Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I knew you could play nice!

Thanks, all! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. I sourced a link within Wiki, and he has now nominated it for speedy deletion. Pete Peters 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the album and the band do meet deletion guidelines. They have no record deal (they self-publish on eight-tracks). They have no major gigs. The one singer is notable, but, as the listing on the band admitys, for things other than music. I'm no expert on Canadian punk rock. If people feel otherwise, that they are somehow, in any way, important, let them say so.Arthur Ellis 16:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFD for non-obvious deletions, please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't trying sleight of hand. I live in Canada, I don't feel too isolated from popular culture, and I never heard of this band or anyone in it. But I also don't have an eight-track player anymore :)Arthur Ellis 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never had to do so much handholding with several users over such a prolonged period of time..... - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The eight-track reference was to the fact that the Evaporators self-publish on 8-track tape. From my point of view, I'm preventing this from being a vanity listing, which it has been through most of its history. That link seemed, in my mind, to bring me to another vanit listing by the same group of Canadian punk rockers (!?!). I want to see them either brought up to snuff as relevant entries or mucked out. I'm sorry I lost my cool over this. It has eaten up a lot of my time.Arthur Ellis 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Xinit, a member of Wikipedia's punk rock project says Evaporators are an important band. I defer to his expertise and apologise for taking up people's time with this. At first glance, the band and their album seemed rather ridiculous, but I got off the punk rock bus back in about 1980.Arthur Ellis

As a Vancouverite, let me tell you they are popular. Everyone here knows them. They have been released on Alternative Tentacles, the label owned by former Dead Kennedy Jello Biafra. It is not just Nardwuar who is famous, the band is an indie-rock supergroup. John Collins from the New Pornograpers and David Carswell from The Smugglers are in it as well.[1] Geedubber 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I learned something today. Maybe I should buy one of their albums. ::Is Barney Rubble is My Double out as a single:)?Arthur Ellis 16:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think the picture on this entry is rather ludicrous. What do other people think? Should we look for a better picture? My problem with it is that it would (sort of) fit if the entry was just about punk rock, but when it deals with books, politics, lawsuits, a federal inquiry, etc., it makes him look rather silly.Arthur Ellis 16:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the picture on the Writers Union page (linked from "best selling author") as it is a full-face shot and there is already a punk reference (the Hot Nasties poster). The Writers Union picture may be a little old, though, so maybe someone can suggest something more up-to-date.Arthur Ellis 18:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This entry

Hopefully, now that the entry is sourced, re-worked, etc. it can stay as it is for a while (maybe with a new picture if there is consensus) and we can devote our considerable energies to improving other Wikipedia entries. Arthur Ellis 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is BS, it's bad enough that you have had to make the whole WK entry look like WK is a bad guy. Your next thing you want to do is eliminate his picture. This guy has writern a national bestseller. He has become an authority on far right activities. But all you get is your silly reference to the Gomery inquiry and legal his actions against Mark Bourrie (MB). You then attempt to minimize his famous newsnet stunt by suggesting someone else thought of the idea. Who cares if someone else thought of the idea, I don't read people trying to discredit politician for reading a speech that they did not write. Sheesh. Pete Peters 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please restrain your personal attacks. Obviously, you have some POV issues about this person. In my view, the entry is well-sourced and is complete. I am not suggesting someone else thought of the idea of the Barney prank. I am simply stating a fact, which is backed up with a citation. I think the fact that he wrote Web of Hate makes it obvious he has some knowledge of the far-right, but the fact that his publisher had to fork out $40K to one of the people discussed in the book -- an issue you made a bunch of us hunt down and research, then dropped -- takes away some of that authority, in my opinion. I simply wanted a better picture, one that didn't make him look silly. I have never said there should not be a picture of him.Arthur Ellis 18:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

SighPete Peters 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Gomery Inquiry

Kinsella's work as a political aide figured in a 2004 Canadian sponsorship scandal. In 1995, while working for David Dingwall, then Minister of Public Works, Kinsella wrote a memo to deputy minister Ran Quail recommending that the department place Charles Guité in charge of reviewing federal advertising policy.[2].

In 2006, Guité was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 42 months in prison for misdirecting funds intended for government advertising or sponsorship in Quebec, offences that occurred after Kinsella left government. In his report on the scandal, Justice John Gomery noted that the memo was "a highly inappropriate attempt by political staff to interfere in the internal administration" of the department.[3] Kinsella was a witness at the Gomery CommissionSchedule of Witnesses. and frequently mocked Judge Gomery on his web site.

Okay the more you dig into this the more you realize that this section has to go. This is what happen, Warren Kinsella wrote a memo to Ran Quail suggesting he should hire Guite. However Ran Quail dismissed the memo as a "mistake by an inexperienced staffer."[4]

• Warren Writes a memo to Ran Quail
• Ran Quail Dismisses the Memo as a rookie mistake

That is all. To put that in on top of what has already been written would be rather cumbersome, and too much of this entry would be spent on the Gomery commission. I am leaving it here in the discussion page if someone really wants to read it. Another thing, this article could make someone believe that Kinsella had some involvement in the sponsership scandal.Pete Peters 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but everything Kinsella suggested in the memo basically happened two years later.... Geedubber 22:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading the deleted section and this talk section, I personally am of the opinion that the deleted section could (if not should) be restored with one additional sentence starting, perhaps, with "However, ..." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My objection is the attempt to link Kinsella to Guite. He left the department years before the Ad department was created. Years before the Adscam ocurred, and this memo which was never used to convict someone, is placed front and center of the whole entry. He testified at the inquiry for less than 2 hours, which by inquiry standards is a very very short time.

• Mentioning that Kinsella wrote a memo suggesting to hire a bureaucrat into a job.
• Then years after Kinsella left the post The sponsership program is created

And viola, let's use Wikipedia to include Kinsella in the whole sponsership mess. Gedduber, if you want to write your own version than go ahead. Be sure to include WK critical evaluations of the whole sponsership inquiry. I just can't execpt how it is written now, there is bias in the article that is clearly one sided.Pete Peters 23:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworked it. Most of the text is reworked straight from the Gomery Report. I took out everything about Guite being sentence and focused it solely on Kinsella's role. I would like to add when Kinsella left government, but am unsure of the year. Geedubber 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Guite's subsequent career and charges are important, as it shows Kinsella's judgment. As well, there seems to be an attempt to soft-sopa what Gmery said about kinsella.Arthur Ellis 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Guite's biography into this article is only ment to discredit Kinsella, just like requesting Ripple Rock album be deleted from Wikipedia. Geddubber's post is the middle ground, leave it at that. Pete Peters 00:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete Peters edits, July 4

I have reverted the large number of vanity edits done this afternoon. Almost all of them have been reverted and rejected by other editors in the past. For instance, there's no need to talk about Kinsella's interviews for his punk book. The book is listed. The Gomery edits are a grotesque distortion of what Gomery had to say about Kinsella's role, as anyon who actually clicks the citation and reads the report (especially p. 26) can see.. The line about kinsella's father being "renowned" is POV. The Kinsella quotes about bloggers is rather irrelevant.

The consensus that was developed here Saturday and Sunday has been seriously undermined by Pete Peters, who waited until the consensus edits were essentially finished to go at this artice again. I sincerely hope the next administrator that happens by will read Pete Peters edit history. Pete Peter's first post was to falsely accuse me of being a sock puppet, as two check requests this week have shown. He has focussed on this article to make it, essentially, a vanity listing for Kinsella. I ask the next administrator who looks at this to do two things: (1) Google "Warren Kinsella" to get a handle on who this guy is, his impact on the Canadian blogosphere, and his place in the lead-up to the Sponsorship Scandal, which forced the federal Liberal Party of Canada out of power; and (2) Take a good, hard, NPOV look at Pete Peters edit history, in chronological order: the accusations, the posts he put on my user and talk page, the harrassment, the stalking. Until then, this entry is protected, much to the amusement of Canadians who are aware of Warren Kinsella. Arthur Ellis 01:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't approve of the Gomery Inquiry, I compromised with Geedubber. In matter of fact, the final product was more of a work by Geedubber. I thought it was a consensus built version. In my opinion, your consensus version included verbally abusing editors. Let's look at your conversation with Geedubber which doesn't sound consensus forged.

