Talk:Richard Warman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Posing as a human rights activist, fighting fascists but apears to open minded folk as a bigoted, witch hunter hell bent on working against free speech. Who does he really work for? This guy's activities are often as Fascist as those he seeks to silence.This needs to be set straight on Wikepedia if you still want people to take your sites info seriously. (edit)

We should probably add that Richard Warman first gained attention with his actions against conspiracy theorist and fellow Green Party member David Icke.

Reference here: [1]

Prior to his complaints against alleged "hate" sites, Warman was involved in legal wranglings and human rights complaints with individuals who are not "white supremacists" per se. The case with Icke is at least one of these which is still ongoing. Some of the people he has launched human rights complaints against and/or sued include non-racists such as David Icke and Tom Kennedy and people in the anti-tax movement such as Fred Kyburz and Eldon Warman.

There is some lengthy debate within the Green Party regarding whether advocating the banning of books and threatening litigation against bookstores and libraries, as has been done by Warman, is conduscive to the Libertarian-type approach to freedom of expression in the Green Party.

Further info on this matter here: [2]

[edit] Icke

I don't know a lot about the Icke stuff. Feel free to write something and put it in the article. Homey 12:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone should post the youtube link to "David Icke - Secret Rulers of the World", which has coverage of Richard Warman, his actions and comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ROs7n17Yg&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.253.202 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I should inform "Imstillhere" that the three-revert rule mandates that posters not revert pages more than three times in a 24 hour period. CJCurrie 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation by I'm still here

Here is how the 3 Revert Rule works.

• I posted something
• CJCurrie reverted it (1)
• I reverted it (1)
• CJCurrie reverted it (2)
• I reverted it (2)
• CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count

Furthermore, the information reverted was valid information with a documentation link that seemed to displease CJCurrie.

1. (cur) (last) 22:08, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
2. (cur) (last) 20:41, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (Whether or not you think it was frivolous, Richard Warman was charged and that is a real even that is documented and verifyable. Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant)
3. (cur) (last) 20:38, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (and a lot of the list of names in the list at the top are still in the complaint phase. Complaint can be found here: http://yourrights.bravehost.com/Federal_Human_Rights_Complaint-Richard_Warman.pdf)
4. (cur) (last) 20:35, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere (You are in violation of the three-revert rule. You reverted me 3 times. And the complaint is verifiable by contacting the CHRC.)
5. (cur) (last) 20:26, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie (I repeat: anyone can file a complaint, and this is not in itself noteworthy; btw, you'll be in violation of the three-revert-rule if you return the section)
6. (cur) (last) 20:24, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
7. (cur) (last) 20:22, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie m (Reverted edits by Imstillhere (talk) to last version by CJCurrie)
8. (cur) (last) 20:20, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
9. (cur) (last) 19:12, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie (anyone can file a complaint; I've seen no evidence that this is credible and/or noteworthy)
10. (cur) (last) 17:38, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
11. (cur) (last) 17:37, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere

Notice the history of changes. I did not end up reverting a 3rd time, but CJCurrie did. I just posted links that are related and verifiable. And by the way, CJCurrie, some of the names in the list of Warman's cases are just in the complaint phase as well, so if you say "anyone can file a complaint" please feel free to remove the names from the list as well.

* I reverted it (2) * CJCurrie reverted it (3) <-- 3 times. Learn how to count

My point is that reverting the page a third time isn't contrary to Wikipedia policy; reverting it more times than that is. CJCurrie 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I've noticed that listing your initial post as a revert was obviously a mistake. CJCurrie 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this because the user who is insisting on adding these links is making no effort to respond to CJCurrie's concerns by, for example, providing context or explanation, or by identifying whether these complaints have been upheld, rejected, or are pending. "Whether or not the charges stuck is irrelevant." Of course it is relevant. I could accuse User:Imstillhere of being a pedophile and a rapist, and the fact that I have absolutely no evidence to support that accusation is very, very important. This does seem to be a case of drive-by character assassination. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The link User:Imstillhere has provided to the official complaint makes it fairly clear that the charge is frivolous. In one instance, Warman's accuser castigates him for reposting someone else's bigoted material prior to responding to it. CJCurrie 02:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Imstillhere has also been playing around in the Alex Kulbashian entry. AnnieHall 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• IMSTILLHERE

I did provide an explanation, however it was removed by CJCurie. I had the story and the links. She kept removing them. Check the revision history.

