User talk:Defamed06031954

I have not contested it, but here are some things you should know:

All libelous claims should be reported to info-en-q@wikipedia.org, per WP:LIBEL, if you are the person being affected.
The sources on the page are mostly reliable, independent sources. Thus, this article meets WP:GNG.
Court cases that happened are usually worth mentioning, in my opinion. The article deals with this in a neutral tone, directly stating what's in the case. As Wikipedia is not a place for original research, I would feel like this is the best way to deal with these cases.
There seems to be consensus that a previous version of the page should be kept, at WP:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin. Please note the discussion there.
In the LSD case, if there is information about false implications that are backed by a reliable source, this may be added to the article.
WP:PROD is in fact not allowed here, as PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. (on WP:PROD)

In any case, you may want to open an WP:AfD discussion, as this proposed deletion is likely going to be contested, but note the previous consensus. If you have any questions about anything, please reply or ask my on my talk page. (I am not involved in the previous discussions) Thanks, Random Person 238 03:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but it is not responsive to the fact that the page violates WP's own policies regarding (1) crimes that have not resulted in a conviction, (2) bios on living persons, (3) privacy, (4) defamation, and (5) pages that were created to disparage someone. You mentioned that I should report the libel which I will do, but that is also a reason listed for deletion. Your own policies prohibit any allegations of me being suspected or accused of a crime yet the article says that I was a suspect in a murder. I have no idea who suspected me when no law enforcement official suspected me or even questioned me about the case. The article also accuses me of money laundering and tax evasion which I was never accused of by any official. WP cannot include juvenile cases that were expunged. Under federal and state statutes, no one can use such a juvenile case for any purpose, so WP including it in the article is against those statutes and must be deleted. When the prior requests were denied, WP did not know that Alexander Akbar was a leader of the Stop The Steal attack on the Capitol, or that Lee Stranahan was be paid by the Russian Government. They were the ones who got the WP page started in the first place, along with right-wing lunatic Andrew Breitbart. I have made WP aware of these facts, and WP cannot be acting as an arm of the Russian Federation or violent fanatics. Of course, with this new information, WP can reverse its prior decisions. In fact, it must. Finally, you did not address all the 404 and 500 links. Defamed06031954 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit. Instructions for nominating an article for deletion can be found at WP:AFD#Manual method. In any case, if any case was expunged, you should find a source saying so (e.g., government records), and I'll update the article adding that new information. I think that all of these are issues with specific parts of the article and do not need the deletion of the article. As for the sources, #6, #8, #9, and #36 have archived versions. #12 and #13 will need further investigation, but the statements have other sources. Thanks, Random Person 238 00:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia can report on juvenile arrests, particularly in cases of high public interest, if the information is published by reliable, mainstream media sources. However, Wikipedia generally respects the privacy of minors, and publishing real names of juvenile offenders is usually prohibited by law or restricted, with some exceptions if they are tried as adults. Under federal law in the US, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/5038, juvenile records are sealed, and cannot be used for any purpose. My juvenile arrests were not of high public interest, and Wikipedia is not respecting my privacy.

You still have not addressed the violations of WP policies that prohibit publishing suspected crimes that did not result in a conviction. I was not arrested, indicted, tried or convicted of murder or money laundering, and WP saying that I was a suspect in a murder and laundered money violates WP policies and is libelous. On WP's page on libel, it states: "It is a Wikipedia policy to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. Page revisions containing libelous content should also be removed from the page history. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences." I have identified the libelous material and I am trying very hard to avoid such legal consequences by asking WP to remove this false information based on your own policies. Defamed06031954 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer legal advice, or look into any laws regarding what is okay and what is not. If you think there is something that should be removed with legal reasons, please email ‹The template No spam blue is being considered for deletion.› info-en-q

