Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ General Discussion _ Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion
Posted by: ColScott
Moderator's Note: A full narrative of this story may be found on http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/. 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?
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sat 5th December 2009, 6:47pm) 
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 http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/05/office-space-star-yo-wikipedia-im-not-gay/. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?
It looks like various non logged in editors have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=244370708&oldid=239879893, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&limit=500&action=history.
Posted by: 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")
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:05pm)
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sat 5th December 2009, 6:47pm)
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 http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/05/office-space-star-yo-wikipedia-im-not-gay/. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?
It looks like various non logged in editors have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=244370708&oldid=239879893, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&limit=500&action=history.
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 2:05pm)
The Colonel is referring to http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/05/office-space-star-yo-wikipedia-im-not-gay/. Can you get a copy of the filing, Don?
It looks like various non logged in editors have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=244370708&oldid=239879893, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&limit=500&action=history.
It looks like various non logged in editors have been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=244370708&oldid=239879893, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&limit=500&action=history.
The first such entry on WP is dated Oct. 10, 2008, and there's a post from a gossip site called wonfifty.com http://www.wonfifty.com/home/2008/10/19/another-actor-in-gay-scandal.html, dated three weeks earlier (September 21st, 2008). The poster calls himself "Lee Kaay" (probably not his real name) and has http://www.facebook.com/lee.kaay, where one of his friends is someone calling himself "http://www.facebook.com/ram.sweet" (probably not his real name either), who appears in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=317078103.
You'd think that with all the attention focused on BLP issues, they would have full-protected the article waaaaaaaay before today, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=329827453&oldid=329826807, possibly after seeing this thread. Of course, that person reconsidered and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=329827453, just a minute later.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/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.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:13pm)
This case illustrates better than many that Wikipedia is an http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/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.)
Posted by: tarantino
41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/welcome-to-foundation66.html in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Dyer&diff=214182559&oldid=214155690 Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: victim of censorship
It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/12/03/239566/wikipedia-ordered-to-disclose-ip-address-of-contributor.htm
Posted by: Somey
I'm not seeing where Lee Dennison Associates has its own website, but there's a page http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison which currently contains the following:
QUOTE
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Posted by: Somey
Moreover, there is no "Lee Dennison" listed in any of the credits on IMDB for http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319690/fullcredits#cast, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808399/fullcredits#cast, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426883/fullcredits#cast, or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452702/fullcredits#cast. 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 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080469/fullcredits#cast, but he isn't listed there either.
Basically, according to IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/find?s=nm&q=Lee+Dennison.
Amazing...
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:25pm)
41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/welcome-to-foundation66.html in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Dyer&diff=214182559&oldid=214155690 Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.
That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/work-for-us.html. They might not even keep logs of computer use.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 5th December 2009, 5:08pm)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:25pm)
41 of the troublesome edits claiming Lee Dennison was living with Ron come from http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=212.22.3.8, an IP owned by the Alcohol Recovery Project AKA http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/welcome-to-foundation66.html in London. All of those edits come between 800 and 1900 UTC. Before they fixated on Ron, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Dyer&diff=214182559&oldid=214155690 Lee Dennison was the spouse of Danny Dyer.
That's going to be a tough one. Foundation66 has http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/work-for-us.html. 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.
Posted by: Somey
Let's dig a little deeper: If we look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/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:
QUOTE
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...
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 5th December 2009, 4:15pm)
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.
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 5th December 2009, 10:27pm)
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.
Posted by: tarantino
Huh, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=52133485.
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)
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 5th December 2009, 5:27pm)
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.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 4:36pm)
Huh, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=52133485.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cheekychops#Block_warning
QUOTE
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 http://harrydennison.blogspot.com/!
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th December 2009, 4:16pm)
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...
http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison, casting director, producer in London
LATER: Oops, sorry, Somey already found this.
Posted by: victim of censorship
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil
Posted by: Somey
The website that actually is listed for "Lee Dennison Associates" (leedennisonassociates.com) is owned by http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/2008/10/verizon-v-navig.html 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.
Posted by: 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...
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 5th December 2009, 11:26pm)
A good-faith effort by the Foundation is better late than never, perhaps...
This is what wikipeida is all about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats
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.
Posted by: One
I don't believe Wikipedia is a defendant in this complaint.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:01pm)
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?
Posted by: One
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:45pm)
It's going to be a rough year for the Wiki legal dream team. Here is more lawsuits..
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/12/03/239566/wikipedia-ordered-to-disclose-ip-address-of-contributor.htm
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.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:07pm)
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.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:14pm)
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.)
Posted by: One
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:16am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:14pm)
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 http://abovethelaw.com/2007/06/has_autoadmit_been_pwn3d.php aka http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/06/12/students-file-suit-against-autoadmit-director-others/, 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.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:16pm)
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.)
(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.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:17pm)
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.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Wikipedia and the scraper situation: Libel wants to be free!
QUOTE
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
"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
Posted by: 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!
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(Random832 @ Sat 5th December 2009, 8:35pm)
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.
QUOTE
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.)
Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th December 2009, 10:49pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cheekychops#Block_warning
That's right...this seemed to ring a bell.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:49am)
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.
Posted by: Wiki Witch of the West
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 6:48am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:49am)
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.
Posted by: gomi
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 1:43pm)
But that would involve change, and wikipedia can't change.
I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 6th December 2009, 3:22am)
I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.
I actually suspect that what you're characterizing as "change for the worse" is just Wikipedia getting larger. It's not like Wikipedia had a responsible approach to BLPs back in 2003; it's just that it's growth since then has made it's irresponsible approach all the more problematic. Likewise, it's not like it had a reasonable approach to governance when it was first created; it's just that the approach became more obviously unreasonable as the editing community grew. If anything, I think Wikipedia probably has changed incrementally for the better, though I am talking about very small increments.
Posted by: ColScott
QUOTE(One @ Sat 5th December 2009, 4:07pm)
I don't believe Wikimedia is a defendant. They're apparently very willing to cooperate with discovery. No skin off their nose.
No skin until they give up one of their own
Posted by: One
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 4:49am)
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!
I'm with Sarcasticidealist here. Most Wikipedians on this site are concerned about BLP. Although we regret that anyone was harmed in this incident, we know that it happens all of the time. We also know that embarrassments like this are a good way to spur action by people capable of making decisions (i.e., not the Wikipedia "community").
However, I should also say that this will not be another Seigenthaler simply because there was already a Seigenthaler. Nor will there be another story like Essjay; some users here perpetually hope that these will be replicated. In order for that to happen, I believe there needs to be some new element in the story.
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 5th December 2009, 5:36pm)
Huh, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=52133485.
Not Cheekychops!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Sun 6th December 2009, 7:42am)
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 6th December 2009, 3:22am)
I think what you mean is that Wikipedia cannot change for the better. We've seen plenty of change for the worse.
I actually suspect that what you're characterizing as "change for the worse" is just Wikipedia getting larger. It's not like Wikipedia had a responsible approach to BLPs back in 2003; it's just that it's growth since then has made it's irresponsible approach all the more problematic. Likewise, it's not like it had a reasonable approach to governance when it was first created; it's just that the approach became more obviously unreasonable as the editing community grew. If anything, I think Wikipedia probably has changed incrementally for the better, though I am talking about very small increments.As someone who was in the BLP frontline some years ago, things have very much changed.
Back then, even the notion that uncited material was to be removed was contentious. A few dozen of us were awake to the issues and the amount of flack we took was ridiculous. Using admin tools in defence of BLP was insanely controversial.
Now, most people accept that their is a serious BLP problem. The "freedom of speech" hardliners are marginalised. The problem on wikipedia is not convincing people that "something should be done", it is that when anything that might help a bit is suggested it is defeated by the stupid way wikipedia changes policy. You need 70% - but by the time the BLP-irresponsible minority have combined with the people who say "this particular idea won't help much" and the people who say "I prefer idea x" and the people who say "no need, flagged revisions will sort this", and the people who are opposed because it will cause some pet article to be lost, you've got no chance.
I firmly believe that IF wikipedia had a policy body, things would be better. In the absence of that WMF intervention is the only forlorn hope there is.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(One @ Sun 6th December 2009, 8:50am)
I'm with Sarcasticidealist here. Most Wikipedians on this site are concerned about BLP. Although we regret that anyone was harmed in this incident, we know that it happens all of the time. We also know that embarrassments like this are a good way to spur action by people capable of making decisions (i.e., not the Wikipedia "community").
However, I should also say that this will not be another Seigenthaler simply because there was already a Seigenthaler. Nor will there be another story like Essjay; some users here perpetually hope that these will be replicated. In order for that to happen, I believe there needs to be some new element in the story.
This is the most disturbing post I've read on WR in a long time. Seigenthaler was four years ago this week. Essjay was almost three years ago. You've been on Wikipedia for nearly six years, watching all this unfold.
And now you are shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Shit happens; I'm just following orders."
A new element might be people like you (and NYB) finding some sort of backbone and standing up to Wikipedia on occasion.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 6th December 2009, 4:14pm)
This is the most disturbing post I've read on WR in a long time. Seigenthaler was four years ago this week. Essjay was almost three years ago. You've been on Wikipedia for nearly six years, watching all this unfold.
And now you are shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Shit happens; I'm just following orders."
A new element might be people like you (and NYB) finding some sort of backbone and standing up to Wikipedia on occasion.
And now you are shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Shit happens; I'm just following orders."
A new element might be people like you (and NYB) finding some sort of backbone and standing up to Wikipedia on occasion.
Strangely, I agree.
Most Wikipedians (like me) can shout at the darkness and write essays, but it does little good. Abcom (and Jimbo) for that matter certainly don't have magic wands here, but they do have an enormous soap box. Now, I know enough to know that arbs are genuinely concerned, and that they do what little they think they can to help. However, I'm not convinced by their protestation of impotency, and I'm certainly not convinced that, given the moral imperative here, they should not have been shouting louder and manipulating harder.
Arbcom could force the community to waken up. They could also prod the WMF into action. Sure, it might be a stunt - but we all know that this problem will only be solved when either the community or the WMF is pushed by a crisis. That crisis may be legal or some tragic event that create a PR disaster (someone committing suicide over a wiki-bio?). Arbcom have it in their power to create a crisis or two that needs none of these. Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 6th December 2009, 4:46pm)
threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.
Note that the community will call your bluff every time, if that matters to anyone.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 6th December 2009, 10:46am)
Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.
The problem with this idea is that most of the people on ArbCom are there because they enjoy the political gaming that goes with being there. It's not about having and using power; most of them know that using their power too brazenly openly will lead to losing it. It's about the game itself, and the privileged position within the game that goes with their rank. Orchestrating a mass resignation threat just isn't consistent with that; resigning is what you do when you've already lost the game, and threatening to resign just isn't a valid move. It would be rather like a soldier on the battlefield threatening to kill himself unless the enemy agrees to back down.For many people, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia project, it's a complicated role playing game, and must be analyzed and treated as such. The encyclopedia is, at best, secondary.
Of course, there's also people who are attempting to win the game in the hopes of using the power they think will come with winning the game to control what the encyclopedia says. For the most part, they will find that their efforts are in vain: winning the game doesn't let you control what the encyclopedia says. There are ways to influence what the encyclopedia says, and playing the game is related to that, but those two systems interact in complicated ways and neither is subordinated to the other.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 6th December 2009, 12:17pm)
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 6th December 2009, 4:46pm)
threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.
Note that the community will call your bluff every time, if that matters to anyone.
To my mind the only encouraging developments in the past two years on Wikipedia has been the rapid increase in the scale of the infrastructure under Gardner. Keep in mind that I am only talking about scale and do not approve of the direction it has taken. The worst illustration of this direction is Gardner's selection of Moeller as her #2. Still this development of infrastructure is not unimportant. It is an absolute prerequisite for a responsible WMF. The Wikipedia of Flo-Flo and Danny (not friends, I know) could never even hope to be responsible. They would always have been dominated by an ultra-libertarian "community."
If WMF continues to grow as it has in the past two years it might be able to reshuffle priorities. WMF needs a large cadre of staff working not on PR but program, editorial and content. Perhaps with a staff of 150 or 200 and budget around $20 - 25,000,000/yr. they could could assure high quality content, retain experts as needed, resolve BLP problems, adopt meaningful child protection measures and obtain independent dispute resolution. They might even find the benefits of responsibility are greater than those of immunity. A top 10 website with staffing and budget on this scale is in no way remarkable.
The collapse of the projects most important "community" organ, ArbCom, would serve as an opportunity for WMF assuming more responsibility. It might also result in matters defaulting into the hands of darker and even more irresponsible elements in "the community. In any case an activist ArbCom trying desperately to address the projects problems is only a stop-gap.
Posted by: ColScott
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 6th December 2009, 8:46am)
Arbcom could force the community to waken up. They could also prod the WMF into action. Sure, it might be a stunt - but we all know that this problem will only be solved when either the community or the WMF is pushed by a crisis. That crisis may be legal or some tragic event that create a PR disaster (someone committing suicide over a wiki-bio?). Arbcom have it in their power to create a crisis or two that needs none of these. Change the policy (no you don't have the power to do it - but do it anyway). Lead and many of us will follow. threaten to resign en masse unless the community agrees some way forward in six weeks. You can focus minds, or you can at least try.
There is no way forward. The only solution is to shut it down and scatter it to the four winds. The idea that experts don't matter but 12 year old Canadians in their basements do is beyond untenable. There is no fixing something that is one hundred percent fucked from the head on down. What gives any anonymous douchebag the qualifications to write about ME and then call it encyclopedic? The project has failed from the top down. There is no fixing. Even smart guys like Doc are saying things that are NOT WORTH DOING.
On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sun 6th December 2009, 5:58pm)
To my mind the only encouraging developments in the past two years on Wikipedia has been the rapid increase in the scale of the infrastructure under Gardner. Keep in mind that I am only talking about scale and do not approve of the direction it has taken. The worst illustration of this direction is Gardner's selection of Moeller as her #2. Still this development of infrastructure is not unimportant. It is an absolute prerequisite for a responsible WMF. The Wikipedia of Flo-Flo and Danny (not friends, I know) could never even hope to be responsible. They would always have been dominated by an ultra-libertarian "community."
I have been reading and an old saying comes to mind, in regards to the intentions of the wikileet to build the on line monument to the Jimbogod and his dream of "The sum of human knowledge". This project has been a failure due to the lack governance, maturity and respect to the greater whole of the internet (world).
Such intentions and do gooding by the wikileet is just more proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Just to summarized the facts from the clouds of wiki love/hope/sekrets/drama...
1. Responsible governance, administrating fair policy, is unknown in Wikipedia. In it's place is cyber world of Somali land, where there is no rule of law, only warlords, gangs and the Darwinian cut.
2. No 1. is enabled and protected by the overly broad interpenetration of section 230. But, the courts may, tighten up the interpenetration, if enough case (especially egregious ones) begin to flow in large numbers in to the courts. The courts will be pressed ( the Lawmakers who right laws will be pressed as well) to stop the injustice caused by the irresponsible wikileet to control their fecal farm of defamation.
3. 230 will be changed/ or pierced, in time and the first defamation lawsuit against wikipedia to win will mark the end of the project. Only one needs to win, and considering the irresponsible wiki leet and the lack of governance, is WILL HAPPEN.
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 5th December 2009, 4:16pm)
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.
I'm beginning to agree with Somey. Lee Dennison appears to be an elaborate construct that spans years and hundreds of websites. Poetguy must be looking on in envy.
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sun 6th December 2009, 6:43pm)
On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.
ColScott, If you think your experiences are similar to Livingston's, why don't you just get a lawyer yourself and start a class action suit? Presumably you would be part of this class anyway, right? Besides, it would be a good publicity generator for the Wikipedia-themed horror movie you claim to be making...
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sun 6th December 2009, 11:43am)
On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.
The sourly humorous thing is that when Wiki-Paed-ia does finally get hit with the defamation or child protection lawsuit to end all lawsuits, everybody there from Jimbo to Godwin will say, in unison:
ZOMG, we never even saw this coming!
Following which, will be speeches from all of them, down to the minor WMF functionaries and newly hired PR people, to the effect that the internet is such a wild-west place that new problems like this pop up and can't be predicted. They're like new flu strains. If somebody had actually warned Jimbo early enough, he might have had time to head it off.
As it is, of course now that WMF is aware of the defamation problem, they're working as fast as they can to fix it.
There's this new idea called "flagged revisions" for instance. And another one called "semi-protection" where articles can't just be edited by anybody, thus completely preventing vandalism by anonymous accounts to biographies! Clever, no? (Erik Moeller thought of it).Anyway, courts, be nice to Wikipaedia. They're pioneers like NASA. Remember when that capsule caught fire and burned up all those astronauts? Who knew? You recognize the pioneer as the guy with all the arrows protruding from his back! Godwin, are you taking notes?
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sun 6th December 2009, 6:43pm)
There is no way forward. The only solution is to shut it down and scatter it to the four winds. The idea that experts don't matter but 12 year old Canadians in their basements do is beyond untenable. There is no fixing something that is one hundred percent fucked from the head on down. What gives any anonymous douchebag the qualifications to write about ME and then call it encyclopedic? The project has failed from the top down. There is no fixing. Even smart guys like Doc are saying things that are NOT WORTH DOING.
AMEN BRO... Sing it loud.
As i have said many times...
After all that has been said this is the general consensus of WR
and those out side Wikipedia:
1. Wikipedia has no governance to speak of. Its a land of Jungle law.
2. Wikipedia has no respect for people and their works. People are treated on Wikipedia like shit.
3. Wikipedia can not be trusted for accurate information considering the agenda pushing street gangs of wiki.
4. Wikipedia pollutes the internet as well as diminishes scholarship. It floods and pollutes the search engines on the internet and pushes out good scholarship and honest debate in favor of bad scholarship, defamation and bold face intimation and thuggery.
5. Wikipedia needs to be bought under the rules of slander, liable, defamation, and copyright laws.
6. Wikipedia should be stripped of its 501c3 status.
Wikipedia is out of control wild west with out rules, ethics or accountability.
It would be a favor to the body politic to sell the wikipedia domain to more responsible parties (Britannia etc), and purge the servers and sell them to the highest bidder and use the money to feed African children.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 6th December 2009, 1:09pm)
Lee Dennison appears to be an elaborate construct that spans years and hundreds of websites. Poetguy must be looking on in envy.
Probably... Basically what Poetguy did was pretend to be a group of females (and two or three males) in order to promote himself, mostly just on Wikipedia. More importantly, he didn't attack other people's BLP's - the idea wouldn't even have occurred to him. His mistake was getting heavily involved with the "community" (including WR), which the guy behind "Lee Dennison" doesn't appear to have done.
Meanwhile, the person behind "Lee Dennison" doesn't seem to be promoting himself at all - this character, as well as the "son," Harry Dennison, are probably completely unrelated to the perpetrator(s). And while they obviously have attacked BLP's, they don't seem to have made any attempt to post new BLP articles about real people at all, unless the attempt(s) were deleted and we therefore haven't seen them. Any WP admins care to check on that...? (Please?)
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.
The fact remains, if you do a name search on IMDB for either of those names, you get doodley-squat. Neither of these "Dennison" people exists, I'm sure of it. From what I'm seeing, he was probably invented for the sole purpose of outing celebrities as gay, whether they actually are/were or not. The "helpful" edits to other WP articles such as Kate Bush (T-H-L-K-D) and Bucks Fizz (band) (T-H-L-K-D) were probably just done to "establish" those two accounts... It wouldn't be surprising if there were more accounts too, possibly several.
Posted by: Cedric
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Sun 6th December 2009, 1:23pm)
6. Wikipedia should be stripped of its 501c3 status.
I don't know that this view can really be taken as a "general consensus" here, although I am in agreement with it. Unfortunately, however, I think the IRS will strip Scientology of its 501(c )(3) status long before they would ever take any notice of the WMF in this regard (i.e., never).
Fortunately, that issue is becoming moot. The Wikipedia Suicide Squad is on the job.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(ColScott @ Sun 6th December 2009, 6:43pm)
On Monday I am forwarding this thread to Livingston's agent, along with similar threads about my experiences. If his lawyer is smart, he can declare a calss action lawsuit on behalf of everyone known and unknown attacked by WP. This is impossible to defend against, will cost them millions and will hopefully be the end of this shitty nightmare.
Whilst I would not cry if you were successful, I doubt it will happen.
I also think you confuse two legitimate criticisms:
1) Wikipedia may be a moronic concept. I suppose that very much depends on one's epistemology. However, there is no law against having a crappy encyclopedia with unreliable articles, nor should there be.
2) That people can write about you with impunity is wrong. That should not be allowed. People who write about other living people should do so my name and be fully accountable in reputation and in law. Yes, people can comment anonymously on other websites, but the proprietors of other websites do not pass off the commentary of anonymous persons as factual.
Mah, having written this, I'm not so sure those criticisms can be differentiated....
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Cedric @ Sun 6th December 2009, 8:26pm)
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.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 1:42pm)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rollin%27_with_the_Nines&action=historysubmit&diff=155022034&oldid=144889527 in a Wikipedia article, dating back to 2007-09-01.
