Read it now before Richard Symonds whisks it away again.
UPDATE: Since I first linked the article, it now contains this decidedly non-neutral statement:
Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…
The interesting thing is: this language originated with a fellow named Ron Brynaert. If that name sounds familiar, well, it should.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Ding.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:38 pmLooks like A.W. made it to the article. No mention of you, P, or of the civil suit that he never paid to DeLong’s widow, either? Looks like there is a LOT that’s been left out.
Book (956833) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:40 pmWell that’s an interesting interpretation, which
I would think be considered incomplete,
Most recently, Kimberlin filed a motion for a “peace order” against a blogger named Aaron Walker, who blogged anonymously as “Aaron Worthing,” resulting from an incident in which Kimberlin took Walker’s picture in court and Walker responded by taking Kimberlin’s iPad.[23] According to the court transcript, the court found that Walker’s actions did not “come under the parameters that the legislature has set for issuance of a peace order, and for very good reasons.”[23]
narciso (3c5948) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:46 pmWill the most honest facts displaying the truth remain on this page?
Not Likely.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:56 pm“Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction,”
Writing blog posts is now called “hounding”?
Kaisersoze (298188) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:57 pm3- you’re right. It makes no sense, worded that way. It’s as if they put as little effort as possible into the account.
Tryto come up with solid sources that will not get deleted by the Wiki-crew. Wonder if they’ll accept the information about Julia Scyphers and her granddaughter? They do cite “Citizen K” by Mark Singer.
Book (956833) — 5/28/2012 @ 9:59 pm5- Good catch. Wonder who wrote that one. I thought opinions were to be kept out of this mess?
/sarc
Book (956833) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:00 pm“Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…”
Wow. Ron Brynaert’s language shows up, right on cue.
That wasn’t there when I first linked it. It just appeared.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:06 pm“Hounding” equals neutral
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:09 pmThat “hounding” phrase originated with Ron Brynaert. Check the link I gave in my last comment.
I suppose Kimberlin supporters will try to turn this into a partisan slugfest and get it removed again.
It’s information warfare. Truth vs. brass knuckles reputation management.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:11 pmHounding is a neutral term if it describes conservatives citing facts about a terrible thing.
You see, neutral on wikipedia often means tilted to the left. Some editors recognize this and work on it when it’s pointed out to them. Others, like Symonds, decide to devote themselves further to policing this subject after they are shown to be unable to do so fairly. I guess because of ego. Or because they can.
Suffice to say that had Symonds been censoring exposure of an abortion clinic bomber, he wouldn’t be editing wikipedia anymore (and that would be a good thing).
Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:13 pmOr there are a couple of other options to explain it.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:14 pmIt’s being modified as we’re looking at it. 3x that I’ve noticed, so far.
Out to Lunch (a19b3a) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:14 pmFollowing a swatting attack on a critical blogger triggered by an anonymous spoofed phone call to the police, Kimberlin became the subject of a coordinated blogburst[
Yep. Just this second, “swatting” is now linked to a separate page defining it. I wondered why it wasn’t a minute ago. Someone is very busy.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:17 pmSince 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.
Half of the Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day just disappeared.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:19 pmWhen I first saw it about 2 .5 hours ago it had a reference to the civil monetary judgment awarded to the widow Delong & family and now *poof*
….nothing.
John Difool (4251ee) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:20 pmUPDATE: Since I first linked the article, it now contains this decidedly non-neutral statement:
The interesting thing is: this language originated with a fellow named Ron Brynaert. If that name sounds familiar, well, it should.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:20 pmThat sentence, doesn’t have a citation to it, and it is misleading, at the very list, it ignores that other writers had brought up these ‘inconvenient facts’
This is not unlike when Stelter of the Times, accepted that someone had been dismissed for that
narciso (3c5948) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:20 pm‘accidental’ edit of the March 27th 9/11 call, except for the inconvenient facts, that the edits
stretched back to March 22, and then back to March 19, ‘modified limited hangout’ was the phrase
_______________________________________________
“Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…”
Mark (e3ff81) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:20 pmThe entire bit about a critical blogger being swatted is gone.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:21 pmYou know, given that the main ‘hounder’ of Kimberlin was Seth, it is flat inaccurate to summarize the hounding as conservative.
Whoever jammed Brynaert’s distortion into that entry should not be permitted to edit wikipedia. They are not telling the truth.
