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.
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).
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.
This is understandable. An actor's employability rests on their reputation. Should someone in the movie business look at wiki and find comments of an abusive or threatening nature coming not merely from someone called ''Ahmed Best'' but supposedly from the Ahmed Best who starred in Star Wars, they could form the impression that Best is someone they should avoid employing. As a result, the name and reputation of an actor, being central to their employability, is ruthlessly guarded from exploitation by Equity, their agents and lawyers.
The issue isn't what they purportedly said to 'x' or 'y' on wiki, but how what they supposed said reflects on them and their reputation.
Even if Equity, the actor or his lawyers chose not to act, or were unaware of it, the use of the username Jar Jar Binks is also a potential legal minefield. Using a username is perfectly OK. But as the above quote shows, this supposed user claims a direct association with the star wars films. The chances are the /character/ JAR JAR BINKS is almost certainly the copyright property of George Lucas's company. The company might take considerable offence at the usage what they might see as not the use of a name but of a character. That could have implications for Ahmed Best, whom they might see as abusing their copyright by using a character of theirs which he played on screen in his private life off-screen, to gain attention, notoriety, etc. And that in turn might lead Equity or Best to raise the issue with wiki. Even if there was no legal case, it could be used by him to publicly attack wiki (to get publicity!), in the process of damaging our reputation. After all a serious encyclopædia hardly needs in the public mind with the impression that one of its contributors is someone who 'steals' actors identities and copyright names.
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?
I have in the meantime removed all reference to Ahmed Best and Star Wars from the [[User:Jar Jar Binks]] page and protected the page to prevent Michael reinserting it. As of now, all the page does is use the user name in isolation, which should kill off any danger of copyright breach.
Because Ahmed Best, Equity or Lucasfilm does not act in this case does not mean that if Michael continues to use real names of prominent people someone, next week, next month or tomorrow will not react. We need to know what if any legal problems could arise, and what PR problems could arise, should Michael continue on this course. And we need to find some way of stopping Michael before Michael seriously damages wiki.
JT
PS: The great thing about Ireland is that it is so small we all tend to know each other (or know someone who knows someone who . . . ) If Michael uses Bono's name, I'll have a word with him and try to stop him from suing wiki. (I know his wife Ali!) :-)
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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.
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.
I would assume that the username Jar Jar Binks is a problem, as it's more than likely been tradmarked.
PS: The great thing about Ireland is that it is so small we all tend to know each other (or know someone who knows someone who . . . ) If Michael uses Bono's name, I'll have a word with him and try to stop him from suing wiki. (I know his wife Ali!) :-)
That makes the whole world's leadership a small place :)
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
Geoff wrote: 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.
This is the last word, really on the vandalismo thing --- James' notions of copyright infringement of inteelectual property are utterly vacuous, and I have to wonder if it was he or the pint that was talking there.
But there's going to have to be some kind of relationship established between WP and some of these ISP's -- as the case can be made:
1. That people who commit vandalist acts on the internet are in violation of their ISP contract, and 2. The ISP itself is liable somewhat for the acts of its users.
So, after a Wiki request, the admins at AOL or MSN might just hang up the phone and go back do downloading porn. Or a terse and detailed letter from a lawyer, explaining the situation and implying a threat of a lawsuit, might start the process of cooperation. The ISPs tend to favor their paying clientele over outsiders, quite naturally -- and it may help matters if people who are associated with an isp in question be the contact to explain the case.
The downside then becomes, that the WP then would have established lines of process between itself and corporate entities -- these entities then in some legal way may derive some kind of sense of duty of the WP to them and their interests, be it censorship of content, etc. Fuck them.
-Stiv
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com