You have done something very dishonest. Kinsella is often credited for the Barney stunt. Wikipedia can set the record straight. You know very well the Paul Wells column is reprinted verbatim. As I said, you should be ashamed for putting deliberately misleading information into the entry and taking out something that can set the record straight. Arthur Ellis 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor does your conversation with HistoryBA sound consesus forged.

Maybe "brick" would be more accurate. Now please go away.Arthur Ellis 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote on Geedubber's talk page took the cake.

You acted very dishonestly and maliciously by taking out well-sourced material (paul Wells, National Post) in the Kinsella article. You should be ashamed.Arthur Ellis 00:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't refer it to consensus forged when it was anything but. I thought Geedubber and I did a good consensus job. Pete Peters 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The stuff above was taken out of context from my discussion page. Anyone interested in seeing what it's about should go there. As for saying Geedubber acted dishonestly, I stand by that. To make this article more flattering to Kinsella, he took out a reference that was solid (and that is in the locked version), and mocked me because if I reverted it, I would violate the 3RR. That's hardly fair play. And, again, the version that was done by the consensus worked out on this page two days ago (when Pete Peters had flounced and a vandalising IP showed up), and over the past couple of years by editors (especially on Gomery and the blogging issue) have been completely disregarded by these two editors, who used an evening of a national holiday to re-work the entry. I know it will be a lot of work to go through this discussion page, the Pete Peters edit history, the citations and to Google Kinsella to familiarise, but that's what this article needs. Arthur Ellis 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ugh. I warned you about the 3rr so you wouldn't get banned, and so you could contribute to the article in other sections. The Sophie Galarneau part got in cause HistoryBA verified it, and RyanFantastic cited it correctly. kinsellasux is not a citable website. I did not act dishonestly. With my edits today, I was trying to please both you and PP, but i guess that is not possible. Infact in my edit summary I asked for comments from all editors. Using a "national holiday to re-work the entry"? I am not a evil-genius. it was my birthday too, is that not allowed either? Everything I added was cited and notable. I focused on Kinsella role in the Gomery affair, cause it is his page not Guite's. The personal section is a tad vanity, but everything else is notable and article worthy Geedubber 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This ends, now

For multiple and continuous violations of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocks may be used Item numbers 2 ("Excessive reverts"), 6 ("Disruption") and 10 ("Users who exhaust the community's patience"), Arthur Ellis and Pete Peters are advised to either figure out how to work together, decide to work elsewhere (as in, not on Warren Kinsella) or face preventative, extended blocks from editing any article. This stops, now. If either of you has an issue with this, please take it to the ArbCom with my relief blessing. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Will doArthur Ellis 03:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Arthur Ellis

Two check user requests, both made by Kinsella apologist Pete Peters, who registered last week and immediately began refashioning this page to suit Kinsella's ego, have shown Arthur Ellis is not Ceraurus and/or Mark Bourrie. Plastering Bourrie's name all over Wikipedia with insults and accusations may not be the smartest thing to do, especially now that he's suing Kinsella, and Kinsella has linked to this page on his poison pen blog.209.217.93.40 11:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser was inconclusive. It is still unclear whether Arthur Ellis is or isn't a sockpuppet of Ceraurus. Oh, and please read Wikipedia:No legal threats Geedubber 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" means, effectively, that you and Pete Peters have jack squat. I don't see a legal threat here, just a reminder that someone who is not on Wikipedia is having his name spread all over it by Pete Peters and you and may not particularly like it.

Who are you, IP? Please identify yourself - this is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PAPus...PAPus... I vant to see your PAPuzzz.... Crzrussian really does fit. Arthur Ellis 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Pete Peters is really Kinsella doing an excellent job of playing dumb. Look at the Wikipedia entry for Pete Peters and see it's for some white supremacist. Pete Peters and Geedubber know a lot about the Canadian Federal government, including a remarkable amount of stuff about the advertising contracting system (see article history). There's a lot of "golly, Gomer, I don't know nuthin' about no War-reen Kinsella, I'm just a pubic spirited citizen editing Wikipedia for the benefit of us all, but, oh, my, the federal advertising procurement system introduced by the Treasury Board in 1997 bears a striking resemblance to the one suggested by Mr. Kinsella in the fabled Q memo of 1995. How about that, eh, fellas? Now let's take out the Gomery stuff. And put in he's a punk rock ge-ni-us." Do you think we're all stupid, Warren? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.78.64.58 (talk • contribs)

And who are you, IP address user?? One more inflammatory comment, and I will block you! - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis cited the Gomery pdf (I never would have found the chapter on my own) and I searched the document for Kinsella's name. The Gomery report is very clearly written and easy to understand. I would like to point out that I added the Gomery section back in, and expanded what Kinsella's role was. If anything my edits paint a worse picture of Kinsella. I even included a new quote which makes him sound incompetent. Geedubber 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thwere's no tildes key on this public computer in a part of the world where computer keys are in French. You can get it in the discussion history. Sorry if you find facts inflamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.78.64.58 (talk • contribs)

You're 142.78.64.58 (talk · contribs). What I am asking is, whose sock are you in this debate, or who are you in real life? - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anyone in this debate. I followed the link to here from www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm, looked the stuff over and saw how ludicrous it is. I take it you're not from Canada, are you? You really don't know how ludicrous Warren Kinsella is in Canada, do you? Do yourself a favor and go over to Kinsella's web site. Read the entire "latest musings" page. Get some archives from Google. Then come back to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.78.64.58 (talk • contribs)

Since you mentioned it, you can sign your comments with one of the buttons above the edit window, second from the right. I don't usually type the tildes. It's just easier. --JGGardiner 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. BTW, CRzrussian, here's a good place to start: it's a link to a letter to the editor from the head of the news department of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, skewering Kinsella for a smear of one of his National News reporters. Kinsella is a master of smear.

http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/1681

I bet "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics" didn't sell well in the States, but Kinsella is an advocate of th3 Karl Rove/James Carville school of politics. He's pretty much been laughed off the political stage in Canada. --142.78.64.58 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Kinsella myself. But we have to remember that WP is an encyclopedia and it isn't our place to comment on the subjects ourselves. --JGGardiner 18:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's important to be accurate and ensure the entries are true and not just PR for narcissists who would edit their own pages to make themselves look good.

.206.191.56.34 22:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Although I think that in general not many people are actually so immodest and vain as to edit their own articles. --JGGardiner 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I buy the argument that Kinsella is.206.191.56.34 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention that Kinsella is a criminally insane narcissist?

This section heading was added by 209.217.96.169.

Probably because narcissist "POV" term. Do you have a source on the criminally insane part? --JGGardiner 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Proven as a complete phrase, "criminally insane narcissist"? or just as "criminal", "insane" and "narcissist"? or as "criminally insane" and "narcissist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.123.54 (talk • contribs)

Well "criminally insane" could potentially be an objective fact (as a finding). Narcissist is really a characterization so that depends on how you intend to use it. You're probably going to want to familiarize yourself with WP policies. But we probably shouldn't waste any more space on general topics on the article talk page. --JGGardiner 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But is it art?

