Talk:Façonnable

Court ruling

In the news today [1]. Some parallels with this recent case in the UK: [2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it gets overturned in a higher court or we can just watch free speech go down the drain. We'll end up like Canada, where Harper is trying to get a law passed that would make anonymity on the internet for Canadians illegal. Silverseren^C 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To highlight what it says:

Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland late last month ordered a Berthoud Internet- service provider to disclose the names of as-yet-unnamed Internet users to upscale fashion retailer Façonnable. The company claims the users posted false statements about it on Wikipedia.

Apparently it has something to do with "Hezbollah", according to the Denver Post article, someone alleged Façonnable is a supporter. Also the article says:

Façonnable has failed to prove it suffered legitimate harm from the Wikipedia posts, which the company removed.

So we know the company has been editing the article, which could be a WP:COI problem. Although in a case where someone is making false/unsupported claims like this, should be OK. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is a loose, suspected relationship between some of the Faconnable corporate members and Hezbollah that is discussed in some sources. I don't know how it was worded in this article previously and, if it was trying to state it as if it was fact, then that's wrong. But putting in that suspicion certainly isn't defamation, since it does come from some sources. I still can't believe the judge ruled that. Silverseren^C 04:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• According to this, there was previously some potentially libellous material in an earlier version of the deleted article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press website appears to be immune from threats of litigation :) Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It'll be considered fair comment, I believe. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was definitely bad editing. But I don't think editing a Wikipedia page is something that can be sued for defamation. It's a ridiculous concept. All they had to do was remove the information in the article and, bam, done deal. We're all good. Instead, they turn this into a long drawn out thing that I am confident will backfire on them in the future. Silverseren^C 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NOTAFORUM. The material was correctly removed, as there is no reliable evidence linking Façonnable and Hezbollah. Also, Wikipedia has not been sued for defamation, as the action is a John Doe lawsuit based on identifying the person behind an IP address. This is similar to what happened with Mr Monkey [3].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Advert tag

If re-adding the advert tag, you'll want to list specific sentences and words that are in dispute. I would like to fix the article, but see nothing wrong with it, so you need to say what exactly is wrong with it. Not generalizations, but specific words and sentences that are considered advertising. I will fix them for you. Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

well if you look at the edit history you will find several isp's that are reverted and history blanked (presumably the court ordered ones), and 77.42.245.9, and 78.86.156.204 that reverted them. i take it those isp's are presumable the corporate ones. you can't point to words because the tools are in use. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Façonnable USA Corp. v. John Does 1-10

Follow-up on the resolution of this case (discussed above): Façonnable settled with the John Doe Wikipedia editor and voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. [4]. TJRC (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)