Talk:Richard Warman

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]

[2]

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: [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Richard is living in hiding for fear of retalitaion from the numerous enemies he has created. Reference here: [4]

"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

Bias in article maintanance 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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."[5]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)[reply]

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)[reply]