wikipedia.org with the information per WP:LIBEL. I'm not trying to address every concern you have, but am simply trying to let you know that this article does not meet the deletion requirements, and if it does, that there has been consensus that it should not be deleted, as there have been 2 speedily closed WP:AfD proposals. I think that the article deals with in a neutral tone the murder and money laundering aspects, stating what is already published, but nothing more. Again, Wikipedia is not for original research. Again, if there is anything concerning legal issues, I'm not going to make claims about whether they should be included or not, and you should email the given address for removal. Thanks, Random Person 238 04:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comment. Just because something happened before does not make it right now. Moreover, WP has updated its policies since then. For example, WP used to have my mugshot on the page but then WP changed its policies to prohibit mugshots and it was removed. I have already written to info-en about the libelous statements and they said it was the wrong place to complain about it. I feel like I am in a Kafka movie. If someone accused you of murder in a neutral tone, would you be OK with it? Hardly. I am trying to deal with this through WP so I do not have to "expose Wikipedia to legal consequences." Yet all this runaround and justifications demonstrate a willingness and desire of WP to suffer legal consequences rather than removing the harm being done to me. I am very aware that your own pages state that I should work to resolve contested matters through the WP administrative process and that threatening legal action can break down the collegial spirit of resolutions. I am also very aware of Section 230 and the protections that it provides, yet those protections are not absolute especially when the administrative process fails and there is an unwillingness to remove defamatory material. What you are saying in essence is that since someone else made a defamatory statement in writing, it's ok for WP to repeat that defamatory statement. I am sorry, but the law on defamation imposes liability on someone who repeats a defamatory statement. Last year, my attorney filed a $40 million federal lawsuit against HULU et al for publishing a film where some idiots falsely said I was a suspect in the Scyphers murder, which shows that I am serious about holding those accountable who defame me. In the case of WP, your own policies require you to remove information about criminal accusations that do not result in conviction. This, therefore, takes your refusal to remove out of the protections of Section 230 because it shows willingness to intentionally harm me. I am doing precisely what WP has asked me to do to remove the page and the libelous material based on your own polices. So far, WP have failed to follow any of the policies I have listed, instead falling back on the misguided defense, "oh, we already denied this, so we will not reconsider." That is wrong legally and morally, and I will not accept it. I don't think WP understands how bad all this will look to a judge or a jury. I am tempted to edit the page myself and see if someone undoes my edits. That would demonstrate prima facia evidence of malice. You should do the right thing and delete the page for failing to comply with WP policies. That will be a win-win for both WP and me. Defamed06031954 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot delete the page without community consensus. If you want it to be deleted, the correct way is to start an WP:AfD, as I have already mentioned. You could also make COI edit requests, see WP:COIREQUEST. Another option is to start a discussion on the talk page of the article, which would attract more editors to discuss.

About the murder accusations, I'm not familiar with policies on Wikipedia about crimes without conviction. Either way, if there is a source saying that you were not convicted, I could absolutely add that to the article. It's difficult to make any changes without a source, especially in this case. Random Person 238 17:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tried to do an AfD and added that info to my talk page, but it was removed because AfD's cannot be posted on the talk page. So then I added afd code to the beginning of my page, but it was just reverted yesterday with this comment: "You're not allowed to delete a page about yourself, sorry." Like I said, I feel like I am in a Kafka movie. I have posted on my talk page but it has not resulted in any meaningful discussion except from you (Thank you BTW). As far as WP policies on posting suspected crimes not resulting in convictions, WP policy is very clear. First off, I am not a public figure so WP policie require such information to be removed. From the WP Libel page: revisions containing libelous content should also be removed from the page history. Libelous material (otherwise known as defamation) is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation and could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences.

And then under Biographies of Living Persons, it says: "People accused of crime

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."

These two WP policies, individually or together, require WP to remove the references to murder and money laundering. It's not rocket science, it's just simply complying with your own written policies. I am not asking for special treatment. Instead, I am asking that you follow policies that favor me, a living person who has been grievously harmed by this false information. Defamed06031954 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the instructions for an WP:AfD again, as you have not followed them correctly. The user is incorrect about how you cannot delete your own articles. If you want me to, I can start an WP:AfD for you. I cannot, however, delete the page directly, or remove revisions. I think the only issue left here is to remove the potentially libelous content, which are the accusations. There is previous discussion on the talk page, which you should look at. The consensus is that it can be removed or modified if there is a reliable source found to support the change. Examples of reliable sources relevant include court cases that convicted others for the murder or news reports that stated that you were, in fact, innocent. Just let me know and I'll try to add them in. Random Person 238 18:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do. Starting with removing the two references to the Scyphers murder and removing the reference to money laundering. Defamed06031954 (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source supporting these actions? I am reluctant to do anything until there is a source, especially since you have a conflict of interest. Random Person 238 20:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You don't need a reliable source because there was no arrest or conviction for the murder or the money laundering. How can I prove a negative. It's like if I said that somebody was a suspect in a murder and you said to prove that he was not convicted of murder. How can I prove that there was no conviction when there is no record of a conviction that never happened. Moreover, your policies state that WP cannot post anything about a person being a "suspect" in a crime which is exactly what WP has done. Your policies also state that if WP is notified of libelous material, it must remove that immediately. Finally, on the WP page, you have a list of crimes I have been convicted of and none of those are for murder, money laundering or tax evasion. Defamed06031954 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

