Talk:India Against Corruption/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reference formatting

In this edit the reference formatting was changed to shortened footnotes. According to WP:CITEVAR:

"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page."

This change should not have been made without a consensus discussion on this talk page first. I call for such a discussion now, and a return to the status quo ante if consensus to make the change is not achieved. DES ^(talk) 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

And in this edit the source references were split into two groups, web and "published". Please note that reliable sources that are on the web are "published", that term is not reserved for paper publications.

Note that MOS:layout#Notes and references says:

"If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated. There may therefore be one, two, three, or four sections in all."

"It is most common for only citation footnotes to be used, and therefore it is most common for only one section to be needed. Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last."

Neither WP:INCITE nor Help:Footnotes supports such a separation. Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups does say:

"Sometimes it is useful to group the footnotes into separate lists, for example to separate explanatory notes from references, or to list references for tables, image captions, infoboxes and navboxes. The sequence of footnote labels is independent in each group."

but there is no support for the kind of distinction being made here. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Therefore I am going to remove this separate group of reference citations, merging them back into the main list, and removing the separate section for the web sources, as the current status is a violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style and may not persist, no matter what local consensus might form of this page, in my view. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of {{sfn}} is easier when a source is used several times; instead of searching into the main body of text when editing, one can have a look in the sources-section. Regarding the notes, when reading the article it's much clearer when there is an explanatory if it bears such a name. In the context of this article, these expl. notes are essential. And regarding the web-sources, there is a difference between published (paper) sources, and web-sources, in regard to their reliability. That's my opinion.

I think the question was not so much the citation-style, but the content of the edits. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about {{sfn}}, but it is a valid reference style. (I personally prefer CS1 with list-directed references.) But any change to such styles should be made only after talk page discussion and consensus for the change is achieved. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not objecting to the explanatory notes, nor have i changed them. I can see that this explanation is significant, and while I might not have chosen this method of presenting it, it is a reasonable choice. It is the separation of the citations (they aren't sources in the SFN sense) into two groups that I object to. Many highly reliable sources exist only on the web. If these particular sources aren't reliable for the statements they are cited to support, they shouldn't be here at all. (note that reliability is always relative to the particular use, no source is reliable for anything and everything.) Disputed reliability can be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard where experienced volunteers on this issue often offer views and assistance. But it is not in accord with Wikipedia practice to separate sources or citations based on the medium in which they are published. 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Many highly reliable sources exist only on the web"'- good point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How was Anna "leader" of IAC ?

Now that the referencing styles of the article are resolved, IAC would like that following aspect in the "lead" are addressed immediately

1) There is no reliable sources as yet to say that (a) Anna Hazare was the leader of "India Against Corruption" or (b) that "Team Anna" and IAC are one and the same thing. We have seen the 3 references cited for this in the "lead" section - none of them have any reliable internal references to say so. They just seem to be opinions of the authors based on blogs or wrongly interpreted news items.

a) "Brysk" sole ref to "Team Anna" (pg 1992) is based on this [1] which contains no reference whatsover to "India Against Corruption" but is about Anna's JanLokpal Bill agitation.

b) Encyclopedia Britannica is an unreliable source considering the article is written by the former press advisor to Dr Manmohan Singh (Sanjay Baru) who had a close relationship with Singh, and contains no supporting references that we can see. It also confuses campaigns and movements, and the dates are entirely wrong.

c) Schoen has no reliable sources for these claims. On page 146, the source is [2] dated 25/July/2012 (ie. 1 week before the "split"). Once again this source does not refer to "India Against Corruption" but is about the internal dissensions between Anna and other members of his so-called "team" over what the agitation was about.

"However, there were different voices from Anna Hazare and his team members. While Anna spoke mostly on Jan Lokpal bill, his team members focussed on rampant corruption in the government and its institution. Anna asserted that the fast it is for the Lokpal Bill while his aides said it is limited to their three demands, including a special probe into allegations against corrupt ministers.

Questions were raised at a press conference on Tuesday about the demands of the team as Anna spoke only about Lokpal Bill while his close aides Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan talked about other three demands.

Asked to clarify the position whether Lokpal Bill is an issue for the protest, Bhushan said their protest is 'limited' to an SIT probe against Ministers, a fast track court to try cases against MPs and the SIT to go into allegations against party chiefs.

However, Anna immediately took the microphone and said "the fight is for Lokpal Bill" and went on to add that till the 15 ministers against whom they have raised allegations are jailed if they are guilty, the country would not get a strong anti-corruption mechanism.

Kejriwal said the country would not get a Lokpal if the corrupt ministers did not go to jail."

Similarly at page 185-186, Schoen claims that Team Anna only formed after the disintegration in IAC, that Anna was the "nominal" leader, and that Anna was disbanding Team Anna to fight elections. Schoen does not say here that Anna led IAC or that all protests took place under IAC. Schoen is also clear that Anna was agitating for LokPal Bill (not against corruption in general or against any specific acts of corruption).

In fact Schoen tends to support IAC's case that Anna was only agitating/fasting for LokPal Bill and nothing else, and was not really connected to the larger IAC movement or even Kejriwal's campaign. Schoen's source here is this blog [3]

There are many sources which say that Anna was only a "mascot" [4], [5] etc. Hence, if anybody asserts that Anna was the leader of IAC they must show reliable sources for it - like he was "President" of IAC or "CEO" of IAC or "Convenor" etc. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

if [6] is your source for claiming Anna was "only a mascot", then Kejriwal is "only a mascot" too: Team Anna will have a new mascot in its posters with Arvind Kejriwal's images being used . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Our claim is that they were all "mascots" who misused IAC's name without any authority and impersonated as being associated with India Against Corruption. The difference with Kejriwal vis-a-vis Anna Hazare is a) that the address used for the IAC campaign communications were his b) that the audited accounts for some funds collected in name of IAC campaign are maintained by Kejriwal's trust PCRF (and shows a surplus of 28 lakhs standing to IAC's name as of 31.Mar.2012). c) That domain of IAC campaign website was personally registered by Kejriwal on 17.11.2010. So Kejriwal stands on a vastly different footing from Anna as far as IAC movement is concerned. IAC has always maintained that Anna and Ramdev had nothing to do officially with IAC. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wikipedia

On 28 December 2013 the IAC has replied to Wikipedia's email from "Cindy" as follows.

Dear Cindy

We are extremely upset with this kind of frivolous and insensitive response to our complaint.

You have failed to appreciate that IAC is NOT interested in editing its article at Wikipedia or in going through Wikipedia's INTERNAL dispute resolution process or in "contributing" to Wikipedia. IAC is not at all interested in Wikipedia's processes and procedures.

We fail to see why we should contribute to Wikipedia to have the article about us corrected. This is extortion and nothing but extortion.

IAC is hereby calling upon Wikipedia to do the following immediately.

1) Remove all references in the English language Wikipedia article "India Against Corruption" which states or imputes that "Anna Hazare" was part of "India Against Corruption" or was "leader" of "India Against Corruption".

2) Remove all references in the article "India Against Corruption" which states or imputes that India Against Corruption had supported or demanded a Lokpal or Jan Lokpal (ie. Ombudsman).

3) Remove all references in the article "India Against Corruption" which states or imputes that "Baba Ramdev" or "Ramdev" was part of "India Against Corruption" or was "leader" of "India Against Corruption".

4) Remove all references in the article "India Against Corruption" which state or impute opinions of 3rd parties about movements / agitations led by Anna Hazare or Baba Ramdev as being associated with "India Against Corruption". 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean or do. Even if it is an accurate copy of a letter to Wikimedia, lacks any authority for anything. Wikipedia editors collect and represent in the article what reliably published sources have said about the subject. If there are reliable sources that state that X was involved in the organization in X role, we will print that. If the organization states otherwise, we will (generally) also include their denial. But we always base conflicting content from reliable sources as conflicting content. We are not here to parrot the Webpage or spokespeople for the subject of the article if reliable sources have different views.

