Talk:India Against Corruption: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 384: Line 384:
@Sitush, please note that you are edit warring, reverting and inserting synthesised, copyvios and unsourced text from dubious sources without discussion, and despite my calling you for BRD.You are also issuing threats.[[User:AcorruptionfreeIndia|AcorruptionfreeIndia]] ([[User talk:AcorruptionfreeIndia|talk]])
@Sitush, please note that you are edit warring, reverting and inserting synthesised, copyvios and unsourced text from dubious sources without discussion, and despite my calling you for BRD.You are also issuing threats.[[User:AcorruptionfreeIndia|AcorruptionfreeIndia]] ([[User talk:AcorruptionfreeIndia|talk]])
:Please do give me an example for each of (a) copyvio (b) synthesis and (c) unsourced statements. If I have erred then obviously they'll need to be fixed. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
:Please do give me an example for each of (a) copyvio (b) synthesis and (c) unsourced statements. If I have erred then obviously they'll need to be fixed. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
::Before that please explain why you ignored BRD discussion when I reverted your bold edits, and why your reinsertion and defiant unilateral further expansion without attempting to achieve consensus does not constitute edit warring ?[[User:AcorruptionfreeIndia|AcorruptionfreeIndia]] ([[User talk:AcorruptionfreeIndia|talk]]) 19:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:32, 23 November 2013

Template:Find sources notice Template:Controversial (politics)

Untitled

Indian Against Corruption initiative has a sufficiently large following (18500 facebook followers, 7000 followers on Causes. This article needs more work and may not be deleted.

I've removed the section "15 Enemies of Janlokpal" for the moment: I have no opinion either way about politics in India, but the section is unsourced, biased and libellous. "Enemies" is a wholly inappropriate word to describe dissenting politicians: "critics" would fit much better. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so until evidence can be cited to prove the political leanings of these individuals, the section is redundant ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alert : False source and false data provided

http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/about-us << This link has been reffered to as reference source for multiple informations provided within the article.

But this is not the Actual official site of IAC The original site can be found at : http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.com/ Deleting all false sources and false information supported by the same.

http://aamjanata.com is a independent person based blog by Vidyut http://aamjanata.com/author/vidyut/ and hence can't be considered a credible news source. removing

Blaisemcrowly (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website "http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.com/" is a fake website to generate adlinks and money. It has no connection to IAC and is registered to some advertising agency in Haryana. The website http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.net.in was opened by IAC after the previous original website http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org was shut down as part of the negotiated IAC split to AAP. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple "whois" [1] check on the "IAC Kochi" site http://iaccochin.org from where Blaisemcrowly replaced "corrected" text shows it is a fake site registered outside India to "IndSing Technologies Pte. Ltd, 320 Serangoon Road, #04-31 Serangoon Plaza, Singapore 218108".AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verification needed

Verification needed from the different source ,other than https://we.riseup.net ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The registered domain is actually http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in. https://riseup.net is the hosting service. Due to Team Arvind hacking attempts it obviously uses secure transactions for domain forwardings directly to riseup.net.
A WHOIS check shows
Domain Name:INDIAAGAINSTCORRUPTION.NET.IN
Created On:02-Nov-2012 11:13:10 UTC
Last Updated On:01-Jan-2013 19:20:18 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Nov-2013 11:13:10 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Directi Web Services Pvt. Ltd. (R118-AFIN)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DI_24787281
Registrant Name:Sarbajit Roy
Registrant Organization:India Against Corruption
So they are both authentic websites/domains which resolve to each other. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop pushing Biased POV and provide third party published source to claim disputed POV. ThinkingYouth (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request AcorruptionfreeIndia not to add www.we.rise.net as "IAC" website. Always cite the official original "IAC" website in the article to stop further confusion. ThinkingYouth (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased tone and twisted facts

Please do not add twisted facts on JULY 25 , 2012 indefinate fast called by Arvind Kejriwal, Mansih Sisodia and Gopal Rai intailly and later joined by Anna Hazare.Please Cite the source ,don't add biased tone . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the point that the article made before you meddled with it. As verified by Tehelka and many other sources, Team Arvind's fast was a washout until Anna Hazare came to join them. Only after Anna joined did the crowds start to come back. This shows that it was Anna who was the face and power of the IAC movement and not Arvind. The Tehelka source was properly cited and there was no bias.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:ThinkingYouth please cooperate in improving the article. It would be helpful if you made short edits which can be individually discussed instead of, say, 43 separate changes in 1 shot. WP:AGF and don't issue threats in comments. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Tehlaka report properly and please cite it exactly ,don't add misrepresented facts that is not in Tehlaka report . Don't add Biased POV . Wikipedia is not a soapbox ,so until evidence of citation is not provided , the article sub-section on biased POV is redundant .Please add third party reliable published source(The Websource,Google Photo section and discussion page photo cited are not reliable and violate NPOV and WP:COI.

User:AcorruptionfreeIndia Please cooperate in improving this article ,Adding the biased citation without proper reliable source is against Wikipedia standards and Warning tag to request : cite Reliable source are not threats !So,Please do not sub-standardize Wikipedia talk page. Please discuss these Disputed POV issue before editing any further and All the citation provided by me are well source ,Please discuss it before removing it. ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alert need verification on Original IAC official website

There are so many fake IAC website link to to Www.rise.net.in . Please add third party verified source to claim official website of India against corruption . Do not add fake IAC website and link to Propagandize . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption/" is the fully equivalent Base_Url ("alias URL") for "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" which is duly registered to IAC on 02.Nov.2012 after the 26.Oct.2012 split agreement that Team-Arvind would stop using IAC brand name after 26.Nov.2012. So please don't use terms like "fake IAC" unless you can WP:RS it. The 3rd party link is provided by the Domain registrar and WHOIS.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add WP:RS third party reliable published source to claim this disputed "FAKE IAC" website. www.we.rise.net.in do not represent "India against corruption" .Please add third party reliable published source to claim this disputed POV. ThinkingYouth (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of this Article is Disputed

The blatant pushing of biased POV and adding unverified claims and citation without proper WP:RS third party reliable published source by some editors has made this article sub-standard and resultantant in Edit War. Please address these disputes before Editing further.

