This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-28. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Canada: British Columbia Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Dom emailed the administrators to seek a determination of whether this material is acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia.

I've removed some potentially problematic sections from this article, following discussion with other admins on IRC. The sections involved make some serious allegations, and are largely unsourced, sourced using

TheBainer - thank you for making this edit, the piece had become malicious. I think you will find that the history of "Domperignon" and his IP "24.69.167.172" are filled with examples of an intent to rewrite history through revionist edits targetted at a select few people. Despite his recent attempts to mask his IP and change his user profile I believe I have been to determain the identity of this person and I am confident that their political axe grinding has little place on WiKiPediA. An example of this inappropriate behaviour is the forwarding of all Wikipedia searches for "BC Raids" to this profile. (This should be changed too) —This

unsigned comment was added by 72.57.71.225 (talk • contribs

) .

FYI (all) - I have reviewed the postings of “Domperignon” and noticed that he has overlooked two important facts:

1. The Information to Obtain referenced by “Domperignon,” which was drafted in 2003, was finally released in mid 2004 with a clear statement from RCMP and Crown Prosecutor that Bornman (along with many other politically active British Columbians named in the 2003 Information to Obtain) was NOT a subject of the ongoing investigation.

2. The investigation mentioned is now complete (as of December 2004) and three individuals have been criminally charged in relation to that investigation (none of which are Bornman).

“Domperignon” has pasted together a creative, but inaccurate collection of blog entries and opinion pieces to support his proposition. To what end? We can only speculate. —This

unsigned comment was added by MildlyAnnoyed (talk • contribs

) .

I gather that Bornman (with one N) was a professional name that he used. Bornmann seems to be the family name (google his brother Roy) and it is also the name that Bornmann uses now (according to his link) and would seem to be his legal name also. I suspect that it always was. So I'm going to move (rename) the article to reflect this. --JGGardiner 19:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some users continue to put Wikipedia at risk by posting information on the "Erik Bornmann" that is simply untrue. Typically this information is sourced to political blogs and or commentators. Bornmann is Crown witness and it is evident that individuals either sympathetic to those that have been criminally charged or subscribing to different political views are attempting to ruin his credibility by making slanderous and outlandish edits to this page. This is similar to the type of activity we've seen on other wikipedia bios for political figures. This is not a court nor the floor of a legislature and these posts have no place here.

So what happened to Pilot House? The intro says that it became a leading firm. Since it was created only five years ago, one think that was still the case from reading the article. Is it? Does Bornmann have any involvement with them? The article is rather confusing to read because it is out of chronological order. --JGGardiner 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed by the fact that this has become a forum for cronies of those that have been criminaly charged to attack an individual that has come forward to testify on behalf of the crown. Wikipedia must be concerned by the fact that the encyclopedia is being abused in this way. I encourage others to remain vigilant in preventing this continued abuse.

--rascalpatrol 01:08, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that not everyone understands the nature of the information available or processes associated with the BC Rail trial, but until the trial there is no certainty about the facts relating to this matter. This is the case even though theories are often tossed about in political blogs and other opinion pieces and then inappropriately added to this site. The bottom line is that unless someone has access to information currently subject to a court sealing order, they do not have the full story. -- an regular visitor to this page

Things seem to be a little heated here so I just want to remind everyone to keep things civil. Also, it isn't cool to edit someone else's comments. You really shouldn't edit a comment, other than your own, unless it is truly problematic (offensive, threatening, etc). Thanks everyone. --JGGardiner 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "cool" matters much to these guys. I have nothing against Mr. Bornman, but I added a comment here that included a link to the Law Society of Upper Canada web site's information about its proceedings against him. My comment was removed. I just recalled this case while reading a Globe and Mail interview with Virk and Basi of legislature raids fame. Bornman is only notable for his involvement in the raids--quaere whether he would merit inclusion in wikipedia if it was not for his involvement. To have nothing about the raids in an article about him is a major oversight.