People on both sides of the political divide have criticized Kimberlin about the many convictions related to the eight bombs.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:24 pmHeh. No more “blogburst” either…
Kimberlin became the subject of coordinated blogging.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:24 pmDarn neologisms.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:26 pmThis is an excellent example for why Wikipedia in general is a worthless idea. Somebody here, yesterday, called it Fibipedia which sums it up nicely.
Gazzer (a3deff) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:32 pmTwo words on getting this story main stream…
ROCK ON.
Topsecretk9 (3495e1) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:36 pmGo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brett_Kimberlin#Neutrality_issue.3F
Engage. I wrote a suggestion; “Since October 2010, conservatives have written extensively about Kimberlin and his bombing conviction…”
Looks neutral to me with that change.
Erick Brockway (f475a7) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:39 pmWell whoever fixed it was spot on.
Erick Brockway (f475a7) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:41 pmDid they include the fact that he was unjustly convicted, a political prisoner and received a double secret exoneration that he cannot share with anyone because it is so secret?
If not, Ron is falling down on the job.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:45 pmisn’t it kimberlin who is doing the hounding? and he was pushed back on and didn’t like it. then per his MO he resorted to violence.
In wiki don’t you have to get an account then go dispute the facts?
jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:46 pmI think it is the criminals taking advantage of the wiki editing process. If not noticed or flagged it stays as is. If contested, the reviews occur? and facts get locked in?
Wiki is weak to trolling. it probably drives those admins crazy. but the symonds response seems to suggest he is tired of his job.
jd2 (40a8c6) — 5/28/2012 @ 10:49 pmI never trusted Wikipedia from the start.
Allan (6a7307) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:10 pmIt stinks of corruption.
Adding favorable edits to BK’s wikipedia bio does wonders for Ron’s argument that he is not aligned with BK.
Moron
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:12 pmI can’t prove Ron made the edit.
But the language originated with him. Unless he lifted it from elsewhere when he first submitted his entry.
Patterico (feda6b) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:20 pm“I can’t prove Ron made the edit.”
Noted
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/28/2012 @ 11:31 pmAre wiki editors assigned to certain pages, or do they choose what to edit?
MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/29/2012 @ 12:12 amIf the editor tired of a job, or feeling attacked personally, or simply too deep in the weeds, can he just walk away or hand it to a different editor?
Choose. It’s a volunteer project.
Occasionally it’s possible to be banned from editing a specific article.
Random (fba0b1) — 5/29/2012 @ 12:29 am1978. 18 years old? If he was born in 1954? Hmm. Gotta relearn my math.
nk (875f57) — 5/29/2012 @ 12:44 amSorry. Strike that previous comment.
nk (875f57) — 5/29/2012 @ 12:52 am
Dustin (330eed) — 5/29/2012 @ 1:00 amthat previous comment.I remember when Topsecretk9 was the focus of a really weird “voter fraud/Diebold” attack. She and Greek,esq and Seixon.
Man, take on Acorn* or the SEIU and the left will hate you forever. What other reason could they have to hate Breitbart so much? I bet they couldn’t even tell you what supposedly hateful things he did.
(* the real players in voter fraud. Or at least voter registration fraud.)
MayBee (2f6e35) — 5/29/2012 @ 1:44 amWikipedia isn’t neutral after all? It was created and is run and edited by leftist atheist hypoctrites for whom the only morality is winning and power? We are indeed shocked, shocked to hear this!
Sardondi (92b56e) — 5/29/2012 @ 2:11 am😉 , Dustin.
nk (875f57) — 5/29/2012 @ 2:32 amBut it does bother me that prosecutors would go after an eighteen-year old for perjury. Either his family was a mess, or he was a mess with a long juvenile record.
Drugs? Up here, small amount, small record, it’s a nolle prosse. Repeat, small amount, it’s non-reporting probation. Repeat again, small amount, it’s “diversion” (group home).
You have to work hard to get prison time for a drug sentence.
nk (875f57) — 5/29/2012 @ 2:42 amEighteen. Fifth Amendment? No father to hire him a lawyer?
nk (875f57) — 5/29/2012 @ 2:56 amApparently smoking marijuana used to be a disqualifier for public office. Interesting.
Wildwood15 (81b7f9) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:02 amI wish Singers book were cut and paste-able , By 18 he was quite the busy bee.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:07 amI just did an “F3” of the Wikipedia article using “Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin…” and it appears the “Ron Brynaert” language has been deleated.
Congratulations – someone at Wikipedia seems to have read your critique and responded.
Now, if they’ll stop slanting to favor leftists in need as in the “Critical Race Theory” brouhaha it will become something other than a tool for leftist propaganda.
jasond (0b7791) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:24 amI’m sure others have done this, but I just downloaded a PDF of the entry.
Bob Belvedere (325c05) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:27 amThe person who reinstated the article is the one who first included the “hounded by conservatives” text, or re-included it. Since the original article has been round-filed, it’s hard to know whether that carried over. The IP number of that person resolves to UCSF, which may or may not be significant. Another frequent editor’s IP resolves to Denver (71.212.251.217).
Slartibartfast (bb50a1) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:29 amIn the first six days of September 1978, a series of bombings struck Speedway, Indiana. Initially there were no injuries; however
What? There’s more?
The “initially” would have to logically refer to the “series” of which the last bomb was a member. It’s worded in a way to set in the reader a false emotion about the incident that no one was hurt. You can’t shift emotions quickly so even though you can process the proceding data, the reader is not in the angry state of mind he would otherwise be in if it had been worded honestly, and he’ll be more receptive to any sympathetic data that follows.
j curtis (675b6b) — 5/29/2012 @ 5:56 amI know you’re surprised as much as I was, sarc;
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/two-books-two-standards-obama-bush/566551
narciso (3c5948) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:10 amSo I’ve been browsing through Wikipedia to see who has had an interest in portraying Kimberlin in a good light or at least defending him. Other than the Symonds guy, there is this “Kurtmilk” user back in 2010 or whatever wrote some uncited stuff about Kimberlin to make him look good in a better light.
The discussion is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiDan61/Archive20100414#Brett_Kimberlin
About this guy, I found out this where the best I can get is this
http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=User_talk:Kurtmilk
Where you can notice the comment “Shut up stalker, the FBI is on to you” which I assume was made by this “Kurtmilk” person. Yet I do a search online and “Kurtmilk” gets alot of google hits among Taiwanese websites which I thought was a dead end there. BUT I tried Bing instead and got this
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22kurtmilk%22&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=%22kurtmilk%22&sc=1-10&sp=-1&sk=
The 4th result yields a Velvet Revolution video. So I’m going to make the assumption that Kurtmilk is indeed Kimberlin that was editing his own wikipedia page.
Kaitian (b51c21) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:34 amGoing to David Swanson’s website which it’s a terrible site anyways. I did a search string through their engine and it yield me so references to Brett Kimberlin.
http://warisacrime.org/search/node/Kimberlin
Kaitian (b51c21) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:44 amComment by Kaitian — 5/29/2012 @ 6:34 am
Interesting.
SarahW (b0e533) — 5/29/2012 @ 6:45 amIf the Wiki page vanishes again, you can find a recent screenshot here: http://ScrnSht.com/djrtse
L.N. Smithee (4c1f17) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:27 amKaitian, good work.
Dustin (330eed) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:28 amUPDATE: Since I first linked the article, it now contains this decidedly non-neutral statement:
Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…
Comment by Patterico — 5/28/2012 @ 10:06 pm
Wow. Ron Brynaert’s language shows up, right on cue.
That wasn’t there when I first linked it. It just appeared.
I saw that last night, before 9 pm maybe 8 pm your time. It’s gone now. I didn’t consider that one too bad. What struck me as really not neutral was this senetnce:
In print, Singer said that he believed that Kimberlin had known someone who had claimed to sell marijuana to Quayle and had then appropriated the story as his own.[15]
That was what Singer thought in 1996.
Not neutral because it implies there’s some truth to the Kimberlin accusations against Quayle. Maybe not so favoravle to Kimberlin but still going along with extremely probable slander against a Republican politician.
But in reality there’s no reason to think Quayle ever used any marjuana at all. It might be that Kimberlin never was at the location he claimed to have been, because already by late 1971 Kimberlin was probably more than a low level drug dealer with only “maybe a dozen” customers (KimbeCitizen K, top of page 28)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/29/2012 @ 9:13 amUPDATE: Since I first linked the article, it now contains this decidedly non-neutral statement:
Since October of 2010, conservatives have hounded Kimberlin about his bombing conviction…
Comment by Patterico — 5/28/2012 @ 10:06 pm
Wow. Ron Brynaert’s language shows up, right on cue.
That wasn’t there when I first linked it. It just appeared.