  • Neutrality of Article CIC SAGA and HumJanege complaint against Anna Hazare

The websource RTI web added , do not cite "illegality of Kiosk " and unverified claim of bribing is violation of NPOV without proper verified citation. Wikipedia is not a soapbox,until evidence cited from third party verified published source ,Article sub-section is redundant to wikipedia.Please Do not add biased POV.

a) Only cite the relevant WP tag and don't recite its contents. The "illegality of the kiosk" is specifically contained in the cited order of the "Central Information Commission of India", an autonomous statutory tribunal of the Government of India, for an offence by Arvind Kejriwal which took place on its own premises and was reported to the Delhi Police.
  • The websource provided by User:AcorruptionfreeIndia to support this Biased POV Section "The "Sack CIC" saga continues" is https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption/origins-iac-campaign . It is clear violation of NPOV standard of Wikipedia as this www.we.rise.in is a not a third party reliable publish source.This sub-section is completly written on biased tone.This websource quote various unverified claims that make its authencity doubtful. I request to all concern editors to go through this section and please provide reliable source. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arvind is the architect and Anaa ji is the mascot of Janlokpal Movement.

I added web-source "Tehalaka report " and various other Published source ,Please go through it .Please read para 6 of Tehalka report http://tehelka.com/the-kejriwal-conundrum/ and Title of report and para 2 of Caravan News Magazine Report http://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/insurgent and para 2 of First post report title "Firstpost Politics Why Arvind Kejriwal deserves our unstinted support" http://www.firstpost.com/politics/why-arvind-kejriwal-deserves-our-unstinted-support-464782.html .

How are all these claims RELEVANT to the "Formation of the political party" which led to Team Arvind exiting from IAC to form AAP ? The Tehelka article is a sober and thorough analysis of the split in IAC written by an author who followed the IAC campaign for years.
  • I request to all concern editors to go through the news source and websource provided here by me that strengthen the claim and I request User:AcorruptionfreeIndia not to discard the role of Arvind kejriwal in IAC. Wikipedia is source of authentic citation ,do not add or delete its content on basis of biased personal agenda. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humjanege protest and complaint against Anna Hazare National activities

This is a unverified claim . Please add WP:RS verified third party published source to claim this section . This section is a complete violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI . The POV of Kiran bedi used her Ex. Delhi Police Jt. Commissioner position to evade Motor vehicle act violation in the movement and adding unverified ,unpublished photos is the example of blatant use of biased editing (adding un-published and biased google photo source is violation of WP:RS and WP:COI and WP:NPOV ) .Please cite third party reliable published source to claim this biased section or else please delete it.

The emails which are automatically archived on a mailing list of IAC is RS under WP:ABOUTSELF. The point of the entire section is that in 2012 there was a dispute between Humjanenge group and NCPRI group (Team Arvind and Kiran Bedi) leading to exit of NCPRI group to form a political party AAP (which Kiran Bedi did not join) and leaving Team Humjanenge in control of IAC. This is all well referenced in the article.
  • I request User:AcorruptionfreeIndia to provide third party reliable publish source to strengthen his/her claim of authenticity of this section. From a NPOV ,

it is biased and unverified citation. I advise User:AcorruptionfreeIndia not to cite personal Mails as citation source as it is a violation of WP:COI and WP:RS. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arvind kejriwal bribed for kiosk outside CIC HQ

Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox , Please do not add biased POV , biased cite without citing verified third party published reliable source to claim itWP:RS.

This was published by PTI ( a credible news source). I'll locate provide the link.

This is not a "IAC" website . Please do not add it to cite IAC .

The OFFICIAL IAC website is now "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in" which has an "alias URL" on riseup.net.in where it is hosted.


Please discuss and resolve these disputes and help us to improve this article to Wikipedia standard. ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and don't bring other WP:COI editors from AAP pages into this potential WP:EW. Take it to a NEUTRAL forum to locate uninvolved editors. Please remember that stable edits are preferred over disputed material. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



I request you to please address the concern conflicts and stop accusing other editors of WP:COI . Please remove your biased POV from the article or provide WP:RS Reliable Published Third Party source to strengthen your (baised) Claims sub section. ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article to last stable state after persistent vandalism

An editor User:ThinkingYouth has been vandalising this article recently. His account is a new one recently opened for edits to article Arvind Kejriwal. The edits to this page are linked to a claimed NPOV / bias concerning Arvind Kejriwal and hence this editor is WP:COI. The editor has been removing well referenced material on this page for many months which has been examined by several editors for its referencing. He liberally inserts [verification needed] tags with comments threats such as "Do not remove this tag or material will be deleted!". In each and every case the material near the reference was found to be from the source previously cited and was reverted by me after verification, but was reinserted with the same tag. He requested for a particular section "Formation of a political party" to be referenced to a particular WP:RS "Tehelka". I obliged him by painstakingly providing the paras from the source. Now the editor has changed his stance and disputes the existence of this organisation. Whereas previously he claimed the organisation's website was "fake" and wanted 3rd party proof for it, when it was provided from the domain registrar's WHOIS, the editor now claims that the IAC itself is "fake". He is now also coordinating with other editors on their talk pages to get this page systematically vandalised. Accordingly, I am reverting the POV pushing by this editor, suggesting 3rd party options WP:3O, and requesting this editor not to reinstate the stable material inserted / verified for its references by many independent editors without discussion on this talk page. In short, I am asking the concerned editor to strictly follow WP:AVOIDEDITWAR AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Please address the disputes I mentioned in talk page. Do not blame me or accuse me of WP:COI . You are acting totally biased and sub -standardizing this wikipedia article. I advise you to discuss the matter before starting edit war . ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request Editor User:AcorruptionfreeIndia to stop accusing me of WP:COI and please address the concern disputes and stop propagandize www.rise.net.in as original Official "IAC" Website . I request him further to stop accusing me of threatening him , I didn't threaten him at all, i added the comment tag in this article stating " Please Provide Verified published Source or please remove this " and " Do Not delete the reliable published source Citation " , Which User:AcorruptionfreeIndia was persistently doing without discussing the merit of citation . I no where threaten or stated to delete the Article and well published source Material , My only concern to standardize this article.I found the references source cited to claim the date of formation of "IAC" is nowhere reliable and for sake of WP:NPOV , I requested you to please provide third party published reliable source to strenghten the claim ,which you persistently and deliberately failed to provide . I nowhere disputed the "Existence of IAC Organization" , I nowhere claim "IAC" is Fake , I requested User:AcorruptionfreeIndiato provide citation from "IAC" website ,not from www.rise.net which he persistently avoided and repeatedly cited www.rise.net despite various requests. I request Editor User:AcorruptionfreeIndia to stop accusing me to coordinating with other editors , I request User:AcorruptionfreeIndia to read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution page which clearly stated in case of Edit war , discuss the issue with other editors and request them for their observation to resolve the conflict . Please discuss the matter . We both want to improve the wikipedia. ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Both the editors seem to have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article and the contributions history shows both as single purpose accounts. Hence, some expert help is required in resolving this conflict. I would also like to point out to both the users to not term simple "dispute" as "vandalism". Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:  Done Thank you for your observation Shovon. As new to Wikipedia my contribution is a little and centered to my knowledge based articles ,but i am grooming myself to be good contributor to Wikipedia and to further improve it.I request you and all editor in concern of this page please go through the dispute mention by me and please provide reliable sources(to disputed section) to resolve the dispute. ThinkingYouth (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Kiosk and Bribe