(and I believe the above representation highlights a misunderstanding with "contribute to Wikipedia" being taken as a request for funds rather than "contribute to the creation and improvement of Wikipedia content by becoming editors" per the common Wikipedia terminology Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom / the "Contributions" tab at the upper right of every user page )-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement is a response resulting from a referral of the legal issues to the WMF. To all intents and purposes, a group of people claiming to be affiliated with an organisation called India Against Corruption have been threatening legal action for some time. They're not actually said it in those words but it you read through the voluminous prior discussions here then you'll see their attempts to chill. Unfortunately for them, I am not easily scared and it seems that WMF have now told them what I and others had already told them on this page. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The response was from a WMF OTRS volunteer who advised IAC to improve this article through discussion on the article talk page. IAC is still awaiting a response / decision from WMF's legal department. Why don't you respond to the concerns IAC has raised about the distinct lack of primary evidence in the secondary sources cited on this page. What proof is there that illiterate Anna had anything to do with India Against Corruption. A poorly scrawled signature in Devangri on an laser printed IAC letterhead in English - and which was not even posted/delivered to the Prime Minister by these impersonators ? 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see - thanks for explaining the OTRS issue. As for the rest of your comment, see the discussions above. You are not going to get your way here simply by repeating stuff and coming up with original research and speculation. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you dont get your way here. Show us the proof that Anna had anything to do with IAC. Or that Ramdev had anything to do with IAC. At Anna's 5th April 2011 fast were they calling themselves IAC ? On Ramdev's 4th June 2011 yoga classes at RL grounds was the IAC name used anywhere ? If not, then why should a completely secular socialist body like IAC have to be defamed by what confused morons like Guha or Nanda write that IAC is communal or right wing without any basis ? Is it also your case that IAC was not running its own massively coordinated anti-corruption movement directed against CWG 2010 scams in 2010-2011 ? And what Original Research ? Here is the letter [7] has Anna signed in French or in Swahili ?

2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

THE PROOF IS IN THE RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE CITED. How many more times must I explain how Wikipedia works? We know that it is technically possible to block you from saying anything here and, believe me, I'm coming close to requesting that happens. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem, and we both know it, is that Wikipedia presently does not have a centralised process to remove / take-down content which is illegal under laws of non-US countries which dont treat "Free Speech" the way the USA does. IAC is trying its best to work within Wikipedia's processes which are clearly inadequate to deal with the present situation, and we are sick and tired of being lectured ad-nauseam about Wikipedia's policies while Wikipedia editors squabble over this article and revert each other. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is actually that you will not accept that this is Wikipedia, a private website with its own policies etc. If you don't like it then your options are (a) ignore it or (b) try to change the policies. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the Delhi High Court has already ruled against you, so you are again dragging this discussion back into the realm of legalities which we had agreed to ignore/bypass. The working premise now is "you don't show me your law and I won't show you mine". We are all trying for a practical solution to an awkward situation, and your obstructive behavior is making it quite difficult. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Delhi court is irrelevant; do not bring it up again. The rules of Wikipedia are relevant to changing Wikipedia. If you are not willing to abide by them, then we cannot help you change the article, as any changes must be made according to Wikipedia's rules. "Not interested in following Wikipedia's rules" is not an option for you or anyone else who wants to make changes to Wikipedia, regardless of who they are. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

IAC notes that "Writ Keeper" is a Wikipedia bureaucrat. If this is the considered position of the WMF (and not an individual opinion) that WMF treats the Court's directions as "irrelevant" kindly send us an email to this effect signed by somebody in authority (along with their name and other contact details). Also please read Jimmy Wale's notes on WP:DOLT that persons affected by Wikipedia content cannot be compelled to become Wikipedia editors to have libellous content about them corrected. As User:Sitush can be personally responsible for repeatedly republishing libellous content about IAC, is Wikipedia prepared to provide his complete and authentic real world details to IAC ? As a Wikipedia bureaucrat please clarify if WMF defends Sitush's inserted text that IAC is a communal rightwing group (when IAC is a actually a secular socialist movement). On what basis is Sitush asserting WP:COMMONNAME when the 3 distinct movements described in the article are not one and the same ? A reliable source like [8] whch has 100s of articles on these movements says IAC is the official IAC and clearly says"India Against Corruption ("IAC") is a people's organisation affiliated to the Hindustan Republican Association which was founded on 3 October,1924 at Kanpur (United Provinces). It is today one of the secular "public" faces of the HRA movement as outlined in the Yellow Paper. According to its official site, IAC movement today is an apolitical, secular, socialist, Republican, conservative, revolutionary, Hindutva movement " Why is this not prominently in the article LEAD section ? Why is the IAC's official website URL not in the article's infobox ? Is Wikipedia aware of any other IAC at the present time ? Does WMF dispute that IAC (which has sent emails reqesting for very specific corrections to this article) is the official "India Against Corruption" ? [9] 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I'm a bureacrat, but that's just a name that the community has given to a role; I'm really just a volunteer like any other. I'm not employed by or affiliated with the WMF in any way, so don't take myself or my opinion as representative of anything that the WMF does. My opinion is indeed my own individual one. My role as a bureacrat also has nothing to do with disputes like these; it simply means that I have been entrusted with the use of some advanced technical tools (such as the ability to rename user accounts) to do maintenance on the encyclopedia, none of which are relevant here. My being a bureacrat gives me no authority over any other editor when it comes to content disputes. Furthermore, the WMF generally speaking does not assert control over content except in extreme, dire, emergency situations; the content of Wikipedia is written, curated, and maintained by volunteers, not by the WMF. For the most part, the WMF merely provides the software (e.g. the Mediawiki platform) and hardware (e.g. servers) for Wikipedia; the volunteer community provides the content. This is why it's important that one must recognize the rules that the volunteer community has put forth, because it is the volunteer community one must work with, not the WMF.

You're also misunderstanding the point of WP:DOLT (which, I might add, is an essay; it is not actual, established Wikipedia policy). DOLT says that, when faced with a legal threat, we should not simply block the person making the threat and disregard the concern that's leading them to make it. But that's not what's happening here, as your concerns have not been disregarded; editors have investigated them and found them to be not wholly substantiated. I'm not vouching for their conclusions, I'm just noting that, since they have made such a conclusion, DOLT no longer applies to this situation. This is now simply a content dispute, which must be resolved through the normal Wikipedia channels.

One last note, though, and this I say as an administrator (though still a 100% volunteer administrator, who is not employed or affiliated with the WMF in any way): if you bring up the Delhi court case again, I will semi-protect this talk page, which will prevent you from editing it. Repeatedly mentioning the court case, while perhaps not an explicit legal threat, is a transparent attempt to scare other editors away from disagreeing with you or editing the article; in other words, it is intended to create a chilling effect indistinguishable from that of an actual legal threat. Such methods, direct or indirect, are not acceptable means of getting your way on Wikipedia. Legal issues such as those are one area where the WMF will step in if it is necessary. If the WMF agrees that the legal question is a relevant one, they will take action that will be clear to everyone. Since the WMF has already been notified of the potential issue, and have not decided to act yet, we can safely assume that the legal question is not relevant until they do act. So don't bring it up again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 09:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. IAC has already indicated that we are prepared to educate Wikipedia's volunteer contributors on where to correct this incorrect article. What you fail to see is that equally Sitush is bullying other editors away from this article to establish his ownership for libellous and defamatory content he inserted (and reinserted) and that he is interpreting Wikipedia policies in his own way against evolving consensus of other editors who recognise some "truth" in IAC's claims. If the organisation, and nobody other than Sitush disputes that we are the IAC organisation, provides unimpeachable primary evidence which flatly contradicts the supposedly reliable sources Sitush has provided, it is up to Wikipedia to establish a policy to delete such content from this article. IAC notes that whereas Wikipedia claims to have a "high bar" for inclusion of content, it lacks a "low bar" for deletion of libellous content. IAC (as a small and private body) claims the "low bar" as a BLP to get such factually incorrect, defamatory and libellous text apparently about itself removed. IAC also clarifies that neither Anna nor Ramdev were part of any IAC campaign at any stage. They are, however, both known to IAC and there is regular interaction / communication among their respective movements through their separate secretariats. There is also a common understanding between these 3 movements that they were all deceived and misled by the persons who are now the Aam Aadmi Party. For instance on 10 Feb 2013 IAC was invited to join a public platform on 03-04 March 2013 where many eminent original victims of the "fake" IAC such as Baba Ramdev, Maulvi Syed Rushaid Rizwi Kalbe, Ram Jethmalani, Chief Justice D.S Tewatia etc were present and where IAC did participate, [10], [11]. Administrator DES has understood the dynamics / linkages of the various movements which Sitush does not. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We obviously cannot do what you are are demanding because basing content upon our interpretation of primary sources rather than what third party reliable sources have published is a violation of one of the primary content principles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear TRPoD. Let us take baby steps together. Here is a reliable source [12]. It says "India Against Corruption ("IAC") is a people's organisation affiliated to the Hindustan Republican Association which was founded on 3 October,1924 at Kanpur (United Provinces). It is today one of the secular "public" faces of the HRA movement as outlined in the Yellow Paper. According to its official site, IAC movement today is an apolitical, secular, socialist, Republican, conservative, revolutionary, Hindutva movement". So please suitably insert this entire text into the LEAD for this article, and also add the IAC's referred "official" URL "http:///www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in" as IAC's URL in the infobox. Alternatively you can add "http:///www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in" which we have no problems with either and a reliable source for which is [13].Thank you. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've advised you before that the First Post synopsis which you keep linking is merely a synopsis of what the HRA affiliate claims. It is effectively nothing more than a press release from a primary source. Worse, it still doesn't make the connection between the 2011-2012 events that are connected to a widely-recognised "India Against Corruption" organisation and the HRA one. How many more times must I tell you this before it sinks in? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The FirstPost master page for IAC is a replacement for their previous page which inadvertently stated that Anna was the leader of the IAC and that IAC was demanding a Lok Pal Bill. IAC has not issued any press release with this text, and IAC does not chase publicity. This content is a result of several very cooperative editorial interactions between FP and IAC's media team to clarify various details. FP is a reliable news organisation with an editorial policy in place. The fact that they have amended their article shows that their editorial process is functional (unlike Wikipedia's). We have already told you repeatedly that the 2011-12 events are not connected to IAC, in fact we disavow them. And from now on please stop referring to IAC as "the HRA. one". There is 1, and only 1 IAC movement and we are it and have always been it. Referring / Claiming any other "India Against Corruption" on this article or talkpage is disparaging and libellous. This is not a case where today any other person / body is claiming that they are (or were) IAC. If you persist in claiming that there is some other IAC "organisation", we put you to strict proof of its details, such as its address, its office bearers and its memorandum, especially now that Wikipedia has notice of this issue. We agan advise you to please follow what Admin DES has suggested. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Immediate deletion of text request

