- not just for Indian universities-- are promotional editing by people who are most likely to be undeclared coi editors, generally in the direct employ of the university; to be fair, some are the work of over-enthusiastic alumni--they have a coi also, but at least they're presumably not paid for it.

But if you really think it will help the committee, I'll do an analysis of specific diffs. I don't see how that can be a "factual" analysis -- the only contribution I could make is to say whether in my opinion as an experienced editor here they are apparently fair and supported properly. What help can I possibly be, but to give an opinion? I could, for example say (dealing just with the Chaudhuri article that [1] removes a sourced claim for which other sources can almost certainly be found on the basis that it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources, which it is not, or that [2] adds acclaim to be called a management guru on the basis of a background story at a film festival, which in my opinion is cherry-picking from an inappropriate source for the material. There are in fact better sources for this term, not that it matters overall. Or that the talk p. (section 6) shows a persistent & absolutely erroneous attempt to remove material sourced to the NYT and other international reputable sources on the basis that they are primary and otherwise unreliable, because the reporters are talking about a book unflattering to the subject that the subject managed to get supressed in India. Shall I go on to the university articles? DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DGG, I don't want to criticise your editorialised initial analysis. But would wish to point out a few details with respect to your analysis of singular diffs not in a range:

1. "[3] removes a sourced claim for which other sources can almost certainly be found on the basis that it is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources, which it is not...": A claim of a police case against a living person is an exceptional claim. I don't see how it cannot be. Per our WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, exceptional claims include "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream source". A police case claim is a surprising and apparently important claim. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL again, "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Per the BLP policy WP:WELLKNOWN, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". Per our verifiability policy, "Please remove contentious material about living people that is...poorly sourced immediately... Do not leave...poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people". As I've mentioned in the edit summary, with multiple reliable sources, the claim can be added. More importantly, per the same verifiability policy, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material".

2. ""[4] adds acclaim to be called a management guru on the basis of a background story at a film festival, which in my opinion is cherry-picking from an inappropriate source for the material.: The diff you're illustrating already has three sources including the source that you're seeing. Perhaps you missed them. My edit was a revert to ce and add a deleted reference. Further, on the evidence page of this arbcom case, I've given the talk page discussions that led to this term being added. In other words, these changes are after relevant discussions and consensus, and include more than the one source you've mentioned, and include a multiplicity of sources mentioned on the talk page.

3. "talk p. (section 6) shows a persistent & absolutely erroneous attempt to remove material sourced to the NYT and other international reputable sources on the basis that they are primary and otherwise unreliable, because the reporters are talking about a book unflattering to the subject that the subject managed to get supressed in India.": I don't see a diff of this talk page section in the evidence section of this case. Please do point me out if I'm wrong, or do mention if you're adding new evidence. Yet, I'll respond. If you're alluding to my talk page view on usage of the NYT book review as reliable source for the topic of the book, then as I have mentioned through the NOR policy differentiating between primary and secondary sources, "Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book; a book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author and related writing issues than be considered a secondary source for the topics covered within the book." Irrespective of that, post the talk page discussions that started on 11 Feb 2012 that you illustrate, it was I who on 20 Feb 2012 added the material to the article. I'll continue further when you provide your views on any other particular diffs mentioned in the evidence section. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 06:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm here--by request--to give an independent opinion of the edits, based on my personal opinion of whether they conform to policy. I'm not here to make an arguement. I'm quite aware you disagree , from what has previous been said. This is my view of where the balance lies for anyone who may think it of help. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies DGG. Didn't want to convey anything otherwise. Roger had requested for an analysis referring to policies and guidelines and without editorialising. As I found your analysis of the diffs erroneous, without reference to any specific policies and guidelines, and more based on your editorialised opinions, and even introducing new material, I thought I'll put in my rebuttal. Like I said, didn't want to make you feel I was arguing. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione, I've noticed that you frequently quote WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think that it is important to note that it was you who helped to shape these policies. I've checked some of your edits to WP:EXCEPTIONAL: You seem to be the "inventor" of the WP:EXCEPTIONAL shortcut (8 February 2012). Here you've added multiple to the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources, with the edit summary "clarify... source's' means multiple"; here you add "Editors should avoid including exceptional claims that are not supported by multiple reliable sources"; here you (again) add multiple to the section (edit summary: "Clarifying plural: Source's'-> multiple"); here you add Any such claim not backed by multiple high-quality sources should be removed immediately (my emphasis). All these edits/additions/modifications are from 13-18 January 2012, and they were not discussed on the talk page, as far as I can see. On 11 January 2012 (days before you started editing WP:VERIFIABILITY or WP:EXCEPTIONAL), you've completely removed referenced criticism from the article Arindam Chaudhuri, stating "Please don't use primary sources for exceptional claims". On 28 January 2012, you've removed a complete section (containing rather positive claims) from the article Indian Institute of Management Tiruchirappalli, quoting WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This edit summary search shows what preceded your edits to WP:V and, in my opinion, it also clearly shows why did you become interested in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I have to agree with User:The Telephone Company who pointed out to you at Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri in February 2012: "It will also be helpful to note that you find it convenient to edit policy pages when it suits your interests." --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Vej, if you're adding new evidence, I don't know the procedure for allowing the same here. I'll recommend you take the permission of the Arbcom to introduce new evidence after the Evidence phase has closed. The editor you mention, The Telephone Company, arrived on the BLP page exactly three days before the sock puppet RobertRosen edited the page,[5] and undertook exactly the same edits[6][7] as RobertRosen. Still, to clarify your new evidence this time with respect to changes to policy pages, do remember that editors suggest changes to policy pages only after their experiences in editing have exposed them to areas where such policy pages can be improved. For example, adding multiple to clarify that sources do not mean one source is not a remarkable addition. The policy pages are the most watched pages on our project. It's not possible that a change that is irrelevant and insensible can go through without getting reverted, and stay there for years. I'm the author of many policy additions on the project, so my involvement in Exceptional or Wellknown is also not remarkable. For example:

