Talk:Wayne Crookes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents


[edit] Sources

There was no problem with the sources of this article. Two are major newspapers, one of the authors is a major columnist. The articles include quotes from party figures named. You can get the text easily to the GPC articles from google. Is someone suggesting google has doctored the text?

And does anyone have the URL of the actual lawsuit? The commentators like Geist say it is not facts but the opinions and right to reply at issue, so if Crookes' lawyers have no factual issue with the content of any of the articles at openpolitics.ca, it seems reasonable to rely on them as sources of facts (though not necessarily opinion).

The only missing source is seemingly for this, which ought to be easy to verify: "Judy Rebick published a boilerplate apology to Crookes, who was otherwise generally successful at avoiding media scrutiny until 2005-6." There must be a URL for this, as babble is a phpbb site.

Also someone should contact Elio Di Iorio to have him verify his claim re: Anderson's "Uncle Wayne". His resignation letter lists some specific financial and procedural abuses of the Crookes era. Also http:// blog myspace com / index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=59897869&blogID=137629550 this post by former fundraising chair, current Chief Agent Kathryn Holloway lists the staff and finances of the Crookes team. Looks fishy:

Out of the 1.76 million bucks they were supposed to pay back creditor Wayne Crookes $420 000 they owed him from loans for the 2004 election. That left 1.3 million to spend on other stuff.
This $1.3 million 2005 budget was to cover the costs of a potential 2005 election. However, in May 2005, The party Council abruptly approved the borrowing of another $800 000 or so for the potentially impending election.
So, I do not know what they spent 2.1 million dollars on in 2005, if they in fact spent it. It looks like they probably spent at least $600 000 in salaries.
There was $560 000 in the budget for 2005 for salaries and benefits, not including another $75 0000 expenses for Council, Committees of Council, and ERCT (a hybrid committee that had staff members and Council members on it, and which morphed into the Management Committee.)
I dont know what the other 1.5 million went to in 2005. There is another 1.5 million coming in for 2006 from the Elections Fund, so presumably theres 3 million bucks between 2005 and 2006, minus paying back the election loan of $800 000, minus paying a staff budget of $600 000, so that leaves 1.6 million dollars in 05/06 that is being spent or was spent on, i dont know, stuff.

Someone's being too picky with this article. It's certainly easy to find lots of other sources like this thread in which lots of facts about the Wayne Crookes era in the GPC come to light.

Also do a blog search to find this by Chris Tindal and this from publiceye and this about libel chill and so on and so on. If you really want to read some fun source documents just join GPC-members yahoogroup. Crookes was also mentioned in some letters to politicians on the record, some of which detail various of his activities.

It's simply not justified to cut this back to a stub. The facts are easily verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.99.149 (talk • contribs) 23:33, November 1, 2006 (UTC)

Not all of them. The Vancouver Province article and rabble.ca apology don't seem to be indexed by google. They've been deleted due to Wikipedia:verifiability.
Some of the verifications come from firsthand sources. Since this party is not very well covered by the media, and since highly reputable journalists like Leslie MacKinnon and Michael Geist have stated that these situations are notable and important, and since former party chairs and leaders have had their views reported by reputable national papers like the Ottawa Citizen, effectively stating that the party under Crookes and Harris became "secretive", less "transparent", more "autocratic", less "democratic" and more "power-hungry", the article has more or less been restored. It could be cut back however to the comments from the Citizen, Geist, the CBC and Canadian Press, and anything the Vancouver Province said, as it seems to only be those sources that actually published anything about these issues.
The resignation letters don't say "gang" but the language comes very close, so the claim that this is related to the origin of the term in the lawsuit stands for now.
It's totally unreasonable to cut it back to a stub or claim that something so widely reported is not notable. Someone may be pushing a political agenda here. Crekshin 06:24, January 10, 2007 (UTC)
I, Michael Pilling, edit wikipedia as mlpvolt. I am a defendant in one of the lawsuits. I am providing first hand evidence. While there have been many things said in this bunfight that aren't true, facts in the article as edited by mlpvolt can be sourced to the statement of defence in the crookes vs. openpoltics case, which can be downloaded from the superior court of british columbia, which also contains references to additional articles published in major newspapers. 206.248.131.160 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversial information about living persons needs to be referenced in secondary sources. —Centrx→talk • 14:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Centrix, i agree. Primary sources (vouching it is true) and secondary (vouching that it matters) those have been added below, i don't have time to find the links. For the record, I would like to say that i know Wayne Crookes to be a generous, soft spoken, intelligent person who as an individual made a historic contribution to the success of the Green Party of Canada. I worked closely with him in that organization in 2004. Unfortunately, he was centrally involved in a political faction fight which made enemies of former friends, and many nasty things were said all around. In politics it happens all the time that a person of high integrity gets derided and ridiculed by their opponents - i wish it weren't true but so it is. In Crookes' case he made executive decisions that were (to put it mildly) highly controversial, which does not necessarily mean that they were unethical. I think he was trying his best, based on his values and philosophy, which differed substantially from those of many of the volunteers. The GPC was a loosely knit ad-hocracy at the time, and any manager would have had a difficult go. Since he and many of the defendants are no longer actively involved in the party, these suits seem especially pointless. mlpvolt 17:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Articles