India Against Corruption requests the following text to be deleted immediately from the article.

"Historian and commentator Ramachandra Guha has questioned the image that has been portrayed of IAC and of Hazare. Acknowledging that Hazare had previously been successful in campaigns for infrastructure reforms at the local level in his native Maharashtra and that the IAC campaign of 2011 had an impact, Guha doubts the claims that the 2011 and 2012 protests overwhelmingly engaged the masses. He notes that liberals were concerned with a perceived anti-democratic rhetoric while socially oppressed communities, such as the dalits and Other Backward Classes, were worried that the Hindu-led movement would undermine the gains they have made through legislative reforms, such as those resulting from the Mandal Commission. He considers that the attention given to the protest by 24-hour news channels and internet resources has masked the realities, such as that popular participation at the Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan protests in Delhi was a fraction of that evidenced in Kolkata in 1998 when 400,000 marched in an anti-nuclear movement. IAC and Hazare in particular piggy-backed on and gained from discontent surrounding some coincident corruption scandals involving the government. These scandals, such as the 2G spectrum scam, were high-profile examples of the corruption that is claimed to be endemic in Indian society at all levels but Guha believes the IAC solution — the Lokpal — was a "simplistic" reaction.[1]"

The source (Ramachandra Guha) [14] claims that Anna "now adopted" the title "India Against Corruption" after his April and August 2011 fasts to justify his (ie. Guha's or Sitush's - its not clear which is which) garbage opinions about IAC. The fact is that Anna Hazare did not use the title "India Against Corruption" during either of these fasts. Here is the 5th April 2011 onwards fast [15], [16] - they called themselves "Bhrastachar ke khilaf Jan Lokpal Kanoon" (A People's Ombudsman Law against Corruption). Here is the 20th August 2011 onwards Anna fast at Ramlila Maidan [17], [18], [19] from which it is again clear that so-called "Team Anna" were not calling themselves as "India Against Corruption" but as "Jan Lokpal Kanoon Lao" (Bring a Jan LokPal Law).

This entire mischief involving Original Research and Synthesis using DUBIOUS / BOGUS SOURCES has been carried out by Sitush to push some fringe theory that Team Anna and IACare one and the same to merge the 2 articles and to libel IAC. And just for additional verification, here is the Times of India photo gallery for Anna's August 2011 fast [20] where it is evident that "Team" was not promoting themselves as IAC but as "I am Anna". 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

by repeating your "demands" in section after section in wall of text after wall of text is not going to achieve anything. WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use weasel words.like "demand" when IAC has "requested" these edits using Wikipedia's tags for Conflicted (non)-editors. This is just another [21] tag team effort between India-obssessed editors like you and Sitush. Please play the ball and not the man. WHERE / WHEN exactly did Anna adopt the title "India Against Corruption" for his Jan LokPal movement ? Are all those photos from leading Indian newspapers wrong ? What primary sources does Ramachandra Guha have for his extraordinary claims about IAC (which phrase BTW is only mentioned twice - and in passing) in his book (which is not even about the IAC) ? Surely it is Wikipedia policy that extraordinary claims require exceptional sources. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

demand is not a "weasel word" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In this usage it is. see WP:WEASEL ""Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. ... They may disguise a biased view.". 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The guideline that you link & quote is for article space, not talk pages. It forms a part of our "manual of style". That said, I think that you can consider your "request"/"demand" to be denied unless you come up with something new. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You have repeatedly evaded replying to the unimpeachable evidence IAC has provided from reliable newspaper sources that Anna Hazare did not adopt the title "India Against Corruption" for his Jan Lokpal movement (except on 01.Dec.2010 when he signed a letter in a language he does not know, on trust) as your so-called reliable sources say. When you "merged" Team Anna into this article on 30.Nov.2013 , did you follow the procedure in WP:MERGE (which although not a policy/guideline clarifies other Wikipedia core policies)? Did you post any merger proposal template at either of the article pages ? Did you discuss and get consensus of other Wikipedia editors for your merger ? Did you take it to "WP:Proposed mergers"? Is it your claim that the present IAC movement from 2007 was a part of "Team Anna" at any stage? Did you consider "Merging should be avoided if: .... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short"? You are deliberately adopting a highly obstructive approach on this talk page to justify your past actions, to abruptly freeze discussions and to shoo other editors away. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been opened

A request for mediation has been opened at [22] and all interested editors are invited to participate or add their issues. Thanks. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Big revert

I just made a big revert. There is a thread somewhere above concerning the unilateral change to citation style but, worse, I've just looked at the article for the first time in a couple of weeks & there seemed to be, for example, an introduction of completely unnecessary cites of the Encyclopaedia Britannica etc. I've left a note at User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan#IAC in the hope that we can rescue anything that is deserving. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, IP. Please can you provide a single reliable source either from the earlier version or elsewhere that explicitly says that the "India Against Corruption" referred to by the media during 2011-2012 was usurped from the HRA organisation. No deductions, no adding of two sources to form a synthesis - just a straight reference. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

