Patterico's Pontifications


Kimberlin Fan “JusticeLeader” Submits Suspicious and Deceptive Request to Delete Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia Entry

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 4:27 pm

Wikipedia has received a request to delete Brett Kimberlin’s Wikipedia page. The request, which reads more likely a poorly written legal brief than a Wikipedia request, advances many false and deceptive arguments of the sort Kimberlin has made in the past. The request comes from a newly created Wikipedia account called “JusticeLeader.” Kimberlin is the head of a nonprofit called “Justice Through Music.”

Notably, the request uses the Kimberlin/Rauhauser “accuse the accusers” technique, in which unsubstantiated accusations are used as proof that the accusation is true:

[M]uch of the information cited is not reliable, such as information attributed to Mark Singer who Brett sued for defamation and breach of contract, and who settled the case in a manner agreed to by Brett. Other information cited from the Indianapolis papers is not reliable because much of that information was determined by a judge to be unreliable and inadmissible in court. Information about the civil suit is unreliable because the judge in the case, Michael Dugan, solicited a bribe from Brett’s lawyer and was convicted of taking bribes and sent to prison for 18 years. Information from Brett’s trials is unreliable because it involved the use of hypnosis on six witnesses, which has since been banned in all criminal cases in the United States. The information about swatting is unreliable because Brett had nothing to do with any swatting, has cooperated fully with the FBI, and those false allegations were made only to smear Brett by pushing them into the mainstream media in order to get them placed in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Marvel at the way that Kimberlin’s accusation that Singer defamed him is used as evidence that Singer defamed him. Kimberlin’s unsubstantiated accusation that Judge Dugan solicited a bribe from him is used as evidence that Judge Dugan solicited a bribe from him. This method of argument is classic Kimberlin: make an accusation with no proof, and them use that accusation as proof.

In fact, concerning Kimberlin’s claims that his civil judge extorted him for money to rule in his favor, a federal judge has written that “there is no evidence to support those claims.” As for Singer’s book, it is amply documented and Singer is a left-leaning and thorough writer with no ideological axe to grind, who indeed was predisposed to accept Kimberlin’s claims until further investigation revealed what a liar Kimberlin is. Kimberlin’s convictions have been upheld by every court to review them, and the evidence went far beyond hypnotized witnesses to possession of characteristic bomb making materials and timers. As for the claim that the newspaper articles are unreliable because they are inadmissible in court … that’s absurd, as newspaper articles are almost never admissible in court. That has nothing at all to do with whether they are accurate.

Laughably, the request even cites the discredited “Breitbart Unmasked” web site as evidence of alleged threats against Kimberlin. This is a web site that published the divorce records of a commenter of mine who was critical of Kimberlin, as well as pictures of the commenter’s house. This is classic Kimberlin-style intimidation — hardly tactics used by a reputable source of information.

If Kimberlin is behind this effort, he is failing, as the Wikipedia editors don’t appear to be buying the deceptive arguments. It does, however, shine the spotlight on him once again. Is that really what he wants??

Thanks to ACB.

75 Responses to “Kimberlin Fan “JusticeLeader” Submits Suspicious and Deceptive Request to Delete Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia Entry”

  1. Brett Kimberlin is super-famous like that swimmer guy with the dimples and that guy what shot everyone who went to see Batman

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  2. Yeah, it’s not going to work now.

    The truth is too well documented now. That’s not justice enough, but it is nice improvement.

    I am not aware of these intimidation and lying tactics ever working. Ever. Every time, they firm up the resolve of the honest, good people.

    They can cause a lot of concern for family members. And of course Aaron lost his livelihood. And there’s no accepting the swatting or the threats from the various internet tough guys. but while they have been capable of causing some misery, they have never done anything that would reduce the exposure of the truth. I don’t even understand why they ever thought this would do that.

