Patterico's Pontifications

5/27/2012

Brett Kimberlin Gets His Wikipedia Entry Removed

Filed under: Brad Friedman,Brett Kimberlin,General,Neal Rauhauser,Ron Brynaert — Patterico @ 12:17 am

[UPDATE: I have heard once again from the Wikipedia editor who removed Brett Kimberlin's Wikipedia entry. He refuses to tell me who claimed Kimberlin had been the victim of a harassment campaign. He evidently has no regrets about his decision even though Kimberlin has now been exposed as making repeated bogus claims of harassment.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia is moving to restore an entry after an absence of several months, and currently links Kimberlin to an entry on the Speedway Bombings. Over 700 versions of the article await review.]

[UPDATE x2: Symonds is now busy editing the Speedway bombings Wikipedia page. Here is Symonds removing the detail about Carl DeLong's leg being taken off, and his wife being injured, and cleaning it up so it just reads that DeLong and two others were "injured." Brett Kimberlin would be thrilled.]

I have described Brett Kimberlin’s campaign of harassment against his critics as “brass-knuckles reputation management.” The idea is to intimidate and harass anyone daring to bring up Kimberlin’s extensive criminal history. There are other examples I’m aware of that can’t be fully told for various reasons, although I hope the victims choose to tell them.

But one of the most concerning aspects of this reputation maintenance campaign is the way history is rewritten. And one example of that is the way that Kimberlin’s Wikipedia entry was whisked away from view on September 14, 2011.

Let’s look at the reason the editor gave for the deletion:

Oh, really? There was a harassment campaign against Brett Kimberlin, was there?

And here I thought it was the other way around. Here I thought he was the guy harassing others. Silly me!

And we certainly can’t discuss in public the reason that accurate facts are being whisked away from a source that 4 out of 5 suckers consider reliable.

The idea that there is a harassment campaign against Brett Kimberlin is a reputation management theory that has been pushed for months by Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, and Ron Brynaert — three people who engaged in the extraoardinary and very real harassment campaign against myself and other critics of Brett Kimberlin.

So where did the Wikipedia editor get the idea that there was a harassment campaign against Brett Kimberlin? In early May 2012, I decided to write the editor, Richard Symonds, and ask why the page was deleted.

Our dialogue follows.

I wrote:

Hello. My name is Patrick Frey and I operate a blog at patterico.com. I am interesting in knowing why you deleted the Wikipedia page on Brett Kimberlin. I have seen the deleted page and it was quite well sourced, with links to TIME Magazine and other news publications.

There was an entire book about this individual written by Mark Singer, a New Yorker writer. There is simply a wealth of reliable information out there about Kimberlin.

I read the reasoning for the deletion and did not understand it. I wonder if you could enlighten me. Thanks very much.

Patrick Frey
Patterico.com

Symonds responded (emphasis mine):

Patrick,

I deleted the article back in September as a volunteer, because it served as an attack page. It was sourced, but was also unduly negative, and written by people who “had an axe to grind”. Although some of the facts were sourced, there was an undertone of maliciousness in the way that the article was written.

Mr Kimberlin was not a paragon of virtue, but the article as it stood simply painted him as a man with no positive qualities at all, which is obviously problematic in a neutral encyclopedia.

I responded:

If the facts are sourced and accurate, perhaps the negative picture is accurate. Mr. Kimberlin is a man convicted of violent crimes. Portrayals of violent criminals tend to be largely negative, do they not? It sets a disturbing precedent to remove accurate facts from a neutral encyclopedia because those facts portray a violent convicted criminal in a negative light.

Also, how do you know the authors had an “axe to grind”? Who made this claim to you?

And why would that matter if the facts are accurate?

Symonds haughtily blew me off:

Patrick,

I’ve answered your questions and I have no real interest in discussing foreign politics with a blogger by email on my day off. The decision I made was backed up by others, the creators of the article were banned by the community, and I barely even remember the while episode. The whole event was entirely run of the mill, the sort of thing that happens on Wikipedia every day, and I have no real interest in left or right wing politics in North America.

All the best,

Richard Symonds

Note that he didn’t explain who had complained about the entry. My response suggested that I planned to blog about this:

Politics? I did not say a word about politics. This has nothing to do with politics. I simply asked why a factual article was removed. I find it odd that you would bring up politics when that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked you.

You say you answered my questions, but in point of fact you have not. I asked a couple of follow-up questions which were not answered at all: 1) who told you the authors of the article had an “axe to grind” and 2) why would that matter if the facts were accurate?

You’re entitled to refuse to answer my questions, but please don’t say you have answered all my questions when you haven’t.

If you want to wait until it’s no longer your day off, be my guest. I do not plan to publish anything about this today anyway.

In response, this Wikipedia editor Googled me, found several false claims made about me — mainly from Kimberlin’s band of defamers — and presented them as examples of “reliable” facts:

You are a right-of-centre blogger who has an interest in a left-of-centre individual. You’ve also been threatened with legal action by him, it seems – in my opinion, politics, and general ‘bad blood’ is involved here. I am answering your questions below, although I do so as a volunteer, and you must be aware that my memory of this non-event is hazy at best:

The community decided that the authors have an axe to grind due to their conduct. One of the authors behaved in a threatening manner towards a new editor. None of the editors showed any interest whatsoever in editing about other topics, even when asked to stop editing about Mr Kimberlin. Their interest in publicising their views about Mr Kimberlin (and his family) was more important to them than the general advancement of knowledge, ergo, they had a ‘conflict of interest’.

Furthermore, their comments towards new users – described by an uninvolved administrator as ‘truly chilling’ – showed that they harmed our project, rather than helped it
The problem is, I would have thought, obvious. Let me give you an example, using phrases I’ve literally just picked up out of Google:

“John Patrick Frey is a blogger and LA city prosecutor obsessed with the liberal bias of the Los Angeles Times. He has a long memory, especially for all things LA Dog Trainer Times. He has been reported as having harassed Jamie Gold, and has been accused of running a “infamous right wing extremist hate blog”".

They’re all facts that can be backed up by reliable sources, and they have a hint of truth about them, but they paint a biased and patently untrue version of events. The way that sentences in a neutral article are constructed is just as important – if not more so – as the facts out of which the sentence is built. The article, as written, had that sort of problem.

I’d be interested to know what version of the deleted article you have – there are two flying round, one of which is less ‘problematic’ than the other!

Again, emphasis is mine.

“Reliable sources,” eh? I responded:

In your response, you construct a description of me that you say is composed of “facts that can be backed up by reliable sources.” Yet your description is nothing of the sort. I am a blogger. I am not an “LA city prosecutor.” [I am an L.A. County, not city, prosecutor, speaking in his personal capacity, as always. --ed.] Calling me “obsessed” is not a “fact” but a characterization. Calling my letters to the LAT Readers’ Rep “harassment” is a tendentious characterization and not a “fact.” Calling my blog an “extremist hate blog” is a tendentious characterization and not a “fact.”

Please tell me what “reliable sources” you used to determine these “facts” about me.

There is a difference between tendentious claims and factual claims that can be supported by reliable sources in the media.

For example: one version of Kimberlin’s Wikipedia entry said: “In 1981, Kimberlin was convicted of a series of bombings that took place in Speedway, Indiana in 1978.” That is simply a matter of public record — as are his convictions for drug smuggling, perjury, and impersonating a federal officer. Yet you deleted these facts from Wikipedia.

If Charlie Manson were to file or threaten lawsuits against anyone who has ever written about his criminal history, that would not change the facts about his criminal history. I am not asking Wikipedia to rely on my blog for the facts regarding Brett Kimberlin. But there are numerous court decisions, articles in mainstream media, and even a published book by a New Yorker writer, testifying to the facts surrounding Kimberlin’s record. For Wikipedia to whisk the facts regarding his record away based on the arguments you have made is Orwellian, and casts serious question on the reliability of Wikipedia as a source for information.

I am attaching a screenshot from one version of the Wikipedia article. It appears to be pure fact. It contains nothing about Kimberlin’s family, just facts. The one opinion I see is that his claims about selling pot to Dan Quayle are called “false.” That cannot be established as fact, and rather than deleting the article outright, editing out the word “false” would have been the truly neutral and factual action to take.

Have you ever heard from a fellow named Neal Rauhauser concerning Brett Kimberlin? Is he one of your “reliable sources” for information about me?

Here is the screenshot I sent Symonds of a version of the Wikipedia entry I found on someone’s Facebook page.

Once again, Symonds blew me off:

Patrick,

I’m afraid that our views on neutrality differ rather wildly. I’m not really sure that I can help you any further without inflaming something which, for me, is a non-issue. As a result, you should probably leave a note at the Wikipedia Administrators Noticeboard if you have serious concerns about the actions I took as a volunteer in this case.

I stand by the actions I took in my capacity as a volunteer administrator.

I responded:

Nah, I’ll just blog about it instead. I think people will find this “non-issue” very revealing indeed, as well as the questions of mine (like the one about Neal Rauhauser) that you have refused to answer.

In his final email, Symonds claimed he had never heard of “Neal Rauthouser” — which is not how Rauhauser’s name is spelled. (Was he seeking deniability or did he just not try to spell it accurately?) He also agreed that “facts are facts” but that “in this case we didn’t think they were represented accurately.”

In an odd twist, Ron Brynaert — who has furiously been portraying himself as an enemy of Rauhauser’s and a critic of Kimberlin’s, despite the similar nature of his tactics and theirs — wrote a post about the deletion of the Wikipedia article. He wrote his own version and submitted it. I don’t recommend going to Brynaert’s site, but here is a safe link to a Google cache of Brynaert’s post, where you can read this amusing passage from Brynaert’s submission:

Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction, after articles were published at a website owned by Andrew Breitbart and other conservative blogs that questioned donations to his non-profit. Lawsuits and back-and-forth online battles have transpired between progressives backing Kimberlin and bloggers on the right ever since.

Brett Kimberlin could not have written it better himself. According to Brynaert’s submission, Kimberlin is being “hounded” by conservatives, and his extensive harassment campaign against us is really nothing but a blog war between the left and the right.

That’s exactly what Kimberlin wants you to think. Also from Brynaert’s entry:

During his imprisonment, one of the victims from the bombings killed himself, and Kimberlin was held liable for the death and a $1.61 million dollar judgment was awarded to the widow. An appeals court later ruled he wasn’t directly responsible for the suicide, and the judgment was reduced to $360,000 but it’s unclear if Kimberlin ever paid anything.

Yeah, except that the judgment of that intermediate court of appeals in 1993 was itself reversed in 1994, by the Indiana Supreme Court.

In the present case, the complaint alleged intentional injury. Kimberlin’s federal criminal conviction, through collateral estoppel, discussed in Issue 1(c), supra, establishes his conduct as malicious and thus intentional rather than negligent. Moreover, Carl’s DeLong’s death, although occurring more than four years after the explosion, was within the scope of harm intended by Kimberlin’s intentional criminal conduct. Under such circumstances, we decline to treat suicide as independent intervening cause protecting a highly culpable defendant from liability for his victim’s death. We hold that an action may be maintained for death or injury from a suicide or suicide attempt where a defendant’s willful tortious conduct was intended to cause a victim physical harm and where the intentional tort is a substantial factor in bringing about the suicide.

[T]he jury finding of damages in the amount of $1,250,000.00 does not appear outrageous at first blush. The verdict does not indicate passion, prejudice, or partiality rather than reasoned assessment. We decline to find the wrongful death judgment to be excessive.

. . . .

As to the damages awarded for Mrs. DeLong’s separate personal injury claim, the defendant asserts that the $360,000 verdict was approximately 18 times her special damages and therefore excessive. In response, the plaintiff notes evidence demonstrating the particularly painful nature of her injuries from the bomb blast and her ordeal during treatment, including multiple surgeries and permanent continuing pain and impairment established by medical testimony. . . . In the present case we find no basis for finding the verdict for Mrs. DeLong’s injuries to be excessive as a matter of law.

$1,250,000.00 plus $360,000 is $1.61 million. The state’s highest court upheld that judgment. Once again Ron Brynaert is seen to be misrepresenting the facts in a way that benefits Brett Kimberlin.

It’s almost as if Kimberlin’s supporters tried to whisk away any mention of him on Wikipedia — and when they got caught, tried to replace the entry with something that sounded neutral, but actually benefited his point of view.

Almost!

Anyway, since yesterday’s blogburst, it appears that all of a sudden Wikipedia is taking a second look at Symonds’s deletion. On Symonds’s talk page, someone writes:

There’s a lot of discussion about Brett recently, and it must be surprising for individuals to find no article about him.

Symonds the Wikipedia editor responds in part:

That’s fine, but I recommend you have a look at the related deletion review. The previous article was written by some people with rather a large axe to grind! I’ve had a couple of emails from right-wing bloggers, but nothing from anyone I’d trust to write a neutral article.

Never mind that the original article was almost entirely accurate! Another person chimes in and says:

Going through the deletion review, I’m not seeing a clear cut consensus to support the deletion. It seems like the action primarily taken because of objections to the users who had created the article in the first place. Also, I think the condition to “start from scratch” is overly burdensome. Yes, the article is almost entirely negative, but there’s nothing stopping someone from adding balance once the article is restored. Keep in mind that the behavior being alleged against Kimberlin involves inappropriate and extreme efforts to suppress negative but accurate reporting on his past. If you are in possession of ORTS information complaining about “harassment”, please note that many have accused Kimberlin of filing bad-faith harassment claims in the past.