There is an entire book about you. You are not going to be able to get the page deleted - we accept deletion requests from marginally notable subjects, but your notability is not marginal. You may be able to get content toned down, or changed, but trying to get the article deleted when you are so clearly notable will not help your case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I took legal action against the author of that book and the case was settled in my favor. And notability can change over time. That book was published 30 years ago and I sued the author within weeks. Defamed06031954 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source about this claim, such as a court record, we will remove the source and all claims using it, if there is no other source supporting that claim. This has already been mentioned on the talk page of the article. Random Person 238 20:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I cannot find any record of that. Given it is an established publisher and author, and the book itself is very notable (has a few dozen reviews) that would have made the news. I found a news article that says you were "unhappy" with the book, but that is not the same thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

And, also, you made the news in a reliable source less than a month ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether an article was written recently about a civil suit I filed has no bearing on the libelous material that violates WP policies. I have filed a number of civil suits over the past year to hold those accountable who have harmed me. I am trying to avoid suing WP by dealing with this administratively. My attorney recently filed a $40 million federal suit against HULU et al for the exact thing I am complaining about with WP--publishing a film where some idiots called me a suspect in the Scyphers murder. Kimberlin v. Hulu, et al, District of Maryland The defendants in that case were foolish enough to believe that I would not file suit, and now they are in a protracted and very expensive lawsuit that I will win. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59157600/Kimberlin_v_Hulu,_Inc_et_al I would hope that WP does not make the same mistake that Hulu et al made. Your own page on LIBEL tells you to remove libelous material to avoid putting WP in legal jeopardy. The easiest resolution of this matter is to find that the page violates a number of WP policies--libel, living persons, created to disparage, invasion of privacy, etc, and delete it. Digging in your heels by not complying with your own policies is not the right thing to do in the instant case. Defamed06031954 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop making legal threats. They will not speed up the removal of the content. I would try to find reliable sources that these claims are false, not just saying that you can sue Wikipedia. The question right now is whether it is libel, not whether we should remove it. Random Person 238 21:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You ask for reliable sources that the Schyphers murder claim is false. Is my federal lawsuit against Hulu considered a reliable source? If so, I can send you a copy of the lawsuit if you let me know how to do that, or you can pull it up from Pacer. But I really don't understand why I need to supply sources when there is no evidence that I was ever arrested or convicted of murder or money laundering, and your own policies state that WP cannot report suspected crimes. However, that is exactly what the WP article says about the murder-"However, Kimberlin became a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers, the mother of a friend/employee of his in Speedway, Indiana, in 1978." and "The police believed that Kimberlin had conducted the Speedway bombings to divert attention from the murder investigation." I was never a suspect, and not one word was uttered in the bombing trials about the Scyphers murder. I don't know of any "police" who believed that the murder was a motive for the bombings. If the police believed that, they would have testified so at my trial. Is WP OK with reporting what people "believe." If I was a suspect, I would have been questioned, which I wasn't. WP policies prohibit relying on such nonsense. But all this is academic because WP policies prohibit reporting suspected crimes.

I have tried to start an AfD but clearly I am not doing it right. Twice this week, my attempted AfD's on my page were reverted. So if one of you can start the AfD, that would be terrific. Defamed06031954 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

See this reliable source: https://www.mamamia.com.au/the-speedway-murders-documentary/. I believe this is good enough to confirm that there is no evidence, so I can change the text to say Kimberlin became a suspect in the murder of Julia Scyphers, the mother of a friend/employee of his in Speedway, Indiana, in 1978, but there is no evidence supporting these claims^[1], if that is okay with you.