• Authored BLPCRIME,WP:BLPCRIME
• Authored WP:BLPABUSE & WP:BLPNAMEABUSE
• Created BIODEL shortcut and authored policy that says that poorly sourced BLPs of unknown people where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion may be deleted after discussions have been completed
• Authored the difference between BLP1E and BIO1E in BLP policy page
• Similarly, for our Notability (people) guideline, differentiated BLP1E and BIO1E
• Defined SPS
• Defined COI sources in our Verifiability policy
• Authored addition to Username policy
• [8]Defined A7 category details in CSD policy[9]
• Crosslinked NOQUORUM to BIODEL[10]

Although I've replied to you here, I would still recommend adding new evidence only after following the procedure (which I'm not actually aware of). Wifione ^Message 08:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, it is fascinating how many of the diffs from the above mentioned edit summary search (your use of the word "except"-ional in edit summaries) is directly related to your editing in the area examined in this ArbCom case. Not to mention that it was your frequent use of WP:EXCEPTIONAL in the evidence page and here what prompted me to do the research. In your response, on the other hand, you bring more and more trees from many different and completely unrelated forests, to continue Begoon's metaphor. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Vej, to me, this is another piece of new editorialised material without referring to any policy or guideline. Please take the committee's permission before illustrating newer material. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet it's funny how different folks see the same thing, isn't it? I, for instance, don't see any real "new evidence" from Vej there, merely a response to the committee's request for analysis. It is interesting if a policy you call on repeatedly in defence is one edited heavily by you, and Vej did well to pinpoint that, after being asked to analyse. Anyway, as Vej points out, the trees you are tangentially dragging into this forest on the strength of that false premise, and the spurious appeals to authority, are deflecting from the real purpose of this case, as is surely the intention, so I'll leave it there. Begoon ^talk 15:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Proposals by User:Begoon

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda is prohibited. [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are expected to lead by example. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Wifione has edited wikipedia to manipulate IIPM's SEO rankings and visibility, contrary to WP:NPOV

1) This evidence about Wifione's edits to the IIPM disambiguation page and creation of stub articles clearly shows that Wifione's editing has been intended to manipulate the SEO rankings and visibility of IIPM, often to obscure information from internet searches, by ensuring searches would not go directly to the IIPM article. There is no credible, alternative explanation for this editing pattern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The hand waving phrase "clearly shows" should be changed to "suggests". Combine this with the lex parsimoniae principle below, and you've sufficiently proven the point. We can never know with certainty exactly what Wifione was up to. We have to make an informed conclusion based on the probabilities. Jehochman ^Talk 17:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This diff, already linked in evidence, goes into greater detail about the purpose and mechanisms of this aspect of the manipulation. Begoon ^talk 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The summary linked by Begoon ([14]) seems highly credible, and it's very difficult to think of an alternate plausible explanation for WifiOne's behavior with regard to the IIPM acronym. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, thanks, but "clearly shows" is fine. No "hand waving". The evidence clearly shows the intent. Begoon ^talk 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione has tendentiously manipulated wikipedia articles, to better portray IIPM, and to denigrate IIPM's competitors

2) As is clearly shown by the evidence in this section, Wifione has deliberately and tendentiously manipulated wikipedia articles, including articles covered by the BLP policy, in order to better portray IIPM, and to denigrate IIPM's competitors, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability.