No kidding!

By the way, I wrote Symonds again to ask him the question he never really answered: who told him about this supposed harassment campaign. Oddly enough, he has not responded.

It seems like our little blogburst might be working to get history re-rewritten to conform itself to the truth, rather than the “truth” as determined by a small band of thugs determined to intimidate anyone who tells the actual truth.

Who knew that telling the truth was so dangerous and so difficult?

290 Comments

  1. Answer: I did.

    Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:26 am

  2. This needed to be written, in part because I think Wizbang was crediting Brynaert as if he were some kind of neutral authority on all this.

    I think Wizbang said maybe Glenn Greenwald wasn’t a sock puppeteer either. There’s no accounting for opinions sometimes.

    If anyone still thinks that Brynaert was some kind of anti-Kimberlin force, I encourage them to read Friday’s post, detailing his participation in a brutal months-long campaign of intimidation against Kimberlin critics.

    I pay attention, not to what people say, but what they do.

    That’s where your character gets measured.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:28 am

  3. “Mr Kimberlin was not a paragon of virtue, but the article as it stood simply painted him as a man with no positive qualities at all…”–Richard Symonds

    Yeah, so what’s your point?

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:33 am

  4. That doesn’t even look like it followed Wiki’s policy on deletion.

    Comment by Matt S. (d71ddf) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:38 am

  5. Matt S.,

    I find Mr. Symonds’s behavior throughout to be very suspicious.

    Simply deleting the article for the reasons stated, as I noted in one of my replies, is simply Orwellian.

    My belief is that Kimberlin and his pals are trying to rewrite his history to make it easier for him to collect some bucks from suckers.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:41 am

  6. W***o**pedia. They’re worthless puppies. We still get World Book Encyclopedia.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:46 am

  7. They’re killing encyclopedias these days, nk.

    The New Order is a web page that anybody can edit. Where Editors can whisk away truthful information whenever someone whispers in their ear that, hey, that entry does appear to be factual — but the guy who wrote it has an Axe to Grind.

    And if you don’t buy that story, we have some harassment in store for you.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:14 am

  8. I hear Wikipedia is going to delete their article on Adolf Hitler, on account of it’s too negative.

    Way too much talk about murdering millions, and not nearly enough talk about the good stuff Adolf did.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:14 am

  9. I was impressed by the fact that wiki editors don’t really know what facts are. It suggests to me that the volunteers are not well qualified decision makers. That ability lies further up the chain at wiki i would imagine.

    Comment by jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:20 am

  10. Patterico may I have your permission to repost this in it’s entirety with proper back linking on my blog?

    Please send me an e-mail or post it here in the comment section.

    Thanks

    Mark

    Comment by Mark (9914b3) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:22 am

  11. I know. They did that to me with Kathryn Johnston. I just walked away.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:36 am

  12. What’s weird is how he keeps throwing at you the idea that this is “foreign”. Who knew he was somewhere else– it’s the world wide web! And if he doesn’t care what’s happening in countries other than his own, what’s he doing (volunteering or otherwise) editing wikipedias about them?

    Would this guy advocate having no entries about an IRA bombing spree because it was too negative?

    Comment by MayBee (6fd0ce) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:40 am

  13. The liberals who infest Wikipedia also deleted the page about the great Bill Whittle.

    Comment by FreedomFan (f535cb) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:56 am

  14. What really pisses me off is that Wiki deleted the article about me, claiming it was biased.

    And, after all the hour I spent writing it!

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:00 am

  15. Hours not hour.

    Sheesh. Wrecked my own joke.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:01 am

  16. Perhaps this may be helpful in understanding the untold backstory. http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/symonds/

    He is a retired world bank lawyer who is on the faculty of a liberal university based in DC. Anyone care to place a wager that he and kimberlin know each other?

    Comment by Rorschach (d62b54) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:04 am

  17. Well, yes, you did with your second comment. “after all the hour I spent writing it” was good, real f good. Funny, good and satirical.

    Comment by nk (875f57) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:11 am

  18. “Well, yes, you did with your second comment.”

    Well, then don’t read the second one.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:34 am

  19. “Perhaps this may be helpful in understanding the untold backstory.”

    Probably not. That’s not the same guy who edits at Wikipedia.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:42 am

  20. The cards can only be stacked so high, before they come tumbling down. Somebody is going to cave on kimberlin’s team. Seems to me that only the democrat party would stoop to these tactics.

    Comment by mg (44de53) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:46 am

  21. I’m late to the, ah, party, but just let me say that nobody deserves this kind of shit. Dude needs to be in prison, as best I can tell.

    You are right – this isn’t left or right – this is endangering lives, smearing people who don’t deserve it, and general sociopathy.

    This is not what decent people do. K.’s substantiated actions are enough, even without proof of the rest, to know a sociopath.

    Full stop. I’ll disagree with you later. In the mean time, be well, stay safe.

    Comment by Jamie (ee4a20) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:53 am

  22. “Mr Kimberlin was not a paragon of virtue, but the article as it stood simply painted him as a man with no positive qualities at all…”–Richard Symonds

    Yeah, so what’s your point?

    that Special K sounds an awful lot like Saint Trayvon?

    after all, thugs are thugs.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:29 am

  23. Kimberlin is subject to harassment…

    Awww, poor baby. I hate when my past comes back to haunt me too. (insert sarcastic font here)

    Patterico – I do hope that this focus on Kimberlin and his evil little gang of nutbags will result in action by law enforcement and other authorities.

    Even better long term would be laws prohibiting the frivolous law suits Kimberlin files.

    Also, Wikipedia. It’s great for catching up on episodes of Mad Men. Not so much for real world truths. How is that not common knowledge.

    Comment by Vivian Louise (f148a0) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:32 am

  24. is brett kimberlin
    a vegetaryan too?
    I bet he eats dogs

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (837e3e) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:50 am

  25. Mr. Symonds has “no interest in discussing foreign politics with a blogger on my day off”.

    Mr. Symonds, do have any interest in discussing spotted owls, the Canary Islands,or any number of subjects you may be asked to edit in
    your capacity at wikipedia? Probably not, but that’s your job. Oh that’s right, you volunteered for it. If you volunteered to do a job, then do it. You chose to volunteer for the job. Nobody forced you.

    Comment by mike (4d2d18) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:22 am

  26. I’ll repost here what I posted on a friend’s link to this blog post:

    It’s always a war between the progressive religion and everybody else on that site. And if he’d wanted to get it fixed, he should have used their processes, i.e. contest it (he could) by asking the deletion to be reviewed by not one person but a group of people in an open discussion. If he thinks that the person he dealt with is an authority figure then he isn’t even trying to understand Wikipedia. There are no authority figures there. I’ve contested exactly one thing on there by adding the appropriate tag, and I won. Somebody created an article called the Recession of 2008 after only a single quarter of negative growth (to help Obama of course) and I contested it and it got deleted by a group of reviewers. All I had to do was make the complaint and give my reason and it happened. You can’t win there by trying to turd-polish a progressive. That’s not the way it works.

    Comment by Gerard Knorr (23f60e) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:27 am

  27. Perhaps some of BK’s political history might be wise to post about.

    I think some of his protection has come from his involvement with anti conservative voices and actions. He’s been involved with those attacking the electronic voting machines and I’m sure has made a lot of contacts in high places because of it. His research has been included in testimony before congress and papers attacking electronic voting. (and we all know how Democrats dislike machinery that can’t be rigged or fooled over votes.)

    Looking over his past and current history in political movements, I can understand why he would be the recipient of donations as he has been a willing tool of lies, deception and posed as an expert on matters beyond his experience but that have all had one thing as their guiding goal and that is the suppression of conservative thought, candidates and voters.

    PS some have written here and elsewhere, questioning why he was out after a 50 yr sentence. The laws that he was sentenced under were such that he could seek parole after serving only 10 years of his sentence. Keep in mind BK was NOT found guilty of the bombings. [False. He was found guilty of several bombings including the one that maimed Carl DeLong. -- Patterico] (I know amazing what juries can get up to) He was found guilty of possession of bomb materials and of impersonating a Federal employee. Somehow his pot possession and other facts did not become cause for charges. (which adds some suspicious weight to his “exoneration” claims as he might have become a narc for the DEA or for the ISP and that also may be a reason for his sensitivity about his past as in the circles he travels in now, being suspected of having been a narc would be a real donation killer and maybe even a real one.)

    More basic facts about his life need posting in one place. I was able to find some of it but it took quite a while of slogging through crap. BTW this Blog on BK day hasn’t helped as google is clogged with articles for 5-6 pages. Yay for the effort working and boo if you’re trying to find past articles on the guy.

    Also since this is a “law” blog, it might be interesting to see a synopsis of all his suits over the years. It appears he’s lost most of them yet he remains undeterred. Appealing them and reappealing them. Perhaps it’s his father’s influence and I would guess he heard a lot in prison and had lots of time with law books and case files to see patterns none but a lawyer would guess exist.

    He’s mostly a gnat but secretly carrying a deadly sting and needs swatting.

    Comment by jakee308 (f860a6) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:33 am

  28. Truth seems to be in the eye of the ideological nutbag beholder .

    Comment by tye (c17b25) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:45 am

  29. Mr Kimberlin was not a paragon of virtue, but the article as it stood simply painted him as a man with no positive qualities at all, which is obviously problematic in a neutral encyclopedia.

    Then why doesn’t this clown, Symonds, call it Wikipedia – the neutral edition. Many times, truth is anything but neutral. Better yet, maybe he should change the name to Wikifibia.

    Keep up the good work.

    Comment by Hal (d77914) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:51 am

  30. I hear they are building an extra ring in Hell for bombers and editors of “community” encyclopedias.

    Comment by dfbaskwill (c021f2) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:03 am

  31. Truth seems to be in the eye of the ideological nutbag beholder .

    Comment by tye — 5/27/2012 @ 5:45 am

    “tye” prefers his community based reality twoof. And hatred, “tye” loves to hate. And lie. That is all.

    Comment by JD (97d009) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:06 am

  32. see no one tells me anything

    what else has wikipedia decided not to tell me?

    I don’t know why they have to be like that

    Comment by happyfeet (2e5d84) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:09 am

  33. Maybe “tye”, after listing all the names it has used, could explain to us the objective twoofiness of BK, NR, and RB.

    Comment by JD (97d009) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:15 am

  34. Doesn’t this seem like a particularly futile gesture, of course, his benefactors will eventually come to his defense, but it looks worse, without the wiki entry.

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:46 am

  35. btw this whole idea of “justice through music” is more than a little gay I think

    Comment by happyfeet (2e5d84) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:50 am

  36. “Keep in mind BK was NOT found guilty of the bombings.”

    That’s incorrect.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:52 am

  37. While I just think this wiki editor was straight up dishonest, Hal brings up an important point.

    Reality is not neutral. There are good people and there are evil people.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:58 am

  38. Before this fiasco, I would have said all people are essentially good. But that isn’t true.

    Ron Brynaert is wicked and ruthlessly dishonest about it. Brett Kimberlin is so evil I cannot put it into words.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:59 am

  39. I think the issue that’s giving this wikipedia editor room to move is that the tone of the article isn’t dry enough. It sounds more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry.

    In addition, Wikipedia has different rules for entries about people who are still living, as opposed to people who are dead and therefore purely historical figures, which helps account for the difference in treatment of Brett Kimberlin and, for instance, Ted Bundy.

    I suspect the best bet would be to find an article about a still living person, someone completely innocuous, and copy the format of that article for an article on Kimberlin.

    Instead of saying “Brett Kimberlin is a felon …” phrase it like “Brett Kimberlin was convicted of felony charges …”

    It would probably be more likely to pass inspection if that wasn’t the first thing mentioned in the article as well. It’s easy enough to say “someone can go back and balance it out later”, but if we want to make this article happen, we’re going to have to do the hard work of writing the balanced version ourselves. (I recommend someone who is a professional writer do this, as opposed to me, a professional computer nerd.)

    Comment by perlhaqr (de4292) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:05 am

  40. “(and we all know how Democrats dislike machinery that can’t be rigged or fooled over votes.)”

    mr. creeper is a mechanic/engineer. He assures me there is no machine which can’t be rigged and, in fact, it’s easier to commit fraud with machinery.

    Comment by creeper (f1f686) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:08 am

  41. Observing the raw power at work to protect Kimberlin leaves me convinced the trail of bread crumbs leads straight to the White House.

    Comment by creeper (f1f686) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:10 am

  42. Jake308, you are mistaken

    Kimberlin was convicted of all the bombings on
    Oct 15, 1981. He was sentenced accordingly.

    At his first trial, btw, he was convicted of drug charges, rather serious ones.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:15 am

  43. Symonds. Liberal no doubt. Sympathetic to Kimberlian’s politics. Not to Patterico’s. Surprise!!!!!

    #37. Really? Are you that naive? SMH. Better late than never.

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:18 am

  44. I’m on a phone right now and it is not easy to type or copy paste.

    I can’t believe anyone would make the claim he was not covicted of the bombings or attempt to give weight to the completely bogus “secret exoneration” in good faith.

    And I bet they have posted that crap elsewhere, whether in good OR bad faith.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:18 am

  45. #8 Trains were on time. Glory to the German people.

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:21 am

  46. Weigel wrote about this (sort of) and the update/correction atthe top of his post is quite interesting.

    Comment by MayBee (6fd0ce) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:21 am

  47. ________________________________________________

    and I have no real interest in left or right wing politics in North America.

    Not sure if that’s a case of “methinks he doth protest too much.”

    It would be interesting (and very telling) if he’s similar to people who proclaim “how can the media be biased to the left?! It’s owned by corporate interests beholden to Wall Street!!” Or a statement that, to makes matters even more disingenuous, naive or deluded (by ignoring the tilt of over 90 percent of reporters/editors who are EMPLOYED by are DECISIONMAKERS in the MSM), conveniently overlooks the uber-liberal ideology of big tycoons and investors like Warren Buffett and George Soros.

    The previous article was written by some people with rather a large axe to grind! I’ve had a couple of emails from right-wing bloggers, but nothing from anyone I’d trust to write a neutral article.

    I’d be very surprised if the biases of Richard Symonds are not (1) of the left, and are not (2) a major influence in his perceptions of how the entry on Kimberlin should be handled.

    I have repeatedly (and, yep, ad nauseum) posted surveys and studies that reveal the true and contradictory nature of liberal biases and the people who adhere to them. That’s because too much of the public shares what I suspect are the knee-jerk sentiments of Symonds. They fall for the notion that leftism and liberals deserve all the benefit of the doubt in the world (because it or they are rooted in such compassion, generosity, sophistication, tolerance and beautiful idealism!!), while rightism and conservatives deserve just the opposite.

    Comment by Mark (17d4e1) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:22 am

  48. Sounds like Wiki is filled with far left idealogues with an agenda

    Comment by Dennis D (b17ac9) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:24 am

  49. Or, heck, copy the entry for the Menendez Brothers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_and_Erik_Menendez

    It seems to meet the Wikipedia standards for both “Neutral Point of View” and “Biographies of living persons”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

    Basically, if we think they’re being mendacious, the best way to fight that is to be so beyond reproach that anyone examining the situation can immediately see who is right and who is wrong. If we follow their guidelines precisely, and they still reject the article, it becomes very clear that they are the ones violating their own rules about neutrality.

    Comment by perlhaqr (de4292) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:26 am

  50. No, they didn’t modify the entry, they erased it,
    he never existed like Comrade Ogilvy, but yet he does.

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:31 am

  51. For what it is worth, I discovered yesterday that the “Speedway Bombings” is now covered in Wiki with references to Brett Kimberlin.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedway_bombings

    You also get to the article on a redirect from a “Brett Kimberlin” search.

    Maybe the the campaign to get the facts out is bearing fruit.

    Comment by CalFed (5b899d) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:33 am

  52. ________________________________________________

    I would have said all people are essentially good.

    As I’ve grown older and observed many people through the years, and human nature in general, I now realize the origins of the concept, at least in Christianity, that people are “born evil” or, better yet, “born sinners.” If only by, as one example, witnessing people in the workplace who originally appeared so nice and easygoing, but who when given the role of manager, supervisor or boss turn into stereotypical jerks or ego- and power-driven a–holes.

    Throw in the corrupting, perverse nature of left-leaning sentiment, in which people believe that compassion (or “compassion”), love (or “love”) and tolerance (or “tolerance”) absolve humans of their errors and transgressions — or permits the ends to justify the means — and it’s a given that people are anything but essentially good.

    Comment by Mark (17d4e1) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:36 am

  53. It looks like you got a result.
    Speedway Bombings

    Comment by Matt (e602e0) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:37 am

  54. I will try that again.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedway_bombings

    Comment by Matt (e602e0) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:39 am

  55. http://www.indystar.com/assets/pdf/BG164275919.PDF

    Comment by jakee308 — 5/27/2012 @ 5:33 am

    It was no “slog” to find the crime he was , but to make it even easier the above is a pdf of original reporting on his conviction by the Indy Star.

    Again I can’t think anyone could possibly in good faith claim he wasn’t actually convicted o the bombings. At any rate it is not only wrong but egregiously mistaken

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:40 am

  56. This may be the most significant twist to the case of all. It’s vitally important that people see that Wikipedia is hiding behind numerous layers of of supposed objectivity but is actually pushing a covert left wing agenda. I, personally thought that idea was nuts into various wiki editors began showing their mugs during appeals for financial support. Then it became obvious

    Keep the heat on here. Either they give up Tomerlin or they get their credibility annihilated

    Comment by Callmelennie (249791) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:43 am

  57. where is your God now
    brett kimberlin ron bryneart?
    in your hour of need

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:51 am

  58. Also Kimberlin WAS a jailhouse snitch and expected to gain benefit from his new “cooperation” – which involved a cocaine transaction and telling investigators where he believed the cocaine had been placed.

    Then:

    Kimberlin filed a motion 116 days later, on August 12, 1983, seeking a reduction of sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). He argued that he had begun to cooperate with the government and should receive a reward. The government opposed the motion-ungratefully, if one believes Kimberlin, although the government’s position is that Kimberlin has never provided it any help concerning his dealings in explosives and that to the extent he has offered other aid he should direct his plea to the Parole Commission rather than the court.

    You can read about that here in Ken @Popehat’s review of some of the federal cases filed over time by the litigious BK.

    I recommend that post in particular for anyone interested in gathering facts -

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:52 am

  59. about time we see
    kimberlin at “finished” line
    blown engine flat tires

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:58 am

  60. people… people who bomb people
    are the suckiest people in teh world

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:59 am

  61. Jake308s wow-mistake demonstrates the need for a repository of facts re: Brett Kimberlin.

    That’s MY axe to grind.

    Where could he have gotten the bogus idea that Kimberlin wasn’t found guilty and sentenced for the bombings?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:01 am

  62. And to whom else is he retailing this incorrect assertion>

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:01 am

  63. If Wikipedia editor Symonds were honestly interested in a neutral reporting, there would be no need to put something “positive” about Kimerblin in the piece. His hypocritical underpants are showing.

    From Wiki:

    The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states:

    Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

    In the event of a contradiction between this page and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policy takes priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.

    Further:

    ===Assertions of truth and untruth===

    An editor’s assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true, if the material is unverifiable – do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires “Verifiability, not truth”.

    An editor’s assertion that something is untrue is also not, on its own, enough to exclude information from Wikipedia. In some cases, Wikipedia must include discussion of ideas, theories, and opinions that are considered untrue in order to maintain a Neutral point of view. Discussion of such material, however, should be phrased as opinions, and attributed to those who hold the opinion. They should not be stated as if they were accepted fact. Also note that not all opinions are given the same weight in an article. Additional guidance on when and how to include or exclude verifiable, but potentially untrue material, can be found at WP:Editing policy, WP:Fringe theories and WP:No original research.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:03 am

  64. ________________________________________________

    Symonds haughtily blew me off:

    One of the other most compelling aspects of this controversy to me is how it reflects the gut biases of the people who are involved in it. It’s possible Symonds’s own ideological tilt hasn’t affected his take on the matter, but it’s also very possible (or likely) that his political predispositions have been a factor.

    Even though Pat Frey himself works in the public sector and isn’t of the left, in general a good portion of those employed by government do tend to be liberal (and “limousine liberals,” at that). For example, police officers who have moderate to conservative sentiments, but who also have sympathies for the left and liberal politicians — or feel that a left-leaning society overall deserves the benefit of the doubt — if only because of a sense that will be more likely to keep the gravy train going, of the government’s cushy employment practices, generous pensions and lofty salaries. (Hello, Greece! Hello, Mexico!)

    I’d be surprised if Symonds’s biases weren’t similar to what’s found in many folks employed by the government.

    uk.wikimedia.org: Richard [Symonds] has been a Wikipedia volunteer since 2004, and became a Wikipedia administrator in 2007. Also a regular sight at London Wikimeets, he was elected to the English Wikipedia ‘Arbitration Committee’ in 2011, before standing down after one year to take up a paid job at Wikimedia UK in January 2012.

    He has worked for several public sector organisations in a variety of administrative and regulatory roles, and served in the Royal Naval Reserve for several years.

    Comment by Mark (17d4e1) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:16 am

  65. I worked with one of the wikipedia editors at a local directory. her views continually got in the way of her work. she always declared them neutral, and I believe she thought they were, but time after time her work had to be re-edited to remove her bias. she was finally simply removed from the job she was given to do, and ultimately her log-in removed. I took a look at her edit history and nearly every edit was firmly on the leftside. what was supposed to be simply editing/adding information had instead become solely her own commentary.

    wikipedia is filled with peeps. it’s best to stay away from it.

    Comment by slinky (d02b16) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:21 am

  66. Mea culpa

    In all the crap I had to wade through just to dig up a few facts, I missed (or elided over in my head) the third trial where he did get convicted of the bombings themselves.

    All the more reason for why I made my comment; somewhere, someone (with more time and skill than me) should document his criminal history in one place. (other than Wikipedia of course since they seem to be unduly influenced by the left.)

    Again sorry about the misinformation. It was not intentional.

    Comment by jakee308 (f860a6) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:26 am

  67. The internet has given conservatives a place to get information that is ignored, covered up or distorted by the mainstream media. That is a good thing.

    But the internet is still subjected the same corruption that goes on by liberal journalists. Google can reorder the priority of stories in a Google search. For example, it was said that entering the term “Obamacare” results in positive stories. This is odd because the term is pejorative.

    There has been lots of rewriting of history at Wikipedia due to political ideology.

    Sock puppets are common on the internet. One LA political candidate hired a firm that created hits to a web site for the purpose of manufacturing support.

    All in all, however, conservative have benefited from the internet by giving us an alternative.

    Comment by AZ Bob (1c9631) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:26 am

  68. That’s interesting, slinky. In reading the particulars of Wiki’s administrator page, it would seem there has to be a consensus by other editors to have an editor removed. Is that correct? And if so, re Mr. Symonds, would it be beneficial for other editors to be informed of his clear and non-neutral bias (as he attempts to be neutral)?

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:27 am

  69. God bless Ken at Popehat for his uncompromising stand for truth and free speech. I hope I can live up to his call over to us on our side, to defend speech even when it’s speech we disagree with. (Also you should read his recent case where a judge said a cop’s unsupported assertion on a warrant that X was an “arms trafficker” was OK, because, hey, “X owned guns. Same thing.” Every time I stop by Ken’s blog I lose a little of my disdain for the criminal defense bar. It helps that he piles on bad attorneys, of whom there are too many for both of us).

    Ken’s politics are closer to Kimberlin’s than Patrick’s or mine, but he clearly understands Kimberlin’s character and the threat he poses to all speakers, if he’s not defeated here.

    I’ll always be open to correction from Ken if I ever err and support any attempt to shut down speech I oppose. The remedy for speech is speech. (Things like harassment and SWATting are not speech, and the remedy for them is prison, regardless of the actor’s motives and politics).

    IANAL, so I’m probably missing something fundamental, but what use is a RICO statute if it can’t bring Kimberlin, Brynaert, Friedman and Rauhauser to justice?

    Comment by Kevin R.C. O'Brien (fd3dfa) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:32 am

  70. Gloria Allred
    “… born with cloven hooves, Allred…”
    some truths must be told

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:33 am

  71. Who knew that telling the truth was so dangerous and so difficult?

    Er — it’s virtually always been this way, everywhere.

    Comment by Random (fba0b1) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:37 am

  72. JAke308, the indystar’s 2010 retrospective of the speedway bombings is a good place to start.

    The retrospective includes images and pdf links to original articles and other documents and imgages.

    “Wicked Indianapolis” on Google Books (viewable) has an overview of the case and Kimberlin

    Citizen K is also on Google Books but only snippet previews are available.
    Singer the author explores the subject Brett Kimberlin, including but very much not limited to the the Speedway Bombings, in greater depth

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:40 am

  73. Just for your info, cached websites are not always safe as some stat counter information is embedded in the code that is cached by google. If that is the case with the cached websites you list..when a reader clicks on it – the owner of the original website will see a visit to the cached page and of course the IP that did it.. Doesn’t happen with all stat counters and trackers but I have seen it happen personally.

    Comment by AnonByChoice (ccfbf3) — 5/27/2012 @ 8:53 am

  74. Let’s just say that my experience with Wikipedia editors is that they are “idiosyncratic”. There’s a two syllable word that more properly fits, but it’s not appropriate in polite company.

    In my instance a nonpolitical non profit group of hobbyists (model airplane flyers) wanted a listing on Wikipedia. It seemed that there were rules within rules about what could be said on such a site. The storage place for the rules would have required a window in the editor’s navel
    to see. Or maybe they were conveniently filed in the editor’s left ear. In any case it was ultimately just too much trouble. If someone wants to Google the organization you get directed to the organization’s website. And yup, we still don’t have a Wiki entry, nor do we seem to care.

    Comment by Comanche Voter (dc4fc0) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:00 am

  75. Brett Kimberlin ought to have more than just his Wikipedia entry “removed.”

    Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:02 am

  76. Patterico,

    you are a prosecutor. Can’t you think of some trumped-up charges to file against Kimberlin and his allies?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:04 am

  77. There is a reason citing Wikipedia is not allowed for academic papers.

    Comment by Diz (2a0e66) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:06 am

  78. Also – this might not be a ” act” but it is a reasonable inference from observation of Kimberlin’s behavior.

    He is REMORSELESS. And he’s seems to me, to be proud of it.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:09 am

  79. That’s a link to Aarron’s latest. It includes discussion of some of that fine musical work. Dedicated, perhaps to Justice, peace, and guys I once blew up.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:12 am

  80. I bet if a conservative wizzle-wazzle set bombs to where they blowed up people they’d get a wikipedia page lickety-split

    Comment by happyfeet (928ad9) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:16 am

  81. The Brett Kimberlin article is once again on Wikipedia as of now, 9:16 am pdt May 27, 2012.

    Comment by dchamil (d635a4) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:16 am

  82. Symonds is a piece of work. Thanks for giving us a look at a biased Wikipedia editor who has no respect for the facts.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e74ea6) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:18 am

  83. That’s pure speculation on my part of course

    Comment by happyfeet (928ad9) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:19 am

  84. 77 5/27/2012 @ 9:09 am ” act” = “fact”

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:19 am

  85. I should have said the Speedway Bombings article is on Wikipedia.

    Comment by dchamil (d635a4) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:20 am

  86. That’s the first smile I got today Hfeet

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:20 am

  87. Friday “Brett Kimberlin” went to the “no such entry” list of similar items. Now it redirects to the Speedway page, which tells me things about Kimberlin that Patterico neglected to mention (murder, conspiracy to murder, etc).

    This guy is loose? And has defenders?

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:30 am

  88. There’s a cabal of high-level British Wikipedia administrators who feign ignorance of American politics, but who exist solely to insulate Democratic political operatives from blame for their partisan editing/deleting efforts. I’ve had articles/edits deleted by the same smug crowd. It’s usually useless to argue with them. They cut and paste their prior, seemingly clueless responses to previous complaints and laugh behind your back.

    Comment by Northeast Elizabeth (a6caf4) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:30 am

  89. One with a Bullet
    Rage Against Teh Bomber Bum
    “Teh GymBag Treatment”

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:31 am

  90. Trav’lin’ Kimberlins
    this is music? no justice
    have bomb will travel

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:32 am

  91. we still don’t have a Wiki entry, nor do we seem to care.

    I’m sure it has to do with not wanting to clutter up their dictionary with minor matters. On another note, how many terabytes are dedicated there to the Marvel Universe?

    Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:34 am

  92. now who put teh bomb
    in teh bomb-sha-bomb-sha bomb
    ram-lama ding-DONG

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:39 am

  93. There’s a cabal of high-level British Wikipedia administrators who feign ignorance of American politics, but who exist solely to insulate Democratic political operatives from blame for their partisan editing/deleting efforts. I’ve had articles/edits deleted by the same smug crowd. It’s usually useless to argue with them. They cut and paste their prior, seemingly clueless responses to previous complaints and laugh behind your back.

    Comment by Northeast Elizabeth

    British Fop Brigade
    bad skin and Pepsodent smiles
    they can all fug-off

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (0fc727) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:44 am

  94. Aaron and others–the notion that Speedway, IN was a small ruralish town needs to be corrected in people’s minds and reported properly on blog posts. By actual listed population, on paper the place might seem small. But all should be aware that Speedway, IN is the immediate location around and connected to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which is physically connected to–the city of Indianapolis. It’s all part of the larger metro grid. This is very clear by looking at any map. This was not just a few people in the middle of nowhere who for days were running scared by the bombings. It was the citizenry of the city of Indianapolis. That’s a whole lot of people.

    Comment by elissa (fe33ad) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:55 am

  95. Information about Kimberlin’s Federal filings, pulled from PACER, at the link.

    It appears he lost every federal filing, and only stopped filing after they denied him IFP filing status on appeal.

    Comment by Leroy Oddswatch (cb6511) — 5/27/2012 @ 10:28 am

  96. My suspicion — KImberlin and crew have friends on the left who put them in touch with a “friendly” editor of Wiki — Mr. Symonds — who scrubs the entry at their behest.

    He dresses up the decision with lots of ass-covering behind the scenes at Wiki as one of those decisions about entries that “happens every day” – hence no one really pays much attention to any individual episode. They are all “volunteers” afterall.

    But, in the glow of the blog-burst on Friday, other Wiki editors are looking back at Symonds actions and his justification, and suddenly there are some questions being asked.

    And he’s now gone silent.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/27/2012 @ 10:32 am

  97. Kimberlin had friends in high places while he was still an incarcerated terrorist.

    http://pinknoiz.com/covert/kimberlin.html

    What I want to know is why this bomber/drug dealer/terrorist is even out of jail. Didn’t he get a 50 year sentence? And he only served 17 years?

    Comment by zane (7e646c) — 5/27/2012 @ 10:40 am

  98. Anyone who wants to know a lot about Kimberlin’s convictions in Indiana should simply google in 805 F.2d. 210, and read the opinion of the 7th Cir. Court of Appeal upholding the verdicts of the jury.

    Tells you quite a lot about the kind of person Kimberlin was in 1978.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:07 am

  99. Kimberlin’s conviction and sentence came before the US Congress did away with parole when it created the US Sentencing Guidelines.

    Under the old system — much like in many states — a court imposes the sentence, but the US Parole Commission made a determination based on a variety of factors about when a defendant might be eligible for parole. Parole is different than probation in the sense that while on parole, a defendant is still technically in the custody of the prison system, but just not behind bars. Parole officers monitor their conduct, and return them to prison if they violate the terms of their parole. I think the Sentencing Guidelines were adopted in 1986, but convictions that occurred before their adoption remain as “parole” sentences.

    I’m not certain when Kimberlin’s term of parole expired — of if it has. Once expired, he’s no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the court where he was convicted.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:12 am

  100. My son just graduated from a large High School. During both Junior High and High School he was forbidden — by me — from using Wikipedia for anything other than occasionally culling from their reference links at the bottom of some of the Wikipedia entries when an assignment required internet use. Otherwise, all of his school assignments research were done at the Library with books. He graduated in the top ten of his class of 340 graduates.

    Wikipedia is and always has been playing fast and loose with the truth, the entirety of truths, and it is deeply political. A great many of Wikipedia’s hierarchy of administrators and editors are foreign nationals residing in foreign countries and most definitely have concerted agendas that are not conducive to the American values of truth, justice, democracy, and freedom.

    Wikipedia is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. It does a great disservice to the entire world.

    Comment by Tom (a5427d) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:20 am

  101. Re: shipwreckedcrew’s comments–

    Ken at Popehat laid out all the relevent old court cases and dispositions in one easy thread read. He also addressed the sentencing issue.

    Comment by elissa (fe33ad) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:22 am

  102. There has been a long documented history of Wikipedia’s editors bias and political editing. Wikipedia’s leadership don’t follow their own rules. Its not a credible place and it has no integrity.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:23 am

  103. Why doesn’t someone write up a biography about Kimberlin and sent it to kewiki.org?

    Comment by Tamminator (928101) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:27 am

  104. Just so there is no confusion.

    At Kimberlin’s first trial for the Speedway bombings, he was convicted on six or eight charges, acquitted on one, and on the other 24 produced no verdict because of a hung jury.

    A second trial was conducted for 2 counts of being a felon in possession of explosives — these were part of the first trial, but were severed for purposes of the second trial for technical reasons. He was convicted on these two counts at his second trial.

    The balance of the 22 hung counts from the first trial were then the subject of his third trial. He was convicted on all counts at the third trial.

    He also later pled guilty to unrelated charges involving conspiracy to import marijuana in Texas.

    All those convictions were rolled together into a single sentence and parole decision.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (48cef3) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:28 am


  105. Information about Kimberlin’s Federal filings, pulled from PACER, at the link.

    It appears he lost every federal filing, and only stopped filing after they denied him IFP filing status on appeal.

    Comment by Leroy Oddswatch — 5/27/2012 @ 10:28 am

    IFP= In forma Pauperis

    Link to US courts Pdf

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:46 am

  106. Singer (Citizen K, p.135) noted the prosecutors’ burden of proof was more difficult as Julian Scyphers murder could not be brought up in the courtroom and only “elliptical” portraits of his relationship with Sandra Barton and her daughter could be brought in.

    Jurors afterward said the had not linked Barton as Scyphers daughter – had it been known, at least one juror said there would have been more questions about her testimony

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 11:59 am

  107. A rather amusing discussion of why there isn’t a “Brett Kimberlin” page at the Speedway Bombings page. I guess they can get away with Speedway Bombings rather than Bomber because it’s about the event more than the person?

    why isn’t there a Brett Kimberlin page? 182.173.208.86 (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Because it isn’t allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.94.117 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    The impression I get is that publishing known facts about Kimberlin is considered harassment, which is especially amusing given his repeated harassment of people who publish such facts. See http://patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed for some details Caldodge (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    There use to be a Brett Kimberlin page but it was deleted. It seems that Wikipedia caved in to a terrorist that doesn’t like record of his nasty past or present on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.207.68 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Can we bring it back? Apparently the excuse was that it was written by a guy who posted false information about other people. If we were to write a good, well-sourced article about Kimberlin, could we get the facts about him back up? Lolinder (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speedway_bombings)

    Comment by LibraryGryffon (ce8e11) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:04 pm

  108. 103

    All those convictions were rolled together into a single sentence and parole decision.

    Good lawyer.
    Someone in the family had some money.
    Nice parole hearing too.
    Now Patrick has to be careful on recycling day and drive around the neighborhood like its Fallujah

    Comment by SteveG (831214) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:05 pm

  109. I noticed that he took the time to retweet this:

    Jesus Christ ‏@Jesus_M_Christ
    All you conservatives f##%ing with Obama in the trending topics. I know you’re not in church.

    Which shows he’s a) a moron for retweeting something logically dim (I wasn’t aware that we were required to be in Church all day), and b) a liar. After all, isn’t this tweet about North American politics?

    Comment by Paul Zummo (af130a) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:08 pm

  110. What really pisses me off is that Wiki deleted the article about me, claiming it was biased.
    And, after all the hour I spent writing it!
    Comment by Dave Surls — 5/27/2012 @ 2:00 am

    Hours not hour.
    Sheesh. Wrecked my own joke.
    Comment by Dave Surls — 5/27/2012 @ 2:01 am

    – No, you didn’t.

    Comment by Icy (b26ea3) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:11 pm

  111. Richard Symonds, the Wikipedia administrator who deleted Brett Kimberlin’s Wikipedia entry and claims to have no interest in “American politics”, got both undergraduate and his J.D. from American universities and he currently teaches law at American University in Washington D.C., the very hub of “American politics”.

    Although it is probably pure coincidence, Richard Symonds got his undergraduate degree at Johns Hopkins university, based in Maryland, the very same city where Brett Kimberlin currently resides.

    Comment by FreedomFan (f535cb) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:12 pm

  112. Truth seems to be in the eye of the ideological nutbag beholder .
    Comment by tye — 5/27/2012 @ 5:45 am

    – That certainly is where your truth lies.

    Comment by Icy (b26ea3) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:15 pm

  113. “The community decided.”

    There you go: the three chilling words. These people have formed themselves into characters from a dystopian novel. Except they’re real people. Or are they?

    Comment by rrpjr (bac579) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:17 pm

  114. Fight the good fight, but be warned. I’ve seen hundreds of these Wikipedia edit wars with political/ideological bases, and I’ve yet to see the good guys win one. It never happens. Winning % on Twitter/YouTube/Google only slightly better. The only answer, it seems, is to use the Left’s tactics against them. It’s the only thing they understand.

    Comment by Pablo (3c9af6) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:28 pm

  115. Is there a meme that Wikipedia is left leaning? I haven’t heard that.

    Comment by Ry (e4837b) — 5/27/2012 @ 12:36 pm

  116. Regarding my previous comment, that may be a different Richard Symonds, as the Wikipedia editor’s page says he lives in London.

    Comment by FreedomFan (f535cb) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:18 pm

  117. I would suggest one look at the entry for Anders Behring Breivik at Wikipedia and see how much positive info you can find in the summation at the top. Compare its tone to the entry that Mr. Symonds had removed and see if the word “bullshit” does not float to the surface of your mind when going over Mr. Symond’s reasoning.

    Breivik was a political terrorist as opposed to Kimberlin who killed for purely personal reasons or sport so you would think Wikipedia would have to be even more careful with the phrasing to avoid impugning entire movements based on the actions of one individual. You would be wrong.

    Comment by Voluble (6bfee6) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:21 pm

  118. btw, new post on Kimberlin, showing him mocking Carl DeLong. click on my name.

    and in twitter i am having fun with the balance concept. my favorite so far: “the wikipedia article on jeffrey dahmer doesn’t even mention what an innovative chef he was. /sarc.”

    Comment by Aaron "Worthing" (73a7ea) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:26 pm

  119. Kimberlin should also be named as the “drug dealer” in the Doonesbury Article as well as a suspect in the Burger Chef Murders forcing them to have an entry to aggregate.

    With citations of course

    Comment by Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:39 pm

  120. One thing is for certain: since the blogburst, people looking for information about Brett Kimberlin will have plenty of sources to choose from. None of them are Wikipedia. It’s a shame that Wikipedia decided to take the post down- it is almost certainly because of efforts made by Kimberlin, Brynaert, Rauhauser, or some other tool of BK’s.

    I know a few editors over at Wikipedia. They’re all right chaps, but they also admit that there are a few bad apples in the barrel who have a mighty over-inflated sense of themselves. By the looks of Richard Symonds comments, he may be one of them. He clearly shows no willingness to look at the situation objectively. In fact, he seems to have a political bias that is preventing him from considering anything Patterico has to say, no matter how factual.

    It’s a fascinating look into the way things are run over at Wikipedia. Can’t say it reflects well on them.

    Comment by Book (956833) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:43 pm

  121. Oh— and Richard Symonds wife is the one who deleted the Wiki entry on Obama Eats Dogs that explained the meme.

    Comment by Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 5/27/2012 @ 1:49 pm

  122. Regarding my previous comment, that may be a different Richard Symonds, as the Wikipedia editor’s page says he lives in London.

    Comment by FreedomFan

    Yeah, I think you have the wrong person.

    However, I don’t understand why he intervenes in a heavy handed manner if he has no interest in discussing that same matter. He’s the one who decided this was about politics. Apparently it is to him, which is a good reason why he shouldn’t have destroyed a well sourced and accurate entry to wikipedia. If he had a problem with some aspect of the article, I think he could have mentioned it in the discussion page or fixed it himself. Instead…

    And I find his inability to spell a name that was spelled to him several times to be a lame attempt to prove he’s unfamiliar. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything… but it’s lame.

    A better man would say ‘I made a mistake… they fooled me… I have restored the accurate article. Thank you for letting me know.’

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:11 pm

  123. _________________________________________________

    Oh— and Richard Symonds wife

    Whoa. That pretty much nails the likely political orientation of the husband.

    However, I know that Patterico/Frey says his wife is a Democrat and cancels out his vote on election day. So like doesn’t necessarily attract like. But in the case of Symonds, his wife probably is not just a liberal, if not an ultra-liberal, she apparently also is a certifiable flake. That is, she describes herself as an “agnostic atheist,” and “lives with schizophrenia,” assuming the latter isn’t a reference to her old man [/sarc].

    The ideological divergence between Kimberlin and the two Symonds probably — probably — is quite narrow. Of course, since they’re such nice, humane, generous, tolerant, wonderful, non-racist, non-bigoted and sophisticated people, if they’re happily traveling on that proverbial road to hell, the good intentions in their heart purify them of all errors and shortcomings, even if that includes pandering to a murderer.

    Comment by Mark (17d4e1) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:20 pm

  124. “Kimberlin had friends in high places while he was still an incarcerated terrorist.”

    “What I want to know is why this bomber/drug dealer/terrorist is even out of jail.”

    You just answered your own question.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 2:42 pm

  125. If any commentator on our side of the aisle would use their microphone or column to refer to Brett Kimberlin as a “slut” or as a “congenital liar,” then maybe the mainstream media would be forced to identify Kimberlin.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:00 pm

  126. Wikipedia ia a great secondary/tertiary resource. I use it all the time.

    You just have to watch out for pranksters and people with an agenda.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:12 pm

  127. This Symonds is a young man – about 27.

    There are the oddest Wikipedia discussions of him

    Here

    Here (he is in a picture)


    one remark:
    He strikes me as the type who is too immature to handle authority. He reads an OTRS complaint, lacks the capacity or intellectual tools to deal with it critically and instead identifies completely with the complainant. He then exceeds his authority and violates the rights of others and uses his secret and privileged knowledge of the content of the OTRS letter to justify everything. Trust me, I’m an admin, I can’t tell you the reasons for my actions except in enough detail as to completely bias the discussion. And, of course, he can’t resist lording it over mere editors and trumping up the fact that he’s a member of the elect trusted with TOP SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL information.

    He has a mysterious riend,

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:21 pm

  128. You just have to watch out for pranksters and people with an agenda.

    Comment by Dave Surls

    That narrows it down nicely, eh?!?!

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (b88eb7) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:23 pm

  129. Oh, that mysterious friend goes by “Yeanold Viskersenn”

    Symonds says he knows him in real life, and if I read between the lines carefully,

    they are suspected of working together to make a hoax bio and some silly hoaxy tuba article.

    The friend “vanished” when he wasn’t allowed to put a picture up of someone else and caption it “Yours Truly”.

    At this point I have no idea what’s going on with that but am wondering if the friend is real.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:25 pm

  130. “That narrows it down nicely, eh?!?!”

    Well, you have to be careful using Wikipedia when it comes to current events, but that’s just as true if you’re getting your information from the MSM, the government, or from the world of academia.

    Wikipedia is packed with information, most of it is accurate (to the best of our knowledge), it’s always at your fingtertips, and best of all, it’s free to anyone who has an internet connection.

    It’s a great idea, and a great research tool.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 3:34 pm

  131. Well look who is very interested in the very new Speedway Bombing Page.

    Lee just pointed this out. It seems noteworthy.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:00 pm

  132. Oh my. That second discussion – at that time in that quarter he appeard not thought highly o

    “England’s answer to Captain Crunch”

    “I accessed his CV on LinkedIn. He graduated from university in 2006 and had a single private sector job, from 2009 and 2010. He has been a seaman reservist in the Royal Navy since 2007. Otherwise, no employment (volunteering on a website doesn’t count.)

    I don’t know if this is a reflection on him or the state of job opportunities in the UK, but it is not what I expected – especially when his WP User Page in 2008 stated, ‘I am an officer in the Royal Navy.’”

    It appears that Lord Nelson is reading WR, because he abruptly reconfigured his User Page history when it was pointed out here that he falsely claimed to be “an officer in the Royal Navy”: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=…&action=history

    But as any Wikipedian knows all too well, you cannot rewrite history: http://www.webcitation.org/5voZByePw

    Oh and look at this. How interesting:

    Richard Symonds’s Experience

    Social Media & Fundraising Volunteer
    Wikimedia Foundation

    (Non-Profit; 11-50 employees; Internet industry)

    Currently holds this position
    Seaman Reservist
    Royal Navy

    (Government Agency; Military industry)

    2007 — Present (3 years )

    • Above Water Force Protection branch, providing close-in protection to MoD assets worldwide.
    • Position requires excellent teamwork skills, stress management and the ability to make rapid high-pressure decisions. First aid and firefighting training are renewed on a yearly basis.
    • I scored the second highest category in my most recent report, and my teamwork and leadership skills are excellent.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:03 pm

  133. That thread is a little over a year old.

    Hmm. He’s a very young man, a bit of a resume puffer, and likes hoaxy things, or at least, did…with his sense apparently not held in the highest regard.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:05 pm

  134. Don’t bother trying to edit any controversial Wikipedia article. The deck is stacked.

    On the other hand, they could use the kind of attention that Patrick has heretofore faithfully devoted to the LAT. But it would be much more challenging.

    Comment by Andrew (acdc01) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:06 pm

  135. formatting fail there. All those quotes are from the Wikireview discusison.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:06 pm

  136. If you keep reading to end of that “Chase me ladies” Symonds thread, you’ll discover the Symonds is not averse to scrubbing fanciful histories, at least if the are his own.

    He’s a reservist and that does not provide enough to live on. He’s only a “volunteer” at Wikipedia.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:19 pm

  137. link to the wikireview thread about Symonds since it is a ways up now

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:21 pm

  138. Let us you and I banish this impertinent entry concerning the good master Kimberlin!! Banish it to wiki-hell!!

    Ok roll the 20-sided wiki-dice.

    Bam ok the article loses 9 hit points…

    Is that enough to banish it??? Banish it to wiki-hell!!

    Um, not quite… You want to try a spell of silencing?

    Didn’t I use my last one banishing the eat a dog thing?

    Oh yeah right…

    Comment by happyfeet (928ad9) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:29 pm

  139. The idea that Wikipedia is reliable for noncontroversial topics is false. All it takes on Wikipedia to make a topic controversial is two people … well really just one.

    Comment by SPQR (a7ce9e) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:34 pm

  140. Here is Symonds removing the detail about Carl DeLong’s leg being taken off, and his wife being injured, and cleaning it up so it just reads that DeLong and two others were “injured.”

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:44 pm

  141. “He strikes me as the type who is too immature to handle authority…”

    Oh, Lord save us from small men given undeserved responsibilities.

    I still think this makes Wikipedia look like idiots more than anything. There is enough information about Brett Kimberlin out there to fill several volumes of books, and yet they took the page down because… politics? Seriously?

    Comment by Book (956833) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:45 pm

  142. [UPDATE x2: Symonds is now busy editing the Speedway bombings Wikipedia page. Here is Symonds removing the detail about Carl DeLong's leg being taken off, and his wife being injured, and cleaning it up so it just reads that DeLong and two others were "injured." Brett Kimberlin would be thrilled.]

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:46 pm

  143. WHAT. The specific injuries are factual.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:48 pm

  144. That is shocking. Just shocking.

    I can’t believe he’d attempt to denature any other injury in any other wiki entry.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:49 pm

  145. It’s exceedingly relevant to his suicide and the civil judgement gained against Kimberlin.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  146. Wikipedia needs to reign this guy in.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:50 pm

  147. How about Delong’s own recollection of the event? IN his own words? That exists in news articles, and is quoted in Citizen K.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:51 pm

  148. Why would the Ministry of Truth, reign in one of their own?

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 4:57 pm

  149. rein him in

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:01 pm

  150. Yes you know what I mean, it’s truly contemptible, look at the source;

    While Kimberlin was in prison, Carl DeLong committed suicide. Had his only injury been the loss of his right leg he might have adapted and moved on. But his left leg had been severely damaged too and he still carried shrapnel in his body, which kept him in constant pain as it slowly worked its way out. After 11 operations he hit a plateau physically and knew he’d never get any better than that.

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:02 pm

  151. I think we can now officially refer to Symonds as “Kimberlin associate Richard Symonds.” After all, he seems to take great pains to erase or falsify information to Kimberlin’s benefit.

    I’m making a link list of Kimberlin associates and their associations (old intel school technique). It’s quite a rogue’s gallery. A dirtbag and phony like Symonds will fit right in.

    Let’s also drop him on the fine folks at ARRSE.co.uk as a “Walt” (they are one of the servicemen’s websites that takes great delight in outing and mocking “Walter Mittys,” the British term of art for slugs and scumbags who claim service and rank that wasn’t theirs — something illegal in the USA, but not (yet) in the UK.

    Comment by Kevin R.C. O'Brien (25d355) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:08 pm

  152. As you see, they are going Comrade Ogilvy;

    In 1983, the DeLong family filed a civil suit after Carl DeLong committed suicide after becoming depressed following the loss of his leg and subsequent chronic pain from the bombing. A jury ordered Kimberlin to pay the DeLong family $1.25 million for Carl Delong’s suicide and another $360,000 to Sandra DeLong for her injuries. An appeals court overturned the $1.25 million for Carl Delong’s suicide in 1993 but upheld the damages awarded to Mrs. Delong. [9]

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:21 pm

  153. Narisco – where is the rest of it?

    Where is the highest court in Indiana saying the appeals court was full of it erred and fully restoring the original verdict?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:24 pm

  154. Narciso – they put that part in, right?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:25 pm

  155. “Where is the highest court in Indiana saying the appeals court was full of it erred and fully restoring the original verdict?”

    That’s already been corrected…

    “In 1983, the DeLong family filed a civil suit after Carl DeLong committed suicide after becoming depressed following the loss of his leg and subsequent chronic pain from the bombing. A jury ordered Kimberlin to pay the DeLong family $1.25 million for Carl Delong’s suicide and another $360,000 to Sandra DeLong for her injuries. An appeals court overturned the $1.25 million for Carl Delong’s suicide in 1993 but upheld the damages awarded to Mrs. Delong.[8] The Indiana Supreme Court overturned the appeals court judgment and upheld the $1.6 million judgment in 1994.”

    One of the great things about Wikipedia: It can be quickly corrected, if someone notices a mistake. Within minutes.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:41 pm

  156. At least Symonds is in the U.K. rather than in the Persian Gulf surrendering Royal Navy vessels to Iran, so he’s got that going for him, which is a plus for the U.K.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:45 pm

  157. The latest wiki edit looked ok to me. It seemed to clarify that the bomb didn’t blow his leg off. It was removed in surgery? The article should either detail that out or there should be an entry for Carl Delong in wikipedia also. the facts. the facts.

    Wikipedia seems to be a ripe fertile ground for liars and cheats to set up potential victims.

    A blog poster isn’t wrong about a fact just because he is right of center. That sort of view of life introduces a bias into a wiki editor I believe.

    Wiki should have a trusted ladder of integrity that editors climb. now that person should be neutral.

    Comment by jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:48 pm

  158. I’m sure Symonds is kind of guy who condemns “enhanced interrogation techniques” as torture, but then feels comfortable describing the act of getting one’s leg blown off as suffering an injury.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (61e061) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:53 pm

  159. Like Lilia Luciano and Jeff Burnside, the former reported the initial 9/11 tape correctly, those that edited whole paragraphs out of the Couric and Gibson interviews, lets get real,

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:54 pm

  160. “The latest wiki edit looked ok to me.”

    It’s close enough for government work, and it has links for those who want to get more information.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/27/2012 @ 5:57 pm

  161. The current group of bloggers at Wizbang are nothing like the older group with Jay Tea, D.J. Drummond, “Paul,” Lorie Byrd, & etc. There really is no comparison. That old gang relentlessly told the truth as they saw it. The current bunch is so afraid of offending anyone they barely say anything at all.

    Comment by Estragon (ec6a4b) — 5/27/2012 @ 6:43 pm

  162. a source that 4 out of 5 suckers consider reliable.

    Wiki is reliable for things that
    a) Aren’t “hot button” (i.e., Abortion, Martin-Zimmerman)
    b) Aren’t “political” (i.e., Bush presidency, Iraq war, Obamacare)
    c) Aren’t critical of leftist “talking points” (i.e., Climategate, Utility of solar power, Safety of nuclear power)

    Comment by IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (aacc3d) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:14 pm

  163. I read a particularly vivid first hand account (his own) of Delongs injuries in the last week.

    He describes flying up in the air, seeing the tops of cars, wondering what they were doing there.

    He tries to get up, and keeps falling.

    “I looked down at my right leg, and my kneecap was blown up on my thigh. My left leg was just shredded away to the bone.”

    I cannot find the source. Did anyone else read it?

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:18 pm

  164. Because it is in an article about Delong, and I think it might have been an IndyStar piece about his and his wife’s recovery efforts.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/27/2012 @ 7:20 pm

  165. Wow, the Brett Kimberlin page is bouncing up and down and redirected. But it’s not blank at the moment. It points to the “Speedway Bomber” article.

    The left is trying to protect one of its darlings.

    {^_^}

    Comment by JBD (d55daf) — 5/27/2012 @ 9:12 pm

  166. I didn’t see what Weigel originally wrote in his post about this, but his correction indicates he believed (or had been led to believe) that Singer had done incorrect reporting. His update made it clear he was correcting that assertion. It would be interesting to know how he came to believe the wrong thing about Singer in the first place.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/27/2012 @ 10:21 pm

  167. This is the way Wikipedia works. This has always been the way Wikipedia works. You can’t approach it with an agenda, or you will be shut down. Quit whining and just write your own content on your own site.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/27/2012 @ 10:51 pm

  168. #160 – Wikipedia is not even reliable about topics that aren’t a, b, or c. It is very easy to pull off a Wikipedia hoax on a little-followed topic, especially a non-academic one, for fun and profit. Here’s how it goes:
    1. Create a website for your friend or business partner that claims they created something that’s commonly known but not thought about often.
    2. Alter an existing Wikipedia page to list your friend or business partner the creator of that item. Link to the website you created as a source.
    3. Create a brand new Wikipedia page about your friend or business partner.
    4. Wait for some lazy reporter to use Wikipedia as his reference source and mention your friend or business partner.
    5. Link the page you altered and the one you created to this reporter’s story.
    Presto. You have a hoax that will never go away, and where any attempt by a real expert to correct it will get taken down, as the false information is “verifiable”.

    Comment by NickM (a03524) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:09 am

  169. This is the way Wikipedia works. This has always been the way Wikipedia works. You can’t approach it with an agenda, or you will be shut down.

    This must be some fantasy version of Wikipedia; the one in the real world is completely run by agendas.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 5/28/2012 @ 5:25 am

  170. The wiki “chase me” guy said on twitter he is not the “chase me” guy Glenn links to today.
    But interestingly, that blog has a commenter called “Simon Jester”. Is that our Simon?

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/28/2012 @ 5:50 am

  171. Here’s a BBC link from January 14th, 2011 that includes video of Richard Symonds talking about editing Wikipedia.

    Comment by Michael Lydon (aa0c7c) — 5/28/2012 @ 7:20 am

  172. ________________________________________________

    Here is Symonds removing the detail about Carl DeLong’s leg being taken off, and his wife being injured, and cleaning it up so it just reads that DeLong and two others were “injured.”

    Adding that to all that is now known about Symonds, it’s pretty much a given that he’s a disgusting ultra-liberal, probably a big-time, devious flake, full of sympathy for like-minded characters like Kimberlin. It would be interesting if a leftist organization or people like a George Soros were to hire him to be their, say, bookkeeper, accountant or overseer of the business’s petty cash.

    Truly pathetic and disgusting because I’m sure Symonds perceives himself as “fighting the good fight,” as one of the souls in society who is righteous, noble and humane, looking out for the little people, confronting the horrible, mean, greedy establishment, particularly if it involves conservatives. And yet, I bet Symonds, as is true of the typical liberals in Hollywood who also shed tears for figures like Kimberlin, leads a lifestyle no different from a “limousine liberal.”

    Comment by Mark (e3ff81) — 5/28/2012 @ 7:24 am

  173. _________________________________________________

    video of Richard Symonds talking

    bbc.co.uk, January 2011: He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free.

    Typical human response: “But he seems like such a kind-hearted, friendly guy! There can’t be a dark side to his wonderful liberal, compassionate sentiments! Can there be?”

    Symonds is one of the millions of like-minded people who symbolize why Greece is Greece, Venezuela is Venezuela, France is France, Mexico is Mexico, and Britain — even today (after all, its current Tory prime minister several weeks ago was gushing like a school girl over Obama) — is more Socialist/Labor than Thatcher/Tory.

    Comment by Mark (e3ff81) — 5/28/2012 @ 7:43 am

  174. Wikipedia is actually a very useful starting point for research, despite the heavy axe grinding on articles which step on toes, but one must understand that the log of editorial chatter is the place to focus once the results of the axe grinding on the main article page become evident. By bringing that editorial conversation into the public record, Wikipedia becomes like no other encyclopedic effort. The editorial chatter, backbiting, and axe grinding has always been there, from Britannica to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but now its visible for all to see, and mock… which is progress, of a sort.

    Comment by Desi Erasmus (7d7277) — 5/28/2012 @ 7:49 am

  175. Typical human response: “But he seems like such a kind-hearted, friendly guy! There can’t be a dark side to his wonderful liberal, compassionate sentiments! Can there be?”

    Egh, I don’t know about that. The respected and well regarded distinguished Wikipedian editor Richard Symonds appears to be a bit of a slimball who once delighted himself with making childish hoax edits at Wikipedia. He appears to have some political axes to grind of his own and has questionable -to say the least- judgment.

    That the guy is such a highly regarded Wikipedian editor, despite all of the glaringly obvious red flags, says A LOT about the way that Wikipedia carries on with its business. It all reminds me of the ugly mess that was Essjay, even on down to the questionable claims that Symonds once used in the past regarding his supposed employment and professional credentials. (In an ironic twist, the link there that impugns the reputation and trustworthiness of Wikipedia is a Wikipedian article!)

    There is very little that is kind-hearted, friendly, compassionate or honest about the modern day “liberal”, “Progressive”, “Green” or any other perverted description of the Left. They’re not liberal in the classical sense, but rather they’re little mental midget fascists of the lowest order.

    Comment by Michael Lydon (aa0c7c) — 5/28/2012 @ 8:04 am

  176. Mark, that is amusing. Always sunny side up. Full time volunteer.

    I do not like to mock those who need work and can’t get any. I know a dozen people in that position, and they are hard working people.

    In Symond’s case, I think it would be difficult to employ him as he seems to abuse discretion and authority. And while everyone can do that once in a while, he responds to it being pointed out by being evasive. And he responds to it by involving himself even more in the issue.

    For all of Wiki’s talk about neutrality, why is someone with a huge problem arbitrating the truth about Kimberlin jumping on the Speedway Bombing page as soon as it reappears? Why not take a break from the issue and edit wikipedia pages on insects and geography? It’s as though he is on a mission to soften Brett’s image.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 8:08 am

  177. There is a reason that schools do not accept wikipedia items as source material. I use wiki sepia for entertainment and historical informaton. As a source of truth – no a chance -all though it is an interesting example or and demonstration of the risk of socializing education and information

    Comment by Havc (719483) — 5/28/2012 @ 8:43 am

  178. Conservapedia’s entry on Wikipedia

    Comment by Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 5/28/2012 @ 8:50 am

  179. This Symonds fellow comes across kind of dumb.

    Comment by rdbrewer (93f139) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:04 am

  180. It’s the Symonds’ Axe to Grind rule. If the authors appear to have an axe to grind–whether true or not–then everything they wrote is not factual information.

    Comment by rdbrewer (93f139) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:06 am

  181. I just tried to strike up a conversation on Symonds’ talk page with him about this. He was bothered that I somehow tried to link him with a terrorist, even though I didn’t. When I tried to ask him how a skeptic like myself was supposed to know this guy is a terrorist when the Wikipedia page with all of that information has been deleted, I found that I could no longer edit the talk page to respond.

    So yeah, this Symonds guy apparently can’t handle the gentlest of criticism.

    Comment by Chris G (0dd021) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:25 am

  182. And just a reminder from the post. When Patterico brought a polite and factual problem to Symond’s attention, Symond wrote Patterico back with a description of Patterico that was unbelievably twisted and untrue and sounded like it came from someone like Neal or Brett.

    Googling up lies is a bizarre way to handle constructive criticism.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:26 am

  183. #168: no MayBee, not me. There are lots of Heinlein fans out there.

    Comment by Simon Jester (c28b9c) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:29 am

  184. That he clearly *isn’t* about being factual should be of great concern to the Wiki editors at large.

    Comment by Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:30 am

  185. Yeah, Symonds’ part of that exchange was ridiculous, Dustin. It’s pretty clear that his bias has inserted itself unconsciously into his response and now he’s uncomfortable being called on it.

    Which is exactly why people need to call him on it and continue to call him on it.

    Comment by Chris G (0dd021) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:35 am

  186. “So yeah, this Symonds guy apparently can’t handle the gentlest of criticism.”

    Criticism? Read this comment section. This is a harassment campaign, unleashed knowingly and purposefully.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:32 pm

  187. Its now harrassment to pursue having a source of facts actually contain … facts?

    Another Kimberlin crime family member arrives.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:35 pm

  188. “Its now harrassment to pursue having a source of facts actually contain ”

    No, it’s harassment to dig into a person’s personal life. Once again, read this comment section.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:40 pm

  189. Not Likely, the crimes that Kimberlin committed? Not a “personal life”. Using a tax exempt non profit to launder money to avoid paying a judgment to a crime victim? Not a “personal life”. Being a Pied Piper of a group of cheap thugs intimidating people to be silent about those things? Not a “personal life”.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:42 pm

  190. I put up links that indicate “England’s Captain Crunch” is not so highly regarded.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:43 pm

  191. I didn’t see what Weigel originally wrote in his post about this, but his correction indicates he believed (or had been led to believe) that Singer had done incorrect reporting. His update made it clear he was correcting that assertion. It would be interesting to know how he came to believe the wrong thing about Singer in the first place.

    Comment by MayBee — 5/27/2012 @ 10:21 pm

    Just yesterday we had a commenter in here saying Kimberlin wasn’t actually convicted of the speedway bombings, and hinting there might be a “secret exhoneration”

    I think Weigel was “corrected” by one of the usual suspects.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:45 pm

  192. “Not Likely, the crimes that Kimberlin committed?”

    I’m talking about the Wikipedia editor who is the subject of this post and the comments genius.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:45 pm

  193. Not Likely, the Wikipedia editor who got caught lying about his resume in previous controversies unrelated to this comment thread, genius?

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:47 pm

  194. “Not Likely, the Wikipedia editor who got caught lying about his resume in previous controversies unrelated to this comment thread, genius?”

    So you know what harassment is. That’s a solid first step toward realizing what sort of activity you’re involved in.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:48 pm

  195. Not Likely, Symonds has not been harrassed. He’s been offering threadbare excuses for why he covered for someone who is actually harrassing people. Those are Symonds public life.

    And since I’ve not gotten into any of Symonds “personal life”, I’m not involved in any activity at all.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:51 pm

  196. I will say, Not Likely, that Symonds’ conduct in his public life personifies all that is corrupt about Wikipedia editors.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:52 pm

  197. “Not Likely, Symonds has not been harrassed.”

    You personally just called me a criminal associated with terrorists for pointing out that the comments here represent harassment. Step back, calm down, and think about what you are doing. The irony is thick.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:55 pm

  198. “Not Likely”, the irony is thick but its all irony about your silly comments.

    If you think this thread is “harrassment”, Symonds … err, I mean “Not Likely”, you really are far too dainty for the Internet.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 12:59 pm

  199. “No, it’s harassment to dig into a person’s personal life.”

    LOL.

    There’s zillions of Wiki articles that delve into people’s personal lives, often under the heading “Personal life”.