2 straight media sources which both covered "IAC" (generic) extensively from 2010. Firstpost.com [23] today clearly says that we are the official IAC. This report refers to the usurption [24] in Dec 2012 whereas in 2011 they wrote stuff like this [25]. Their article is a straight report from the primary source [26], [27]. The date is corrororated from this photo [28]. The facts of IAC's disputes with "Team Anna" in Orissa immediately after 26 Nov. 2012 (2nd cutoff date) are here [29], [30], [31]. This [32] on 24.Oct.2012 was probably among the first mainstream articles on IAC-HRA (no mention of Anna here). What IAC also has is a large number of unimpeachable corespondence, RTI requests, official replies and statutory Appeals filed in name of IAC between 2008 and 2011 to Government bodies - mainly related to 2010 Commonwealth Games mischiefs which nobody in India has been able to dispute.2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No - you are conflating: we need a source that says the HRA IAC were responsible for the 2011-2012 protest movement, which is what this article is about. The HRA IAC itself is seemingly not a notable organisation. We've covered all this ground before: unless you can directly connect the protest movement as being organised by the HRA body, nothing is going to change. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of sources refer to the protest movement. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On my talk page, Sitush says that my recent edit is "not a useful reinstatement" and that "The claims of a non-notable organisation carry no weight when compared to the thousands of media reports that say otherwise." As I understand it, the media sources use the name "IAC" or "India Against Corruption" to refer to both the HRA-related group (now claiming to be the sole legitimate user of that name) and to the group also known as "Team Anna" and to a wider movement with which both were to some extent associated. Please coirrect me if this is incorrect. If this is correct, then the views of the HRA-related organization, as part of the article subject, should be included (if they can be reliably ascertained, such as from that group's own publications) although they should not be given undue weight nor be allowed to have the final word nor be treated as the definitive statement of fsact on the issues. DES ^(talk) 19:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DES - all we are asking for is balanced treament whereby we are not defamed for actions of others/imposters. @Sitush, you are again beating around the bush. IAC-HRA has never claimed that IAC-HRA organised the 2011-12 protests. IAC-HRA says that the 2 main protest movements Anna's LPB and Ramdev's "Return Black Money" had nothing to do with IAC except that both these illiterate fellows were misled into once signing a letter to the Prime Minister on a cheap laser printout "letterhead" with the words "India Against Corruption" in English on 01.Dec.2010 (This letter was never delivered to the PM). After that neither of them used this name for a very long time - ie. till August 2011 - see the photographs. Insofar as IAC-HRA's notability goes there are several mainstream news sources which say that the IAC movement is now with the HRA and it is doing notable anti-corruption things (like blocking UIDAI's HeadQuarters) and causing Radio Stations to apolgise etc. Why thousands of sources (incorrectly) refer to the protest movement as "IAC" was due to criminal fraud, forgery and impersonation by 3 of the signatories to that letter. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. - 2001:558:1400:10:F8EC:295:110E:1DB4 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

??? Who is this IP. Is this DES ? If so, you've captured the essence of it very well. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All of my edits to this page are signed with my user name. All hte various IP editors seem as if they are editing from the same PoV. Note that it is not allowed for one person to attempt to seem to be multiple people to increase the apparent support behind a position, or to influence a discussion. See WP:SOCK. I am not doing that here (or anywhere) and I hope that no one else is either. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That "Agreed" was not done by us. We see that a similar IP has been blocked for "Duck Attack" edits. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not correct unless you take the word of the HRA body, which we cannot do because no independent sources verify it. The situation is actually akin to one that would require a disambiguation but we can't do that either ... because thus far the HRA body has not even been able to show that it is notable. What is happening here is an attempt at mob rule by people who won't even create accounts and claim to be affiliated with what amounts to an underground organisation. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

IAC has not opened a Wikipedia Account for this dispute as there may be legal terms and conditions or other clauses of adhesion associated with such accounts which diminish IAC's legal rights. As this now essentially seems to be a face-off between IAC and User:Sitush who had again reverted to his previous version while attempts of other editors to reach consensus was underway, IAC requests that some editor shall open a Mediation request file [33] for this article (IAC cannot do so without opening an account). The grounds for which are '(a) 'whether the apellations "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" refer to the same entity or not', and (b) whether libellous, defamatory and other wise disparaging statements emanating from misuse of the India Against Corruption's title(s) by third parties should be associated with the actual India Against Corruption movement in Wikipedia's article(s)'. As a courtesy to IAC, we expect "Wikipedia" to stub or severely trim this article to remove the disputed content previously indicated by us on this talk page while the dispute is ongoing. As conclusive evidence that "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" are not one and the same body, IAC cites [34] which is the official Parliament Report on Lokpal Bill. It is replete with references to Anna, Anna Hazare, Team Anna, Anna's team etc, and names Anna, Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi., Arvind Kejriwal etc as witnesses before it, but there is not even a single reference to "India Against Corruption" in this report, (because IAC had formally complained about misuse of its name for Lokpal Bill campaign to the Rajya Sabha Chairman/Speaker, saying that IAC opposed Lokpal Bill on principle) 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

actually what this appears to be is a stand off between Sitush supporting Wikipedia policies and a swarm of meatpuppet proponants of a group attempting to hijack wikipedia with legal threats, personal attacks and incessant WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT disruptive behavior. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation - Terms of Use

Relevant extracts:

4. Refraining from Certain Activities

Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include:

   Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud 

           Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation;
           With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;

           Engaging in fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColSodhi (talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

|}

Meatpuppetry with the usual legalese element - all of this has been discussed before and has been pointed out to the contributor. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)}}

No meatpuppetry. Many Admins have said that the members of the "role account" HRA1924 should instead edit in their personal capacities. TheWikiIndian (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what you have seen is administrators demanding that supporters of an organization follow Wikipedia policies regarding sharing of accounts AND a swarm of " new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgement.", ie meat puppets. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Misleading Link

The link for Anti-Corruption links to a 1970's Hong-Kong film, it should link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption#Opposing_corruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.168.91 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Requires cleanup

The Anna Hazare and Ramdev movements were popular movements that drew on common resentment against the ruling classes. It was a movement that saw a lot of middle class youth participating. This article looks like it is referencing from a single source and is giving undue weight to Hindutva which was not really an issue in these protests at all. It needs to be substantially rewritten.Puck42 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that is probably true. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'm not at all happy with this removal. I would have been happy to see the tags removed, since the stuff is in the body, but the real problem here has been POV-pushing and legal threats. FWIW, the elections - which were irrelevant to this anyway - are now over. We can drop the Hindutva bit from the lead if necessary but I see nothing wrong with the remainder. Please can someone explain. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated in modified form, losing the Hindutva bit. - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on edits to Team Anna article

