Right. Now _that_ totally makes sense.

They disabled the page and asked for his ID (okay, your defense, works until now). They got his ID, which according to the article lists a different first name and Salman as a middle name.

Now how can you explain the following discussion? At this point the owner of the account formerly known as Salman Rushdie provided (state issued, no less..) evidence of being that guy - but Facebook claims he has to use the first name listed on the ID instead?

It worked out in the end, but your explanation falls short. The biggest WTF (if we ignore the idea that you should provide a copy of any ID to a site that is used for Mafia Wars and things of similar importance) is the requirement to stop using his middle name.

Even if he _weren't_ the author publishing as "Salman Rushdie" and just some random guy named "Ahmed Salman Rushdie" he should be allowed to go as "Salman Rushdie". Even with a brain-dead real name policy in place. That is his real name.

(Granted: In that case he arguably still shouldn't be allowed to pose as the author. But that's a different problem)

That's what probably happened. And I can also assume that Rushdi never tried to claim there "I am the real Rushdi", only tried to show that "My name is Salman Rushdi [too], see my passport, therefore I should be allowed to use this name". While FB was trying to protect that name for the real Rushdi.

If FB employees really knew this is the real Salman Rushdi they are talking with, this probably would have never happened.