I'm not so willing to start a deletion request as it seems now that it will very likely not pass deletion. Thanks, Random Person 238 23:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that offer but it does not comply with your policies which prohibit even saying that I was a suspect. What relevance does the Scyphers murder have to do with me at all? Mentioning me with the word murder, even with no evidence, still leaves a taint.

It looks like we are at an impasse. I don't know what else to do administratively. I have clearly established an impassioned case for deletion, and cited all the policies I believe have been violated. My lawyer has already sent a letter to WP legal seeking their assistance so we will have to wait for that response before deciding what additional action to take. I was hoping that we could resolve this administratively. Thank you for trying. Defamed06031954 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. There's one more thing I am willing to change. About the money laundering part, the second source, "Kimberlin Case a Maze of Murder, Deceit", mentions only that you owned the businesses. Stating that the drug money was invested in the businesses seems like a stretch, so I can remove that part if that is okay. In either case, I'll probably be making the change above, as it seems to be a benefit for both Wikipedia and you, despite not being exactly what you wanted. Random Person 238 01:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you and that article from the Indpls Star is and was defamatory. Had I not been under siege at the time with three bombing trials which resulted in my wrongful conviction, I would have sued the Star. And that article, although defamatory, continues to haunt me after almost 50 years. That is a monstrous injustice. I did own the businesses and I never invested a single dime of illegal money in any of them. You may not know it but I am the only criminal defendant in US history to have two former US Solicitor Generals pro bono petition the Supreme Court to overturn my conviction. In 1986, Erwin Griswold, who was also the former dean of Harvard Law School, asked the Court to overturn my conviction because it was based largely on the testimony of six hypnotized witnesses. Such testimony is no longer allowed in criminal trials because it is considered unreliable, and I am the last federal defendant to be convicted on the basis of such testimony. And then in 2022, Neal Katyal petitioned the Court to overturn it because the hypnotist in my case admitted to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Dan Luzadder that he lied during trial, withheld exculpatory evidence, and secretly conspired with the government to put his relative on my jury by having her lie during jury selection. Unfortunately, the Court denied review in both cases. These brilliant lawyers with impeccable reputations took my case because they knew I was innocent and that I my trial was unfair. So I have been living with a wrongful conviction my entire adult life that no court will touch because to do so will implicate too many public officials in corruption and wrongdoing. Almost every week, another wrongfully convicted defendant is exonerated in state court. But you never see a federal defendant exonerated because there are no federal laws that provide a means to get back in court even with new evidence like in my case. Now you might understand why I am so passionate about clearing my name, at least in the public domain. The WP serves no purpose but to perpetrate my wrongful conviction and continue the harm to me and my family. Defamed06031954 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

BTW, the change you made in the WP cites footnote 5 but it leads to an AI written summary and when I click on the archived link for the article in the summary, all I get is a logo for the New Yorker. That does not meet WP's source requirements. I did not put any illegal money in the Earth Shoe store. It was started years after the health food store was launched, which had plenty of funds to expand with the Earth Shoe store. In fact, they were located in the same building, one upstairs and one downstairs, and they shared all expenses and employees. You need to remove that reference. Also, although you modified the Scyphers suspect sentence, you left in the sentence about the police. In other words, these changes, are so minor that no one but me would notice. The article still has the same devastating effect on my life. I also don't understand how, if there is no evidence that I was a suspect, you include the reference to the murder. Your policy says you can't include a suspected crime, yet now you have mocked your policy by refusing to follow it and then saying there is no evidence to support the murder statement. That's like giving a wink while saying it. It almost makes it worse. You need to remove all references to the murder in order to comply with WP policies. Defamed06031954 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I've looked into this a little more. I am unwilling to change things that are not supported by sources. You have mentioned that the sources are defamatory, and I see that you have sued many companies or people for defamation of something similar. All the cases I looked at were dismissed. Thus, I cannot reasonably conclude that these sources are incorrect. As for the murder, I find after a search online that almost all sources cite you as a suspect, and this is not a simple suspicion but widespread.

For the citations, footnote 5 does not lead to an AI written summary, it simply cites the page number in a book. If you mean the New Yorker citation, that is simply a reference to the issue it is in, but the statement (I assume) would be in the actual issue. Without access to the issue, I cannot confirm whether the statement is supported or not.