Semi-exciting discussion started by a now-indef blocked account, but having little to do with article improvement. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please state the case for why my sourced edits are being reverted in this rude manner. Lindashiers (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I've just made a big revert because it looks to me as if someone is yet again trying to turn this into an article about the relatively unknown India Against Corruption pressure group rather than the much more widely known India Against Corruption popular movement. I'm not saying that all of the changes lacked merit but unpicking the good from the bad in these circumstances is difficult. So, I suggest we discuss them bit by bit here first. As a start to that, this edit rings alarm bells. Yes, there clearly were some elements of copyright violation in the old version. Those could have been fixed very simply by rephrasing but instead the entire thing was removed in favour of some very poorly phrased detailed info about alleged internal rows involving an organisation - Jagruk Nagrik Manch - that may or may not be connected and may or may not be relevant. We don't usually include trivial information and that is what this mostly looks like. I'd appreciate an explanation of why this was in fact significant. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Before I respond to you, fully, as I shall, please provide a reliable source for this statement you inserted "The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name.". Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, after that "alarm bells" edit (which was to fix your copy-vios), the entire Meera Nanda text/cite was added back after loosely paraphrasing it. The Guha text will also be added back once we both can confirm that it still exists and corresponds to the content you added. Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC) The "popular movement" thing has been discussed widely, including at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, via WP:OTRS and the WMF, on this very talk page and on numerous other talk pages. Sometimes we have to use a bit of common sense. If the pressure group were notable then it would have its own article and we could avoid the qualification by using a dabhat; alas, there is no such article yet, the notability is moot and so we cannot do that. Please prove that those were my copyvios or desist from making such claims. This article has gone back and forth an awful lot and while there is a remote possibility that I did in fact breach copyright, the chances of it being me are extremely slim. I'm pretty experienced and I am subject to a phenomenal amount of scrutiny here. I took some screenshots of the Guha book a few hours ago - I can email them to you if you want. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Your proof [35]. Can you confirm if the Guha book on Googlebooks is a scan of the Indian sub-continent edition or is Penguin's Viking ebook since they both have the same e-ISBN. I see a substantial number of sources on the notability of the RTI activists group. Its a pity you can't come up with a credible source to establish that they are a "pressure group" ... Lindashiers (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You are continuing to be rude and aggressive. I'm not dealing with you until you calm down, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, except to say that I accept the diff. No idea why that happened but clearly I cocked-up then. It doesn't make me a serial copyright violator. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) @Sitush, Time-Out. If you are prepared to fairly reevaluate your POV on this article; I, as an expert, shall disentangle (with sources) the various strands of the Anna/IAC 2010-2012 phenomenon so that 2 "good articles" can emerge - a) Team Anna b) India Against Corruption. Lindashiers (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) No. The alleged POV has been discussed at the various venues before, on umpteen occasions. You want to draft something in your sandbox for review then feel free but you are not doing it in mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Do you stand by your content that (a) "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" are identical and absolutely interchangeable names for the same movement, (b) The "pressure group" had nothing to do with either (or both) of the foregoing ? I say this because Anna Hazare's name is being dragged into the IAC article, incorrectly. Lindashiers (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You have obviously been around for a long time under another identity. You made the minimum number of edits necessary elsewhere with your current account before you could change things at this article. You are almost certainly familiar with the past discussions about the usage of Team Anna/IAC in this article and the various claims made by the IAC NGO. Some of those are linked on this very talk page. I'm not rehashing it yet again because it really is only a few weeks since we last went through it all at ANI. Lots of people have spent lots of time looking into this and we cannot keep revisiting it on a "first principles" basis. Go write your drafts and we'll review things there. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not responding to your trolling. I have serious issues with your sources (like Guha). You are unable to provide a source for the specific on-page statement / POV text (inserted by you) on the "pressure group". You have reverted accurately sourced text from additional topical (secondary) news sources which clearly demolishes your thesis that IAC and Team Anna are indistinguishable (ignoring that they even fought over the IAC name - including in the High Court of Bombay). You have rejected my AGF offer to simplify (with sources) the strands of the IAC movement so that you can understand it. You have continued to defend what is clearly plagiarism and POV pushing in this article. What else is there left to say? Should experts only edit here on Mondays? Lindashiers (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC) @Lindashiers: Involving yourself in an ArbCom case within a week of your first edit and within your first 100 edits suggests you are not a new user. Please identify what edits you have made to this article or to this talk page previously but not using this account. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Volunteered - "NONE" and "NONE". PS: Are you allowed to ask this of me ? The 2 Arbcom cases I commented on are the only ones currently open. Why haven't you commented there, or is commenting at Arbcom only open to those with more than 1,000 or 10,000 edits ? There is a lot wrong at Wikipedia, including blatant plagiarism and sexism, and I am allowed to have my say on it, or am I not ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) You began editing on 3 September. Your edits have three distinctive features: (1) aggression (2) opinions on IAC which have similarities to a high profile sock/meatpuppet campaign (2) knowledge of WP which new users don't usually have. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Before I answer you, which I shall, let me pose the counter query - how is it that the 2 conflicted POV pushing editors (1 of them a controversial WP Administrator well known elsewhere for his POV pushing at Wikipedia) for this article are both from the UK and now we have a lawyer from the same country popping up to defend this plagiarist /copy-vio-er(?). What strange bond usually connects you ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) The answer, most likely, is that we speak the English language and edit Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Well the facts are that (a) England is a very tiny country (and likely to get even tinier in a few days), and (b) that Indians are now the 2nd largest speakers of English after the Yanks, and the days of Empire are past. So get used to it, and let native English speakers read factually correct article(s) and edit at Wikipedia. Lindashiers (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Almost every single question asked of you has been batted off with an "I'll respond later" (paraphrase) and an aggressive counter. You are sounding more and more like Zuggernaut by the minute, especially in your anti-British sentiments. You are not going to get very far if you continue with this style of contribution. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Zuggernaut who ? Why are you aggressively converting a content dispute into a circus with your sexist British cronies jumping into this 3 ring farce? This is so typical of the misogynist system which vitiates Wikipedia through and through and obstructs Indians from editing it. PS: Can you respond with your sources ? PPS: Shiva is our God, not yours. Lindashiers (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC) @Lindashiers: Several people are watching this topic and your current approach cannot succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Hi, I am here to discuss content and nothing else. If all of you had something against Zuggernaut, its got nothing to do with me. The ongoing dispute is for admitted copyright violation, and continuous denials of it by Sitush.Lindashiers (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Ok, drop the anti-British, anti-male etc sideshow. Answer the basic queries that have been asked of you regarding your past involvement etc and stop deflecting things. If you wish massively to change this article then feel free to rework it in your userspace and then ask here for a review. Spotting the copyvio was great and no-one has said that everything you want to do is necessarily wrong but you have made and are wanting to make significant changes to this article and they seem to be intended to promote a viewpoint previously adopted by a sock/meat farm. Since that viewpoint has been rejected on countless occasions and you have been adopting an aggressive position from the outset, you'll have to forgive us some doubt. You may be the person who finally manages to turn this article in the direction that the IAC socks/meats wanted but you are not going to do it without collaboration, so I suggest that you make an effort to collaborate. I am sure that any draft will be reviewed neutrally because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people with whom you have interacted using your current accounts hold any particular POV in relation to the articles that you have been working on. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC) @Sitush. Posting here instead of on your talk page. Insinuations again. Which are my "current accounts" ? Read my lips - I either edit this article equally as a "first class editor" or not at all. There is no shortage of wikis or articles like Pravin Togadia for me to edit-war at - was I so inclined to do so ... with [36], [37] etc. - and in case you don't know, the actual PTI report from Jaipur of 2002 on which all this particular Togadia propaganda was based was soon retracted. So I say again, if you lack competence please stay out of India related articles when the real experts are on the field. PS: History has already answered Dionne Bunsha's final question (for the moment). Lindashiers (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC) That was a typo: "current account" is what I meant. And that's it from me. I'm not putting up with this crap any longer. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The alleged copyvio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm still trying to work out how I blatantly copyvio'd here. The Duplication Detector reports this but I've never looked at that blog until this week and certainly wouldn't use it as a source, ever. I've just checked it against the Wayback machine, which has only one entry for it here. That entry happens to coincide with the date when Lindashiers (talk · contribs) began editing. Is it possible that the IAC meatfarm have faked the blog in an attempt to discredit me? I'm going to try some more research. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I got it from this. It is fairly close paraphrasing, I admit, but I'll have to leave the judgment to others. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The whois for the domain that the blog is hosted on seems to suggest that it was not registered until July this year - see here. Aside from the blog post referred to, it has pretty much zero content. I'm more and more convinced that I've been screwed over here. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I followed a similar train of thought independently of Sitush, and I've come to the same conclusion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I began to look into this earlier (an attempt at a joe job) and got sidetracked. There was something fishy with Lindashiers' grabbing onto the supposed copyvio and not letting go. I expect we will see more of these kinds of things in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant paragraph from the source that I cited says

Hindu nationalism in the wider sense used in this book, complete with the state-temple-corporate complex, was on display in the recent anti-corruption campaigns that rocked the UPA government through much of 2011. A group calling itself "India Against Corruption", whose inner circle was made up largely of lawyers and middle-class professionals, managed to launch a nationwide movement demanding stricter legislation against corruption. IAC turned to two men to rally support for their cause - Baba Ramdev, a prominent tele-yogi and Ayurvedic healer with millions of admirers, especially among the lower-middle classes in small towns, and Anna Hazare, the Gandhian ex-army man turned social reformer, whose core support came from urban middle-classes and idealistic youth. Both men exemplify how smoothly and almost imperceptibly religion blends with politics and business in India these days.

There are two potential close paraphrasing problems in what I wrote:

• "a populist yogi with millions of supporters among the middle-classes of small-town India"

• "Hazare, too, brought a large support base with him, comprising mostly middle-class people from urban areas and idealistic youths"

Comments and advice, please. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the first sentence. "middle-class people from urban areas and idealistic youths" could conceivably be considered too closely paraphrased but it's hard to rewrite without losing accuracy. "middle-class from the cities and younger Indians"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm. The idealism is the key to what went on, though: it drove the popular movement and, later, drove the Aam Aadmi Party. This was a new breed of socially-conscious, aspirational youth: India was basically experiencing what the US and Europe experienced in the 1960s, when the youths broke away from the hide-bound strictures of gerontocracy etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"socially-conscious younger Indians"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a paraphrasing problem. It looks distinct enough to me. (It's certainly not copyright infringement). Given that it looks likely that the linkage to the blog is just an IAC stitch up, I would suggest not wasting more time on this, unless one of our copyvio experts says otherwise. DeCausa (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back to that blog post, I notice it's presented as a quotation from Veeresh Malik. It concerns events from October 2010 to late February 2011 and beyond: "by late Feb 2011 P soon realised... demanded we replace him ... who also brought his large support base along with him ... and IAC now attracted ..." It seems to be written with the perspective of more than a few days or weeks, yet it's not only marked as copyright 2011 but also as posted on the blog on 06 April 2011, very soon after late February 2011.

It's shown as having been taken from page 93 of something - perhaps a book or a journal - but no title or publisher is given. Several books by Veeresh Malik appear on Amazon with "Look Inside" enabled, but none have 2011 publication dates. Still, looking inside it's striking how different Malik's style is in them from the style of that extract in the blog.

