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

[victim of censorship]

I don't know that this view can really be taken as a "general consensus" here, although I am in agreement with it.

I think on point 1 though 5: I disagree. Those points, I broadly outlined, are common to those on WR (at lest the ones outside the influence of WP).

On point 6. You are right, I don't think it's likely 501c3 would be removed from wikipedia but I say it SHOULD be.

[Daniel Brandt]

I don't think there's any question that "Lee Dennison" and "Harry Dennison" are both fake people; the astounding thing is the amount of time the person has been doing this, and the degree of realism with which it's been done. If the person had actually spent some money on it, to set up web hosting and place press releases in non-fact-checked "sources" other than WP, he might have actually gotten away with it.

Another Lee Dennison edit in a Wikipedia article, dating back to 2007-09-01.

There seems to be an affinity between the Digital Spy Forum and the Lee Dennison site, especially in 2006. Probably the only connection is low intelligence and too much time on their hands (just like some Wikipedia editors).

[Somey]

He's all over the place (note that all of these have long since been reverted, except one):

Jake Maskall (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=78327944

Jeremy Sheffield (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166941787

Giles Coren (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=184983440

Ben James-Ellis (T-H-L-K-D) (not dating, though):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142005802

Rav Wilding (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=142239499

Joey Stefano (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=124093264

Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum (T-H-L-K-D), just days ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=329229915

This last one is interesting - rather than suggest that Tony Forsyth (T-H-L-K-D) is gay and/or dating "Lee Dennison," he adds that "Tony Forsyth is currently working as a Casting Director," and this is still in the article as of right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=169383302

FYI, Tony Forsyth is an extremely marginal British actor, whose article was created by Trezjr (T-C-L-K-R-D) (though that doesn't appear to be the same guy - Trazjr is still fairly active). There's absolutely no indication anywhere that Forsyth is a "casting director," from what I can tell.

[Newyorkbrad]

Catching up on this thread. There's a specific step that can be tried to catch and stop these edits; I'll try to ensure that it's implemented ASAP.

[Somey]

Catching up on this thread. There's a specific step that can be tried to catch and stop these edits; I'll try to ensure that it's implemented ASAP.

I suppose someone could always add the words "Lee Dennison" to one of the Anti-Vandal bots, or make that name a "badword" (or whatever they call it on WP)... A bit late for that in Livingston's case, of course.

How many other cases like this might there be, I wonder...?

[carbuncle]

I suppose someone could always add the words "Lee Dennison" to one of the Anti-Vandal bots, or make that name a "badword" (or whatever they call it on WP)... A bit late for that in Livingston's case, of course.

I suspect that Brad may be talking about an edit filter which would prevent anyone from adding the particular text strings (such as "Lee Dennison") to any article. Anti-vandal bots would work, too, but after the fact. It is apparently much better to provide vandals with immediate feedback so that they can change their approach more quickly. Look for a new character to appear soon in this fictional world, unless the perpetrator has been scared off by the publicity.

[Daniel Brandt]

I suppose someone could always add the words "Lee Dennison" to one of the Anti-Vandal bots, or make that name a "badword" (or whatever they call it on WP)... A bit late for that in Livingston's case, of course.

That's a great idea. But here's an even better one — make my name a bad word too, so that it is removed from Wikipedia and no one can ever put it back in.

Why does a fictitious person like Lee Dennison get more rights than I do? Any website that welcomes unqualified contributors should allow site-wide opt outs for anyone who objects and provides proof of identity.

That will guard against editors who resemble this one:

...and also guard against editors like this:
...who invariably get the stamp of approval from Jimbo-appointed high-level administrators:

[Somey]

I hate to say something so unpopular, but it deserves saying: Wikipedia is not the most irresponsible site on the internet. (Calling this "faint praise" would be an understatement, however.)

I agree that it isn't the most irresponsible overall, not by a long shot... However, if you go to the average porn/shock/gross-out/whatever site, you probably won't find a page about Ron Livingston et al, containing extensive biographical details, all presented as unbiased, "neutral" fact with no clear individual attribution.

Admittedly, Livingston is a B-list celebrity on the verge of making the A-list, so you'll probably find other sites with biographies of him... but I'd be willing to bet that most of them are either non-editable, and/or would be more responsive to a request for relief.

[Tarc]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

This sort of thing shifts over the years, as it was once ruled defamatory for saying a white person had "Negro blood", to be labeled a Communist, etc... and though Cruise won such a "OMG don't call me gay!" suit a few years ago, I believe it was simply a default judgment since the defendant didn't defend himself.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 7th December 2009, 2:24pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point … 40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century … where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

Read the details — that is hardly all there is to it.

Jon

[GlassBeadGame]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

The idea is injury to reputation. It is certainly possible that false statements about a person's race, politics or sexual orientation could harm a persons reputation among a group that can effect them negatively among negatively in a financial or social sense. Your point that perhaps that specific allegation regarding these areas should be considered defamation per se is well taken, although not everywhere or with everyone. BTW when did "communists" get off the shit lists? That still leaves "having a social disease" as a universal bad.

[Doc glasgow]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

This sort of thing shifts over the years, as it was once ruled defamatory for saying a white person had "Negro blood", to be labeled a Communist, etc... and though Cruise won such a "OMG don't call me gay!" suit a few years ago, I believe it was simply a default judgment since the defendant didn't defend himself.

No.