i) The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: May 13, 2006 - The blossoming of the Green party - Kate Jaimet.. [extract] “In 2004, after a new federal law outlawed corporate donations, the Green Party raised $351,000. It also got half a million dollars in loans, of which nearly $440,000 came from a B.C. businessman named Wayne Crookes. Mr. Crookes was also appointed to a newly- created Green party election readiness committee -- an appointment that rubbed many Greens the wrong way. "It was, is this really a Green, a virtuous way to run a party, by having a rich guy buy his way into a position of power?" Ms. Schwarz said. "A lot of dyed-in-the-wool Greens felt, no." She and five other members of the executive council resigned in 2003.”

ii) CANOE (CNEWS) 2006/05/09 - Canada: Activist to seek Green party leadership - By JOHN WARD [excerpt] She's seeking to take over a party torn by infighting under the leadership of Jim Harris the leader since 2002, . . . “[Harris’] tenure was marked by internal party struggles”

iii) The WALRUS - July/August 2005 - Green Party Blues - by Murray Dobbin – [EXCERPT] “Still, Harris immedi¬ately tightened his hold on the party by assigning Scrymgeour the task of devel-oping a new organizational structure that would make the Greens even more mainstream. Scrymgeour's subsequent report, "Green and Growing," was full of the scientific manipulation of the electorate common to the Conservatives and Liberals, but anathema to traditional Green values. His reference to "high yield edas" (riding associations) sounded more like a mutual fund pro¬motion, and identifying "benchmarks and best practices" was right out of a corporate governance manual. On Scrymgeour's advice, Harris created an election-readiness commit¬tee. Consisting of Harris, party cred¬itor Wayne Crookes, selected staff members, and loyalists from the party's elected council—all men after the lone woman quit—it has allowed Harris to run the party while often circumventing the governing council and its messy disagreements. And that has helped him to weather the storms around his leadership style—for now.” … Early in his leadership, Harris clearly demonstrated that almost anyone persistently opposing him would be driven off the party's governing council. The first to experience this was Julian West, a prominent environmentalist and Green Party stalwart from British Columbia. West found himself on the wrong side of Harris when he became involved in a discussion of a plan to ensure the vote wasn't split between the Green Party and the NDP, which also had a strong environmental platform. Under that proposal, which was never put into action, the Greens would have adopted a non-compete policy in the many urban ridings in which the NDP could do well. To remove West, Harris called members of the party's governing council and lobbied them to get rid of him. Recalled Gretchen Schwarz, a long-time Green Party activist from Ottawa, and chair of the council at the time: "Before he was even elected, Harris phoned me up and said, 'We have to get West off council.' I was just stunned and said, 'What?' Harris said, 'Well [BC leader] Adriane Carr wants him off council, and I promised her that I would deliver that for her if she would support me in my leadership campaign.'" Harris denies the allegation.