Everyone should hear "Barney Rubble is My Double" at least once before they die: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mVV_M0NoC4

64.26.147.188 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not a fan. I wonder if waving the doll was Kinsella's idea? --JGGardiner 05:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ripple Rock page credits the Hot Nasties.... so I am gussing he wrote this back in the day. When the page gets unprotected we might want to change "Recently, Kinsella wrote the song, Barney Rubble is My Double for The Evaporator's Ripple Rock album." to "Recently, Kinsella's song, Barney Rubble is My Double was performed by The Evaporator on their Ripple Rock album." Geedubber 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, old poseurs never die... Surely these geezers don't take themselves seriously? The singer of "Barney Rubble is my Double", who has legally changed his name to Narduar the Human Serviette, is 39 and has a show on a college radio station. "Time to move out of the basement, son." "Um, time to let some real college students have that slot, Nard. I'm afraid we have to ask you to move on." 64.26.147.188

Must admit, though, it is catchy.209.217.93.12 15:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that after watching the clip, the lyrics are perhaps the best part of the performance. And since we did just hear the one line repeated, I googled them to see all of the poetry and the lyrics are available on the Shit From Hell website here.[5] That page seems to imply that it is an SFH song and not a Hot Nasties one I believe. And with Kinsella's writing and the doll waving I tend to believe the song is about Stockwell Day being a neanderthal. --JGGardiner 15:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I googled it and found two people credited with writing the song, Kinsella and another guy with a French name. Maybe the Canadian music copyright collective people have a record. Kinsella may own enough of the song that it can be used without payment by SFH. The Evaporators' old Wikipedia listing credits Hot Nasties (you'll have to dig back into the histories or unscramble the talk page). I played some more Evaporators stuff at the video site and found the band quite tight, while the lyrics were grim and not particularly creative and the singing to be the biggest weakness. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think 40-year-ol guys doing retro-punk is the next big thing in music. Been wrong before -- people got rich off the Bird Dance. 209.217.93.12 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the SFH site credit W. Kinsella and Pierre Schenk with writing the song. The Punk History Canada site says that Pierre Schenk was the lead guitar for the Hot Nasties. Sooo, i think it was a Hot Nasties song not a SFH song.... unless Schenk is in SFH too.... their website only provides the nicknames of the members so the year it was written is getting hard to verify. Geedubber 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I've had enough of Barney Rubble for now. So unless somebody else wants to do the research, I would endorse Geedubbers idea. And I must say that I'm surprised that nobody has added the song to the trivia section Barney Rubble article. I won't because I wouldn't want some child stumbling across Shit from Hell. Although I know that WP is not censored for minors. I also hate those trivia sections. --JGGardiner 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The song was written by Kinsella, it's confirmed in this March 2004 interview by James Sinclair of Hour.ca - http://www.hour.ca/music/music.aspx?iIDArticle=895 - I found a short clip on the net of Kinsella singing it: http://www.oracleofottawa.org/WK_BRSept30_05.rm --- Mai Lee ---

Disputed?

Things seem pretty jovial here now. And Mark Bourrie himself said that this article is improved. And since Geedubber mentioned getting back to real work on the article, do you think that we could unprotect the page? Are there still disputes that can't be resolved through dialogue? --JGGardiner 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do others agree? If people post to say they agree, I'll unprotect - CrazyRougeian talk/email 17:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... one person with two puters pretending to have a two person conversation on the Talk Page. One of them on the Mark Bourrie Talk page claims to be Mark Bourrie himself. Errrrr, it still must be protected from random IP's. And probably reverted from any Arthur Ellis edit. Errrrrr. I will not touch the page, as long as he can agree to do same. Pete Peters 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PP has a good idea. Instead of removing all protection, do it gradually like to semi-protect first then all the way. Geedubber 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:AGF I am in favour of removing all protection. Perhaps we could archive this talk page in the near future as well, as it is gettiing rather long. -- Ryanfantastic 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the last version by Geedubber (July 4) is fine by me. The "renowned physician" bit seems POV (who is saying it? Wikipedia?). And I think Kinsella wrote "Barney Rubble is my Double" twenty years ago, not recently. I'd leave it alone if it was that version, with a date on BRIMD and the lame-o amateur mid-life punk music stuff at the bottom. Arthur Ellis 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Mai. I agree with Arthur's points. "Renowned" is probably POV. It could be justified although I don't think that the link really proves it. But I'm not familiar with NCEHR and the link doesn't explain what it is. So I would defer if someone has better info. I think it is also strange how the sections go from politics to punk music to Gomery. I agree with his suggestion to move it down. I actually just noticed that we no longer mention Shit from Hell. I'm on board with Geedubber's semi-protection idea if that works. I'm really just happy to see anything that gets things running again but I'd really hate to see more unreasonable conflict. But I would also like to get back to allowing IPs, like Mai, to contribute also. So hopefully we can fully unprotect relatively soon also if everyone can behave themselves. --JGGardiner 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

some editors said that SFH didn't meet WP:BAND and that the citations were "vanity sites". So I removed SFH in my last edit. I left the Hot Nasites in cause people in talk, i think it was you JGG, said they were notable. plus now that it's known the Evaporator's did a cover of one of their songs means that the punk section should definately be left in. I was also responsible for the change in order of the sections... I can't remember why I did it that way.... Is there a wiki style guide which could give us some direction here? Geedubber 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that as long as the information is not a vanity inclusion, it is up to our discretion. Kinsella's part in SFH most likely would not have warranted an article for Kinsella on it's own (according to my understanding of the group's importance to the music world) but once a subject is worthy of an article, all info in that article need not be as important as the subject is himself. So SFH is, in my opinion, as notable as his high school, his education, his early work experience, etc. All normal things that every article includes. And it's the kind of thing in other articles, like Stephen Harper's fondness for the Calgary Flames. The article is a gestalt entity where the details are individually insignificant but together make up the article for a notable individual. --JGGardiner 03:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinsella's Dad

Txs JGGardiner - Did you also know that Kinsella's father was indeed a well known physician. He received the Order of Canada for his work in Bioethics: http://www.gg.ca/honours/search-recherche/honours-desc.asp?lang=e&TypeID=orc&id=3372

The Order of Canada award states " A pioneer in medical bioethics, he was the driving force in developing a program, unique in its scope and intensity, for residency training in this vital field. As president of the National Council of Bioethics in Human Experimentation, he has led this organization in developing one of the most effective policies on ethical conduct in medical and scientific research in Canada. "

A nice tribute by Bioethics Canada is available in the Google cache: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:GjLLzcXY_2kJ:www.bioethics.ca/AMemorialTributKinsella.doc+douglas+kinsella+order+of+canada&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1 -Mai Lee

Thanks again Mai. Well that info is quite specific and actually makes the old entry look pretty understated although I'm not sure how everyone would like to see the particular sentence written in the article. But with the protection still on I guess we have some time to talk about it if anyone would like. --JGGardiner 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe do an entry on Kinsela's father then, since those were his accomplishments. I can imagine the dinner table conversations at the Dr. Kinsella household c. 1970, lots of chhat about the finer points of ethics, and little Warren absorbing them like a sponge.Arthur Ellis 10:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after doing the morning dishes, I've had an utter and complete reversal of views. I had though Warren's father was just some old sawbones (everyone's doctor is "renowned" to his patients. That's the secret of medicine). The fact the guy was a serious scholar of ethics needs to be in there. In an article about the self-styled "Prince of Darkness" and the author of "Kicking Ass In Canadian Politics", the fact his father was an ethicist has all kinds of Freudian implications. Anyone know anything about his mom? He never mentions her. Maybe she was an ethicist, too. Arthur Ellis 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Dr. Kinsella deserves his own article. I think every person who's been honoured with the Order of Canada should. Hopefully somebody who knows more than I do would like to take up that task. Otherwise I guess I don't mind doing a little research. As for this article, I'm not sure what you want to include exactly but we can't point out a perceived irony. Original research (besides "POV" concerns). --JGGardiner 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

something like: "Warren Kinsella is the son of bioethicist Dr. XYZ Kinsella, who received an Order of Canada in recognition of his research."

Takes care of the POV and vague "renowned physician" part, because he seems to be recognized more for the bioethics stuff than for his practice of medicine. Arthur Ellis 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From the randomhouse website "The 1990 Liberal leadership convention in Calgary was a chance for Dr. Kinsella to see his son in action (and serve as official physician to the Chrétien team)" Interesting tidbit. Inclusion? Geedubber 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in his own entry. Really, family is worth only a line or two. Arthur Ellis 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Before it's unblocked

I think we have a consensus (at least among the non-IP posters:

• Put the music at the end
• Explain a bit about Dr. Kinsella (i.e. why he is renowned)
• Leave the sections themselves pretty much as-is

I think we need to hear from Pete Peters and History BA on this before it's unblocked to registered posters. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to quickly open it to anonymous and IP posters. Arthur Ellis 17:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also

• change writing section more into a list
• move the weblog to personal
• move media columnist for the National Post to career history
• correct the barney rubble line
• add the year he left government

Geedubber 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All good suggestions.Arthur Ellis 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I hope that we can keep up all the cooperation when the article is unprotected. What about the picture? I don't think it is a very good one. But I seem to recall that there was a dispute about changing pictures in the past. --JGGardiner 18:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggested changing the picture to something less assisine and Pete Peters had, well, reservations, and thought I wanted to get rid of it altogether. I suggested the one on the Writers Union of Canada page which is a full-frame head shot.