There seems to be an affinity between the http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/search/ds-search-forums.php?query=lee%20dennison&page=1&search=2&lnpp=50 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).
Posted by: 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=Jake_Maskall&diff=next&oldid=78327944
Jeremy Sheffield (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Sheffield&diff=prev&oldid=166941787
Giles Coren (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giles_Coren&diff=prev&oldid=184983440
Ben James-Ellis (T-H-L-K-D) (not dating, though):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_James-Ellis&diff=prev&oldid=142005802
Rav Wilding (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rav_Wilding&diff=prev&oldid=142239499
Joey Stefano (T-H-L-K-D):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joey_Stefano&diff=prev&oldid=124093264
Rashid bin Mohammed Al Maktoum (T-H-L-K-D), just days ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rashid_bin_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum&diff=prev&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=Tony_Forsyth&diff=prev&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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sun 6th December 2009, 3:42pm)
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...?
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 10:07pm)
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.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 6th December 2009, 4:07pm)
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:
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(One @ Sun 6th December 2009, 7:40pm - from the other thread)
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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:24am)
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
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:24am)
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.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:24pm)
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.
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:24pm)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Livingston.jpg 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, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=268441424&oldid=268357515 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 3:06pm)
With that in mind, I will point out that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Livingston.jpg 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, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=268441424&oldid=268357515 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.
Mark is an employee of the organization that owns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8, 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.
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 3:06pm)
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Livingston.jpg 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, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=268441424&oldid=268357515 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8, though I won't link to the proof, as it includes an address and telephone number.
Qualiti work as always, Tarantino!
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:24am)
Qualiti work as always, Tarantino!
"Qualitiwork" indeed - I doubt that http://www.qualitiwork.com/ is even a real company, since the same person who's been behind this entire hoax is also the http://www.who.is/whois/qualitiwork.com/ for the company's internet domain. The address, "27 Old Gloucester Street," is a mail drop also used by another of his phony companies, http://www.hotfroguk.co.uk/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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_TV_%28France%29&diff=next&oldid=195027235, 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.
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Tarc
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:47am)
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.
QUOTE
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.
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 4:12pm)
For WP'ers looking to remove more evidence, Mark decided in April 2008 that he should also be a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_TV_%28France%29&diff=next&oldid=195027235, 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torbay&diff=prev&oldid=206539218]] 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?
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 4:46pm)
The holdouts in flyover country aren't enough to matter.
That's fine for someone who doesn't live there to say.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:41am)
There are certainly a lot of convenient breadcrumbs to follow. Multiple choice: a. lone careless nut...
He's definitely a careless nut, and may be "lone"... but he's http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmore, who I believe is the one real person in this whole charade. Note the "Favorite music" list... "La fiesta dans le 66" is a veiled reference to Foundation66 which only exists on Facebook, and "Maison De l'Orb" is a reference to his B&B in Beziers, France, which has http://maisondelorb.blogspot.com/, which at the moment contains a phony (as in non-existent) "review" from The Independent, no doubt written by http://www.blogger.com/profile/06517065039364779131. For a real review of the B&B, look http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r33258179-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#CHECK_RATES_CONT - it's the one entitled "Building site from hell," posted by "rigormortis," between the (phony) ones posted by "rlivingston" (yeah right) and "Lee Kaay."
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:47am)
More interesting is the edit to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torbay&diff=prev&oldid=206539218]] 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.
Well, at least someone managed to revert that one!
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 4:46pm)
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.
http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/08/entertainment_media_litigation.html would seem to be a relevant and recent case.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 11:46am)
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.
So a person, believing the false statement that her fiancé is gay, cancels the engagement? Could also happen if a gay life partner leaves based the analogous lie. It is still serious defamation. It should raise even more red flags when the accusation touches on maters historically seen as defamation per se. An encyclopedia has absolutely no business saying anything "impossible to substantiate."
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 11:05am)
He's definitely a careless nut, and may be "lone"... but he's http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmore, who I believe is the one real person in this whole charade. Note the "Favorite music" list... "La fiesta dans le 66" is a veiled reference to Foundation66 which only exists on Facebook, and "Maison De l'Orb" is a reference to his B&B in Beziers, France, which has http://maisondelorb.blogspot.com/, which at the moment contains a phony (as in non-existent) "review" from The Independent, no doubt written by http://www.blogger.com/profile/06517065039364779131. For a real review of the B&B, look http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r33258179-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#CHECK_RATES_CONT - it's the one entitled "Building site from hell," posted by "rigormortis," between the (phony) ones posted by "rlivingston" (yeah right) and "Lee Kaay."
Well, if Foundation66 doesn't need his services anymore, I'm sure David Gerard can get him an interview at Wikimedia Foundation, and Mike Godwin can get him a green card.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:46am)
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.
Speaking as someone in "flyover country" whose state is one of the few in the US to allow gay marriages...
If you want some proof that this guy is malignant, beyond just the gay stuff, have a look at http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d498299-r34941151-Hotel_de_France_Beziers-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html in Beziers, using "rlivingston" as the name of the reviewer. And I suspect that if we keep looking, we'll find more stuff like this.
The guy's obviously nuts, but not in a good way.
Posted by: ColScott
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:46am)
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.
You may actually be too stupid to live. The man is an actor. He will claim he is a leading man. He will state that Hollywood will not hire him as a leading man if he is gay. He will then claim millions in damages because of these false allegations which seem designed to hurt him.
You sir are a moron.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I huffed and I puffed and I posted a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/05/ron-livingston-wikipedia_n_381345.html?show_comment_id=35844201#comment_35844201 at The Huffington Post.
I expect you all to be on your best behavior …
Jon 
P.S. Sorry if someone already posted a notice there, as I couldn't wade through all 573 previous comments to find out.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(ColScott @ Mon 7th December 2009, 5:13pm)
You may actually be too stupid to live. The man is an actor. He will claim he is a leading man. He will state that Hollywood will not hire him as a leading man if he is gay. He will then claim millions in damages because of these false allegations which seem designed to hurt him.
You sir are a moron.
You sir are a moron.
Maybe not a moron, but naive in the extreme (or blinded by his own cultural prejudices).
Defamation does not only equal "being called something that most liberal Americans think is a Bad Thing"
DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation.
All you need to show is that someone maliciously or negligently stated an untruth and that untruth has caused you harm, disadvantage or quantifiable distress.
If you falsely alleged that I'm am a woman, and get me kicked out of the "male internet user's club", I have a case for defamation. That does not mean woman are inferior.
And the fact is that EVEN in the US, EVEN in 2009, people thinking you are gay can cause you substantial harm in various contexts - even if it is just in you attempts to get laid in a heterosexual singles' bar. But defamation is not just about what might cause you harm in the cultural mainstream - if it causes you embarrassment in your conservative evangelical church meeting, you may still have a case for defamation.
10 years ago Jason Donovan won £200,000 libel damaged from "The Face" when they alleged he was gay. He was accused of homophobia when he launched the suit - but there's no evidence he was - and he won.
(I wonder how long before a gay man wins libel damages against someone for calling them "straight"? When it happens (as it probably will) it will prove my point).
Posted by: Somey
I have to say, it's very tempting to go to some of these blogs and "open content" gossip sites, and tell them that "Lee Dennison" isn't a real person, and (just to be thorough) link to this thread. Several of them seem to be completely hoodwinked, and I'm not sure I blame them, given how elaborate and extensive the fiction is.
I'm sure the MSM will figure it out once they try to contact "Lee Dennison" for a comment, but that could take several days...
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 6:33pm)
I'm sure the MSM will figure it out once they try to contact "Lee Dennison" for a comment, but that could take several days...
Or they'll just call the phone number or write to the email listed on the "Fushion" site - either of which I'd bet will end up being answered by the guy behind this. The fiction is elaborate enough that trying to contact him for comment won't necessarily reveal that he's fake.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 7th December 2009, 12:48pm)
Or they'll just call the phone number or write to the email listed on the "Fushion" site - either of which I'd bet will end up being answered by the guy behind this. The fiction is elaborate enough that trying to contact him for comment won't necessarily reveal that he's fake.
The e-mails, sure, but the phone numbers... I haven't called any of them myself, but I'd say the chances that any of them are even in service are less than 10 percent, and if they are, they've probably been long since reassigned to other phone customers. If this guy isn't willing to spend money even to set up proper web hosting (though admittedly he does seem to have done that with "Qualitiwork Ltd."), he's almost certainly not going to shell out for phone numbers and answering services. There might be a 2-3 percent chance that one of the numbers will ring to an answering machine, but any calls that are returned will be dialed from a different number.
Aside from that, it's a good point - I myself have personal experience of actors actually being hired for the purpose of maintaining these kinds of charades via telephone conversations, and for someone not expecting it, that can be extremely convincing. Hopefully this thread will help, though it's difficult to predict.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
False accusations of homosexuality are no longer considered actionable in the UK (in general) and suing for being accused on homosexuality can damage an actor's career - they get accused of homophobia.
One exception would be if they were married, etc, because then the claim would infer they are being unfaithful to their partner.
Just a few thoughts, though, as this is obviously US-based.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:27pm)
One exception would be if they were married, etc, because then the claim would infer they are being unfaithful to their partner.
Ron Livingston is married - to Rosemarie DeWitt.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
QUOTE(Random832 @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:38pm)
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:27pm)
One exception would be if they were married, etc, because then the claim would infer they are being unfaithful to their partner.
Ron Livingston is married - to Rosemarie DeWitt.
Yeah, which over here would be the issue. Suing purely over the homosexual allegation would do more harm than good here.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:27pm)
False accusations of homosexuality are no longer considered actionable in the UK
I find that unlikely, do you have a source?
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 1:22pm)
Aside from that, it's a good point - I myself have personal experience of actors actually being hired for the purpose of maintaining these kinds of charades via telephone conversations, and for someone not expecting it, that can be extremely convincing. Hopefully this thread will help, though it's difficult to predict.
Somey: Have you seen http://www.fushion-uk.com/news.htm? I wonder if those names of Mark's assistants are all fake. It's time to start saving pages like that one in case they begin to disappear. It's quite clear now that Mark is behind the http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison, and the only question is whether someone is behind Mark.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:43pm)
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:27pm)
False accusations of homosexuality are no longer considered actionable in the UK
I find that unlikely, do you have a source?
Well, it's not something that can be sourced as it's just something that's happened in case law. Was again pointed out at the last media law refresher course I went on.
The case that turned it, largely, was Jason Donovan in 1992 or so. He was accused of being homosexual, sued, won the action but then his career collapsed. Since then it has largely been seen that a false claim of homosexuality, in itself and with the provisos mentioned, isn't actionable.
It showed that in the minds of the right thinking man on the street, somebody's reputation could be damaged more by looking homophobic than by being falsely accused of homosexuality.
I'm sure there have been a few cases since Donovan, but the days of Liberace V Cassandra and the "Daily Mirror" are over (although that's a bad example as it pre-dated the legalisation of homosexuality).
Anyway, we're dealing with US law here and US interpretations, added to the fact Livingston is married (one of the provisos I mentioned), so this is a bit off topic.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:05pm)
It showed that in the minds of the right thinking man on the street, somebody's reputation could be damaged more by looking homophobic than by being falsely accused of homosexuality.
Shouldn't the media coverage that suggests the person is homophobic* then be considered defamatory? The perception by 'the right thinking man on the street' that this lawsuit means he is homophobic does not arise in a vacuum.
*And there certainly is some in this case
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:04pm)
Somey: Have you seen http://www.fushion-uk.com/news.htm? I wonder if those names of Mark's assistants are all fake.
Every single one!
At one point, Mark claimed that the woman who replaced Siobhan in Bananarama, Jacquie O'Sullivan (T-H-L-K-D), was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacquie_O%27Sullivan&action=historysubmit&diff=56712898&oldid=54601329. In fact, Ms. O'Sullivan is happily married, retired from the music business, and doing some sort of arts 'n' crafts kinda thing in the Midlands somewhere. (I could look it up if you want...)
QUOTE
It's time to start saving pages like that one in case they begin to disappear. It's quite clear now that Mark is behind the Lee Dennison page, and the only question is whether someone is behind Mark.
I doubt anyone is behind Mark, personally. The fact is, and I hate to seem homophobic or whatever, but for most gay guys the act of "outing" a male (or even female) celebrity as gay is a huge deal, like a trophy or something - to be touted and shouted to the rooftops. This guy is operating in the shadows, keeping his head down - not the standard MO at all, from what I understand (which, admittedly, is not based on first-hand experience!)...
That's really how he got away with it on WP for so long - not only did he not engage with the community (posting mostly from IP's, etc.), he always backed down when challenged. Even when the three BLP articles he wrote about his alter egos (Lee D., Harry D., and "Lee Kaay," supposedly another "rising pop star" on "Bite Records" who had some hit records in Scandinavia) were AfD's, I don't think he even showed up to vote "keep" on two of them, and on the "Lee Dennison" one, he didn't exactly put up much of a fight.
This is a lesson for anyone looking to do self-promotion on WP - don't engage. Spend your time setting up fake websites, blogs, etc., etc., and even then, don't engage with the WP'ers.
Frankly, if this Mark dude hadn't been attacking BLP's with gay rumors, he'd not only still be getting away with it, he'd probably have actually cast several films by now, just on the basis of his web presence alone!
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 3:20pm)
not the standard MO at all …
Not that there's anything wrong with that …
Jon
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:20pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:04pm)
Somey: Have you seen http://www.fushion-uk.com/news.htm? I wonder if those names of Mark's assistants are all fake.
Every single one!
Well, http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000067883771!
Is it my imagination, or did the pic on Mark's Facebook entry change within the last few hours? I remember it didn't look that way when Somey linked to it earlier today in this thread.
And http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000088301916? A different Mark? It resembles Mark's pic on his blog. If it's the same Mark, this might be the more interesting Facebook entry, since this entry shows some friends with his same last name.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:43pm)
Well, http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000067883771!
Hee seems to have grabbed photos from off the net for Facebook pages http://www.facebook.com/lee.kaay.Meanwhile, there are still WP'ers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARon_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=329969426&oldid=329968696 (note: corrected URL), and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARon_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=330266272&oldid=330242969.
QUOTE
Is it my imagination, or did the pic on Mark's Facebook entry change within the last few hours? I remember it didn't look that way when Somey linked to it earlier today in this thread.
Correction: He did just change the photo, and remove the fake people from his friends list. (http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmore.) Most of the "interests" entries are still there as of now....
His http://www.blogger.com/profile/06517065039364779131 is still there as of now.
This is interesting: Mark is something of a poet, but check the URL on blogspot for his http://mbinmore.blogspot.com/2009/03/normal-0-false-false-false_15.html, The Ninth Wave. Is that normal for Blogspot? The entry claims that "Kindlight," the service that supposedly would be doing the publishing, "offers turn-key, custom book publishing services for authors seeking a cost-effective, fast, and flexible way to publish and distribute their books while retaining all their rights and full creative control." In fact, Kindlight simply does not exist.
Posted by: xinjeisan
Hi, I started following this thread while I was doing my own research for the article.
It is interesting to note this website
http://www.jacquieoh.com
has now been scrubbed of the following page, as well:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:bTtZSDiFHoIJ:www.jacquieoh.com/biography.html+http://www.jacquieoh.com/+lee+dennison&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
which mentions Lee Dennison.
Also, I'd like to point out that this edit:
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 12:56pm)
Meanwhile, there are still WP'ers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=190665681,
was from over a year ago. This editor was on to Lee Dennisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blahblax, and if only someone had paid attention to him, this might have been found out long ago.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
If you want to see more friends pics on Facebook but seem to be blocked for privacy reasons, just try this:
1. Land on the Facebook entry you want.
2. In the URL in the address bar, add this string: ?_fb_noscript=1
3. Hit your refresh button (F5) and the friends lineup should scroll to a new line every time you hit it.
I tried it on three different browsers, with Javascript on and off, and it works for me. This works better than logging into Facebook with your fake account, because you may still be unable to see all the friends. This works for me even if I don't log in.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Mon 7th December 2009, 2:17pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 12:56pm)
Meanwhile, there are still WP'ers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=190665681...
was from over a year ago. This editor was on to Lee Dennisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blahblax, and if only someone had paid attention to him, this might have been found out long ago.Comment:
One of the offending "Lee Dennison" IP's was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.22.3.8, following discussion here. The reason why it took so long: look at thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8. Everybody treated it with kid gloves, thinking it was a school IP. IOW: same-old shit at Wikipedia. They'll tolerate any amount of vandalism rather than nail a junior high library computer.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Mon 7th December 2009, 3:17pm)
...was from over a year ago. This editor was on to Lee Dennisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blahblax, and if only someone had paid attention to him, this might have been found out long ago.
Oops, you're right... sorry about that!
I actually meant to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARon_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=329969426&oldid=329968696. I shall correct it in the original post... Got my Firefox tabs mixed up there.So why didn't people listen to Blahblax (T-C-L-K-R-D) ? Maybe they didn't like his user name? Or he just wasn't persistent enough. (Note: My original, incorrect link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=190665681 was Blahblax's one attempt to inform the "community" of what was going on. Maybe he should have tried ANI instead...
)
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Find "maisondelorb" about two-thirds the way down http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=14964&sid=c910b05e8efcf6d1800e764eb839bbd9. This was posted less than a month ago. It appears to be either Mark or Mark's partner.
QUOTE
Work status ?
Own and run Maison De L'Orb - see blog for details.
Previous line of work ?
Fashion buyer, think Miranda Priestly in timbers and you are halfway there. Also worked in music management working with amongst many Pet Shopp Boys, Swing Out Sister, Kate Bush and Bananarama....Also a writer of short stories and songs which I have recently collated and put up on my blogsite.
They must have money. He says he's been in France for three years. Is Mark telecommuting into Foundation66's computer? Is it possible to fake ownership of a bed and breakfast in Beziers, France?
Own and run Maison De L'Orb - see blog for details.
Previous line of work ?
Fashion buyer, think Miranda Priestly in timbers and you are halfway there. Also worked in music management working with amongst many Pet Shopp Boys, Swing Out Sister, Kate Bush and Bananarama....Also a writer of short stories and songs which I have recently collated and put up on my blogsite.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:02pm)
They must have money. He says he's been in France for three years. Is Mark telecommuting into Foundation66's computer? Is it possible to fake ownership of a bed and breakfast in Beziers, France?
It's possible, but who would want to? People would think you were gay.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:02pm)
They must have money. He says he's been in France for three years. Is Mark telecommuting into Foundation66's computer? Is it possible to fake ownership of a bed and breakfast in Beziers, France?
Good questions... I mean, if you look at one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=329820728&oldid=329819920 the IP geolocates to College Station, TX of all places (on suddenlink.net). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=329821569 geolocates to somewhere in Canada, though that's probably someone who heard about the lawsuit and decided to hurry up and get in on the fun before the article was protected.
It's possible he's had help doing all this from friends, or he might even have a botnet for all we know. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that he was remoting into a Foundation66 computer (or a resident's computer with a Foundation66 IP address). Maybe he doesn't actually work for Foundation66 at all (despite http://icdas.blogspot.com/2009/08/foundation-66-islington-evening-service.html, which I should note is not on the Foundation66 website and was posted by someone else, named "Richard" - so even that could be phony). He might have just known somebody there, for all we know... I mean, if Foundation66 is running a Windows NT (or higher) domain controller that exposes a proxy that's remotely available to anyone with a domain account there, he wouldn't even have to use a remoting program, right? Just specify that that's his proxy server in his Internet settings.
But ultimately, yes, I do think it's easier (or at least more likely) for someone to fake a social-services job than a French B&B.
It's also possible that both the Foundation66 connection and Maison de l'Orb are fake, but it should be possible for any decent journalist to check both of those things.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
If Ron Livingston's attorney is smart he'll get a private dick (I chose my words carefully) to check out the B&B ownership in France, and another to pay a visit to Foundation66 in London, before the trail gets too cold. But most attorneys prefer to spew out court briefs that have little chance of success, because they charge by the billable hour (and probably charge more than private dicks).
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:56pm)
Maybe he doesn't actually work for Foundation66 at all (despite http://icdas.blogspot.com/2009/08/foundation-66-islington-evening-service.html, which I should note is not on the Foundation66 website and was posted by someone else, named "Richard" - so even that could be phony). He might have just known somebody there, for all we know... I mean, if Foundation66 is running a Windows NT (or higher) domain controller that exposes a proxy that's remotely available to anyone with a domain account there, he wouldn't even have to use a remoting program, right? Just specify that that's his proxy server in his Internet settings.
But ultimately, yes, I do think it's easier (or at least more likely) for someone to fake a social-services job than a French B&B.
Yes, with 200 staff members, and no doubt dozens of affiliate self-help groups, and many volunteer "practitioners," I imagine it would be very simple to steal some announcement of some upcoming event and post it under your own name. No one would care or notice that you signed it "Senior Practitioner."