The blog appears on a domain that was registered in July 2014. It's the only entry; it's titled "IAC Chronicles Day 2" but there is no Day 1.

The perspective is consistent with having been written at a distance of a couple of years. The succinct summary style is consistent, the use of the first person aside, with writing an Wikipedia entry. I believe the burden is on anyone accusing Sitush of copying to show that that this blog is a genuine extract from a work written by Veeresh Malik between late Febrary 2011 and 6 April 2011. NebY (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't even aware that the guy has written any books! I wouldn't likely have used them anyway (I don't like using primary sources and Malik is one, as a member of IAC) but I'll go check them now, if I get a better view than you. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So, this one paragraph (day 2 only) blog is the only item of substance on a site set up in the last two months and the Wayback Machine's earliest archive for the blog is the same day as Lindashiers started editing WP. The alleged copyvio was posted here Nov 2013. Shouldn't we just close this as an obvious hoax? DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. I can't do it, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There isn't enough evidence of copyright violation and there are many reasons to see it as a hoax. NebY (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a piece written by Malik and dated 6 April 2011 - but without the text in the blog and with a more personal style. NebY (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant to the copyvio claim and we're not going to use the opinion of an involved activist, especially not one whose organisation has been deliberately attempting to influence this article for a year or so now. - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright followup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As a copyright problems clerk, I have formally closed the 3 September listing as "No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article." I also noted there that at most there was very minor close paraphrasing from the book cited and that the blog originally alleged to be the source of the copyvio appears to be a hoax with no convincing evidence that it pre-dates the Wikipedia article. I fully concur with Writ Keeper, the administrator who removed the tag (I was about to do it myself). Interestingly, I googled another phrase from WP article [38] and what should a find, but a blatant paste from the WP article (complete with the citation needed tags) added on 14 April 2014 to the official Facebook page of a group claiming to be India Against Corruption [39]. Note that the source is entirely unattributed and is therefore a copyright violation. Wikipedia articles are released under a license that requires attribution. As you can see from the Google results, the article was also copied verbatim into at least two blogs dated December 2013, one month after the material appeared on Wikipedia. As for the current paragraph. I suggest some minor re-writes and perhaps putting some distinctively worded phrases (which might suffer loss of original meaning if too loosely paraphrased) inside quote marks. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

I am posting the comment below which was left at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3 by Name Defend IPA (talk · contribs) with this edit and will respond to it shortly. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

---

My principal, who is interested in this matter, politely requests to know from the Wikipeisa "community" and especially from the concerned Wikipedia user who uploaded the infringing content, if (a) he denies the existence of the below described email of 06.April.2011, (b) denies that the extract published on the "blog" is a true reproduction of the extract from the said email, (c) if the user has any permission to reproduce the content of the referred email. Name Defend IPA (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Response from Voceditenore, the copyright clerk who closed the listing at Copyright problems/2014 September 3:

1. By their own admission the purported blog post dated April 2011 from indiaagainstcorruption.net was actually added to that site on the day the copyright violation tag was placed on the article here (3 September 2014) .

2. The blog post claimed as the source of the copyvio was labeled not as an email but as an extract from a 2014 book which they claim quoted the email and is available only to IAC members.

3. The problematic passage in the Wikipedia article was added incrementally with two edits on 23 November 2013: 1 and 2.

4. The blog post purporting to be an email re-quoted in a 2014 book shows an equal if not even greater similarity to the material in the following book published in 2013 prior to the passage in the Wikipedia article:

• Nanda, Meera (2011). The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu. NYU Press. pp. xxii–xxiii. ISBN 9781583673096.

5. The paraphrasing in the Wikipedia article was from the 2013 book above which was properly cited as the source. There is no convincing evidence that it was paraphrased from anywhere else. Thus, any alleged copyright infringement is a matter between the group purporting to be the current IAC, Veeresh Malik (the alleged author of the 2014 book), and Meera Nanda (the confirmed author of the 2013 book).

6. While there was some overly close paraphrasing of one or two sentences from Nanda's 2013 book in the Wikipedia article, it does not rise to the level of a copyright violation.

7. Accusations that the editor who added the material to Wikipedia had somehow had access to a 2011 non-public email and used that instead of the published 2013 book are irrelevant to this copyright issue, unprovable, and in my view spurious.

– Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Voceditenore, but given everything we know, I think we are done with this subject. Archiving.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarbajit Roy (National Convenor)

