Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion, the beginning of the end? Options

[ColScott]

Moderator's Note: A full narrative of this story may be found on our Opinions and Editorials page. However, this thread contains somewhat more detail, if that's even possible.


Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.

We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

[tarantino]

Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.
We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

[Random832]

If whoever is inserting it isn't logged in, then WP doesn't really have anything to reveal - the IP address is out in the open already, so they'll have to go after the ISPs (unfortunately probably open proxies).

It's semi-protected now, anyway. (incidentally, it's so weird to see the year "2010")

[GlassBeadGame]

Let's discuss this lawsuit. Malicious lies intended to damage a reputation? Check. A systematic pattern of abuse- check.
We'll see if WP stays clean... but for certain they will have to reveal the editor. And once one loser editor is taken down, legally, how many more will grow up and run?

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

If the IP is known discovery can be directed toward the ISP (assuming the IP doesn't identify a firm etc.) If knowing the IP is not sufficient it might be possible to get information via discovery from WMF indicating if that IP has been used by any accounts, then work with that to request what other IPs those accounts have used.

[victim of censorship]

The Comet Livingston on target for an ELE (extinction-level event) on wikipeidia. This guy got money, friends, and will lay to waste the planet Wiki.

Mr. Livingston, if you are reading this... You are doing good for the collective whole by smacking down the wikihellhole, amen to you. My prayers are with you for a successful action against the planet wiki.

[Somey]

The Colonel is referring to this TMZ story. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?

It looks like various non logged in editors have been inserting the same thing for over a year, and almost daily since April.

The first such entry on WP is dated Oct. 10, 2008, and there's a post from a gossip site called wonfifty.com here, dated three weeks earlier (September 21st, 2008). The poster calls himself "Lee Kaay" (probably not his real name) and has a page on Facebook, where one of his friends is someone calling himself "Ram Sweet" (probably not his real name either), who appears in this revision of the article on WP.

You'd think that with all the attention focused on BLP issues, they would have full-protected the article waaaaaaaay before today, but someone finally did it earlier today, possibly after seeing this thread. Of course, that person reconsidered and decided semi-protection would just fine, thanks, just a minute later.

[Daniel Brandt]

This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an attractive nuisance due to its policy of allowing anyone to edit BLPs. It was protected too late, and scraped all over the web, no doubt, because the Foundation has not dedicated the resources necessary to adequately patrol BLPs.

[Somey]

This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an attractive nuisance due to its policy of allowing anyone to edit BLPs. It was protected too late, and scraped all over the web, no doubt, because the Foundation has not dedicated the resources necessary to adequately patrol BLPs.

Agreed. If there's a significantly better example to come up since the BLP policy was first posted of Wikipedians collectively falling down on the job, failing to protect an article for a ridiculous amount of time, and in the process showing the harsh results of their foot-dragging on Flagged Revisions and their failure to impose an opt-out policy, I haven't seen it.

(That doesn't mean there isn't one, I'm just saying I just haven't seen it.)

[tarantino]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

[Doc glasgow]

One of the problems is that wikipedia has never even well used the limited possibilities it has to stop BLP damage. All it has is semi-protection (which only stops unregistered and newly resisted accounts editing- and is almost worthless against any determined libeller or POV pusher, who only has to let his account warm for 48 hours) and full-protection, which prevents anyone editing (except admins, who are only supposed to in limited circumstances).

What they really should do is:
1) Semi-protect all BLPs as a matter of course

2) Introduce a new level of protection for blp articles which are obviously problematic, or have a history of violations. This new level would allow only admins and those flagged as "BLP trusted" to edit- BLP trusted would require one to have an account for some time and never have been caught in a significant carelessness over BLP.

But that would involve change, and wikipedia can't change.

[victim of censorship]

It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..

GIVE UP THE MAN - PLANET WIKI

[Somey]

I'm not seeing where Lee Dennison Associates has its own website, but there's a page on ukscreen.com which currently contains the following:

Working alongside Lee in London are Jacquie, Jamie, Will and Dean, in New York Ram, Charlie and Lucy and in Paris Claudine and Luc. We also employ a team of casting assistants for each office who work on specific projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WINTER 2009 UPDATE...PLEASE NOTE Lee is unable to enter into any private and personal correspondance. See casting credits for current work including THE COMPANY OF MEN, NEW YORK I LOVE YOU and DEFYING GRAVITY. Lee is now based with Ron in LA.

(Livingston is (or was) one of the stars of Defying Gravity, basically a soap opera/mystery drama set on a spaceship.)

