Talk:Aruna Roy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sections blankings by User:RobertRosen

Hello! Lets start over! Let me list your acts of section blanking.

• Act 1 : Your reason for blanking the sections added by Administrater Ekabhishek was "removed. Copyvio. section entirely sourced from copyrighted website." What do you mean by this? Both WP:Copy-paste and {WP:Close paraphrasing]] don't seem to apply here. Elaborate here. _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Act 2 : Your reason for blanking the sections added by User:MorelMWilliam was "Dubious self published source. Deleted text contradicted by source". What contradicts what? What is dubious? How is it dubious? What supports your allegation that it is dubious? Any notable/ reliable source? _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Act 3 : Your reason for blanking the sections added by User:MorelMWilliam was "deleted section. WP:IRS, WP:BLP The biography of Roy by Kalow-Tirol is based on unspecified "audio tape recordings" and letters and correspondences with people close to Roy." Elaborate the context. Even if the source gets classified as a self published, WP:ABOUTSELF allows addition of content from such sources for articles about themselves, as explained to you by User:Anonymous209.6 at the WP:RSN discussion. The best way is to list the controversial facts and the sources that claim that they are controversial. We shall see what we can based on that. _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Act 4 : Your reason for blanking the sections added by User:MorelMWilliam was "There is an inconclusive WP:DR process underway initiated by M.Williams at WP:RSN". Explain your rationale. Why is it that you find this addition decontructive? _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Your problems with Aruna's marriage with Bunker Roy. Here is where you should list the sources that claim that their marriage is 'illegal' or 'controversial'. _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let us stick to the issues listed above to prevent us from veering towards personal attacks. You might find it easier to respond next to each point. _morelMW^illiam 05:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that I am NOW going to discuss these Aruna Roy article issues repeatedly. From the very beginning I asked MWilliams to discuss it on the article's talk page and go through all the standard hierarchial DRs if necessary. He was openly dismissive and sarcastic about WP talk and DR policies. Now with all his vexatious litigation (WP:DRN, WP:BLPN, AP:ANI, WP:RSN etc.) having failed and considering he forced me to winkle out his past track record as a disruptive sock it is impossible for me to discuss the same disputes in GOOD FAITH. Unlike MWilliams I have no "ownership" issues with any page or this one in particular. It makes no difference to me if vandals screw the encyclopedia simply because all the good editors are sleeping. I am already an Admin (and a super-Admin) at far superior open edit access information resources & which only have properly verified editors (we don't let in riff-raff) and I don't give a f*** what happens here anymore. There is a finality termed as res-judicata. It means that after having exhausted all appeal remedies, editors are estopped from starting the trial process all over again. For you User:MWilliams it simply means that neither you nor any sock of yours should touch this page in future. Wikipedia is a big ocean, go swim elsewhere. For instance, lets talk at Korkoro, that is one BIG article with many problems & dubious refs which need immediate fixing. RobertRosen (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Stay cool. You never addressed the main issues and were always tangential. The WP:ANI lost its focus after you brought in irrelevant and unasked for details into it. Kindly stay focussed on what was asked for and lets try to achieve consensus that way. _morelMW^illiam 11:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Never post on my talk page again. 2) Kindly amend each and every criticism / weasel word/phrase / negative portrayal of me or my past edit actions at Wikipedia on this talk page IMMEDIATELY. 3) Take note that there is no Wikipedia procedure left for you to compel me "to lets start over" after you have exhausted all your appeal remedies. 4) Don't make bad faith accusations against me. As a former sockmaster who has continued to abuse and disruptively edit against several other editors besides me after being given a 2nd chance the presumption of AGF is against you and in my favour. 5) FINALLY: as a token of my good wishes / faith for your future edits, if you still feel inclined to fulfill your fantasy of talking obsessively with strangers on Wikipages I can suggest a good alternative. I'll have a chat with 10 of my friends at my own Wikisite highly recommending your Good Article (you know which one), and they'll probably each have a chat with 10 of their friends over here to see how they can all help you improve it collaboratively. RobertRosen (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, kindly stick to discussing the concerns raised on your acts of section blanking and kindly refrain from making threats/ personal attacks. I don't think it is necessary to comment on your kind meat note as it is unrelated to this discussion. _morelMW^illiam 12:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site." ... "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." RobertRosen (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't comment on your meat note. Why are you reiterating that? _morelMW^illiam 13:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the article please. I have not gone through all of this, but Just from the Act One portion, MorelMWilliam if you have so little understanding of copyright and how it works at Wikipedia, you should stop editing now. It is either a clear W:COMPETENCE issue or pure WP:TE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talking about my competence, how about an Administrator who believes there is no copy right violation (here)? Are you going to question the WP:ADMIN standards next? Let us stick to the topic please. _morelMW^illiam 13:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you keep ignoring the views / advice of other editors and questioning them or fighting with them. Secondly, you repeatedly and deceitfully keep trotting out that old version from Admin:Ekabhishek (before he heard my side) when you mischievously approached editors to support you (something I have never done in this entire distasteful episode), if you are honest please volunteer his final say without your own commentary. Thirdly, we have already gone over all this at WP:RSN. You lost!!! You also lost at WP:BLPN, and at WP:DRN (the case was closed in 2 hours without taking it further). WP:ANI is still open and will go into the archives inconclusively because you kept spamming it so it became impossible for anyone to follow. Fourthly, a WP:COMPETENCE (?) test, 1*10=10, 10*10=100, what is the next number in the series. Lal Salaam ! RobertRosen (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The cut and paste from copyright website alluded to in Act 1 also involves exact text from this site which cliams full copyright . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of mirroring. I have left a message at User:Moonriddengirl's page and let us wait for their input. _morelMW^illiam 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