[edit] To CJCurrie

Whether or not you are an administrator, you cannot use your administrative access to censor people on the site or use your access level to make politically motivated edits to pages. Keep doing this and I will report you. Imstillhere 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I can remove information which I judge to be trivial (particularly when you haven't given me a reason why I shouldn't do so in this instance). CJCurrie 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard is living in hiding for fear of retalitaion from the numerous enemies he has created. Reference here: [3]

"Warman expected a strong reaction from white supremacists. His family is worried about the threats and Ottawa police have developed a security plan for him, which he will not discuss.

"You have to walk a fine line between being concerned and being paranoid."" Plasticman

[edit] Criticism

To CJCurrie:

You removed what I believe were valid entries in support of the of criticism of Richard Warman.

You claim that the entries are not "encyclopedic". Please explain what you mean, provide an example, and a Wikipedia reference in support of your position. Note also that one of the references was to another article in Wikipedia.

I am going to assume for the moment that you are acting in good faith, and will not censor valid criticism. Then there should not be too much difficulty in finding criticism of which you approve, since Richard Warman's complaints before the CHRC are currently one of the most widely discussed topics on Canadian blogs. I provided just two references, whereas there are hundreds of others.

The entries you removed are:

Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman. [4] - - Critics further charge that many CHRC "hate speech" complaints such as Warman's have had a chilling effect on the human right to freedom of expression. [5]

I look forward to your prompt, reasoned response. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I should first apologize for the brevity of my last statement. I didn't have time to explain myself, but will do so now.

My problem with the first entry has to do with the choice of language. I do not believe it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article to include the following statement:

Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman.

Drawing attention to Warman's past employment with the Commission in this manner implies that there is an inherent conflict-of-interest to his actions. As this is by no means so, the statement violates NPOV.

Mark Steyn has charged that

In the second instance, it is not appropriate to cite other Wikipedia articles as sources. Linking to Wikipedia's article on Censorship in Canada is, as such, not encyclopedic.

I hope this goes some way to explaining my motivations. Given the nonsense that has been posted on this page in the recent past, a bit of extra vigilance doesn't hurt. CJCurrie (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have edited the criticism section accordingly. Freedom Fan (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Criticism section again. Richard Warman is a controversial figure as can be demonstrated with a quick Google of "Richard Warman". The criticisms found in this section are but a small sample of the many available from prominent individuals. Please do not remove this section again without discussion and consensus.

Freedom Fan (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in article maintenance and corrupt admins

This article is being maintained by politically motivated individuals trying to protect the information from being changed at all costs by removing any reference to well-sourced articles that don't shed good light on this individual. These same individuals and admins have engaged in slander in other articles Imstillhere 07:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't that the rule here on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia the spearhead of neo-Stalinist thinking? Aqualung 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of evident corruption at work on the Wikipedia site. Apotheosization of individuals like Warman, while vilifying individuals like Glenn Bahr. I'm wondering if a Wikipedia admin would like to volunteer a proper channel of redress for those offended by the anti-White undercurrent manifest in these instances of bias? - Bill Noble

The neutrality in this entire artile is disputed. It is clearly biased in favor of Warman. Edward Nyhouse —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For example? Also, is insinuating someone is gay without evidence supposed to be neutral (or even very mature)? --Mista-X (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Lawyer?

"Human Rights" lawyer isn't a real designation. And even if it was, it would be referring to when he was working with the Human Rights Commission, which he no longer is. A lawyer who files human righst complaints is not a human rights lawyer. So officially he is just a lawyer. Refer to the - Law Society of Upper Canada for more information on the certified specialist program. Imstillhere 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Lawyers can certainly be identified as practicioners in an area without being a certified specialist. Samaritan 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warman not Jewish

"Mr. Warman testified that he was not Jewish. In our view, the fact that Mr. Warman was not himself Jewish does not detract in any way from the viciousness of the attacks launched against him by Mr. Kyburz. These attacks were clearly motivated, at least in part, by Mr. Kyburz' perception that Mr. Warman was Jewish. Based upon this belief, Mr. Kyburz ascribed very negative character traits, as well as criminal behaviour to Mr. Warman. Mr. Warman, quite understandably, found this conduct to be very hurtful. In our view, Mr. Warman is a victim of the discriminatory practice."[6]Richard Warman and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and Fred Kyburz, Reasons for decision, May 9, 2003. 70.28.159.194 05:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When did Warman work for the Human Rights Commission?