    What’s good for the goose…

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:01 pm

  200. “Not Likely”, by the way Symonds is a subject for discussion for his public life all over the internet now … don’t let us slow you down on your mission to save your … err … his reputation.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:05 pm

  201. “There’s zillions of Wiki articles that delve into people’s personal lives, often under the heading “Personal life”.”

    Those are about public persons, aren’t they? Is a Wikipedia editor a public person? Is it right to engage in this type of behavior because he made an edit you disagree with? Are you incapable of recognizing that it is wrong to attack a person in this manner, digging into their unrelated personal life and vomiting it all over the internet? Look, I know you guys want to play internet investigator. Try limiting it to relevant data and maybe you won’t look like hypocrites.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:05 pm

  202. “Not Likely”, in response to Patterico’s query about his public actions, Symonds made an attack upon Patterico. Its quoted above.

    Your double standards match Symonds’ well …

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:09 pm

  203. He isn’t held in high regard. He has misrepresented himself, rather comically, ON WIKIPEDIA. He has altered his own description of himself ON WIKIPEDIA. He has created hoax articles ON WIKIPEDIA.

    Relevant, if you ask me.
    ___________

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:09 pm

  204. All of which appear related to his public behavior.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:10 pm

  205. Oh – He isn’t held in high regard – BY WIKIPEDIANS.

    Those are two dicussions, one completely wikipedia internal, and the other by persons mainly interested in the quality of his work – ON WIKIPEDIA

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:10 pm

  206. “Symonds made an attack upon Patterico. Its quoted above.”

    Completely false. He tried to explain to Patterico how one could construct a biased attack. He specifically called out that it was a dishonest attack. For his attempts to engage honestly with Patterico, an entire comment section of attack dogs has been unleashed to dig into his personal life.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:13 pm

  207. The whole thing only adds to the well established reputation of Wikipedia editor bias and misconduct.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:14 pm

  208. Not Likely, given Symonds’s misconduct, don’t you agree that he should be banned from wikipedia?

    And shouldn’t he write a letter of apology to the Delong family?

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:14 pm

  209. He tried to explain to Patterico how one could construct a biased attack.

    Yeah, he compared a pack of lies based on the claims of liars to well sourced and factual claims about Kimberlin. He drew a dishonest equivalence between them. You alone seem to think that doing this didn’t defend Kimberlin and attack Patterico. You call this ‘honest’.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:16 pm

  210. Not Likely, Sarahw already demonstrated how your … err, his “personal life” was made public by his own actions.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:17 pm

  211. Now, to answer my own question about the Delong quote,

    it is from pp. 91-92 of Singer’s “Citizen K”.

    Here it is typed out so that other’s can google it and find it (all bolding is mine):

    One of his eardrums was shattered, and two of his fingers had to be reattached. The force of the blast lifted him into the air. “I remember looking down on the tops of cars and wondering why they were there,” he later testified. “I stood up to take a step and fell down, hitting my head. I tried to get up again but fell.” Delong, by coincidence, worked at the same General Motors plant where fred Scyphers had spent his career. he was a Vietnam Veteran and was sufficiently familiar with traumatic limb injuries to instruct bystanders on how to tie tourniquets around both legs. “I looked down at my right leg, and my kneecap was blown up on my thigh,” he recalled. “My left leg was just shredded away to the bone. I yelled, ‘Oh God, get those kids out of here,’ and tried to crawl away from there.” Then he passed out.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:22 pm

  212. “He drew a dishonest equivalence between them. ”

    ON PURPOSE. AS AN EXAMPLE. HE CALLED IT AN EXAMPLE OF A DISHONEST FORMULATION.

    You aren’t really this thick are you?

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:22 pm

  213. Stray possessive on “others.” Sorries.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:23 pm

  214. And I’m done. I thought some people here might still care about intellectual honesty but clearly that’s not the case. Congratulations Patterico, you have a following of hypocrites.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:24 pm

  215. Not just public, but relevant to his identity as a WIKIPEDIAN and his work at WIKIPEDIA..

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:25 pm

  216. “Is a Wikipedia editor a public person?”

    He is now.

    In a very small way.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:26 pm

  217. Not Likely, more of your irony?

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:26 pm

  218. You ought to be done, not likely, because it is you drawing dishonest formulations.

    And to reduce Delongs multiple injuries and blown up leg as he was “injured” when specifics are part of the public record – published court testimony… is a little shocking.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:27 pm

  219. His reputation as a wikipedian is certainly relevant and worthy of discussion in a matter of public concern.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:27 pm

  220. Its a shame that Not Likely was unable to share what motivated him … err, Symonds, to delete the Wikipedia entry of a notorious criminal.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:28 pm

  221. Can I get scores on that flounce Judges?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:31 pm

  222. 6.2/10.0

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:32 pm

  223. Not Likely, your attention is needed here to polish your … err, Symonds’ reputation.

    Which is taking a significant hit across the Internet and adding to Wikipedia’s long established reputation for biased editors.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:37 pm

  224. Per these new wikipedia rules a new edit by Franz Liebkind

    http://www.conservativecommune.com/2012/05/and-now-a-wikipedia-edit-from-franz-liebkind/

    Comment by datechguy (1b976d) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:53 pm

  225. ON PURPOSE. AS AN EXAMPLE.

    Exactly.

    He deliberately said that a pack of poorly sourced lies about Patterico was somehow just as well sourced as very well sourced and totally accurate information about Kimberlin.

    On purpose. As an example.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:54 pm

  226. Mr. Symonds, on the off chance that you’re still reading this as “Not Likely”, I didn’t harass you on your Talk page. I pointed out that you didn’t seem to be neutral in this affair. I stand by that. You’re not coming across as neutral at all.

    In response, you claimed that I’d linked you to a terrorist and that I believed that you’re involved in some sort of conspiracy. I don’t believe that, nor did I imply that I believe that. You engaged in hyperbole in an attempt to deflect criticism by making me look unreasonable. That’s why I said that you obviously can’t handle the gentlest of criticism.

    And yes, Wikipedia editors are public figures, especially those with the power to delete factually accurate and well-sourced articles like you. You are at least as public a figure as any blogger, journalist, talking head, or commentator. If you can’t stand the head (i.e. can’t deal with gentle criticism), then the kitchen’s probably not the best place for you.

    Comment by Chris G (0dd021) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:55 pm

  227. SarahW, that’s a hell of a quote. I meant to tell you it was from Citizen K, but I had neglected to find it myself.

    It should be on Wikipedia, but Not Likely would no doubt forbid it and if you criticize his extreme censorship, he will put together a dossier of lies about you and email you.

    On purpose. As an example.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:56 pm

  228. Also, it’s futile to fight wikipedia on this. And the bad guys would know your IP address if you did. Just be advised.

    Until Wikipedia bans Symonds, there’s no point going there.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 1:58 pm

  229. Dustin, Symonds is just a pissant among the many corrupt editors at Wikipedia.

    Comment by SPQR (26706b) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:00 pm

  230. Perhaps that’s true. This is the worst I’ve ever seen from Wikipedia, but I don’t pay attention to it.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:02 pm

  231. What SPQR said. Also, if you’re worried about someone getting your IP address, just change it. You can usually do this by turning off your router for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. It’s not a big deal. There may be some ISPs where things are different, but if you’re still worried, just call your provider and ask how to change it.

    Comment by Chris G (0dd021) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:04 pm

  232. And I’m done. I thought some people here might still care about intellectual honesty but clearly that’s not the case. Congratulations Patterico, you have a following of hypocrites.

    Your very first comment on here was designed to mock the notion that we should care about factual accuracy on Wikipedia.

    It went downhill from there. You will not be missed.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:18 pm

  233. Also, if you’re worried about someone getting your IP address, just change it. You can usually do this by turning off your router for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours.

    That’s probably true, but it’s something to keep in mind. Ron Brynaert likes to cross reference IP addresses and figure out who said what. It may not do any damage, but these people are creepy stalkers and I think most folks would prefer not be stalked.

    I don’t know how Wikipedia responds to proxies. Wikipedia’s habit of publicly posting IP addresses combined with the favor at least one heavy handed and arguable Brett shill seems to have is why I will not be participating there. It’s too bad the great idea behind wikipedia is susceptible to bad behavior, but some of this could be addressed. For example, they could use a hashtag of the IP instead of the IP itself, much as AoS does.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:26 pm

  234. Not Likely to move out of his parents’ basement anytime soon
    scribbled: No, it’s harassment to dig into a person’s personal life. Once again, read this comment section.

    – Or, just ask Barack Obama’s Senatorial election opponents.

    Comment by Icy (32c21b) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:36 pm

  235. “This is a harassment campaign, unleashed knowingly and purposefully.”

    That’s the general idea. If you hassle them enough, then they’ll quit lying by omisson and restore the information about Bret Kimberlin, aka the Munchkin Bomber of Speedway, Ind.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:46 pm

  236. Who else likes to call honest criticism “harassment”?

    Why is it these people all seem to have a playbook?

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:48 pm

  237. Dustin, in the past we compiled instances of bias at Wikipedia in the editing of articles. But we found so many we got bored.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:51 pm

  238. Hey, it’s harrassment. Folks are trying to bother the guy until he quits dicking around and does the right thing.

    And, it’s working too.

    Comment by Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/28/2012 @ 2:58 pm

  239. I read the entire trail that was available, and I think there is a large disconnect between “accurate” and “negative” and “neutral point of view”.

    A person could easily write a neutral point of view article about any topic, that is both accurate but not negative in tone.

    I also find the Wikipedia editor’s point – although not exactly clear – to be accurate, that persons or people closely or deeply involved are unlikely to maintain a NPOV even though the article may contain only factually accurate material.

    Given that the alternate article was also not NPOV, deleting both NPOV versions was actually a pretty smart thing to do. Often a false choice is presented “this or that”. But in fact the third choice “neither” was best.

    Wikipedia is not a static entity. Claiming this bias or that bias is inept.

    Comment by dpmaine (d158cd) — 5/28/2012 @ 3:49 pm

  240. Dustin, I think it would be possible to get that bound and published.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 4:06 pm

  241. Yes, dpmaine. Hiding facts is preferable.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/28/2012 @ 4:15 pm

  242. NPOV my arse. Bugger off.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/28/2012 @ 4:17 pm

  243. Ditto, JD removing the fact, that DeLong was maimed in both legs, one requiring amputation, is not neutral,

    Comment by narciso (3c5948) — 5/28/2012 @ 4:28 pm

  244. Lots of casuistry and obfuscation going on to defend the inexcusably craven performance by wiki.

    Comment by Captain Hate (fcca9f) — 5/28/2012 @ 4:55 pm

  245. Don’t miss Chris Muir’s contribution today.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/28/2012 @ 5:21 pm

  246. Dpmaine is scared of the truth. The truth does not have a NPOV.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/28/2012 @ 6:47 pm

  247. This is a surprise? Look at how Wikipedia deals with other political figures from the left and the right, or subjects like “climate change” (where one editor has created something like 5000 posts in support of AGW and aggressively deletes contrary information and bans the people who posted it).

    Wikipedia needs to be shunned as an information source and the mendacious “editorial” staff exposed as the Ministry of Truthers they are.

    Comment by Thucydides (959173) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:04 pm

  248. “Your very first comment on here was designed to mock the notion that we should care about factual accuracy on Wikipedia.”

    Liar.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:13 pm

  249. Not Likely’s first comment can be summarized as “quit whining about this, this is how wikipedia works, go write stuff at your own site”. As though wikipedia belongs to Not Likely.

    Patterico summarized this as mocking the notion that folks here should care about the way Symonds has been eliminating factual information from wikipedia (in a trend that benefits Kimberlin, and frankly with excuses that benefit him too).

    Not Likely blurts out ‘liar’ in response for no good reason.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:21 pm

  250. This is the way Wikipedia works. This has always been the way Wikipedia works. You can’t approach it with an agenda, or you will be shut down. Quit whining and just write your own content on your own site.

    Since the post was not about pursuing an agenda but seeking factual accuracy, I interpret your comment calling the post “whining” as trivializing the notion that we should care about factual accuracy on Wikipedia.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:21 pm

  251. Here are a few examples of the highly factual, totally Wikipedia related “research” you folks have engaged in:

    “He is a retired world bank lawyer who is on the faculty of a liberal university based in DC.”

    “Symonds. Liberal no doubt. Sympathetic to Kimberlian’s politics. ”

    “KImberlin and crew have friends on the left who put them in touch with a “friendly” editor of Wiki — Mr. Symonds — who scrubs the entry at their behest. ”

    “Although it is probably pure coincidence, Richard Symonds got his undergraduate degree at Johns Hopkins university, based in Maryland”

    “Regarding my previous comment, that may be a different Richard Symonds, as the Wikipedia editor’s page says he lives in London.”

    “However, I know that Patterico/Frey says his wife is a Democrat ”

    “The ideological divergence between Kimberlin and the two Symonds probably — probably — is quite narrow. ”

    “I think we can now officially refer to Symonds as “Kimberlin associate Richard Symonds.””

    Are you guys planning on calling his work? Maybe a hoax visit from the police would put him in his place!

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:28 pm

  252. Are you guys planning on calling his work? Maybe a hoax visit from the police would put him in his place!

    Equating online criticism and real world consequences is what Kimberlin and his pals do.

