Misplaced Pages

• 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

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Index 1, 2, 3

Please state the case for why my sourced edits are being reverted in this rude manner. Lindashiers (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just made a big revert because it looks to me as if someone is yet again trying to turn this into an article about the relatively unknown India Against Corruption pressure group rather than the much more widely known India Against Corruption popular movement. I'm not saying that all of the changes lacked merit but unpicking the good from the bad in these circumstances is difficult. So, I suggest we discuss them bit by bit here first.

As a start to that, this edit rings alarm bells. Yes, there clearly were some elements of copyright violation in the old version. Those could have been fixed very simply by rephrasing but instead the entire thing was removed in favour of some very poorly phrased detailed info about alleged internal rows involving an organisation - Jagruk Nagrik Manch - that may or may not be connected and may or may not be relevant. We don't usually include trivial information and that is what this mostly looks like. I'd appreciate an explanation of why this was in fact significant. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I respond to you, fully, as I shall, please provide a reliable source for this statement you inserted "The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name.". Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, after that "alarm bells" edit (which was to fix your copy-vios), the entire Meera Nanda text/cite was added back after loosely paraphrasing it. The Guha text will also be added back once we both can confirm that it still exists and corresponds to the content you added. Lindashiers (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The "popular movement" thing has been discussed widely, including at WP:DRN, WP:ANI, via WP:OTRS and the WMF, on this very talk page and on numerous other talk pages. Sometimes we have to use a bit of common sense. If the pressure group were notable then it would have its own article and we could avoid the qualification by using a dabhat; alas, there is no such article yet, the notability is moot and so we cannot do that.