The information given in The "Sack CIC" saga continues Section of this article seems to be biased and unverified, it claims unverified claim of bribe given for kiosk and it was illegal.Please add verified reliable published third party citation source to strengthen this claim.until evidence is cited , this section is redundant to this article.I request editors to remove it. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THE CIC SAGE Continues

  • This is a unverified section . The only websource cited to strengthen to this links to https://we.riseup.net/ which is not a "IAC" website and This websource is not a third party verified reliable source. This is a violation of NPOV and WP:RS. Please remove it. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! I'll remove this by tomorrow, if no other reliable sources are provided. Shovon (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thank you ! ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before USer:Shovon76 removes the material please consider this

  • "https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption/" is presently the OFFICIAL "HOST" of India Against Corruption. It can also be accessed through the IAC's OFFICIAL BASE "URL" "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/". Please note the technical distinction between "website" (host) and "domain" (URL).
    Reply from ThinkingYouth : This Base "URL" https://we.riseup.net is not the Official "IAC" website and linking article source to this url is not acceptable.Pls add official "IAC" link .
  • To illustrate "https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption/iac-manifesto+195583" and "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/iac-manifesto+195583" will both bring up the same resource page.
    Pls only source Original "IAC" website .. alias "URL" creates confusion.
  • The "host" {https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption/} was started on 26.Oct.2012 the day the IAC split was officially confirmed.
    Please mention third party verified published resource to confirm this claim.
  • The "domain" {http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/} was registered on 02.Nov.2012 due to NIXI requiring "proof" of the organisation's registration status in India. {NB: the previous IAC could not provide this proof to NIXI so Arvind Kejriwal had surreptitiously registered the US TLD ".org" in his personal name).
    This is unverified claim and this blatant pushing of Personal Opinion is violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI. This Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is violating the Wikipedia norms and pushing his Personal agenda against "Arvind Kejriwal" . What is "Previsous IAC" and what will be " NEXT IAC" ?
  • The disputed reference in this section has URL "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/origins-iac-campaign". This is clearly the OFFICIAL DOMAIN of the IAC whose detailed "whois" I had already given on this page. This domain is thus RELIABLY 3rd party verified by the Domain Registrar as IAC's "official domain" which falls under scope of WP:ELOFFICIAL. The reference as cited does not link to "https://we.riseup.net/".
    Do not cite https://we.riseup.net . This is not Original "IAC" Website.
  • User:ThinkingYouth should be careful before making allegations like 'disputed "FAKE IAC"' website (06:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)) which he later denies having made.[reply]
    I requested Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia ,not to source https://we.rise.net as official "IAC" website.
  • The text and photos in the reference clearly correspond to what is mentioned in the article text. The 2nd reference at pages 2 and 3 clearly finds (its a CIC order) that the kiosk set up by Parivartan NGO had no permission from the MCD or from Delhi Police.
    This blatant pushing of Opinion and unverified claim to "Tarnish" image of Arvind Kejriwal is a clear violation of WP:NPOV , WP:RS and WP:COI Wikipedia Norms and This Editor is sub-Standardizing this article for personal gains.

This Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is clearly pushing his personal grudge or agenda POV . I request to all other concern editors to look credentials of this Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia ,as he is only using Wikipedia for editing "India against corruption" and sourcing article with misrepresented facts and unverified claims and blatant POV .I recommend and request Admin editors to ban this Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia .

  • Later a criminal complaint u/s 341 IPC was filed for blocking access to CIC for litigants, and police enquiry found that Arvind had tipped MCD officers Rs.2,000 not to demolish the kiosk. This was syndicated by PTI and published on Times of India website also (ToI archives are paid so it will take a few days to locate it, but never fear the Truth shall emerge).
    Again, This Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia violating Wikipedia standards Norms and pushing his personal agenda POV without providing WP:RS . This Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is misusing Wikipedia as he represent a biased and personal grudges POV.
  • WP:ABOUTSELF applies here for RS.
    This editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is violating the Wikipedia Norms and pushing his Personal mails and photo WP:NOR . He has clear Conflict of Interest in this article.
  • There is no NPOV, and WP:RS is met.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkingYouth talk

This Article is very Poorly Written and Contains Large Violations of Original Research

This "India against Corruption" article is very poorly written and contains large violations of original research,not to mention primary sourcing, stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, MOS violations,Wikipedia:NPOV ,Wikipedia:RS and borderline copyright violations.


In short, it is a mess.


It may be better to stub it and start again from scratch.


Also,main contributor editor's username AcorruptionfreeIndia suggests He/She have a conflict of interest here.    ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To AcorruptionfreeIndia

I request Editor AcorruptionfreeIndiato please follows the Civility of Wikipedia norms and
  • Do not delete other editors questions material from India_Against_Corruption talk page .
  • Do not delete Other editors well source section and other editor tag (of Neutrality and dispute section tag) from the Article .
  • Do not personal attack them.
  • Follow Civility
  • Follow and Provide Reliable published Third party source in the Article.
  • Do not add WP:NOR .
  • Do not add personal Mails
  • Do not add Personal Propaganda Photos from Google photo website.
  • Do not delete well sourced Material .

