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

[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

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Fri 11th December 2009, 9:22am

[xinjeisan]

Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.../crew/ldennison

Though the first mention of Ron Livingston is 2007, as far as I can see.

[Doc glasgow]

Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.../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.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Fri 11th December 2009, 9:25am

[xinjeisan]

Lee Dennison goes back at least until 2002

http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_/http://www.../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.

[Alison]

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:Con...hoto_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).

[Alison]

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 July 15, 2005...?

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.

[Daniel Brandt]

I have added a link to this thread on my Mark Binmore "wanted" poster, 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.

[Random832]

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 July 15, 2005...?

February 9 3, 2009. The image added to the article in July 2005 may have been a different one (in particular, the OTRS request seems to have come through this page 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.

This post has been edited by Random832: Fri 11th December 2009, 4:11pm

[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.

[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 this -- it looks like the day the guy translated the article was a day the Lee Dennison was mentioned.

There is also this mention 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 exists elsewhere, even being used as recently as September in someone's myspace blog.

It looks like Mark's knowledge of the internet and wikirules 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 used 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.

[Daniel Brandt]

It looks like Mark's knowledge of the internet and wikirules 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 used 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:

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."

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.

[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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

Not that you could trust anything you got from here; everyone knows that 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. Isn't that the basic lesson that Wikipedia is supposed to teach us, anyway?

And three bonks with the silver sarcastihammer.




"Are you dead?"
"Are you dead?"
"Are you dead?"


Ritual concluded.

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!!

[Somey]

It's lengthy and probably too detailed, but here it is...

It’s 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.

[Milton Roe]

It's lengthy and probably too detailed, but here it is...

It’s 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.

This link should work.

[Somey]

Sorry... fixed now...

[Milton Roe]

Sorry... fixed now...

Just read the article. Fourth paragraph in Tangled Web He Wove begins:

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...

[Jon Awbrey]

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

[Random832]

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.

[victim of censorship]

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.