iv) Globe and Mail - December 28, 2005 - Greens call for retractions of financial allegations - By GLORIA GALLOWAY and SHANNON KARI Globe and Mail Wednesday, [Excerpt] Mr. Pollesal said yesterday that he was in Washington when the notice of suit arrived at his mother's house. "They have made a bunch of strongly worded threats," he said, adding that it is unclear to him exactly what it is that the party wants him to take back. "I have some idea of what they want me to retract," said Mr. Pollesel, who says he knows people who attended the retreat, and has seen minutes of the meeting. "Except the stuff that they want me to retract is demonstrably true."

v) Canadian Press - Monday, December 19, 2005 - Ottawa Watchdog in discussion with Greens over financing - By

DENNIS BUECKERT - [Excerpt] “Mr. Pollesel alleges that the formergrassroots party has been hijacked to gain access to federal election subsidies provided under the new elections-financing law.” . . . Asked on Thursday about how the money is being used, Mr. Harris deferred to his staff: "I am the leader of the party," he said. "I don't manage the party." . . . “But what some observers might have hailed as a political breakthrough for the environmental movement

[edit] Lawsuit against Wikipedia

Crookes is suing Wikipedia over this article. Infodmz 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional link:

--A. B. (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More media coverage:
The Globe and Mail: "Libel lawsuits takes aim at Internet postings"
The Vancouver Sun: "Former Green campaign manager says he was libelled, sues Google"
WebProNews: "Canadian Sues The Messenger"
CKNW: "Local man sues Wikipedia"
--A. B. (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Lawsuits put online free speech at risk Tabercil 02:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the article nearly blanked?

This article has been blanked and replaced by a stub more than once, most recently by an administrator. Why? Davidwr 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a very fishy situation indeed. I noted this issue via the slashdot article. User centrx, who seems to be a high ranking wikipedia admin, periodically removes any content from this article and cuts it back to a two-line stub. Apparently he has been doing that since November. No idea why, but given that this lawsuit is brand new, he apparently has reasons predating it. It might be a good opportunity for centrx to explain what is going on. Wefa 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot says that Crookes is suing Wikipedia. The WP:OFFICE policy is probably being used. --h2g2bob 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. WP:OFFICE actions are supposed to be clearly marked as such, and there is no such mark here. Furthermore, centrx has been cutting back this page for at least 6 months, while the laswuit seems to be fairly recent. Wefa 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly this isn't blocked because of WP:OFFICE - I can only assume user:Centrx blanked the article (diff) due to wp:blp. A google search tells me he's suing wikipedia but there aren't many credible articles saying much else about him (i.e. I can't find much but blogs and wikis). The information posted might have been not just unverifiable, but untrue. Mike1024 (t/c) 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection for this page so that people can examine the references provided in previous versions of the article and possibly link them more closely with the reverted article content. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can help me understand this. If the page is being repeatedly and deliberately stubbed by an admin, why the hell does it end with "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it!" Seems kind of contradictory, don'cha think? 128.226.230.60 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the better wording would be "Discuss the required additions and changes to the article in the talk page", but regrettably, our stub templates aren't smart enough to figure out that the article host is being sued and the article needs a complete rewrite thanks to that =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The previous versions are already in article history. The article hasn't been deleted. Unprotection isn't needed right now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
My assertion is that protection isn't needed right now, and if it actually is needed, the reason for such hasn't been made clear. Citing WP:BLP on an article where very very few edits have been made doesn't cut it. --DachannienTalkContrib 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO Protection IS needed because of likely vandalism. However, it should be reverted to one of the high-content versions before being protected. To stub it or revert it to a low-content version before protecting it is just plain wrong. To stub it for WP:BLP is wrong given how notable this person is at the moment. Someone, either an admin or someone else with edit permissions, should go through the old versions, pick out what is verifiable and neutral, bring the article up to date, post it, and protect it. Davidwr 22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When I noticed this article had been blanked I thought I would find some credible citations so it could be restored. However, I can't find much on him. For example: canada.com only mentions him suing wikipedia, as does the globe and mail, NYT has nothing on him, WaPo doesn't know him, the times doesn't mention him, and the guardian is similarly ignorant of his achievements. A google search returns a bunch of stories about him suing wikipedia, and very little else (the blog p2pnet.net and wiki openpolitics.ca both of whom are being sued by Crookes, are hardly credible, impartial sources. I searched LexisNexis (Though I can only access UK-based publications) and found nothing. I searched Factiva and found articles on him suing wikipedia, and one article from the Ottawa Citizen which mentions him exactly once, saying "In 2004, after a new federal law outlawed corporate donations, the Green Party raised $351,000. It also got half a million dollars in loans, of which nearly $440,000 came from a B.C. businessman named Wayne Crookes. Mr. Crookes was also appointed to a newly-created Green party election readiness committee -- an appointment that rubbed many Greens the wrong way." In summary, it seems the most newsworthy thing Crookes has ever done is sue wikipedia. Granted it's possible there's some scandal that hasn't been reported in the press, but wikipedia isn't the place for that. (see wp:not) Mike1024 (t/c) 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Google has 267 references to "%22Wayne+Crookes%22+-wikipedia" That's a good place to start looking. Most of it deals with the Green Party of Canada in 2000-2006. According to OpenPolitics.ca Mr. Crookes has become well-known for filing libel suits in recent years. Davidwr 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
When I perform that search I see some links to blogs like "publiceyeonline", forums like "rabble", the wiki "openpolitics" and then some web pages about backgammon and chess. Do you see something different to this? If so, perhaps you could directly link to the credible sources? Thanks! Mike1024 (t/c) 09:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was wrong - this isn't WP:OFFICE. According to the page logs, it's WP:BLP. The longer versions are still available in the history, so WP:OVERSIGHT seems unlikely. --h2g2bob 00:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Centrx has indicated on his talk page that the protection is the result of an OTRS ticket. There is an appeals process for OTRS actions if anybody comes up with a fully cited version of the content on this page and wants to update it with that content. On a side note, it would have saved some trouble for the page protection and near-blanking to be cited explicitly as an OTRS action rather than citing a policy that doesn't by itself justify page protection. --DachannienTalkContrib 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. WP:BLP does not require blanking of an article and blocking all edits just because the person it refers to doesn't like it. As long as the contents are factually correct and properly referenced, they're supposed to be okay. 71.203.209.0 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The contents have never been properly referenced and there has been no evidence of proper references. A scattering of blogs and wikis do not a verifiable article make, least of all one on a living person. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, WP:BLP does in fact state that poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. —Centrx→talk • 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrx's removal of valid newspaper source

