User talk:Lee Bailey/AMA request

AMA Request
First of all, that you for taking the time to read my concerns. As I mentioned in my request brief, I'm just looking for advice on this one -- it's gotten so complicated, a number of other editors appear to by staying out of it intentionally, and I'm really not sure what my position is anymore -- I just feel the situation is out of hand and needs to be addressed in some capacity. Advice is very much needed.

Www.tekjansen.com claims -- sort of -- to be run by Stephen Colbert. The Colbert Report frequently jokes about Colbert having written a science-fiction book entitled "Alpha Squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A Tek Jansen Adventure". This site claims to be the book. It's got a huge amount of text up, which is indeed strikingly similar in tone some of Colbert's writing. What the site basically says is |"I can't say I'm Stephen Colbert for legal reasons, but trust me". Apparently, a number of people have, because they've got some rather busy fan forums there too, but the heart of the site is the fiction, which, problematically, is also being sold: the site charges $24 for a "lifetime membership" which includes access to "premium content" (later chapters from the same book), an ad-free interface, and a members-only forum. See membership page here.

The link to tekjansen.com has been added repeatedly to Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert (character), and The Colbert Report recurring elements. I've taken it out, since there was there was no consensus to keep it, and at first was aided by others, but lately it's been just me, which has of course made me uncomfortable, because I really don't want to edit war. Actually, User:Typing.monkey has been the one doing most of the re-adding, and at Talk:Stephen Colbert, we've been debating this back and forth. Mostly, others editors have been reluctant to involved.

So far, though, I've yet to see anyone re-insert the link or even defend it who is not a single-issue editor who's only involvement in Wikipedia is adding the link. Worse still, at the forums associated with the site, the site's webmaster appears to be encouraging members to re-insert the link -- witness here, here, here or more recently here. User:Typing.monkey is apparently a user on this forum, too -- s/he uses the same username there, and gives regular updates on the fight against Wikipedia (apparently, we "hate truth"). This has been well received there, and despite some occasional acknowledgement of my position, the overall sentiment seems to be that what matters is adding the link. One discussion even includes an impromptu brainstorming session on ways to "get around" relevant parts of our linking policy, which strikes me as disingenious. On-wiki, however, I've tried to assume good faith.


 * Please don't mischaracterize my comments. They are written message posts and are the best evidence of their contents.  If you want people to know my side of the story, link to something I've written, rather than putting words in my mouth.  Thank you.  216.83.230.132 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the theory behind the site's ownership is that it's actually a viral marketing campaign designed to test the reaction to the book and attract a publisher. In order for this to be the case, Comedy Central would have to have given Mr. Colbert the go-ahead to do this, but only "unofficially" -- this is the explanation I've been given for the fact that the site claims the author is not allowed to use his real name. The site is registered anonymously, and there are no links to it from either comedycentral.com or Colbert's offical "Colbert Nation" site.

What it comes down to, at least in my mind, is this: the story is plausible enough. We still don't, however, have even one source telling us directly that the thing is connected to Colbert -- not even TekJansen.com itself, which still insists it officially can't say. The site still refuses to answer questions, even from its own paid members, except in very coy ways. My feeling is that the link is irrelevant, and possibly infringing, if it's fake, and I've been provided not one shred one evidence that it isn't. But the site's tone of voice is very accurate, and many people are convinced. So I have my doubts too.

Is there a correct way to handle this?


 * Hello Lee, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your unique circumstances. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve. I realize you've got a bit of a backlog now, but I'll appreciate a bit of advice whenever you guys can get to it. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lee, I'm going to be your advocate. I've read your request above, and would just ask a few things. Can you explain why exactly you want the link removed (I have a fairly good idea, but just want to be certain), and hvae you considered going down the 'formal' dispute resolution path (i.e. RfC, RfM, RfAr)? --Wisd e n17 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Wisden, and thanks. Sorry about the delay -- it seems things have calmed down a bit since I filed this request, so I'm not sure if the dispute is still active or if the user typingmonkey has given up. I think my concern here is mostly that Stephen Colbert is a living person, and that if this tekjansen site turns out not to be his, we shouldn't be linking to a site which makes serious unsubstantiated claims about Colbert, and which appears to be violating his intellectual property rights for profit (selling memberships to read the book which uses a character Colbert created, allegedly authored by Colbert). I also don't think that if the site isn't Colbert's, the link is especially relevant to include anyway, being mostly forums about the work of fiction presented there. I have thought about formal dispute resolution, and have suggested informal mediation (from the mediation cabal) at one point, although I withdrew the suggestion in favor of further discussion later, because I have having doubts about my own position, and I wasn't sure if I wanted to just drop it. In any case, I don't know if the dispute will re-immerge in a few days, as it has in the past, so I'd like to keep the case officially open for a littlw while longer if that's okay, just to see what happens. Perhaps I was just impatient. This has been going on for quite a while, though. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk)  13:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Lee, well shall we wait and see what happens then. We can let the case lie for a bit, and if you need a hand in the near future let me know. --Wisd e n17 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Wisden, and thanks. I was directed to this page not by Lee, but by a third party. According to the AMA request page, no advocate is available for my side of the dispute at this time, so I have responded directly. I have not given up entirely on this dispute, although I have given it a rest for a few days. I object to Lee's mischaracterization of my involvement and prior comments, above, particularly without being given the opportunity to respond.

