Talk:Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article should be edited in accordance with the policies and guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Contents 1 Internet Vigilantism 2 Merge with Amir_Tofangsazan 2.1 =======Comments=============== 3 Dating 4 Sources & warning 5 Proposal for deletion June 8 2006 6 Removal 7 Photos 8 Good Article

[edit] Internet Vigilantism

The article is a prime example of Internet Vigilantism, an event which is occuring more and more frequently, and describes an event witnessed by almost a million people. [1]

It is not intended to disparage the subject, but to give an example of a growing trend. Sfacets 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What a hypocrisy ! Creating such an article helps the blog's author to humiliate the subject, obviously... and helps to show what Wikipedia is : a bullshit ! Could anybody imagine a real encyclopedia to have such an article ?

I do not defend the subject, perhabps he deserved it (= the blog), but an article in wikipedia... it becomes more and more a tabloid !

wikipedia contains lots of articles that wouldn't be in a 'real' encyclopedia. i'd like to see someone go on a crusade to delete all of them. this site is all about up-to-date information about the world around us, and this is, well, an event which is apparently big enough to merit about half a million pageviews. riana 12:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and someone using 201.24.202.250 has tried to vandalise the article and that IP is assigned to a Brazillian ISP. Trying to hide in South America, Amir? ;-) Neilius 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism happens many times every day on wikipedia. While it's possible that it could be Amir either in Brazil or using a Brazilian open proxy, it's just as easily possibly it could be someone on Brazil who knows Amir, or even more likely, just some random nutter who either feels sorry for Amir, or feels angry at Amir (based on the vandalism in question, it's not particularly clear whether the comments are direct at Amir or the person who made the blog), or is just bored or whatever. Really it's silly to speculate on the motives of the vandalism... Nil Einne 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a joke ... and a funny one too : o ) Blaise Joshua 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Amir_Tofangsazan

Ths one is more complete, the Amir_Tofangsazan article doesn't contain information not already found in this article. I propose a redirect to this article. Sfacets 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is merged now , see talk:Amir_Tofangsazan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Tofangsazan GameKeeper 06:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =======Comments===============

ROFL. Good Luck getting this guy. Scammers :( Bah!

[edit] Dating

I have inserted a citation request for the claim nicktofang is a nick used by Amir on dating websites. I have found a nicktofang on findsomeone via Google's cache [2] but I cannot view the full profile as I'm not a findsomeone member. Perhaps someone else could view it and provide comments. However, I have to say, although the photo does show someone who looks fairly similar to Amir Tofangsazan (although it's too small to really say), in the abscence of clear evidence, e.g. from the full profile, that it is Amir Tofangsazan we should be careful on speculation. Some people have suggested it could be a relative. Either way, it might be best just to mention that the nick as used on dating websites shows someone who looks fairly similar to Amir but not actually say it is. Alternatively, we could perhaps just say the nicktofang on dating websites is allegedly Amir. Nil Einne 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From the blog :" I am 5ft 10 inches tall and dark brown eyes with a nice smile which people have told me".

From the dating site: "I am 5ft 10 inches tall and dark brown eyes with a ..."

The photo would appear to be of Amir, judging by other photos taken of him...

I'd say the evidence is conclusive. Sfacets 10:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The text does appear to be what's featured in the blog. So you're welcome to point out that the text in the dating site matches with the text posted on the blog. However bear in mind this doesn't in any way conclusively prove that the person who wrote the text is Amir or that it is about Amir. We don't even know for sure that it originated from the HD, we just have the blog owners word for that (and he didn't even state expicility it did come from the HD). As for the photo, well personally, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions from a single photo that is 75x75 pixels and about 1.6kb. It looks a bit like him but the photo is too small IMHO for someone to say conclusively it's the same person featured in the other photos. Perhaps an expert could say more based on more detailed analysis but in the abscence of that, we have to be careful with what we say.

In conclusion, you're welcome to point out the similarity between the person in the photo on findsomeone and Amir and you're also welcome to point out the similarity between the text on findsomeone and the text on the blog. But it would be wrong to suggest any of this conclusively proves anything. If you can find some reputable source that states the text and photo conclusively proves that nicktofang on findsomeone is Amir then you can mention and cite that source but without that anything you say borders on original research and could be libellous if you're wrong.

Nil Einne 11:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources & warning

Given then nature of the subject of this article we need to be extra careful about what we write. Amir does seem to be a scammer and maybe he deserves what is happening to him. But this is wikipedia and we are supposed to be an encylopedia. Therefore please take care to cite anything you write. If you are unable to cite it, I suggest you don't write it.

I substanially modified the following paragraph:

Amir has protested his innocence, claiming the laptop had been used by someone else and that the photos and data posted on the blog had nothing to do with him (despite featuring in many of the photos), and that the laptop was in working condition when he had sent it to the buyer. Interestingly, since Amir denies being the author of any picture found on the laptop, he can not sue laptopguy for copyright infringment.

It doesn't cite any sources and more importantly, it doesn't agree with one citation [3] where he says the photos of him are his but were stolen from his Hotmail account. Amir may very well have made multiple conflicting claims and his Hotmail claim sounds unlikely, it seems more likely that the photos did originate from the HD. But this is for the reader to decide. I've seen some claims on the blog, attributed to come from Amir. If you fell that these merit mention in the article, then it'll probably be okay to include them provided you clearly mention that they come from the blog. Nil Einne 12:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deletion June 8 2006

I removed the template, as this article (and the other article merged into this one) had already previously been nominated for deletion. Sfacets 12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see/check that properly in the history. Was there a discussion? What about the images? They shouldn't definitely be on wikipedia (owner didn't "irrevocably release all rights" by selling the laptop) -- 193.170.53.50 12:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a matter for the courts to decide... but my understanding is that Amir Massoud Tofangsaan denies ownership of the images anyway. Sfacets 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No he does not AFAIK. Please read the article. He claims ownership of the personal images but denies they originated from the HD. Nil Einne 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a response from a lawyer who was commenting on the police investigation into the matter. His view was that the police would have a difficult time prosecuting the eBay avenger if the allegations were true. Also, his view was that Amir had already put the pictures into the public domain by leaving them on that laptop. Blaise Joshua 11:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally somewhat skeptical about this. Assuming they were on the laptop and the laptop was indeed broken, it would seem to be like Amir would have a reasonable expectation that the pictures were not available to anyone. Just because they could in fact easily be recovered by anyone who knows hot to remove a laptop doesn't negate the fact that it was resonable for him to expect they were not available. In fact, even if he didn't resonably have such an expectation, I'm somewhat skeptical whether providing the laptop would constitute him giving up the copyright. It would seem to me this is a bit uncertain, unless he stated all data on the laptop would belong to the owner. Of course, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is it isn't that easy to give up the copyright of something. Think of a somewhat different example, if he provided it with licensed software but did not state he was providing the software, would this constitute a transfer of license or would the new owner of the laptop be the one using unlicensed software? It would sound to me like it would be the new owner who would be infringing, unless of course the old owner specified he was transfering the license. Perhaps the new owner could suggest he had a resonable expectation that the license was being transferred and he couldn't be punished/sued (but still wouldn't be allowed to use the software once it's been discovered) but I would still think he wouldn't own the license. However this defense wouldn't IMHO apply for personal data such as photos. Of course, given Amir has made claims about the origin of the photos, I would wonder what would happen if the photos did in fact originate from the hard disk. He has never denied the personal photos are his but the fact that he lied/denied they came from where they came may make it difficult for him to try to sue for copyright infringment. Nil Einne 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I removed the following sentence:

(which coincidentally is the same username as Amir has used on dating sites^{[citation needed]} ).

I am the one who originally tagged it with a fact. As I've discussed above, it may indeed be him and there is some evidence that suggests it's him. But it would seem to me, saying it's him because the picture looks like him and the text was included on the blog and supposedly originated from his HD borders on original research. Unless and until we can get a reliable citation by someone saying it's him, I think we need to stick to the guidelines on wiki:living and removed unsourced info. If you feel you can add it in a way that isn't original research, you're welcome to try but please be careful. Nil Einne 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I deleted both the photos, because they are clearly photos taken by the subject of the article and hence copyrighted to him. We have no information on their release, and their tags were blatantly incorrect. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This a good article at it stands now - Wikipedia at its best. It's effectively documents a dirty, sneaky set of actions (both by the vigilante and the alleged scammer, assuming the accusations be true) in an impartial news-association-worthy style. Let's keep it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.161.176.211 (talk • contribs).