there is a copyright issue somewhere because mirrors cannot claim copyright of the CCbySA content they get from Wikipedia and must properly attribute. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a WP:Mirror and is now listed. Any other justification for Act 1? _morelMW^illiam 08:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How very efficient for you to make the assertion that it is a mirror. and yes, now we do both agree that removed. Copyvio. section entirely sourced from copyrighted website, was an accurate and goodfaith edit/edit summary, although the site asserting copyright might not actually be able to do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not just me, but also Administrator User:Moonriddengirl, who regards it a mirror. Did you check the link to their talk page in my previous post? Time to score off your comment on my competence. Yes, I believe that User:RobertRosen's edit is a good faith one. It is human to err, and now he should know that it was not a well informed call. _morelMW^illiam 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss your competence, you will need to go elsewhere and find someone else to chat with. If you wish article content and sources, we can continue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It was not me who brought competence issues here. So now it is agreed that Act 1 is unjustified. _morelMW^illiam 17:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

quite the contrary, we have shown that at the time, it was entirely justified. Content was removed based on the fact that the exact same content was posted a site that asserted copyright. it is entirely appropriate to remove en mass what appears to be blatant copyright infringement.

The content that was removed, however, would in any situation need to be vastly rewritten before being returned- not because of potential copyright, but because of completely unencyclopedic presentation and phrasing which appears to be to push POV without being properly attributed to a source making the assessment ( "Aruna had an unusual and disjointed schooling. " and "Although their demanding individual schedules ") and it includes some content whose nature could be highly contentious about living people which is not supported by any sources, valid or not, such as most of the final paragraph. (belated sign) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And now it is clear that is not copyright infringement. The question raised on Act 1 was if it was indeed copyright violation and hence I regard it closed._morelMW^illiam 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How about this version? 'Elitist' has to be removed though; it was added by an IP._morelMW^illiam 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to start a new section where we can start discussing specific content to add. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

TRPOD - Is there any point in discussing these things with this editor ? He is clearly not interested in improving article pages, as all he wants is to engage in poofy WP:TE behaviour. I've already posted on the WP:BLPN notice board that he is actually a confirmed sockmaster Manorathan. It would be far better to let him to do his editing so we can see what he really wants to insert. As for me, I feel in the mood to see a good award winning art house film. Know of any good reviews ?

if MW has reliable sources for encyclopedic content, I am all for adding it in NPOV presentation. if it takes a little more time to work through some old issues, so be it- if MW and you are willing to focus on specific content and specific sources and leave editors past actions (and whatever the potential motivations may have been) out of it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

TRPOD I've just gone through all the non-RS at Bunker Roy. So if MW is willing to STRICTLY comply with WP:RS and all the other non-negotiables, we ought not to have a problem, although the last editor was obviously much better informed than I in such matters. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia's rules so can I call on you for guidance when I get stuck ? HotPepperSpray (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

rebuilding "Early Life" content

MW has suggested including the content removed here [1]

My two general concerns are 1) each statement/claim we add to our article should be specifically footnoted to its source 2) i am a little hesitant to be so dependent upon a single source, particularly one that has a connection to is subject. the Foundation in granting its award has a little bit self interest in "sexing up" the bio of its winners and perhaps downplaying or ignoring non-flattering content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Things would get much easier if we sort out "sexed up" info. RMAF is the only source that talks about her upbringing. We have other sources such as this to cite her parents, sisters and her uncle Krishnaswamy Sundarji. [This] could be a WP:SPS source. Can be used here as it doesn't make any controversial claims on others. _morelMW^illiam 18:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

a standard formulation would be

Roy was born in TOWN in YEAR to MOTHER, an OCCUPATION, and FATHER, an OCCUPATION. She has SISTERS AND BROTHERS. Her maternal Grandparents were X, and Y (with occupations) from TOWN. Her paternal grandparents were W and Z (with occupations) from TOWN.

followed by

lists of schools and years

How about this?