Here's a port scan on that Foundation66 IP, but I don't know much about ports or about nmap, so I probably missed anything significant that might indicate vulnerability as a proxy, or completely messed up nmap since I've tried to use it only about three times in my life:
CODE
C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76>nmap -sVC -v 212.22.3.8
Starting Nmap 4.76 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2009-12-06 00:23 Central Standard Time
Initiating Ping Scan at 00:23
Scanning 212.22.3.8 [2 ports]
Completed Ping Scan at 00:23, 0.20s elapsed (1 total hosts)
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 00:23
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 00:23, 0.02s elapsed
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 00:23
Scanning dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8) [1000 ports]
Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 443/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 25/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 143/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 993/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 00:23, 8.33s elapsed (1000 total ports)
Initiating Service scan at 00:23
Scanning 6 services on dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8)
Completed Service scan at 00:25, 118.67s elapsed (6 services on 1 host)
SCRIPT ENGINE: Initiating script scanning.
Initiating SCRIPT ENGINE at 00:25
Completed SCRIPT ENGINE at 00:25, 1.89s elapsed
Host dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8):
Not shown: 992 filtered ports
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
25/tcp open smtp Microsoft ESMTP 6.0.3790.3959
| SMTPcommands: EHLO mailserver.rharp.org.uk Hello [69.149.106.37], TURN, SIZE,
ETRN, PIPELINING, DSN, ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES, 8bitmime, BINARYMIME, CHUNKING, VRF
Y, TLS, STARTTLS, X-EXPS GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN, X-EXPS=LOGIN, AUTH GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN
, AUTH=LOGIN, X-LINK2STATE, XEXCH50
|_ HELP This server supports the following commands:, , HELO EHLO STARTTLS RCPT
DATA RSET MAIL QUIT HELP AUTH TURN ETRN BDAT VRFY
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
143/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
443/tcp open https?
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
465/tcp closed smtps
587/tcp closed submission
993/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
1723/tcp open pptp Microsoft (Firmware: 3790)
Service Info: Host: mailserver.rharp.org.uk; OS: Windows
Read data files from: C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.
org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 130.16 seconds
Raw packets sent: 1997 (87.836KB) | Rcvd: 18 (768B)
C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76>
Starting Nmap 4.76 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2009-12-06 00:23 Central Standard Time
Initiating Ping Scan at 00:23
Scanning 212.22.3.8 [2 ports]
Completed Ping Scan at 00:23, 0.20s elapsed (1 total hosts)
Initiating Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 00:23
Completed Parallel DNS resolution of 1 host. at 00:23, 0.02s elapsed
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan at 00:23
Scanning dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8) [1000 ports]
Discovered open port 1723/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 443/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 25/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 143/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 993/tcp on 212.22.3.8
Completed SYN Stealth Scan at 00:23, 8.33s elapsed (1000 total ports)
Initiating Service scan at 00:23
Scanning 6 services on dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8)
Completed Service scan at 00:25, 118.67s elapsed (6 services on 1 host)
SCRIPT ENGINE: Initiating script scanning.
Initiating SCRIPT ENGINE at 00:25
Completed SCRIPT ENGINE at 00:25, 1.89s elapsed
Host dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on dickens.arp-uk.org (212.22.3.8):
Not shown: 992 filtered ports
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
25/tcp open smtp Microsoft ESMTP 6.0.3790.3959
| SMTPcommands: EHLO mailserver.rharp.org.uk Hello [69.149.106.37], TURN, SIZE,
ETRN, PIPELINING, DSN, ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES, 8bitmime, BINARYMIME, CHUNKING, VRF
Y, TLS, STARTTLS, X-EXPS GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN, X-EXPS=LOGIN, AUTH GSSAPI NTLM LOGIN
, AUTH=LOGIN, X-LINK2STATE, XEXCH50
|_ HELP This server supports the following commands:, , HELO EHLO STARTTLS RCPT
DATA RSET MAIL QUIT HELP AUTH TURN ETRN BDAT VRFY
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
143/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
443/tcp open https?
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
465/tcp closed smtps
587/tcp closed submission
993/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
1723/tcp open pptp Microsoft (Firmware: 3790)
Service Info: Host: mailserver.rharp.org.uk; OS: Windows
Read data files from: C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at http://nmap.
org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 130.16 seconds
Raw packets sent: 1997 (87.836KB) | Rcvd: 18 (768B)
C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76>
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:56pm)
...if you look at one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=329820728&oldid=329819920 the IP geolocates to College Station, TX of all places (on suddenlink.net). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=329821569 geolocates to somewhere in Canada, though that's probably someone who heard about the lawsuit and decided to hurry up and get in on the fun before the article was protected.
The recently blocked IP: 212.22.3.8, which made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.22.3.8 edits, geolocates to:
Jason Reid
address: Balfour House
address: 390-398 High Road
address: Ilford
address: UK
address: IG1 1TL
phone: +44 208 9116600
fax-no: +44 208 9116611
e-mail: jreid@sysonline.net
nic-hdl: JR477-RIPE
source: RIPE # Filtered
Anybody we know?
Wait, this is the "Foundation66" IP-- same IP that Brandt just portscanned!
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:41pm)
Anybody we know?
I've checked out all the IP's that were used on the Livingston article and the others that were attacked, and none of them appear in the WR database (which, as I often like to remind folks, goes back to Day One).
The Ilford address is certainly suspicious, but there are lots of people in Ilford, and besides, English IP's are notoriously difficult to geolocate properly, as we've noted many times in the past...
As always, Shankers will add this post to the WR article on Encyclopedia Dramatica as evidence of "spying," but he can go screw himself. (I may or may not mean that literally.)
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:47pm)
I've checked out all the IP's that were used on the Livingston article and the others that were attacked, and none of them appear in the WR database (which, as I often like to remind folks, goes back to Day One).
I also meant: anybody we all know by reputation, or have heard of. But it's nice to know none of them are regulars here on WR, too.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
The geolocated IP information is not helpful in this case, it seems to me. The info comes from stale databases, not from real-time net connectivity. RIPE in Amsterdam owns the entire 212.x.x.x Class A, which is almost 17 million IPs. They farm out blocks to subcontractors, no doubt, and you will get different results for a single IP depending on which database the geolocation service is using. Maybe Kelly or Alison can offer some advice here.
Posted by: tarantino
If you view the source of Mark's fushion-uk web page, you can see it was once part of a now defunct porn site called http://web.archive.org/web/*sr_31nr_30/http://kitty-lips.com/*.
Also, a link on every fushion-uk page points to another defunct company run by his "business partner Ben Humble" called http://web.archive.org/web/20010723135140/www.euro-finance.co.uk/.
This guy is a real piece of work.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:00pm)
If you view the source of Mark's fushion-uk web page, you can see it was once part of a now defunct porn site called http://web.archive.org/web/*sr_31nr_30/http://kitty-lips.com/*.
Also, a link on every fushion-uk page points to another defunct company run by his "business partner Ben Humble" called http://web.archive.org/web/20010723135140/www.euro-finance.co.uk/.
This guy is a real piece of work.
"Ben Humble" is a male porn star on one of the kitty-lips websites:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020418143437/www.kitty-lips.com/Fushion-uk/web/act_male.htm
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:00pm)
This guy is a real piece of work.
Understatement. More links that need checking are http://www.yasni.co.uk/person/binmore/mark/mark-binmore.htm.
Hey, our Mark is in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_TV_(France). He's red-lined. Let's start a real bio! (But where would we start???)
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 8:43pm)
Is it my imagination, or did the pic on Mark's Facebook entry change within the last few hours? I remember it didn't look that way when Somey linked to it earlier today in this thread.
I saved the photo from Facebook.
It looks to be the same person as shown in his http://www.webcitation.org/5lqhOniI4.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:22pm)
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:00pm)
This guy is a real piece of work.
Understatement. More links that need checking are http://www.yasni.co.uk/person/binmore/mark/mark-binmore.htm.
Hey, our Mark is in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_TV_(France). He's red-lined. Let's start a real bio! (But where would we start???)
With fusion-UK.com, of course. Webpage: http://www.fushion-uk.com/main.htm
QUOTE
Founded in 1999, by Mark Binmore and Ben Humble, Fushion is a casting and modelling agency with a difference based in the heart of London's West End and Theatreland. Fushion's casting department consists of an efficient and experienced team of bookers who are committed to your success and this relives the pressure on Casting Directors and alike.
Heading the team are Rachel French and Lawrence Endacott, both previous top bookers for Hardcore and Refresh Models. Notable Casting Director and former head booker for Razor Models and Zook USA, Lee Dennison, is a senior member of the team
Heading the team are Rachel French and Lawrence Endacott, both previous top bookers for Hardcore and Refresh Models. Notable Casting Director and former head booker for Razor Models and Zook USA, Lee Dennison, is a senior member of the team
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
The fact that our Mark is in a Wikipedia article means that Wikipedia Review is not stalking, but merely attempting to fill out an incomplete Wikipedia article — like all Wikipedians should be doing!
No more redactions on this "piece of work." His name is (according to Wikipedia) Mark Binmore of London and France, gay website producer, who might be a marketing genius or a lone nut or something else.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:58pm)
The geolocated IP information is not helpful in this case, it seems to me. The info comes from stale databases, not from real-time net connectivity. RIPE in Amsterdam owns the entire 212.x.x.x Class A, which is almost 17 million IPs. They farm out blocks to subcontractors, no doubt, and you will get different results for a single IP depending on which database the geolocation service is using. Maybe Kelly or Alison can offer some advice here.
RIPE lists the 212.22.3.0/24 subnet as being assigned to the individual mentioned by Mr. Roe, above; the last change of that assignment was in February 2000. That subnet is currently being routed as part of AS8686, owned by System Online; peering is at LoNAP so this address is likely somewhere in the Greater London area.
Posted by: anthony
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 7th December 2009, 3:21pm)
Well, "nofollow" was a flick of the switch, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html, as it were. Why not "flagged revisions"?
Because "flagged revisions" isn't a switch. There are as many definitions of "flagged revisions" as there are people to define it. And 99.999% of them suck.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 7th December 2009, 11:10pm)
There are as many definitions of "flagged revisions" as there are people to define it. And 99.999% of them suck.
And the WMF will take public credit in the press for every single one of them, in advance, whether they're ever implemented or not...
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 1:18pm)
If you want to see more friends pics on Facebook but seem to be blocked for privacy reasons...
And FWIW, TinEye doesn't seem to come back with any hits for the FailBook pics that are up there now. Anyone have cached images from the way the pages were before they were changed?
QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:10pm)
Because "flagged revisions" isn't a switch. There are as many definitions of "flagged revisions" as there are people to define it. And 99.999% of them suck.
The problem with that is that lack of Flagged Revisions sucks pretty bad right now, so let's at least have something
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:34pm)
I saved the photo from Facebook.
It looks to be the same person as shown in his http://www.webcitation.org/5lqhOniI4.
It looks to be the same person as shown in his http://www.webcitation.org/5lqhOniI4.
I'm glad you saved it. The hairline is like a fingerprint (headprint?) in the top photo, and invisible in the bottom photo. I retract my faulty impression that http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Mark-Binmore/100000088301916 might be the same person. It was based on the bottom photo only because I neglected to save the top photo, which had already been zapped by Mark.
Posted by: thekohser
This story is all over NBC now.
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th December 2009, 6:07am)
This story is all over NBC now.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/entertainment/celebrity/Ron_Livingston_Sues_Over_Phony_Wikipedia_Gay_Posts-78729887.html
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:06pm)
I'm glad you saved it. The hairline is like a fingerprint (headprint?) in the top photo, and invisible in the bottom photo. I retract my faulty impression that http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Mark-Binmore/100000088301916 might be the same person. It was based on the bottom photo only because I neglected to save the top photo, which had already been zapped by Mark.
No hits from TinEye on either of these
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 7th December 2009, 7:30pm)
Here's a port scan on that Foundation66 IP, but I don't know much about ports or about nmap, so I probably missed anything significant that might indicate vulnerability as a proxy, or completely messed up nmap since I've tried to use it only about three times in my life:
CODE
C:\NMAPRAW\nmap-4.76>nmap -sVC -v 212.22.3.8
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 212.22.3.8
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
143/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
443/tcp open https?
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
Discovered open port 80/tcp on 212.22.3.8
80/tcp open http Microsoft IIS webserver 6.0
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
143/tcp open imap Microsoft Exchange IMAP server (refused)
443/tcp open https?
|_ HTML title: Site doesn't have a title.
The fact that Port 80 just points to a misconfigured server when the domain's not specified really looks kinda bad. Same with http://dickens.arp-uk.org/
Amateur setup
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th December 2009, 12:07am)
This story is all over NBC now.
That's hopeful. I recall that one or two other Wikipedia stories, ones that we all thought deserved to be in the mainstream, staggered for a while in the gossip/blog arena until a single jolt threw it into the mainstream press. Once that jolt happened, the mainstream press everywhere followed like sheep. It was like they were waiting in the wings for the first major outlet to stick its toe in the water, and then they all dived in gleefully.
I think the Essjay story was one of them. Until The New Yorker actually came out with a correction on its website (and later in print), the story gurgled along at a very low level. Then all of a sudden, it was a "Safe For Mainstream" story and it was picked up everywhere.
The question at this point is whether any mainstream reporters will follow up on the information in this thread. It took just one mainstream reporter in Kentucky to make a few calls and confirm that Mr. Ryan Jordan (aka Essjay) was not quite a scholar with two PhDs, but more like a junior college dropout. That was very helpful in terms of filling in the details. There is no substitute for a real-world local reporter, who gets a paycheck for doing it, to make a few local calls and identify himself as a local reporter. We need reporters in London and France to start asking questions on this Livingston story.
Posted by: xinjeisan
I don't think the French B&B actually exists.
First, the http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&ie=UTF8&q=20+Rue+L'Abreuvoir+34500+-+Beziers+-+France&fb=1&gl=us&hnear=20+Rue+L'Abreuvoir+34500+-+Beziers+-+France&lr=lang_en|lang_ja&view=map&cid=6646707889924656988&iwloc=A&ved=0CBEQpQY&sa=X&ei=tOUdS_3aHo-wsQOZ29W2BA isn't verrified. But, if you look at the location on Google Street map, it doesn't really look like a B&B location.
Second, their are three trip advisor reviews. Two are already aliases (http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r34941595-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWSand http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r31507777-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWS) we've seen before, with four and five star reviews. However, there is one negative review by a http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r33258179-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWSmember:
QUOTE
Arrived at the nondescript entrance, the door was not answered but one of the owners who must have heard his dogs barking came out to take some rubbish. He then started to pour out the excuses along the lines of a builder coming in the day before and accidentally taking the door off. We looked at the room and whilst the fittings were nice the bathroom was still a building site and everything was covered in a layer of building dust. Loose electric cables etc. Owner said he would pay back our £100 deposit but did not have it on him, if we returned in an hour he would have it. Needless to say when we returned in the hour the door was not answered. Do not give these guys any money! In fact lesson we learnt is check with Syndicat d'Initiative before paying money or booking any accomodation.
Third, this http://maisondelorb.blogspot.com/2009/11/beziersmaison-de-lorb-review-from.html from the Independent doesn't seem to be real, either. The Independent published an article on Saturday, April 25, 2009 entitled 48 HOURS IN Beziers, with no mention of the Maison de l'Orb. It does list the number of the Beziers tourist office ((00 33 4 67 76 84 00; beziers -tourisme.fr) if anyone wants to contact them.
I don't think it is very difficult to set up a fake B&B -- you are assuming many advertising websites check for reliable sources, and i doubt they do.
With all of these fake websites and companies, the question that might be asked, if the above review from tripadvisor is to be believed, is how much money has been scammed from various people in "fees" for services never rendered?
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Tue 8th December 2009, 12:47am)
Second, their are three trip advisor reviews. Two are already aliases (http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r34941595-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWSand http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r31507777-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWS) we've seen before, with four and five star reviews. However, there is one negative review by a http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g196600-d1434765-r33258179-Maison_De_L_Orb-Beziers_Languedoc_Roussillon.html#REVIEWSmember...[/url]
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27677&view=findpost&p=208769, but nobody said it had to be a good French B&B, and certainly fake reviews written by Binmore would be par for his particular course...
QUOTE
I don't think it is very difficult to set up a fake B&B -- you are assuming many advertising websites check for reliable sources, and i doubt they do.
I wasn't assuming that, really - I'd imagine they'd be overjoyed to get any money whatsoever. And since none of the IP's we've seen geolocate to France... I dunno, it just seems like such a terribly pathetic way to indulge in a fantasy life. But sure, the B&B could definitely be fake. Under his "Lee Kaay" alter ego, he's posted several dozen reviews on Amazon.co.uk over the years:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3VI28F848LGBR/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RMI3KZ16RJC3G/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
QUOTE
"The book is kind of okay, re-read the other reviwers I agree with them. Having just revisited the film adaptation by Lee Dennison, I have to agree the film is much better than the book."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R33LB7EQX562GY/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
QUOTE
"Being a close friend of Colin I was intriged by yet another book of his life but despite being rather gossipy in places there is a certain amount of truth to be told although much of the private sexual life has been left out. A good read nonetheless."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R2FHZ9RE6Z38EB/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
QUOTE
As a good and close friend of Dans, I have always commented that this is one of his undiscovered gems - brilliant acting and score and a subject which is tackled with honour. Danny plays a great gay man in this film which is outstanding.
"Pukkatukka" is a reference to a DVD released by "Naked Chef" Jamie Oliver (T-H-L-K-D). At first I wasn't sure that was real either, but apparently it is.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Tue 8th December 2009, 12:47am)
With all of these fake websites and companies, the question that might be asked, if the above review from tripadvisor is to be believed, is how much money has been scammed from various people in "fees" for services never rendered?
Are we looking at the Bernie Madoff of web marketing? (All the mainstream press needs is a slogan.) This might make Jimbo rather jealous.
The problem with assuming that it doesn't exist is that the authorities would go after those websites in a hurry, after just two or three complaints. At least the local authorities would, because it gives the tourist industry a bad name, and hurts other local businesses that depend on tourism. Besides, we have the http://maisondelorb.com/ (fourth paragraph from the bottom):
QUOTE
"Relaxed, friendly and making the very best of the abundant local produce, the Maison de l'Orb is the kind of mythical French B & B that everyone says doesn't exist. Well, here it is"- L. Dennison - Central London, UK
The place may be a dump, but it's hard to believe that it doesn't exist in some form.
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE
They have a pretty good website for being fake: http://www.maisondelorb.com/
Interesting, though, the domain has been completely anonymized through a well-known proxy service. I suspect from the record updates below that anonymizing happened only last March.
CODE
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: MAISONDELORB.COM
Created on: 26-Jan-08
Expires on: 26-Jan-10
Last Updated on: 24-Mar-09
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration MAISONDELORB.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598
Domain Name: MAISONDELORB.COM
Created on: 26-Jan-08
Expires on: 26-Jan-10
Last Updated on: 24-Mar-09
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration MAISONDELORB.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598
The question I have to ask is .. why?? Legit businesses don't do that as a rule. Furthermore, the site itself resolves to 174.132.78.125, which is a static mass-hosting IP owned by Host Gator.
http://174.132.78.125//
So, a deliberately anonymized domain, hosted by a cheapy-cheap virtual hosting service = ... ??
Posted by: carbuncle
I hate to pour cold water on everyone's fun here, but I don't think this episode is quite the big deal that people are making it out to be.
First, the person behind this seems to have put a little more effort into this than most WP hoaxers, but they are hardly the "Bernie Madoff" of internet pranksters. It is not unusual for scammers to have dozens of websites, or to continually set up new sites to sell the same scam or merchandise. So far, this looks fairly amateurish to me, using mostly Blogsppot and other free services.
Second, Ron Livingston has gotten a massive amount of free publicity from this, perhaps without even having filed a lawsuit. If his intention --or his publicist's intention -- was to stop the WP vandalism, he got what he wanted. What's in it for him to follow through with this?
If I had to venture a guess, the likely scenario is that the Fushion site was set up as a "legitimate" modelling site to get money from headshots, courses, etc. A well-known and time tested scam/business. The Kitty-Lips site is similar. I'm looking at this as a small-time scammer turned prankster by carrying on with the Lee Dennison character, but I may well be wrong because they seem to have gone to some lengths to get people to look at their hoaxes.
Posted by: Tarc
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 8th December 2009, 1:11am)
http://www.nbcdfw.com/entertainment/celebrity/Ron_Livingston_Sues_Over_Phony_Wikipedia_Gay_Posts-78729887.html
You did note that Livingston is suing the vandal, and not Wikipedia, right?
Posted by: xinjeisan
Here is the copy of the lawsuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23812308/Complaint-in-Coupleguys-Inc-v-John-Doe
It mentions Facebook more than Wikipedia.
And, here is http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-you-cant-trust-legal-analysis-that.html from the lawyer who posted it
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:52pm)
Here is the copy of the lawsuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23812308/Complaint-in-Coupleguys-Inc-v-John-Doe
It mentions Facebook more than Wikipedia.