So if there really is such a company (?), presumably "in New York Ram" would suggest that maybe "Ram Sweet" actually is a real name, or at least a non-internet pseudonym. If he's one of the people spreading this rumor, or even inserting this info into WP himself, then he's apparently one of Dennison's own colleagues and/or employees, assuming he (or Dennison) even exists at all.

[Somey]

Moreover, there is no "Lee Dennison" listed in any of the credits on IMDB for Defying Gravity, New York, I Love You, Alpha Dog, or Vacancy. It appears the entire ukscreen.com page for this person - if he even exists at all - is basically a pack of lies! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

It even says he made his "screen debut" as an actor "alongside Hazel O'Connor in Breaking Glass, but he isn't listed there either.

Basically, according to IMDb, he simply doesn't exist.

Amazing...

[Daniel Brandt]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has 200 people on staff. They might not even keep logs of computer use.

[GlassBeadGame]

41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from 212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA Foundation66 in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, the same IP was claiming Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.

That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has 200 people on staff. They might not even keep logs of computer use.

Still it is a good start. Remember the wiki software gives exact times of edits which can be compared against schedules to weed out most employees very quickly. Might be a client, I suppose. Confidentiality might make problems then.

[Somey]

Let's dig a little deeper: If we look at the AfD for the BLP on Lee Dennison, we can see that several WP'ers actually did suggest at the time that "Lee Dennison" is a complete hoax.

On that page, the author of that article, the appropriately named Leedennison (T-C-L-K-R-D) , had this to say:

Vanity? Hoax? It would suggest a little reasearch is done befoire casting doubts. The etiquette still states do not "bite" and "assume good faith" which the majority of you have not. Some of you who have commented have displayed a touch of vanity on your own pages and some are rather self indulgent to say the least.

He has a point, but it's pretty clear that "Lee Dennison" is either not a real person at all, or a self-promoting hoaxster/spammer at best. Moreover, the contents of the AfD will probably come in handy for Livingston's legal team in establishing that WP did virtually nothing resembling "due diligence" in allowing the offending piece of info to be repeatedly added to Livingston's BLP article, not even going so far as to search their own archives.

They'll probably want the contents of the deleted article on "Dennison" himself too, I would imagine... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Daniel Brandt]

Still it is a good start. Remember the wiki software gives exact times of edits which can be compared against schedules to weed out most employees very quickly. Might be a client, I suppose. Confidentiality might make problems then.

Foundation66 has had that IP for a while now; at least three different domains that they own have pointed to it:
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer dickens.arp-uk.org.

I don't think confidentiality plays much of a role here, because it's most likely an employee. Most companies have policies about improper use of computers by employees. The company might feel that revealing the name of the perp (if they know who it is) will get the company off the hook. Otherwise the question becomes, "Is the company liable for employees who use company resources in a manner that is actionable, and also against company policy?"

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

[victim of censorship]

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

The lawsuit is in California as well as the corp offices of the Wiki media foundation. Ultimately, the summons and discovery filings will be served at the Wiki's San Francisco offices and jurisdiction will be in California.

[tarantino]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

21:31, 19 December 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) blocked Cheekychops (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (User is obsessed with Casting Director Lee Dennison)

[GlassBeadGame]

If the company was in the U.S., and especially if it was in Florida, the plaintiff could get a judge to order the company to check it's computers for evidence. That happened in the Fuzzy Zoeller case. But this cross-jurisdictional stuff is so messy.

I think the court would freely give discovery of employees schedules and whereabouts etc. Patients or clients, maybe less so. Providing the information about a number of innocent employees in order to figure out who is responsible is one thing, providing information about a number of innocent patients is another for the same reason is another.

[Somey]

Huh, Cheekychops is also him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Che...s#Block_warning

Per WP:BIO it is inappropriate to speculate about the personal lives of living people without a full citation to support the claim. You have edited a large number of biographies to insinuate a romantic relationship with a casting director named Lee Denison, to the point where WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT become an issue. If this continues you will be blocked from editing. DurovaCharge! 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This just gets better and better!

Apparently that user also submitted an article about someone named "Harry Dennison" which got speedied. Check out his blog!

[Daniel Brandt]

He has a point, but it's pretty clear that "Lee Dennison" is either not a real person at all, or a self-promoting hoaxster/spammer at best. Moreover, the contents of the AfD will probably come in handy for Livingston's legal team in establishing that WP did virtually nothing resembling "due diligence" in allowing the offending piece of info to be repeatedly added to Livingston's BLP article, not even going so far as to search their own archives.