    Dustin (73fead)

  3. How’s the discovery going?

    great unknown (04bc24)

  4. Any educated prediction of when this guy is going back to prison?

    Editor (dec470)

  5. Seems to me that this could be reasonably be construed as a conspiracy to interfere with a lawful discovery process, the pathetic and incompetent nature of the discovery notwithstanding, and that said conspiracy is almost certainly taking place over state lines. A polite inquiry to Mr. Holder’s office might be in order.

    M. Scott Eiland (449af8)

  6. “nature of the interference,” rather.

    M. Scott Eiland (449af8)

  7. Meanwhile, the “requestee” does have a valid point about some of the sources. The page needs to be cleaned up of primary sources since Wikipedia should not use court transcripts and have to fall back on secondary sources. So if there’s willing editors willing to remove those primary sources and change them to secondary sources, it dramatically increases the likelihood of staying as well even though the delete request is already failing though.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  8. Wikipedia should not use court transcripts

    What’s the reasoning behind that? That it’s original research?

    Not that this is a big problem.

    Dustin (73fead)

  9. Since when are secondary sources superior to primary sources?

    nk (875f57)

  10. Due to the fact that it’s a biography of a living person, sources are very restricted on how they ca be used. So the solution is pretty simple, just defer to newspapers rather.

    S Marshall is by no means a Kimberlin defender but he is correct though about the Wikipedia policy. I didn’t write it but I very much want the Kimberlin article to stay.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  11. By the way, I’ll disclose myself that I am ACB and Patterico can confirm this due to my email being hidden and only he knows that. I watch AfD’s every now and then and I have submitted AfD’s before but when I saw “Brett Kimberlin”, the alarms went off and it wasn’t your typical AfD request. AfD requests are normally simple, short, and to the point. So I read the request in full and it read like a “I am Brett Kimberlin and I want my Wikipedia article deleted because I don’t like the content”. Why? “being a husband, father, and upstanding member of the community.” Sounds like someone who knows him personally or is describing themselves.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  12. This seems like a great time to mention that Wikipedia needs more conservative editors. The place is totally overrun with lunatic left-wing POV-pushers (I’m pretty sure ACB will vouch for this), and despite our best efforts to balance important articles, day-in and day-out we’re getting creamed.

    Just think about what our kids are learning from this website.

    Dave (0bda12)

  13. Yep Wikipedia constantly needs more conservative editors. Mind you, people do need to be careful about OVERTLY showing their cards. There are rules that these rapid liberals will try to smack you over. Such as the 3RR (Three Revert Rule) which means that if you revert ANY content within 24 hours up to 3 times, on the 4th time, you can be blocked for at least 24 hours. Normally the first block kills off contributors and they try not to do it. I’ve constantly fought with liberal editors who like to warn conservative editors on the first edit to knock their harassment off and encourage these editors who were warned to ignore them and move on.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  14. Erm “they try not to do it” -> “they tend not to come back.”

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  15. kimberlin wimps 0ut
    teh nattering nancy boy
    one. big. epic. FAIL.

    Colonel Haiku (b0ebf9)

  16. With a random look, I see there are at least newspaper or magazine pieces, including on legendarily mistaken one by Jane Mayer, which mostly copied Media Matters, so what’s the real issue.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  17. narisco, it always varies. However due to the amount of liberals, they’re able to bend the interpretations of what reliable sources are. So if the New Yorker source was parroting Media Matters, it’s hard to remove it because the New Yorker is definitely a “reliable source”.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  18. Or this, so there isn’t really a firm standard;

    narciso (ee31f1)

  19. Thanks for keeping your eyes open, Kaitian.

    I imagine most of the time, Wikipedia editing is rewarding, but when it comes to political issues, it is a frustrating and orwellian exercise.

    There are so many rules that people with real lives have no chance of mastering them. Rules are plainly abused with a high degree of discretion. I recall that insufferable editor who had removed Kimberlin material in the past.

    Not to mention how many news stories for the right do not get the same amount of coverage.