3) As outlined in this evidence, Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability. Good faith enquiries have been met with long periods of silence, diversionary attempts to discredit the questioner(s), or misleading, inadequate replies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See also this summary table which outlines many specific instances where Wifione's "explanations" during this case are inadequate: Summary table. Begoon ^talk 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 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 topic banned

1) Having demonstrated an inability to edit neutrally in this area, Wifione is indefinitely topic banned from all edits concerning education in India, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Kurtis has a point. The fact that Wifione doesn't seem to show self-awareness about the biased editing, or admit error, or suggest solutions, is an indication that strong external controls are needed, that leniency won't work. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurtis, I had noted your suggestion earlier itself. If you've noticed, my last edits to the articles in question are dated around two to three years back, which is evidence of my voluntary disengagement from the articles. I differ in the reasoning of disengagement from Jehochman. As per Jehochman, the disengagement is on cause of admission of error. As per me, this is because of my increase in administrative activities. And more importantly, these articles are contentious articles, as I've mentioned in the Background section of the Evidence page. Disengaging from these articles would allow a new wave of editors to take over the article and forge a new middle ground, be as it may. I'm quite aware of this and one reason I've disengaged (not only from these articles but from other articles too) is purely so that this may happen. A cursory look at these articles as of right now shows that there's much work to do, with the articles following more or less the patterns that I've described in the Background section on the Evidence page. I'm completely for encouraging new editors to engage themselves on these articles. I repeat, my past disengagement from these articles is already evidence that I've let go, voluntarily, but not for the reasons Jehochman says. In the future, of course, I may rather engage on the project on areas that allow lesser dissonance than these articles, voluntarily. Wifione ^Message 08:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I was actually hoping that Wifione would consider voluntarily disengaging himself from the articles in which concerns have arose, and that ArbCom could accept it as an assurance that there will be no further issues. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione administrator privileges revoked

2) For having edited, over a long period, tendentiously and in a manner inconsistent with the standards expected of an administrator, and for failing to be properly accountable for these actions, Wifione's administrator privileges are revoked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe that this proposal has the implicit, widespread support of virtually everyone watching this case, including most of the people who are opposed to a full site ban. The reason that this remedy has not been commented on by anyone is because a desysop is seen as pretty much a given, and therefore no real discussion of it is needed. That's why my opposition to it (based on the information that is currently available) will likely have little or no effect on the outcome. Wifione is a prolific administrator and has generally done a very decent job at it. His forte does not lie in content creation or copyediting, but in site maintenance. If he were to be desysopped, this would severely hinder his ability to continue doing work in those areas. If it can be conclusively determined that he is a paid advocate of IIPM, and that he's continued to edit in support of their cause, then it would be a totally different ball park. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See the "proposed principle", "Administrator conduct". It is often argued that one of the difficulties in appointing new admins, to replace those lost and inactive over time, is the perception that removal of tools is so rare and difficult, even when users with admin tools are shown to have edited poorly, tendentiously and against policy. If Arbcom allows a long-term tendentious editor to retain the tools, it reinforces that concern. Arbcom is the sole mechanism, entrusted by the community to remove tools from unsuitable editors.

I did not include any wording in the proposal about regaining the tools, but in general, Arbcom will rule that tools may be regained, perhaps after a stipulated period has elapsed, through a new RFA. In that case, if the community shares the views you express about Wifione's value as an admin, they could be reappointed in time. This would still be the case even after any site-ban had been served. I don't think, however, in these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the committee to leave the tools in place, effectively removing that decision from the community. Begoon ^talk 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione site banned

3) For egregious violations of the WP:NPOV policies, avoidance of accountability, and prolonged, tendentious manipulation of wikipedia articles for the benefit of an organisation, Wifione is site banned for 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A topic ban would be sufficient. There is no evidence of problems in any areas beyond IIPM and it's competition broadly construed. If her whole motive is to spin this article then the topic ban is equivalent to a site ban. If she wants to help in other areas that should be allowed. Better to keep her involved and accountable than to be reincarnated as a new account un-accountable. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mastcell: bad editors can become good editors. There is a large industry of SEO consultants in India doing bad work, like what we see in this topic area. Folks there need jobs and they do what they can to make a living. They aren't evil; they are just uninformed and financially vulnerable. If we can show Wifione and others that there are consequences, but that we are also kind enough to forgive them if they just stop diddling our articles, we will make more progress than if we ban her. If banned she may turn up tomorrow with a new account, working on a new project. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about site ban vs. topic ban. I take Begoon's and MastCell's point about sending a strong message, but there is also merit in Jehochman's "keep your enemies closer" position. I'll be interested to see whether this ArbCom thinks tendentious editing is grounds enough for a desysop. (I do.) -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for flip-flopping. Another aspect of this site ban/topic ban question has been pointed out to me. Until now, I've thought it might be a good thing to simply topic ban Wifione because there is a chance they'll slip up and make a Wifione edit with their sock account, tipping us off to their commercial editing account. Wifione is cautious, but he/she has slipped up in the past ([15]).

