User talk:Name Defend IPA

Your inappropriate postings at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

Hello, Name Defend IPA. I am a Copyright problems clerk. Your continued commentary at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3 is inappropriate and disruptive. That discussion is closed. And never change the wording of another editors's comments as you did here. If you have further comments to make, you must make them elsewhere. Talk:India Against Corruption is closed to editors who are not auto-confirmed. I suggest you wait until your account is more than four days old and has a minimum of 10 edits, at which point you may post on the that talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My principal instructs me to say that the discussions were manipulated to ensure that the Complainant (who does not speak for my principal but complained independently) was not allowed to participate or assist the preliminary investigation.

My principal also instructs me to say that even if there are 100 intermediate books between the email and the on-page text in Wikipedia, the onus is solely on the alleged infringer / OSP to defend (and not on Dr. Meera Nanda whose book is copyrighted).

If you don't mind, it is far better that our 3 queries are directly viewable on the Copyvio page, and answered there, so as to avert yet another copyvio tag being placed on this article which states the infringed source to be the e-mail of 6.Apr.2011.

Your point about 4D+10E is noted. Name Defend IPA (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: your comments and complaints are beyond the scope of that closed investigation. As such they are disruptive. Do not post there again. If you or anyone else claiming to act for your "principal" or the IAC, or indeed anyone who is not a copyright clerk or an administrator continue to post there, I will bring the matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In addition to what Voceditenore wrote: "My principal instructs me to say that the discussions were manipulated to ensure that the Complainant (who does not speak for my principal but complained independently) was not allowed to participate or assist the preliminary investigation." Please read Wikipedia:ROLEACCOUNT. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Role Account here. I am speaking on my own behalf as Registrant of the TLD domain name "INDIAAGAINSTCORRUPTION.INFO" which is registered for the BRUENTRUP Organisation. Hence this is a formal voice for a proprietary interest. Name Defend IPA (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Actually, your username does not comply with the username policy. As such, I've blocked your account. The relevant section of tbe username policy is here: Wikipedia:Username#Usernames_implying_shared_use, where it says: Usernames that are names of posts within organizations, such as "Secretary of the XY Foundation", are not permitted, as such a post may be held by different persons at different times. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are advised to read again what I wrote at the other location "I am also the Intellectual Property Agent with "Name Defend - Institut für Geistiges Eigentum" in which the key terms would be "also", "the", "with". You have wrongly inferred that this means I am within the organization or hold any exclusive position in it. What would the policy be on say "Avon Lady" ?

You may also refer to "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person" and "Dealing with inappropriate usernames". As you have not taken any of the steps mentioned / advised in policy but straightaway blocked me, this reinforces your own statement that your administrative actions are liable to be called into question.Name Defend IPA (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to call them into question. I stand behind them. I've never interacted with you at all. When I said that, I was referring to my interactions with Lindashiers, as opining on the validity of the evidence for her assertions could be taken as involvement. But this is the only interaction I've had with you, so unless you're saying that you are the same person as the operator of the Lindashiers account (in which case your block would still be valid as a block-evading sockpuppet), I see no particular reason to consider myself involved in that sense with regard to you.

As for your username, blocking obviously unacceptable usernames withiut warning is standard policy, especially ones that are causing disruption in other ways (see the above thread). I'm not going to be drawn into a debate over semantics (the word "the" is one of your key words? Really?). Your username implies that it belongs to an "intellectual property agent" at the "Name Defend" company. There's nothing unique or personal about it; it implies that anyone who becomes an intellectual property agent at that company will be given access to this account, which is forbidden as a role account. Even if that's not actually true, that is what your username implies, and so it's not allowed. You can appeal this block through the usual channels of using the {{unblock}} template, or the {{unblock-un}} template, if you wish. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia maintains a running record of individual edits made, its easy to see / investigate the trails of past editor interactions. My reference was clearly not limited to Lindashiers but to your animus towards all editors who edit at the IAC page whom this paid editor Sitush disagrees with, and who the known corrupt admins like you are equally well paid to block. "Name Defend" is not a "company". The term "the" is clearly to show that it represents an individual operating the account, whereas the term "an" would have implied that many persons can be designated as IPA and that is abundantly clarified by the the term "with" (not "at"). The previous post also made it clear that this account is for the Registrant of the IAC domain name. "Unhand me varlet" or open an RFC /ANI reference on this. :::PS: I neglected to mention that all edits of this account are being made through official servers of the investigative agency investigating Wikipedia. Sorry for the oversight. Name Defend IPA (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a paid editor? Unhand me, varlet, indeed! - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, okay; AN it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just 3 cents : (1) Sitush is a long running sock-puppet account for a Wikipedia Admin with high technical and programming skills who knows all about sockpuppet detection. (2) It is an open secret [1] that several Wikipedia Admins are heavily paid by Indian PR fakers. (3) The same person who employed sockmaster Admin:Wifione [2], [3] was heavily into "Team Anna" affairs and was a key financier of Mr. Anna Hazare (rs. 1 crore). Name Defend IPA (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a penny to help make 4 cents: Your thoughts above are wrong, you're not using your talk page access to request an unblock or request a change of username, and you don't seem to be here for the right reasons. I'd strongly urge you to read the suggestions above and start working on getting yourself unblocked, otherwise, good luck my friend. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]