The above poster (who posted on Christmas day :( ) protests a little too much. He or she should also check out Wikipedia's policy on opinion articles. Opinion articles are not verifiable content and do not belong here. I have reviewed this page and am satisfied that Bornmann has an accomplished and varied, although still young, career, which is notable for its contribution to the Liberal Party of Canada and BC student politics. This page is not out of line with other Wikipedia entries. Given the traffic to this site I'm sure Bornmann would prefer if this page was taken down, but I think it should stay. I think the above poster is a little confused as to the facts surrounding the so called raids. Bornmann is a witness for the authorities, so we will not really know what his role is/was until he testifies at the upcoming trial. Speculation as to what might come out at this trial and opinion is not encyclopedic content.

SaintNickIX 10:24, 26 December 2006 (PST)

Hmmmm... it looks like the usual time-on-his-hands gremlin is back. Our funny little friend needs to find a day job

Randy3 02:38, 28 December 2006 (PST)

There's no logical reason for keeping the photo gallery link, is there? It does not provide any additional information about the subject, and there is no discussion of his photography hobby anywhere in the article. I will remove it at this point, but if another editor feels it is useful, please feel free to re-add. Risker 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An hour spent with Google tonight produced the following sources that provide background concerning Mr Bornmann that may be useful in adding content to the Erik Bornmann article. A press release by his lawyer in Ontario, and a related canada.com article. Tyee article, an essay he apparently did, Delta Optimist Article, A reference to him in question period in the BC legislature and another one. Something from CTV news, from Burnaby now, and two pieces from CBC 1 and 2. Something from Victoria voices, and from Mr Bornmann's own work and from Andrew Coyne who I think is a Globe and Mail columnist. These are at least a starting point. KenWalker | Talk 07:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has very strict

• No disrespect intended, but when I looked at this last night, there seemed to be extensively referenced sources added for virtually everything in the article. I didn't go over the article to analyze it all, but all that was there is verifiable and most if not all of the applicable sources were cited in detail from clearly reliable media sources. The expression of the information was carefully drafted in a neutral point of view and did not go beyond what the sources cited. It seems to me that you have taken out what was sourced and left what wasn't. Can you give those following this article an example of anything that was in this article that was not sourced? KenWalker | Talk 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sourced material was purged by a sock before

Proto got here, so I restored it. A total of 18 socks, not counting Rascalpatrol were confirmed as sockpuppets by a request for check user, including Randy3, who keeps deleting material and adding Bornmann's photography website here. I don't have time right now to work on this, but Proto's right - everything needs to be sourced properly, even non-controversial statements. Bobanny 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(Ken, got your message on my talk page.) All the information remains in the edit history - as long as the references are present, then the information can safely be restored. If references were purged by a sock, I apologise for missing that, but we still need to ensure that every single fact is referenced accurately and reliably. If this means the article takes time to put together, then so be it. Better slow and correct than fast and wrong/unreliable. Incidentally, do we have a reliable reference for Mr Bormann's year / date of birth?

► 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for that info. I agree that care must be taken to source everything. KenWalker | Talk 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on this later, but I wanted to comment on the "tribute socks" that showed up during my block; as I already told Bobanny elsewhere - 'tweren't me, as I was blocked at the time and don't have the dough to get around a block by going to a webcafe (as our socks will if "their" IP address is blocked, which it should be...) - and at least one of the two that resembles my username, Skootum3, made "friendly edits". But in review, and now that that's a confirmed sock - apparently from the same puppetmaster, or is that not what the sockpuppet report means? - it's suggestive that they were trying to "incriminate" me by making an edit that might look I was trying to violate the block. Just a speculation. But these are spin doctors, disinformationists and provocateurs we're dealing with; "they" specialize. Suffice to say if there's only two puppetmaster, as stated in the sock report, I can guess pretty easily which two they are......Skookum1 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW seem my comments to Proto on

Talk:BC Legislature Raids about Punch & Judy. One of the funniest bits in this whole affair was Omar Jack's (or was it Rich_H's?) "I am not a sockpuppet - who are you calling a sockpuppet" blustering...cf. Spiro Agnew.Skookum1 20:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

