Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies, obviously. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kimberlin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brett Kimberlin-Request For Deletion

More than a year ago, a Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page was deleted after Wikipedia determined that it was a smear job. In the spring of 2012, a group of right wing activists launched a campaign to reinstate the page. They did this, admittedly, as part of a campaign to harm Brett’s reputation, undermine funding for his non-profit organizations, harass him, defame him, and harm those around him.

As a result of this campaign, Brett, since March 2012, has received scores of death threats by phone, email, and other online means. His family, children, and mother have been threatened, including calls and posts to his pre-teen daughter. He has had to call the police several times because of stalkers outside his home. He has filed multiple peace orders against persons who harassed him, and criminal charges against others. His employer has been harassed, his business associates have been harassed, and his donors have been harassed. He has met with numerous state and federal law enforcement officials investigating these threats. Many of the threats against Brett and his family are posted in an article at http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/thugs/swat-swat-question/#more-514

A hive of right wing activists demanded that Wikipedia be pressured to allow a post about Brett. http://topsy.com/patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed/ “Brett Kimberlin got his Wikipedia entry removed -- but we're fighting back!” Once the post was allowed, numerous right wing bloggers bragged about their “big” success in getting the Brett Kimberlin page reinstated on Wikipedia. https://twitter.com/Stranahan/statuses/219306487477059584 “One BIG victory we've all gotten - the Wikipedia Page for Brett Kimberlin still exists.” These bloggers used Wikipedia as part of their Everyone Blog Brett Kimberlin Day, which was a right wing campaign to Swift Boat Brett.

As outlined below, the Brett Kimberlin page should be deleted because it violates many of Wikipedia’s criteria for hosting a page. The Wikipedia text regarding deletions follows each request for deletion below.

First, the page was created in order to smear Brett, harm him and undermine his ability to earn a living. The page is an attack page “created to disparage” Brett. In fact, the right wing activists admitted this in their campaign to get the page reinstated, and have repeatedly tweeted and bragged about the huge propaganda coup they got by having the Wikipedia page reinstated. See e.g., https://twitter.com/Stranahan/status/207877839192727553 “Brett Kimberlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - See that? That's a sign conservatives can win on Wikipedia, too” And they have used their attack Brett blogs to increase the rankings of the page on Google. See e.g., http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/28/brett-kimberlins-wikipedia-page-reappears/

Attack pages

“Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once….”

Second, Brett is not notable under the definition set forth by Wikipedia. He is a living person who, for the past decade, has been the Director of a small non-profit organization, not seeking publicity for himself. His convictions 34 plus years ago were not national news but rather were local events. Brett is not a public figure but rather a private citizen who is working and contributing to his community. In fact, on February 9, 2012, a judge ruled that Brett is not a public figure. Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court Case No. 339254V, Kimberlin . Allen, “ORDER OF COURT (QUIRK, J.) THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE BRETT KIMBERLIN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE RATHER THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN (D.E. #119) IS DENIED, ENTERED. He maintains a low profile by working behind the scenes, not blogging, not commenting, and not tweeting, He is entitled to privacy and respect. People who are relatively unknown “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.” Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects “Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."

Third, much 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. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/18/460/531288/ 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. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”

Fourth, right wing activists have used the information in the article for sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and cannot be used as a vehicle to harm people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, “and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.”

Fifth, the page is not balanced at all by focusing on crimes, smears and scandal. Brett’s life is much more, yet reading the page makes it appears that he has led a life of crime. Brett has not been arrested for anything for more than 30 years, and he has been engaged in positive activities as well as being a husband, father, and upstanding member of the community. He has been victimized by these vicious right wing attacks, including by stalking and death threats. This Wikipedia page only adds to the victimization by providing a reputable source for stalkers and others to attack Brett. Avoid victimization “When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.”

Sixth, there is guilt by association with regard to the swatting matter. No one has suggested that Brett did the swattings, but rather that someone associated with him did them, and therefore Brett is somehow guilty by association. But none of these allegations has been based on any evidence whatsoever, but rather only the conspiratorial coincidences as seen by people who want to harm Brett. The allegations about swatting are worse than gossip, because they are totally false and part of a campaign to smear and harm Brett, his family and his business. No information should be published regarding allegations of swatting. Swatting is a serious criminal offense and there is no evidence of Brett’s involvement in it, and certainly he has never been arrested or convicted of such an offense. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”

Avoid gossip and feedback loops

“Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.”

