On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, james duffy wrote:
I said before that Michael and Adam's 'trolling' of wiki, whatever one may
think of it, never raised the problems including serious legal issues (ie
possible copyright abuse) thrown up by DW. I'd like to amend that to suggest
that Michael could potentially be raising another legal nightmare.
A couple of times lately he has assumed the names of ''real people'' and
claimed to be them when editing wiki. He apparently has now assumed the
identity of actor Ahmed Best. Not knowing anything about Star Wars (I'm more
of a Trekkie!) I know nothing of Mr. Best, including whether he does exist.
But he does feature in wiki articles that seem to have been created by other
genuine contributors, so I presume he must.
I've found the Internet Movie Database (
http://www.imdb.com) a very useful
reference. Although it is now owned by Amazon, IIRC, it was originally created
& hosted by some folks in Wales.
According to the page of [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] (the
character on Star Wars
played by Best), Michael wrote:
Hi there, I'm the real [[Jar Jar Binks]] ([[Ahmed Best]]).
I heard this website is a tough place for a banned user that I don't know.
I played in all [[Star Wars]] sequals from 1998 to 2003.
Going by editing style, topics picked and past behaviour, not to mention the
banned user jibe, Jar Jar Binks has generally been presumed to be Michael
and Infromation reverted all JJB's edits (which in any case were strikingly
typical of Michael).
I'm always more than a little concerned when a user is said to be a
reincarnation of one of Wikipedia's Most Unwanted. Wikipedia will always
attract (at least I hope) new contributors, & we must expect some will
(hopefully out of ignorance) act in the same way as these people -- & thus
find themselves treated far more harshly than they should be. Because of
that, I hope when something reports a sighting of one of these banned
people, we carefully verify the identification. (Although re-reading
James' argument & the quotation supplied, I think there is a preponderance
of proof that this Ahmed Best is Michael.)
If [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] is not the actor he purports to be:
What are the possible legal problems if any that might follow if someone not
merely uses a real person's name but purporting to be him/her while
contributing to wiki. While our NPOV policy should ensure that nothing
written in articles could damage the reputation of the real person whose
identity has been 'stolen', what of 'personal' comments, including
abusive
or threatening one, placed on users talk pages?
While Michael has in the past used the real names of minor rock stars, using
Ahmed Best is potentially more dangerous.
i. Actors' names and identities are ruthlessly guarded by the actors' union,
Equity;
ii. Actors' agents and lawyers are also ruthless in their efforts to protect
the name and reputation of an actor.
Here we face another problem: why can't we trust that if someone says
she/he is a celebrity, that person is telling the truth? After all, celebrities
*do* participate on the Internet (Wil Wheaton is one example, but the woman
who used the name Brandy Alexander in several porn movies also was a regular
on alt.sex.movies for many years.) And I hope that some of these actors &
actresses eventually come to Wikipedia & make useful contributions.
I'd recommend that we trust people to be whom they say they are: if
someone creates the user account of Jennifer Lopez or Gus van Sant (for
example), we take them at face value until it's clear that they aren't
whom they say they are (e.g. "Jennifer Lopez" doesn't understand Spanish,
or "Gus van Sant" clearly has never been to Portland, Oregon in his life),
at which point they are told to change their user name or face being
banned.
Otherwise, we trust that Equity will tell us when someone is not one of
these celebrities, & require better documentation that Equity is whom
they say they are (e.g., a certified letter with a lawyer's letterhead with
a valid phone number will always trump email), & give the user the choice
of either changing their username (unless it's clear that they have been
a nuisence in more ways than this) or be banned. There's an infinite
number of possible usernames out there: I see no profit to Wikipedia in
condoning identify theft.
Two final points: If Michael is willing to steal a real life actor's name
and a copyright film character, having previously stolen the identity of
some singers in some minor rock bands, whose identity will he steal next?
Bono? Some senior politician? Someone in the media? The bigger the name, the
greater the likelihood that someone will take offence turn to their lawyers
or go public and damage wiki.
Finally, how do we stop Michael doing this and so potentially doing wiki
damage?
At some point, we must needs talk to his ISP & force them to discipline
him. Even if Michael is using someone like AOL or MSN who are at best
indifferent to Wikipedia, I assume we have enough Wikipedians from those
domains who would be willing to complain about how he is pissing in their
swimming pool, & make even those ISPs realize that he's not worth ignoring.
Geoff