Talk:Unique Identification Authority of India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Opinion stated as fact

The discussion regarding the paper "Fundamental issues in biometric performance testing" is a misreading of the cited paper, and states conclusions that do not appear in that paper. One of the authors (Wayman) is a consultant to UIDAI. The statement as written is baseless, and appears to be written as a faulty basis for opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.138.253 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} This article does not follow Wikipedia editorial policy. It describes a research paper in a non-neutral, inaccurate way. The March 2010 research paper linked within the Wikipedia article is about how to apply uncertainty measurements to the testing of biometric technologies. Such testing has substantially improved the accuracy of biometric technologies over the years. The paper discusses how to understand measurement uncertainties so that law enforcement agencies and other users of biometrics can accurately determine the limitations of their systems.

The paper does not say that biometrics are not useful in real world settings. It advocates moving beyond yes-and-no answers in the biometrics area to do a better job of carefully understanding and documenting the variables that affect the accuracy of these technologies as they are used in practice.

Moreover, the comment in the Wikipedia article referencing Antonio Possolo of the National Institute of Standards and Technology violates the Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons. It attributes statements to Dr. Possolo and/or NIST that are not sourced. {{Request edit}}

Gailjporter333 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Gail Porter Director of Public Affairs National Institute of Standards and Technology

I have not done the request at this time, because, you didn't tell us *what* needs changing. I understand your arguments, but... consider that we are looking at each case; please say "X needs to change to Y", or "ZZZ needs to be removed" - please do that, and ask again.

Marking  Not done for now.  Chzz  ►  19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Opinion stated as fact

The paper Throwing the towel in quotes extensively from the paper by Messrs Wayman, Possolo and Mansfield attempting thereby at each stage to support its argument. Would the contributor at 65.216.138.253 please list the statements he/she finds "baseless" and I shall be happy then to respond further. Brother Big (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

There are many issue with Aadhaar card , which reported by Leading News paper, Faced personnely , why not allow to update the same. This is public page, so when mentioned this xyz dream project etc , mention detail how is this xyz. Not eveyone in this world know who this xyz or abc. Please don't make wiki like goverment control News channels. If issue is there accept it , then only thing will improve. is this goverment page and only sweet quote word should display here , if yes, then let us know clearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.68.150 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The comments made by NIST have been answered elsewhere as follows:

QUOTE

NIST say: “This research paper described above with a NIST coauthor is about how to apply uncertainty measurements to the testing of biometric technologies”. True. And what the paper says is that the uncertainty cannot be measured, there is no point guessing, the biometrics emperor has no clothes.

NIST say: “Such testing has substantially improved the accuracy of biometric technologies over the years”. False. This is the opposite of what the paper says, which is that it is impossible to measure the accuracy of biometric technologies, they are out of statistical control.

NIST say: “The paper discusses how to understand measurement uncertainties so that law enforcement agencies and other users of biometrics can accurately determine the limitations of their systems”. False, for the same reason. The paper identifies 15 or so influencing factors which contribute to the uncertainty of biometrics, there may be more factors, research is continuing, but, for the moment, measurement of the achievements or limitations of biometrics is impossible.

NIST say: “The paper does not say that biometrics are not useful in real world settings”. True, if we all accept that we know what is meant here by “useful”. That is one of many things that the paper does not say. What it does say is that technology tests and scenario tests tell you nothing about how well biometrics will perform in the field and that operational tests measure nothing. It is quite possible to agree with this statement of NIST’s and yet still believe that Aadhaar, on its own terms, is bound to fail, it cannot identify people uniquely and it cannot verify their identity reliably.

NIST say: “It advocates moving beyond yes-and-no answers in the biometrics area to do a better job of carefully understanding and documenting the variables that affect the accuracy of these technologies as they are used in practice”. True. More research is needed and I, for one, heartily support that. But in advance of that research bearing fruit, what the paper says is that no trial results can provide a valid reason to invest in biometrics. In that case the investment in biometrics is unbusinesslike, irresponsible, unscientific and illogical. Instead of being a reasoned investment, it has more the character of an impulse purchase. Governments are not paid to make impulse purchases using taxpayers’ money.

UNQUOTE

The paper by Messrs Wayman, Possolo and Mansfield states that it is impossible to measure the performance of biometric systems. It follows that it is impossible to say if their accuracy is improving. The authors give as an example of the problem the certificates issued by NIST connection with the USA PATRIOT Act. These certificates state that:

"For purpose of NIST PATRIOT Act certification this test certifies the accuracy of the participating systems on the datasets used in the test. This evaluation does not certify that any of the systems tested meet the requirements of any specific government application. This would require that factors not included in this test such as image quality, dataset size, cost, and required response time be included."

If the best that NIST can do is to say that the test results are the test results but there is no way of knowing how the "participating systems" will perform in the field, that seems to prove the point. Brother Big (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC) ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

I can see no evidence for the claim made by the user at 65.216.138.253 that "One of the authors (Wayman) is a consultant to UIDAI". Can you provide some? Brother Big (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone logged on from 65.216.138.253 yesterday at 14:13 and edited this page but didn't answer the question – is there any evidence to support the claim that Mr Wayman is a consultant to UIDAI? It might help if we could have an answer from this IP address. Brother Big (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC) ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

To the Wikipedia moderators/editors, please advise what I should do. I understand Gail Porter's conflict of interest problem. But I can't just guess what amendments are sought. Here are some of the facts stated as facts in my paper, quoted from the Wayman/Possolo/Mansfield paper:

Is there any hope of inductively extending the results of our technical test more broadly to any other algorithms or databases? A Type B systematic uncertainty evaluation after consideration of changes in the unit of empirical significance and statistical controls over its tangible elements might be of value, provided that the specifics of the changes could be given, but we should not sanctify such a “guesstimate” in an emperor’s cloak of imagined analytic rigor.