Collapsing page bloat having absolutely nothing to do with article improvement. The latest disruptive editor has been blocked. Feel free to click "show" for a demonstration of the IAC sock/meatfarm's typical debating style. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've moved the content from the redirected page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffycharles (talk • contribs) 09:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Your addition has been removed by me and another editor. Apart from the entirely inappropriate undue weight given to Mr. Roy and his activities, there is no evidence that Roy and his group have anything to do with the group which is the subject of this article, apart from their own claims. I have added a brief sentence and quote from the Hindustan Times to that effect at the end of the divergence section. In addition, that lengthy and poorly referenced piece of original research which had constituted the previous "biography" of Roy here was entirely inappropriate to add to this article. There is a reason why Sarbajit Roy has been protected from re-creation. I suggest you read the background on both talk pages. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Please discuss all these things first. Duffycharles (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC) OK, now you please explain how the IAC website "indiaagainstcorruption" was used by Roy's IAC since August 2008. The movement obviously existed at that point of time, Duffycharles (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Is there even 1 comment from anyone in this IAC that Roy is not National Convenor of this IAC ? Duffycharles (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC) What evidence do you have that the 2 IACs are different, and also that IAC is not functioning ? Duffycharles (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC) It has been explained to you above. The onus is on you to make your case and gain support from other editors that you do not now have. Until then the article stays per the consensus position. Read WP:BRD. Currently, you are edit~warring and if you continue you wil be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC) The onus is on whoever is saying that ROY is not IAC National Convenor of the one and only IAC to reply to me. Duffycharles (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC) The article has a list of about 20 persons stated to be in IAC. Is there any reported public remark anywhere from even 1 of them that ROY is not National Convenor of IAC ? After that we will come to the sources which say that Roy is National Convenor of IAC. Duffycharles (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi, like Voceditenore mentioned, this page is about the India Against Corruption movement. A section about its (clarified later) the national convener of "a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name" as the India Against Corruption movement and his activities are WP:UNDUE on this page. You may take it up with the protecting admin, Drmies, if you want a separate article at Sarbajit Roy. Regards,  NQ  talk 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC) The question then arises, if Sarbajit Roy is National Convenor and founder of IAC since 2007 as the movement's website claims, then why his name is being repeatedly deleted from this page. Duffycharles (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC) When was the IAC movement founded, who founded it ? Duffycharles (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) See this Roy, national convenor of India Against Corruption has pointed out that BJP's candidate from Ghaziabad Gen (Retd.) V.K. Singh has never been associated with India Against Corruption , did VK Singh or Anna Hazare respond to this ? Duffycharles (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Are these photographs of IAC's core members since 2006 / 2007 with Hazare and Kejriwal and Sisodia fabricated ? Is it anyones say here that Roy's IAC does not know Kejriwal and his team ?Duffycharles (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Here we have one of India's most respected columnists describing "Team Anna and Baba Ramdev, self-anointed leaders of an assumed following" [40]. What evidence do you have that this duo ever used the name India Against Corruption regularly ? Duffycharles (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I find this very funny, Mister NQ says that a section on the National Convenor and founder of IAC is UNDUE in an encyclopedic article on India Against Corruption, but he has no difficulty if fabrications on 2 imposter jokers like Ramdev and Hazare written by people who have never met them and who don't have the slightest connection to IAC fill this article ? Duffycharles (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC) An article about an organisation is not the place for long biographies (whether or not a person is involved with that particular organisation) and especially not for a biography that is almost entirely concerned with a person's activities outside the organisation. NebY (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I've read through the talk page archives and various noticeboard discussions regarding the so called IAC dispute and have clarified my original comment. Also, what NebY said. Regards,  NQ  talk 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Just in case anyone says that ROY does not know Baba Ramdev and "this" IAC, here they are together in March 2013 [41], [42], where other original "founders" of this article's IAC were also present - Chief Justice Tewatia, Maulana Syed Kalbe, Ram Jethmalani, etc. Duffycharles (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC) There is multiple evidence from the reliable 3rd party sources in the article that Hazare used the name. See also [43] and [44]. See also this 2011 image. There is evidence that Mr. Roy is the convenor of a group now claiming to be India Against Corruption. However, there is no evidence that they are the same group discussed in this article, apart from their own claims, including Roy's quoted claim in The Hindu. As for the photographs, you are referring to showing Hazare et al., they are labelled as them attending a "CIC-RTI convention" and as such are meaningless. Ditto, the fact that Roy may know Ramdev which you have deduced from a youtube video. Whether they know each other or not is immaterial to supporting Roy's claims. You are engaging in the kinds of synthesis and original research that got Roy's article locked, and are continuing in the same vein as the multiple indefinitely blocked sockpuppets who had edit-warred on that article and this one. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Since you are carrying on like another previous editor, I would like to discuss your 3 cited sources. Yes, on 10.Nov.2012 Hazare did claim the name IAC, but on 11.Nov.2012 Kejriwal asked him to buzz off. This had been preceded by the 19.09.2012 meeting between Kejriwal and Anna which was convened by ROY. Finally on 18.Jan.2013 Anna had to drop the name IAC and close his IAC(Anna) office in New Delhi after a criminal case was filed against him by ROY [45] "It is curious that having wrested the name from Kejriwal, the new Team Anna is all set to drop the brand altogether". Your 2nd. ref is irrelevant. Your 3rd cite - the Pune photograph is a FORGERY. Look closely at the IAC logo being used. And this photo doesn't prove that Anna was using the name. There are enough reliable sources to say that ROY is National Convenor of IAC, there is nothing to say that Anna Hazare had any position whatsoever in IAC, and there is no denial from Anna that Roy is National Convenor of IAC, and Anna has not challenged Roy's public statement that Anna had no role in IAC. Duffycharles (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Since I have nothing more to say on this, I hope that good sense prevails and both articles comply with the multitude of reliable sources which show {1} that IAC movement was founded in 2007 and has always been with ROY and they never allowed Anna in it. {2} Anna Hazare had nothing to do with IAC and everything to do with "Team Anna" Jan Lokpal movement. {3} Kejriwal and Sisodia were in both movements at certain times. Duffycharles (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC) You haven't answered Voceditenore's point. But in a sense, it doesn't matter because it is completely unwarranted to have such a section on one person in an article about an organsisation. I note that you have a long Wikipedia history going back to 2008, but that you have made very few edits and a significant proportion of those are concerned with promoting Sarbajit Roy. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Interestingly, when Duffycharles created the Sarbajit Roy article in January 2011 [46], there was no mention of Roy having "founded the IAC in 2007", i.e. 4 years before the WP article was written—plenty of time for reliable sources to have noticed such an event and reported on it. In fact, there was no mention whatsoever of the IAC in Duffycharles's version. I would be most amazed to find a reliable source that verifies such a claim. The assertion that Roy is the convenor of a group also calling itself the IAC, was added in December 2012 [47] by a now indefinitely blocked editor [48], part of a large sock farm purporting to officially represent the current group calling itself the IAC. (Background here.) Unless he has used IPs or other accounts, Duffycharles ceased editing this article (and Wikipedia) almost 4 years ago [49]—until 3 days ago. In any case, all this is moot. Irrespective of the unsubstantiated claims and original research, a lengthy description of Roy's biography and RTI activities does not belong in this article. It is quite possible that Roy is notable for his RTI activities and has received coverage in reliable sources for that aspect of his career. My only suggestion is that Duffycharles try to get the article unlocked, although given the history that led to the locking, that may prove very difficult. Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Alright, this needs to be settled. Voceditenore, you're saying there is no evidence that this Roy is a "convenor" of the organization now called IAC? Interesting. Now, the easiest way to settle it, I suppose, is via an AfD. If this person is notable it will have to be because he chaired IAC--this current IAC, the one that's notable. And if so, the redirect can stand and, who knows, be turned into an article if sources are produced. If this person can not be proven to be notable by way of connection to this IAC, then the redirect should be deleted. Until there is such a community-endorsed verdict, the protected redirect stands, and the addition of biographical information on this person in this article is undue, unless rigorously sourced--and not via OR, synthesis, photographs, and other such things. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Drmies, voceeditenore is saying that there are no reliable sources that link Roy to the IAC. No sources means no inclusion. I don't see much point in testing notability in an AfD (Roy may well be notable otherwise). If Duffycharles or someone else is unable to provide reliable sources linking the two - preferably not from youtube :) - then Roy should stay out of this article. --regentspark (comment) 22:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC) i dont think a redirect should be pointing to this article if the topic of the redirect is not related to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) regentspark, The Red Pen of Doom, I see--so if Roy can't redirect here, then it can't redirect anywhere else either, and since the claim of notability relies on "national convenorshipt", it's deletable via A7, I suppose (or, if someone wants to be picky, via MfD, which does allow for an explanation--mind you, the redirect is still protected). I had my finger on the button, but I've had enough admin abuse hurled at me recently, so I'll leave the nominating and the deleting to others. Or Bishonen can let common sense prevail (i.e., invoke IAR) and just zap it. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Drmies, Roy may well be the Convenor of an organization that now calls itself the IAC, if their website and the claims he puts about n the press are to be believed. But he almost certainly wasn't the Convenor/leader of the IAC that arose in late 2010 and ended in 2012 which is what this WP article is about. His name is not mentioned in that context in any of the sources found so far, in fact it's not mentioned at all. And there is certainly nothing in reliable sources supporting the notion that he founded the IAC in this article in 2007. Yesterday, I added the following to the article referenced to a reliable source. According to the Hindustan Times of 3 September 2013, "The group, which now runs — and claims to own — the IAC, mostly comprises Right to Information (RTI) activists. The group had taken over the IAC immediately after the split but held its first formal meeting on Monday [1 September 2013]." The 2013 group's National Convenor is Sarbajit Roy. So, that's the current state of play. As I said, it is possible that enough reliable, independent sources could be found to support Roy's notability as an RTI activist and to mention that he runs a group now claiming to be the IAC in its new "avatar" (as the Hindustan Times puts it). If so, an article about him would be viable, but I gather it's been virtually impossible to prevent the previous Roy article from being turned into a morass of OR and BLP violations. So, I have no idea what to do about it. The fact that he is now mentioned in this article, gives slight support to keeping the redirect. There is also the option of an AfD, which might come to the conclusion of WP:BLOWITUP and start again via the WP:DRAFT process, or even keep it if notability can be reliably established. Who knows? I can pretty much guarantee that if the Roy article is restored, it will be under continual assault by his organization, with yet more OR, POV, legal threats, sockpuppetry, etc. etc.. However, I'm not sure, that's a reason to outright delete it. Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I hadnt seen the insertion of the mention of Roy- a redirect to the section where he is mentioned India_Against_Corruption#Divergence might be appropriate, otherwise a redirect to some article related to the RTI focus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I've re-redirected the redirect per User:TheRedPenOfDoom's suggestion. Though if Roy should be edited out of IAC per consensus, I think the redirect ought to be deleted altogether. TheRedPenOfDoom has also pinged me below with regard to blocking further manifestations of the IAC sock/meatfarm. I know I said I would, and I know Duffycharles is so disruptive and their contribs pattern so shady it's funny, but I'd like to wait just a little longer to see what a checkuser has to say, because of certain circumstances. Should hear back from her today. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC). For constructive editors Here is a very reputed Indian news agency giving the official website URL of India Against Corruption. [50] as "http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in/" Here [51] is the Official IAC website saying that Sarbajit Roy and Arvind Kejriwal and others founded the IAC on 26.02.2007 in New Delhi. The same website explains how Arvind Kejriwal was allowed to use the name till 09.12.2010, and when Anna Hazare / Gen V.K. Singh on 10.11.2012 tried to claim the name after Kejriwal's faction exited IAC to form Aam Aadmi Party, how Roy's factions beat them off so that on 18.01.2013 Anna dropped claims to the name. Here [52] on 18.Jan.2013 we have "Anna Hazare publicly declares he will shut down his "IAC Delhi office" and drop all claims to India Against Corruption brand name." Here [53] is a reputed newspaper publishing Roy's claim that he is National Convenor of IAC and that neither Anna Hazare or V.K. Singh are part of IAC. In fact the newspaper deleted their earlier statement that Hazare is connected to IAC. Here [54] is another reputed newspaper describing Sarbajit Roy as National Convenor of IAC and claiming to be the "owner" the IAC brand name which IAC he and his team are running after Kejriwal exited. So since we have both ROY and Hazare very publicly claiming the IAC name, and Hazare equally publicly dropping his claim to the IAC name, somebody should come up with a very good explanation for why this article should not be redacted. Duffycharles (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC) off topic, but its no wonder there is still massive corruption when those claiming to be fighting against it spend all their time haranguing against each other to gain space on wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC) ROY's team claims on their website that the IAC "movement" was theirs since 26.02.2007 (when the IAC movement was founded), and they took over the "disavowed" IAC "campaign" on 26.Nov.2012 when Kejriwal's team (who were running that campaign) exited to form Aam Aadmi Party. So this article is actually about an IAC campaign which IAC movement has disowned. ROY's movement also claims to own all IAC names, brands, copyrights and logos. The judgment of Bombay High Court [55] in 2012 also clearly established that Anna Hazare by his own statements had no rights or organisation entitled to use the IAC name. Anna also by his own statements did not have access to IAC's volunteer list [56] or access to its funds [57]. Duffycharles (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The insertion by Voceditenore in "Divergence" is incorrect. The 3.09.2013 Hindustan Times article is only about the takeover and abandonment of the IAC Lokpal "campaign" for which there were many claimants after the split. The article does not claim that Roy's team only has IAC movement since 2013. It actually states that both Kejriwal and Hazare split "from" the anti-corruption body. The article states that its first formal meeting of the IAC body "after" the 2012 split it abandoned the LokPal campaign. So read this article carefully and correctly. Duffycharles (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC) TRPoD, yes it's all a bit People's Front of Judea DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Is that the only reason why you removed the HOAX tag ? This is a serious content dispute issue, so please treat it as such and stay focused. Duffycharles (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC) No, it's ludicrous. The only "serious" issue is the disruption you and your friends cause to good faith editors. DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC) NO ! the serious issue is how a single editor can create a HOAX article and misuse his expert knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies to write false and incorrect things about India's leading anti-corruption body. If he was a good faith editor, he would have stuck it out through mediation on issues which he had previously agreed to, including if Anna Hazare had anything to do with IAC. Your own edits are looking very MEATY and BRITISH and FRIENDLY ! This whole thread seems to be filled with the "Friends of disgraced Wikipedia editor Sitush" Society !! Duffycharles (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC) hmmm...sounding more and more familiar. DeCausa (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC) TROLLING ALERT. BTW, do you have anything to contribute to the content dispute / the sources cited by me / my allegation that the present article is a blatant HOAX created by your dear departed friend who never attended Cambridge and has been HOAXING all India connected articles and editors with his silly edits ? Duffycharles (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC) HOAX I am placing a {:hoax} tag, as I believe that this article was created as a deliberate WP:HOAX to embarrass Wikipedia by the main author of this article. Duffycharles (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Please dont make WP:POINTY edits like that. Disruption of the talk page is bad enough. There have already been Administrator discussion that lead to the conclusion that "Further sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts by IAC should likely be blocked on sight. -" You are looking very MEAT-y. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The record will show that a HOAX tag was placed on this article, and who removed it without discussion. Duffycharles (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC) @Duffycharles: of course it was removed without discussion since it was placed without basis and solely in order to disrupt, JUST LIKE THE FALSE CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Such disruptive actions have been determined to be blockable on sight. Any more stunt disruptions will result in you being blocked as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I see from IAC's mailing list (which is viewable online) that Lindashier's copyright agent has taken the copyright email infringement matter to the WMF, after she was indefed. Duffycharles (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Now that is on-topic for this thread heading! DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC) FYI, Lindashier's post to IAC's mailing list contains a "verifiable" link to the email on the mailing list of "Bharat Swabhiman Trust" where it was forwarded on 08.April.2011, and to which many people responded. No wonder Wikipedia's contributor is suddenly AWOL :-) Duffycharles (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC) yes, harassment from the howling hoaxing hordes is a terrible thing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The agent acting for the group now claiming to be the IAC sent a DMCA takedown notice to the WMF to have an image of the IAC logo removed from Commons. It was duly removed on September 18 [58], as it was clearly a non-free file and in fact been previously published on the website of the original IAC in March 2011 [59]. Takedown request here. However, if their "agent" had sent a takedown request over their spurious claims of text copyright infringement, it was obviously declined. The WMF only publishes takedown notices for items they have removed [60] and they act very quickly on removing infringing content. Incidentally, the IAC unsuccessfully tried to get Google to remove the WP article India Against Corruption from its search results on 23 August 2014. Takedown notice here. They tried again on 13 September. Takedown notice here (quite interesting reading). Google has so far not acted on the 13 September notice one way or another [61]. So, since the spurious copyright infringement notices (including 2 attempts to blank the article) haven't worked so far, it seems that claims of "hoax" are the new tactic. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC) It's interesting that the single-purpose IAC editors each have a belligerent attitude—there's no hint of any kind of serious discussion (a serious discussion being one where those involved take an approach consistent with the possibility that they might change their views). Instead, it's full-on battle. To me that suggests there is a very small number of people involved—possibly just one activist. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks for clearing up that indefed contributor Lindashiers is pursuing her text copyright infringement against Google (not WMF). It's her "sexual harassment" complaint against "Sitush" which is pending with WMF. Google's reply to the 23-Aug-2014 DMC complaint, viewable online, declined those takedowns because the IAC had approached Google directly. That evidentally caused Lindashiers and the "agent" from "Name Defend India" to land up at WP copyright on 3 Sept.2014, and fire their 2nd DMCA barrel after Voceditenore rejected it. Anyway this is all very interesting, but is the Sarbajit Roy article to come here or go somewhere else ? Duffycharles (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC) That's interesting. Just a few minutes ago you claimed that according to the IAC mailing list: " Lindashier's copyright agent has taken the copyright email infringement matter to the WMF, after she was indefed." (my underlining). Now you claim that this is not the case? Re your question about Roy's biography. Roy's biography does not belong in this article, likewise those any of the other people associated with the IAC under any of its guises. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC) my bad. Lindashiers' email was ambiguous where she had complained to. You link to chillingeffects cleared that up, and a 2nd reading of her email made it clear that she has taken her sexual harassment matter to WMF.Duffycharles (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC) These sections all seem to be about pretty much the same thing; I hope I don't have to put my note above in all of them. In that, I answer your question "is the Sarbajit Roy article to come here or go somewhere else ?", User:Duffycharles, as well as addressing the IAC socking and indeed your own disruption. Bishonen | talk 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC). So finally, Wikipedia's ultimate weapon is wheeled out to silence criticism, and continue those paid edits which fuel Jimbo's champagne swilling pornographer lifestyle snatched from the lunch money of poor schoolkids. And yes Bishonen .. you are a grandmother .. like Sitush was from Cambridge. So let us see if this CheckUser's results will be any different from the chain of rigged ones before it. Duffycharles (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

