Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:32, 29 January 2015

Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages. From the statements so far, this case is either about an administrator editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. The committee takes no view at present. However, all participants are reminded that breaches of the Outing and harassment policy and the Personal attacks policy are prohibited. Further, be aware that the outing policy takes precedence over the Conflict of interest guideline. No material that touches upon individual privacy may be posted publicly but must instead be sent using "Email user" to the Arbitration Committee. Such material will be accepted, or disregarded, at the committee's sole discretion. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Can we have another week, please?

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking with the other drafters about this. Could you explain why you might need a full week? Otherwise, I really only see 3-4 days as reasonable (since evidence stopped on the 20th). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger has asked if a non-party could concisely evaluate Vejvančický's evidence and Wifione's rebuttal. No one has come forward yet, and when they do they should have a couple of days to, at their leisure, examine the background where necessary. I think a 4 or 5 day wait to see if anyone puts their hand up, then a day or 2 prep time would be reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Both DGG and PhilKnight have already agreed to look at this. In any event, as far as I'm concerned, a week's extension is not an issue,  Roger Davies 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to recruit NE Ent for the task. He said he was busy for a few days. Maybe he would agree to help. Jehochman 11:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know NE. In terms of simple "clue", I hold User:Newyorkbrad, User:Bishonen, User:Johnbod, User:Doc James, User:Black Kite, User:Iridescent and User:Tarc in high regard. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Roger, Doug, till what date can I post some proposed remedies that I think might be helpful? Thanks. Wifione 17:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Until 6th February, but basically the sooner the better.  Roger Davies 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Will do by tomorrow. Wifione 17:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • As Roger just clarified with me, he meant the 30th, not the 6th :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • DQ, I guessed as much. Thanks for the clarification. Wifione 21:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Questions for Wifione

Wifione:

1. Are you, or have you ever been, on the payroll of IIPM or its owners or managers, directly or indirectly, as an employee, contractor, sub-contractor, or sub-sub-...-contractor?
2. Do you or did you attend IIPM as a student or do business with them in any capacity?
3. Do you have any close relatives or connections who meet the criteria of point 1 or 2?

Thank you for answering these below. Jehochman 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jehochman, I'd answered similar questions in my editor review. The requested answers are below.

1. (Yes or no): No
2. (Yes or no): No
3. (Yes or no): No

Jehochman, may I also request you to soften your discussion with respect to the finality of my creating a sock account and your strategies to catch the same? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Wifione 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I will consider your request. Next question. Why, if you have no connection to this topic have you been supporting IIPM and criticizing its competitors with your editing? You just randomly decided to help them? From what I have seen of this business, their ethics are despicable. Why help them? Jehochman 19:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've answered a considerable part of your query in the Background section of my reply in the Evidence page. (The why have you been supporting in your query makes it seem like present continuous; it should perhaps be why had you been supporting given the diffs are from two to five years ago). If you could read the Background section, it would help me save repeating the reasons. Also, I did develop a connect with the topic post my research on this area of management education, and that's how my views on these articles subsequently developed as explained exhaustively in the Background section. I've explained there why the effort to strike a balance in predominantly negative articles being hounded by a significantly large number of negative pov editors and socks, may be perceived as being supportive of the subject. And why any effort to strike a balance in predominantly promotional articles, while being hounded by a significantly large number of promotional pov editors and promotional socks, may be perceived as being negatively oriented towards the subject. I've also provided in the Evidence section diffs that show how I added positive material to the competitors too. A re-read of the Background section would help, I guess, as I've provided considerable diffs to support my viewpoint. With respect to ethics, I don't have a definite call on this. Leave a handful of business schools, I would say almost all have lacunae in one field or the other - some more than others. The bigger they are, the more their drawbacks are reported. My editing of the main business school article started, as explained in my editor review, because I think the business school was one of the largest in-the-face advertisers during those times. I would also mention that after my initial attempts to edit the page, I would most probably have moved on or might not have even continued on the project, had it not been for an editor Makrand Joshi, a tendentious editor on the page, with whom I had a prolonged editing dispute. During those times, I was driven purely (and immaturely, I should add) by the need to settle editing scores with Joshi, especially after he took me to SPI within a few days of my starting editing here. If I think about it now, he perhaps was the biggest catalyst for my sticking around the project and searching reliable sources to balance out material on the business school page. But as I proceeded on the project, I could understand the naivety and mistakes in my initial edits, some of which I've also pointed out in my responses in the Evidence section. So it was not about helping any entity; it was just the timing, situation and plain circumstance of my starting editing on the project. Does this answer your query? I'll be off editing for around 12 hours post this. So if you have follow up queries, please do wait till then for my reply. Thanks. Wifione 20:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the doubt that you might be telling the truth. If what you say is true, the solution is for you to agree to stop editing this topic area to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Would you agree to that? Jehochman 23:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm comfortable keeping myself voluntary and completely away from editing these articles, but not for the reasons you mention (those of avoiding impropriety). I'm quite clear that there is no impropriety from my end. And for editors who believe there is impropriety, I am available to clarify each issue, as I've done till now. Nevertheless, and irrespective of that, I'm not intent on editing these articles and would be voluntarily keeping away from editing these articles. New editors can and should, as I've mentioned above, improve the same. Wifione 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So your position is that you have never, ever edited those articles improperly in any way at all, but you will voluntarily avoid them now that this has blown up, so as to allow "other editors" a chance to steer them? Just trying to be clear, here. Regards. Begoon  18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione, do you know who made this maintenance edit to your user page using an IP address registered to IIPM? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, did you by chance read the reply that I had given to Andreas during my er? That might clarify your query. Write back if it doesn't. Thanks. Wifione