Removing references is usually not done on Wikipedia unless there is a good reason to do so. There has been agreement on the talk page that the murder suspicion is supported, so we cannot simply remove it. Not all rules are completely set in stone, and I think this is one of those cases where the communities' judgment has been to include the suspicion.

I've done what I can do, as I cannot simply change everything to match your hopes as that would require changing statements that have many sources defending it, without any source to insert. Random Person 238 04:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said, we are at an impasse. I will let my lawyer deal with it. Why does it matter it some idiot calls me a suspect? WP does not allow material that accuses someone of being a suspect. It only allows material if the person was convicted of a crime. If your polices are not to be followed, then WP is a renegade organization undeserving of respect. My daughter is in an elite university and her professors will not allow any citations from WP because it is not considered reliable. Many courts will not allow WP to be used in briefs or trials because it is not reliable. https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/court-holds-that-wikipedia-entries-are-inherently-unreliable/ There has been a lot of commentary in the political domain recently that Section 230 should be overturned by the Courts or re-written by Congress, and I fully agree and will do all I can to support these efforts. I appreciate your banter, but you are wrong morally and ethically because you won't follow WP polices that favor me, a human being. You only favor past decisions by anonymous volunteers. When you lose the capacity to act on the basis of humanity, decency, and morality, noting else really matters, does it? I was wrongfully convicted and sent to prison for a crime I did not commit. Take a gander at https://www.exonerationproject.org/ and you will see thousands of wrongful conviction exonerations. And let me tell you that each and everyone of those cases had "sources" that said they were guilty but they weren't. Most spent decades in prison begging people to listen to them, have the courage to see their side of the story, and help them get back into court. Many were exonerated by new DNA technology. In 2021, an Indianapolis federal judge ordered the feds to test the biological microscopic hair evidence used at my trial. However, the Government said that it either "lost or destroyed" the evidence. It would have proven my innocence. That is the only way that the federal government allows a federal defendant to get back in court, so it was very convenient for the government to not be able to produce the exculpatory evidence. You say that you have read this and that--well then, you have read that for almost 50 years, I have done everything possible to prove that my trial was corrupt and unfair. As Neal Katyal told the Supreme Court in 2022, without the junk science (hypnosis and microscopic hair evidence), and the corruption of the hypnotist, there was nothing left on which to convict me. Let's see if my lawyer has any luck with WP legal. There are organizations now trying to convince Congress to modify Section 230 to prohibit social media companies to publish defamatory material. What has happened here will present a strong case for modification. Defamed06031954 (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This conversation, to me, has been you repeating over and over again some facts which you have no support for. If you say the sources are libel, and the court has rejected your thoughts, how can we simply agree it is libel? If you claim that the trial is unfair, but the court has not overturned it, how can we claim the trial is unfair? Wikipedia cannot contain original research and must be supported by sources. Including things that have no support outside a single person's opinions or statements is against the basic principles of Wikipedia (see WP:5P2). Random Person 238 22:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

There are currently bipartisan bills in Congress, both the House and Senate, to sunset Section 230, https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-graham-bipartisan-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-sunset-section-230-protect-americans-online, and two weeks ago, Meta just lost a huge case which bypassed Section 230 by arguing that it failed to follow its policies and violated consumer protection laws. https://nmdoj.gov/press-release/new-mexico-department-of-justice-wins-landmark-verdict-against-meta/ It will have to pay $375 million in damages. These are the natural result of social media companies not being responsive to the people they harm. Defamed06031954 (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You have already been warned. Stop making legal threats. Random Person 238 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I took legal action against the author and Knopf Publishing, and the legal action was subsumed into my Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case because it involved money. The Chapter 11 case was settled in the District of Maryland, and the settlement was sealed by the Court at the insistence of the author. You can see that the book was never reprinted or published as a paperback because my legal action prohibited any Defamed06031954 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Your attempt at AfD was not coded correctly, which is why another user removed it. If you are struggling with the code, you may ask someone politely at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion to create one for you. There have already been previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (2nd nomination) which were near unanimous 'keeps' and I am doubtful that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (3rd nomination), which you or another user would need to create, would have a different outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you create one for me please. I do not know WP code. Defamed06031954 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid not as I don't agree that the article should be deleted. Nevertheless, if you insist that this article must be deleted then you can create a page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (3rd nomination) and follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Defamed06031954

Welcome!

About your proposed deletion

Final warning

Related Articles