And, here is http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-you-cant-trust-legal-analysis-that.html from the lawyer who posted it
Wow, you realise that this suit refers to the Wikipedia biography as being amongst the "legitimate websites about Livingston"....?
Posted by: MZMcBride
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Tue 8th December 2009, 9:52am)
Here is the copy of the lawsuit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23812308/Complaint-in-Coupleguys-Inc-v-John-Doe
It mentions Facebook more than Wikipedia.
And, here is http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-you-cant-trust-legal-analysis-that.html from the lawyer who posted it
Hrmph. Where's the drama in that?
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:52pm)
And, here is http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-you-cant-trust-legal-analysis-that.html from the lawyer who posted it
Thanks. Good analysis and interesting points about how Section 230 might allow false information to remain, despite lawsuits against the persons responsible for posting it.
The lawyer who signed the complaint, Chad Fitgerald, can be reached http://www.kwikalaw.com/cfitzgerald.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 8th December 2009, 7:59am)
Second, Ron Livingston has gotten a massive amount of free publicity from this, perhaps without even having filed a lawsuit. If his intention --or his publicist's intention -- was to stop the WP vandalism, he got what he wanted. What's in it for him to follow through with this?
Indeed, it's a relatively common strategy for half-rate actors (and half-rate Hollywood types in general) to throw a complete hissy fit over even the slightest of slights, simply because it gets them relatively free publicity.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:32pm)
Indeed, it's a relatively common strategy for half-rate actors (and half-rate Hollywood types in general) to throw a complete hissy fit over even the slightest of slights, simply because it gets them relatively free publicity.
(Oooooh, you called him a "half-rate actor". Do you want a call from Coupleguys Inc too?)
Maybe, but the "you called me gay, you bastards" legal strategy didn't exactly work out for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan did it? He's still a half-rate actor, who's career went down the toilet even as he won his lawsuit.
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
QUOTE(maisondelorb.com)
OFFERS THE KIND OF MYSTICAL FRENCH BED AND BREAKFAST THAT EVERYONE SAYS DOESN'T EXIST...
That's pretty funny. Did the site say this when you folks first discovered it, or was this recently added?
Posted by: Somey
One more note: This Facebook page for actor Danny Dyer has only two "friends," Binmore and "Lee Kaay," and is therefore almost certainly a fake set up by Binmore to "prove" to people that Dyer knows him:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Dyer/1328218734
Something that might be added to the legal brief to show a pattern of behavior, anyway.
Anyhoo, it's relatively easy to put up a web page on a free site somewhere listing all the movies you like, with the name of your alter ego shown as the "casting director." It's much more difficult to get the name of your alter ego listed for those movies on IMDb, which is (to some extent, at least) fact-checked by paid employees. People in the movie biz really, really, really don't like it when other people take credit for their work, so IMDb has to be fairly careful about that - and "Lee Dennison" doesn't appear anywhere in their database.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 8th December 2009, 7:59am)
I hate to pour cold water on everyone's fun here, but I don't think this episode is quite the big deal that people are making it out to be.
I don't like to seem overly pessimistic here, but given the performance of the MSM regarding these sorts of things in the past, I have to (tentatively) agree. The fact that Wikipedia is unreliable and that Facebook profiles can be faked is not exactly news, and once these people figure out that Livingston is, in fact, not gay! and that they've all been hoodwinked by a third-rate scam artist, they're probably going to move on to the next salacious gossip-fueled "gay rumor," whoever it is.
Livingston's people may also end up dropping the lawsuit quickly in response to massive online retaliation from the gay community over what they'll probably characterize as his "mean-spirited hate-filled crusade against poor little Mark Binmore," particularly once they realize that Binmore has essentially zero money (a safe assumption, IMO). In any event, we already know he's not trying to sue the WMF, and the WMF is probably going to get off scot-free in spite of their having facilitated practically the whole thing.
I could be wrong, but in the end, at least we'll have another clear example to add to our list of clear examples.
Posted by: Somey
FYI, I responded to Dave Gerard's comment on this blog:
http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/ron-livingston-wikipedia-gay.html
...which seemed to be a bit more to the point than most of the stories that are popping up on this subject. (It mentioned Section 230, at least.)
A similar comment was moderated out of existence at http://www.queerty.com/ron-livingstons-stupid-lawsuit-to-stop-wikipedia-from-calling-him-a-fag-20091206/, which may be suggestive.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 8th December 2009, 10:19am)
The lawyer who signed the complaint, Chad Fitgerald, can be reached http://www.kwikalaw.com/cfitzgerald.
I went ahead and contacted Chad. A Lutheran born in Vegas?!
Posted by: Obesity
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 8th December 2009, 10:19am)
The lawyer who signed the complaint, Chad Fitgerald, can be reached http://www.kwikalaw.com/cfitzgerald.
The curiously named KWIKALAW, of course, is a practice specializing in wiki-matters.
Posted by: thekohser
I just published a brief summary of this fiasco http://akahele.org/2009/12/ron-livingston-battles-phantom-defendant/.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th December 2009, 6:15pm)
I just published a brief summary of this fiasco http://akahele.org/2009/12/ron-livingston-battles-phantom-defendant/.
Your regular readers might know better, but the wording seems to imply that the 'detective work' done on WR was somehow "for" Fitzgerald (i.e. asked by him to do so) rather than out of their own curiosity.
A link to the online copy of the filing might be good to include
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 8th December 2009, 1:19pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th December 2009, 6:15pm)
I just published a brief summary of this fiasco http://akahele.org/2009/12/ron-livingston-battles-phantom-defendant/.
Your regular readers might know better, but the wording seems to imply that the 'detective work' done on WR was somehow "for" Fitzgerald (i.e. asked by him to do so) rather than out of their own curiosity.
A link to the online copy of the filing might be good to include
Thanks, Random. I tried to address these points of yours. (The legal filing is embedded in Sheffner's blog, and I now sort of allude to that.)
Greg
Posted by: Newyorkbrad
This thread began by discussing wiki and other online postings that Ron Livingston considers defamatory and damaging to him. To what extent is it in Mr. Livingston's interest for critics of Wikipedia and other websites to ensure that extensive publicity is given to the objectionable postings and rumors that were spread about him, even if the postings and rumors were now to cease?
This is a question of general application. I suspect, for example, that far more publicity has been given to Liskula Cohen's application to compel Google to identify the malicious blogger who wrote about her, than was ever given to the original postings. Similar, more public attention has surely been drawn to John Siegenthaler's outrage about the false Wikipedia edits about him than the edits themselves ever received. (In the latter case, I do gather that this was fully known to and understood by Mr. Siegenthaler; perhaps this is so for Mr. Livingston and Ms. Cohen as well.)
I am sure that my raising this question will be portrayed by some as "trying to cover up a big problem for Wikipedia." That is not my agenda, and in any event, the identity of the person raising the question here is not really important. I'd prefer responses that look at this issue from the point of view of the injured individual himself or herself.
Posted by: Push the button
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th December 2009, 5:15am)
I just published a brief summary of this fiasco http://akahele.org/2009/12/ron-livingston-battles-phantom-defendant/.
Just a couple of cents' worth (probably should be posted at Akahele rather than here, I guess, but there you go) - you say that Livingston's agency is "taking legal action to protect his biography on Wikipedia", but I don't think that's strictly accurate - the only redress Coupleguys is seeking is damages, although admittedly of a level punitive enough to deter future repetitions, and not any remedy that would require Wikipedia to do anything to prevent future repetition...unsurprisingly, given that it isn't a party to the suit.
I find it strange that Coupleguys isn't seeking an injunction to prevent future recurrence of the same behaviour, or undertakings that such behaviour won't be repeated. Perhaps these aren't remedies available under Californian law - IANAL, but surely there must be some remedy available which would restrain John Doe's future behaviour and wouldn't turn out to be as much of a pyrrhic victory as getting a large award of punitive damages against someone with no financial means would do?
Posted by: One
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 8th December 2009, 6:30pm)
Thanks, Random. I tried to address these points of yours. (The legal filing is embedded in Sheffner's blog, and I now sort of allude to that.)
Greg
You could link to where it's hosted, as noted earlier in this thread: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23812308/Complaint-in-Coupleguys-Inc-v-John-Doe
And, yeah, Wikipedia is not a defendant as that claim is a loser under Sec. 230.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(One @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:08pm)
And, yeah, Wikipedia is not a defendant as that claim is a loser under Sec. 230.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention earlier in this thread, One:QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:08am)
Since, by Alison locking down the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=329899827 and considering the article has been "own" by the "the vandal", for some time, and only now, Alison came around to lock it, It could be argued that Alison has exercised an editorial role on Wikipedia, so it can be assumed then Wikipeidia is a "content provider" and as such, 230 don't apply.
As for Brad's question, it's a good one, but I don't think it can be answered generally - it depends on the identity of the injured party, the nature of the postings/rumours, and the extent to which they have permeated the public consciousness. For example, if the rumour is something completely and objectively false, as is the case here, the injured party has a greater interest in having it (and its objective falsity) publicized than if it's something that is essentially false, but based on a truth that is also damaging (for example, if I alleged that somebody sexually assaulted a prostitute when the truth was that he paid for consensual sex). Likewise, individuals with a high level of name recognition are more likely to want the postings/rumours widely publicized than somebody whose name is known only in connection with the postings/rumours.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 8th December 2009, 12:40pm)
This thread began by discussing wiki and other online postings that Ron Livingston considers defamatory and damaging to him. To what extent is it in Mr. Livingston's interest for critics of Wikipedia and other websites to ensure that extensive publicity is given to the objectionable postings and rumors that were spread about him, even if the postings and rumors were now to cease?
This is a question of general application. I suspect, for example, that far more publicity has been given to Liskula Cohen's application to compel Google to identify the malicious blogger who wrote about her, than was ever given to the original postings. Similar, more public attention has surely been drawn to John Siegenthaler's outrage about the false Wikipedia edits about him than the edits themselves ever received. (In the latter case, I do gather that this was fully known to and understood by Mr. Siegenthaler; perhaps this is so for Mr. Livingston and Ms. Cohen as well.)
I am sure that my raising this question will be portrayed by some as "trying to cover up a big problem for Wikipedia." That is not my agenda, and in any event, the identity of the person raising the question here is not really important. I'd prefer responses that look at this issue from the point of view of the injured individual himself or herself.
You are taking the same position that Jimbo took with respect to Seigenthaler. Here is a http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/seigen.mp3 of an interview of Jimbo by an Australian journalist. Jimbo essentially blames Seigenthaler for a situation that is the fault of Wikipedia. I dare you to criticize Jimbo's comments at the end this audio clip.
Seigenthaler was outraged for over a year after his USA Today editorial. I spoke with him occasionally on the phone. He gave anti-Wikipedia speeches on college campuses. When I pointed out Jimbo's comment in this clip to him, he was furious.
Why don't you try being furious at the stupidity of Wikipedia's non-policies, and its general irresponsibility, instead of bending the finger of shame so that it points in Wikipedia Review's direction?
And don't forget that the Livingston libel edits have already been scraped all over the web, and no one will be able to get all of it taken down. I gave specific links proving this earlier in this thread. What does Wikipedia propose to do about that?
The perpetrator of the Livingston edits needs to be identified and located. He's a serious threat to civil society, whereas Seigenthaler's perpetrator was a guy in an office on a slow day who decided to try out Wikipedia for laughs.
My guess is that Livingston's attorney needs help. The combined talents of WR readers, particularly the one or two dozen who know the web and know how to use search engines, is something that most attorneys do not possess. They don't even know who to call once they recognize this, because licensed investigators don't often know as much about the workings of the web as some of the WR members reading this thread. Finally, when it comes to web searching on something this complex, you need a couple dozen people doing it simultaneously and everyone sharing what they find. That's just the way it is.
Posted by: Milton Roe
I suppose it doesn't matter if you fake a CV for somebody who doesn't exist anyway. It's not like they're likely to get caught in a job interview, hey?
This whole thing needs to be exposed, if it's as rotten as appears. Damn, the Dennison bio even mentions his "close friend" Ron Livingston. In a one paragraph career summary! http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison
QUOTE(Lee Dennison Associates)
CAREER:
1990 saw Lee sideline into casting and has been involved in many major features including BODY SHOTS, BRICK, COLLISION, HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD, LITTLE MANHATTEN and THE LARMAINE PROJECT. 2006 saw Lee involved with UNITED 93, the Colin Farrell feature MIAMI VICE and the Fox FBI drama STANDOFF once again working with close friend Ron Livingston. Recent credits include award winning film features ECHO PARK LA, ALPHA DOG, VENUS AND VEGAS and VACANCY.
1990 saw Lee sideline into casting and has been involved in many major features including BODY SHOTS, BRICK, COLLISION, HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD, LITTLE MANHATTEN and THE LARMAINE PROJECT. 2006 saw Lee involved with UNITED 93, the Colin Farrell feature MIAMI VICE and the Fox FBI drama STANDOFF once again working with close friend Ron Livingston. Recent credits include award winning film features ECHO PARK LA, ALPHA DOG, VENUS AND VEGAS and VACANCY.
I wonder if Ron Livingston even knows the guy. Has anybody asked him? Not if he had a gay relationship with him, but whether he knows of his existence at all....
Posted by: One
QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Tue 8th December 2009, 7:28pm)
QUOTE(One @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:08pm)
And, yeah, Wikipedia is not a defendant as that claim is a loser under Sec. 230.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention earlier in this thread, One:QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:08am)
Since, by Alison locking down the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=next&oldid=329899827 and considering the article has been "own" by the "the vandal", for some time, and only now, Alison came around to lock it, It could be argued that Alison has exercised an editorial role on Wikipedia, so it can be assumed then Wikipeidia is a "content provider" and as such, 230 don't apply.
How foolish of me! I mean, we all know that Alison is a highly paid agent of the Wikimedia Foundation, and that her locking the article is an original work of authorship originating from WMF, and making the foundation somehow a speaker for material that it did not author, and which has been removed from the article. I mean, the plain text of Section 230 can't have any bearing on the matter, and WMF will surely be liable for $20 quadrillion.
Unless everything in the above paragraph is wrong.
Which it is.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:12pm)
I wonder if Ron Livingston even knows the guy. Has anybody asked him? Not if he had a gay relationship with him, but whether he knows of his existence at all....
If I had to guess, I'd say that when Binmore snapped the photo of Livingston at Heathrow Airport, the one that he later uploaded to Wikipedia, Livingston told him to step off and give him some room or something, and Binmore felt insulted by that.
If you read some of the Lee Kaay reviews on amazon.com, you'll notice there's virtually no boosterism of Livingston or any DVD's of his movies. There is, however, plenty of boosterism of other celebrities whom he favors, such as Danny Dyer, Jamie Oliver, Hazel O'Connor, Kate Bush, the Pet Shop Boys, Bananarama, and so on. To me that suggests that he doesn't really like Livingston, he just wants to spread rumors about him.
On http://www.wonfifty.com/home/2008/10/19/another-actor-in-gay-scandal.html, "Lee Kaay" (on Sept. 21, 2008) also claims (just as ludicrously) that Will Smith is gay, and that he was dating "Lee Dennison" (but that "Dennison" had since moved on to Livingston). I couldn't find any "Dennison" edits on the Will Smith (T-H-L-K-D) article and there probably aren't any - this was probably just a bit of opportunism on Binmore's part. However, it does indicate that Binmore was interested in "celebrity-outing" activities for a time, outside of just Wikipedia.
Posted by: Push the button
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 7:44am)
I couldn't find any "Dennison" edits on the Will Smith (T-H-L-K-D) article and there probably aren't any - this was probably just a bit of opportunism on Binmore's part.
Possibly, although the Will Smith article has been semi-protected for all bar three days out of the last two and a quarter years, and Binmore appears to work primarily through IPs.
Posted by: Viridae
I have a serious question? Why would anyone bother? What have they got to gain?
Posted by: xinjeisan
This is an interesting link:
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/search.php?search_author=maisondelorb
There are other people in Beziers who mark may have met in person, or not.
This is Mark introducing himself:
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=14683&highlight=#14683
Here's Mark saying his B&B is full.
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=13457&highlight=#13457
Here's Mark asking if someone needs a housesitter (even though he owns his own B&B?)
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=14801&highlight=#14801
There's more, I guess, but, I guess someone could email one of the members on it, and see what they say.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:04pm)
I have a serious question? Why would anyone bother? What have they got to gain?
Well, if you look at the http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison for "Lee Dennison Associates", you find it's the same 27 Old Gloucester Street, London address used by Fushion-UK, which is the bookstore and gay modelling/casting http://www.fushion-uk.com/main.htm owned by Binmore and "Humble." It also serves as mail address for "Pukka Bosh", which is either a gay porn production company run from the same address, or a wannabe gay porn production company (I'm not sure I really want to know how "real" Pukka Bosh is). The "Lee Dennison" personna is evidently just a front man personna to attempt to give these twerps credibility. And there's a lot of (in retrospect) funny stuff in other places about Dennison being the "Garbo" of casting directors who has lately refused to interact with media. He also cannot answer correspondance, either, you understand.
But it's not just business. In Lee Dennison's fantasy bio there's a lot of, well, fantasy. A son who's a male underwear model and dance recording artiste.
And I suppose "his" love life with famous actors has to be part of that. Who knows what drives all this. Have you ever seen a gay pride parade? There are ordinary types, but also a certain theatrical segment which lives to wear masks, invent and try new identities, and jerk your chains as much as possible. How can all this fail to happen on the internet, too? Indeed, on Wikipedia. 
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 8th December 2009, 9:42pm)
Have you ever seen a gay pride parade? There are ordinary types, but also a certain theatrical segment which lives to wear masks, invent and try new identities, and jerk your chains as much as possible.
"Jerk your chains"? Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words...
Posted by: Newyorkbrad
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 8th December 2009, 4:04pm)
I have a serious question? Why would anyone bother? What have they got to gain?
I think it's pretty well recognized that there are a fair number of people who do all sorts of pointlessly destructive things online in return for little or no tangible gain at all. A list of examples familiar to Wikipedians and Wikipedia Reviewers is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by: Peter Damian
Just noticed this on the article about Danny Dyer (apologies if already in this v long thread).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Dyer&direction=next&oldid=116266465
Removed a month later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Dyer&diff=121192313&oldid=121107318 with the comment "No ref is given of the supposed relationship, until you BACK IT UP it can't be posted. Wikipedia could be sued."
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:42pm)
It also serves as mail address for "Pukka Bosh", which is either a gay porn production company run from the same address, or a wannabe gay porn production company (I'm not sure I really want to know how "real" Pukka Bosh is).
We've seen that sort of thing before, actually - "pukka" just means "good," but "bosh" has about as many different Urban Dictionary definitions as any word I've seen, which practically guarantees that several of them have it down as http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bosh&defid=1911805. "http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TAX&defid=499209" is also a sexual euphemism, as is "http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shank&defid=2100981" - but since all of these are also euphemisms for other things too, the usernames http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Pukkabosh&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1. And so we find another sockpuppet, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Bianco&diff=prev&oldid=151577227 (this one doesn't have his own article, at least).
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 7th December 2009, 4:12pm)
"Qualitiwork" indeed - I doubt that http://www.qualitiwork.com/ is even a real company, since the same person who's been behind this entire hoax is also the http://www.who.is/whois/qualitiwork.com/ for the company's internet domain. The address, "27 Old Gloucester Street," is a mail drop also used by another of his phony companies, http://www.hotfroguk.co.uk/Companies/Fushion-Pukka-Bosh.
According to their http://www.webcitation.org/5lsTcBx4f, Qualitiwork Limited is doing business as Maison de L'Orb. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ says Qualitiworks LTD (Company No. 03309751) has been around since 1997 and is apparently in good standing. A current list of directors can be had for £1.00.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 8th December 2009, 3:24pm)
According to their http://www.webcitation.org/5lsTcBx4f, Qualitiwork Limited is doing business as Maison de L'Orb. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ says Qualitiworks LTD (Company No. 03309751) has been around since 1997 and is apparently in good standing. A current list of directors can be had for £1.00.
Well, I can't find the article from "The Independent" that Maison de L'Orb quotes on its website. But the French B&B may still be real even if the review is fake. After all, how much does it take to call yourself a bed and breakfast?
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Greg, I propose that you call the Foundation66 switchboard first thing tomorrow morning, and ask for Mark Binmore. If asked, tell them that you represent a website that is confirming edits made to an encyclopedia from a Foundation66 computer.
Scenario 1: They've never heard of him at Foundation66. This is useful information.
Scenario 2: They say he's not available. This is useful information.
Scenario 3: If you cannot talk to Mr. Binmore, then ask to speak to their Information Technology specialist. If you get him or her, then ask how many people have access to the web (Port 80) from 212.22.3.8, which is mainly configured as a mailserver. Are these all employees, or do they have some sort of computer service for walk-in clients? Do they keep logs of web access from this IP address? Is there dial-up access to the web through this server from outside of Foundation66?