    Any media parroting Media Matters is no more reputable than the Limbaugh Letter, but I bet they are treated a lot better ‘by the rules’.

    Another example of rules is the Primary Source Rule. It seems to me that much of the Kimberlin entry actually uses primary sources to bolster secondary sources, which is not against the rules in spirit, but the language is “it may be acceptable’.

    It all adds up to an unpredictable environment ripe with excuses to censor the truth about major controversial issues.

    Which is why I’d never rely on wikipedia for something controversial. I think a lot of conservatives feel that way, which can’t help the editor shortage.

    Dustin (73fead)

  20. Mind you, Wikipedia does have interesting moments at time where liberals will side with you if you use the rules properly. For example, there are certain mediation processes. One is DRN (Dispute Resolution Noticeboard) which are run by volunteers (not admins) and they don’t really have an axe to grind but they don’t have any binding authority. However they do establish consensus and makes your argument stronger when fighting to retain or remove content. One is the NPOVN which is Neutral-POV Noticeboard. Now there are a crap load and I mean a crapload of editors that are liberals so you want to do your best to avoid this at all cost because you may end up adding material that would be unflattering to have in the article so you do your best to avoid additions. Incident noticeboard is the last resort and the admins there do not care about content but rather conduct of users. If you follow the 3RR and use it properly, liberal editors you’re fighting against may end up breaking 3RR and you can report them to incident board to get them warned or blocked. Just be conscious of not doing this TOO much because you could end up looking like a tendentious editor.

    Now there are liberal editors that will admit that they are there to “fix” the encyclopedia, not build one and they are the ones that have agendas to make conservative or republicans alike posed in an unflattering way. If you want to edit, do your best, give reasonings, follow the rules, and keep your head down.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  21. Another advice, should you decide to edit, there are conservative editors that you will find out there but should you decide to communicate with them, do your best to email them and follow the first rule of the fight club with other editors. Do not let other people know you are conversing in private even if it’s another conservative editor. It minimizes the risk factor.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  22. The by-product of his wikipedia entry being deleted is that anyone looking up his name on the internet will be more likely to end up learning about about his dispicable “career” at blogs such as this one—and that’s a silver lining, considering they might not have learned the truth about him had they merely relied upon the wikipedia entry.
    In other words, his current wikipedia entry appears to be watered down by the lefty editors…and once that disappears down the rabbit hole, blogs such as this will fill the proverbial vacuum that is created by the wikipedia deletion.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  23. I guess psychopaths are stubborn.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  24. Mr. Brett you gotsta ignite the light and let it shine for so you own the night like the fourth of july!

    cause of baby you’re a splodey splodey firework, arntcha?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  25. I don’t know about you Mr. Brett but swimming nekkid in the sea of galilee is totally going on the old bucket list

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  26. oh Mr. Brett look what you’ve gone and done
    you’ve created pandemonium!
    you’re crashing everywhere –
    it’s like you’re smashing china
    or skidding on an icy road
    you’re major trouble since you were almost a minor
    I sometimes think we’ll all explode! (get it cause of how you like to bomb stuff)

    hah when I grow up I want a wikipedia page just like you Mr. Brett (except not for being a murderous fiend maybe more for being super-nice and having verve and for stuff involving the words “zeitgeist” and “ennui”)

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  27. mr. orr please to pick up the courtesy phone

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  28. Since when are secondary sources superior to primary sources?

    Since Wikipedia realized they can maintain their leftward bias that way. There was quite a telling story a while ago by a history professor who was challenged on the conventional wisdom that the Haymarket bombers were given a swift trial with no evidence and so convicted wrongly. He realized he believed it because all the “authorities” said so — and found that Wikipedia said so, too. He did his own research and found it was a long trial with loads of forensic evidence that would stand up today, and witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

    He tried to edit the Wikipedia article — and it was refused because he cited the court transcripts. “No primary sources”.

    Until he published a paper, he couldn’t cite any evidence contrary to the Pravda. After he published, they allowed that there was “some controversy” over the accusations of railroading.

    “No primary sources”. Unbelievable, eh?

    Rob Crawford (d8dade)

  29. I especially liked the bit about Kimberlin’s lawsuit against Singer being settled “in a manner agreed to by Brett.” The plaintiff agreed to the settlement? Well, duh. So did the defendant.

    But he verrry carefully does not say “settled in a manner favorable to Brett.” Did Singer apologize for anything? Retract anything? Pay Kimberlin anything? I don’t know, but I bet not.

    gwjd (032bef)

  30. facebook is gayer than putin cowering like a beaten puppy before a mighty riot of pussy

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  31. but in all honesty it’s difficult to quantify these things

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  32. The Brett Kimberlin AfD has failed. The result was a “Keep”. Somewhere out there, Kimberlin is frustrated at the “slander”.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  33. Everytime I see the name of Kimberlin’s cheeseball organization, “Justice through Music,” it makes me think of the doves who think we should fight Jihadists with poems, flowers, and freshly baked muffins.
    (“Oh, Mahmoud, if only I had known years ago that a nice warm blueberry muffin and a bouquet of white roses would be the proverbial dangling carrot to divorce you from your enriched uranium aspirations ! Nevermind the Tunisian apostate who was beheaded on video, would you care to hear me recite another Robert Frost poem ?”)

    Of course, the peaceful sounding name is merely another Alinskyite Trojan Horse that veils their violent fantasies of facillitating the French Revolution Redux.
    These people don’t want to sing Stephen Foster songs at the campfire—rather, they want to sing “Revolution” as they actually set a fire…Reichstag style.

    Hopefully, the only fire they’ll become intimate with is the one in hell.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  34. The primary/secondary sourcing on court documents is based on WP:BLPPRIMARY which is a policy that paraphrases in short form a larger policy WP:PRIMARY. Unfortunately, it does so in a confusing way without the nuance that WP:PRIMARY uses in the issue. I’ve attempted to fix that.

    You can use a court document to demonstrate that Person X was convicted of a crime. You can’t use the court document to assert that person X was guilty of the crime. That requires sources that are a bit more removed and dispassionate about the whole thing. It does make sense to keep this distinction. Imagine the mischief of using Stalinist show trial court documents to muddy up the reputations of Soviet dissident pages. This nuanced use of these documents actually serves a good purpose but the weakness of the WP:BLPPRIMARY summary has allowed Kimberlin or one of his groupies to attempt to delete the page. The RfD account is so new, it squeeks. Who knows who is behind it.

    TMLutas (0876a3)

  35. TM Unfortunately, due to Wikipedia rules on BLPs, the way you labeled Kimberlin cannot be done that way. It’s like saying “Bradley Manning is a convicted traitor against the United States”. Don’t establish guilt. Let the body do that for the reader.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  36. Result was keep, with a comment that SNOW applies. Which means it had less than a snowball’s chance in the hot place of passing. The best part of this is that it all goes into the record, and can be cited on further deletion requests and reviews.

    Yes, Wikipedia needs conservative editors. It also needs good editors. It’s a mostly thankless task, but enjoyable at times.

    htom (412a17)

  37. Also for primary source rules, court transcripts should not be used in BLPs because if they were used, any editor can use them to skew a narrative. So that’s why secondary sources becomes much better. What if some court tried Dick Cheney in absentia and all the court transcripts was heavily skewed and then Cheney to be guilty? So a liberal editor can go in and start using those transcripts going “Dick Cheney is a war criminal” and the transcripts proves it so!

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  38. “and then declared Cheney to be guilty?” I meant to say.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  39. Well, Wikipedia got this one right. It’s to their credit, even if they haven’t always gotten this one right in the past.

    As many are saying, this story is not really in controversy. It’s just outrageous.

    Dustin (73fead)

  40. “Justice through Music”* always reminds me how the uber-capitalist uber-one-percenter Gloria Estefan so very easily and so very willingly made such a so very public transition from America-loving patriot to nasty wanton obamawhore

    scary times we live in

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  41. Dustin, it isn’t just that Wikipedia got this right. It’s just that the Kimberlin or fan whichever we decide whom it is made a freaking long appeal. AfD requests should be simple and straight to the point. Instead it came out like they were crying about how this article is so unfair and should be deleted. That increases the likeliness of such articles to be kept instead of deleted. If the user had done what I said, then the results might have been in either directions.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  42. hmmm … asterisk link should go to here

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  43. Mr. Feets – Just as you say, that Mr. Brett needs the wiki page to keep shining, like that old midnight special.

    Let the midnight special, shine her light on me

    Let the midnight special, shine her ever-loving light on me

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  44. i felt that more than I read it mr. daley

    that’s some powerful good truth

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  45. question for the group: what are some tasty Tina Bites® wine pairings?

    I do so want to savor.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  46. Brett Kimberlin fails!!!

    This page was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

    Mattsky (bbcbfe)

  47. R.I.P. Tony Scott — brother of Ridley, and director of Top Gun

    Icy (9788b4)

  48. True Romance” was a wonderfulspecial movie I think

    Brad Pitt was so honest in that role… I’m pretty sure he played himself

    Michael Rapaport made sense as someone you would cast in an actual movie where people were spending money on a film – that’s not something he just up and does

    also you had a young James Gandolfini plus bonus Bronson Pinchot and Mr. Christopher Walken… to say nothing of the headliners

    plus all that gratuitous violence? it really wasn’t all that gratuitous, just impactful

    such a neat film

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  49. 29. Comment by gwjd — 8/19/2012 @ 8:01 pm My understanding is, the answer is a flat no to any retraction or payment to Brett K. except BK agreed to the portion of the proceeds he originally agreed to take.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  50. Also I think he may not have sued at all, just threatened to sue. Someone else would have to confirm though.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  51. Katian. BKs usual style, if you’ve ever read his “work” is usually whiny and long like that. He’s not aware how that makes him less and not more credible. He’s a perpetual teenager trying to get one over on Dad and Mom.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  52. “question for the group: what are some tasty Tina Bites® wine pairings?”

    Mr. Feets – I try to wear slimming colors when I am doing the savoring of the Tina Bites.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. Some o’ that chocolate yoohoo wine probably.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  54. the chockit yoohoo wine is for sure not vicious or malicious it’s just de-lovely and delicious

    even in Barack Obama’s America?

    …well yeah, kinda,

    … for certain values of de-lovely

    I mean, it’s not like you can just swipe your ebt card and score yerself a bottle if that’s what you mean

    what was the question again?

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  55. So, the Speedway Bomber doesn’t like everyone to know what he did, and is.
    Isn’t that just precious?

    Well, if I were a homicidal maniac, and a complete sociopath, I might want to hide that too.

    Hey, Brett, you did it, you own it!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  56. SarahW — About what I figured. Thanks for the info!

    gwjd (032bef)

  57. yoohoo chockit wine wif the meal

    yoohoo frozen chockit energy bars for dessert

    Is there anything yoohoo can’t make better?

    Yogi Berra approves of this message.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. i yoo hoo i yoo hoo i yoo hoo

    she said yoo hoo

    a cold charisma
    shotgun wedding
    and I’m familiar
    wif teh kama sutra

    ***click now for bonus rose mcgowan***

    but wait there’s more

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  59. Wikipedia defines disinformation. Or say, hysterical hearsay. It would not bother me if the Kimberlin page were deleted provided every other page was deleted as well.

    nk (875f57)

  60. Sorry, Kaitian. I know you mean well, but you are only one person with only one shovel.

    nk (875f57)

  61. How long before the Wikipedia editors are swatted?

    Inquiring minds want to know!