Aruna was born in Chennai on May 26, 1946, to a Hindu couple from Tamil Nadu, Hema and Elupai Doraiswami Jayaram. Hema herself was born to an inter-caste couple though within the brahmin sect, with her mother being an Iyer and her father, an Iyengar. Aruna's maternal grandparents, though belonging to the brahmin sect, brought their children with modern ideals, and Hema had her schooling in a Christian school. Jayaram came from a family of lawyers, with his father and uncle holding law degrees from England. Jayaram also had many social activists in his family, with he himself involved in the Indian Independence movement. Post Independence, Jayaram served as a civil servant to the Government of India. He was serving as a legal advisor to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research when he retired from service. The Hema-Jayaram couple had four children, three girls and one boy, and Aruna was the eldest. The couple was living in New Delhi mostly, and Aruna was put under the care of her grandparents when she started her schooling in a Catholic convent in Chennai. Soon she returned to Delhi, where she was put in the Convent of Jesus and Mary. After five years there, she was sent to Kalakshetra, an arts school in Chennai, where she learnt Bharatnatyam and carnatic music for two years. After that, she was admitted into the Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, before joining Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, New Delhi, where she had her precollegiate education.

At 16, Aruna joined Indraprastha College in Delhi, registering herself in the English literature course. There she was exposed to Renaissance, Tolstoy, Sappho and Shakespeare. Completing this course in 1965, she registered for post graduate work in University of Delhi, where she met her future husband, Bunker Roy. Post post graduation, she took up teaching Nineteenth Century English Literature in Indraprastha College. Teaching was not her calling though, and later in 1967, she took the Indian Administrative Services examination, which she cleared in one attempt. She was one among the 10 women who were in the 100 that were selected.

_morelMW^illiam 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Any problems with reverting this edit? _morelMW^illiam 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

sorry for delay.

1) any inclusion of "modern ideals" is inappropriate and far too vague.

2) hema's schooling - why would that be relevant to Aruna?

3) "family of lawyers" is inappropriate and vague generalization. mentioning that the father was a lawyer is appropriate

4) Jayam's "family of social activists" is vague and inappropriate. claim of involvement independence movement would require 3rd party sourcing

5) "there she was exposed to ..." is irrel trivia

6) "teaching was not her calling" is nonencyclopedic POV analysis, just state she switched careers

7) "cleared in one attempt" would need third party sourcing and is probably irrel in any case

8) the claim of being 1 of ten women would need third party verification.

with those changes, I would agree to inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

sock puppet investigation

MW has filed a Sock Puppet Investigation against RobertRosen and my account. He cites my edits on this talk page as one of the suspicious events. There is the possibility my account will get closed. In which this article will have to be fully protected against all editors.

I agree with Rosen's analysis of the Foundation bio. 1) It is not a neutral source with no self evident per review. 2) Aruna Roy uses the identical bio text for commercial/promotional purposes word for word. 3) The claims in that bio are not independently confirmed from any reliable source. 4) Aruna Roy has sent a senior government officer to protest the article. The person is blocked. 5) The Foundation bio is a primary source. 6) Such large text inclusion would be breach of the website's asserted copyright 7) Conflict/Similarity of Interests between Aruna Roy and the Foundation. 8) The content issues are something else entirely. HotPepperSpray (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There is another matter needed to be squarely addressed. The accusations MW has made on this talk page project & portray as if Rosen is the one who went about "Section Blanking" (removal of all dubious matter in a BLP does not constitute vandalism). All the "Acts" listed by MW are only those by Rosen. For any meaningful debate, MW should reword it in a NPOV way and also include the forceful reinsertion without discussion of this repeatedly deleted material by MW and others after it was repeatedly deleted by Rosen and others. Rosen has been a long term editor to the article whereas MW is the occasional interloper. HotPepperSpray (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I have made a section break to move your posts into a new section. The section above is solely for working on content and I will not have it distracted by discussions about users which belong elsewhere. If you wish to refactor your comments about content only back into the above section, please do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation results The checkuser has confirmed that both User:HotPepperSpray and User:Arunaroy were User:RobertRosen's puppets and all the accounts are now indeffed. _morelMW^illiam 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes made on Wikipedia page of Aruna Roy on 2nd December 2016

I found the contents of the previous wikipedia article on Aruna Roy inadequate so I edited the major portions and added more contents in the page. tHe significant inclusions are education, career in Indian Asdministrative Services, work in SWRC, work in MKSS, teaching career, controversies and stint at NAC. Lokiisgood (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyright violation. 15:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aruna Roy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222212703/http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?83 to http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/pages/Details.aspx?83

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

sufficient inline citations are there (42.106.30.58 (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)