Scenario 4: You actually get someone calling himself Mark Binmore.
a. Ask him if he is Mark Binmore. Do not agree to go "off the record" if he brings this up. If he doesn't bring it up, then it's automatically on the record.
b. Ask him if he remembers taking a picture of actor Ron Livingston.
c. Ask him if he has an ownership interest in a bed & breakfast in France.
d. Ask him if he has ever edited Wikipedia.
I think this is a reasonable thing to do at this point. What do you think, Greg?
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 8th December 2009, 2:55pm)
"Jerk your chains"? Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words...
Or not.
Posted by: xinjeisan
Has anyone found anything else on Ben Humble?
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:LyNLkQwGug0J:www.internationalholistictherapiesdirectories.com/hypnotherapy_UK.htm+Ben+Humble+Hypnotherapy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en|lang_jais Ben Humble, hypnotherapist, at the same address as the rest with a qualitiwork email address
http://www.justlanded.com/nederlands/Frankrijk/Forums/Telefoon/Contracts-and-service-with-telphone-companys-in-Franceis Ben Humble, of Beziers, France, complaining about the phone company there.
(Also, if you have 11 pounds laying around, you can find out about Mark James Binmore, director of something at one time, http://www.checksure.biz/Director/MARK+BINMORE-821925.htm)
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Wed 9th December 2009, 2:25am)
Has anyone found anything else on Ben Humble?
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:LyNLkQwGug0J:www.internationalholistictherapiesdirectories.com/hypnotherapy_UK.htm+Ben+Humble+Hypnotherapy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en|lang_jais Ben Humble, hypnotherapist, at the same address as the rest with a qualitiwork email address
http://www.justlanded.com/nederlands/Frankrijk/Forums/Telefoon/Contracts-and-service-with-telphone-companys-in-Franceis Ben Humble, of Beziers, France, complaining about the phone company there.
(Also, if you have 11 pounds laying around, you can find out about Mark James Binmore, director of something at one time, http://www.checksure.biz/Director/MARK+BINMORE-821925.htm)
Ben Humble is also a porn star that was featured on Kitty Lips mentioned earlier in this thread.
( I don't suppose it would be appropriate for me to mention Federal Pound Me in the Ass Prison (T-H-L-K-D) at this point since the lawsuit is a civil matter.)
Posted by: Mackan
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 8th December 2009, 6:40pm)
This is a question of general application. I suspect, for example, that far more publicity has been given to Liskula Cohen's application to compel Google to identify the malicious blogger who wrote about her, than was ever given to the original postings.
I thought it was a pretty simple question: How do I not become the next Richard Gere? Clearly there's a risk in filing a lawsuit, just as there is in not saying anything. But if you successfully pin down the source to some internet nut-job, maybe that's better than if it lingers around and nobody knows where it came from.
I kind of get the feeling there could be more here. Maybe Livingston is dealing with other types of harassment, and wants to tie it all to the same person?
My impression is that Livingston has an unusually high level of public good will, not that I follow pop culture too closely.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 8th December 2009, 7:54pm)
Uh-Oh …
"Office Space is based on the Milton series of cartoons created by Mike Judge."
Wasn't me. As noted, I mostly serve by standing and waiting. But since Office Space is being referenced, it's appropriate for Lamont Stormstar to comment, with his avatar and all. Shame we haven't seen him around lately
Milton Waddams
Posted by: xinjeisan
QUOTE
Ben Humble is also a porn star that was featured on Kitty Lips mentioned earlier in this thread.
I saw that in the thread -- i made sure to check before posting new info this time!
I was going to say that Ben Humble is the only persona with an actual job listed on various websites -- but, so is Lee Dennison.
But, this is the partner that Mark is always talking about? Is that made up too? It's pretty sad if this guys whole life is made up? Perhaps he just was some office drone somewhere in Devon, England who just made up an entire fantasy life online, and its finally catching up with him? Is that why he chose Ron Livingston as his most prolific target?
I would still be curious to know if people have sent him money or tried to use his/their services for all of these fake companies around. Where would you complain to if you did? Is there a Better Business Bureau in the UK that would take these complaints?
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Don't forget folks, Google is pretty good at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&num=100&q=%2208700+111020%22&btnG=Search. And http://www.google.com/search?q=%2208700+111100%22&hl=en&lr=&num=100&filter=0.
Posted by: Somey
Come on, people, let's use our heads here. It makes no sense that "Ben Humble," a hypnotherapist, would have an e-mail address hosted at "Qualitiwork.com," a (no doubt fake) company that sells telecommunications gear. (Not if he were real, anyway.)
Moreover, all of this stuff is horrendously misspelled - I mean, whoever this guy is, he sucks at spelling, grammar, and everything else related to writing skills. No real self-respecting company would have a website with that many errors on it - it just wouldn't happen.
"Ben Humble" might be a real person, but if he is, I doubt he's complicit in any of this. Why Binmore (whoever he is) would choose to manufacture a hypnotherapist as his business partner I have no idea, but who knows what goes through these people's heads?
That's why they call them "nutcases"!
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 3:44am)
Come on, people, let's use our heads here. It makes no sense that "Ben Humble," a hypnotherapist, would have an e-mail address hosted at "Qualitiwork.com," a (no doubt fake) company that sells telecommunications gear. (Not if he were real, anyway.)
Qualitiwork is a real company according to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk. I have little doubt that if one of WR's UK contributors were to fork over £1 for the current list of directors, Binmore would be listed.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 8th December 2009, 10:07pm)
Qualitiwork is a real company according to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk. I have little doubt that if one of WR's UK contributors were to fork over £1 for the current list of directors, Binmore would be listed.
I have little doubt about that either, but regardless, registering a limited company is just about the simplest thing in the world, at least in most US states. (Someone in the UK will have to tell us how hard it is over there.) Doing actual business, maybe not so easy...!
I mean, they can't even spell the word "guaranteed" correctly in the frickin' logo! Their "web Design" page has nothing on it whatsoever (which is good, because whoever put the site up obviously isn't very talented at it). And check http://www.qualitiwork.com/news.aspx: "Over the last decade Qualiti Work L6 labels have been known as a highly durable and flexible two-part cable and core labeling solution." Then do a search on http://www.google.com/search?&q=%2BQualitiwork+L6+labels...
That's just not a real company - maybe it's real in a strict legal sense, but whoever put that site up ain't sellin' jack shit.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 8th December 2009, 11:34pm)
That's just not a real company — maybe it's real in a strict legal sense, but whoever put that site up ain't sellin' jack shit.
cf. I Love Bees
Jon
Posted by: Kevin
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 9th December 2009, 2:07pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 3:44am)
Come on, people, let's use our heads here. It makes no sense that "Ben Humble," a hypnotherapist, would have an e-mail address hosted at "Qualitiwork.com," a (no doubt fake) company that sells telecommunications gear. (Not if he were real, anyway.)
Qualitiwork is a real company according to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk. I have little doubt that if one of WR's UK contributors were to fork over £1 for the current list of directors, Binmore would be listed.I have sacrificed the requisite £1, and he is indeed listed as a director, appointed 17/6/1998. There is a long list of documents at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8e1512bf47233764106902d261579e96/wcprodorder?ft=1 that makes the company look quite legitimate. No-one would file forms for 12 years for nothing, would they?
At least, not just to wind up an actor. There must be some bigger purpose.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 8th December 2009, 11:20pm)
I have sacrificed the requisite £1, and he is indeed listed as a director, appointed 17/6/1998. There is a long list of documents at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8e1512bf47233764106902d261579e96/wcprodorder?ft=1 that makes the company look quite legitimate. No-one would file forms for 12 years for nothing, would they?
Well, like I was (sort of) saying, by "fake" I mean "actually doing business, in the business they say they're in." Lots of companies exist only on paper, sometimes just as money drops or as fronts for questionable operations of various kinds. The point is, they've got the same mail-drop address and phone number as all the other companies - just because they're the one that's actually registered doesn't mean they're a real company in the formal sense of the term.
For all I know, the shoddy, terrible writing on the website may be intentional, to fool casual visitors into thinking they're a legitimate business while, at the same time, turning away real potential customers, who are likely to be unimpressed with their "message." Obviously I'm speculating, though.
The only other company in England that manufactures "cable-labeling systems" and comes up on Google results for it is http://www.silfox.com/index.php., if anyone needs a point of comparison. It might be interesting to learn why Binmore (and whoever else might be part of his group) would choose this sort of business, but then again, it might not.
Posted by: Trick cyclist
QUOTE(Kevin @ Wed 9th December 2009, 5:20am)
I have sacrificed the requisite £1, and he is indeed listed as a director, appointed 17/6/1998. There is a long list of documents at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8e1512bf47233764106902d261579e96/wcprodorder?ft=1 that makes the company look quite legitimate. No-one would file forms for 12 years for nothing, would they?
At least, not just to wind up an actor. There must be some bigger purpose.
Are there accounts? Whats its turnover?
Posted by: the fieryangel
I haven't been around much, but I read the reviews of the "bed and breakfast". From the sounds of it, it's the typical "UK residence chucks everything to move to France and opens Bed and Breakfast while trying to transform the property into something suitable at the same time". This is not an uncommon occurrence in France...
Generally, when this happens, it often means that pretty much everything that the person owns in the UK is liquidated to provide funds for the property purchase/renovations....This might be an important clue for...whatever it is we're trying to figure out here.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 8th December 2009, 5:30pm)
Greg, I propose that you call the Foundation66 switchboard first thing tomorrow morning, and ask for Mark Binmore.
I didn't have time this morning. I will try Thursday morning, from my home.
Greg
Posted by: Somey
I'm getting the distinct impression that the MSM has dropped this story, and the blogosphere has mostly moved on from this - either they don't want to advertise the fact that they were all hoodwinked, or else Livingston just isn't a big-enough celebrity. Mainly, though, they're all obsessed with Tiger Woods at the moment (so what else is new), and a scandal involving someone with that much star-power tends to push everything else to the side. Barring some sort of well-publicized press release from Livingston's agent/publicist/attorney/whatever, I'd be surprised if this gets followed up.
One other thing, and at the risk of sounding like a gay-basher (again): I've left comments on four separate gay-oriented news/blog sites, and every single one of them has been rejected. Maybe I didn't word the comments quite as diplomatically as I could have, but they were hardly homophobic-sounding. I'm very disappointed in this, as it suggests that these folks are more interested in perception than reality. Maybe being an oppressed minority does that to you - in fact, I'm sure it does - but IMO they're shooting themselves in the foot, at least in the medium-long term.
Posted by: xinjeisan
I think this is not being followed up because Livingston is just not very well known. If he was, this would not have been able to happen on Wikipedia-- see, for example, Will Smith.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 1:02pm)
One other thing, and at the risk of sounding like a gay-basher (again): I've left comments on four separate gay-oriented news/blog sites, and every single one of them has been rejected. Maybe I didn't word the comments quite as diplomatically as I could have, but they were hardly homophobic-sounding. I'm very disappointed in this, as it suggests that these folks are more interested in perception than reality. Maybe being an oppressed minority does that to you — in fact, I'm sure it does — but IMO they're shooting themselves in the foot, at least in the medium-long term.
Whadoo fokes got agin http://www.rogermiller.com/ , anyway???
Jon
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 9th December 2009, 4:16am)
I haven't been around much, but I read the reviews of the "bed and breakfast". From the sounds of it, it's the typical "UK residence chucks everything to move to France and opens Bed and Breakfast while trying to transform the property into something suitable at the same time". This is not an uncommon occurrence in France...
ROFL, and you would know, wouldn't you? I've been wondering what your take is, on all this.
I read David Sedaris' Me Talk Pretty One Day (a less-dark book than his last one, but he's always worth a read). And I wonder what that the gay English attraction to things French is. Are the French less homophobic, or just gayer?
I'm always interested in the sociology; anything that allows me to predict human behavior as a broad rule, is interesting to me.
Posted by: xinjeisan
If it turns out Mark Binmore is indeed the person behind this, and Binmore actually lives in Europe (the UK or France?), can't he be sued under laws there? Are they different? And, then, could Wikipedia be sued as well?
And, there is a lot of talk on here about section 230, but, can't someone from outside the US sue Wikipedia as well under laws there. Isn't that what happened with Yahoo in France?
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
I think at the end of the day this matter will be more important to the portion of critique of WP dealing with identity diffusion and interpersonal boundary issues of Wikipedians and the attractive nuisance WP presents for entities interested in a stage to play out there games and performances. In that it is more like Essjay and Poetlister than Seigenthaler. Other than that it presents only a pedestrian case of defamation on Wikipedia, and is likely to directed against the ip without threatening Wikipedia. When the "big case"comes it will have lots of adverse actions and decisions by admins facilitating the defamation. Unless I missed something that wasn't present here. To date I believe the person best positioned to bring such an action was Brandt, but he negotiated with the Wikipedians and engaged in their endless processes while the clock ran out.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 9th December 2009, 1:39pm)
No, it provides immunity for computer interactive services, which essentially means any net of connected computers. Which includes not only the internet as we know it, but also even an intra-web at your business, even if it's all in the same building. If it has a file-server and a bunch of remote computers, it's protected by sec 230 (this has been tested in intra-company email lawsuits)...
If I understand you correctly you believe if it is on a computer network it is immune. If so your view of Sec. 230 is about as over-inclusive of what is immune under Sec 230 as VoC is under-inclusive.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 1:02pm)
...it suggests that these folks are more interested in perception than reality. Maybe being an oppressed minority does that to you — in fact, I'm sure it does — but IMO they're shooting themselves in the foot, at least in the medium-long term.
Seriously, though, I guess they quite reasonably feel that if more BGLTs with FGLPs (Fictitious Gay Life Partners) would just have the courage to come out of the closet then they might begin making some progress toward getting full legal rights and survivor benefits for FGLPs.
Jon
Posted by: tarantino
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 6:02pm)
I've left comments on four separate gay-oriented news/blog sites, and every single one of them has been rejected.
I tried to leave a comment on one also, and despite the fact they claim comments are never moderated, mine never appeared.
I emailed Binmore yesterday and asked him if he knew Livingston personally and if Lee Dennison is real. His only reply was a series of question marks. If he knows how to use search engines, he's now aware of this thread.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:16pm)
And, there is a lot of talk on here about section 230, but, can't someone from outside the US sue Wikipedia as well under laws there. Isn't that what happened with Yahoo in France?
Wikimedia has no property in France, and so a judgment from a French court has no teeth as against Wikimedia because no US court will enforce a foreign judgment without first holding a "fundamental fairness" hearing, at which §230 would be ample grounds to deny execution. Yahoo's situation was different because Yahoo had property in France.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:32pm)
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 6:02pm)
I've left comments on four separate gay-oriented news/blog sites, and every single one of them has been rejected.
I tried to leave a comment on one also, and despite the fact they claim comments are never moderated, mine never appeared.
I emailed Binmore yesterday and asked him if he knew Livingston personally and if Lee Dennison is real. His only reply was a series of question marks. If he knows how to use search engines, he's now aware of this thread.
Shame I can't be a fly on the wall for that.
Since Mark Binmore is up on the net as cofounder of Fushion, which gushes about having Lee Dennison as a senior adviser, it's not as though at this point he can claim he's never heard the name and WTF are you talking about. LOL.
Posted by: Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Wed 9th December 2009, 2:16pm)
If it turns out Mark Binmore is indeed the person behind this, and Binmore actually lives in Europe (the UK or France?), can't he be sued under laws their?
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 9th December 2009, 2:57pm)
I think at the end of the day this matter will be more import to the portion of critique of WP dealing with identity diffusion and interpersonal boundary issues of Wikipedians and the attractive nuisance WP presents for entities interested in a stage to play out there games and performances.
Sarc
Still bringing nothing to the table
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:32pm)
I emailed Binmore yesterday and asked him if he knew Livingston personally and if Lee Dennison is real. His only reply was a series of question marks. If he knows how to use search engines, he's now aware of this thread.
Akahele.org recently received an interesting comment, which we're holding in the hopper for a little while -- not accepting it, though not rejecting it -- purportedly from "Lee Dennison", geolocating to a Canadian ISP.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:34pm)
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:16pm)
And, there is a lot of talk on here about section 230, but, can't someone from outside the US sue Wikipedia as well under laws there. Isn't that what happened with Yahoo in France?
Wikimedia has no property in France, and so a judgment from a French court has no teeth as against Wikimedia because no US court will enforce a foreign judgment without first holding a "fundamental fairness" hearing, at which §230 would be ample grounds to deny execution. Yahoo's situation was different because Yahoo had property in France.Does WMF have property in the UK? If the bookstore at 27 Old Gloucester Street, London still exists, Binmore does. Even if he rents, there are the contents.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th December 2009, 12:50pm)
Akahele.org recently received an interesting comment, which we're holding in the hopper for a little while -- not accepting it, though not rejecting it -- purportedly from "Lee Dennison", geolocating to a Canadian ISP.
ROFL. Ask him how he managed to be the hardest working and least-credited casting director in the whole world.
How's his son the underwear supermodel doing?
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th December 2009, 1:50pm)
Akahele.org recently received an interesting comment, which we're holding in the hopper for a little while -- not accepting it, though not rejecting it -- purportedly from "Lee Dennison", geolocating to a Canadian ISP.
It might be Binmore, but at this point it's just as likely to be some other prankster just joining in on the fun. There's some danger of this turning into a wider-scale "meme," though I doubt that will happen... though in some ways, that might be the best thing that could happen for Livingston himself. If pretty much every male celebrity on the planet appears in a search for "who's dating Lee Dennison," well, safety in numbers and all that.
Of course, if anyone actually does this (note: not recommended), I'd urge them to start with Jimbo himself, then maybe move on to Joe Franklin, Wilford Brimley, Andy Dick, and pretty much anybody who works for Fox News. Then just work their way up from there...
Meanwhile, we haven't had any registration attempts here on WR by people using any of the known aliases or IP addresses. He probably knows better than to do that, though if he's still out there trying to convince people "Dennison" is real, he might be nuts enough to try it. We'll try to keep y'all posted!
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 9th December 2009, 1:23pm)
It might be Binmore, but at this point it's just as likely to be some other prankster just joining in on the fun. There's some danger of this turning into a wider-scale "meme," though I doubt that will happen... though in some ways, that might be the best thing that could happen for Livingston himself. If pretty much every male celebrity on the planet appears in a search for "who's dating Lee Dennison," well, safety in numbers and all that.
We already saw a whole webpage full of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilroy_was_here graffiti. It takes more than that to start another Kilroy.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
There's a http://www.facebook.com/pages/Beziers-France/Maison-De-LOrb/183816455971 dedicated to that Bed & Breakfast with pics. Nothing too interesting, other than the fact that it seems to exist.
Posted by: Piperdown
Gee, you'd think that Jimbo could put "shoot on sight" edict out for Ron's vandal. But no, that's only reserved for special occasions.
P.S. If you haven't seen "Office Space", you haven't experienced cinema. And watch your cornhole...
Posted by: Moulton
Once upon a time, human beings invented the art of crafting make-believe stories. For many centuries, these make-believe stories were the primary means of transmitting cultural knowledge from one generation to the next.
In the 20th Century, the art of crafting make-believe stories evolved from the bardic arts to become high-tech multimedia presentations in radio dramas, motion pictures, and television.
Now the entertainment industry is learning how to exploit the Internet to raise make-believe to the next level. Just as Sasha Baron-Cohen has demonstrated how to blur the boundaries between fantasy and reality, so too have many erstwhile performers turned to the Internet to do the same.
Ron Livinsgton may be a real actor who appears in conventional entertainment media, wherein he portrays a fictional character in a fictional world. But through the artifice of Wikipedia and the Internet, the invisible hand of yet another mysterious author has produced a fantastic episode that bridges the misty divide between fact and fiction.
We would all be wise to heed these sage words of advice:
"Be ye not bamboozled." --The Big Bamboozler
Posted by: xinjeisan
I'm not sure why this interests me so much...
anyways, here is another Mark Binmore sighting -- although his login name is Mickeybloke. The man has a unique prose style, so that alone would make it pretty easy to see its the same person.
Alas, he also has the same obsessions of the Pet Shop Boys, Banarama, and Wikipedia
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/search.php?searchid=60154417
Mark doesn't think much of Wikipedia
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22369312&highlight=mickeybloke+wikipedia
It would be interesting to think who started this rumor about a character on Eastenders that our friend wrote about:
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=657142&highlight=
Who's the sexiest American actor -- of course, Ron Livingston
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=380213&highlight=ron+livingston&page=3
Not surprisingly, Sex and the City is one of his favorite shows
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=36452247&postcount=20
He might have gone to rehab for drinks and drugs in the past
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17108086&postcount=12
Of course, there are mentions of Lee Dennison's casting skills
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17775410&highlight=lee+dennison
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=598112&highlight=lee+dennison
Finally, if any more proof was needed, here is some decent proof in 2007:
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15912578&postcount=154
"From Wikipedia - if to be believed - sorry ladies
He (Rav Wilding) has become a minor celebrity due to his good looks and has appeared in a number of magazines, including gay monthly Attitude Magazine and is rumoured to be dating gay casting director Lee Dennison."
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15912635&postcount=155
That wasn't there at lunchtime! Isn't that the same guy who was 'dating' Danny Dyer? Sounds very bogus.
