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!

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...

[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.