NOTE Skookum1 has been banned from wikipedia on at least one occassion for his irrational outbursts. It is not difficult to imagine why given his conduct on this page. --Omar Jack 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind everyone that personal attacks are not tolerated, even if they are made in the context of providing other relevant information. Try and stick to the content and the edits rather than the other users. If your post is just about another editor, it probably isn't something that you should write anyway. Remember the talk pages are for improving the articles. And just a little correction to the post above mine, Skookum was blocked and not banned (he actually notes just above that post). There is a difference in WP terminiology. Thanks everyone. --JGGardiner 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the record of the AFD is no longer linked through these pages, I thought it best to post it here so newcomers to this page can see "what went down" and why the ongoing shuffle of data (which, no doubt, will continue, unless the sockpuppets and their puppetmaster(s) have been blocked....which they should be IMO).Skookum1 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Going through the history of this talk page, it appears the {{
  oldafdfull}} template has been here all along. There was a minor (reverted) edit to allege the consensus was "further discussion", but the link to the AfD has been there all along. Agent 86 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think it was, actually, Omar Jack who made that change; but Quarl should have done it when he extended the discussion; there were two or three things he had to reverse/fix after initially closing the discussion and it must be one he forgot to reverse. Funny "OJ" did it....repeat after me: "I am not a sockpuppet!!" as to one of his posts on the AFD, and re Bobanny's sockpuppet report (linked just above, I believe)....Skookum1 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also figured it was a good idea to make it visible, as novice editors might not know of the link in the template, which is not highlighted except for the usual link-colour. This AFD was important enough that the experience of it should, IMO, remain high-profile here so that new, um, contributors, can be aware of the problems which plagued this page before these events.Skookum1 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have

Can some of the references obtained for this article be lifted across?

► 10:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think what you mean is can they be migrated to

BC Legislature Raids - ?? Necessarily they're often the same sources/references; those deleted from here (and slowly being restored) were also deleted from BC Legislature Raids ("the Ledge Raids" or "Ledgegate" for short btw), and so are also hiden in that article's edit history; for the usual "reasons" - that the columnist is an NDP (socialist party) or that the Straight or the Tyee is "leftist", or for whatever other non seqitur-ish reason.Skookum1 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Complete with Wikipedia usernames and snippets from this Talk page: Erik Bornmann article on Wikipedia proves highly controversial: a tale of intrigue and attack of the "Sock Puppets". No comment/I'm clueless about whether it's an accurate description of what's been going on. Kla'quot 04:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: "RCMP Targeted Aides", Vancouver Sun - 28 April 07

"The defence lawyer speculated that the call may have stemmed from Bornmann issuing a press release that indicated he had been cleared of any wrongdoing and was now a witness instead of a suspect.

"It was untrue, McCullough said of Bornmann's false claim of exoneration, which was reported by a number of media outlets at the time.

"The defence lawyer questioned whether part of the Crown deal was to allow Bornmann to pursue a legal career. Bornmann received a law degree from the University of B.C. and then went to Toronto to article for a law firm.

"He had applied to the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) to become a lawyer and would have had to disclose on his application that he was under investigation for bribing government officials, McCullough said.

"He alleged Bornmann lied about his past in his application, which undermines his credibility.

""The defence says you can reasonably infer that the law society would have never admitted him if he had told the truth," McCullough told the judge.

"He said Berardino had a duty to tell the LSUC about Bornmann but instead did nothing until the law society contacted him.

"McCullough told the court that Bornmann now is facing a disciplinary hearing after a member of the public filed a complaint.

Don't have time to fit into the article, or any similar new material on

It is worth stating that the payments Bornmann is alleged to have made are illegal payments. Removing the word illegal strips a relevant and important characteristic of what he is alleged to have done. User "Rightoh" has removed the word illegal. This omission leaves open the possibility that the payments were legal and if that were the case there would be far less importance placed on what Bornmann is alleged to have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opennicropachy (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this has been linked in teh article yet; this is the article in the Vancouver Sun giving links to the full texts of the warrants, including Bornmann's information to the police.Skookum1 (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jobspublicaffairs.com/

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.

• 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.—

I have just modified one external link on Erik Bornmann. 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/20121107073122/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ff5d98a3-f197-44b8-ad8e-11d61bfd6b2e&k=25967 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ff5d98a3-f197-44b8-ad8e-11d61bfd6b2e&k=25967

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erik Bornmann. 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/20061214143256/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5b67f0be-496a-4b45-9685-1b1df2882f09&k=76589 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5b67f0be-496a-4b45-9685-1b1df2882f09&k=76589

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]