Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-18/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

Just for the record: regarding "Jehochman also presented evidence that Wifione had embarked on a search engine optimisation campaign on Wikipedia...", Jehochman re-presented Vejvančický's evidence, and Makrandjoshi's analysis (linked to in Vejvančický's evidence).

Vejvančický is also responsible for the evidence you cite in your paragraph beginning "Of greater concern...". He repeatedly drew the attention of the community to Wifione's problematical behaviour, only to resign his adminship in disgust after being consistently ignored.

Makrandjoshi is the retired editor you recently blocked for pointing out over many years that there was a problem with Wifione's management of the IIPM topic and insisting the topic be presented neutrally, despite being threatened with police action, beatings and death, and repeatedly dragged to noticeboards and defamed and humiliated by Wifione.

Wifione only finally left this topic (assuming he/she has) when Wikipediocracy published an exposé on his/her abuse. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm a small fish and User:Peter Damian is apparently a nobody, because he is banned. This editor did a great service to our project by researching this case and we owe him big thanks for the time and excellent work on it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, this entire case was a violation of BADSITES and should have been summarily dismissed. 76.109.38.129 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to log in. WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal. If you have on your mind Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links, then please note this part of the policy: This [off-site harassment] is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment. Relevant Wifione related links to Wikipediocracy were presented to the eyes of the WP community during the case and a long time before that, on various highly visible WP forums. See for example User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_151#Indian_Fakers_Teach_Wiki_PR. Nobody objected in the sense of "WP:BADSITES". And no, Wikipediocracy is not the entire case. Just a part of it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, there was also a Newsweek article:

Manipulating Wikipedia to Promote a Bogus Business School.

Those were busy times at WO.

Andreas JN 466 09:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the author explicitly note what discussions they feel constitute "bikeshedding"? Ironholds (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the devil does that headline mean? If I knew, I would try to make it better. I guess it is an inside joke, or maybe something in pop culture. Either way, it is a disservice to the (potential) reader of the story. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean there was no accusation of paid editing. India Against Corruption has submitted 217 pages of complaints to ARBCOM with the evidence. Please correct yourself immediately as IAC has filed a criminal case in India against your rogues.122.162.134.112 (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]