Can Centrx please explain why s/he removed the link to the Ottawa Citizen source (then, outrageously, just seconds later added an "unreferenced" tag and snidely stated that we can't rely on a "handful of blogs." Please restore the source immediately! You are making our encyclopedia look bad with this sort of behavior. Badagnani 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I gather what he did is called "reverting", i.e. undoing problematic edits by restoring how the page was before the edits were made. It's pretty much the standard way to do this. It would seem reasonable to cite the Ottawa Citizen article in a future version of this article, but can't we get a link to the article on the Ottawa Citizen's own website? Having to find it on a weird third-party website seems strange. Mike1024 (t/c) 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be fine for the source in general to go back in, but it is on an unreliable website with unknown goals, and do note that the source is not sufficient for anything further in the article beyond the simple fact of donation. —Centrx→talk • 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this page has been essentially kept blank by some fairly unilateral action. In fact admins are not really allowed to protct a page that they are involved in a dispute over. You should probably request mediation on the matter, it'll limit Centrx powers considerably if a mediator is involved. In the mean time, I suggest hat you write some stories about Wayne Crookes at [en.wikinews.org wikinews]. JeffBurdges 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking more at WP:OFFICE, just write the page how you want it in a subpage, like Talk:Wayne Crookes/New. But you should still write stories at wikinews.  :) JeffBurdges 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
From reading all these discussions, it really does appear that Centrx is vandalizing the page. How does one start the mediation process? Sliver 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

If anything, this article should be semiprotected, not protected... Though, personally, I think not even that is needed. -- gcbirzantalk 12:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuits

{{editprotected}} Globe and Mail is probably the best source for this.

According to The Globe and Mail, Crookes has filed a lawsuit for libel in Vancouver. He is suing Google, Wikipedia and Canadian political website openpolitics.ca.[1]

--h2g2bob (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not enough to make an article out of it. It may be warranted as a minor mention in the respective Google or Wikipedia articles, or in an article about the history of libel in Canada, or the Canadian elections, but probably not. —Centrx→talk • 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)