They'll probably want the contents of the deleted article on "Dennison" himself too, I would imagine... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Lee Dennison Associates, casting director, producer in London

LATER: Oops, sorry, Somey already found this.

[victim of censorship]

Any one have $4.75 to spare?

[Somey]

The website that actually is listed for "Lee Dennison Associates" (leedennisonassociates.com) is owned by notorious domain squatters Navigation Catalyst, Inc., who are also known to run several domains that are malware-infested. (FWIW.)

This is starting to look like one of the most elaborate hoaxes we've seen, IMO. I suppose we should give WP some kudos for at least catching the more blatant aspects of it (i.e., the Lee and Harry Dennison articles themselves), but this should have been flagged as long-running/ongoing abuse or some such thing - whoever it was, he was clearly doing this to more than just one or two BLP articles.

[Daniel Brandt]

I propose that Wikimedia Foundation begin a proper strategy to defend against this suit, on the assumption that the old knee-jerk Section 230 immunity claim dispatched by Godwin will be less convincing this time around. The Foundation should ask David Gerard to make an appointment with Foundation66 chief executive Sally Scriminger. Gerard should show up at the appointed time in his finest costume, and request, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, that Ms. Scriminger begin a search of any available computer records at Foundation66 that may be relevant to this case.

A good-faith effort by the Foundation is better late than never, perhaps... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[victim of censorship]

A good-faith effort by the Foundation is better late than never, perhaps... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This is what wikipeida is all about... NLT.. or wiki telling the world to "F" off..

I wonder if Ron tried to find resolution to this, only to have the wikileet jack him around for months/years on end?

I would love to see the court filings.

[One]

I don't believe Wikipedia is a defendant in this complaint.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I don't believe Wikipedia is a defendant in this complaint.

Yeah, that was my question. The article rather unhelpfully doesn't tell who the defendant is. But if not the WMF (which I assume is what you meant by "Wikipedia", or you'd have been stating the obvious), who?

[One]

It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..

GIVE UP THE MAN - PLANET WIKI

I don't believe Wikimedia is a defendant. They're apparently very willing to cooperate with discovery. No skin off their nose.

Sarc: I wanted to revise that. I believe it's a John Doe defendant. The suit is a means to discovery of the defendant's identity.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't believe Wikimedia is a defendant. They're apparently very willing to cooperate with discovery. No skin of their nose.

They could always amend the complaint to conform with discovery. It might be good strategy to secure WMF's cooperation first. Still, more likely they will stick with user defendant(s). Challenges to Section 230 immunity could be a thankless task. It would probably be avoided unless it was one of their client's objectives.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Still ,more likely they will stick with user defendant(s).

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

[One]

Still ,more likely they will stick with user defendant(s).

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

John Doe defendants.

I guess law students in Canada aren't familiar with autoadmit.com aka xoxohth, and the suits resulting from that "law school discussion" forum? That might be to your credit, or perhaps it's a generational thing. Good for you. Degenerate forum.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

File a "John Doe" type action, describing the defendant through their actions. This give you access to the discovery needed to fill out the complaint more fully.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I guess law students in Canada aren't familiar with xoxohth? That might be to your credit, or perhaps it's a generational thing. Good for you. Degenerate forum.

I can't imagine it's worse than lawstudents.ca, which consists mostly of people bragging about their LSAT scores while denigrating everybody else's approach to everything. I haven't been there in a while, so I'm not sure if they've finally added a forum where people can post pictures of their penises next to rulers, but that would really save a lot of words.

Anyway, I'll stop now, lest I be the cause of two thread splits in one week.



Moderator's note: TOO LATE! Posts involving the Section 230 ramifications of the Livingston lawsuit were split to this thread, for the sake of clarity. Also, because we like pie.

[Daniel Brandt]

Wikipedia and the scraper situation: Libel wants to be free!