Thanks, Wifione. No it doesn't, actually. I'd prefer to believe the obvious than that preposterous conspiracy theory. Cheers all the same and thanks for taking the trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's very hard to explain away. Please snswer my question first and then this one. Jehochman 04:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Explain away? I don't know about that. If Wifione doesn't know who made the edit he/she can't be expected to explain it. If Wifione does know, I'd like to know - provided that's not a breach of privacy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jayen466, and then Wifione's response at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence#Jayen466: I don’t have an in-depth response because of both word limits and time limits. But the essence of my view would be that the conjecture developed is not true and there is no such connection that exists. It's a coincidence, Anthony, one of many. Please kindly assume good faith. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione mentions anti-IIPM socks above. We have to remember that Mrinal Pandey was found to have used a very large number of socks (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey as well as Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrinal_Pandey/Archive) to argue that the IIPM controversy shouldn't be mentioned here. Mrinal Pandey signed an edit by the same 58.68.49.70 IP that made this maintenance edit to Wifione's user page. 203.76.140.130, too, has made edits signed "Mrinal" and once offered another editor to have "IIPM corp comm office" send them material: "I'll get all of them mailed in one go from the IIPM corp comm office to your email address." In other words, there is plenty of evidence of pro-IIPM sockpuppets with some sort of link to IIPM. I've seen no evidence of an anti-IIPM sockpuppet ring. Andreas JN466 10:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wifione, can you explain the remarkable similarity between the way you address others here and the way Mrinl Pandy (the IP who made a maintenance edit to your talk page) and his socks address people here (as Jayen pointed out in his evidence)?

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I guess this is the typical way people write English or address people from certain regions of the world. That's how they are taught in schools and that's how they address people in their communication. Kindly, kindly regards, regards, dear, wishes, best regards, warm regards, warm wishes, best, sincerely... and so forth, are quite common in communication on Misplaced Pages too among editors from certain regions. In fact, sitcoms and shows portray stereotypes of such people using these very typicalities. On the other hand, window dressing sign-offs like "with every kindest wish" or "love" are not what you'll generally find in communication representing such stereotypes. I also chanced upon now an interesting edit of Mrinal Pandey, one he made after I had started editing on our project. Here he edits his talk page. I found this interesting because at the same time, I was editing a Christina Aguilera article. I don't know whether this makes sense or is useful. But thought I'll put it across. Wifione 18:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wifione. No, I'm afraid that doesn't explain it. Most editors of that topic appear to be from India. If your theory were true, we'd expect to find the same style of language on both sides of the debate. I've just been through all thirteen archive pages of Indian Institute of Planning and Management searching for "kindly". It occurs 84 times and 81 of those are by Mrinal, his socks and you. (I recommend searching Archive 8 and Archive 13 for "kindly" to see the interesting usage pattern that emerges. I haven't counted them, but the exact same pattern emerges for terms like "Dear X" (and others not highlighted in these examples).