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15912660&postcount=156
its there now! i know lees site (http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison) still says danny so who knows.
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15913007&postcount=159
The person who added to Rav Wilding Wikipage about him dating Lee Dennison also has the same IP as the person who added it to Danny Dyer wikipage
Some random guy on this message board figured out something was wrong two years ago.
Even Rav tried to stop it
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rav_Wilding&diff=next&oldid=142239499
"I am not dating any casting director!!!!!!!!! Please remove this. Rav Wilding"
(Wilding is actually a cop, and the anon IP is from the Metropolitan Police computer, so i would think you could assume he is who he says. His problem isn't with being called gay, either, just that he is not dating a casting director!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rav_Wilding&diff=next&oldid=142483601
Mark put it back in, with a comment in his now famous prose style
"removed celebrity tag - pushing it a tad too much Rav is NOT a celebrity - also put back dating Lee D which is confirmed"
He's shown his views towards modern celebrity here as well:
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4239&highlight=
Maybe other IPs who are changing things to/from Lee Dennison are just using these other rumors/websites created by Mark.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
http://web.archive.org/web/20021113015106/http://home.btclick.com/jay.stratford/actors-net/clients/m_binmre.htm:
Mark Binmore
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Wed 9th December 2009, 11:33pm)
I'm not sure why this interests me so much...
It's practically unexplored territory in psychology, isn't it? I was thinking about writing a blog entry on this, using Fight Club as the most well-known example of the concept. The internet makes it so easy for people to do things like this, it stands to reason that people would, but the discipline is barely keeping up with the phenomenon. A lot of what's out there http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/stpp4C03/ClassEssay/muds.htm, because those are things in which this is encouraged - psychologists are only now getting to grips with the unethical manipulation of social networks like Facebook and Wikipedia by people like this, and even then just barely. I don't even think there's a proper term for it yet.
Btw, there's also http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=795923 - it's interesting how he cleverly manipulates the discussion, pretending to know the "inside scoop," denigrating the other posters, and taking advantage of the fact that many people want there to be a scandal.
QUOTE
Mark doesn't think much of Wikipedia
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22369312&highlight=mickeybloke+wikipedia
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22369312&highlight=mickeybloke+wikipedia
Wikipedia(ns) deleted his articles on "Lee Dennison" and "Harry Dennison," as well as "Bite Records" around that time, IIRC. So naturally he would be down on them after that!
Posted by: xinjeisan
Digital Spy is reporting this as well:
http://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a190561/livingston-sues-over-wikipedia-post.html
I wonder if they've looked through their own forums
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 8th December 2009, 10:20pm)
I have sacrificed the requisite £1, and he is indeed listed as a director, appointed 17/6/1998. There is a long list of documents at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8e1512bf47233764106902d261579e96/wcprodorder?ft=1 that makes the company look quite legitimate. No-one would file forms for 12 years for nothing, would they?
Yes, if you google mark@qualitiwork.com, the first reference that comes up is to the B&B place in Beziers, where Mark is listed as a contact for booking email privacy issues. So if he's a director, this is his company, and I think ben@qualitiwork may be a real (other) guy, our hypnotherapist, massage guy, and erm, thespian.
The photo of Mark from his actor's resume, kindly posted above by Brandt, has the same email address for Mark, and another street address.
Alas, the business address for Ben Humble, hypnotherapist, is our old infamous 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N mail drop. Apparently not even a bookshop, but merely a postal mailbox and business address drop, as there are about 35 businesses doing business at that address, including of course Fushion Pukka Bosh, and also super-casting-director Lee Dennison, who maintains a well appointed office and casting couch, miniaturized in one of these postal boxes.
http://www.londononline.co.uk/area/Old_Gloucester_Street_WC1N/27
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 9th December 2009, 7:15pm)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Wed 9th December 2009, 4:16am)
I haven't been around much, but I read the reviews of the "bed and breakfast". From the sounds of it, it's the typical "UK residence chucks everything to move to France and opens Bed and Breakfast while trying to transform the property into something suitable at the same time". This is not an uncommon occurrence in France...
ROFL, and you would know, wouldn't you? I've been wondering what your take is, on all this.
I read David Sedaris' Me Talk Pretty One Day (a less-dark book than his last one, but he's always worth a read). And I wonder what that the gay English attraction to things French is. Are the French less homophobic, or just gayer?
I'm always interested in the sociology; anything that allows me to predict human behavior as a broad rule, is interesting to me.In France, you don't really mind what anybody does, as long as it involves people who are of age (over 15). The whole "England moves to France" thing started mainly through a bunch of TV programs telling unemployed Brits that the grass was greener on the other side of the Channel. Lots of people fell for it and then the pound crashed against the euro. Most of them are having to move back because their money isn't going as far as it used to.
The idea that they're trying to do this in Béziers, which isn't exactly a "jetset" destination, says more about these people than anything else...
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:34am)
The idea that they're trying to do this Béziers, which isn't exactly a "jetset" destination, says more about these people than anything else...
lol - "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:33am)
He's shown his views towards modern celebrity here as well:
http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4239&highlight=
Hmm, that last page also gives the twitterpage for the B and B : http://twitter.com/MaisonDeLorb
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 12:57am)
Alas, the business address for Ben Humble, hypnotherapist, is our old infamous 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N mail drop. Apparently not even a bookshop, but merely a postal mailbox and business address drop, as there are about 35 businesses doing business at that address, including of course Fushion Pukka Bosh, and also super-casting-director Lee Dennison, who maintains a well appointed office and casting couch, miniaturized in one of these postal boxes.
http://www.londononline.co.uk/area/Old_Gloucester_Street_WC1N/27
http://www.londononline.co.uk/area/Old_Gloucester_Street_WC1N/27
Aha: And here is the "virtual office" company, called British Monomarks, which gives you a London address for your maildrop, which sounds nice and pretigious and office-like, but without the rent. And guess what: They all come out at 27 Old Glousester Street:
http://www.britishmonomarks.co.uk/services/london-street-addresses/
I found this company from a thread on the web below, complaining about one of these companies which is just a virtual drop address there. Google maps, if I am to believe it, shows a dilapidated old red brick office building, about 3 stories. Somebody on the web claims there are offices in the building: UFO research, Consenting Adult something or other. I'm betting that our friends just use the dropmail service address and aren't personally present, but you can't tell. You can't do hypnotherapy by mail. Though perhaps you can set up appointments that way for your home or something. Anyway--
Here's the thread: http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=22793
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 3:46am)
Hmm, that last page also gives the twitterpage for the B and B : http://twitter.com/MaisonDeLorb
For example, 16 photos of the house. One recognizable from the business website:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=152987&id=183816455971&l=48873f2706
from this and the youtube of the city, it all looks old. "Ooozing with history" as the blurb says flamboyantly, but not completely without truth.
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=194322678536&id=183816455971
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 9th December 2009, 11:02pm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20021113015106/http://home.btclick.com/jay.stratford/actors-net/clients/m_binmre.htm:
Mark Binmore
Mark Binmore
Here's an interesting IP which hasn't been nailed yet: its last three edits insert Mark Binmore references into two different articles. Apparently Mark has been an interviewer for Pink TV, Europe's second gay satellite channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.2.125.186
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 10th December 2009, 11:41am)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:34am)
The idea that they're trying to do this in Béziers, which isn't exactly a "jetset" destination, says more about these people than anything else...
lol - "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Hey, I wasn't that bitchy!
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 12:32pm)
Here's an interesting IP which hasn't been nailed yet: its last three edits insert Mark Binmore references into two different articles. Apparently Mark has been an interviewer for Pink TV, Europe's second gay satellite channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.2.125.186
A search for Mark Binmore on the Pink TV site leads to 0 results : http://www.pinktv.fr/indexf.php?fls=1
All of http://www.google.fr/search?q=Pink+TV+mark+Binmore&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-aseem to lead back to Wikipedia-related articles and scraper sites...
I found this in the search results, which is pretty...ironic :
QUOTE
Entertainment News, PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from ...
Ron Livingston is suing over the edits (Photo: Mark Binmore) ... Gay TV presenter Paul O'Grady is celebrating becoming a grandfather for the second time. ...
Alexa Traffic Rank for http://www.pinknews.co.uk/category/entertainment/: 56 447www.pinknews.co.uk/category/entertainment/ - En cache
Ron Livingston is suing over the edits (Photo: Mark Binmore) ... Gay TV presenter Paul O'Grady is celebrating becoming a grandfather for the second time. ...
Alexa Traffic Rank for http://www.pinknews.co.uk/category/entertainment/: 56 447www.pinknews.co.uk/category/entertainment/ - En cache
So, what does this tell us?
Posted by: Gazimoff
Perhaps the investigative journos at El Reg can help? They're based in the Smoke and might be able to eyeball the place.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 1:46am)
I don't even think there's a proper term for it yet.
In conventional entertainment media, a corresponding term would be "suspension of disbelief." That's what lets the audience buy into the story, so that they can experience the emotional highs and lows, as if it's real. Note that your typical first-person shooter game lacks this feature, and the player can shoot at the enemies without the slightest pang of remorse for killing a real person.
What's missing among the general population is the kind of healthy skepticism that allows a professional (scientist, journalist, or investigator) to examine a thesis and evaluate the probity of the evidence to support or refute it. Some portion of the general public tends to believe things (especially if others already believe it), without examining the evidence. This is what makes propaganda so problematic and so hard to refute.
Wikipedia is a fertile ground for sowing deceptive stories, especially those of a scandalous nature. If one were doing research on narcissistic wounding and narcissistic boosting, Wikipedia would provide a goldmine of data.
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 11:53am)
Aha: And here is the "virtual office" company, called British Monomarks, which gives you a London address for your maildrop, which sounds nice and pretigious and office-like, but without the rent. And guess what: They all come out at 27 Old Glousester Street...
I called up Britishmonomarks, and the very nice woman there confirmed that all of these were the same people using different names, although she obviously couldn't confirm who exactly they were. It's only a mail-forwarding service and they're extremely upfront about that, if you ask them directly.
Hmm, are we absolutely certain that there are not multiple Mark Binmore's, one of whom runs a Bed and Breakfast and the other who works for Foundation66 in London? It would seem that a Mark Binmore does indeed work for foundation66 in London, but I can't quite make out how he could be running a B and B in Béziers at the same time...
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:51am)
Here's an interesting IP which hasn't been nailed yet: its last three edits insert Mark Binmore references into two different articles. Apparently Mark has been an interviewer for Pink TV, Europe's second gay satellite channel.
Sorry, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27677&view=findpost&p=208757...
QUOTE
I found this in the search results, which is pretty...ironic :
So, what does this tell us?
QUOTE
Entertainment News, PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from ...
Ron Livingston is suing over the edits (Photo: Mark Binmore) ...(snip)
Ron Livingston is suing over the edits (Photo: Mark Binmore) ...(snip)
So, what does this tell us?
Earlier I http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27677&view=findpost&p=209052 that the photo, or the act of taking it, might have had something to do with Binmore's later behavior - i.e., if Livingston was rude to Binmore at that particular moment, Binmore might have decided to start his campaign as a form of revenge. In his mind he would have felt betrayed, in that Livingston had failed to properly appreciate his adulation of him or his attraction towards him. I'd say it's pretty obvious that the attraction began with Binmore's viewing the episodes of Sex and the City that Livingston appeared in - if Livingston hadn't taken that role, none of this would have happened.
Posted by: xinjeisan
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 8:04am)
I called up Britishmonomarks, and the very nice woman there confirmed that all of these were the same people using different names, although she obviously couldn't confirm who exactly they were. It's only a mail-forwarding service and they're extremely upfront about that, if you ask them directly.
Hmm, are we absolutely certain that there are not multiple Mark Binmore's, one of whom runs a Bed and Breakfast and the other who works for Foundation66 in London? It would seem that a Mark Binmore does indeed work for foundation66 in London, but I can't quite make out how he could be running a B and B in Béziers at the same time...
Hmm, are we absolutely certain that there are not multiple Mark Binmore's, one of whom runs a Bed and Breakfast and the other who works for Foundation66 in London? It would seem that a Mark Binmore does indeed work for foundation66 in London, but I can't quite make out how he could be running a B and B in Béziers at the same time...
Sorry to be nitpicky, but did they say the same people (as in more than one) or same person (only one).
Also, I still tend towards thinking the B&B doesn't really exist. If it does, maybe he goes down there every once in a while -- Ryanair being the first choice of the jet setting elite that this man is a part of.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 10:04am)
Hmm, are we absolutely certain that there are not multiple Mark Binmore's, one of whom runs a Bed and Breakfast and the other who works for Foundation66 in London? It would seem that a Mark Binmore does indeed work for foundation66 in London, but I can't quite make out how he could be running a B and B in Béziers at the same time...
This is a serious possibility. Early in this thread I thought that http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Mark-Binmore/100000088301916 might be him also. But then when tarantino posted the pic from the other Facebook entry for the guilty Mark Binmore in London (which had been removed by that account holder hours earlier), I retracted my interest in the Mark Binmore who shows no signs of pattern balding.
We have to consider the possibility that the perpetrator we've been discussing is more than one person, and we have them mixed together.
Another possibility is that the perpetrator borrowed the name from an innocent Mark Binmore, and merely found some pics that somewhat resembled this person, and pretended that these are his own pics. Let's say these "balding" pics are pics of someone far away who doesn't know what's going on, and the guilty party using them isn't really named Mark Binmore at all. Even if the innocent Mark Binmore with no balding discovers this other Mark Binmore on the web, all he can do is assume that he has a namesake and that this other Mark Binmore looks somewhat like himself except for the hairline. Amazing coincidence! He shrugs his shoulders and gets on with his life.
On the other hand, this has been going on at least since 2002. Seven years is a long time to keep this up. There are also indications that the guilty party we're trying to identify is not highly educated, and is careless when it comes to covering his tracks on the web.
If the guilty Mark Binmore is getting a paycheck from Foundation66, then it is crucial to determine this as soon as possible. If you are getting a paycheck under the name "Mark Binmore," then you are leaving a trail that identifies you all over the place: banks, credit agencies, the tax collector, etc.
Essjay was busted when Jimbo offered him a real job. At that point, if not sooner, he had to reveal his real name for the purpose of getting on the payroll and cashing his paychecks. His user page on Wikia showed his real name, and Somey noticed this in January 2007. I had spent at least ten hours in previous months trying to find Essjay's real name on faculty lists, based on his claimed credentials. Needless to say, I got nowhere.
Frankly, unless Foundation66 has Mark Binmore on the payroll, then we're nearly back to page one of this thread. That was when tarantino discovered that most of those Lee Dennison edits on Wikipedia were made from a Foundation66 computer by someone using the name "Mark Binmore."
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Thu 10th December 2009, 5:44pm)
Sorry to be nitpicky, but did they say the same people (as in more than one) or same person (only one).
Interesting.
She said "people" meaning more than one...the exact phrase is "those are the same people".
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:19pm)
If the guilty Mark Binmore is getting a paycheck from Foundation66, then it is crucial to determine this as soon as possible.
Foundation66 confirmed by telephone that Mark Binmore does indeed work for them.
QUOTE
Frankly, unless Foundation66 has Mark Binmore on the payroll, then we're nearly back to page one of this thread. That was when tarantino discovered that most of those Lee Dennison edits on Wikipedia were made from a Foundation66 computer by someone using the name "Mark Binmore."
I don't see any connection between the B and B and this foundation....So I'm guessing that these are two separate people...
Does anyone have any information that connects them?
Posted by: xinjeisan
Well, Mark Binmore at Foundation66 is also editing wikitravel
http://wikitravel.org/en/Special:Contributions/212.22.3.8
Adding info about Maison de l'orb.
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:40pm)
Well, Mark Binmore at Foundation66 is also editing wikitravel
http://wikitravel.org/en/Special:Contributions/212.22.3.8
Adding info about Maison de l'orb.
http://wikitravel.org/en/Special:Contributions/212.22.3.8
Adding info about Maison de l'orb.
Well, there's obviously some sort of connection then. I also enjoyed http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Switzerland&diff=prev&oldid=957844
QUOTE
i am swiss we men kiss
Well, gay men do indeed kiss in Switzerland...
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 10th December 2009, 11:19am)
We have to consider the possibility that the perpetrator we've been discussing is more than one person, and we have them mixed together.
Personally, I think it's much more likely that Binmore either inherited a beat-up house in Beziers or bought it on the cheap, and like his other "businesses," he's been promoting it as if it's some sort of glamorous fashionable thing - when it's really just a false front. He might go there occasionally, he might even have a confederate who drops by to pick up the mail, but since it doesn't make any money, there's little point in his being there himself.
I also suspect that all this activity started as an attempt to make money by making it appear that glamorous fashionable gay dudes were all hanging out at his French "chambre de hotes," and when this strategy essentially failed, he became bitter and started doing more malicious things like spreading gay rumors on Wikipedia. Eventually the characters he created to support these fictions started taking on a life of their own, so to speak.
At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion myself, a few years ago I invented the term "Wikiphrenia" to describe exactly this sort of thing. So, if the shrinks need a word for it, they're welcome to use that one (after all, "Multiple Online Personality Disorder" doesn't roll of the tongue quite as nicely).
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 11:47am)
Well, there's obviously some sort of connection then. I also enjoyed http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Switzerland&diff=prev&oldid=957844
Indeed, http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Talk:Jurassic_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1103881 seems to suggest that he either has no appreciable sense of humor, or that he feels threatened when other people write not-real articles on sites he uses to promote his own not-real activities.
Posted by: Milton Roe
I wonder if some helpful mod would pull the sec 230 discussion out of this Ron Livingston lawsuit/Mark Binmore/fictional "Lee Dennison" thread, and put it somewhere else??
Moderator's Note: Done!
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 5:32am)
QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 10th December 2009, 11:41am)
lol - "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"
Hey, I wasn't that bitchy! Yeah, no need to insert GW Bush's Latin motto as Texas governor (death sentence clemency hearings) and president (why not bomb Iraq?).
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I put up what amounts to a http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/binmore.html on Wikipedia Watch.
Everyone start emailing anyone associated with Foundation66 and refer them to that page.
I'll report back in this thread if I get anything interesting. I think it's a bit premature to use my new page to refer folks to this WR thread, but I hope to do that soon, depending on how things develop.
I agree that the Section 230 stuff should be in a different thread, because no one interested in Binmore's cyber life really wants to wade through all of that. Besides, it's irrelevant in Britain.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 9:04am)
I called up Britishmonomarks, and the very nice woman there confirmed that all of these were the same people using different names, although she obviously couldn't confirm who exactly they were. It's only a mail-forwarding service and they're extremely upfront about that, if you ask them directly.
Thank you very much. Though I very much suspect that Fushion-UK uses Britishmonomarks, I can't prove it. There ARE apparently other honest-to-god business presenses in this old office building, and it's possible (though not likely) that Fushion Pukka Bosh (and Lee Dennison Associates) are among them. The problem is identifying some non-virtual business in the building (other than Britishmonomarks itself, of course!) and calling somebody there who could tell us.
Zounds, we need to call our London Agents and put them onto this! The place is only a 5 minute walk from the British Museum-- I wish I could go and check it out myself (then go have another look at the Elgin marbles and the Rosetta Stone; The last time I was at the museum, you could see Karl Marx's old favorite fixed chair he used for writing at the museum-- a quiet place he could hang out away from home. It's probably under glass by now.)
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 9:04am)
Hmm, are we absolutely certain that there are not multiple Mark Binmore's, one of whom runs a Bed and Breakfast and the other who works for Foundation66 in London? It would seem that a Mark Binmore does indeed work for foundation66 in London, but I can't quite make out how he could be running a B and B in Béziers at the same time...
As has been pointed out, he doesn't have to be both places all the time, especially if it's Ben Humble who is in Béziers and speaks passable French (enough to write complaints about the phone companies-- perhaps, despite the name, Humble is French himself, and that's why his written English is so poor). Humble himself seems real enough to advertise as a hypnotherapist and have a publicity photo at Fushion (wish I had that), both things which are hard (not impossible) to do if you want to remain virtual (try to find me a photo of "Lee Dennison" for example; there's a 2002 ad for Fushion in which it says you can "talk" to Lee Dennison and I wonder if Binmore does/did an accent impression for that. The cockney, maybe?).
I can't imagine mark@qualiwork.com (a 12 year old shell company we know exists, with Mark a director) taking actual cash reservations (50% non-refundable) for a B & B that doesn't exist. This would be clear fraud and get him (and his real UK company) into real trouble soon (and we'd hear complaints on the web even sooner; you can find them for businesses running though Britishmonomarks, for example, though not for Fushion-UK). Say, who are the OTHER directors of Qualitiwork? Is Humble one of them?
I missed how the IP was identified to Foundation66. It's the same one that has a web tech address that is something else in the UK. What do we know about Foundation66, now that we know Binmore really works for them?