I request Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia to do not use Wikipedia for his Personal POV , OPINIONS, and unverified claims. I Advise Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia to take a break and let other third party editor WP:3o to resolve AcorruptionfreeIndia conflict of interest and Disputes and Rewrite this Article . ThinkingYouth talk ThinkingYouth (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion editor requested

A request for WP:3O is being filed.

Do not write in this space, or on this talk page till the 3rd editor arrives.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at WP:3O did not follow the directions for posting. It was therefore deleted. Please resubmit your WP:3O request. Although, I think you will have better luck on this one with RFC. ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The request has already been restored in neutralized form. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) PS: Let me note that while the listed 3O request only addresses the dispute over whether or not the organization and it's website are somehow fake, this article has other far more serious problems which need to be addressed. The most immediate of those are the number of violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and I have made an {{edit protected}} request, below, in the hope that an administrator will choose to clear those up before the page protection ends. Let me suggest to the editors here that they need to read that policy very carefully before restoring any edits which are removed in reference to it. Negative information about living persons must be supported by high-quality reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. This organization's website, court documents, emails, blogs, and other private party websites, except in some fairly rare instances, are not going to be sufficient and continuing to introduce such material or, especially, putting it back in after it has been removed without first either adding clearly-Wikipedia-reliable sources or having the disputed sources evaluated through reliable sources noticeboard or, better in this instance, biographies of living persons noticeboard is very likely to get you blocked or topic-banned. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that sometimes there are Great Wrongs which are Undeniably True which cannot be included here because of Wikipedia's high standards for inclusion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to this in detail against your edit-request AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 June 2013

Four martyrs of the Hindustan Republican Association hanged for the Kakori conspiracyin 1927.

Vivek.m1234 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit request on 6 June 2013

{{edit protected}} Withdrawn; page protection expired. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here via, but not in response to, a Third Opinion request. I have no connection with this article or its subject matter and am only posting this request as a neutral Wikipedian. This article is chock-a-block with WP:BLP violations which need to be immediately removed for poor or no sourcing per WP:BLPREMOVE. As examples I'll give two which I immediately noticed which jumped out at me, but I have little or no doubt there are others based on these: The entire The "Sack CIC" saga continues and Humjanenge complains about Anna Hazare's anti-national activities sections are clearly contentious statements about living persons and the only listed sources are to this organization's website, to emails, or to court documents, none of which are reliable sources (see WP:BLPPRIMARY in regard to the court documents). An admin needs to go through and at least delete the more–blatant BLP violations such as the two I've just cited. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User talk:TransporterMan
As you have offered an opinion which is not on the WP:3O request, let me disagree with your opinion.
The source(s) cited in the sub-section is/are secondary source(s) hosted on the IAC's WP:ELOFFICIAL website. You will observe that the cites link to further primary sources - ie. emails from both sides in the dispute which are published and accessible on mailing lists to which all named parties (and let me list them - Arvind Kejriwal, Veeresh Malik, Sarbajit Roy, Anna Hazare, Gita Dean Verma) were members at the time. For instance in the "Sack CIC" section you can observe that the primary source containing the admission that the kiosk was erected without permission was made by the IAC who had erected the illegal kiosk/tent. So IAC cannot claim WP:BLP as IAC has published both the contentious primary material (dt. 2007) as well as the summation of those incidents (as per their own POV) on 3.Nov.2012 (a full 5 years later). It is pertinent to mention that on 3.Nov.2012 Arvind Kejriwal (as an IAC Core Committee member) had full editorial access to the IAC's website as well as its mailing list on which the secondary article is published.
Since Mr.Kejriwal is presently no longer with IAC, editors acting on his behalf are compelled to dispute that the IAC's website is an "official" one so as to get his own material removed. A similar reasoning will apply for the 2nd disputed section because Anna Hazare (the BLP party) is still shown "on page" as being part of IAC.
Accordingly, considering that WP:BLPREMOVE does not apply to material created/published by the BLP themselves (the rare exception), the only issue for WP:3O presently is if the website is official or not.
Since you have ruled yourself out from this WP:3O I shall await another editor or an Admin.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 3O and this request are not connected, and I've left the 3O request posted in case some other volunteer wishes to respond. As for the BLP issues:
  • The organization's website may be a adequate primary source for basic information about the organization itself, but it is a self-published source and the WP:SPS section of the verifiability policy (V) says, in no uncertain terms, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The WP:BLPSPS section of the biographies of living persons policy softens this very slightly, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." But the organization's website is published by the organization, not by an individual person, so it cannot be used as a source about any living person, regardless of whether the person is a member or officer of the organization, or an opponent of the organization. Even if it could be used about the organization's member's or officers — which it cannot, but if it could — it still could not be used about their opponents: The WP:SELFPUB section of V says that a self-published source can be used only "so long as ... it does not involve claims about third parties." In that context, "third parties" is broad enough to include both individuals and organizations.
  • As for the court records, WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
  • Finally, about the emails. I cannot point to any one particular place which says that emails, in particular, cannot be reliable sources, but I will represent to you that I've never seen an instance here where they were considered acceptable and many instances in which they were not. Even if they could be considered to be acceptable self-published sources (which is not likely since there is no way to prove that the person sending them was really who he or she claimed to be), they would not be acceptable to the extent that they make claims about third parties, which the ones here do, for the reasons set out above.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I don't want to prolong this. a few quick points, in case a wandering Admin wanders by.
A) I disagree that the organisation and its chief officers can be "third parties" vis-a-vis each other, when it is admitted (in their own published and accessible primary sources eg. [2], [3] [4] etc. linked from the published secondary source) that they were doing it collectively to further their movement's objectives.
B)The 2nd ref is NOT a "court / trial transcript". It is the finding of an ADMINISTRATIVE Freedom of information process seeking copies, if any, of the necessary permissions to erect the "kiosk" by an NGO (hence no BLP).
C) When the cast (dramatis persona) for this article is analyzed its clear there's no BLP issue here IFF the IAC's website is official.
D) Mr Veeresh Malik is a well known journalist of India who also writes for the "Times of India". This was reported in 2007 in that media (but without his by-line) and he later made up with Ms.Verma.
AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply ;

I once again thank you and other Admin Editors or other concern editors for their observation and contribution. Cheers, Keep up the good work ! thank you ! ~You can Help! 

ThinkingYouth talk ThinkingYouth (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"fellow Admin Editors" ?? Are you an Admin ?
speaking of WP:SPAs, your feverish edits after 06:15, 6th June 2013 are a blatant attempt to disguise that not only are you a WP:SPA deeply conflicted for this article, but also "quacking" away to disguise your obvious expertise in editing wikipedia for such a "new" user.
On merits:
1) WP:RS is not limited to 3rd party sources. The essence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The references and "tone" of the article meet that test very well.
2) You have admitted Veeresh Malik (the well known journalist who published those reliable primary documents chronicling the then fledgling IAC movement) is continuously an active IAC core Committee member (it was Arvind Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan, Manish Sisodia etc. who left IAC under bitter circumstances on 26.Nov.2012 to "co-found" Aam Aadmi Party). Veeresh Malik is the "co-founder and Genl. Secretary" of IAC. Anna Hazare is still associated with IAC. The article text is not derogatory to either IAC organisation or Anna Hazare and is balanced [5] clearly recording that IAC's "mascot" Anna and IAC's current National Convenor later fully reconciled [6]. You can see from this NPOV image [7] authored and published by Veeresh Malik that Anna is very cordial with Manoj Pai (another IAC Genl Secy.). Manoj Pai is also part of the referenced email conversation in 2007 about Parivartan's illegal kiosk and supports its removal therein.
AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To AcorruptionfreeIndia You can Help! too here to improve Wikipedia.

Thank you and You can Help! too hereto improve Wikipedia. ThinkingYouth talk ThinkingYouth (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you specifically if you are an admin as you claimed. Since you have not denied, I now give you clear warning that I shall take this matter to WP:SPI to get all the "good hand/bad hand" accounts of [[WP:COI] Admins, if any, suspended. Please await the arrival of a WP:3O editor and stop disrupting this page. FYI: Jan Lokpal Bill movement was not a part of IAC movement. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : To AcorruptionfreeIndia

  • Wikipedia talk page is not a forum for pidgin chat ,any question unrelated to Article shall be avoided/ignored (also in future) .Please discuss the dispute in WP:CIVIL manner.
  • FYI ,I nowhere , referred the Janlokpal Movement of India as IAC movement .
  • I request you to listen to the advises of concern editors WP:3o and do not blatantly push your POV.
  • Please take this matter to every concern forum of Wikipedia . I'll be very happy ,if a third opinion editor give suggestions to resolve this dispute and improve this article.
  • I advise you to stop personal attack (i.e calling/accusing other editors of vandalism and disruption of page).
  • Please await the arrival of a WP:3O editor.

Thank you ,You can Help! ThinkingYouth talk ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection on this article having expired, I have removed the The "Sack CIC" saga continues: subsection for violation of the WP:BLP policy as discussed above. Do not restore it without adding high-quality reliable sources per that policy. The arguments made above are not adequate: the organization's website is not a reliable source for allegations made against third parties or ex-members and government documents are cannot be used as reliable sources about living persons. Restoring this material without high-quality reliable sources could cause you to be blocked or banned, so if you disagree with me I would strongly recommend seeking advice at the BLP Noticeboard before restoring the material. I intend to delete other BLP violations in the future, so if you wish to question my position it would be well to do it now, rather than later. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ be listed as the official website

Please read the discussion above for context. I would advise AcorruptionfreeIndia and ThinkingYouth to hold off before contributing to the discussion. You two are obviously not getting anywhere, and you've asked for outside help. This RFC will bring people who will assess this from both a society perspective and a technical perspective. Let them get the discussion going before you start to go at it again, or they're just going to leave you to your own devices and you'll both be brought before WP:ANI ReformedArsenal (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:: Thank you for your observations Editor ReformedArsenal and i'll abide by the Wikipedia (orAdmins) Rules. ! ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply : Thanks ReformedArsenal. However this is an incorrect Rfc: The correct query ought to be "Is "http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/" the official website of the India Against Corruption ? It is nobody's case (and certainly not mine) that "https://we.riseup.net" is owned by or under the control of the IAC. Its well known that the RiseUp Collective has issues with wikipedia :-) being ...

"an autonomous body based in Seattle with collective members world wide. Our purpose is to aid in the creation of a free society, a world with freedom from want and freedom of expression, a world without oppression or hierarchy, where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression."AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Threaded discussion

  • Comment: Sorry folks, I sympathise with the interest and loathe corruption, but I don't know how to deal with this. Everyone involved is so committed that I cannot see my way to any constructive resolution of the dispute. I am not sure I even follow the whole situation. My best attempt at any comment is that the safest is to adhere as constructively as possible to the normal rules of POV, suitable citation sources and so on. No special status for any source at all. Just no filibustering, unconstructive Wikilawyering please! Sorry again; I realise that this is not what you asked, but it is what I see as a good fail-soft option. JonRichfield (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here from the Feedback Request Service - it appears that there's some dispute about what the RfC is about, and no real context is provided which makes it very hard to figure out what's going on. https://we.riseup.net/india_against_corruption certainly looks like a reasonable external link. I recommend you clear it up quickly and strike out any incorrect information. I also wonder if it is related to some of the contested edits, e.g. this recent one. II | (t - c) 07:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting error 500 from all links involved in this discussion. It leads me to the preliminary conclusion that all these URLs point to the same server and so either of the URLs is valid. I'll come back and try the links again later. ~KvnG 15:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sites are back up. Both links lead the same place. I guess I might lean towards http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ but it could work either way and doesn't seem like it should be a controversial decision. ~KvnG 17:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This website is outdated and full of Anti-Kejriwal and Anti-Hazare content..It is strange both kejriwal and Anna hazare are/were the main leaders of this Organization(&Thy are the one who've started and lead this organisation in 2011) and this website has no history of their contribution to the organisation.It seems fake (as it has no info on IAC convenor,Shyam Sundar Singh Patel [8] ). TY of Walk 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious disputes for this article