... technology testing on artificial or simulated databases tells us only about the performance of a software package on that data. There is nothing in a technology test that can validate the simulated data as a proxy for the “real world”, beyond a comparison to the real world data actually available. In other words, technology testing on simulated data cannot logically serve as a proxy for software performance over large, unseen, operational datasets.

We lack metrics for assessing the expected variability of these quantities between tests and [we lack] models for converting that variability to uncertainty in measurands [the quantities intended here are false positives and negatives, failure to acquire and enrol, and throughput].

... each specific recognition technology (iris, face, voice, fingerprint, hand, etc.) will have specific factors that must be within a state of statistical control. This list of factors is not well understood, although ample work in this area is continuing. For example, recent analysis of iris and face recognition test results shows us that to report false match and false non-match performance metrics for such systems without reporting on the percentage of data subjects wearing contact lenses, the period of time between collection of the compared image sets, the commercial systems used in the collection process, pupil dilation, and lighting direction is to report “nothing at all”. Our reported measurements cannot be expected to be repeatable or reproducible without knowledge and control of these factors.

... the test repeatability and reproducibility observed in technology tests are lost in scenario testing due to the loss of statistical control over a wide range of influence quantities.

... Our inability to apply concepts of statistical control to any or all of these factors will increase the level of uncertainty in our results and translate to loss of both repeatability and reproducibility.

... Test data from scenario evaluations should not be used as input to mathematical models of operational environments that require high levels of certainty for validity.

We can conclude that the three types of tests are measuring incommensurate quantities and therefore [we] should not be at all surprised when the values for the same technologies vary widely and unpredictably over the three types of tests. Brother Big (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Brother Big (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Brother Big (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Brother Big (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Brother Big (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Aadhaar Oct-2013

The contents on Aadhaar were removed from the UIDAI page by some people on the logic that Aadhaar related info is not suitable there, and the UIDAI page should contain only the UIDAI Departmental info only.

Hence the removed contents have been moved here on this page - Aadhaar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishyam Bangalore ([[1]] • [[2]]) 08:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Now signing it. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it started with a blank page (only REDIRECT TO UIDAI page was existing there) and it is not even one week old page, therefore please give some time to develop it. Until then calling as an Advt will be prejudice.

Ravishyam Bangalore ([[3]]) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Aadhaar

Hi Ruby Murray,

I developed the article "Aadhaar" from scratch. It was a blank redirect page to UIDAI. The development was done in bits & pieces from 27-Oct-2013 to 18-Nov-2013 (about 3 weeks). I have spent considerable time and effort.

You Ruby Murray (Soham Banerjee) also helped me a lot in making the sentences neutral, editing, formatting etc. which I acknowledged by thanking you.

Today I noticed by work of 3 weeks vandalized - made blank page redirect to [page] which has almost no constructive content (against the spirit of encyclopedia to permeate knowledge).

My contribution from UIDAI pages were deleted in October-2013 on the ground that my contents belonged to 'Aadhaar' program, whereas 'UIDAI' page should contain Organization related content only. I agreed to this logic, hence developed the 'Aadhaar' page from scratch. The traces of development is present on the wiki-server for records. http://indiandefaulter.co.in/aadhaar-card-detail/

Please help.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the same message you posted 10 minutes ago at [[4]], and at your own talk page. Are you saying that User:Sohambanerjee1998 and I are the same person, posting under two different accounts? And if you're trying to send me a message, then why haven't you bothered to post at my talk page? Ruby Murray 10:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I explained something similar to this user. As well as warned him on his talk page.Notabede (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just protected this page for one week. Please discuss the matter here instead of continually reverting each other about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD for content blocked User:Ravishyam_Bangalore

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.

---

Note - Discussion originally continued from here new link.

I do not agree that work of the above user should be used as starting point for this article. I also need to be convinced that this article is substantially different/notable from UIDAI to which all "Aadhaar" pages are presently redirected as per independent consensus of many past editors spanning many years.Notabede (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left a reply on your talk page also. If you came here first then I recommend that you read it first and then continue here. I also added a note below the name of the section for new members coming to join the discussion.

First I would like to reply to your statement redirected as per independent consensus of many past editors spanning many years. On what basis are independent consensus of many past editors? In the past there have been only 2 complete blanking (except that of yours). Links are - First one by Bwilkins and the second one by the bot ClueBot NG. The first one was because the article was too short at that time & might have seemed copy of UIDAI. The 2nd was reverted by the bot as vandalism, which is of course wrong. I don't know if someone had reported about it at that time. It was then started to be expanded again by Ravishyam Bangalore on 28 October 2013 and then you removed this version of the article. It is in no way a copy of UIDAI since it is much more longer and has more info too. The difference between UIDAI and Aadhar is too obvious. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is a government agency in New Delhi that serves as the issuing authority for Aadhaar unique identification numbers (UIDs) and cards (See here). Why I want the article to be back in sandbox is because it has a lot of relevant data and from there those points which are non-neutral can be removed to fine tune it. - Jayadevp13 08:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

TLDR The version of Aadhar text you insist on using is littered with POV pushing, Original Research, Promotional text directly copy-vio'ed from UIDAI's website and also some blatant lies. That user is blocked for POV pushing and edit warring in UIDAI and Aadhar related articles. In any case, Aadhar is merely a 12 digit number issued by UIDAI, and as such does not merit a separate article of its own. The entire thrust of the article developed by "R_B" was fallacious and deceptive to create a fork of the then existing UIDAI article. NB: you have also used some language on my talk page which shows that you cannot edit in a neutral way when it comes to this article. Take care.Notabede (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Too Long Didn't Read??? You yourself tell on your talk page that the content will not be added back without discussing to reach a consensus and you are not ready to read the points that I have written so painstakingly? You again and again say that RB used to due POV pushing but let me ask you, aren't you doing the same by not lending ear to my views? Do you even know the meaning of original research or what? You say the article is full of original research but a total of 161 references have been cited as sources. You say that Aadhar is just a 12-digit no. and hence doesn't need a separate article. Then why don't you just go and nominate all the articles of {{National identification numbers}} for deletion just for being mere numbers? How do you think that I cannot edit the article in a neutral way? Again and again you are saying that RB was blocked for POV pushing. But I am saying that I don't care about it. The data used in his article is good and I want to use it as a base for improving it. it would be impossible to do that without keeping it at a place where other editors can also contribute. Your attitude is highly unco-operative and I am reporting it here so that they can take a look. - Jayadevp13 14:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Notabede: Rather than reverting against consensus and requesting protection to your version, you should either try to reach consensus or drop the stick. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is with regard to the decision by Toddst1 that the discussion should be further continued here rather than at WP:ANI section Aadhar.

There is no such decision. Don't use weasel words. The decision text is as follows This is a content dispute on a highly POV topic. The basics of WP:DR have not been pursued (yet). The request to ban the OP's target is frivolous. No administrator action appropriate at this time. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC). In other words the finding is against you and your frivolous actions.Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the decision made by Toddst1 which reads as "Here's a suggestion: Get a discussion on the talk page. If numerous editors are in agreement that a change should be made, one outlier will not corrupt consensus. Once that is achieved, the article should be edited - even if it is protected. Toddst1 (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)" - Jayadevp13 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose that everyone give their decision (in support, oppose or neutral) regarding reinstatement of the content removed by Notabede.

I restored the article to the last stable version. A clear point version which had held the field for over 2 years. The same was done as per several policies including WP:PREFER while seeking page protection. That clear point is the 2+ year redirect to UIDAI.Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that simply because an article was redirect for 2 years is no valid reason for it not being developed in future. For example, there is already a redirect article 2032 Summer Olympics, but it will surely be developed in future. - Jayadevp13 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Links that might be useful are:

• New link to initial discussion on Notabede's talk page

As this frivolous discussion on my user talk page (also containing personal attacks on me) was deleted by me, 'Jayadevp' has no business resurrecting it on his talk page. This is another example of the personal attacks he is making on me.Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how it's a personal attack but I agree that you have full right to remove it if you think so. The content was originally hosted in Wikipedia and I believe it's fully valid to copy it to somewhere else. I just copied it to my talk page since it's automatically archived and if it's needed in future then it can be found easily by using the search box in my archive box. I didn't mean any offence. - Jayadevp13 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• The above discussion
• Discussion at WP:ANI

The decision on which was that 'Jayadevp' action to report me was frivolous.Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As I replied earlier, what Toddst1 said at the end is what I want to quote. - Jayadevp13 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I particularly invite these people who were part of the article modification and discussion: User:Ravishyam Bangalore, User:Mark Arsten, User:EVula, User:Royalrajasthan2013, User:Derek R Bullamore, User:Ruby Murray, User:Randhirreddy User:2Awwsome and User:Epicgenius. Please invite others too if I have missed someone (those editors who came here just for gen fixes have not been mentioned). - Jayadevp13 12:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Inviting an indefinitely blocked user to comment? Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning (to 'Jayadevp13' for disruptive editing and personal attacks). What exactly are we "voting" on here ? The "highly POV" content inserted in am essentially uninterrupted series of rapid-fire edits by a user who was indefinitely blocked for it ? Or my refusal to be drawn into an unproductive discussion with a frivolous and uncivil editor who keeps making personal attacks. This is without prejudice to my contention that Notabedes action to restore to a clear point which held the field for 2+ years after a series of highly POV edits by an indefinitely blocked user cannot be voted on here (but ought to be done on some WP:DR notice board.Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I initially thought that RB had full rights to defend what he did. But only later did I remember that he can edit only his own talk page & not any one else. If according to you I am disruptive then I too can call you disruptive according to some definitions of it at WP:DE. We are voting here on the decision whether the contents should be inserted back for modification. It was Todsst1's suggestion that the discussion be continued here. I thought vote would be better since we are simply fighting. We both are right according to ourselves so I thought let third parties decide. If you want the matter to be pursued at WP:DR. It's purely your wish. - Jayadevp13 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Vote

• Support - As per the reasons I gave at all the three places. - Jayadevp13 12:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons given on this page, and for the additional reason that there is no rationale for this article in the first place considering that Aadhaar is merely a random 12 digit number issued by the subject of the redirect (whose only function is to issue that number).Notabede (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

No copyright violations

This is just a sort of extension to the the previous section. I wanted to tell that I found no copyright violations in the latest (this version) of the article. Checked with the help of Copyvio Detector. - Jayadevp13 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The other editor you had the dispute with appears as blocked for arguing with an admin over number of reverts he was "entitled" to on another article Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The challenge to the long version of this article is that it is "highly POV" promotional for the Unique Identification Authority of India and is primarily sourced from that authority's website instead of from reliable secondary sources. Equally, it appears that the 3rd editor who wrote this "highly POV" article was also indefinitely blocked.Unfitlouie (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor wasn't blocked for arguing with an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I see now the editor was temporarily blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and then indefinitely for arguing/warring with the blocking admin. Still; the change made by Jayadevp13 to restore controversial text without agreement of numerous editors as directed by you is improper.Unfitlouie (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Unfitlouie: See Todst1's reply. He wasn't blocked for arguing to an admin. You said that the challenge was .... But did you verify them? See the references section in this version of the article. Do you see only links from UIDAI? No. Even though primary sources have been used, secondary & tertiary sources have also been used. See the reasons in the edit summary given by Notabede the first time he removed the content. They are as follows - Duplicate article with a wrong spelling created by editor for POV pushing. and Original Research. How can you call it original research when 161 references were provided? What duplicate entry is he talking about? I asked these questions on his talk page but he didn't give a reply. The spelling is the same as in the references. Could you please explain me how is it POV pushing? I am telling you the truth I really fail to understand how it's POV pushing when both sides of the topic have been covered (positive impact as well as the problems faced). I would be highly grateful if you please explain it to me properly. The 3rd editor was originally blocked for making legal threats. The article was being developed by multiple editors before the contents were removed by Notabede saying that it was a stable redirect for 2 years and it should remain the same. There is no reason why an article shouldn't be expanded in future. How do you explain that? The entire content removal by Notabede were due to frivolous reasons and hence should be restored immediately. - Jayadevp13 01:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Please keep a look at this article until the problem is fully solved. Admin help and opinions might be required. - Jayadevp13 01:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

In October 2013 the 3rd editor also edit warred with me on Unique Identification Authority of India, ie. Aadhaar, over Original Research, non-neutral content and Self Published primary text from the UID website. All the controversial text of the blocked 3rd editor is removed from the article which now appears to be concise, reasonably well sourced and thankfully free from his bizarre edit warring.Unfitlouie (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@Unfitlouie: See the section Aadhaar Oct-2013. RB came here after that and started developing the article properly and reliably. See, you didn't answer my questions. Simply because an editor was at edit war somewhere else, it is no reason why all his contributons should be removed. You yourself had been edit warring at Supreme Court of India with Wb10versinfo and Uncletomwood. It may or may not be for a good reason. So should all your edits should also be removed? Please give a properly reply to my earlier questions before saying anything else. - Jayadevp13 02:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, I had already said to Toddst1 about my reverting of Notabede's last edit here. See for yourself. If you do not reply within 36 hours 24 hours (by 03:10 12 December 2013 UTC) I will revert your edit too since it's baseless and without proper & detailed explanation. Only if you do not reply. Otherwise ignore this message. - Jayadevp13 03:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Be CIVIL in your interactions with other editors and do not threaten to edit war. The present status for this article requires agreement of numerous editors for any change to be made. This article is replete with copyright contraventions which primitive tools like earwig's Copy vio detector cannot spot. It needs considerable expertise to use such tools. I am perfectly willing to assist for copy vio detection on this article when an environment for civil discussion prevails.Turnitinpro (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Before addressing the copyright vio aspects, do you propose that the article version being thrust by you extensively references and promotes sources such as these [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], ? Turnitinpro (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Turnitinpro: At first I would like to say sorry for my very late reply. I was suffering from a severe headache day before yesterday and BSNL chose not to let me connect to internet yesterday. You don't know but I am trying to be as civil as I can. I am not joking! This thing has really given me a headache. First Notabede came and then Unfitlouie to stall the development of the article with frivolous reasons as I explained above. I kept the 24 hour deadline for him to reply since I thought he might have been unaware of the problems faced by the arguments given by Notabede and might have come here thinking Notabede was right. But the irony is that I myself was not able to come here for 2 days. At last I found you whose arguments seem to be legit. I would be highly grateful to you if you help me in removing the copyright violations if any. One of the primary reasons why I wanted to restore the article as I explained to Notabede was that there was a lot of data in the article and corrections and other improvements can be made once it's restored. Since there are many links that you have listed above, would you be kind enough to tell what exactly do you want me to go through them before I really go through them? Once the article is restored, we can immediately start the development work. - Jayadevp13 06:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That quite OK. My short answer is that the content should not be restored at one go, ie. if it has to be restored at all. My long answer is that in addition to dubious sourcing, the reverted article is also heavily derived from primary sources such as the Aadhar's websites. So even after we remove the dubious sources, and ALL the information sourced from UID websites, we are then left with a very selective set of newspaper references chosen by an editor who is indefinitely blocked for contravening Wikipedia's core NPOV policy on this topic.

Now concerning your own conduct, frankly it beats me how you can justify your repeated reversions to reinsert such slanted content without consensus, especially when this article has been recently protected against edit warring. You have also repeatedly imputed motives to other editors on talk pages. Notice on the talk page of the blocked editor Notabede constitutes no notice at all. Your past action to report Notabede was also found "frivolous". I also can't quite see here how Unfitlouie's comments are frivolous or were to "stall" this article. Is there anything about the phrase agreement of numerous editors or Always Assume Good Faith which is unclear or ambiguous ? If anybody is behaving in a disruptive way and deserves to be blocked it is you.

FYI, I've just completed a Good Article review on the article Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Notabede's analysis/reverts there was quite accurate, and the nominator (whom Notabede was blocked for edit warring on that article with) did not even turn up to defend that equally non-neutral, promotional and poorly sourced article. I propose to the blocking Admin (if he's watching this talk page) that Notabeede be unblocked to carry on this dialog with Jayadevp13.Turnitinpro (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Turnitinpro: That's OK with me too. We can use google/bing to search for additional links which can be used as references. We will start with the introduction and then continue downwards one by one.

Regarding my conduct - I restored the content twice with proper explanation I believe. It was Notabede who wasn't answering my questions properly and pushing his own views instead (like Aadhaar is a mere no., it doesn't deserve an article etc.). If he had did it properly earlier then I would have stopped it after the 1st attempt itself or we would have now been working constructively. You are saying that I am edit warring here. Wasn't it Notabede who was edit warring here actually? First with RB and then me. The article was protected upon his request to protect his version. I did report him to ANI and my request to ban him were termed frivolous. But what I wanted initially was admin attention of what he was doing and I got what I wanted. These comments by Unfitlouie were termed frivolous by me - The other editor you had the dispute with appears as blocked for arguing with an admin over number of reverts he was "entitled" to on another article Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and not the ones you told of course. Should I be blocked for asking genuine questions to clarify my doubts like "How exactly is it POV pushing?" and "Why do you think it is original research?"

Regarding MGNREGA - I am not interested in it's good article status. Why should Notabede be unblocked? Just because his reasons for removing the content were right (not sure about that too)? He was involved in an edit war there too and his unblock request was also rejected. He could have gone to WP:ANI or WP:CP. Why did he edit war. If he is unblocked then RB should be unblocked too so that he can continue the discussion with Notabede. I came here afterwards just like you did. What beats me is the efforts you are putting in to defend Notabede's actions. - Jayadevp13 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jayadevp: I am not here either to argue with you or to answer a laundry list of pointed questions posed to everybody who disagrees with you. Your behavior is uncivil and focuses on the conduct and past actions of other editors instead of the content at hand. I have observed that over a considerable period of time 5 editors have preferred the redirect of this article to Unique Identification Authority of India. Recently a fairly longish (25,000 bytes) version of this article (Ravishyam_Bangalore seemed prone to salting duplicate copies of his articles all across Wikipedia under different titles) was also similarly redirected there [21] by a 6th editor.

It is abundantly clear that you are an outlier here and are repeatedly Edit Warring (Talk page edits are also warring) by disregarding and distorting the suggestion of Toddsl1 - agreement of numerous editors before restoring Ravishyam_Bangalore's content. You also need to listen more. Did I concur this article would be restored for "improving" it ? That's quite OK was with respect to your delay in replying.

To summarise, when faced with 2 extreme versions of this article, I would select the one which does least harm to Wikipedia - ie. the REDIRECT. Good articles at Wikipedia are built slowly through consensus of multiple contributing editors.Turnitinpro (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Turnitinpro: Yes! They are a set of questions that I pose to every person who disagrees with me. If even one could take his/her time to answer then this discussion might not have continued this long. I focus on "conduct and past actions of other editors instead of the content at hand"? I didn't understand. The content on hand is this Aadhaar article then why are you telling me about MGNREA and other articles created by RB? Edit warring on talk page? Please explain. I said OK to your saying "the content should not be restored at one go . . . ." and not the one that you are thinking. The thing that makes you different from Notabede is your acceptance that an article for this topic can indeed be created.

Please don't call me arrogant for saying this but I literally do not have time & energy to argue with anyone here. I am really busy in my real life. You can even see that in my contributions. I had last edited on 15 Dec. 2013 and came back only yesterday. - Jayadevp13 05:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoring this article to the redirect

With recent IP edits to this article geolocating to Uttar Pradesh (where blocked user Jayadevp13 edits from), the continued lack of relevant discussion between editors to achieve consensus, the ignoring of lengthy prior discussion and administrator instructions that agreement of editors is needed to restore / work on this highly controversial article, the ignoring of the repeated warnings by administrators to Ravishyam_Banglore on his talk page while he was blocked to pay careful attention to NPOV, especially when he was unblocked, the evidence of off-wiki communications between Ravishyam_Bangalore and Jayadeva13 for this article [22], and the overwhelming amount of evidence on Wikipedia and also in public domain [23], [24] that Ravishyam_Bangalore is a known POV pusher and SPA for this article who is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by his repeated POV pushing, I am restoring the redirect. The entire content of this unencyclopedic article is disputed (as POV pushing) as it consists of unsourced / wrongly sourced / mischievously worded text which contradicts the sources cited and is POV pushing to suit the author's agenda and reads like a bulletin for the Aadhar agency from where most of this article is sourced. If this article has to be restored, it must be done from scratch, with consensus and to strictly comply with Wikipedia policies.Unfitlouie (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar Jan-2014

Hello,

I have removed the primary citations which were mostly additional. Added a few secondary citations. A few primary citations could not be removed because they have fundamental information; not available as secondary source e.g. Aadhaar Number System document.

People are invited to improve and develop this article further in a constructive manner.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jayadevp13, Bhutes, Wikiuser13, Soham and others, please help improve and develop this article.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted all your edits and restored the redirect. Please see the discussion which took place while you were blocked. If you are unable to edit Wikipedia in terms of core policies you are very likely to be blocked permanently. Unfitlouie (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the contents. Why should we make this large article a redirect. We can removed disputed contents.--Wikiuser13 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion. The entire content (especially see analysis of Turntinpro) is disputed. Unfitlouie (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikiuser13 You have twice reverted my edits without discussion taking place, and are therefore edit warring. Simply adding a tag to the article does not permit disputed text to stay on the page. You have restored unsourced text or copyright violations pointed out by other editors on this talk page. The numerals attached to the end of your username, caused me to run this test [25] which shows a high correlation of edits between you and another contributor with the same numerals who made the identical changes as you. So assuming your good faith, please edit cautiously and factor Wikipedia's policies including on meatpuppetry. Unfitlouie (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Unfitlouie: Please be constructive and help to improve the article. Making the article blank by redirection is destruction. I have done some improvements, and will do further in few weeks. Call for vote / consensus / administrator but do not be destructive.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You still don't understand Wikipedia's policies. Please understand that you don't get to select which editors can edit this article. And also you simply cannot revert my edit of 10 December 2013 1 month later [26] with a rude edit summary like this Reverted. No changes be made without Consensus. Else we call in Administrator. and especially after you were indefinitely blocked for precisely this sort of behavior. Unfitlouie (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@user:unfitlouie: Please talk of problems para-wise. We will resolve one by one. Please build consensus. Blanking info thru Redisrection is disruptive.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This ENTIRE article is badly sourced, is sourced from Aadhar Agency website, or Aadhar agency publicity materials and is clearly POV pushing on your part. You were unblocked after being warned about the NPOV policy. This article may be restored if it is notable and deserves an article of its own, but not with your POV text as the base. There is nothing wrong with the redirect, it leads the reader to an unbiased article about Aadhaar's issuing agency as User:Ruby_Murray also did to you here [27]. Unfitlouie (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar 17-Jan-2014

Hello Wikiusers,

In order to improve the article further, I request people to contribute some pictures / images of Aadhaar letter and related items.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

The following table displays the progress of assigned AN (state-wise). The up-to-date information is available on the official website of UIDAI.

Table of assigned Aadhaar Number (AN)

Serial	State / Union Territory	Population (2011)	Assigned AN	% of population
	INDIA	1,210,593,422	574,413,712	47.44%
1	Maharashtra	112,372,972	82,259,625	73.20%
2	Andhra Pradesh	84,665,533	78,415,935	92.62%
3	Tamil Nadu	72,138,958	42,895,015	59.46%
4	Madhya Pradesh	72,597,565	41,352,957	56.96%
5	Karnataka	61,130,704	40,630,181	66.46%
6	Rajasthan	68,621,012	37,492,936	54.64%
7	West Bengal	91,347,736	33,316,837	36.47%
8	Kerala	33,387,677	29,877,230	89.48%
9	Jharkhand	32,966,238	25,432,956	77.15%
10	Gujarat	60,383,628	24,806,151	41.08%
11	Punjab	27,704,236	23,252,502	83.93%
12	Uttar Pradesh	199,581,477	22,713,350	11.38%
13	Haryana	25,753,081	17,566,854	68.21%
14	Odisha	41,947,358	17,358,365	41.38%
15	Delhi	16,753,235	16,491,029	98.43%
16	Himachal Pradesh	6,856,509	6,334,821	92.39%
17	Bihar	103,804,637	5,862,905	5.65%
18	Tripura	3,671,032	3,111,570	84.76%
19	Chhattisgarh	25,540,196	2,339,186	9.16%
20	Uttarakhand	10,116,752	2,138,852	21.14%
21	Goa	1,457,723	1,327,125	91.04%
22	Puducherry	1,244,464	1,129,031	90.72%
23	Jammu and Kashmir	12,548,926	1,077,829	8.59%
24	Manipur	2,721,756	931,038	34.21%
25	Chandigarh	1,054,686	909,285	86.21%
26	Nagaland	1,980,602	812,730	41.03%
27	Others	0	654,836	NA
28	Sikkim	607,688	543,880	89.50%
29	Dadra and Nagar Haveli	342,853	178,319	52.01%
30	Andaman and Nicobar Islands	379,944	162,265	42.71%
31	Daman and Diu	242,911	158,489	65.25%
32	Assam	31,169,272	55,316	0.18%
33	Lakshadweep	64,429	48,771	75.70%
34	Arunachal Pradesh	1,382,611	12,015	0.87%
35	Meghalaya	2,964,007	10,811	0.36%
36	Mizoram	1,091,014	10,208	0.94%

Ankurt.kanpur (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)  Done

This has apparently been added by another user, who never marked the request as "answered". Joefromrandb (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar Sep-2014