Posted by: Somey
I've been thinking about this, and IMO the best way for Livingston to really put the spikes into this guy would be a "Google Images Bomb," in which he'd have as many blogs and community websites as possible place images like the one below, all captioned simply "Lee Dennison," like so:
Lee Dennison
The whole point of the "Lee Dennison" fantasy is that he's everything Binmore isn't - cool, sexy, good looking, rich, successful, popular, in control. If people put up enough of these, that image, carefully built up over 7 years, is completely trashed.
(And no, I don't know who this guy is, either!)
And http://www.clubplanet.com/blogs/867/the-telltale-tart-big-gay-secrets-ron-livingston-mark-wahlberg from June 30, 2007 of massive Binmore socking in support of the "Lee Dennison" story (latest comments listed first, so scroll down), in which he's shouting down at least two people who point out that Dennison doesn't exist. The first edits to the WP Livingston article appeared four months later.
I'd suggest leaving comments on http://leedennisonassociates.blogspot.com/ too, but there's probably not much point in that.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 7th December 2009, 10:05pm)
RIPE lists the 212.22.3.0/24 subnet as being assigned to the individual mentioned by Mr. Roe, above; the last change of that assignment was in February 2000. That subnet is currently being routed as part of AS8686, owned by System Online; peering is at LoNAP so this address is likely somewhere in the Greater London area.
This is the IP blocked for a year by WP for the Livingston edits, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8
And how (again) do we know this is a "Foundation66" computer?
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:42pm)
And how (again) do we know this is a "Foundation66" computer?
Milton, you can't know so much about physics and plumbing and prunes, without knowing about http://www.selfseo.com/find_host_by_ip.php, can you?
Posted by: Kevin
Here's the relevant lookup:
QUOTE
; <<>> DiG 9.4.3-P1 <<>> -x 212.22.3.8 any +multiline +nocomments +nocmd +noquestion +nostats +search
;; global options: printcmd
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR dickens.arp-uk.org.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns1.sysonline.net.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns0.sysonline.net.
ns0.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.10
ns1.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.11
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 1:42pm)
This is the IP blocked for a year by WP for the Livingston edits, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.22.3.8
And how (again) do we know this is a "Foundation66" computer?
This is why we need to prune this thread. It's too long ( tl;dr ). In addition to ALL the Section 230 stuff, maybe even some of the discoveries that were "rediscovered" by those who haven't read from page one. Just leave the first instance of each new discovery, and any posts that expand on it.
There's a fair amount of unnecessary cute drivel (I'm guilty of this too) that ought to be split off also. Maybe start a thread called "binmore spinoff" or such, and write an intro to this thread explaining that all comments that are not helpful and "investigative" belong in the spinoff thread.
We need to get this thread in shape for the major media (which, I must admit, may never arrive).
Moderator's note: Section 230-related posts were moved here. A few posts regarding the designation of a Wikipedia Review press contact for this issue were moved here (contributors only). Some posts were deleted for brevity and clarity. And we still like pie.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 11th December 2009, 6:10am)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:42pm)
And how (again) do we know this is a "Foundation66" computer?
Milton, you can't know so much about physics and plumbing and prunes, without knowing about http://www.selfseo.com/find_host_by_ip.php, can you?I can. When I was born, the gol-durn computer hadn't been invented yet. IIRC, everybody used abacuses and some went to Italy to learn the new Arabic numerals that let you multiply and divide on paper. Or was it vellum? Long time ago, anyway.
QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 10th December 2009, 1:28pm)
Milton, you can't know so much about physics and plumbing and prunes, without knowing about http://www.selfseo.com/find_host_by_ip.php, can you?
That's a useful link; feeding 212.22.3.8 into it gives:
This IP address belongs to mailserver.foundation66.org.uk
This host is located in Great Britain (UK)
Okay, so why is this so much more up-to-date than what is supplied by ARIN's WHOIS?
QUOTE
Here's the relevant lookup:
Urmmm. And where do you enter said command??
Posted by: Random832
Might be better to just write a new thread that summarizes everything we know about this guy. That'd have the advantage of allowing it to be put in a structured order rather than chronologically what order it was found in.
One question that we haven't examined much is what sort of verification was required to put the OTRS 'stamp of approval' on the photo as being created by Mark Binmore... It seems to have been sent through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission rather than uploaded directly... Alison, have you heard anything that can be shared publicly?
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:23pm)
Lee Dennison
WOW, That picture should make the next cover of GQ
Posted by: the fieryangel
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 8:21pm)
Thank you very much. Though I very much suspect that Fushion-UK uses Britishmonomarks, I can't prove it...
The lady on the phone confirmed all of that. She said, that for Britishmonomarks, Fushion Pukka Bosh and Lee Dennison Associates are the same entity---and that is interesting in and of itself...
Posted by: the fieryangel
Some context : This http://icdas.blogspot.com/2009/08/foundation-66-islington-evening-service.html and this http://mbinmore.blogspot.com/2009/03/normal-0-false-false-false.html
Put the two together, and you get a very sad picture indeed...
Posted by: anthony
QUOTE(Alison @ Tue 8th December 2009, 5:48am)
QUOTE(anthony @ Mon 7th December 2009, 9:10pm)
Because "flagged revisions" isn't a switch. There are as many definitions of "flagged revisions" as there are people to define it. And 99.999% of them suck.
The problem with that is that lack of Flagged Revisions sucks pretty bad right now, so let's at least have something
How's that saying go? "We need something. This is something. We need this." Is that it?
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:34pm)
[The lady on the phone confirmed all of that. She said, that for Britishmonomarks, Fushion Pukka Bosh and Lee Dennison Associates are the same entity---and that is interesting in and of itself...
Aha! So they did answer about specific companies they service, and these are theirs. That settles it, then, it's just a maildrop virtual office.
I had guessed that Lee Dennison and Fushion were the same company. Actually, Fushion admits as much, when it says Lee Dennison Associates isn't really a separate company, but that "Lee" is a senior advisor for Fushion. While all the while "Lee" is casting in NYC, Paris, and London.
As I said, casting inside a maildrop box must be very uncomfortable. You could get real muscle cramps, and think of the horrid lighting and acoustics.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Thu 10th December 2009, 3:49pm)
Some context : This http://icdas.blogspot.com/2009/08/foundation-66-islington-evening-service.html and this http://mbinmore.blogspot.com/2009/03/normal-0-false-false-false.html
Put the two together, and you get a very sad picture indeed...
I see that he took down his blog photo within the last 48 hours or so, just like he took down his Facebook photo earlier this week. We can assume that he's reading this thread by now. If he's smart, he may also be transferring all of his major assets into his partner's name, assuming that he has any major assets and assuming that he has a trustworthy partner.
Posted by: Random832
Has anyone been saving this stuff? I didn't have the presence of mind to.
Posted by: EricBarbour
I emailed a polite question about Mr. Binmore to a slew of Foundation 66 email addresses,
the ones that I could find anyway.
Included a link to this discussion and http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/binmore.html asking about Binmore.
(Aside: it amazes me how many drug/alcohol treatment facilities there are in London, and
the UK in general. Lots more than most American cities. Foundation 66 runs several
halfway houses just by itself.)
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Kevin @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:28pm)
Here's the relevant lookup:
; <<>> DiG 9.4.3-P1 <<>> -x 212.22.3.8 any +multiline +nocomments +nocmd +noquestion +nostats +search
;; global options: printcmd
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR dickens.arp-uk.org.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns1.sysonline.net.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns0.sysonline.net.
ns0.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.10
ns1.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.11
You should always take reverse-DNS records with a grain of salt. In fact, in this case, this IP is not owned by foundation66 at all, but is instead the IP of their hosted mail service provider (System Online). The fact that 212.22.3.5, 212.22.3.9, and 212.22.3.10 are mail exchangers for apparently entirely unrelated entities supports this theory.QUOTE
; <<>> DiG 9.4.3-P1 <<>> -x 212.22.3.8 any +multiline +nocomments +nocmd +noquestion +nostats +search
;; global options: printcmd
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.foundation66.org.uk.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR dickens.arp-uk.org.
8.3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR mailserver.rharp.org.uk.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns1.sysonline.net.
3.22.212.in-addr.arpa. 137844 IN NS ns0.sysonline.net.
ns0.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.10
ns1.sysonline.net. 142182 IN A 212.22.0.11
This raises very real possibility that whoever is behind this works at System Online and has been "borrowing" identities and the like from their clients. Not terribly ethical, but we've seen that sort of thing before, now, haven't we?
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 10th December 2009, 4:16pm)
This raises very real possibility that whoever is behind this works at System Online and has been "borrowing" identities and the like from their clients. Not terribly ethical, but we've seen that sort of thing before, now, haven't we?
We have. But in this case, the confirmation that Binmore works at Foundation66 (if we accept that) pretty much puts that idea to rest. It would be too much to believe that somebody else doing Binmore-type Dennison vandalism actually does it from another company that fakes exit ports as an institution that Binmore just happens to work for!
As has been noted, Foundation66 is a homeless shelter and drug rehab charity. A worthy cause. They probably provide computer access to their "clients." But if Binmore draws a paycheck, that would suggest he's not (currently) a client.
http://www.foundation66.org.uk/pages/about-us.html
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:23pm)
Lee Dennison
Those briefs are actually pink. I think that is just the perfect touch.
Posted by: Somey
OK, I've just finished cleaning up the thread a bit. Section 230-related material (not specific to the Livingston case) was moved to this thread, and discussion regarding a WR press contacts for this issue was moved to this contributors-only thread. About 7 posts were deleted for simply being pointless (sorry, but they really were)...
Even after all that, there are still 13 pages of this stuff, and a lot of it is too technical for the average person, much less the average reporter or blogger. I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested. With any luck I won't make a complete joke out of it (beyond what already looks joke-like, that is).
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 5:20pm)
OK, I've just finished cleaning up the thread a bit. Section 230-related material (not specific to the Livingston case) was moved to this thread, and discussion regarding a WR press contacts for this issue was moved to this contributors-only thread. About 7 posts were deleted for simply being pointless (sorry, but they really were)...
Even after all that, there are still 13 pages of this stuff, and a lot of it is too technical for the average person, much less the average reporter or blogger. I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested. With any luck I won't make a complete joke out of it (beyond what already looks joke-like, that is).
Oh, dear me. Somebody has been reading and has an executive summary.
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37206132&postcount=67
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:23pm)
I've been thinking about this, and IMO the best way for Livingston to really put the spikes into this guy would be a "Google Images Bomb," in which he'd have as many blogs and community websites as possible place images like the one below, all captioned simply "Lee Dennison," like so:
Lee Dennison
Ummm, why make that guy's life any more miserable? For all we know, there is a "real" Lee Dennison who is a friend or enemy of whoever is doing this...
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:46pm)
Oh, dear me. Somebody has been reading and has an executive summary.
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37206132&postcount=67
http://www.digitalspy.com/forums/showpost.php?p=37206132&postcount=67
Not bad for a start...
But he says "There is no Ron Dennison," not "There is no Lee Dennison," which is obviously a typo, but someone will probably quote it out of context anyway. I guess they wouldn't allow links, either?One other thing I remembered, but didn't post, not that there's much more that needs adding at this point. All of the references for "Lee Dennison" in various lists of casting directors (most of whom appear to be legitimate) say "Lee Dennison CDA." However, there is no such thing as the "CDA," unless you're talking about the Communications Decency Act or the California Dental Association. Bona fide British casting directors are members of the CDG, the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain. If you look at http://www.castweb.co.uk/testimonials, for example, "Lee Dennison" is one of only two with the letters "CDA" after his name - all the others are "CDG." This is, presumably, how Binmore managed to fool people into thinking he had credentials despite his name not appearing in any official CDG listings.
The other "CDA" on that page, btw, is "Dan Hubbard." However, I believe this is a typo - on http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003849/, he's listed as "CDG." There seems to be a company called "http://www.cdaarts.com/Casting_Directors.html," though, and I believe Binmore cleverly took advantage of this to sow confusion, in case anyone checked.
Posted by: Newyorkbrad
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:28pm)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
See the link immediately above to Digital Spy.
Posted by: TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Fri 11th December 2009, 2:28am)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
Damn, The Joy is on hiatus. S/he's http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26748&view=findpost&p=198019.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 6:13pm)
One other thing I remembered, but didn't post, not that there's much more that needs adding at this point. All of the references for "Lee Dennison" in various lists of casting directors (most of whom appear to be legitimate) say "Lee Dennison CDA." However, there is no such thing as the "CDA," unless you're talking about the Communications Decency Act or the California Dental Association. Bona fide British casting directors are members of the CDG, the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain. If you look at http://www.castweb.co.uk/testimonials, for example, "Lee Dennison" is one of only two with the letters "CDA" after his name - all the others are "CDG." This is, presumably, how Binmore managed to fool people into thinking he had credentials despite his name not appearing in any official CDG listings.
The other "CDA" on that page, btw, is "Dan Hubbard." However, I believe this is a typo - on http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003849/, he's listed as "CDG." There seems to be a company called "http://www.cdaarts.com/Casting_Directors.html," though, and I believe Binmore cleverly took advantage of this to sow confusion, in case anyone checked.
Yes, I note that even if he were American (possible) it would be CSA (Casting Society of America, although when I see the acronym I think of the Confederate States of America). I don't know what it would be in France. In a lot of countries, casting societies have to do with fly fishing.
Posted by: Push the button
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Fri 11th December 2009, 1:28pm)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
Are you mistaking us for your interns?
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 10th December 2009, 8:28pm)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 11th December 2009, 2:16am)
...the people who inhabit Wikipedia Review are completely unreliable and are well-known to have a penchant for lying. You really should review all the evidence yourself; any other course of action would be irresponsible.
Actually, I was going to ask one of the WP admins for some dates on a few deleted articles, chiefly Montgomery Sands (T-H-L-K-D), Harry Dennison (T-H-L-K-D), Lee Dennison (T-H-L-K-D), Lee Kaay (T-H-L-K-D), Bite Records (T-H-L-K-D), and Erotikuss (T-H-L-K-D). AfD's still exist for all of them, but I'm trying to establish a timeline of when they were first created (in some cases, they were reposted once or twice after an initial deletion).
I also found http://books.google.com/books?id=lyoIeW9GNyAC&pg=PT398&lpg=PT398&dq=%22Montgomery+Sands%22&source=bl&ots=luLy7S2hcv&sig=J73qaBV6frvjGX0dhuRkiVg-GmM&hl=en&ei=LdshS-rcEsyFnAeO4_H0CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Montgomery%20Sands%22&f=false, which appears to have been Binmore's first attempt at a phony offsite (i.e., non-Wikipedia) support reference.
The other thing I need to know is when the (now-deleted) photo of Livingston, taken by Binmore, was first uploaded - I forgot to get that before it went down the memory hole... sorry about that. I'm guessing it had to be before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=49324952...?
What I'm learning about Binmore is that he was, and presumably still is, fairly clever, cunning, and methodical, but just not very intelligent, and like most narcissists he's both self-indulgent and dismissive of others' ability to thwart him - until they do, in fact, thwart him, at which point he skulks off, sets up more bogus offsite support pages, waits until people have forgotten his previous attempt(s), and tries again. For example, he seems to have taken a lengthy hiatus from WP between November 2005 and April 2006, during which time he created his cast of characters and supporting web presences - but once he was done, he stupidly (and I can only say greedily) posted everything all at once, and it all got deleted.
It was only after that happened that he started in with the gay-rumor edits, and he didn't make another attempt to post articles on his fictional characters. Moreover, as I mentioned before, the entire time he made almost no attempt to engage the WP community directly, didn't create user pages, didn't participate in discussions that didn't involve defending his self-promotional activities... I'm fairly certain he has always had nothing but contempt for the WP community, and has always seen them as little more than an obstruction.
I haven't quite gotten through 2007 yet, but he seems to have been out of the picture during most of that year - it's possible that he was in France then, trying to set up the dubious B&B. (Besides, Cheekychops (T-C-L-K-R-D) was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACheekychops, which may have been an effective thwart-attempt, at least for a few months.) Anyway, his activity in 2008 was almost all half-hearted edit-warring over "Lee Dennison" references, and he seems to have given up most of it by the end of 2008, except of course for the Livingston article, which he couldn't quite let go of until the lawsuit was announced and they finally protected it.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
Montgomery Sands (T-H-L-K-D) -
*created - 24 September 2005 (userfied on the same date to User:Jcash. Worked on by user:Jcash 11October 2005
*recreated - 2nd November - deleted finally on 8 November 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montgomery Sands (T-H-L-K-D)
Harry Dennison (T-H-L-K-D)
*created 3 November 2005 - deleted 9 Novemeber 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Dennison (T-H-L-K-D)
*recreated 15 May 2006 (Cheekychops) - deleted 16 May 2006
*recreated 20 May 2006 (Cheekychops) - speedied in minutes
Lee Dennison (T-H-L-K-D)
*Created 20 April 2006 (Leedennison) - deleted 27 April 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Dennison (T-H-L-K-D)
*Recreated 5 December 2009 - speedied immediately
Lee Kaay (T-H-L-K-D)
*Created 20 April 2006 (Leedennison) - deleted 18 July 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Kaay (T-H-L-K-D)
Bite Records (T-H-L-K-D)
*created 13 May 2006 (Cheekychops) deleted 23 July 2006 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bite records (T-H-L-K-D)
Erotikuss (T-H-L-K-D).
*created 11 July 2006 - speedied 9 hours later
Posted by: xinjeisan
Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison
Though the first mention of Ron Livingston is 2007, as far as I can see.
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Fri 11th December 2009, 9:20am)
Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison
Though the first mention of Ron Livingston is 2007, as far as I can see.
No record of that on wikipedia. The wayback machine hits don't relate to wikipedia.
Posted by: xinjeisan
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Fri 11th December 2009, 1:24am)
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Fri 11th December 2009, 9:20am)
Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison
Though the first mention of Ron Livingston is 2007, as far as I can see.
No record of that on wikipedia. The wayback machine hits don't relate to wikipedia.
I think it just shows that his alternative world before he started editing Wikipedia.
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Random832 @ Thu 10th December 2009, 1:05pm)
One question that we haven't examined much is what sort of verification was required to put the OTRS 'stamp of approval' on the photo as being created by Mark Binmore... It seems to have been sent through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission rather than uploaded directly... Alison, have you heard anything that can be shared publicly?
Dunno if I can say too much here
I can tell you that there's a link between the pic uploader, Binmore and the Dennison vandalism. That's why I deleted it, to mitigate some of the damage done to Ron Livingston once I discovered that Binmore had had a hand in it.
Howcheng copied it from OTRS to Commons. He did so in all innocence and had no idea that anything was iffy. The OTRS ticket was as vanilla as they get and he'd no way of knowing anything was up. I checked with Howard before I deleted it and he was okay once he saw the evidence. I then forwarded this evidence to Mike Godwin, Sue Gardner and Jimmy, but got no acknowledgement
I have IPs, email addresses, names etc but can't say anything about those, per privacy policy. Anyone comes knocking, I'll refer them to the WMF.Somey - the pic was first copied to Commons on 3rd of February, 2009, but was copied by Howcheng out of the OTRS ticket (as is normal).
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th December 2009, 12:32am)
The other thing I need to know is when the (now-deleted) photo of Livingston, taken by Binmore, was first uploaded - I forgot to get that before it went down the memory hole... sorry about that. I'm guessing it had to be before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=49324952...?
Ah! A new data point.
I just checked that, and it was a stock promophoto, originally uploaded by User:Postdlf, an admin on 14 July 2005. It was later deleted by the same admin on 6 November 2006. Another was uploaded by User:Darkfate, apparently just some American editor, on 1 September 2007 and subsequently deleted on 4 September 2007. Then, just the odd movie clipping would be added/deleted, etc, until the February 2009 one was added via OTRS.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I have added a link to this thread on my http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/binmore.html, and with Greg's permission, have added his cellphone number for those needing further information. Now my poster page at Wikipedia Watch can serve as a convenient starting point, and a convenient link in emails, for anyone wishing to notify the media.
I'd like to see some media around London notified. I sent off a note to Andrew Orlowski, who is still there as far as I know.
We need the media to stop using "John Doe" if they have any interest at all in this case, and start adding more information about who this person may be, and what he's been up to for years now.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th December 2009, 8:32am)
The other thing I need to know is when the (now-deleted) photo of Livingston, taken by Binmore, was first uploaded - I forgot to get that before it went down the memory hole... sorry about that. I'm guessing it had to be before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=49324952...?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ron_Livingston.jpg. The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ron_Livingston.jpg may have been a different one (in particular, the OTRS request seems to have come through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission rather than being a statement of permission on an earlier uploaded photo, and there's a lengthy delay between the earlier photo being deleted and this.
Posted by: Moulton
As drama genres go, detective stories have always been a staple, ever since Arthur Conan Doyle serialized Sherlock Holmes in Strand magazine.
It's fascinating to watch on the sidelines as a new crop of web detectives piece together the whodunnit and howdunnit of the Lee Dennison Mystery.
Perhaps Wired will feature the story, once the puzzle pieces are all in place.