I still have worries, since we haven't heard from Pete Peters and HistoryBA. This happened last time with Pete Peters. A consensus seemed to have formed, then he re-edited the page.20:29, Arthur Ellis 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)8 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this, keep it protected from anonymous IPs and new accounts, and Arthur and I do not contribute to the entry. We may vent our frustration on the discussion board. That seems like a decent plan. Consensus anyone? Pete Peters 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we work on the consensus that's been built here, fix the article and move on. Blocking IPs, at least for a week or two, is a good idea. If the article looks the way I think it will from the consensus of the last few days, I won't see any need to change it. I'm leery about promising not to touch it, as I've been burned before, and we don't know who is lurking in the bushes.Arthur Ellis 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not find a single reason to lift the ban. Your behaviour is still suspect. Anyone who looks at Arthur Ellis's history, will find that he is still trying to get any positive entry about Warren deleted. Even anonymous IPs that have posted on here have either said they are Mark Bourrie on another Talk page, or requested the deletion of "The New Pornographers", simply because there is a Wareen connection. Here is the agreement that I ask others to vote on, keep it protected from anonymous IPs and new accounts, and Arthur and I do not contribute to the entry. We may vent our frustration on the discussion board. Yes, are we all in agreement. Pete Peters 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You can speak for yourself, but I am leery of letting you speak for me. I have already said that I agree with the consensus established in the last couple of days. I am not Mark Bourrie. I certainly have not said so on any talk page. I suggest you get over it, let us know if there's anything in the proposed edits you disagree with, and we'll get on with this. Don't come in here late in the game and go personal on us. Arthur Ellis 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IP 64.26.147.188 who was placing nonsense on the the Check User page of Cereaus, also said he was Mark Bourrie on the Mark Bourrie Talk page. Ironically, the two recent anonymous IPs that have entered into this Talk Page, 64.26.147.188, 209.217.93.12 along with Arthur Ellis have all had their nonsense on that check user page reverted by admin. So for the record, I said, " anonymous IPs that have posted on here have either said they are Mark Bourrie...", apology accepted Arthur. Pete Peters 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I am semi-protecting. Play ball! - CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... No deal was made. Hmmm... Oh Well, and in Canada we say "Let's Play Ball" Pete Peters 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to incorporate that "Dingwall testifies that he does not remember the incident, but assumes that he must have instructed Mr. Kinsella to write the memo."(from gomery) and if we are going to include Guite being sentenced move it to the bottom of the paragraph for chronological reasons. and find a citation too Geedubber 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Game On

Now that's more like what we say in Canada. Not a bad start (unless I've missed something). Perhaps every article should take a few days off so that the editors can talk things out and come up with an action plan. Remember, disputes are allowed but they have to worked out in a civil manner (for example on talk pages). But I did want to ask if there is a source on Bourrie disclosing the details? Or is that the same disclosure that's already used as a source for the $1000? --JGGardiner 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, Nelly!

Ok, guys, let's start this all over again. I thought we were making great progress when you both agreed to make all suggestions for the page here. Let's start this over again with a clean slate and put all issues we have with the page here and discuss it. It's more effective. Yanksox 15:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to have nothing to do with this article anymore. I first got annoyed with Arthur Ellis when he cried vandalism over an entry of mine. (Isn't odd that random IP's stationed in Ottawa also cry vandalism over something that is not?) The guy has his own POV, and is determined to establish it as the standard viewpoint. I don't think saying Warren Kinsella's father was a recipient of the Order of Canada merits a vandalism decree. Well, this is what is going to happen, anyone who puts in a passage that views warren in a positive light will be reverted by Arthur Ellis. Then he'll say it was consensus built. Also, notice on the Mark Bourrie entry how he edits out anything that looks poorly on Mark Bourrie. Isn't it odd? Pete Peters 15:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the version by crzrussian, which refelcts the consensus -- and the work -- that we did over the last few days.Arthur Ellis 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So as of right now, no one has any issues with the page that they wish to list here? If you do, I highly recommend listing it here right now. Yanksox 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, is it possible just to play nice again? I know you guys can, it's not that hard to not edit the page and just talk about it here. Yanksox 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have issue, Arthur Ellis should not be allowed to edit this entry. Last time the protection was lifted, Arthur never explain any of his edits on the discussion board. Instead he badgered editors for modifying his version. The CrzRussian edit, was an edit made during my edit. Our two edits collided. Pete Peters 15:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---It is interesting that Arthur Ellis has begin posting entries on railroads only after my friend Sushi Boy posted this:

"For someone who keeps saying he's not "Mark Bourrie", Arthur Ellis sure knows a whole lot about his uncle and Bourrie Trivia. Never has anything to post in his area of expertise: Railroads. He's made so many posts on Bourrie, Pierre Bourque and Kinsella. Always, trying to delete pages connected to Kinsella. So many edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Arthur+Ellis That's all I have to say. --Sushi Boy--"

The entry is common knowledge, this person is trying to convince you that he's knowlegeable.

We think you are being duped, it would be best to retain the page protection. Anyway, it's a interesting to watch this flame-delete-revert war. as my friend said, so many edits. <-Casey Jones ->—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.114.43 (talk • contribs)

I think as of right now, both of you should refrain from editing the article. Also, Radio Kirk did not say that, he said this and this. We should try to reach an agreement on content and not other editors on this page. You both can list the issues you have with the current text here and other users can comment on it. Yanksox 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I said I would ban myself from this page, if he could do the same. Pete Peters 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to ban yourself from the page, I think you should restrict yourself from editing the page, as should Arthur Ellis, but I think you should stay active on the talk page. Yanksox 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree, I hope the two of us can both agree. I may be wrong about the quote. Pete Peters 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your willingness to do so, now I hope Arthur Ellis can drop in. Yanksox 16:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We were doing so well at talking about it before. Disputes happen, we just have to be able to handle them appropriately. It would probably most helpful if somebody is reverting changes if they could do them line by line so, with explanations in the edit summary, so that we know what the problems are with each section. So, lets talk this through if we have to. What issues are the in dispute? --JGGardiner 16:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think my expertise in ABS and CTC traffic control systems in railways is "common knowledge", you obviously haven't compared the edits in the article.

Just what exactly constitutes harassment on Wikipedia? And if I may be so bold, may I see the different sets of rules that govern different peoples' conduct? Arthur Ellis 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since he asks the question, with all those edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Arthur+Ellis May I suggest that "Arthur Ellis" fits the harassment profile /kim c/

Small edits

I think everyone needs to commit themselves ASAP to small edits ONLY. In the last 24 hours Pete made a massive summary reversion ignoring interim progress, and Arthur restored it. Going forward let's all make only small changes. If a particular change is questionable, either slap {{fact}} on it, or talk about POV issues on talk page - and be specific. Let one of the non-warring parties change it if needs to be changed. I for one am watching what's going on here, every edit. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 16:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well this is what I have to say as my last hoorah.