Now I think that would be a mistake and support a permanent site ban, because responding with just a topic ban would send the wrong message not only to COI editors but also (something I hadn't considered) send the wrong message to the world at large about Wikipedia's attitude toward biased, socking administrators. There is a chance this will make news in India, and as well as doing the right thing we need to be seen to be doing the right thing. We might understand the benefit of keeping the Wifione account active, but that would be impossible to convey to the world at large through a sound bite or an ill-informed editorial. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:MastCell: [16]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Jehochman, there may be some merit to what you say here. Of the utmost importance is that Wifione should not be permitted to edit articles in this area again, and that they not retain administrator status, given the proposed principles and proposed findings outlined above. That should be the absolute minimum result here. I still feel a siteban would be an appropriate remedy, given the weight of evidence, and the egregious, tendentious, long-term editing pattern, but I also concede that banning one particular account is unlikely to prevent the use of other accounts, as you say, and as is also strongly indicated in evidence. Begoon ^talk 14:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Jehochman. If these allegations are true, then Wifione has behaved with a degree of dishonesty and deceptiveness which should exclude him from any further participation in this project. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable co-editing with him on any topic. Thus I don't think a topic ban would be sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I don't quite follow your reasoning. Wifione might create sockpuppets regardless of whether he is topic-banned, site-banned, or not banned at all (indeed, there is some evidence that this has already happened). How does choosing a topic-ban make him less likely to create and use sockpuppets? I'm all for forgiveness and kindness as general principles, but I have never seen a Wikipedia editor-redemption project like this succeed (not for lack of trying). It's just impractical (and more than a bit hubristic) to think that we can change someone's fundamental personality and motivations through a set of online inducements and manipulations—all the more so when the strong financial incentives you've described are at play. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is why I still think a site-ban is appropriate. The reality that a user may evade a ban is not a reason for not imposing a ban. Additionally, as you say, there is little difference between the likelihood of evading a topic-ban, and that of evading a site-ban. Begoon ^talk 05:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Lex parsimoniae

1) Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. In arbitration, it is not necessary to prove wrongdoing with certainty. When circumstances and evidence demonstrate the likelihood of wrongdoing, the burden shifts to the presumed wrongdoer, who must explain their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The simplest explanation, the one that requires the fewest assumptions, is that Wifione has been involved in IIPM's search engine optimization and online reputation management campaign. Their activities are entirely consistent, and any other explanation for Wifione's activities requires a greater number of less probable assumptions. If there is another explanation, the burden is on Wifione to present a convincing explanation. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

The Fifth Pillar

1) Wiki-lawyering (i.e., using policy and process to avoid direct discussion of the issue at hand) is harmful both to reaching consensus on article content and to project governance, which is precisely why we have the 5th Pillar (WP:IAR).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See Threaded Discussion section, above. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Wifione

Proposed principles

Burden of proof

1) When editors place assertions on any forum on Wikipedia, the onus is on the editors requesting or placing those assertions to provide the evidence to prove their claims. Failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Investigating conflicts of interest

2) When investigating possible cases of COI editing, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the COI guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Responding to accusations of conflicts of interest

3) Editors accused of having a conflict of interest are not required to disclose private information by way of defence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Focus on the edits not the editor

4) Per policy, "comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

5) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt other editors' enjoyment of Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information. (From: "This Page in a Nutshell", Wikipedia:Harassment)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

6) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Conflict of Interest guideline

7) Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not appropriate. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, policy and guideline based review must focus primarily on the edits of those editors about whom problems are claimed than on editorialised opinions or allegations about their real life background.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vejvančický: battleground conduct

8) Vejvančický has initiated or been a participant in multiple discussions where he has repetitively alleged claims against Wifione, disparaging and casting aspersions on Wifione, without raising it to a legitimate dispute resolution noticeboard, despite repetitive requests by Wifione, as documented at Wifione's two ANI reports.[17][18] This is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anthonycole: battleground conduct

9) Anthonycole, after initially alleging that Wifione is "an employee or contractor of the company",[19], has continued disparaging Wifione on the Arbitration Committee workshop talk page, commenting that Wifione is a sock of Mrinal Pandey (An illustrative example: "As for you editing from the Wifione account and the Mrinal accounts in the same minute...") This is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Vejvančický: advised

11) Vejvančický is advised to use legitimate dispute resolution procedures than make allegations against Wifione in general discussion forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vejvančický: admonished

12) Vejvančický is admonished for his suggestive battleground conduct and violations of harassment policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vejvančický: site banned

13) For egregious violations of harassment policy and for having a battleground conduct, Vejvančický is site banned for a period of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anthonycole: admonished

14) Anthonycole is admonished for his battleground conduct and for violations of harassment policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Anthonycole: site banned

15) For egregious violations of harassment policy and for having a battleground conduct, Anthonycole is site banned for a period of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: