Draft talk:India Research Watch

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

I was approached by a member of the Indian Research Watchdog (IRW), to draft this article. This person was an acquaintance of mine, whom I had met at an event in New York City. I have received no payment or other financial benefit for its creation. My only connection to IRW is this personal acquaintance; I hold no formal role, interest, or other material relationship with the organization. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Striking off the above statement. As of July 28, 2025, I am an active member of the said organization. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Request to remove tag for specific Categories

Hey, just wanted to request a removal of the categories tag on this article, I do not think its needed. Also can you add the following citations as well?

after The group monitors cases of suspected research fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, and related malpractice reported anonymously

please cite the times article: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/penalise-retraction-hotspot-universities-says-integrity-tsar

at the end of activities section also please mention,

At present, IRW is actively engaged in identifying AI-generated falsified results and detecting image manipulation in published research by Indian academics, while also conducting training programs on ethical research practices.

Reference: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/research-papers-retractions-india-skyrocketed-achal-agrawal-interview/article70388758.ece

I generally avoid overly embellished articles, but it is important to highlight this work by our organization, as our efforts extend beyond retraction analysis and issues related to fraud in institutional rankings. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the category tag, i will let others review the additions requested. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Flyingphoenixchips I have reviewed this request and you can go ahead and implement it as proposed, provided you use the {{cite news}} template to fill out the citations (including author, title, publication date, etc.). Best, Spencer^T•C 07:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanksǃ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Restore deletion

@Newslinger this page should not have been deprodded in the manner that it was. LLM prods should be restored to userspace, and an editor who's editing is so disruptive as to merit a preventative block from articlespace simply cannot assume the required total responsibility for content intended to be in articlespace. If they could then they would not be blocked.

Additionally WP:LLMPRVOBJ was not followed, all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines has not been met.

• IRW was founded in 2022 by Achal Agrawal fails verification to the source, a later source used in the article actually gives a 2018 date
• an engineer and research scientist who earned a PhD at the Paris-Saclay University fails verification
• This article was among the earliest in Indian media to discuss the country’s retraction rates in academic publishing fails verification
• while also conducting training programmes on ethical research practices fails verification

There are likely more WP:V and WP:BALASP issues, but I don't wish to spend more time performing a review of generated content that LLMPRV was meant to alleviate. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I should also state that LLMPRVOBJ isn't a backdoor to existing guidelines either, if the originator of generated content wants to assume responsibility, they must entirely rewrite any model-derived content as WP:NOLLM is one of the PAGs the content must be ensured to meet. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four, I originally restored this article to draft space, which WP:LLMPRVOBJ appears to allow for ("If the article has already been deleted, any editor may request its undeletion, provided they also do the above shortly thereafter"). Looking at the page history, I see that Flyingphoenixchips made a number of edits and then submitted the draft for review, after which it was declined by Nomadwikiholic1 for inadequate sourcing. Flyingphoenixchips then resubmitted the draft, which was accepted this time by Aeon Sentinel.

@Aeon Sentinel: Do you have any comments on the failed verification in this article, in light of the history of the article's history of being deleted via WP:LLMPROD? — Newslinger talk 22:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC); copyedited 23:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Newslinger! My read was that the sources established notability, and that the problems, while present, are not grounds for decline per WP:IMPERFECT. I agree with you, as I read this now, that LLMPROD history was a reason to look more scrupulous than I did. That said, I probably should have tagged it with cleanup templates - that was sloppy job on my side. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Best regards,
Aeon Sentinel (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NPP performs a second check of newly published articles, so you're right that the draft does not have to be perfect to be published. Thanks for taking another look.​ — Newslinger talk 06:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The sentence immediately prior prescribes userfying pages. This is because individual editors assume responsibility for pages, and that is best done in their own userspace where other editors won't unknowingly edit or move a page to mainspace before LLMPRVOBJ has been satisfied.

There are also logical limits to what "any editor" means, LLMPRVOBJ requires editors assume responsibility, editors blocked from articlespace logically cannot assume responsibility for content meant for articlespace. There are also no provisions for surreptitiously delegating this responsibility to others such as AFC reviewers, as happened here with poor result. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The preceding sentence is "If the PROD timeframe is too short, editors are free to 'userfy' PRODed articles and remove the tag, provided that they do the above before moving them back to mainspace". However, in this situation, the article had already been deleted, so it is the sentence after ("If the article has already been deleted, any editor may request its undeletion, provided they also do the above shortly thereafter") that applies. The lead section of the guideline states that "Any editor can reverse a presumptive removal", and does not specify any restrictions against the original article creator or editors blocked from article space.

This draft was moved to article space because Flyingphoenixchips submitted it for review (twice). Userspace drafts are also submitted for review using the same template, so there is no difference with respect to the draft review process in this case. I suppose anyone could move this draft to Flyingphoenixchips's user space even now, but it is unclear what difference this would make (other than making it ineligible for WP:G13 if the {{AFC submission}} template is not present), as Flyingphoenixchips is still able to move it to draft space at any time.

If you did not want Flyingphoenixchips to be able to work on this draft at all, the place to express that view was the AI noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#Block appeal (Flyingphoenixchips) when it was still active, but the discussion has already run its course. — Newslinger talk 20:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

it is unclear what difference this would make – Undeleted pages have no obvious indication that they are subject to LLMPRVOBJ, and third-party draftspace editors may unwittingly edit such pages or prematurely move them into articlespace (AFC is optional). Userfying pages prevents these potential problems, and that is why the guideline, when explicit, prescribes userfying.

I maintain that editors who are blocked from articlespace cannot assume the required responsibility for LLM prodded content to be placed in articlespace. Any editor should be governed by reason. An overly permissive interpretation results in the activity seen here, or elsewhere. From 03:47 3 August to 4:15 Flyingphoenixchips supposedly manged to entirely review and correct the content of five refunded drafts before submitting them to AFC, that means in 28 minutes they reviewed 47 references and also found time to add 11 more, remarkable. I'm personally not sure if the resulting non-LLMPRVOBJ-compliant drafts still had issues as I don't feel like spending time performing the kinds of LLM-reviews that LLMPRV is meant to alleviate, but other editors seem to think they did . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added the {{AI-generated}} tag to the draft in Special:Diff/1367744052, which should make the article history more obvious. If you want WP:LLMPRVOBJ to prevent restored articles from being moved to draft space when undeletion is requested by the article creator, feel free to propose a change to the guideline. — Newslinger talk 23:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Newslinger and @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four I worked on the said article while talking with the organisation, especially the subject who is mentioned in the article. Just so you know this is also why I added a COI tag to it. I assure you that none of this was written with any form of AI assistance. Some of the stuff you mentioned that failed verification was perhaps because of the COI itself. And Indian media at most times do misrepresent facts so the date error is plausible. From what I am aware from being involved in the organisation is that the 2022 registration date is correct. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Flyingphoenixchips, based on your explanation, it sounds like you are writing the article backward, i.e. creating the content first and then finding sources to try to support it. I recommend moving this article back to draft space so that it can be rewritten to be based on the cited sources, because that is the only way to ensure compliance with the verifiability policy. When you write an article based on your communications with the article subject in this way, you are essentially conducting an interview with the article subject and using that as the source (without citing it), which is a form of original research. — Newslinger talk 22:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed to converting it to a draft so that I can work on it accordingly, instead of retrospectively fitting in sources. @Newslinger Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Please take your time to get the article into compliance with policy. There is no deadline for finishing a draft.​ — Newslinger talk 01:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Connected contributor template

Hi Flyingphoenixchips, in Special:Diff/1352737004, you removed your username from the {{Connected contributor}} template at the top of this talk page and replaced it with Mushupechkar786 (talk · contribs), a blocked sockpuppet account that does not appear to have ever made any edits related to India Research Watch. Could you please explain why you made this edit? — Newslinger talk 22:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Newslinger apologies for this. I was copying this from a separate article and failed to correct the same. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem. I see that you previously declined Mushupechkar786's draft submission around the same time as that edit, and that you had been disclosing your conflict of interest for over a month before that, so it looks like an accident. I have now restored the correct disclosure in Special:Diff/1367574098. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)