• Kinsella left 2 years before the sponsership scandal started. There is an obvious bias in the current version.
• Kinsella's father recieved the order of Canada, I think some mention of that should be allowed.
• requesting CSD for entries relating to Warren Kinsella must be stopped
• The lawsuit against bloggers. Should not say that he "aroused controversy", he is after all the "Prince of Darkness." Too much time is spent on MArk Bourrie in the entry.
• Saying that Kinsella did the Barney stunt based on the idea of somone else is like saying that G.W. Bush said the "Axis of Evil" because the speechwriter David Frum thought of it. Unneccesary detail. Too much detail.
• Excluding the fact that he is a best selling author should stop Pete Peters 16:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• OK - does anyone have an objection to this - speak now pr forever hold your peace! - CrazyRougeian talk/email 16:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "aroused controversy" is valid. See long discussion in the archive (among people who are no longer here). I think Guite stuff is important. The sponsorship system actually began while Kinsella was there. the kickback element supposedly came later. Gomery says Kinsella introduced Guite to Corriveau (both have been convicted in the sponsorship scandal). No reason why Kinsella's father's Order of Canada shouldn't be in, especially in regards to it being awarded for bioethics. Formerly, he was described as a "renowned physician" which is both vague and POV. Saying Kinsella did the Barney stunt on someone else's idea is important as Kinsella has taken full credit for it quite often. The difference between Kinsella and Bush is that Kinsella is a political "strategist" selling his services and taking credit for this stunt, while Bush is an elected official. (BTW, Frum did not coin Axis of Evil and was fired for taking credit for it). No reason at all not to include the fact that he's a best-selling authot (BTW, CRZ, a "best seller" in Canada is reaching the lofty sales plateau of 5000 sold). Arthur Ellis 17:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"best selling" and "aroused controversy" should both be removed. Putting an OC link after Dr. Kinsella's name is good enough, you don't have to spell it out. I was fine putting that Guite got convicted as long as it was at the end of the paragraph and cited. I would like to add that Dingwall testified that he ordered Kinsella to write the memo. Geedubber 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Kinsella (Pete Peters) says on his blog that I "smeared his mother" here. [6] Actually, all I did was ask if she was an ethicist, too. This is the kind of guy we're dealing with. Here's what I posted:

Actually, after doing the morning dishes, I've had an utter and complete reversal of views. I had though Warren's father was just some old sawbones (everyone's doctor is "renowned" to his patients. That's the secret of medicine). The fact the guy was a serious scholar of ethics needs to be in there. In an article about the self-styled "Prince of Darkness" and the author of "Kicking Ass In Canadian Politics", the fact his father was an ethicist has all kinds of Freudian implications. Anyone know anything about his mom? He never mentions her. Maybe she was an ethicist, too. Arthur Ellis 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Jan Wong, she may have suggested, very vaguely, as a hint, that Kinsella may have used public knowledge of his son's near-drowning (the kid was left unattended for a moment at a cottage) to try to sell books. Not that the kid was trying to sell books, or that the kid was a sleaze.

Arthur Ellis 17:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, technically you were insulting him when you asked that, but personal attacks beget more personal attacks so I suggest that you take the highroad and stop dissing him all. plus saying stuff like "This is the kind of guy we're dealing with." makes you sound extremely biased and won't make other editors respect your edits. Geedubber 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was insulting him. Maybe his mother did something special. Rather sexist that no one even tries to find out. Or did Kinsella spring forth, fully formed, from the brow of Dr. Zeus? As well, he says on the same blog page that, yesterday, someone sent him a link to this page. Scroll down and you'll see that he, in fact, linked to this page several days ago. Maybe one of our problems is that this guy has, um, issues with the truth. Arthur Ellis 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with Geedubber's suggestions, though I have no trouble with "best selling" staying in. I see C.M. is already in the entry, but not everyone would know what it means at first sight.Arthur Ellis 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

the edit JGG made seemed to take care of stuff. The way he worded the controversy line is fine. Geedubber 18:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Piss off buddy, I am not Warren Kinsella. A clear difference is, he can articulate his writing into a very eloquent way. I can not. You better stop with that silly allegation. Pete Peters 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

He denies the allegation and denounces the allegator. Arthur Ellis 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Arthur Ellis 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

JGG's edits are fine. people can find the OC through the link. They can decide for themselves by reading the blogging section whether there was a controversy, or how much of one there was.Arthur Ellis 18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, let's all calm down and relax here. There is absolutely no need to get hasty around here. Let's relax and keep trying to find some middle ground. Yanksox 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's Bizarro Question

Is KInsella related to W.P. Kinsella, the writer?Arthur Ellis 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

from the now infamous Jan Wong article, "Ask if he's even related to W.P., this Kinsella nearly chokes on his Diet Coke. "Not a [f-word deleted] chance," he says. "He's this Reform Party reptile." Geedubber 23:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Nasties

Now that Warren Kinsella is blocked anmd Arthur Ellis can't change it, he attacks the Hot Nasties section that I created (and I have NO LINK to Warren Kinsella but I sure know punk rock a lot more than Mr Ellis/Bourrie). He nominated the Hot Nasties article for deletion. That's ridiculous. How many punk rock bands in the World featured a future strategist for the prime minister of a country? Not that many, and that is one of the many reasons the Hot Nasties SHOULD be there, along with their influential "Invasion of the Tribbles" record. Stop the Madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.160.237 (talk • contribs)

"Influential?". Says it all. Lots of people who grew up to be politicans and political aides were in high school bands. Should Wikipedia have an entry for each one?Arthur Ellis 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BAND Geedubber 13:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, influential. This was NOT a high school band but a band made of high school and University guys. They didn't played in high school, they made a lot of punk rock shows. In fact, the Hot Nasties were the most influential band of the Calgary punk rock scene. But since the Warren Kinsella Entry is now blocked because of repeated attacks by Arthur Ellis/Mark Bourrie, Mr Ellis/Bourrie now tries to have the Hot Nasties and Invasion of the Tribbles pages deleted. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.237.53.91 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if they make the cut. It's not up to me. I only get one vote. It's up to the Wikipedia community. I think they're vanity listings but if they're deemed up to Wikipedia standards of notability and writing, fine. If not, they shouldn't have been created in the first place. I haven't done anything underhanded, and I have not been the one to drag personalities into it. I've left that for crzrussian and our anonymous poster (above).Arthur Ellis 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the Hot Nasties article. Deal with those problems there. Don't attack each other and follow each other all over the encyclopedia. Stick to the content. There are enough problems keeping that in line. THIS SECTION IS CLOSED --JGGardiner 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 04:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit

I see that in the Mark Bourrie entry, the lawsuit has been dropped from the page. Since the Lawsuit seems not worthy of mention in the Mark Bourrie entry, he who has not had as an illustrious career as Warren. Then I see no reason why not to remove it from the Warren Kinsella entry. Pete Peters 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The editor at Mark Bourrie noted (in the edit summary) that it was a minor legal threat and just a couple of letters. It doesn't need to dominate either entry the way it had. --JGGardiner 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. Peters... if, War, I can call you Mr. peters... back like the proverbial rash now that editing by IPs is banned again... same day IP Warren tried to soft-soap the entry again. Kinsella's lawsuit threats against bloggers should stay. After all, he is a lawyer. He should know better. Plus Bourrie was only threatened twice, while Warren has threatened seven bloggers (at last count)209.217.93.193 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you might want to keep in mind, it wasn't Bourrie's idea to be threatened with a slap suit. It is Kinsella's way of keeping critics quiet (not particularly effectively, by the looks of things).Arthur Ellis 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And way to go trying to soft-soap Gomery. Like you know all about Alex Himmelfarb (the Chretien stooge) and the ex-Privy Council clerk's views on the role of political aides. Yea, right. You didn't even bother to try to source that one. We worked hard on the Gomery consensus, and now you think you're going to re-Kinsellize it? Dream on, War. I like the Gardiner version, which shows there was a plan, and you, I mean Warren, was one of the guys carrying it out.Arthur Ellis 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not refer to we, when we was nothing more than a bunch of random IPs based in Ottawa. IPs that like 209.217.93.193. Pete Peters 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read through these pages again, Warren (if we can drop the Pete Peters hicksville charade for a moment). Yes, you left in a snit both times, but people actually toiled away in good faith without you. It can be done.Arthur Ellis 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are hilarious. I disagree with everyone else, your contributions to Wikipedia have resulted in a rational, NPOV, non vandal filled medium where one can get honest information. Pete Peters 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Take your flame wars elsewhere. Arthur Ellis 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Arthur you tell him. You tell... Oh wait... you were referring to yourself. Pete Peters 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's time that everyone here ceases this behavior and discuss the issue in a civil manner and not accuse other editors of trolling or being socks. We need to show respect as this is clearly a hot topic. Yanksox 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We -- a bunch of Wikipedia editors, some of whom could barely get along -- spent a lot of time on this page (despite what PP says). Each time, PP flounced, then came back to try to change the entry. Earlier today, an anonymous IP began editing it into Kinsella PR and whitewash. Once it was protected, PP started making ths same edits. What are we to think?Arthur Ellis 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should cool off for a while. Pete Peters 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think both of you should spend a few minutes away from Wiki and come back with a clear, open, and understanding mind. Yanksox 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I want the page to stay as it is. I think anyone who wants to know what happened here need only read the (very long) discussions. It's all here on the record. Probably best for everyone to leave this entry alone, block IPs. In fact, Wikipedia should block IP editing altogether.Arthur Ellis 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No page can be semi-protected forever. Everyone is just going to have to learn to live each other. We don't have to agree with everyone else or even like them but we do have to work things out as a community. Remember, disputes happen -- that's not a problem; the problem is when disputes are handled badly. --JGGardiner 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As soon as it's unblocked, Kinsella will be back under an IP to re-write it. 209.217.119.12 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a first. I've come across users who don't like anonymous editors but never an anonymous editor who doesn't like anonymous editors. --JGGardiner 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinsilly has always edited this page under an anonymous IP.209.217.123.92 12:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy is to allow users to edit anonymously, like you are doing. Semi-protection won't keep a subject from editing a page. It just stops anonymous edits. The subject could just register and edit with an account. If he was bold he could even do it openly, as the autobiography guidelines are not actual policy. I'm sure Kinsella's a smart guy and if he wanted to edit this page he'd probably create an account. An account actually gives you more anonymity because it doesn't flash your traceable IP to everyone who passes by. --JGGardiner 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IP is not traceable unless you can subpoena the ISP holding that IP range to reveal the corresponding account. In most cases, these records are gone within months anyway, and IPs are not static. For example, with the average cable provider, I simply change the MAC setting in my router, and Shaw issues a different IP address. ThVa (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to use an anonymous IP. That way, if some idiot puts trash on your talk page, it, along with your IP (if you have my server) are gone every few hours. If you have a static Ip, that would be different. Wikipedia, however, would be wise to make people register with real names and e-mail addresses, since the project is now infested with cranks and ax grinders, myself included (whoever I may be). Having anonymous editors and writers, working under Internet handles, is both unscholarly and a recipe for vicious litigation. Seeing people who I know to be profs hiding behind fake Wikipedia IDs to grind political axes that they're too gutless to grind in real life is particularly pathetic. Signing my tydles is silly, but I'll do it tobe polite. 64.26.147.136 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you care if someone puts trash on your page? You're just as anonymous with an account as without. ThVa (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry i can't come up with anything more controversial, but: i have changed 'Klanmen' to the correct 'Klansman'. one entry in a list can't be plural while the others are singular, and an individual can't be plural. if that's how it appeared in the quote, then a 'sic' is needed.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete Peters edits

It would be proper and polite for Pete Peters to discuss his edits on this page before making them. He just did one on the Gomery section that wasn't particulary controversial, but he should have discussed it here first. 64.26.147.136 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually we assume good faith here, at least with established users who have not abused the privilege (too much) in the past. So if you register, chances are you might be able to make edits all over the joint without actually being questioned on it all the time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My, my, my... they don't teach manners in that little law school of yours, do they?64.26.147.136 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all!!! How has everyones Wikiday been? I have made a slight edit to the opening line to the Gomery Inquiry. The other version makes it sound like he had a big role in the whole affair, which we not to be true. For all you Americans out there!!! :) The Gomery report explored many avenues much like the Warren Report. So just by working in the Ministry of Public Works, would result in testifying at the inquiry. Crzrussian, one day I will become an American citizen, just you watch. :) Pete Peters 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Peters is not correct. Kinsella tried to implement the ad strategy at the heart of the scandal. He also introduced two key figures at the heart of the racket: Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who handed out the inflated ad contracts, and Jean Corriveau, the Liberal Part executive and prime ministerial crony who accepted the kickbacks from the ad agency. Kinsella was no bystander. 64.26.147.136 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that POV, but I think the article should have a NPOV. I think others would agree with me that a NPOV article is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Have a happy Wiki day!! :) Pete Peters 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A true article is in the best interests of Wikipedia.Arthur Ellis

Hey ladies - one day we might yet be friends, that is if I don't commit suicide, despondent over trying to mediate your little war here... - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And manners are forbidden for lawyers in the U.S. We must learn obnoxiousness from the start - it's the legal way! - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Phew... Arthur you are here. Hoooooo-RRRa, for a second I got scared. There was this anon user from Ottawa, and he was like in total agreement with you. And for a second I thought there might be more than just one person who has the view of Arthur Ellis. Well, glad to see you back, it is great to see that you only make edits when a page has been semi protected. Have a happy wiki day. !!! :) Pete Peters 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I only make Wiki edits when someone tries to play with the truth or, to be more charitable, is wilfully blind to history.Arthur Ellis 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How would you know? It is not like you are a reporter who works on Parliament Hill. :) So raspberry (plplpllplplplpl).. so there. I know who would know, that blogger at OttawaWatch, he has a WK fansite, I am sure he knows the truth. Maybe we can get his banned lifted so he can edit on this page. :) Pete Peters 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read the Gomery report online and also read the news stories that are used for reference in the article.Arthur Ellis 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Globe and Mail story about the Daisy Group srating up no longer works. I doubt we really need a reference since the company itself has a link on the entry.Arthur Ellis 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Debate

I was wondering should we just Merge the Mark Bourrie entry as a paragraph in the WK entry? Pete Peters 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put up the template and we'll see. Arthur Ellis 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure how to do it. But thank you Arthur for deleting my question on the Mark Bourrie discussion page. Pete Peters 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if outing Wikipedia editors is your bag, perhaps you should tell us all about yourself. If you think people really want to see the Bourrie and Kinsella pages merged, go ask one of your admin pals to do it for you. Or quit making mischief.Arthur Ellis 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Pete Peters 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-phrase. Without Kinsella, Bourrie would have never gotten a wiki entry. My point is not to merge the two, but to make Bourrie a paragraph in the Kinsella entry. Pete Peters 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Bourrie up for deletion, then.Arthur Ellis 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Use {{mergeto|Warren Kinsella}} - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop the war!

Or be blocked and/or fullprotected. Arthur, you've already reverted thrice. Both o' ya - stop it, or I will have to stop it for you - something I would like to avoid. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you letting them vandalize the agreed-on version? Arthur Ellis 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly not a consensus here if we have an edit war. Could you provide a diff that shows the version was agreed upon? We must remember not to accuse editors of vandalism when their edits are not vandalism, but a part of a content dispute. Remember to assume good faith and recognize that, believe it or not, everyone is here to build an encyclopedia and improve the article in some way, just people have different views on what makes an article better. Cowman109^Talk 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I no longer have the ability to understand wtf you guys are even arguing about. All I know is that for one revert #4 after I delivered the final warning, you, Arthur, are being blocked for 24 hours. I am sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To "Arthur": I didn't agree to this version, and I can't believe that any sensible person would consider the sentence which begins with "Interestingly" to be NPOV. CJCurrie 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then take out "interestingly" and quit blocking large amounts of material.Marie Tessier 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that 24 hour block lasted a whole..what 5 minutes Mr. Bourrie. FYI admin Marie Tessier is another Bourrie ID, look at one of the entries on Ernst van de Wetering, that's a relative of Mrs. Bourrie. Mr. Bourrie once posted that his wife's uncle was the famous Ernst van de Wetering...

222.108.88.103Bitz

Oh sorry... Mr. Mark Bourrie aka : Arthur Ellis, numerous Magma IP's in Ottawa, Ceraurus, Isoleteus etc...

I'm a friend of Arthur Ellis, and I know you have adopted the cause of a handful of Canadians who are exquisitely dishonest, known losers like Warren Kinsella and his 48-year-old diversity NASCAR driver Pierre Bourque (BTW, does being rich and stupid make one a minority these days?). Doesn't bode well for a young lawyer. But I see you have all day and all night to be on Wikipewdia, so I doubt you'll have much of a real legal career when or if you graduate. Maybe Jimbo will hire you.Marie Tessier 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you - or anyone - cogently explain to me why there's such a tremendous war over these few articles? What is your and/or Arthur's dog in this fight? Please, it's about time I knew... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Marie's gonna take one for the team! (A little tear trickles down my cheek). Au revoir, au revoir...

