Talk:Richard Warman

Untitled

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]

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Steyn

I was asked to comment about the removal of the material sourced to Mark Steyn. [8] 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)

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)

I agree in principle with FrankPais regarding the appropriateness of including Steyn's commentary. One writer's personal opinion of a subject really doesn't belong here. The other paragraph (from the Gillis article) merits consideration though and I don't think should be lumped in with the Steyn quote. 007blur007 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Slim Virgin. I disagree that criticism from Mark Steyn, a prominent media personality, political pundit, and CHRC victim, somehow violates some unspecified Wiki policy, but I have restored only the Gillis criticism as a compromise. The Gillis article also includes quotes from Keith Martin, a member of Canadian Parliament. If this criticism is removed by an administrator, I will expect that administrator to assist me in removing similar criticism from all other Wiki bio articles for consistency. However, if the criticism once again is removed by someone other than an administrator, I will simply revert it as vandalism. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra Levant

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)

richardwarman.com

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)

While I'm here: am I the only one who hates using nationalvanguard.org as a source, especially in this article? In fact, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources, so I for one would be grateful if someone found a better source for that claim. CWC 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is a tricky issue. We don't normally go out of the way to label sources as unreliable; we just don't mention them. To make a positive assertion about something, like the website, we should have a source. The owners of the website are hidden, so we can't use those records as a primary source. I agree about your second point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• The link was dead and, as there was already another reference for the material, I've gone ahead and deleted it. 007blur007 (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lustig's 2009/03/13 ruling

I've just removed the following text, which was recently added by user 67.167.58.79 (talk · contribs):

In 2009 the CHRT discovered that Warman was a frequent poster on Neo-Nazi web forums he complained about.<ref>http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=964&lg=_e&isruling=0#1002062</ref>

I agree with the anon that this incident should be covered in our article, but I played it safe for some rather technical reasons:

• That's a primary source. Secondary sources are better, especially in articles about living people. Here are two newspaper items: Ottawa Citizen (in the sports section???), National Post. There are probably others. I have no idea which would be best for this article.
• Getting picky: "the CHRT discovered" probably should be "the CHRT ruled that" or similar.
• If Warman said anything in reaction to this ruling, we need to cover that as well. The Ottawa Citizen said that "Warman said posting the messages 'provided useful information' that helped him identify individuals involved in the Canadian neo-Nazi movement", but leaves plenty of doubt about when Warman said that. Does anyone know?

That is, I think we revise and expand the text shown above, but there's no need to hurry. Does anyone have additional information, suggestions, comments etc? Should we put the deleted text back until we construct a better version? CWC 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it could be usefully fleshed out, though it's fine to use the primary source so long as we stick closely to what it says (mainstream secondary sources are welcome too, of course). I also agree that we should say "ruled," not "discovered." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I had with the way the sentence was framed is that it was too vague only saying that "Warman was a frequent poster" which a reader could interpret as saying he is a closet nazi so to speak, or that there is some other dubious reason for his postings other then for the purposes of collecting intel on the far-right, neo-nazis and fascists. If the information is to be re added it needs to be more descriptive. As well, the source really only showed Warman made two posts on the forums, which were actually replies to threads started by others, which hardly shows "frequent" postings nor makes Warman look like a heavy contributor to those forums. --Mista-X (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The CHRT did cast doubt on Warman's statement that he was posting to gather intelligence. They said:

"[59] During his cross-examination, Mr. Warman admitted (after initially denying) that he had participated in communicating messages on Internet Websites similar to the Northern Alliance Website utilizing pseudonyms such as "Pogue Mahone" and "Axetogrind".

"[60] In one of several such communications that was entered into evidence during his cross-examination that Mr. Warman admitted having made, Mr. Warman using the name as "Pogue Mahone Forum Member" posted the following on the stormfront.org/forum Website on July 18, 2004: (The bolded words are Mr. Warman's. The italicized words are a quote that he has included from a previous post made by a "S88")

... [snip examples of Warman posting as if in agreement with antisemitic posts]...

"[62] Mr. Warman stated that the communications quoted in the previous two paragraphs did not "cross the line" into hate messaging nor did they provoke hate messages by others. He stated that the inclusion in his postings of possible hate messages from others were inadvertent slips by him in sending messages over the Internet. He further stated that his postings were intended to assist him in his quest for information about persons using the Internet to communicate discriminatory hate messages.

"[63] I do not see any acceptable reason for Mr. Warman to have participated on the Stormfront or Vanguard sites, since there appears to be ample easily obtained messages on these sites available without his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.

"[64] Mr. Warman has, with the assistance of the Commission, instituted most of the s. 13 (1) complaints under the Act that have come before the Tribunal. He has been very successful in these cases and has garnered accolades for his work in this regard. The evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing. It diminishes his credibility." [9]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and that sure can be stated in the article. But as the sentence was there was no context.--Mista-X (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How about (to be added to the CHRT section):

The CHRT criticized Warman in March 2009 for having posted pseudonymously — using the names Axetogrind and Pogue Mahone — to neo-Nazi sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network, as if in agreement with racist and antisemitic messages posted there. In one post, in response to a comment in January 2005 about American neo-Nazi leader Jeff Schoep, Warman wrote, "Keep up the good work Commander Schoep!". The CHRT ruled that Warman's posts, which he initially denied were his, could have precipitated further hate messages from forum members, and that he had undermined his credibility. In his defence, Warman said his posts had helped him identify members of the neo-Nazi movement, and that at the time there was no "road map" for such investigations. "With hindsight, he said, "things might have been done differently today."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts about whether this is a fair summary and should be added? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. --Mista-X (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about lead

An account with one edit changed the lead from saying Warman had initiated complaints against a wide range of people, including white supremacists, to "best known for initiating complaints against white supremacists and neo-Nazis for Canadian Human Rights Act violations ..." [10]

Has Warman initiated complaints regarding human rights violations against anyone other than white supremacists and neo-Nazis? SlimVirgin 19:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Marc Lemire vigorously denies being either of those, saying that no-one has ever produced any evidence that he is a white supremacist, let alone a neo-Nazi. Assuming (as he certainly does) that the differences between white supremacy and white separatism/nationalism are significant, he is right AFAIK: the reports calling him a white supremacist or neo-Nazi that I've read show no sign of understanding that there is any difference between (say) white nationalism and neo-Nazism. (Of course, the major difference is that white nationalism is a much better business model ...)

I've just changed the lede to say "... best known for having initiated complaints against people such as white supremacists and neo-Nazis ...". I think this is safer than the anon's version but shorter and more accurate than the "wide range" working. Cheers, CWC 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

I've just reverted a large edit by Veryloan1 (talk · contribs) while tweaking the lede for reasons explained above.

Here's my list of the changes in that edit, with my comments in italics:

1. 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".
2. 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.
3. Dropped ref to http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1375.
   Yep, it's irrelevant. I'll delete it.
4. Dropped quote from Macleans.
   I think we need to report some detail of what Macleans said.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Layout

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)

This guy is cool - insite a comment then sue you for it, wow a genius. A person with a little money could sue him and tie him up for decades - return the favor so to speak. He seems to have the knack - or he purposely hunts them out - to find the easiest targets too. Is he on exclusive retainer?I could use him occasionally. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - spectator or participant?

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)

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)

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)

I agree. AyaK (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa?

---I believe I saw him there personally in May of 2010. [[11]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by M555333555M555333555M (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Warman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Warman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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.

Last edited at 13:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)