Thank you ! Editors : ImperfectlyInformed,JonRichfield and ReformedArsenal for your time/skills/suggestions contribution to India Against Corruption Article . Let me make this perfectly clear, the major issues of this ongoing dispute/edit warring between me and editor AcorruptionfreeIndia are ,

  1. BLP issues regarding addition of unverified dubious and derogatory claims by editor AcorruptionfreeIndia against/about Prominent Personalities of India, Shri Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal and retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer ,Kiran Bedi in section Sack CIC Saga Continues and Hazare anti national activities.Please read the article!
  2. www.rise.net.in website has been added to cite these dubious claims and citing personal mails. I, repeatedly requested,EditorAcorruptionfreeIndia to quote/cite only "Original IAC" website as Dispute resolution against WP:EW but he ignored all my time/efforts to reach a dispute resolution . My simple question to him , if he believes or thinks www.rise.net.in and "Original/Official IAC " Website links to same content or page,then,why he is persistently avoiding/Not adding "Official IAC". I ,Once again, request him to quote/cite "Orignal IAC" only (in place of www.rise.net)), to stop/end this confusion.
  3. The Third Opinion Editor TransporterMan also has clearly explained ,these issues/problems to editor AcorruptionfreeIndia ( read here & [9] ) and Editor Shovon also agreed with the concern issues raised by me(read issue no.1 and 2 of this comment) and agreed to remove this unverified claims in "Sack CIC Saga" sub-section from the Article(read here ) but despite every other editor requesting him to remove the unverified/derogatory content, Editor User:AcorruptionfreeIndia is still blatantly pushing his (alleged biased) POV and Personal attacking other editors of Sock puppetry, harassing them by issuing threats of WP:SPI (suspension)(read here) without any prior evidence and Wikilawyering against every other editor e.g Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia complained against me in Admin Noticeboard and got this reply (in which Admin Black Kite clearly stated/said about Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia that he has conflict of interest and this India against corruption is poorly written and and contains large violations of original research, not to mention primary sourcing, stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, MOS violations and borderline copyright violations. In short, it is a mess. and recommended 'To stub this article and Start from Scratch' ~read [10] and [11]
I request to all senior editors and admin editors to pls respond to issues/problems mentioned above to end this dispute.You can Help! ThinkingYouth (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please strictly confine yourself to the pending WP:3O as filed by me and the ongoing WP:RFC filed by an outside editor. If you have new issues please avail your WP:DR options separately, and stop disrupting this page with "talkspam" to prevent outside editors from appreciating what the dispute is. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sermonizing me "On what i should do or not" . Let the Senior WP:3o Editors to respond to my queries.Don't add useless comment and what is "TalkSpam" is this even a wikipedia term ;-).ThinkingYouth (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, both of you need to back away from the article. Clearly the resolution processes that we've tried aren't working... WP:ANI it is... ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • now that the protection has expired and it is clear that there is no consensus, I have removed all the parts of the article that violate Wikipedia policies. I strongly suspect that I could have removed a lot more, but these are the most egregious issues. I suggest that this version is used as a starting point for this article. Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Variants of IAC

I have just removed a section that basically claimed the present-day IAC movement has roots in an HRSA movement from decades ago. It is nonsense, based on unreliable sources. Yes, there may have been an organisation called IAC that may itself have had roots in the HRSA but that does not stop a completely different movement from forming and happening to take a similar name. Unless those involved in the high-profile IAC of the last couple of years (ie: Hazare, principally) admits a connection then there is no reason to accept claims that there is a connection as being anything more than semantics. It really does look like a case of a moribund body trying to gain attention on the back of a new body. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reverting your edit because of this [12] There is an unusually high correlation between the edits of the new account and yours, including on some obscure topics. In addition there has been some talk page communications between yourselves to the effect that you would not be editing these pages for a few days (during which period the new account's edits were quite prolific on AAP-IAC pages). I propose that Admin User:Black_Kite's stub is retained and this page is locked for another fortnight.
    • On merits: You will observe that noted journalist "Veeresh Malik" (co-founder and General Secy. IAC) (whose photo blog of the pro-transparency anti-corruption movement from 2006 is publicly accessible on flickr) is the common link in the IAC from at least 2006, and he was the person who brought many high profile RTI activists including Anna Hazare into the anti-corruption movement (in 2006) and also Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi in (2010). Statements from Anna or Arvind Kejriwal today would be contrived and unreliable. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either take it to WP:SPI or retract your absurd statement, please. You need to address the reasons for removal, not sling merit-less accusations around. And you need to address them without recourse to original research relating to a blog. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is for you to resolve that unusual correlation with your "stalker" (who has only about 400+ edits but edits on 40 pages you've previously edited including many IAC-AAP pages) on the appropriate notice board. There is no WP:NOR. A secondary source is only reliable if its based on identifiable reliable primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source so both the secondary and primary sources may be challenged under WP:V, WP:RS. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I haven't got a clue what you are talking about now. What are you challenging, and why? - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for section "Conflict at the Narmada Dam RTI hearing"