As for you editing from the Wifione account and the Mrinal accounts in the same minute: the Wifione edit was a typo' fix; the Mrinal edit was just blanking a section. You saved the Wifione edit at the beginning of the minute, logged out and in, and blanked a section at the end of the minute. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. I again don't know if this might help you understand the usage of these words, but here's a pattern of usage of the term "kindly" on our project. Quite common, as I mentioned, and not remarkable a word. One could repeat the same search for the other words. I'll leave it here. Thanks. Wifione 07:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another explanation is that Wifione and the other editor are Indian, and the editors on the other side of the debate are not Indian. These situations you are pointing out are suggestive, but not conclusive. Indians make up 15% of the world population approximately, and a much higher percentage of English speakers. If you look at the probability of two selected editors on this topic being Indian, the odds are sort of even. If she were showing a more unique sign, you might have something, but given "you're Indian" and "this other editor are Indian" it does not follow that "these two editors are the same person." Jehochman 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read all (13) of the IIPM talk page archives. Only Mrinal, all of his socks, and Wifione speak like that. Only them. No one who has displayed a critical or neutral view of IIPM has spoken like that - none of the Indian bloggers and their Indian readers who descended on the article when the IBM blogger scandal erupted speaks like that. None of the editors who self-identify as Indian do. Only the sockmaster and Wifione. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthony hi. In the extended content examples above where you've claimed to document Mrinal's socks writing style, I wanted to enquire from where did you deduce these were socks of Mrinal? Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mrinal_Pandey is the page documenting Mrinal's socks. I don't find the names of any of the editors mentioned by you (except Mrinal) in this sock list. Please fill me in on this if possible. Another interesting coincidence that I see is this diff by iipmstudent9 (one name you mention in your extended content) and this diff by Mrinal. Again, both are at the same points of time. More interestingly, the editing from both these accounts continues during the same period for an elongated time. What I'm trying to signify is not just that iipmstudent9 may evidently be a different person than Mrinal, but also that it may be possible that different people may have the same writing style. And as far as having a common IP as some other user on the same page (as detailed below), that is quite possible. During those times, there was possibly only one countrywide internet service provider, MTNL. And there was then always a high possibility of the IPs matching up with some other user. Still, I think I'll close my replies here. Thanks. Wifione 11:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Wifione. You may be right about Iipmstudent9 being a different IIPM person from Mrinal. Those two editing histories support that theory. Also, I think there may be something quite different about Iipmstudent9's and Mrinal's temperament. I'll take a closer look. As for some of Mrnal's socks not using "kindly", those on my list you claim are not socks of Mrinal, I'm looking into that and will get back to you soon. Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Correction - I misread your point. 06:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wifione. That SPI you link to is not a comprehensive list of Mrinal's socks, unfortunately. There's this bunch of 37 socks blocked shortly before you created your account. And there are many more.

The first sock I mention in my small sample of editors using "truly" the way you and Mrinal do is Desiree777 (talk · contribs) which was created 21 December 2006 and blocked 2 days later along with

• System c0ntr0ls (talk · contribs)
• Group Systern Head (talk · contribs)
• Chambers Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• Karl Ivy League (talk · contribs)
• Rick Stengel (talk · contribs)
• Steven Warner (talk · contribs)
• Byron Calame (talk · contribs)
• Jon Meacham (talk · contribs)

who all turned up to help Mrinal delete the "controversy" section of Indian Institute of Planning and Management. I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks but I invite you to examine the reason why they were blocked and whether they were pushing the IIPM agenda. If I've made some mistakes, there, I'd appreciate you letting me know.

Regarding the question of whether Iipmstudent9 = Mrinal, I went back over her talk page contributions again and am fairly sure she's Mrinal, despite those overlapping edits you pointed to above. If this is relentless deceitful paid advocacy over nearly ten years, then it's not out of the question that Mrinal shared access to one of those accounts with another person.