So Mr. Bourrie has returned to numeric Magma IP's 200.123.132.177 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)bz

What is disputed?

Alright, then, what specifically is disputed? Specifics, please. Vague references won't assist anyone here. Do we have issues with certain facts? How they are represented? Please explain so we can make some progress. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We've done that before, believe it or not... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this is about content at this point. We seemed to have moved past all the big stuff and it looks like little edits caused little comments, then edit wars and then big comments. --JGGardiner 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Well from my observance it seems much of this tension is due to beliefs of sockpuppetry and POV due to being affiliated with Warren Kinsella or opponents of him in some way. But there has to be some specific content that's disputed. Otherwise there's no dispute? This is definitely quite perplexing. Cowman109^Talk 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, minor ones, like I said. That's really the problem: editors have been chasing one another all around the encyclopedia reverting every minor edit that another user has made. For example, this conflict extended to Tony Ianno for a time. But it had nothing to do with the content in that article. The core of the content dispute was really resolved a week ago. But by that time there were already lingering personality disputes that no WP admin. can really resolve. --JGGardiner 05:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Methinks, after a month or more of running around after these guys, we need to shlep the whole lot of them in front of the ArbCom to get them banned from this page and to put the on one of these one-revert-per-week deals - because this was is beginning to seriously grate on my nerves... - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC

What's being disputed is how much of a role Kinsella played setting up a kickback scheme that cost the Canadian taxpayers $100 million (not including another $100 million to investigate). The exposure of the kickback system (govt. ad money from very padded invoices to ad agencies, kickbacks from the agencies to the Liberal Party) resulted in the biggest scandal in Canada in 130 years and the Liberals losing power in Canada. Probably didn't get much coverage outside Canada, but Canadians know exactly what this means, eh.

This dispute is not one of semantics. Kinsella wrote a book about how to be a vicious political operative. Now that he's looking for work as a lobbyist, he wants this entry to be as soft on him as possible. In Canada, being caught in this scandal is political and career death.

Bourrie, on the other hand, is a Parliamentary reporter and historian who, according to his blog, has had some kind of ideology-shaking epiphany over this scandal. Seems to drive him into a spit-flecked rage (members of his family helped found the Liberal Party 150 years ago; his family's always been Liberal).

Bourrie believes Kinsella originally wrote this entry as a vanity project (the IP actually does prove that). He thinks Pete Peters is Kinsella's friend Pierre Bourque, who runs a Matt Drudge-knock off web page, and, at 48, just began racing in a NASCAR entry league as a "diversity" driver. Bourque and Kinsella, in real life, cross-promote each others' projects.

In the new Pete Peters version (originally written by an IP that edited out many of the Kinsella negatives a few days ago), Kinsella is cast as a bit player, not a major actor, in the scandal.

You can look at the present version -- the one Bourrie and his friends (and there are more than one, mostly Parliamentary reporters) want to keep and see if it's sourced and solid, and at the IP/Pete Peters version and make up your own minds.

In the big picture, it doesn't really matter much. What's done is done, and Kinsella's life won't change because of a Wiki entry. Neither will Bourrie's, but he should get control of his temper. Must be that rarified academic/political air.

Hope that helps.64.26.170.192 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated in comments made above that I will ban myself from this page, as long as Arthur and Ottawa based IPs originating from the National Library, and Magma service provider can do the same. (i.e. 64.26.170.192. I would like to leave this page altogether, but one simple edit I make, will always result in a complete revert. Please see Hamilton Centre, many times with no explanation. It tickles my goat, the complete disrespect for others by a user who I strongly suspect uses anon IPs from Ottawa. The truth is that I do not frankly care what goes into the entry. But when one individual is allowed to dominate this page with what I percieve as a POV and axe to grind, I feel that it is unjust and goes against the spirit of Wiki. Sorry for the Harsh language, I really do apoligize to all Admin people that have had to divert too much of their time and energy to this page. Pete Peters 13:48, 20 July 2006

Try arguing with facts. Twice this page has been fought over. Both times, you flounced, then came back and changed the page. I say leave the page as it is, ban Ellis, Peters, IPs, from the page.Marie Tessier 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Marie Tessier, I noticed your account has been linked to this RCFU entry. Perhaps I should have included your account into my statement above. Pete Peters 13:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, he dodges the facts.206.191.33.126 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh... RFCU came back "likely". Hi Arthur! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

careless, lazy and stupid are such bad combinations in a would-be lawyer. WTF does "likely" mean? Maybe in Russia that's proof, but not in America, fuckwad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Tessier (talk • contribs)

If there's an explanation to be had, now would be a good time. Thanks for the kind words. - CrazyRussian talk/email (a.k.a. Fuckwad) 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you believe WP had no article for "fuckwad"? I just created one, it redirects to Fuck. I think that's the first useful thing to come out of all this. --JGGardiner 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Too low on the food chain to get a job with a firm this summer, Alex? Let's see some proof. Or does that go against your ingrained fascism?

I've got no "proof". I don't have checkuser privileges. Ask User:Mackensen. And stop trolling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Admin Bucketsofg✐ should step into this debate. He is an expert on this issue, and has just returned from a wiki break. Pete Peters 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indefblock for Marie

(copied from user talk:Mackensen:

Mackensen - what does "likely" mean? Indefblock for the sock or not? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It means likely sockpuppetry and definite meatpuppetry. I leave it to your discretion. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the basis on the RFCU and the non-stop personal attacks, I am going to indef-block User:Marie Tessier. - CrazyRussian talk/email

Page is now sprotected due to ridiculous amounts of dynamic IP trolling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Retiring from Warren Kinsella

With this post, I am taking this page off my watchlist. I am not planning to edit, revert or protect any related page ever again. Another admin would have to be asked to unprotecty this article. You've been a miserable bunch to know. Hopefully some of you can learn to edit productively. But I - I have taken too many hits here over the past months and a half. I am not a masochist - and now I am gone! Have a good life, each and every one o' ya. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please be advised that RadioKirk has filed an arbitration request over the continued edit warring over this article. 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The case just came to a close. -- Geedubber 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal action against blogger

Somehow this:

"In an interview with Here Magazine, Kinsella said "bloggers have believed too much of their own hype and part of that is believing (without explicitly saying) that they are above the law. They are not.""

got removed from the article. I think it improves the article since it reveals some of Kinsella's thinking at the time. I want to add it back. Anyone object?

Looks fine to me. It may have been nipped by one of the anons who are screwing around here today. (I've requested semiprotection, for the record, since we're now on the third anon IP vandal making the same changes.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture

• Is that picture serious? I mean, until now, I hadn't seen an example of a picture on Wikipedia that violated WP:NPOV in and of itself, but that one certainly does. Is there a reason that picture was chosen (besides to embarass the subject of the article)? If not, I will put up a more professional photo. -- Chabuk 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That picture is from his publisher's webpage promoting his book[7]. His website links to it on the main page. Geedubber 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

True dat. Kinsella likes to portray himself as a down-to-earth, folksy kinda feller; hence the constant "slice of life" anecdotes in his otherwise political blog. If anything the photo is NPOV in his favour. Geoff NoNick 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• shrug. Huh. Well okay. Thanks for the answers -- Chabuk 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a better picture, feel free to put it in. I am not sure if we could use this -- looks like a publicity photo which may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. Geedubber 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

request for protection

I see that a user has asked for re-protection in an edit summary. I'm the admin who removed it in the first place. Given that there has been one reversion in the past two days, I don't see how it falls under the continuous and long-term vandalism normally required under WP:SEMI. If the argument is that the anon is the banned user mentioned above, I'd be happy to throw on a block if someone would spell out why they are the same person. There's always the possibility that it would again degrade to a sockpuppet war, but it may be worth seeing if the page can survive without protection. - BanyanTree 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Still have the same opinion? Anyway, it is likely that the IP represent two factions, Kinsella himself, who has never registered an account as far as I know, and Mark Bourrie, another Canadian blogger, who edits as User:Arthur Ellis, and who is banned for one month per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Unfortunately Ellis is quite adept at changing his IP address, and this article gets targeted within hours of having the sprot removed, so both these guys are clearly watching it. Thatcher131 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There's hardly been enough time for me to change my opinion, but I'm happy to remove this from my watchlist and leave it to someone who knows the background. - BanyanTree 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I had in mind. :) By changing your mind I was referencing the article history, several more reverts after your comment including this charming essay. But I guess I can watch these two charming examples of Canadian political discourse if I must. Thatcher131 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sponsorship scandal/Gomery inquiry