1) Even if you don't believe Colbert is behind the tekjansen site, it is more active, more voluminous, and receives much more traffic, than any of the other three fansites listed in the external links section. There is no reason it should be excluded, other than bias on the part of the editor.  If there can be only one fansite listed, this one should be chosen as most representative for the same reasons described above.  If you do believe the site is authored by Colbert, there is no question it is relevant for the page.

2) Lee has demonstrated bad faith and bias against the site, for example, by stating that he or she believes that the tekjansen site is dishonest and falsifies its top referrers list. I believe this is the source of the problem.  In fact, Lee has refused to allow the link unless he or a Wikipedia "official" is contacted by someone at the Colbert Report.  See my talk page.  He or she could not cite any other similar instance in which a site owner was required to request Wikipedia to allow a link.  In fact, this violates the External Guidelines in that site owners should not be allowed to link their own sites.

I don't see the need for bypassing Wikipedia's regular processes when it comes to resolving this dispute. I suggested we begin with a straw poll, but my suggestion was ignored.Typing monkey 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of think that has caused me to become a bit frustrated, Wisden. If you follow the link Typing has provided for you, you will find that I have never said I "refuse to allow the link". I have expressed that I feel the link is against our linking policy, and the spirit of WP:LIVING. I have also suggested that if the link fails to qualify for inclusion because it can't legally state that it is an official, authorised work, Colbert or someone acting as his representive could hypothetically contact us privately and let us in on the secret. It was an outside-the-box idea for an outside-the-box situation (that being, a site which may be authentic but is legally prohibited from outright saying so) but apparently, it wasn't appreciated, so I've dropped the idea. Also, although I missed Typing Monkey's remark about a straw poll, I have solicited the opinions of others, and have stated that I will not remove the link if there's a consensus to keep it in the article. From what I can see now, the burden of proof is on Typing Moneky, since most editors who have bothered to comment on this so far have not supported including the link. Am I wrong in thinking that? -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

These are direct quotes from Lee Bailey on the topic of what it will take to get the link added:

 "A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation has made an attempt to contact Stephen Colbert through his staff." My talk page. 

 "If Colbert wants to promote his site here, all he needs to do is make a trivial effort to establish his identity..." My talk page. 

 "Colbert...or a representative might want to bother to have a fifteen minute discussion which would allow tek-related information to happily coexist with Wikipedia's policies." My talk page. 

 "[Colbert's] still welcome to send me email if he'd like." Hewhorulestheworld's talk page. 

<dd>This is completely outside of Wikipedia guidelines.Typing monkey 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should be sticking my nose in here, but I've become mildly interested in this dispute. I hadn't known of it until I went looking at the Stephen Colbert talk page following the whole Wikiality brouhaha. After reading this page (particularly where Lee says that he feels to be the only one involved), I felt I should say that Lee is not the only one who has a problem with the tekjansen link. In fact I believe even more strongly that the site is not sanctioned by Colbert or Comedy Central. The site's claims are not plausible but illogical. In any case, the fact is that Lee is right that Wikipedia should not be linking to a site that (unless proven otherwise) is blatantly exploiting the intellectual property rights of a living person. WP:EL states "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States."Ibis3 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The TekJansen.com site has undergone major changes as members were advised last month it would. It now shows exclusive Comedy Central video ads (in addition to the text links, button links and flash ads for Comedy Central projects) it has always displayed. The evidence is stronger now than ever before. Refusal to reconsider linking at this point is just plain mean. Previous entry by user IBIS3 says it is "blatantly exploiting the intellectual proerty rights of a living person," but that's am outrageous claim. site has been online at least all of this year if not part of last, clearly nobody from Colbert's group has stepped up to make this claim, so unless this user is COlbert (or an authroized representative,) that statement is out of order and potentially libelous. GBH 02:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)