I'll address your comment about India having just one ISP in 2006 and this somehow explaining Mrinal's IP performing a maintenance edit on your user page when I understand it. I'll re-read it later. Meanwhile, in case it's relevant to your theory, in 2006 there were 40 million internet users in India. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a response of administrator User:Versageek to Wifione from 1 July 2009: "You do indeed share an ISP with the Mrinal Pandey sock farms. Lots of people share ISPs, so I don't consider it enough to say with certainty that you are another sock of that user. You also share a number of behaviors with the Pandey socks, this - combined with the shared ISP is what led me to state that it's possible you are a sock. You need to tread lightly on the IIPM article, there is a long history of attempts to whitewash there. (...)" The oldest link I provided in my evidence is from 26 June 2009, the newest is from 27 August 2013. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to know exactly where to put this, in this mess, so I'll pop it here. Wifione, you say, in your answer above: My editing of the main business school article started, as explained in my editor review... That's not entirely honest and forthcoming, is it? You were asked that question on 19 Jan 2014. Then as Anthony's evidence states:

"She made no edits at all between 18 January 2014 and 24 April 2014. On returning, she avoided the review entirely. She was reminded in June that she still hadn’t answered, and again on 22 July. She replied on 29 July, saying she had 'limited time', then archived the talk page. She was reminded again on 30 July. "You have opened the ER as an indignant and righteous reaction to Jimbo Wales' comment, but now you are trying to sweep it under the carpet". Wifione complained that there was an offsite campaign against her, replied to SB Johnny's question about her motivation, saying that, as far as she could recall, she had been interested in the IIPM advertising campaign, then closed the review."

You answered the question in this unsatisfactory way (I think I did it all because they advertised a lot) on 2 August 2014. That's over 6 months later. Refer to my proposed finding here: "Wifione has repeatedly attempted to avoid accountability.", specifically "Good faith enquiries have been met with long periods of silence" I don't understand the reason for the delay, or the failure of the eventual "answer" to actually address the question in a substantial way, but please do tell me what I'm missing, so I can avoid similar mistakes in future. Regards. Begoon  17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually know what you're missing. If my responses don't seem enough to you, that's the best I can offer. Sorry for that. Wifione 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a long post, querying also your extraordinary, unexplained delays in replying, reasons you gave/failed to give for involvement in this topic at all, and the irrelevance of your reply. I'm unsurprised by the selective response. Rgds. Begoon  19:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for Jehochman

Do you think the way you earn a living might be affecting your judgement at all in this case? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have evidence of something, do share it. Otherwise, refrain from making personal attacks by innuendo. The only reason I'm a party in this case is because I filed it as an uninvolved observer. You could ask the same question if any editor here including the arbitrators. We all presumably make a living somehow, and of course people's work experience forms a basis for their views. So what? The reason to ask Wifione questions is that they are the subject of this case. Jehochman 15:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just thought, given how you make money, there might be some subconscious tendency in the way you think about the issues here. For instance, I think you're the only person who's looked at the evidence and expressed an opinion who hasn't supported either a site ban or a desysop. (Have I got that right?) And I was thinking maybe this is because of your expertise in SEO and the way the PR industry engages Misplaced Pages and the clearer perspective this brings with it. Or, conversely, you might be softening your approach out of self-preservation - hoping to set the tone for how we treat COI company shills in the future - just in case you ever get unjustly accused of shilling. I don't know. What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know how I make money. You've doubled down on your personal attack, again with the innuendo. My interest is that I saw a group of editors discussing this at Wikipediocracy and it looks like another one of their axe jobs on our contributors. Nobody has put forth evidence of paid editing. I think the evidence of socking half a decade ago or further back isn't very useful or actionable. All I've seen evidence of is bad editing by Wifione. The simplest explanation at this point is that she was duped. She saw some IIPM propaganda or was approached by some of their shills who convinced her that poor IIPM was the victim of a smear campaign. Being naive isn't a reason for a site ban. Topic ban, sure.

The one good bit of evidence is the IIPM network editing her user page, but even that isn't conclusive. Any IP can edit anybody's user page. So they were manipulating her and watching her. Again, so what. Jehochman 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks, here, JEH. I'd wondered the same thing myself. Not because I doubt your integrity (I don't), but because you make money through SEO, and large parts of this are about SEO. I program computers. If I was part of an "anti computer programming" discussion, and someone asked me if that affected my judgement, I'd be happy to answer. I'd advise a thicker skin and a wider view of the question here. Begoon  19:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, just for the record, I completely disagree with your statement: "The simplest explanation at this point is that she was duped. She...was approached by some of their shills who convinced her that poor IIPM was the victim of a smear campaign." As I said, this is for the record so that it's clear that my stand is extremely against presupposing any topic ban, especially when I've not seen any policy/guideline based analysis of any diffs that I've backed and stood by. (It almost feels like a group discussion where everyone's disagreeing with each other on purely their personal opinions. Anyway...). Thanks. Wifione 21:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you all deserve each other. Jehochman 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Any more to add?