Posted by: xinjeisan
Is anyone looking through non English wiki sites for Mark Binmore/Lee Dennison/etc related info. I went through all the Ron Livingston ones and deleted http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&action=historysubmit&diff=17899867&oldid=17628159 -- it looks like the day the guy translated the article was a day the Lee Dennison was mentioned.
There is alsohttp://www.katebushnews.com/2004.htm in a Kate Bush fansite that Lee Kaay is releasing Kate Bush cover songs. Even though the wikipedia Kate Bush cover songs article was deleted, it still http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-cover-versions-of-Kate-Bush-songs elsewhere, even being used as recently as September in someone's http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=340276269&blogId=508598125blog.
It looks like Mark's knowledge of the internet and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee_Dennison&diff=next&oldid=49582485 allowed him to keep going. Even his non free photo was allowed to stay on the site for quite sometime, and even the photo he took was http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/12/07/actor-sues-over-wikipedia-gay-edits/ by several media sites, giving him proper credit for the photo.
It took us a few days to deconstruct all the lies going on. (I'm probably talking to the choir here but..)_This whole story shows how easy both Wikipedia and the mass media can be manipulated. Just pick a minor concept or person that is familiar enough that people will care but not so familiar that people will be interested in checking the facts (Sorry Ron Livingston...) or even protecting your wikipage after repeated vandalism until you sue(!), make up some other websites, build your wikilaw knowledge, and, there you go.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Fri 11th December 2009, 10:09am)
It looks like Mark's knowledge of the internet and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lee_Dennison&diff=next&oldid=49582485 allowed him to keep going. Even his non free photo was allowed to stay on the site for quite sometime, and even the photo he took was http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/12/07/actor-sues-over-wikipedia-gay-edits/ by several media sites, giving him proper credit for the photo.
It took us a few days to deconstruct all the lies going on. (I'm probably talking to the choir here but..)_This whole story shows how easy both Wikipedia and the mass media can be manipulated. Just pick a minor concept or person that is familiar enough that people will care but not so familiar that people will be interested in checking the facts (Sorry Ron Livingston...) or even protecting your wikipage after repeated vandalism until you sue(!), make up some other websites, build your wikilaw knowledge, and, there you go.
If there were a bunch of Mark Binmore types doing this to Wikipedia biographies, what would happen first?
1. Wikipedia organizes its own Mod Squad of vandal hunters — not just to block them, but to file lawsuits against them. NYB resigns because he feels that this is unkind and unseemly.
2. Another law like this gets passed in the U.S. and also in other countries:
QUOTE
A federal law was signed on January 5, 2006 by President Bush, with new language in Section 113 of the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act." Here's the relevant language:
"Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
"Whoever ... utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet ... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person ... who receives the communications ... shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
3. Congress repeals Section 230.
4. Wikipedia installs flagged revisions.
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why are we doing Wikipedia's work for them? Why not let the Binmores of the world do their thing to Wikipedia? The web will be a worse place for a while if we ignore the Binmores, but after Wikipedia folds, it will be a better place.
Posted by: Moulton
The shenanigans on Wikipedia persist because Wikipedia is an easy target with high levels of Google juice. But if Wikipedia didn't exist, the shenanigans would persist elsewhere.
Most professionally managed mass media outlets employ good practices to avoid being snookered. But Wikipedia is an inviting target to those who would fool the mass audience.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 11th December 2009, 1:16am)
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Thu 10th December 2009, 8:28pm)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
And three bonks with the silver sarcastihammer.
"Are you dead?"
"Are you dead?"
"Are you dead?"
Ritual concluded.
QUOTE(Push the button @ Fri 11th December 2009, 1:02am)
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Fri 11th December 2009, 1:28pm)
For the benefit of those of us who want to follow and understand this situation without spending hours piecing things together or becoming detectives ourselves, could someone please post a reasonable summary of the situation as known to date. This should definitely include how Wikipedia was misused by this individual and whether there are any remnants of the hoax(es) still evident on the site.
Thanks.
Are you mistaking us for your interns?
Just the normal attitude of the Salaried Ones, toward volunteers everywhere. Wikipedia breeds entitlement, and the previously-entitled are attracted to it. Chicken and egg to say where it begins.
I smell a full diaper here. Where are teh womans? Alison!!
Posted by: Somey
It's lengthy and probably too detailed, but here it is...
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/
I left out most of the speculation about the B&B, because I didn't feel we had the full story on that part of it... Though I'd be surprised if what's been posted here isn't substantially correct.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th December 2009, 2:23pm)
It's lengthy and probably too detailed, but here it is...
http://url=http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211/its-the-casting-director-lee-dennison-story/
I left out most of the speculation about the B&B, because I didn't feel we had the full story on that part of it... Though I'd be surprised if what's been posted here isn't substantially correct.
That link doesn't work if you click it, although the blog entry is there. Some screwup you need to fix.
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20091211 should work.
Posted by: Somey
Sorry... fixed now... 
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 11th December 2009, 3:03pm)
Sorry... fixed now...
Just read the article. Fourth paragraph in Tangled Web He Wove begins:
QUOTE
Over the course of the next three years, Binmore slowly added and removed various titles from his online resume at ukscreen.com. By mid-2005, it contained over 40 fake titles, none of them linked to other websites or pages.
The referent of "his" sounds like Binmore, which it is, but it's not clear to the newb reader that you're actually talking about the Lee Dennison resume, not Binmore's personal resume. So I suggest replacing "his online resume" with "his fake "Lee Dennison" online resume" to clarify this.
Otherwise, a very nice piece of detective work and exposition, and a stake through another web-jerking-vampire's heart. Now there's a one-shot link to the whole story.
You must have been avoiding a particularly nasty bit of real-life paid work to get this done.
You know, Futurama has it wrong: it's not just a wish to impress the opposite sex (or sometimes, the same sex ) which gets unpaid things done. Also important is the work people do to avoid some other stultifyingly boring paid-work they SHOULD be doing. All of Wikipedia was produced that way, just for example...
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:20pm)
I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested.
I think that was me, right after I posted a notice of this thread at the Huffington Post, but it looks like someone deleted the suggestion?
Jon
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 12th December 2009, 12:55am)
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 10th December 2009, 7:20pm)
I'm going to write this up as a blog entry and hopefully put the whole thing in some sort of logical order, like Mr. Random suggested.
I think that was me, right after I posted a notice of this thread at the Huffington Post, but it looks like someone deleted the suggestion?
Jon
I suggested it too at some point, I think.
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 11th December 2009, 5:32pm)
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why are we doing Wikipedia's work for them? Why not let the Binmores of the world do their thing to Wikipedia? The web will be a worse place for a while if we ignore the Binmores, but after Wikipedia folds, it will be a better place.
The world and the world wide web would be a better place, indeed if Wikipedia folded.
I agree.
Posted by: Tarc
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Fri 11th December 2009, 8:29pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 11th December 2009, 5:32pm)
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why are we doing Wikipedia's work for them? Why not let the Binmores of the world do their thing to Wikipedia? The web will be a worse place for a while if we ignore the Binmores, but after Wikipedia folds, it will be a better place.
The world and the world wide web would be a better place, indeed if Wikipedia folded.
I agree.
ITT: victim misunderstands "rhetorical".
Posted by: victim of censorship
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:36am)
QUOTE(victim of censorship @ Fri 11th December 2009, 8:29pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 11th December 2009, 5:32pm)
RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why are we doing Wikipedia's work for them? Why not let the Binmores of the world do their thing to Wikipedia? The web will be a worse place for a while if we ignore the Binmores, but after Wikipedia folds, it will be a better place.
The world and the world wide web would be a better place, indeed if Wikipedia folded.
I agree.
ITT: victim misunderstands "rhetorical".
Tarc, the official wiki mascot
Posted by: SirFozzie
Looks like one of Binmore's attempts to insinuate himself into the WP-world had stuck for a year and a half.. some obscure LGBT channel in France. "English Presenter Mark Binmore"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_TV_%28France%29&action=historysubmit&diff=206540730&oldid=195027235
I'm surprised no one did a search of the site for that name.. didn't take me that long to pick this one up. Allie took it out, tho.. but still 18 months... *grumbles*
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I've linked to both this thread and to Somey's summary on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/binmore.html.
This WR thread isn't getting enough Google juice; it ranks around 200 for "ron livingston" — I guess WR is no match for Hollywood. I'm going to see if I can do better for my Binmore page for a search on "ron livingston".
Obviously, no one is going to search for "mark binmore" unless they're already up to speed on the issue. We need some love from the mainstream media, which is usually not up to speed on anything. I'm going to try for juice on "Ron Livingston's lawsuit: John Doe identified".
Yeah, yeah, Random32 will complain because I'm trying to "manipulate" Google. What do you think Wikipedia's been doing for years now? And what do you think Google's been doing to me and the rest of the world? Sheesh!
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:36am)
ITT: victim misunderstands "rhetorical".
Now, that's just unfair - to misunderstand 'rhetorical' would mean e.g. providing an actual answer as to why - not just agreeing to the sentiment. For example, if his response had started "we're doing it because...", that would mean that he misunderstood 'rhetorical'. But it didn't. It doesn't mean "don't respond at all", after all.
tl;dr: ITT: Tarc misunderstands "rhetorical".
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 5:40pm)
Yeah, yeah, Random32 will complain because I'm trying to "manipulate" Google.
Uh....? My point was simply that it can be manipulated - in the other thread you seemed to be making the argument that a page's place in the search rankings is set in stone forever. Does it not logically follow that if some changes to a page's content can increase it's ranking, that other changes can decrease it?
Posted by: Doc glasgow
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 5:40pm)
I've linked to both this thread and to Somey's summary on http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/binmore.html.
This WR thread isn't getting enough Google juice; it ranks around 200 for "ron livingston" — I guess WR is no match for Hollywood. I'm going to see if I can do better for my Binmore page for a search on "ron livingston".
Obviously, no one is going to search for "mark binmore" unless they're already up to speed on the issue. We need some love from the mainstream media, which is usually not up to speed on anything. I'm going to try for juice on "Ron Livingston's lawsuit: John Doe identified".
Yeah, yeah, Random32 will complain because I'm trying to "manipulate" Google. What do you think Wikipedia's been doing for years now? And what do you think Google's been doing to me and the rest of the world? Sheesh!
I'm just wondering if it is possible to use Wikipedia's google juice to help your page. There would be some irony in it, but it might help. Can't quite think how to do it, though.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 11th December 2009, 6:55pm)
I think that was me, right after I posted a notice of this thread at the Huffington Post, but it looks like someone deleted the suggestion?
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 11th December 2009, 7:19pm)
I suggested it too at some point, I think.
Right, you both suggested it, along with two or three others... I didn't mean to make it seem otherwise, I think some stuff just got moved/removed during the triple-banana thread split yesterday.
Also, I fixed the bit about "his resume" - thanks for noticing that, MR... I did put something off to do that (it took about 6 hours or so), but it wasn't urgent, and it's not like I'm going anywhere this weekend anyway - we just had a 16-inch snowfall here over a 48-hour period (apparently this was almost an all-time record), and the roads are still pretty dicey.
As for impressing the opposite sex, admittedly I'm not dating anyone at the moment. If I could only find someone who really understood me, someone who knows how to choose just the right actors for a major motion picture production or music video while still somehow managing to maintain at least 6 or 7 serious celebrity relationships at the same time... but I guess people like that just don't exist.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Sat 12th December 2009, 2:31am)
I'm surprised no one did a search of the site for that name.. didn't take me that long to pick this one up. Allie took it out, tho.. but still 18 months... *grumbles*
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27677&view=findpost&p=208757, but that's OK, I certainly wasn't going to change it back myself...!
Personally, I believe WP has a weakness with respect to both non-English-speaking culture and gay culture. There just aren't enough people on WP who know that kind of detail about French cable TV, and nobody wants to be seen as a gay-basher (or if they do, they usually don't last long). Binmore took advantage of both of those weaknesses, though I'm still not sure if he did so because he was clever, or if he just happened to be correctly situated for it.
Overall though, the Pink TV thing probably didn't do any real harm, unless it helped Binmore convince some poor sap or other that he really was a minor celebrity, and... well, I suppose we'll just have to use our imaginations!
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I posted updates to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/05/ron-livingston-wikipedia_n_381345.html?show_comment_id=36189215#comment_36189215 and http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091206/1727097221#c457. Both of their articles on Ron Livingston rank high in a Google search on his name.
Jon 
Posted by: jayvdb
User XinJeisan (T-C-L-K-R-D)
has been removing Binmore/Dennison references from other Wikipedia. e.g. http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_93&diff=prev&oldid=28460509 and http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_United_93-as&diff=prev&oldid=6651405 page United 93, http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_TV_%28Perancis%29&diff=prev&oldid=2737445 page Pink TV, and http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Livingston&diff=prev&oldid=17899867 page for Ron Livingston. In all of those cases, the problem was inherited by translation of the English Wikipedia page.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 12th December 2009, 8:43pm)
Fine work, Mr. Xin! Maybe Mr. Livingston or his attorneys will send us all one of those Harry & David "Tower of Treats" boxes.
Also, I hadn't mentioned this in the thread here, though I did add it to the blog post today - the folks at WikiAnswers (wiki.answers.com) have actually been handling this pretty well for the last several months. My guess is that Mr. Binmore and his friends would get drunk (or whatever) some nights and just have fun asking silly and/or stupid questions - some of them (most have nothing to do with "Lee Dennison") are actually pretty funny:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Special:Contributions&target=ip:ID3562343635
There's at least 9 pages of these, 50 questions to a page, many of them repeated across multiple categories. My favorite is probably "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Will_you_stop_bombing_people," which nobody seems to have answered. (There's also "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_kept_in_a_butt," and so on.)
As for the "Lee Dennison" questions, the "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_about_Ron_Livingston_and_Lee_Dennison_being_a_stunt_to_get_publicity_or_could_the_rash_of_Matt_and_Emily_videos_be_a_cover_up_for_being_gay" answers for those probably came from Livingston's publicist, though of course we may never know for certain.
Posted by: xinjeisan
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 12th December 2009, 9:49pm)
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Sat 12th December 2009, 8:43pm)
Fine work, Mr. Xin! Maybe Mr. Livingston or his attorneys will send us all one of those Harry & David "Tower of Treats" boxes.
I try. I'm thinking they'll just send us a thank you card on a post it note, though.
Anyways, I took off a reference to the lawsuit on the Japanese wiki, as well.
But, Binmore has come back to the internet, and http://www.the-languedoc-page.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4294&highlight=. Although I don't understand how one would have time to house sit for someone when you are running your own B&B that is so popular that it is booked throughout the holiday season. Isn't any free time needed to plan the many parties to be held in the jardin for friends near and far. However, maybe he has reason to try to go somewhere where he can't be found for a little while.
Somey, you might be interested in this research (an http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2009/12/03/the-psychology-of-facebook-profiles/?xid=rss-topstories and here is the professor's lab http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/gosling/). Basically, it says that people try to put up an ideal of themselves, but it ends up reflecting themselves, in the end.
People are just bound by their experiences and personality, and, really can't see beyond that, no matter how many different names of people who they say are living in different places they use as aliases. (those that can become artists or writers or filmmakers, I guess). Mark Binmore tried to create several different personalities and personas online, but, he couldn't pull it off. They are all pretty transparently him. One could speculate that is probably why he failed as an actor.
Also, I'm beginning to think that Ben Humble actually exists. First, you don't need an office to by a hypnotherapist. You can just go to someone's house, I would think. It actually might be the one legitimate business in the whole thing. It would also explain how Mark Binmore could run a B&B while in London. Humble could be the person managing the place, and Binmore could go down whenever he was off of work.
Just speculation, of course, but, at this point, that's all there is. I think we've found everything that can be found, and, unless Binmore starts posting elsewhere on line, its just wait until the lawyers move forward or some journalist feels this is interesting enough to follow up on, I would think.
ps why can't i quote other people's articles properly...what am I doing wrong..
Posted by: xinjeisan
This is new..
The http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmorek page is down.
I just realized that he spent the time to get all his facebook friends personalized facebook addresses.
The http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison page is down, as well.
Maybe he really is looking to house sit because he needs to go somewhere else fast...
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Sat 12th December 2009, 11:59pm)
ps why can't i quote other people's articles properly...what am I doing wrong..
Count the "quote"s in your message. The must equal the number of "/quote"s
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Sun 13th December 2009, 12:33am)
This is new..
The http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmorek page is down.
I just realized that he spent the time to get all his facebook friends personalized facebook addresses.
The http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison page is down, as well.
Maybe he really is looking to house sit because he needs to go somewhere else fast...
Bruhahahahah. The Dennison page going down is admission of being sunk. Hole in one. Nailed perfectly. Hoist with his own petard.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(xinjeisan @ Sun 13th December 2009, 1:33am)
This is new..
The http://www.facebook.com/mark.binmorek page is down.
I just realized that he spent the time to get all his facebook friends personalized facebook addresses.
The http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison page is down, as well.
Maybe he really is looking to house sit because he needs to go somewhere else fast...
He will have a harder time getting the http://web.archive.org/web/20071219162934/http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/ldennison out of The Wayback Machine (archive.org). I think they will tell him that Mr. Dennison needs to fax a request on company letterhead, based on my experience with The Wayback Machine. Since he doesn't control the ukscreen.com server, a robots.txt entry to block archive.org from showing those pages is not likely. Such a robots.txt would have to be placed in the root directory of ukscreen.com, and the site owner won't be interested in doing that.
Somey, you should change your link in your blog page. But rather than use the archive.org page, which will break nearly all of the links on that page, you should use http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/dennison.html.
Maybe we should start collecting his pages and put them on WR in a special directory. Here's how it's done: Use Curl or Wget to grab the source, and then insert a meta in the headers. This is the one I inserted for the Dennison page:
CODE
<base href="http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/">
The base command picks up any style files and other eye candy from the original site. The same technique is useful for saving Wikipedia pages, and usually all the links still work on that page.I didn't grab the Facebook page.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:51pm)
I posted updates to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/05/ron-livingston-wikipedia_n_381345.html?show_comment_id=36189215#comment_36189215 and http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091206/1727097221#c457. Both of their articles on Ron Livingston rank high in a Google search on his name.
Jon
Not a single peep or wiki-peep out of anyone else since I posted these.
It's e-mazing how quiet the usual gang of blowhards gets when the truth starts to come out.
Jon
Posted by: Kelly Martin
The Cabal's wheels are spinning overtime while they try to come up with a shore story to explain this one that doesn't require that they admit having been duped. You see, it's not possible for Wikipedians—who are by definition the smartest people on the planet—to be wrong about anything.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 13th December 2009, 11:36am)
The Cabal's wheels are spinning overtime while they try to come up with a shore story to explain this one that doesn't require that they admit having been duped. You see, it's not possible for Wikipedians—who are by definition the smartest people on the planet—to be wrong about anything.
Yes, damn them. The issue is not just one of insight. It's always appropriate to remind ourselves that we are, as JFK was wont to say about civil rights, confronted with what is essentially a moral issue. WP does not follow the Golden Rule on the issue of BLP. WP's policies for treating BLP are not those that anybody voting for these policies would want for him/herself, or their loved ones or family. The WMF crew makes sure their own BLPs either do not exist, or are watched with a care which is not available to the public. Jimbo did one BLP-wash (or had it done by JzG, same thing), as a favor to a sexual partner. WMF personnel who mess-up in real life (Carolyn Doran) have their BLPs expunged and salted-- another favor not available to other semi-public figures. Wikia people who lose enthusiasm for the WMF project (Angela Beesley) but still retain influence, have their BLPs reduced to a minimum corporate fact-set, even while WP allows personal details into the BLPs of similar corporate people from all walks of life, IF they have no Jimbo-connection. BLPs are not even semi-protected, so that they are edited by anonymous vandals and rumor spreaders who have no sense of responsiblity, and WP continues to allow this, alone among almost all website BBSs which deal with information about real live people. Finally, a legion of anonymous WP editors hide behind their usernames and use an official fear that they'll be "outed" and be subject to DANGER
if they get the same BLP treatment on WP that they're happy to help with, when it comes to people they don't know. The most malicious of sockpuppet players continues to influence BLP content, to the detriment of homest people who keep one account. And so on.All of this violates the Golden Rule, therefore is WRONG. Period. Full stop. We have various names for people who routinely violate the golden rule, including (but not limited to): pricks, sociopaths, evil bastards, malicious fucktards, self-centered narcissists, and selfish hypocritical assholes. Feel free to come up with your own, but they all apply to those who promote WP's BLP policy.
As for Mike Godwin, I don't know if his legal training actually included the concept of the Golden Rule, since (as I understand it) the law and morality are only nodding aquaintances. And as for Jimbo, well, we all know that he missed out on it somewhere. And WP's editors? A faceless mob in pointy hoods without any sense of personal accountability or worry about ever being in the same position as those they torment. Don't look for a fix from any of these people, any time soon.
Posted by: Moulton
Uncle Miltie has nailed it. Full stop.
Posted by: Cedric
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 13th December 2009, 1:31pm)
Uncle Miltie has nailed it. Full stop.
Yep. Assholery begins where empathy ends.