User talk:Dkgpatel

Some notes
One, Michelle's reply, which is thoroughly correct, doesn't seem to be saying what you think it says. At all. If you think that this is "continuing to follow the proper path" that Michelle laid out for you, then I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. Two, the idea that "paraphrasing is not enough" is absurd; one can always restate something in one's own words, as information and ideas cannot be copyrighted; only the expression of those ideas can be. Even if there was a copyright violation in the text (of which I am as yet totally unconvinced), That doesn't mean that the article's section would be deleted forever from the article; it simply means that the section must be rewritten to use one's own words, not those of a source. Three, the site you say is the source of the copyvio, indiaagainstcorruption.org (as opposed to .net), appears to have been down since at least December 2012. Between a website that was down in 2012 and a book that wasn't released until 2014, I don't see how it's possible that Sitush plagiarized from them in November 2013. Moreover, when looking at the older versions of the site as archived by the Wayback Machine (which has a fairly solid set of hits for the website), I can find nothing even remotely resembling the text in question. Fourth, Wikipedia is not required to--and indeed cannot--do anything with the various Wikimedia mirrors, Facebook reposts, or other regurgitations of Wikipedia content. Nearly all of those things are not affiliated with either the WMF or the Wikipedia community, and so neither can be said to have any authority or responsibility over them. Fifth, Although Andythegrump is indeed not an admin, one does not have to be an admin to collapse exceedingly long posts on the noticeboard, and such collapsing does not prevent anyone from looking at it (it didn't prevent me, for example). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is apparently a German Court judgement against the WMF (not Michelle's Paulsons blog spin on it) which requires you to update yourself. We will hold you to the term "expression". The actual email well published to numerous IAC members is the "source" of the copyvio, not any website upload. The .org website is down for reasons already in the public domain, however all its content is still preserved and accessible to site admins. Wayback records cannot access the members area for logged in users. The .net was initially a non-canonical redirect to the .org and had a robots.txt file to prevent Google or Alexa indexing it. We view hats/habs as a standard device at ANI to suppress from the record what we are communicating politely. The administrative rules for OSP/ISPs in India are far more stringent than in the USA, "and though they grind exceedingly slow they grind exceedingly fine". If there was a copyvio on account of a faulty CC-3.0 then the liability devolves on WP/WMF jointly and severally.


 * Just a suggestion : If User:Sitush is taken out of this article it could very easily be improved collaboratively and civilly with a semi-retired Admin. like say. "DES". Dkgpatel (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If the content was ojly ever available to members, and only accessible to site admins at the time it was supposedly plagiarized, how could Sitush have gotten to it in order to copy it? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Meera Nanda had access to the email. Ramachandra Guha had access to the email. Arundhati Roy had access to that email. At that point in time the IAC mailing list had over 250,000 subscribers (its 1/10th that now). Does WMF know who its "User:Sitush" actually is in real life (loaded question) ?
 * We have noticed that in addition to "collapsing" our "long post", the following line is added "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.". Could you kindly clarify this. Dkgpatel (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you like us to share the relevant content of emails Prof. Meera Nanda and Prof. Ramachandra Guha have sent IAC about inaccurate usage of their books in this article. (Michelle Paulson knows it, but has sgown us a path to resolve it with the "community" of editors).Dkgpatel (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As for as that "do not modify" text goes: that's simply the default text that the template for such collapsing boxes adds. All it means is that one shouldn't modify anything within the collapse box. Since it's just your post in there, it's basically meaningless in this case, as one shoudln't modify another's post regardless. Anyway, the fundamental point here is that you are making serious accusations here, and you have, at best, provided no evidence for your accusations. Perhaps you're telling the truth, perhaps not, but we don't act on such serious accusations without evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if you keep providing one without the other, you will exhaust people's patience very quickly. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There was a highly contentious Mediation which Sitush stormed out of when we began to list out our own reliable sources. The Wikipedia community then (as it always does) rigged it so that allegations of "sock-puppetry" and our not being unable to understand WP policies were leveled against us, and the Mediation was closed hastily   - for the reason that some parties were non-participating. During the mediation Sitush made some outrageous statements like IAC is a "half-penny tuppeny pressure group". These sort of statements continue to be in the present article, but nobody can provide us a reliable source for it. Our membership's tempers are rising and their patience is wearing exceedingly thin. Actions in 'la-la land' may even have real life consequences. Dkgpatel (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we are making serious allegations. Yes, we want to present our evidence. Pray tell us in which Wikipedia forum do we present them. ?? Dkgpatel (talk)

Conflict of Interest and Red Flag doctrine: As it is (now) clear, certain Administrators of Wikipedia, also informally act as community volunteers / guides, while also being regular employees of WMF, including at the WMF's legal department. There is thus a statutory duty cast on these admins to inquire into the allegation(s) of copyright violation and plagiarism concerning this article, and which goes beyond "community consensus". ie. If the WMF is concerned about its Safe Harbour hosting privileges. NB: The text is easily discernible as blatant infringement from Mr.Malik's email of 06/April/2011 extensively circulated within the then IAC campaign's subscribers. As such it is incorrect to imply that the email was only accessible to website admin(s). PS: The Admins may also inquire into the nexus, if any, between the present cabal of users/admins defaming IAC and the sock farm of this user, supplemented by. Dkgpatel (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed your access to this latest of your talk pages. As has been explained to you before, making legal threats on Wikipedia will lead to your account getting indefinitely blocked, and if you continue to post further legal threats (as you did in the post immediately above), your talk page access will be taken away. This is all standard procedure for any editor who behaves similarly. We cannot prevent you from seeking legal action, but you must not edit Wikipedia while doing so (or while threatening to do so, even if you have no real intention to follow through on the threat), both to prevent the legal issues from getting any more complex and to prevent the chilling effect of such threats from disrupting the normal editing of the encyclopedia. As noted, this is all the standard policy for handling legal threats; the relevant policy is located here. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 06:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)