For constructive editors dealing with disruptive editors on this subject matter

(I've moved this single possibly useful section out of the hat and out of sequence. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC).)

Per the ANI: Lindashiers (talk · contribs) blocked as part of the IAC sock/meatfarm. Further sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts by IAC should likely be blocked on sight. -

And I believe that @Bishonen: has indicated a willingness to apply the ANI result. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 9/27/14

Disruptive editor blocked

On second thoughts, User:Duffycharles, and glancing through your other contributions on this page, I'll block you for personal attacks and battleground editing for a few days to be going on with, because people may want to use this page for actual discussion, and your bloat and disruption is very distracting. For any further sanctions, stand by for the next "rigged CheckUser result". Incidentally, you didn't make more than four edits between 20 July 2008 and 24 September 2014 (or, shock and horror, did you?), so how do you come to have any notion of our checkuser results wrt IAC socks? Answer on your page, if you wish, because you can't post here; you've been blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, given Duffycharles's clear legal threat in response to your 72-hour block, I suspect the block may become somewhat longer very quickly. Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Have reblocked indefinitely per WP:NLT -- Euryalus (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• And now checkuser has established that User:Lindashiers who brought the hoax copyvio claim is a sock of User:Duffycharles. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Bishonen for creating Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm. Could/should there be a link to it toward the top of the page to keep it from being archived with discussion, as a general reference point for editors who come in with no prior awareness of the sockfarm? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Bish. I've added a note at the top. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)