Talk:Richard Warman

message: 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)
thread_title: Icke

message: 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)
thread_title: 3RR

message: 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. 
# (cur) (last)  22:08, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
# (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)
# (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)
# (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.)
# (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)
# (cur) (last) 20:24, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
# (cur) (last) 20:22, 10 January 2006 CJCurrie m (Reverted edits by Imstillhere (talk) to last version by CJCurrie)
# (cur) (last) 20:20, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere
# (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)
# (cur) (last) 17:38, 10 January 2006 Imstillhere m
# (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Imstillhere has also been playing around in the Alex Kulbashian entry. AnnieHall 04:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR violation by I'm still here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To CJCurrie 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias in article maintenance and corrupt admins 

message: "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)
replies: text: Lawyers can certainly be identified as practicioners in an area without being a certified specialist. Samaritan 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Lawyer? 

message: "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."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)
thread_title:  Warman not Jewish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When did Warman work for the Human Rights Commission? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To CJCurrie 

message: 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)
thread_title: Warman's attempt 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Obvious bias and Hypocrisy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Prominence of Richard Warman

message: 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)
thread_title: Reason why "award-winning" does not belong in lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with recent anonymous edits

message: 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)
replies: text: I've reverted the latest anon edit and sprotected, because I understand the allegation was withdrawn by the National Post.  A different source would be needed if this is to stand. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be quite dense.  The Post simply didn't want to get involved in a lawsuit.  They folded out of fear.  This is obvious to anyone with an iota of familiarity with the case.  SlimVirgin is a cretin. ThVa (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt. I've undone the semi-protection because it had been in place since February, but I'll reinstate it if any BLP violations are added, so please play nice. You can review the BLP policy here. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne Cools information

message: I was asked to comment about the removal of the material sourced to Mark Steyn.  Frank Pais, could you say what you feel is wrong with it, in terms of our content policies? SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Steyn is a opinion-piece author. His work is based overwhelmingly on his own political beliefs, and is not anywhere near being objective, unbiased journalism. The quote from him that is being touted by FreedomFan is completely backwards, ignorant, and factually wrong. His portrayal of the CHRC and Mr. Warman's use of it isn't an opinion based on facts, but an opinion based on fallacy. It is near impossible to find an entirely unbiased source, but the insults and barbs put out by Steyn aren't even based on any legitimate knowledge of what he is critiquing. Frank Pais (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Steyn

message: Hi, Frank.  Please stop adding your opinion of Ezra Levant into the Warman article.  The adjective "controversial" is subjective and does not add to the article in any way.  Please discuss here or on your talk page before doing another revert.  007blur007 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ezra Levant

message: I'm wondering if we should mention http://richardwarman.com specifically to warn readers that it is written by Warman's opponents, not by Warman. I see that Googling for "Richard Warman" gets this article then that page as the first two hits. What do other editors think? Also, can anyone come up with a good way to describe this web site accurately without giving it undue prominence?
*Unless the website provides any insight into the subject (which would seem doubtful), I don't think that it belongs in the article.  Perhaps a seperate article about the website (as opposed to Warman) might be appropriate?  007blur007 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  richardwarman.com 

message: I've just reverted a large edit by  while tweaking the lede for reasons explained above.
Here's my list of the changes in that edit, with my comments in italics:
# Changed "against a wide range of people, including white supremacists and neo-Nazis" to "against members of the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements".I've changed that to "against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis".
# Dropped sentence about "criticism, particularly from Maclean's" and parliamentary hearings.The claims about criticism and Maclean's are substantiated in the article. The bit about parliamentary hearings seems overstated to me, and should be substantiated or dropped per WP:BLP.
# Dropped ref to http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1375.Yep, it's irrelevant. I'll delete it.
# Dropped quote from Macleans.I think we need to report some detail of what Macleans said.
# Changed "The CHRT criticized Warman" to "A member of the CHRT criticized Warman".It was a CHRT ruling, so it was the CHRT which made that criticism.
# Removed details of the CHRT criticism.I say those details are important.
I've numbered these points for convenience in discussion. Any comments? Cheers, CWC 22:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2010 

message: I found the layout of the 'advocacy' section to be difficult to follow.  So I've gone through and added new headings, and re-organized to put information under the correct headings.  I didn't remove any information, and only added a brief linking sentance. 
Suggestions on other ways to improve the structure of this article are welcome. 
Turquoise swan (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: In an international context this sentence is insidious: "He [Richard Warman] is best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations related to Internet content". It indirectly insinuating that Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn is white supremacists or neo-Nazis. Why? To an international audience, Richard Warman is best known for having sued Ezra Levant and for his involvement in the notorious Canadian "Human Rights Commission" that runs the politically correct "courts" that among other things charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia". And now Richard Warman is even suing blogger Blazing Cat Fur for linking to the web site of "Far Right" Mark Steyn! The English Wikipedia should not be a participant in this Canadian type of leftist social exorcist political correctness gone mad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.61 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  I slightly changed the lead sentence that you quote, because I think Warman is better known as the leading instigator of Section 13(1) actions, but it doesn't seem to me that the article violates neutrality OR insinuates that Levant and Steyn are white supremacists or neo-Nazis.  I don't believe Steyn is even mentioned.  Frankly, as an American myself, it doesn't matter much to me why Warman is best known "in an international context," especially if it misrepresents him.  And there is nothing posted in this article about the lawsuit against Blazing Cat Fur (which I assume is a defamation suit), so I have no idea where your information about that comes from.  Do you have a Wiki-suitable source (not a blog) that we can cite to add this lawsuit to the article? -- AyaK (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it further. We need to differentiate between Warman's roles as (1) the section 13(1) complainer and (2) the serial strategic "libel" litigant. The first role has lots of Wiki-Reliable sources, the second has only a few. Hence, I feel, we should keep the second out of the WP:LEDE until/unless he gets declared a vexatious litigant or something. Cheers, CWC 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. AyaK (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia - spectator or participant?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807081046/http://ezralevant.com:80/2008/07/my-statement-of-defence-richar.html to http://ezralevant.com/2008/07/my-statement-of-defence-richar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611071615/http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf to http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611071615/http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf to http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t869_11903de.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified