Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:59, 28 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the India Against Corruption article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about India Against Corruption. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about India Against Corruption at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in January 2013. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Find sources notice

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 . Note that the source is entirely unattributed and is therefore a copyright violation. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

I am posting the comment below which was left at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article, it does not rise to the level of a copyright violation.

7. Accusations that the editor who added the material to Misplaced Pages 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)

Sarbajit Roy (National Convenor)

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" . 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 , , 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 and . 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 "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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 by a now indefinitely blocked editor , 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 Misplaced Pages) almost 4 years ago —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 ." 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 dealing with disruptive editors on this subject matter

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

For constructive editors

1. Here is a very reputed Indian news agency giving the official website URL of India Against Corruption. as "http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org.in/"
2. Here 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.
3. Here 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."
4. Here 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.
5. Here 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 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 or access to its funds . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 , as it was clearly a non-free file and in fact been previously published on the website of the original IAC in March 2011 . 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 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 . 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, Misplaced Pages'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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in India
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics