Talk:James Scott Richardson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.
This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
|
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion info
The only criteria it has to match is that he was not notable. It doesn't matter if there is an AFD. especially when some of the comments included in the deletion vote were about an apparent plot to kill the prime minister for which there is no evidence of him ever getting charged or arrested. Even the article doesn't support its title's claim.
The person is NOT noteable and I have an email from Jimbo Jones that states Alex Kulbashian doesn't look noteable either. Imstillhere 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, to be speedy deleted, an article must not even assert notability. See WP:CSD. This one appears to assert notability from what I can tell. -- SCZenz 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Withdrawn charges
The London Free press also reported that his charges were withdrawn silently. Now from the perspective of a normal criminal process, this usually means the police had a weak case. The fact that the police were gung-ho about this case may also suggest that the police had no case at all (judging by the seemingly high-profile aspect to this case). In other words, HOTR's addition of that information is a pretty clear sign that the information is being added in order to disparage James Scott Richardson.
What is my point of reference? Well. When I added information to Alex Kulbashian and Richard Warman about a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint file by Alex against Richard, HOTR removed the information stating that the complaint could have been filed, however it wasn't serious enough to because there was no evidence the Commissioner signed off on it. Now, getting back to this case, the crown attorney and/or withdrew the charges because there was no prospect for conviction.
To HOTR: If you are going to have double standards in "enforcing" wikipedia's criteria for information posted in articles, then that shows your political motivation behind your edits and the way you handle your "administrative" tasks. That would be classified as Administrator Abuse Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse. Furthermore, the fact that the IP address User:72.136.34.96 spontaneously lost the ability to make edits without logging in with no explanation could also show a certain level of abuse of administrative rights (by the way. Will be reporting that to Jimbo Wales). So feel free to revert the edit I've made, but make an attempt to justify your actions this time.
[edit] Sources
The information you keep removing is sourced, the source is given as the Kitchener Waterloo Record. It does not matter whether the article is still available online. Please do not remove sourced information again - that will be considered vandalism. Homey 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. That still doesn't address the relevance of withdrawn charges being posted in the article. As well as blocking the IP address with no explanation. Also, I can't seem to find any information in the KW record, in that article where Richardson makes any claims to bein a leader of the CECT or a member of the TCS. Please feel free to enlighten me. Imstillhere 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The explanation is that the IP vandalized the page by removing sourced information, falsely claiming it wasn't sourced. The IP has not been "blocked", the article has been temporarily semi-protected to avert vandalism. If you persist, as a non-anon user, to vandalize the article by removing sourced material then the article will be fully protected and you will face banning for vandalism. Given that you are already on "probation" I suggest you not press your luck any further.Homey 04:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No. The IP hasn't been blocked. It's been disallowed from making any edits anywhere on wikipedia. I've submitted a few requests to see exactly what happened and who made the administrative decision to do it. Don't worry about getting defensive yet. Imstillhere 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops. My mistake. The IP address WAS restricted from making edits. Looks like you undid that pretty quickly eh, Homey? ;) Imstillhere 04:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems your grasp on the facts is tenuous and does not withstand scrutiny. In fact, the IP's block log shows it has never been blocked let alone unblocked by me or anyone else. I suggest you withdraw your claim or you may end up being blocked for making false charges against other editors. Homey 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I, Imstillhere, withdraw any suggestion that Homey/HOTR restricted my IP. However, I DO maintain that my IP was restricted from making edits and request information on the administrator who did it. Signed: Imstillhere 04:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Withdrawn Charges
Which brings me back to my main point, Homey. Feel free to explain what you consider valid information and how you make a distinction between what information is valid for articles about "racists" and what you feel is valid for articles about so-called "anti-racists" and why you believe that information about criminal charges that were withdrawn (and I don't mean acquitted, where the court actually evaluates it) is anything but an attempt to disparage the individual.
Also, Homey, you still seem to be avoiding this issue. Imstillhere 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources Sources Sources
Dear Homey,
Here is what is sourced and here is what isn't:
- RIchardson Charged - Sourced in Oct 3, 2001 article - Sgt. Anderson's comment - NOT sourced - Richardson's claim of leader/membership - NOT sourced
Here is why i was making the edits:
- Richardson charged - the information is only included to disparage - Sgt. Anderson's comment - not sourced - Richardson's claim of leader/membership - not sourced
So in effect, instead of reading through my edits to the article, you kept reverting all my edits at once without addressing individual issues. Imstillhere 05:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that makes you the "vandal" as you tried to label me. Also seems as though the SysOp who put the permaban on editting didn't share your opinion of vandalism on this page.| Read more here Imstillhere 05:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- - Sgt. Anderson's comment - NOT sourced
- - Richardson's claim of leader/membership - NOT sourced
The source for both those items is the aforementioned KW Record article. This is quite clear if you read the James Scott Richardson article. Homey 12:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you honestly not understand the sentence "Richardson identified himself to the Record as both a leader of the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and a member of the Tri-City Skins"? This means that the Record is the source. If you have a learning disability that makes reading comprehension difficult you should just say so so we can take that into account rather than assuming bad faith on your part. Homey 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you stating that the source for the Sgt. Anderson comment and Richardson's claim of leader/membership is sourced in the K-W Record Oct 3, 2001 article? Imstillhere 13:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Racist charged with making death threats Wednesday October 3, 2001 Brian Caldwell RECORD STAFF
- A white supremacist with close ties to hate groups in Waterloo Region has been charged in London with making death threats and counselling members of his organization to murder Jews and Muslims.
- Const. Ryan Holland, a spokesman for London police, said the charges against James Scott Richardson, 27, stem from his involvement with a group called the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and written Internet material referring to terrorist attacks in the U.S.
- Waterloo regional police have identified the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team as one of three inter-related hate groups they're paying particular attention to in light of the backlash against local Muslims since Sept. 11.
- "They're all very troubling if you look at the rubbish they're spouting, said Staff Sgt. Dan Anderson. "We feel they're all potentially violent.
- The other two groups named by police as part of a growing hate movement in the region are the Tri-City Skins and the Canadian Heritage Alliance, both of which also have Internet sites.
- Holland said London police are still investigating the size and scope of the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team after seizing a computer, computer files and white supremacy paraphernalia from an apartment this week.
- In an interview with The Record last month, Richardson identified himself as both a leader of the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and a member of the Tri-City Skins, and openly expressed extreme racist views.
- "My ultimate goal is a totally white country, he said. "Most of the problems in society stem from immigration. I will not be happy until every (non-white person) is gone from this country.
[edit] Withdrawn Charges.... again
Excellent. So let's go back to the issue of withdrawn charges and why you believe they are relevant aside from an attempt to demonize James on something that was not even evaluated by the court. Will I get a response to this issue or is the topic "Withdrawn charges" invisible to you? Imstillhere 17:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Great, so because of your inability to read and comprehend you have persistantly made false accusations that material has been included without being properly sourced. When it finally dawns on your that, in fact, it was properly sourced all along you just say "excellent" without so much as an apology. Why should I take anything you say seriously, or respond to any of your demands, when you've shown such an inability to grasp what is plainly stated in the article and an unwillingness to apologise and admit that you were wrong all along?Homey 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's not demonization; it's a statement of fact. That the charges were withdrawn does not mean they were not evaluated; it simply means they were not followed through upon. As an outsider on this, I feel that this is notable information. It would "demonize" the subject to, say, speculate charges were withdrawn "perhaps because Richardson managed to destroy evidence of his crimes" or some similarly ludicrous conjectural statement.
- Incidentally, I'm curious as to why you're so passionate about this particular article. Do you know the subject? JDoorjam Talk 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- If the charges were not acted upon after a considerable amount of media coverage, it suggests they were baseless. Especially when the charges were 2 counts of council to commit murder against Muslims and jews and 2 counts of conspiracy to commit murder against Muslims and jews and 2 counts of conspiracy to commit property damage. There was media coverage that one of the detectives working on the case received an award for the his work in the investigation from a jewish organization. There seemed to be many eyes on this case and the charges were withdrawn with little-to-no media coverage. In fact the first coverage of the charges being withdrawn was a year later. In fact, I have followed this case very closely and the charges were withdrawn 2 days before the set date of a preliminary inquiry into the evidence. So apparently the cops/crown didn't even have enough evidence to evaluate at a preliminary inquiry which (in the case of indictable offences) is the step where the court evaluates whether or not the charges get a hearing. So this is the process:
- Overzealous cops of the hate-crime unit in London (that haven't had a conviction since the unit was first instated) charge Richardson with indictable offences -> The problem is in the crown's hands -> The crown schedules a preliminary inquiry for the indictment once all the disclosure has been received (in order not to waste the court's time if the charges are baseless) -> if there is enough to go to court, the trial date is set.
- This process however, stopped 2 days before the prelim. The case was NOT evaluated it was just processed down the normal route when charges are pressed. And yes I know James pretty well as I am a friend of his so I have interest in this matter. In the end, however, that should not make a difference because there are standards on wikipedia. Talking about charges that were dismissed without a trial seems to me an attempt to link him to the acts without actually saying he did it.
- It just seems to me that the information included is an attempt to "assert notability" for a non-notable individual in order to keep this article up. And my opinion is this article is written and being kept online in bad faith. Not because the individual is notable, but because he was a racist and people like Homey (members of so-called "anti-racist" organizations) make it a goal to "expose" racists.
- A couple examples of bad-faith articles were articles "exposing" Jessica Beaumont and Ciaran Paul Donelly (articles that have now been removed). The articles purely listed that they were racists that posted on a racist forum and got a complaint filed against them with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The article listed their names, where they lived and that they were dating. It also listed their exact dates of birth (which seems to be a no-no here for articles about private individuals). If the contents of that article were valid for wikipedia, then so is my flatulence. Please understand that I'm not interested in causing trouble on here, however I see that Homey and certain other admins institute double standards by the way they use their administrative "power" on wikipedia. Imstillhere 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, you've wasted our time with false accusations that material in this article was not sourced when the source was staring you in the face all along. You are just trying to bury information despite it being published in the media. If this Richardson person didn't want the attention he should never have given the KW Record an interview. Homey 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if you had put a source link rather than a reference to the article you could say that, but the source wasn't "staring at me in the face" because you chose not to link to it when you put up the sources. Intentional? Again, Homey you seem to be ducking the original question and it seems like no matter how many times I ask it, you will avoid answering it. And all information published in the media doesn't have necessarily have a place on wikipedia. As an admin you should know that. So it's been 4 times now that you have ducked the question on withdrawn charges. It should be apparent now that you yourself are hypocritical about the way you approach wikipedia articles. Maybe I'll type it in bigger so you can see it: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING INFORMATION ON WITHDRAWN CHARGES AND WHY DO YOU FEEL IT IS VALID IN THIS CASE? Imstillhere 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Maybe if you had put a source link rather than a reference to the article you could say that,"
Not every newspaper article ever printed is available online. The citation was quite clear in the article and was repeated several times. It was as clear as the nose on your face so stop pretending otherwise:
The Kitchener-Waterloo Record reported on October 3, 2001 that Richardson had been charged in London with making death threats and counselling members of his organization to murder Jews and Muslims. His charges were withdrawn less than two years later without any apparent explanation.
Staff Sgt. Dan Anderson was quoted saying "They're all very troubling if you look at the rubbish they're spouting... We feel they're all potentially violent."
Richardson identified himself to the Record as both a leader of the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team and a member of the Tri-City Skins. The newspaper quoted him as saying:
Homey 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow and Homey skips the question on the relevance of withdrawn charges again
- Skip count now at 5
Imstillhere 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You honestly don't understand why, given your track record with making specious complaints, whether it's asking for speedy deletions of contestable articles because you know you'd lose an AFD (as you admitted), false complaints about being blocked and now a completely specious complaint about information being unsourced when it was clearly and repeatedly sourced, it's difficult to take you seriously? Sorry, but you've blown your credibility. You rant, you rave, but you have no capacity to listen to or understand anyone else. This makes discussion impossible and I see no reason or need to pay your concerns any heed. Goodbye. Homey 13:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that the notability of the event is questionable. Since the figure himself is not much more notable than the event, I would lean towards including the event. It does seem to have adaquate sourcing, that is a non-issue here.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to everyone here, you must excuse the way I've been approaching certain issues on Wikipedia, primarily because I'm new to it and I don't have as much experience with the policies and procedures. I put the James Scott Richardson article up for speedy deletion, because in my opinion he wasn't notable. There was nothing that I noticed on the "criteria of speedy deletion" wiki page that said that an article that loses an AFD, it can't be speedily deleted. In fact I hadn't even visited wikipedia before I signed up. In the end, you are expecting me to have the same amount of knowledge as you on the way the site works? Especially when there was hostility to the articles being modified instead of guidance when I first signed up. Most changes I made were reverted with no explanation.
I don't care what you think. Also, your comment was that the source was right under my nose, when it wasn't. If you couldn't find a link to the article online, then how can an unlinked source from a small-town newspaper be accessible to me? Imstillhere 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unprotecting
There doesn't seem to be any ongoing discussion here. Time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