Balance

“Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.”

Seventh, the use of a 1973 teenage juvenile mug shot of Brett is unbalanced, disparaging and presents him in a false light.

Images

“Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.”

For all the above reasons, Wikipedia should delete the page about Brett Kimberlin. JusticeLeader (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is obviously notable and the current article is not an attack page. (BLPs with notability subject to WP:PERP are bound to contain some negative information. That's just how it is.) None of the other reasons given are valid criteria for deletion - indeed, parts of the nomination point to things that could be seen as bolstering the subject's notability. Editors should be mindful that the nomination is from an account that was clearly created for the express purpose of deleting the article. See: User talk:JusticeLeader. Also see previous Deletion Review discussion:Here. Belchfire-TALK 16:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh It does look like an attack article to me. I don't have any confidence in its neutrality. Yeah it has lots of footnotes, but sourcing is not magic fairy dust that turns partisan articles neutral. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons given by Belchfire above. Notable individual, of course there will be negative info in the article based on the subject's criminal past. Kelly ^hi! 18:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When you have Salon and other news organizations reporting about you, you meet the notability requirements. Actually having had books by notable authors published about you/your famous crimes don't subtract from that score. It is clearly not an attack page. As relates to BLP issues, those should be addressed on the page as they occur. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is definitely notable for the Speedway Bombing in Indiana and has been listed in many newspapers [1] as well as a book written based on him as the requester pointed out. The claim that the Speedway Bombing was local news is absurd on its face because it has been discussed in many national newspapers regarding the Speedway Bombings. He even became notable when he claimed to have sold Dan Quayle marijuana which turned out to be a frivolous claim. Prior to all of this "right-wing conspiracy", TIME wrote an article on him [2]. I find it interesting that the user's name is newly registered & named JusticeLeader and Brett Kimberlin runs an organization called MusicForJustice. Honestly, this also reads like a request of a person requesting deletion of his own article because they don't like what they see. ViriiK (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree that we need an article on this person, the current version contains a number of violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Compliance with that is not optional. Everything sourced to primary sources (and particularly the stuff sourced to Court records) must be cut out.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody gets any ideas about removing material from the article based on this comment, it should be pointed out that WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise caution in using primary sources." It doesn't say primary sources can't be used at all, and there are in fact circumstances where primary sources are appropriate. Belchfire-TALK 22:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What it says, specifically, is: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations for statements about convictions. I believe that clause is about using statements during a court case or in court documents- which are not necessarily true or otherwise citable. It cannot be read to disallow a statement of fact that a person was convicted or not. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
It would be useful to go back to the main article, WP:PRIMARY which WP:BLPPRIMARY is only summarizing, and, at your timestamp, was summarizing badly. In the larger document, it's clear that a court record stating that Kimberlin was convicted is permissible to use to establish that he was convicted, though not interpretive facts beyond the basic fact of his conviction. TMLutas (talk)

Keep: Although there may be problems in the article as noted above, the overall conclusion of this AFD should be keep. The subject is clearly notable for multiple events with multiple independent sources doing indepth coverage. Let's fix whatever problems can be found but keep the article. Sometimes infamy is the result of not wanting fame. WTucker (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable as established by the multitude of reliable sources. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kimberlin meets notability guidelines and any bias issues can be fixed. This certainly isn't an attack article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kimberlin is notable even if the ridiculous twitter/blogger wars about him of recent vintage may not be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kimberlin is notable for the Speedway Bombings alone, and I find nothing in the current page that looks like attacks. Even if there are bias' in the article, they should be fixed- the page should not be deleted. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Kimberlin has been at the center of several major controversies. As others have noted, bias in the article could be fixed if necessary. --Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. It should be pointed out that he also has a history of pursuing litigious means to suppress his past notoriety. This request should be viewed in light of that history. Ronnotel (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reluctantly. I hear "please don't throw me into the briar patch." I dislike giving the subject publicity but unquestionable notoriety. The article is not an attack page but does need work to get to just the facts supported by WP:RS. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 02:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject clearly has received significant coverage required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I remember the marijuana accusations as being politically significant (multiple news cycle relevance) and certainly the bombings and his prior career as a drug dealer before he morphed into leftwing political activist and organizer. The page is currently a piece of lace that has problems because the pro-kimberlin crowd is working hard to knock out as much as they can. We might want to take measures to stop that. TMLutas (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.