    Leroy OddswatchLeroyoddswatch (cb6511)

  62. Kaitian,

    Thanks for the insight into wikipedia. I agree with Sarah about the style of writing in this letter.

    In fact, I think this is a perfect example for people to use when trying to highlight his style. The deceptive way he described Mark Singer’s work is particularly helpful for the uninitiated.

    Once someone’s had a dose or two of that, they become skeptical in a hurry.

    Anyway, I don’t think every chapter of Brett’s life belongs on wikipedia, but there are some major elements that obviously should be. The speedway bombings are one of several historic events that require coverage, and I think the lawfare is also historic and should be memorialized and taught.

    Dustin (73fead)

  63. R.I.P. Tony Scott.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  64. ES, I have a thread on Scott. Also one on the “legitimate rape” stuff.

    Patterico (83033d)

  65. I gave up on WP a long time ago. The admin cabal will wear you down with their nitpicking rules and bureaucracy. The one rule they consistently ignore is [[WP:BURO|Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]]. I was involved in many bitter fights over content, but ironically the thing that finally made me throw up my hands and leave in disgust was a fight over nothing, over a stupid template with no ideological import whatsoever.

    It seemed to me that above all Wikipedia should not be telling lies, and especially that the rules should not require the telling of lies, and since the specific template the cabal insisted on using didn’t accurately describe the facts, and there was another template that did but was marked “deprecated” with no discussion or reasons given, it made sense to un-deprecate that template and use it. This brought the heavens down on my head. In the end I was blocked and refused to ask for an unblock; if their heads are so up their bums that they’re more interested in playing their arcane game of Munchkin™ than having a better encyclopaedia, then I wish them joy of it. I was willing to fight over things that mattered, but not this.

    And yes, I know, there is no cabal. But there really is, and one has to be blind not to see it eventually.

    Milhouse (cdd41b)

  66. Hmmm
    all seem to be down right now

    Auntie Fraud (2f38aa)

  67. Well the first two is not anyway connected to the last two. They both are hosted by different hosts however I wouldn’t be surprised if that was done intentionally to make it appear separate. After all, they both were privately registered behind domainsbyproxy & WhoisGuard.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  68. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia.

    It’s a liberal hate site posing as an encyclopedia.

    Jim (0bda12)

  69. Hey, dumbshits. Stop inserting in the part that says “a convicted drug dealer, bomber, and political activist”. Both Mattsky and Gotrexman needs to stop re-inserting that. The liberals & Kimberlin fans will use that as an excuse to delete the article outright.

    Kaitian (4aadeb)

  70. Hey, dumbshits. Stop inserting in the part that says “a convicted drug dealer, bomber, and political activist”. Both Mattsky and Gotrexman needs to stop re-inserting that. The liberals & Kimberlin fans will use that as an excuse to delete the article outright.

    Kimberlin is a convicted drug dealer (at least smuggler), bomber, and political activist. I can’t imagine how that could legitimately be used as an excuse to delete the article outright. Now should editors back away from the truth in my opinion.

    Patterico (4a5af8)

  71. He’s a convicted drug dealer and bomber, and he’s a political activist, but not a convicted one. So it should say “a convicted drug dealer and bomber, and a political activist”.

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  72. On a related note, the readership here might want to take a look at the contributions of Wikipedia user “Scholarlyarticles”. Started out by creating a biography of Chuck Phillips, has been promoting Phillips’ theories re. Sean Combs and Tupac Shakur, and trying to scrub Michael Hiltzik’s sock puppetry from his article. ( Make of that what you will.

    ConservativeMutant (63e875)

  73. Hi, i feel that i saw you visited my site so i came to return the favor?.I am attempting to in finding things to improve my site!I assume its good enough to make use of some of your ideas!!

    Contracting Info (71f257)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0940 secs.