  • Veeresh Malik was moderator of Humjanenge after death of Prakash Kardaley(accessed from "wayback machine") [13]
  • Rahul Mangaonkar (Senior journalist with Times of India) was moderator of "Humjanenge" till his death in May 2009 and Veeresh Malik had left the NCPRI Humjanenge. [14]
  • Rahul Mangaonkar was bitterly opposed to NCPRI's involvement in Narmada Dam ("Delhi has double standards on Narmada" 15.05.2006) [15] (link not working), [16] and [17] (click on "Delhi has double standards on Narmada")
  • Arvind Kejriwal's photo was placed on Humjanenge homepage shortly after Rahul Mangaonkar's death (an archived publicly accessible email conversation between Manoj Pai and Sarbajit Roy in July 2009 on RTI_India mailing list) [18]
  • On 26.Oct.2010 public differences emerge in "Humjanenge" over highlighting Arvind Kejriwal and sidelining Veeresh Malik (an archived publicly accessible email conversation between leaders of rival RTI factions) [19]
  • Arvind Kejriwal registers domain "indiaagainstcorruption.org" on 17.Nov.2010 [20] in name of "Public Cause Research Foundation" AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately Sarbajit Roy registers domain "humjanenge.org.in" on 24.Nov.2010 [21] AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OR and, in particular, take note of WP:SYNTHESIS. You seem to be attempting to construct an argument here and we are not supposed to do this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of WP:OR which incorporates WP:SYNTHESIS. Conversely you must also be aware of the series of SLAPP notices issued by IAC from 25.10.2012 onwards to ensure that henceforth there will be very few published secondary sources about the IAC (copies of which notices are freely accessible online). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing WP:RFC on this talk page which you and the other editor (who has a WP:COI) have evaded participating in. Its on a very short point and is presently in WP:ANI. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I ask again, what is your point? Furthermore, if you accuse me of a conflict of interest once more without providing some evidence then I'll be seeking administrative intervention. You really have to stop flinging these statements around. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a page connected to a subject best suited for "Indian-English" rather than "British-English". Shall rephrase that to " ... which you and the other editor (who has a WP:COI) have evaded participating in" so that all Wikipedists can get it. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, although I've no idea who (if anyone) might have a COI here. You've still not explained what your point is regarding SLAPP and why that might allow you to breach WP:OR. Nor have you explained why I should be participating in a RfC that, frankly, makes little sense to me - it is a request for comment, not a demand. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Context NB:This is not an allegation of SPI, User:ThinkingYouth opened an account recently to edit Arvind Kejriwal and AAP pages. He then hied over here and claimed that the IAC as described in this article is a "FAKE IAC" and the External Link to the IAC's Official website is "fake" and also the website is "fake" / "unoffical" and so on. After making these claims he then hied over to your talk page and asked you to intervene in this article (which incidentally you now have). Accordingly the "RfC: Should http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in/ be listed as the official website" was framed by an uninvolved editor User:ReformedArsenal. Nobody is demanding that you participate in it but it would certainly clarify many things if you did. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion regarding whether this stuff is "fake" or otherwise, nor have I any idea why someone might have latched on to me. The solution, however, is surely to use more secondary sources. I still have no idea why you are constructing an argument based on OR above: it is not going to achieve anything. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realigned for readability: Assuming good faith. There is no OR. There is a surfeit of reliable primary and secondary sources to show that the anti-corruption movement which on 23.Oct.2010 decided to come out to expose the CommonWealth Games 2010 was the Humjanenge faction's which had collected all the scam evidence using RTI. Team Arvind was added to this group by Veeresh Malik in late Oct. 2010 on Anna's insistence. The brand name "India Against Corruption" is of a Trust registered in 1973 to the main HRA faction who only allowed the name to be used for CWG-2010 scam. The launch date for the "new" IAC Movement was 30.01.2011. By then Jan Lok Pal demand was added along with a host of "eminent" supporters. All sorts of persons were being named as "IAC leaders" by the media without any basis but HRA kept silent due to Shanti Bhushan's goodwill and so as not to derail the anti-UPA movement. When the movement began falling apart in Sept 2012 Team-HRA took charge with Team-Arvind ejected and after them Kiran Bedi. All the rest are still with the apolitical IAC including Shanti Bhushan and Anna, for eg. see [22] [23] from March 2013. After 25.10.2012 IAC has been "illegally blacklisted" by the media and matter is pending before the Press Council. 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)

  • Where is the " So called , surfeit of reliable primary and secondary sources ",~To show that the anti-corruption movement which on 23.Oct.2010 decided to come out to expose the CommonWealth Games 2010 was the Humjanenge faction?TY of Walk 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "reliable" source to confirm decades ago "HRA" organisation and 2010 Hamjanege oroganisation is/was with the IAC movement, later become current "IAC",only you think or say so. As far as reliable source goes , Arvind Kejriwal renounced the "IAC" ownership after political split and later gave it to the Anna Hazare .TY of Walk 09:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is this ? Is this your surfeit sources? TY of Walk 12:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was clearly stated, by me, it is not the only such source. What is a published secondary report dated 7.October.2010 by a reliable legal website of a primary court judgment dated 7.Jan.2010 accessible here [25]. Now why don't you find Wikipedia a reliable source for www.aamaadmiparty.org or an authentic copy of AAP's Constitution? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is this ? you just reproduced the same copy you cited earlier.what do you want to prove by that high court judgement copy? and for authentic copy of AAP constitution ,Simple just go to their website and read it ,Why should i search that for you ? don't you know HOW to Google(just asking NO NPA ;-) )TY of Walk 12:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not the same thing. Until you understand the difference please stop editing at Wikipedia. On AAP's secret Constitution, do you mean this placeholder page [26] ? This only lists the chapter numbers and title from the ECI's model format [27]. Oh, I'm sure somebody at AAP will be scurrying to upload their Constitution, ie. if they have one, so that you can post it to Wikipedia like you did their donation link. Yet another bogus Kejriwal claim that AAP's Constitution was approved on 24.Nov.2012. [28] AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get what you are trying to say here, and how you are differentiating the same high court judgement copy ? but one thing is clear here(from above comment), your antipathy for AAP and Kejriwal . IF you have any problem getting constitution of AAP , you should contact them? why are you babling this here(In IAC talk page)? or Google it you will get it..! ;-) TY of Walk 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article was based almost entirely on primary sources, looked like a poorly-written political manifesto and in some cases wasn't even supported by the sources as claimed. I was attempting to improve it when it was all reverted here.

I know that there is much to be done but I am fed up of IAC supporters bigging up their cause on Wikipedia. IAC gained a lot of attention in 2011/2012 but we're now in the phase where academics sources are available and we should prefer them both to primary sources and to the media circus that prevailed at the time when it was most prominent. Yes, we need to cover the continued activities of the IAC but that does not mean quoting verbatim large chunks of their own publicity material: short summaries should suffice, as we've tried to do also at articles such as Aam Aadmi Party. @AcorruptionfreeIndia:, you have had a lot of problem editing in this subject area and the reason will be evident even from your choice of username. Please understand that Wikipedia does not exist to promote your favourite cause. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed all the primary sources because they related to the riseup website, whose organisational logo was until minutes ago in the infobox here. I do not dispute that there is an organisation called India Against Corruption that has a history in the Hindustan Republic Socialist Association. The problems with the riseup website have been discussed extensively and without a decent conclusion in the threads above but that website clearly exists and clearly claims to be for a body calling itself IAC. That said, the use of the term "India Against Corruption" since 2011 has without question related to the populist movement involving Ramdev, Hazare, Kejriwal etc and independent sources that mention the group based around the riseup website are almost impossible to find. That the two movements are different also seems certain, given that the riseup website has attacked both Kejriwal and Hazare etc around the very time when he was - according to thousands of media reports - leading the IAC protests in Delhi. Now, it could be that Hazare et al usurped the name but the movement associated with them is clearly the more common usage for the name and thus should be the subject of this article. A separate article can be created for the HRSA-based organisation if notability can be proven. - Sitush (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please get your facts straight. All these are in public domain except where specified. All the primary sources such as public emails between the parties named underneath are also in public domain and archived. All the parties can be contacted by email or phone to verify these facts.
HRA (which is not HRSA despite what Wikipedia claims) has exclusive rights, titles to "India Against Corruption" banner. Nobody senior in IAC/AAP andolan disputes this or can dispute it.
AAP (Team.Arvind) is led by Arvind Kejriwal along with Manish Sisodia as No.2. IAC is jointly led by Sarbajit Roy and Veeresh Malik. All of them know each other for over a decade. There is never any dispute between them and all their organisational issues stand resolved. Not once has anybody senior in AAP said anything disparaging about IAC leadership. Please also read [29] which is dated 04.09.2013. NB: "IAC HQ" is a code word for HRA.
All your so-called secondary sources for IAC are speculation and unreliable. For instance your statement that IAC has Hindu nationalist leanings is libelous. Anna Hazare and Ramdev were never part of IAC or held any office in IAC. They were part of the JanLokpal movement which was going on simultaneously with IAC movement against CWG-2010 corruption and caused lot of confusion in people's mind.
Insofar as my previous editing goes, please see behaviour of pseudo-AAP trolls like blocked user ThinkingYouth who were actually POV pushing using obsolete and incorrect so-called secondary sources.
There is also a misconception of role of Kiran Bedi in all this. Kiran Bedi was Trustee of Public Cause Research Foundation along with Arvind, Manish, Prashant Bhushan etc. When various cheque receipts were being received and payments had to be made, it was decided that PCRF would act as "secretariat" for Janlokpal movement which was popularly known as IAC. There was no question of IAC being owned by PCRF or Arvind. All this has been clarified in Supreme Court in August 2013. When Kiran Bedi was not selected for Janlokpal drafting Committee she drew apart from Team.Arvind and tried to stick to IAC. But she had to leave IAC within 1 month of AAP being formed.
The attacks between IAC(riseup) and AAP took place between Sep.2012 and Dec 2012 when the transition was taking place and it was known that AAP is exiting IAC to form the party. The party workers were getting confused, and both factions were trying to define their identity.
Insofar as IAC (riseup) not being notable or defunct, [30], [31], [32]

AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not interested in who has the legal rights to the name. IAC is used to describe the 2011/2012 movement - see WP:COMMONNAME. I'm more than happy to help you create an article about the IAC organisation that is a registered NGO and is associated with the HRA. However, I've not been able to find any secondary sources that refer to it, not even when searching for Veeresh Malik, and until I or someone else does, India Against Corruption (NGO) is likely to stay a redlink. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article does mention that Sarbajit Roy is the national convenor and that the emphasis is now on RTI stuff. It says that because the sources does, and we follow the sources. The links that you provide at the end of your last message above are further verification that he is head of something called IAC but whether or not it is linked to the Kejriwal/Hazare etc movement is not made clear. We have to work off what sources say, not what we know. Most newspapers and now some books all connect IAC with the protest movement headed by Hazare. Perhaps they're all wrong but unless you can come up with some non-primary sources that make this clear, we're not going to be able to change things much here. In notice that the HRA IAC claim that Kejriwal was hacking their mailing lists etc in late 2012 - can you find any reliable sources that refer to that? They may also establish the relationship. Right now, I look at the riseup stuff and am not happy with it at all: they're perhaps rightly paranoid about people usurping them and/or their name but it could also be the rantings of collective paranoia - there's a real WP:FRINGE feel to the site, even though I understand that RTI activists in India are subject to violence etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commonname is not at all applicable in this case. The Jan Lokpal Bill movement of 2011 (which was simultaneously taking place on the same platform as IAC's anti-corruption movement against CWG-2010 scandals with a common secretariat PCRF) is now known as Aam Aadmi Party. When the India Against Corruption (which is a 93 year old body) has never stood for or supported or demanded Lokpal, and in fact opposes it, how can you deliveratley amd mischievously confuse the 2 differing movements using commonname. The Lokpal movement of 2011 is AAP not IAC. IAC's national convenor has publicly clarified this Asked if this was not a betrayal of trust for the thousands of Indians who hit the streets demanding a Janlokpal in support of team Anna through 2011 and half of 2012, he said: “The common man is still free to join AAP, which is demanding Anna’s Janlokpal.” [33]. To repeat, the IAC-2011 movement was against CWG-2010 scams, the JanLokpal Bill movement went on simultaneously because many activists and supporting NGOs were common and the secretariat was common to both. In fact the entire IAC split took place in April-June 2012 over JPB and the fact that it was running out of steam and turning people off IAC's anti-corruption campaign.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for edit warring

@Sitush, please note that you are edit warring, reverting and inserting synthesised, copyvios and unsourced text from dubious sources without discussion, and despite my calling you for BRD.You are also issuing threats.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk)

Please do give me an example for each of (a) copyvio (b) synthesis and (c) unsourced statements. If I have erred then obviously they'll need to be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before that please explain why you ignored BRD discussion when I reverted your bold edits, and why your reinsertion and defiant unilateral further expansion without attempting to achieve consensus does not constitute edit warring ?AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India_Against_Corruption&oldid=582990386"