    There is a difference between the two, however much you try to conflate them.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:35 pm

  253. Hey, Wikipedia has a Kimberlin article again!

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:37 pm

  254. “Equating online criticism and real world consequences is what Kimberlin and his pals do.”

    First of all, this isn’t criticism. Your commenters are calling this person a terrorist sympathizer because he deleted a Wikipedia page.

    Second of all, if you think online “criticism” doesn’t have real world consequences, it’s a wonder you manage to operate a blog.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:38 pm

  255. In fact Mr. Frey, why would you operate a political blog if you thought online “criticism” didn’t have real world consequences?

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:39 pm

  256. First of all, this isn’t criticism. Your commenters are calling this person a terrorist sympathizer because he deleted a Wikipedia page.

    He is, in a sense. He sympathized with Kimberlin, a convicted domestic terrorist, for reasons that don’t hold water. He claimed an online harassment campaign when there was none, except for the one actually run by Kimberlin and his associates.

    Second of all, if you think online “criticism” doesn’t have real world consequences, it’s a wonder you manage to operate a blog.

    People should be able to conduct debate and have disagreements and, yes, criticize one another without taking to the real-world employer complaints / frivolous litigation / publication of home addresses / etc. level that Kimberlin & Co. have taken it to.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:43 pm

  257. In fact Mr. Frey, why would you operate a political blog if you thought online “criticism” didn’t have real world consequences?

    Comment by Not Likely

    You sure sound like a terrorist sympathizer now.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:43 pm

  258. “Since the post was not about pursuing an agenda but seeking factual accuracy”

    You were very clearly told that the page was removed because a group of people were operating with an agenda. That’s how Wikipedia works. Pages are either locked or removed when they become targets for infighting. You have every right to pursue pertinent, factual information about Kimberlin. What you ought to know better than to do is make your fight with Symonds a public battle. That has nothing to do with pursuing factual accuracy and you know it.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:45 pm

  259. #254 I think you are missing the point.

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:45 pm

  260. I retract my last. I think Not Likely was meaning consequences for Symonds, not mocking the consequences that happened to Patterico. He isn’t very clear about it, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Regardless, Symonds should be banned from Wikipedia. So sorry if that’s a problem for Not Likely, but he’s making Wikipedia less accurate and he has poor explanations for doing so.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:47 pm

  261. “He is, in a sense. He sympathized with Kimberlin, a convicted domestic terrorist, for reasons that don’t hold water.”

    Deleting a Wikipedia page when it becomes a target for partisans isn’t sympathizing with anyone. It’s following the rules. Symonds tried to explain this to you and you chose to release the attack dogs. Now you’re doubling down. Absolutely shameless behavior.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:48 pm

  262. #257 Symonds, is that you? You do understand the difference between posting facts on Wikipedia versus not? Or ignoring facts for purpose of painting a false story?

    Do you know who Walter Duranty was and what he did?

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:49 pm

  263. Deleting a Wikipedia page when it becomes a target for partisans isn’t sympathizing with anyone.

    How many times has Patterico noted that this isn’t about left vs right?

    And yeah, deleting the truth about a terrorist and a top flight con man is sympathizing with that con man. Obviously if you hide that someone is a hustler as they rake in tremendous donations, you are doing them a huge favor.

    Since it’s well demonstrated that what Symonds removed was accurate and sourced properly, criticizing him makes perfect sense.

    What ‘Not Likely’ thinks shameful ‘attack dogs’ are people who think he lied about his own background in a bizarre way, or noting his other strange behavior online.

    I think it’s Not Likely who is doubling down. He is refusing to address how the content Symonds removed was well sourced and accurate.

    Obviously 99.99999999999999% of people who understand the brett kimberlin story are biased against him. Because he’s totally evil. I don’t see what’s partisan about that.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:53 pm

  264. If you read Not Likely’s excuses, it sounds like the article had a lot of partisanship on display. I am not familiar with that. I grant that the smears of Dan Quayle and Karl Rove have a partisan nature, but did the wikipedia page use the facts about Brett to argue for conservative policy or GOP votes? I don’t think it did, but if so, yeah, sure, delete that. But don’t remove the whole page full of sourced facts. About a con man who needs to fly under the radar.

    Comment by Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:55 pm

  265. “Obviously 99.99999999999999% of people who understand the brett kimberlin story are biased against him.”

    This is one of the most obvious differences between Liberals and Conservatives. The more Liberals know about evil, the more they sympathize. They reflexively want to understand and find some cause in order to deflect responsibility. Conservatives, not so much.

    Interesting pathology.

    Comment by Bill (cd1593) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:58 pm

  266. “How many times has Patterico noted that this isn’t about left vs right? ”

    Tell that to 90% of the people here.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:59 pm

  267. Not Likely thinks you can’t criticize someone or publish your exchanges with them because that is a harassment campaign.

    So much for online discourse.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:00 pm

  268. Tell that to 90% of the people here.

    I have told it to 100% of the people here. Meanwhile, you seem to show absolutely zero concern for factual details being whisked away by this fellow who defends it by ranting about the “extreme right wing.” That sounds like someone bending facts in what is supposed to be an online reference, for unjustifiable reasons.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:01 pm

  269. “it sounds like the article had a lot of partisanship on display. I am not familiar with that”

    I’m not familiar with it either, but it’s the explanation the person who performed the deletion provided. These things happen every day on Wikipedia. Take a look at the numerous articles about political aides making mass edits to their boss’ pages. When an article becomes a target, it’s locked or removed. There’s nothing nefarious about it, it’s the rule.

    Rather than accept this and moving on with his own personal writing, Mr. Frey chose to publish private emails. As a result the man is smeared in public. Like it or not, the internet is just as real world and public as Main St.

    I don’t have a dog in the actual fight going on here. If Mr. Frey has been harassed by Kimberlin, who is undoubtedly a terrible person, I sympathize. However, this dust-up with a random person at Wikipedia is foolish and irresponsible.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:04 pm

  270. “Meanwhile, you seem to show absolutely zero concern for factual details being whisked away”

    Whisked away? You can’t whisk away the past Mr. Frey. You have a platform here to write whatever you like. Details of the Speedway bombings are all over the internet. This Kimberlin business has been the #1 topic on Memeorandum for days. What precisely does Wikipedia have to do with it?

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:08 pm

  271. Whisked away? You can’t whisk away the past Mr. Frey. You have a platform here to write whatever you like. Details of the Speedway bombings are all over the internet. This Kimberlin business has been the #1 topic on Memeorandum for days. What precisely does Wikipedia have to do with it?

    Nothing, as long as people understand that it is not a source you can rely on, because accurate facts may be snatched from view for reasons having nothing to do with their accuracy.

    My whole goal here is to help people see that Wikipedia is not reliable. Once everyone accepts that, I care not how they run their show.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:16 pm

  272. “My whole goal here is to help people see that Wikipedia is not reliable.”

    Your goal here was to publish private emails and whip people into a frenzy smearing a random person at Wikipedia and associating them with terrorists. That’s what you did. That’s what happened. You could just as easily have recounted the episode anonymously. You turned what is seemingly justifiable alarm at real world harassment by Kimberlin into something else entirely.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:20 pm

  273. I should reword. That may not have been your goal, but it was the obvious result of your actions.

    Comment by Not Likely (da0925) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:24 pm

  274. Your goal here was to publish private emails and whip people into a frenzy smearing a random person at Wikipedia and associating them with terrorists. That’s what you did. That’s what happened. You could just as easily have recounted the episode anonymously. You turned what is seemingly justifiable alarm at real world harassment by Kimberlin into something else entirely.

    Nonsense. I told him in the first email I was a blogger. The emails were not public. He wrote me when the article was up to say the article wasn’t flattering but he was pleased that everything was written down:

    Not the most flattering of articles, and perhaps a bit more right-of-centre than I’m used to reading about in The Independent, but it’s nice to see everything written down.

    Calling these emails “private” is absurd and without foundation.

    You turned what is seemingly justifiable alarm at real world harassment by Kimberlin into something else entirely.

    What? The seemingly justifiable alarm is justifiable and has not been made unjustified simply because I questioned the specious reasons for a Wikipedia editor to airbrush history.

    Comment by Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:34 pm

  275. I don’t recall advancing any political agenda. I linked wikipedia-centered discussion about symond’s Wikipedia persona and history.

    That’s relevant to a discussion of the merits of some of his questionable deletions- including Carl and Sandra Delong’s specific injuries.

    Removal of well sourced factual information or biographies makes little sense to me, as Symonds has called negative but stubborn facts, “political”.

    Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:20 pm

  276. My whole goal here is to help people see that Wikipedia is not reliable. Once everyone accepts that, I care not how they run their show.

    That wikipedia had a tendency to allow left of center viewpoints is well-known, though not as bad as this example. I hope you overreach your goal and prod wikipedia into republishing the story of this convicted terrorist–who still hasn’t paid his debt for that conviction. Maybe that lesson might spread into other topics–such as the dishonest conflation of AGW with global warming.

    Comment by iconoclast (a0c5ce) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:21 pm

  277. “Mr. Frey chose to publish private emails.”

    Not Likely – Do you have any concrete information regarding the expectations on privacy on emails exchanged between bloggers/journalists and editors of online publications? You’re just making this up as you go, right?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:28 pm

  278. Well at least Symonds does not seem as completely scummy as BK, so he’s got that going for him, which is nice.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:34 pm

  279. Not Likely: ” “However, I know that Patterico/Frey says his wife is a Democrat ””

    That’s not about Symonds. That’s about Patterico and Patterico’s wife.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:38 pm

  280. Simon Jester- interesting! I didn’t realize the name came from Heinlein. That old “Chase Me” blog was quite amusing and cheeky. I thought how small-worldy it would have been if, after all these years of not having looked at it, I went back only to see our Simon there. But no. Big worldy.

    Comment by MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:47 pm

  281. Comment by Not Likely — 5/28/2012 @ 10:04 pm
    I don’t have a dog in the actual fight going on here.
    – IOW, the truth doth not concern thou mucheth.

    If Mr. Frey has been harassed by Kimberlin, who is undoubtedly a terrible person, I sympathize.
    – “if”? Yeah, you’re full of ‘symp’ . . . or something that sounds like it.

    However, this dust-up with a random person at Wikipedia is foolish and irresponsible.
    – And the person that is directly responsible is “random” how?

    Comment by Icy (593a53) — 5/29/2012 @ 2:45 am

  282. Though it appears as if the mod is acting interestedly on kimberlin’s behalf, this is actually typical wikipeia mod behavior. If you find government bureaucrats vexatious, you’ll find in the course of attempting to exit at wikipedia that volunteer bureaucrats are a thousand times worse. In cases like these thay will proceed with an over-abundance of caution, citing a policy titled Biographies of Living Persons which is meant to limit liability under libel claims. This means having to dight for weeks for the inclusion of items which are “controversial” though they may be incontrovertable. A fact, despite its versimilitude or the solidity of its sourcing is deemed “controversial” if some other editor doesn’t like it; this other editor may be a transparent sockpuppet or confederate of themselves article’s subject

    Comment by jummy (3f9eb3) — 5/29/2012 @ 4:57 am

  283. Cont…
    That said, it should be obvious that the “lifestyle” of a volunteer bureaucrat tends to appeal more to the left than the right. The type of person who has the availible resources to camp out at the Recent Changes Noticeboard and involve themselves in the disputes they have no specific genuine interest in are either permanent grad students, adjunct professors or hobos living off sosoc disability benefits. Their first heuristic of who might be the party who is acting in the balance of good faith and validity is to suss out which is more or less left of the other, so your perception of bias is not for nothing.

    Comment by jummy (3f9eb3) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:13 am

  284. Not Likely has done a fine job of confirming the bias of Wikipedia, and the contempt that its editors have for actually carrying out the spirit of its purpose.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:42 am

  285. SPQR – “not likely/skeptic” nicely demonstrated it’s contempt for the truth.

    Comment by JD (bd887a) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:57 am

  286. Chris Muir is enjoying himself.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/29/2012 @ 7:13 am

  287. I suppose wiki needs to delete their article on Charles Manson. After all, it portrays him as a heartless criminal and is entirely negative. It does not even try to report an any of his very good qualities.

    Comment by richard40 (19a56d) — 5/29/2012 @ 7:39 am

  288. This says as much about Wikipedia as it does about Kimberlin. Apparently, neither can be trusted.

    Comment by ZZMike (f33e66) — 5/29/2012 @ 4:19 pm

  289. Wikipedia is reason enough for the effort to draft Jimmy Wales as candidate for Florida’s senator to fail. He’s the puppet master of the most influential source of misinformation since the Bible.

    Comment by Nicolas (3b6fca) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:13 pm

  290. Great items from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff prior to and you’re just extremely excellent. I actually like what you’ve got right here, really like what you’re stating and the best way by which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is actually a wonderful web site.

    Comment by [Minecraft|starbound|indie|games|notch|terraria|starforge|indie games|freeware games|indie gaming|indie pc gaming|pc indie game|scrolls|cobalt|minecraft forums|minecraft videos|minecraft 1.0|0x10c|phr00t|mojang] (f7e00d) — 5/31/2012 @ 8:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7272 secs.