Nowhere to hide, libel not covered by 1st Options

[lilburne]

Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.

http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html

libel not covered by 1st - apparently.

[Detective]

Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.

http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html

libel not covered by 1st - apparently.

It's not common or garden libel. It's alleged that someone "comitted trade libel and commercial disparaging".

[thekohser]

I have a nice Faconnable dress shirt that has held up well for 15 or 16 years. On that basis alone, I hope they win their case.

[lilburne]

Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.

http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html

libel not covered by 1st - apparently.

It's not common or garden libel. It's alleged that someone "comitted trade libel and commercial disparaging".

How about this ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13588284

[carbuncle]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

[tarantino]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I was about to say the same thing.

Here's what the article looked like a few days before deletion. It's not much different than thousands of other articles on wikipedia.

[lilburne]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I was about to say the same thing.

Here's what the article looked like a few days before deletion. It's not much different than thousands of other articles on wikipedia.

What is the world coming to? If you can't make accusations of supporting terrorism against a Lebanese company, one might just as well delete the article altogether.

[Sololol]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

Same deal on the parent company's, M1 Group, article. I wonder who our mystery editor is.

[carbuncle]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

Same deal on the parent company's, M1 Group, article. I wonder who our mystery editor is.

I guess we may as well include that log here for posterity. These things have a way of going missing.

This IP would be the culprit (or possibly one of the culprits).

[Sololol]

How odd. I wanted to see the actual edits in question and there is no article on the company. It seems that on 29 April 2011, JzG deleted it as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

Same deal on the parent company's, M1 Group, article. I wonder who our mystery editor is.

I guess we may as well include that log here for posterity. These things have a way of going missing.

This IP would be the culprit (or possibly one of the culprits).

Very nice work, thanks for digging this up. I'd perused Bauder's contributions around that time but it's all disappeared down the memory hole.

[thekohser]

And, a WebCite of the M1 Group article.

I'll tell you what, Guy "JzG" Chapman really is the lap-dog of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plagiarized the Arch Coal article from me, to try to make Jimbo look better. He tended to Rachel Marsden's article, to try to make Jimbo slip in better. And now he nuked a litigant's article from the record, to try to let Jimbo slip away better.

[thekohser]

How about this ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13588284

How about that? Maybe it could go in a different thread, or is this thread a catch-all for legal discovery of IP address editors?

[EricBarbour]

I'll tell you what, Guy "JzG" Chapman really is the lap-dog of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plagiarized the Arch Coal article from me, to try to make Jimbo look better. He tended to Rachel Marsden's article, to try to make Jimbo slip in better. And now he nuked a litigant's article from the record, to try to let Jimbo slip away better.

So it seems. They made an embarrassing mess "disappear", in their typical heavy-handed manner.

The Anglicized spelling "Faconnable" also had an article, which was deleted on 30 April.

That's another seekrit policy of Wikipedia. "We're completely honest and open, our database is
forever. However.....if an actual lawsuit threatens us, we oversight everything and pretend it never existed."

(I hope you die slowly, Mr. Chapman. In a shit-filled diaper.)

Hey, Mr. Chapman! You forgot to purge the Signpost article!

Company sues IP editors for defamation: As reported by the Denver Post ("Upscale Façonnable sues over Web posts saying it has ties to Hezbollah"), fashion company Façonnable has filed a John Doe lawsuit against anonymous (IP) editors who inserted what it says are false claims alleging ties of the company with the Lebanese Hezbollah organization into the Wikipedia article about Façonnable. (The newspaper notes that the company is owned by the conglomerate M1 Group, which "was co-founded by Najib Mikati, a billionaire and politician who was recently made prime minister of Lebanon. Mikati had the support of Hezbollah, a significant political force in Lebanon, in his election. But in numerous interviews with Western media outlets, Mikati has described himself as a centrist who is not a part of or beholden to the organization.") The lawsuit was filed after the users' Internet provider, Skybeam Inc, had rejected the request to provide their names to Façonnable, stating that this would need "a summons delivered by a local law enforcement agency".

[Milton Roe]

I'll tell you what, Guy "JzG" Chapman really is the lap-dog of the Wikimedia Foundation. He plagiarized the Arch Coal article from me, to try to make Jimbo look better. He tended to Rachel Marsden's article, to try to make Jimbo slip in better. And now he nuked a litigant's article from the record, to try to let Jimbo slip away better.

So it seems. They made an embarrassing mess "disappear", in their typical heavy-handed manner.

The Anglicized spelling "Faconnable" also had an article, which was deleted on 30 April.

Which is weird. Where is ARS when you need them? JzG's kill leaves a redlink in Nordstrom (for example) since they owned Façonnable as a stand-alone boutique until 2007. Normally, when you think an article on a business contains too much unabashedly POV advertising, you just cut out the advertising, but retain the bare bones article with information, as a stub. JzG just heavy-handedly deleted the whole entry.

And no, it's not out of some en.wiki fear of the cédille. They deal with it in facade as of course they once dealt with it in Faconnable before JzG came along. Even the company uses faconnable.com for their English website. http://www.faconnable.com/en/

Milton the Fashion-Conçious.

[Silver seren]

So...what are they going to do if the IP isn't in the US?

Or worse, if it's someone underage?

[thekohser]

So...what are they going to do if the IP isn't in the US?

Or worse, if it's someone underage?

Did you read the article, Silver?

What part of Skybeam's coverage area do you imagine might be outside of the United States?

In Colorado, state law makes criminal libel a felony carrying up to 18 months in prison and a fine up to $100,000 for the first offense, for adults. That means if it's someone underage who's committed the crime, then they'll be facing a judgment in Juvenile Court, most likely.

[Silver seren]

Ah, no, I didn't read that far.

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

[thekohser]

It's odd how this was in the Denver Post six weeks ago, as well as the Wikipedia Signpost, but we're picking up on this only now. How did that happen?

[carbuncle]

It's odd how this was in the Denver Post six weeks ago, as well as the Wikipedia Signpost, but we're picking up on this only now. How did that happen?

Probably because we have seen many of these types of incidents that amount to nothing. This one is slightly different in that the legal action was filed in the correct jurisdiction and therefore potentially enforceable. And it got some press when the ISP failed to deflect the subpoena for the user's identity. Until that point, it was kinda of a non-story.

I suspect they will put the fear of God into the WP editor and be done with it. This is likely the last we will hear about it, unless the owners of the company embark on some ill-advised battle to clear their name. I would never have been exposed to this particular rumour had the company not taken this action, which is not to say that it wasn't around, but now it has been further spread by this action.

[Detective]

Yeah, internet anonymity seems to be heading toward an end. I used to make fun of Canada because of Stephen Harper trying to make internet anonymity illegal (and then not really doing anything about it), but we're not really that much better here.

In some countries, it is illegal to send anonymous threats by e-mail. Not that the WMF is worried by little trivia like criminal offences, of course.