We keep hearing this - I was removing unreferenced stuff about someone being a gay porn star to be grabbed by a member of the liberal pc brigade and told "being a gay porn star isn't negative - so it doesn't fall under BLP"

The fact is that lots of people who are not gay don't want to be called "gay". In many parts of the world it is a criminal offence, and in many sub-communities it leads to condemnation and ostracism. But even beyond that, people have the right not to be labelled as something they are not.

Most people would believe there is nothing intrinsically negative about keeping Jewish food laws. It is a perfectly sociable thing to choose to do. However, if I put on the biography of a leading Catholic that they do so, I may seriously defame them.

Likewise calling someone gay can cause serious stress to that person. Even if they themselves are liberal in their attitudes.

[tarantino]

I hate to interrupt the pack mentality here, but aren't we at the point...40 years after Stonewall and well into the 21st century...where being called "gay" is no longer considered defamatory?

I think a point that is generally being missed is the possibility that the main person behind this years long campaign isn't merely a prankster.

With that in mind, I will point out that Mark is the OTRS confirmed author of the photo that is being used in the Ron Livingston article. Livingston's expression could be described as disturbed. Soon after the photo was added to the article by the OTRS member who approved it, Mark edited the article to include "Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison and is currently filming Defying Gravity." I am almost positive "Lee Dennison" is a fictional character.

Mark is an employee of the organization that owns this IP, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.

[Random832]

With that in mind, I will point out that Mark is the OTRS confirmed author of the photo that is being used in the Ron Livingston article. Livingston's expression could be described as disturbed. Soon after the photo was added to the article by the OTRS member who approved it, Mark edited the article to include "Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison and is currently filming Defying Gravity." I am almost positive "Lee Dennison" is a fictional character.

Mark is an employee of the organization that owns this IP, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.

I am pretty sure I found the site you're referring to, but can't find any connection between it and the IP. (However, the site does mention Lee Dennison, so...)

EDIT: The site I found wasn't the same one.

This post has been edited by Random832: Mon 7th December 2009, 3:30pm

[carbuncle]

I think a point that is generally being missed is the possibility that the main person behind this years long campaign isn't merely a prankster.

With that in mind, I will point out that Mark is the OTRS confirmed author of the photo that is being used in the Ron Livingston article. Livingston's expression could be described as disturbed. Soon after the photo was added to the article by the OTRS member who approved it, Mark edited the article to include "Ron currently resides in Los Angeles with Casting Director Lee Dennison and is currently filming Defying Gravity." I am almost positive "Lee Dennison" is a fictional character.

Mark is an employee of the organization that owns this IP, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.

Qualiti work as always, Tarantino!

[Somey]

Qualiti work as always, Tarantino!

"Qualitiwork" indeed - I doubt that Qualitiwork Ltd. is even a real company, since the same person who's been behind this entire hoax is also the Administrative Contact for the company's internet domain. The address, "27 Old Gloucester Street," is a mail drop also used by another of his phony companies, Fushion Pukka Bosh.

Anyway, I concur with Mr. Tarantino - of all these characters, Mark (last name redacted, for now) is probably the only one who is actually real. The others - Lee Dennison, Lee Kaay, Ram Sweet, Harry Dennison, and Jamie Lowe - are all made up out of whole cloth.

For WP'ers looking to remove more evidence, Mark decided in April 2008 that he should also be a TV presenter on France's Pink TV, a cable channel for gay folks. That bit of info is still in the article, but you won't find any mention of him on Pink TV's website, despite extensive material on their schedule and their on-air personality roster.

[Daniel Brandt]

There are certainly a lot of convenient breadcrumbs to follow. Multiple choice: a. lone careless nut b. useful idiot c. early-warning expendable cutout

This is a case for Linda Mack's friends in London...

At any rate, dudes shouldn't be making obsessive Wikipedia edits from work, so if he did this then his job is at risk.

[Tarc]

We keep hearing this - I was removing unreferenced stuff about someone being a gay porn star to be grabbed by a member of the liberal pc brigade and told "being a gay porn star isn't negative - so it doesn't fall under BLP"

I really don't care to quibble over wiki-politics and BLP, I was more addressing the real-world implications of suing someone for calling someone a homosexual. That this happens to involve everyone's favorite punching bag for a website is incidental. Even a blowhard like Joseph Farah of WND didn't actually carry out his threats to sue over his article last year.

The fact is that lots of people who are not gay don't want to be called "gay". In many parts of the world it is a criminal offence, and in many sub-communities it leads to condemnation and ostracism. But even beyond that, people have the right not to be labelled as something they are not.

What the hell, are you channeling Mary Whitehouse? People do not have the right to walk through life unoffended. Saying someone is gay when they aren't may be wrong, it may be devoid of ethics, but trying to call it specifically defamatory in 2009 is becoming almost impossible to substantiate in a day where more (US, at least) people support gay rights than do not. The holdouts in flyover country aren't enough to matter.

[carbuncle]

For WP'ers looking to remove more evidence, Mark decided in April 2008 that he should also be a TV presenter on France's Pink TV, a cable channel for gay folks. That bit of info is still in the article, but you won't find any mention of him on Pink TV's website, despite extensive material on their schedule and their on-air personality roster.

More interesting is the edit to [[Torbay]] which has managed to replicate itself into a number of low-quality sites that have scraped the info from the Torbay article to sell any number of products. Someone intending to write a book on using WP for marketing would do well to analyse this episode for the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Greg?

[Random832]

The holdouts in flyover country aren't enough to matter.

That's fine for someone who doesn't live there to say.