I saw that last night, before 9 pm maybe 8 pm your time. It’s gone now. I didn’t consider that one too bad. What struck me as really not neutral was this senetnce:
In print, Singer said that he believed that Kimberlin had known someone who had claimed to sell marijuana to Quayle and had then appropriated the story as his own.[15]
That was what Singer thought in 1996.
Not neutral because it implies there’s some truth to the Kimberlin accusations against Quayle. Maybe not so favoravle to Kimberlin but still going along with extremely probable slander against a Republican politician.
But in reality there’s no reason to think Quayle ever used any marjuana at all. It might be that Kimberlin never was at the location he claimed to have been, because already by late 1971 Kimberlin was probably more than a low level drug dealer with only “maybe a dozen” customers (KimbeCitizen K, top of page 28)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 5/29/2012 @ 9:13 am“Read it now before Richard Symonds whisks it away again.”
Richard, you leave that danged article alone!
Don’t make me come over there.
😉
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 5/29/2012 @ 9:17 am:sigh: I wish conservatives and libertarians would spend half the keystrokes they waste complaining about Wikipedia’s error into fixing those errors. Make up a username (mine’s OtterSmith), sign up, and you, too, can edit Wikipedia. Preferably by fixing errors that you see. Other editors may disagree with your changes and change them back. This happens. Simple rule, don’t make more than one change a day until you know what you’re doing. You can read the ArticleName:Talk page, where what changes should be made are discussed, and the ArticleName:History page, to access the history of all of the changes, who made them, and the reason they gave for doing so. Don’t call names, don’t get into fights. Just watch, you’ll learn, and we can rescue this thing from some — never all — of its biases. Questions? After you’ve joined, you can go to OtterSmith’s talk page and ask.
htom (412a17) — 5/29/2012 @ 1:06 pmComment by htom — 5/29/2012 @ 1:06 pm
I too have edited Wikipedia pages in the past, exclusively on subjects in which I have some degree of expertise. While I generally agree with you, htom, the problem is that the lefties are the ones who seem to be really intent upon having their way on Wikipedia, and they are the ones who set page change alerts and immediately follow-up when they hear their entries have been edited. Like so many other conservatives, I have an actual day job, so I can’t spend my time keeping up with their obsessive behavior. A lot of the Wikipedia left are probably professional “activists,” public employees, or low-grade academics who have plenty of free time to muck around on those pages.
JVW (966cb8) — 5/29/2012 @ 3:29 pmI have been looking on Wikipedia. The Speedway Bombings were restored Friday night but I noticed the Kimberlin article appeared more recently. If you look at the revision history there is an online battle raging over who is “restoring” the information.
Plenty of footnotes this time so it might stay.
Harrison (916bde) — 5/29/2012 @ 4:52 pmCheck Symonds’ talk page. His peers have determined he is the one with an axe to grind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry
Scott (a8518e) — 5/29/2012 @ 7:55 pmOn the above comment, copy and paste, the hyperlink did not extend to the end of the URL. Also, once on his talk page, scroll down to the talk entitled “Brett Kimberlin”
Scott (a8518e) — 5/29/2012 @ 7:58 pmI still could not get the link to work
JD (318f81) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:07 pmSee if this link works.
BfC (fd87e7) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:16 pmScott, I think your characterization of the discussion there is off.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:19 pmSymonds last comment there seems to be that there are nasty peole on each side of this issue. There appears to be at least one commenter trying to deal with the arse.
JD (318f81) — 5/29/2012 @ 8:27 pmSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:169.230.30.104 . Brynaert is bothered about something.
Difficult, BTW, for information about current events to stick. Something about “wingers”, whatever the heck that means–somebody is deleting reliably sourced information about the SWAT attacks.
BSK (e5dc10) — 5/31/2012 @ 2:19 amThat’s … BSK. Anything else? From W****o**pedia?
nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:23 amThey do it in teams, BSK. But why would we want W***o**pedia?
nk (875f57) — 5/31/2012 @ 3:25 amRight now it reads as if Aaron was swatted. That needs to be fixed
“One blogger, who claimed he was the “victim of a hoax that brought armed police officers to his home”, was countersuing Kimberlin.[14]” Aaron is countersuing (right?), not Pat or Stack
Auntie Fraud (2f38aa) — 5/31/2012 @ 8:32 pmTremendous things here. I am very satisfied to look your post. Thanks so much and I’m having a look ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a mail?
gratuit, films (40f3e7) — 6/6/2012 @ 1:23 am