I think this is as clear as we can make it. The tendentious editing evidence (Vejvančický's evidence, Wifione's rebuttal) that DGG dipped into here is clear. For those who wish to do the reading, this table makes it easier by linking Vejvančický's evidence with Wifione's rebuttal.

And the same is true, IMO, of the COI and socking evidence above in #Questions for Wifione. The latter evidence will take about an hour's reading to get a firm grip on; the TE evidence, about two or three, I think, for those who want to form their own judgments.

The evidence for avoiding accountability is here.

If you have any questions at all, please ask.

A few background details.

Wifione is accused of editing tendentiously and avoiding accountability. The topic area is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), its owner Arindam Chaudhuri, and its competitors (including IIM). Two sock farms (sockmaster named Mrinl Pandy) dominated the topic until they were exposed shortly before Wifione arrived.

The sock master, Mrinl Pandy, edited from an IP address that later did a maintenance edit on Wifione's user page and was identified as being registered to IIPM. Registered to IIPM, not just sharing the same ISP. Wifione shares a unique style of address with Mrinl Pandy and his socks.

DGG's above-linked statement is probably a good place to get oriented.

A concise, readable timeline of the IIPM controversy (to help make sense of DGG's statement and the tendentious editing evidence) is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For readers' benefit

1. This arbitration case is about an administrator (me) editing in defiance of the neutral point of view policy or a group of editors unjustly making accusations of such. This arbitration case is not about an administrator socking.
2. The general contention of the opposing group on the evidence and workshop pages has been that while each edit more or less may be justified using policies and guidelines, the overall picture shows me supporting one organisation while opposing its competitors
3. I've provided responses on the evidence page why such an impression might have arisen, and why Misplaced Pages's robust policies and guidelines are strong enough to restrict such issues (and therefore my judicious compliance to them should be heeded), and why most of my edits have been consensus+policy+guideline based changes.
4. In general, all evidence provided on the evidence page has been responded to as per required and admissible procedure in an arbitration case, quoting policies and guidelines, to the best extent possible. Any new evidence provided after the closure of the evidence period (including DGG's analysis) despite being procedurally inappropriate, has been answered to the best extent, again quoting policies and guidelines wherever appropriate.
5. Anthonycole has repeatedly claimed here that my writing style is similar to the writing style of the socks of Mrinal Pandey. To support his assertion, no diffs were provided, only copy-pasted statements of editors that Anthonycole claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey.
6. When I requested him to provide the past SPI/CU evidence that these editors were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey, Anthonycole ignored the request in his reply.
7. Anthonycole rejected my response that different people could have similar writing backgrounds because of their ethnicity.
8. Anthonycole rejected my response that there was evidence of the sockmaster Mrinal Pandey and me editing different articles at the very same moment of time.
9. Anthonycole proceeded to assert that I was definitely Mrinal Pandey and was simply logging in and logging out to edit from two accounts at the same moment of time.
10. When again shown evidence using diffs by me that his non-diff assertions of editors being socks was wrong, as the people he claimed were socks were editing different pages at the same moment of time, Anthonycole subsequently accepted that at least one editor he claimed was a sock of Mrinal Pandey seemed to be a different person.
11. Anthonycole subsequently also accepted that it seemed that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey may have writing styles different from Mrinal Pandey.
12. Till the moment of this posting, Anthonycole has not retracted his assertion that I am Mrinal Pandey. Till the moment of this posting, Anthonycole has not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey, were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey.

Wifione 03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wifione. I won't be reading the above, but if anyone has questions, I'm at your service. I couldn't help noticing the last point, though - Anthonycole has not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that editors who he claimed were socks of Mrinal Pandey, were actually socks of Mrinal Pandey. Please see above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Anthony. You've still not provided any past SPI/CU evidence that the editors you'd named in your assertion are actually socks. You've also responded above with the statement "I don't have the time to justify my claim that the others I listed are your/Mrinal's socks...". And here too you've commented, "I won't be reading the above...". Serious accusations require serious evidence. You are a party in this Arbcom case. You do need to either support your assertions with diffs when challenged, or retract them completely. If you retract your assertions of socking in this Arbcom case, I'll retract the complete section on proposed decisions that I have suggested regarding you. Wifione 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with the status quo. But thanks for your kind offer. All the best, Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)