This article really needs more details on when Warman worked for the CHRC. Was it two years? When specifically? I was reading Warman v. Winnicki and there is an allegation quoted in the decision stating that some of Warman's complaints were made while he was working for the CHRC. Isn't that conflict of interest? --Chris Thompson 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To CJCurrie

As an administrator, you seem to be doing very little about JB15 who has been removing sourced content with no explanation. Imstillhere 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warman's attempt

The section that's been occasionally added titled "Warman's attempt to have Canada Block hate sites" has too much detail about a minor proceeding in a larger court case. Quoting the judgement at length doesn't help. The motion doesn't appear notable enough to even mention. Further, the referncing is partly from a blog, which we don't normally accept as reliable sources. I think the shorter, one sentence version that simply says he's still active is more appropriate. -Will Beback 08:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious bias and Hypocrisy

Inconsistencies: There were articles in papers Nation-wide about Warman's attempt at censorship with the CRTC but I was told that a paragraph about the issue is too much information. The paragraph that included part of the CRTC decision was removed. So I edited the existing sentence and changed "ongoing attempt to "failed attempt". I also removed the Bernie Farber quote calling it a "murder warrant" because that's not more relevant that the CRTC decision. That was edited and reverted by User:CJCurrie.

And then, a paragraph (re: death threat that on VNN forum) that from my knowledge only received mention in one small community paper, has a paragraph dedicated to it?

This isn't your wiki. If you set a standard for editing, stick by it. You idiots are trying to say that an issue that had 1 community paper article warrants a paragraph and a 10-day multi-faceted event with national coverage only needs a sentence? Your bias and motivations are blatant. 69.199.64.4 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence of Richard Warman

Warman is certainly a prominent human rights lawyer. A simple Google search of his names yields valuable information on his contributions to conferences, seminars, and talks - which which he is regularly invited to school NGO leaders and police officials on his style of combating online hatred. Furthermore, simple Factiva or InfoMart searches provide dozens of articles in which Warman is quoted by reporters, being the first source they go to for an opinion on matters of online extremism. Prominence is not a matter of opinion. Random House Dictionary refers to prominence as being:

1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.

Based on the above-noted definitions, and the plethora of information on Warman which can be found online and offline, I am hereby reinstating my previous mention of him as a "prominent" person in his Wikipedia biography.-unsigned

Virtually everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is prominent, otherwise they wouldn't be here. I'd hate to think we'd have an article that started "John Doe is an obscure lawyer..." See also Wikipedia:peacock terms. Rather than asserting that the subject is prominent we should demonstrate his prominence. -Will Beback · † · 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason why "award-winning" does not belong in lead

The lead sentence should not say Warman is an "award-winning" such and such. Almost all people who have Wikipedia articles written about them have won at least one or two awards during their lifetimes, but I've never seen a lead sentence in those articles describing them as "award-winning", especially when — like in the case of Warman — the article only mentions them winning one award. Phrases like "award-winning" are suitable for press releases, book covers or other promotional materials, not neutral encyclopedic articles. As Will Beback mentioned above, see Wikipedia:peacock terms for Wikipedia's guidelines on matters such as this. Spylab (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Who has availed themselves of the "human rights" protected by Section XIII? In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights." 83.61.2.236 (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with recent anonymous edits

I've decided to remove a series of recent anonymous edits via the provisions of WP:BLP. As I mentioned in my edit, (i) the information seems dubious in some cases, and (ii) the presentation is unquestionably slanted. I could add that Ezra Levant's editorials tend not to be worthy of citation at times. CJCurrie (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sadly however, Richard Warman did testify in the Warman v. Winnicki hearing that he created the Axetogrind account on the vnnforum where most of his racist posts appeared. Those aren't up for discussion. The Senator Cools comment is of note considering it was an unsolicited comment posted on a website that he filed a complaint against in its entirety. A "human rights" lawyer and professional serial complainer who does that.... well that's definitely of note. The evidence was presented during the course of the Warman v. Lemire hearing by an expert witness. Richard Warman isn't guaranteed a "pleasant" page on wikipedia more than anyone else is. Stop trying to protect him. 99.236.225.74 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Cools information

So when you run out of excuses to suppress information that's bad about warman, what's next? The article is valid and so is the link. If there is an issue with the wording of the segment, edit it, don't remove the information. A serial complainer posting racist messages on the websites he complains about is very notable. Imstillhere (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest anon edit and sprotected, because I understand the allegation was withdrawn by the National Post. [7] A different source would be needed if this is to stand. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)