Who is afraid of Aadhaar & why? As of Sep-2014, over 67 crore people (56% of population) have been assigned Aadhaar and 85 crore (70%) enrolled. As the public databases are getting interlinked one by one thru Aadhaar number in various states, we see the following effects: 1. Govt employees cannot remain absent. Jharkhand govt Aadhaar biometric attendance is the best example. 2. Cheats cannot hold more than one tax PAN to evade taxes and commit other frauds. 3. Middlemen & officials cannot continue with corruption in social welfare pensions, scholarships, public health, NREGA, subsidy on PDS ration, kerosene, LPG etc. 4. Ineligible, duplicate and ghost beneficiaries cannot steal from public welfare programs. 5. Corrupts cannot buy & sell benami land & building. 6. Corrupts cannot operate benami companies for money-laundering. 7. Corrupts cannot operate benami bank accounts for black-money & money-laundering. 8. Criminals, illegal immigrants & terrorists cannot hide anymore, will get detected and tracked easily. 9. Criminals cannot hide as records are getting accessible to police from anywhere. 10. Blood-sucking moneylenders (interest rate 20% to 30% pm) will lose to Aadhaar-enabled bank-lending. 11. Poor farmers will not commit suicide after falling in debt-trap of moneylenders and Ponzi schemes. 12. One cannot get another driving license and arms license once it gets impounded. 13. Black-marketers cannot hoard and resell public resources at premium. 14. Proxy people cannot write exams and cast bogus vote. 15. Ineligible people cannot misuse certificates of low income, domicile, education degrees and caste. 16. People cannot get multiple voter cards and ration cards from multiple places.

Aadhaar March-2014

Hello User:Ohconfucius,

Aadhaar is a semi-protected article as it faced lot of vandalism and Sock-puppetry in the past.

Some of your edits have been reverted. The reasons were explained to you on my talk page in the last few days. You could not answer to my queries satisfactorily. You did not agree to build consensus before making changes.

Your major single change of +790 bytes is still there which needs to broken into smaller changes and some changes need not be done. Therefore I request you to do it by your self building consensus with me and others.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon,

1. Some of your changes got undone due to collateral damage. I will try to correct it. 2. Some of your changes made the intended meaning of my sentences opposite. We can discuss and bring changes.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, those sentences don't belong to you. If my interpretation of your grammar was wrong, you should correct it. I will restore the extensive work that I did in trying to turn your writing into good English and Wikipedia style. Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Undoing here did have some collateral damage this time, since I undid your latest additions and changes as well. They are too complicated for me to try to understand and reproduce, but you can't just bulk undo the work of all your collaborators who are trying to help with grammar and styling and plow ahead with your malformed writing. Please slow down, and say here if there is anything in particular that I or others have done that you disagree with. Your vague statement that "Some of your changes made the intended meaning of my sentences opposite" is not helpful. It was not my intention to reverse any meaning, so if I have done so you need to point that out. In the mean time, stop with the undoing of all help, and let's try to understand what you think is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Before you attempt this edit again, please be aware that headings in wikipedia use sentence case, not title case. And we also don't randomly capitalize words for emphasis or whatever; see MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please say why you keep changing spellings to the American English form. Would not British/Indian spellings be more appropriate in an article about a topic with a strong national tie to India, per WP:ENGVAR? Dicklyon (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems from the extensive discussion on RB's talk page that RB doesn't agree with WP:ENGVAR, but has so far chosen not to heed my request to discuss it there. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon, I had responded to you yesterday. I agreed to your most edits. Anything unanswered?

Requested you to undo my edit revert. I am awaiting as I have to update. Please do the needful. 

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon,

Request you to undo my edit revert. I am awaiting as I have to update. Please do the needful. 

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon, I had responded to you yesterday. I agreed to your most edits. Anything unanswered?

Requested you to undo my edit revert. I am awaiting as I have to update. Please do the needful. 

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I already put back your data update. I don't see anything else that needs changing. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon,

R u there?

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am here. I didn't understand the odd requests above. What is it you want undone? Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Dicklyon, I have been referring to restore (Reverted to revision 601484804 by Ravishyam Bangalore (talk): Revert until after he acknowledges talk page discussion and abides by it.) of my edit pointed by diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aadhaar&diff=601564827&oldid=601553460. I hope it is pin-pointed. User talk:Ohconfucius did restore one table but not the other parts and table. My request is for these restore.

I agree to your suggestion and guidelines on use of lower case as per wiki policies. Now I feels it looks good to see the pages. My sincere thanks to you, Ohc and user:Tony1 for improving me. I must pay attention other rules beyond content creation. I have been a reader of Wikipedia for the past 15 years. However, I began my contribution since Aug 2013 with contents. I may need more guidance from you veterans in future for creative and collaborative good articles.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

After Ohc did some restore today, I completed the rest manually. I took considerable time to restore manually.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy

This article and others, like Voter ID (India), read like advocacy for the Aadhaar system, rather than neutral reporting on it. Does anyone have a good idea how to get the attention of some more neutral and knowledgeable editors to come in and try to fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As stated, Aadhaar has thousands of applications - existing and future in the form of hardware, software and processes. Aadhaar being a general ID, is is compared and linked with other ID articles like PAN, voter id, ration card etc. so that the spirit of wikipedia is maintained. We do see a banner on Voter ID article put by someone requesting linking with other articles.

Regards, Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar Apr-2014

Some sample pictures of Aadhaar letter / card is required to make the article better.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

New table template

Template:India document comparison

Opinion on adding some more important parameters in the above table, if any, are welcome.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph you added starting with "The identities given in the following table are meant for its specific use." doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon : Let me try improving it below. Please feel free to tell if still not clear:

The identities given in the following table were devised for its specific use as explained below. In the absence of any general purpose identity like Aadhaar, people started using these identities for general purpose despite various deficiencies, e.g. PAN card is not accepted as proof of address due to absence of address on the PAN card, driving license and passport cannot be verified at the point of general service etc. The perusal and analysis of the identities from the viewpoint of people, process, tools and technology while authentication show its strength and weaknesses as general purposes identity, hence its acceptability as general purposes identity.

Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Aadhaar June-2014

Aadhaar is large and stable article with over 300 citations, thus well source. Vested interest people must refrain from blanking it by redirection. Next such attempt will be reported to Administrator for punitive action. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is upset with Aadhaar - the social security number of India? The corrupts, fraudsters, illegal money lenders and launderers in India as they fear to be traced. Ravishyam Bangalore (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN the article and your edits are highly promotional. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 17:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 September 2014

Deleting the page on Aadhaar, a highly discussed topic in India, is a ridiculous act to do and is dead against the moto of Wikipedia. Please don’t keep it locked and Wikipedia can take help form eligible editors to modify the page. Ipoll7 (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It has not been deleted. Page currently redirects to Unique Identification Authority of India, seems more appropriate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 September 2014

Indeed, page on Aadhaar has not been deleted but is being redirected to Unique Identification Authority of India. Kindly note that these two are functionally different entities. One is the authority issuing UID and another one is the implication of that UID. UIDAI has not had much change other than revised enrollment target, and additional fund allocation, since its establishment. On the other hand Aadhaar has many success and failures, and makes news in Indian media almost every day since new government took charge. So, Aadhaar deserves an additional page, and has enough content too. Blocking that(or redirecting) till September 2015 seems to be unfair and denying information to public who turn to Wikipedia to get a view on many things is highly unethical too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipoll7 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 September 2014

The post in talk page on Aadhaar has no response as of now. What should an ordinary individual who had voluntarily contributed to Wikipedia have to assume in this scenario? Wikipedia, which stands for democratization of knowledge, had blocked a page, Aadhaar, which is one of the widely discussed topic relevant to every one in six of the world’s human population, the Indian citizens. It could primarily be inferred that the page was blocked, due to few so called editors who are either against or in favor of the scheme called Aadhaar. It is pretty clear that most of the editors involved in this are not for the principles and mottos of Wikipedia, and the administrators haven’t responded to the previous query which could be answered, just by following the ‘vandalism war’ happened with that page itself. As I believe, Wikipedia is as democratic as the part of the world, where Aadhaar is being implemented, everything will have multiple perceptions, opinions and outlook and thereby Wikipedia could have a proper mechanism to deal with that. For a common man, or editors of Wikipedia, it is easy to create a page in any name related to that scheme and furnish the details and link it to the presently diverted page UIDAI. But that is not the right way of implementing the democracy, which Wikipedia stands for. Of course there will be oppositions in democracies and they can delete that page too. But, due to the activities of one editor, who seems so childish, called RavishyamBangalore and those who oppose him, Wikipedia should not have locked a page which is as simple as a scheme of government. Please give a thought and respond. Ipoll7 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Please change divert to UIDAI, so that it is developed as an independent page. Please remove the locked status till 2015 September to a reasonably shorter period. Please allow eminent editors of Wikipedia to edit that page and avoid controversies. Ipoll7 (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes to be article should be discussed on this page and backed by consensus. To request unprotecting, try WP:RFPP in a week or so. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The existing redirect page is about the organization which issues Aadhaar. It will not be fine to add about the information about Aadhaar on this page.

As a reply to User:MSGJ the specific change needed is to remove the redirect and to develop it as an independent page.

To point out, few topics like

• Basic features
• Eligibility criteria
• Registration process
• Architecture
• Implications
• Security concerns
• Government directives
• Future prospects

are desirable. Ipoll7 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And that is where the problem lies here. We are not writing a manual - topics like 'Eligibility criteria', 'registration process', 'architecture', 'implications', 'security concerns', 'government directives' are inappropriate. Also the 'Future prospects' is inappropriate, because we are also not a crystal ball. If you think that you can write an article that is following our inclusion (and exclusion) standards then please write User:Ipoll7/Aadhaar according to those standards, and get consensus here to overwrite this article (history merge). If you wish, you can start from this version of the article, but likely over 90% of that is utterly not suitable for an encyclopedia article and should go (e.g. sections 2, 4, 5, 7 to 20 can practically be completely removed (some info be merged into the remainder, but some sections are wholesale inappropriate), mostly per the different exclusion criteria in 'What Wikipedia is not'), the rest needs a rewrite). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned-up the version of page suggested by Dirk Beetstra with few recent updates.

@Ipoll7 please use the cleaned-up version User:Ipoll7/Aadhaar for further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlisco (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem in supporting this draft. I think we should compulsorily mention about the charges of scam. But first I would like to know what LeoFrank has to say. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I still feel that there are details in there that are beyond Wikipedia - but then, an article does not have to be perfect from the beginning either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some corrections to the version by Marlisco and am submitting for revisions. As mentioned by OccultZone I have done an internet search to get details of the scam. Details of that, other than the sting operation by cobrapost.com is not available. Wikipedia page on UIDAI mentions a scam related to land allocation but found having no relation with Aadhaar. That details regarding the agency,UIDAI issuing Aadhaar could be included in this page too. Please update with the available information.

Dirk Beetstra, please suggest the necessary corrections Ipoll7 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)