Please prove that those were my copyvios or desist from making such claims. This article has gone back and forth an awful lot and while there is a remote possibility that I did in fact breach copyright, the chances of it being me are extremely slim. I'm pretty experienced and I am subject to a phenomenal amount of scrutiny here. I took some screenshots of the Guha book a few hours ago - I can email them to you if you want. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proof . Can you confirm if the Guha book on Googlebooks is a scan of the Indian sub-continent edition or is Penguin's Viking ebook since they both have the same e-ISBN. I see a substantial number of sources on the notability of the RTI activists group. Its a pity you can't come up with a credible source to establish that they are a "pressure group" ... Lindashiers (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are continuing to be rude and aggressive. I'm not dealing with you until you calm down, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, except to say that I accept the diff. No idea why that happened but clearly I cocked-up then. It doesn't make me a serial copyright violator. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush, Time-Out. If you are prepared to fairly reevaluate your POV on this article; I, as an expert, shall disentangle (with sources) the various strands of the Anna/IAC 2010-2012 phenomenon so that 2 "good articles" can emerge - a) Team Anna b) India Against Corruption. Lindashiers (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The alleged POV has been discussed at the various venues before, on umpteen occasions. You want to draft something in your sandbox for review then feel free but you are not doing it in mainspace. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you stand by your content that (a) "Team Anna" and "India Against Corruption" are identical and absolutely interchangeable names for the same movement, (b) The "pressure group" had nothing to do with either (or both) of the foregoing ? I say this because Anna Hazare's name is being dragged into the IAC article, incorrectly. Lindashiers (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously been around for a long time under another identity. You made the minimum number of edits necessary elsewhere with your current account before you could change things at this article. You are almost certainly familiar with the past discussions about the usage of Team Anna/IAC in this article and the various claims made by the IAC NGO. Some of those are linked on this very talk page. I'm not rehashing it yet again because it really is only a few weeks since we last went through it all at ANI. Lots of people have spent lots of time looking into this and we cannot keep revisiting it on a "first principles" basis. Go write your drafts and we'll review things there. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not responding to your trolling. I have serious issues with your sources (like Guha). You are unable to provide a source for the specific on-page statement / POV text (inserted by you) on the "pressure group". You have reverted accurately sourced text from additional topical (secondary) news sources which clearly demolishes your thesis that IAC and Team Anna are indistinguishable (ignoring that they even fought over the IAC name - including in the High Court of Bombay). You have rejected my AGF offer to simplify (with sources) the strands of the IAC movement so that you can understand it. You have continued to defend what is clearly plagiarism and POV pushing in this article. What else is there left to say? Should experts only edit here on Mondays? Lindashiers (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Lindashiers: Involving yourself in an ArbCom case within a week of your first edit and within your first 100 edits suggests you are not a new user. Please identify what edits you have made to this article or to this talk page previously but not using this account. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteered - "NONE" and "NONE". PS: Are you allowed to ask this of me ? The 2 Arbcom cases I commented on are the only ones currently open. Why haven't you commented there, or is commenting at Arbcom only open to those with more than 1,000 or 10,000 edits ? There is a lot wrong at Misplaced Pages, including blatant plagiarism and sexism, and I am allowed to have my say on it, or am I not ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You began editing on 3 September. Your edits have three distinctive features: (1) aggression (2) opinions on IAC which have similarities to a high profile sock/meatpuppet campaign (2) knowledge of WP which new users don't usually have. DeCausa (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I answer you, which I shall, let me pose the counter query - how is it that the 2 conflicted POV pushing editors (1 of them a controversial WP Administrator well known elsewhere for his POV pushing at Misplaced Pages) for this article are both from the UK and now we have a lawyer from the same country popping up to defend this plagiarist /copy-vio-er(?). What strange bond usually connects you ? Lindashiers (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer, most likely, is that we speak the English language and edit Misplaced Pages. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the facts are that (a) England is a very tiny country (and likely to get even tinier in a few days), and (b) that Indians are now the 2nd largest speakers of English after the Yanks, and the days of Empire are past. So get used to it, and let native English speakers read factually correct article(s) and edit at Misplaced Pages. Lindashiers (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost every single question asked of you has been batted off with an "I'll respond later" (paraphrase) and an aggressive counter. You are sounding more and more like Zuggernaut by the minute, especially in your anti-British sentiments. You are not going to get very far if you continue with this style of contribution. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Zuggernaut who ? Why are you aggressively converting a content dispute into a circus with your sexist British cronies jumping into this 3 ring farce? This is so typical of the misogynist system which vitiates Misplaced Pages through and through and obstructs Indians from editing it. PS: Can you respond with your sources ? PPS: Shiva is our God, not yours. Lindashiers (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lindashiers: Several people are watching this topic and your current approach cannot succeed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am here to discuss content and nothing else. If all of you had something against Zuggernaut, its got nothing to do with me. The ongoing dispute is for admitted copyright violation, and continuous denials of it by Sitush.Lindashiers (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, drop the anti-British, anti-male etc sideshow. Answer the basic queries that have been asked of you regarding your past involvement etc and stop deflecting things.

If you wish massively to change this article then feel free to rework it in your userspace and then ask here for a review. Spotting the copyvio was great and no-one has said that everything you want to do is necessarily wrong but you have made and are wanting to make significant changes to this article and they seem to be intended to promote a viewpoint previously adopted by a sock/meat farm. Since that viewpoint has been rejected on countless occasions and you have been adopting an aggressive position from the outset, you'll have to forgive us some doubt. You may be the person who finally manages to turn this article in the direction that the IAC socks/meats wanted but you are not going to do it without collaboration, so I suggest that you make an effort to collaborate. I am sure that any draft will be reviewed neutrally because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the people with whom you have interacted using your current accounts hold any particular POV in relation to the articles that you have been working on. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush. Posting here instead of on your talk page. Insinuations again. Which are my "current accounts" ? Read my lips - I either edit this article equally as a "first class editor" or not at all. There is no shortage of wikis or articles like Pravin Togadia for me to edit-war at - was I so inclined to do so ... with , etc. - and in case you don't know, the actual PTI report from Jaipur of 2002 on which all this particular Togadia propaganda was based was soon retracted. So I say again, if you lack competence please stay out of India related articles when the real experts are on the field. PS: History has already answered Dionne Bunsha's final question (for the moment). Lindashiers (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That was a typo: "current account" is what I meant. And that's it from me. I'm not putting up with this crap any longer. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)