Google search for:
"Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison"

Ron Livingston Info | Facebook
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Livingston/63536163026?v=info - Cached

Ron Livingston - SideReel
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.sidereel.com/Ron_Livingston - Cached - Similar

Ron Livingston gossip & pictures
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
gossip24.com/Celebrity/Ron-Livingston/201.html - Cached

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.filmjamr.com/wiki/CAST/edit/81056/Ron-Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
filmjamr.com/wiki/CAST/edit/81056/Ron-Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston Biography, Profile, Filmography, Discography and ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.celebritygenius.com/Ron-Livingston/biography.html?title=HBO

About | in Northwest England UK
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.nw4u.co.uk/about?view=mediawiki&article=Ron_Livingston

Boston University School of Theology Archives
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
sthweb.bu.edu/archives/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=Ron_Livingston

Contents
This site may harm your computer.
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.menopause-natural-remedies.com/index.php?q=Ron_Livingston

Europe train: Channel tunnel and eurostar tunnel are here on ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
europe-train.net/europe-ticket-train/travel-by-train-in-europe/
london-paris-brussel-amsterdam/channel-tunnel-general-informations/
europe-ticket-train.html?europe-train-tickets=Ron_Livingston

Ron Livingston
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.carstock.ru/Dictionary/Ron_Livingston - Cached

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Optimized for ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
wikipedia.7val.de/wiki/Ron_Livingston

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
wiki.modis.su/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Livingston.html - Russia

All about defying gravity tv series glued for you by GlueText.com ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www-d.gluetext.com/content/d/defying/defying_gravity_tv_series.html


Yahoo has this one that Google doesn't:

Celebrities / Ron Livingston - entertainment news, celebrity ...
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
www.movie-collection.com/celebs/ron-livingston.html - 52k


Bing has this one that Google and Yahoo don't:

Ron Livingston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison ...
tc2sc.mojolingo.xuite.net/m2m-0000/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Livingston

[Somey]

Moderator's note: This was posted prior to the thread split.

I fear that Mr. Victim's enthusiasm for the idea of a major celebrity lawsuit against Wikipedia/WMF has shifted the focus of this thread away from where it should be. The fact is, if this story breaks out into the mainstream media, it could be at least as big and embarrassing as the Siegenthaler incident, and will essentially bear out the futility of WP users in their (somewhat) tireless efforts to enforce BLP policy, which will effectively be proven to be simply not good enough.

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard, but it seems fairly clear that what happened here was a lack of central oversight, a complete failure to flag an ongoing problem for what it actually was, and an almost ludicrous failure, if not refusal, to fully (or even "semi-") protect an article that obviously needed it, for a ridiculously long period of time.

I fully expect to see WP'ers (on WP itself) try to hush the whole thing up, minimize it, and/or blame the victim, but like I said before, I don't think we've seen a better example of how the WP system fails due to lack of preventative controls in a long while.

And it's almost Christmas, too!

[taiwopanfob]

If whoever is inserting it isn't logged in, then WP doesn't really have anything to reveal - the IP address is out in the open already, so they'll have to go after the ISPs (unfortunately probably open proxies).

Well, no. If I was the lawyer, my demand to the WMF would include the IP numbers making the edits, as well as any links they have to established users or any other identifying data WMF has, plus some kind of certification that the data is accurate and complete (that is, includes any and all edits, including those not currently visible), and all this under penalty of perjury, blah blah.

The next letter would be about removing all the libel completely from view. I'd simply demand the actual edits be physically removed from the databases -- not just a "delete" flag being set, but gone as in gone for good.

It's semi-protected now, anyway.

Yeah! So I can bury a bunch of anti-personnel mines in your front yard, and when you complain, I'll just put a sign up that says "warning! mine field!". Problem solved! (Not.)

[Wiki Witch of the West]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Che...s#Block_warning

That's right...this seemed to ring a bell.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard...

Who do you suppose doesn't? I'm clearly pro-Wikipedia, and I don't want to see section 230 immunity pierced in a way that would jeopardize the WMF's viability, but I would love to see the Foundation get embarrassed enough (during fundraising season, no less!) that it takes action on the BLP front of the kind that The Community is too ponderous and unwieldy to take. I suspect that most of the pro-Wikipedians here agree with me on that, though I stand open to correction.

[Wiki Witch of the West]

I understand that not all of us here wish to see WP embarrassed in this regard...

Who do you suppose doesn't? I'm clearly pro-Wikipedia, and I don't want to see section 230 immunity pierced in a way that would jeopardize the WMF's viability, but I would love to see the Foundation get embarrassed enough (during fundraising season, no less!) that it takes action on the BLP front of the kind that The Community is too ponderous and unwieldy to take. I suspect that most of the pro-Wikipedians here agree with me on that, though I stand open to correction.

Let's hope this opens the community's eyes to the fact that not all BLP vandalism is drive-by. The community has been resistant to implementing safeguards against the long term stuff--sometimes angrily so.

Maybe this would bring new life to dead trees. A generous opt-out really would be a step in the right direction.