I don't care how the section is titled, but since the main article on the event is called Sponsorship scandal and has lots of sources, it seems silly to make a point of it in this article one way or the other. Thatcher131 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since Kinsella is named in Gomery Commission but not in sponsorship scandal, how's this? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gomery Commission and linking to Gomery commission seems like the marginally preferable solution (I don't feel terribly strongly, so call it a 55/45 preference.) It does seem that Kinsella had only a peripheral role in the scandal itself and is more notable for his comments about the inquiry on his blog. Thatcher131 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems we're agreed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogger Lawsuits

Seems like we have consensus re: the Gomery Inquiry/Sponsorship. Looking at the material about his lawsuit against bloggers, is there any reason why the rest of the bloggers are not mentioned by name, or that Bourie is singled out? Is he the only one who apologized, and, in Canada, isn't an apology a way of limiting your exposure to punitive damages? I think there needs to be some kind of streamlining of this for consistency's sake, preferably by someone familiar with Canadian blogging and your libel laws. On the Bourie entry, Thatcher131 makes the excellent point that a threatening letter from a lawyer only costs about $50, and hardly constitutes a lawsuit. Stompin' Tom 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason why the rest of the bloggers should not be mentioned by name: they are not notable. Bourrie is notable -- notable enough to earn his own article on Wikipedia. Also, if you read the Mark Bourrie talk page, you will see that you and Thatcher131 are wrong about the lawsuit. It wasn't just a threat of a lawsuit. On the Mark Bourrie talk page, Bourrie himself weighs in to state, in the clearest and most emphatic terms, that Kinsella filed suit. Surely if one notable writer accuses another notable writer of libel and files suit, and the second notable writer publicly apologies for having made it look like the first notable writer committed a crime -- surely that is worthy of inclusion. 142.51.16.155 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources other than Bourrie and Kinsella's own statements and blogs I would like to know about them. At this point there is an Ottawa Sun article stating that Kinsella filed a "statement of claim." That's all. It is interesting for the Kinsella bio as the first libel suit against a Canadian blogger. Hoewever there is nothing more in the press. Bourrie and Kinsella's blogs are not reliable sources, but as long as they both agreed that a settlement had been made, it was acceptable to include that information. Now, however, Bourrie claims the terms of the settlement have been voided by Kinsella's actions. I don't care about their spat, but I do care that there are no longer any reliable sources discussing the outcome of the claim. Since anyone with $50 can get a lawyer to file a "statement of claim" and there are no reliable sources on the status of the claim, I feel the principles of BLP and NPOV#Undue weight support removing the case altogether, at least until such time as further reliable sources are available. Thatcher131 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "defining moment" lawsuit threats were those of 2004. The Kinsella-Bourrie lawsuit is a convulted thing. Kinsella sent Bourrie a threatening letter, then a statement of claim. That's slightly more than happened with the other bloggers, but, as Thatcher131 says, it's not much. A lawsuit is something that gets into court. This was settled with an apology and a small contribution towards costs. Frank Magazine does this kind of stuff all the time. At the very least, a lawsuit is "won" when a party gets a cash award by a judge. In this case, Kinsella then may or may not have queered the deal by talking too much about it and breaching a confidentiality agreement. There appears to be a second case that consisted only of threatening letters back and forth. Despite what Kinsella says on his own web sites, these are not lawsuits, they're just bluster. I doubt very much, with the long history these two have, that either one could bring an action against the other that wouldn't be tossed. 209.217.93.81 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have refs for the '04 threats? Might be noteworthy. Thatcher131 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Read back through this talk page. There was a lot of discussion about blogger suits before the threat against Bourrie. You'll see, if you look at older versions on this entry, that the blogger suits were featured back in 2005. Googling "Kinsella" and "lawsuit" turns up quite a few hits, but, again, they always involve a threatening letter, either by Kinsella or his lawyer, and a quick settlement. In Ontario, a lawsuit involves statements of claim and defence, mandatory mediation, examination for discovery, and trial. This, of course, is a hellishly time-consuming and expensive process. None of Kinsella's "lawsuits" have ever jumped the first hurdle. 64.26.170.212 12:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we say that Kinsella accused Bourie of libel and filed suit against him; that the two reached an out-of-court settlement when Bourrie apologized for having made it look like Kinsella was a party to illegal action; and that Bourrie later said that the settlement fell apart because Kinsella had violated its terms. All of that is factual, NPOV, verifiable, etc. 142.51.16.155 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it all depends why we are including this information. I think that I've seen two points of view here. The first inclusion seems to be, as 142.51.16.155 pointed out, that it is somewhat extraordinary that a prominent writer would make the mistake that Bourrie did, even if inadvertent. The second, which the "defining moment" inclusion intended to demonstrate, was that Kinsella was heavy-handed, pouncing on Bourrie's inadvertent mistake and that this had a (perhaps deserved) chilling effect on the blogging community in Canada. In either case, the actual rightness of Kinsella’s claim isn’t really relevant. In the first, the notability arises from Bourrie’s mistake (and apology), if you agree with 142.51. In the second, the possibility that Kinsella was wrong actually reinforces the impression that Kinsella was heavy-handed. Like I said, I’ve stayed out of editing this one but I don’t think the settlement makes the episode less notable than a full-blown lawsuit would have. --JGGardiner 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't pass judgement on whether Bourrie or Kinsella were right or wrong. I do agree with JGGardiner that regardless of who was right or wrong, the event was notable. Our job is to find a way to present it in a neutral light and let the reader pass his/her own judgement. Eliminating it because it is a touchy topic does not seem appropriate. 142.51.16.155 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the way the post was written, a person might -- and it was quite a stretch -- think Kinsella, not Chuck Guite, was the central player in the Sponsorship Scandal. Rather than litigate the meaning of the word "he" in one phrase, Bourrie apologized to make Kinsella go away. Again, not exactly precedent-setting. It's all on the Kinsella blog that Bourrie keeps, www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com. And, again, it was the 2004 series of legal threats, not the 2006 ones, that were called "defining events" in Canadian blogging in old versions of this entry. 64.26.170.212 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

BTW, this new Kinsella archives site has much more about Kinsella's litigation, and a payout to someone who sued Kinsella for libel.209.217.124.237 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Slapp suit silliness

This entry is wrong. For what it's worth, I am not being sued by Warren Kinsella. I was given a statement of claim, which has since been dropped. Unfortunately, newspapers are good at reporting these types of things when they start, not so good on folowing them up. If you care about the truth, you'll fvind some way of fixing or re-writing this stuff. Mark Bourrie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.78.64.223 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Uncited Material

Isn't it about time the uncited material on Bourrie was removed? I think an administrator should do this. Warfarin eater 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin revert the considerable amount of unsourced material recently added to this page? Telephon 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for this. Also, it would be better if someone familiar with the subject remove unreferenced material as needed :) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page being re-written by Kinsella?

Sourced material is being removed, facts are being sanitized, there s no mention of Kinsella's role in the Ontario lottery scandal. Whay gives? Catworthy 00:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar allegations of autobiography and partisanship appeared on this page by the now banned user Telephon [8] The recent material added is all sourced and presents a balanced NPOV.I see that Catworthy would prefer that I add material on the Ontario Lottery matter, subject which is taken up with much vigor by Mark Bourrie on his blog [9], I may add something in a calmer atmosphere.

Interesting,that this recent [10]unsourced entry about Mr. Kinsella was added by Catworthy TropicNord

Please block confirmed banned Arthur Ellis sock Catworthy who has blanked and reverted page Warren Kinsellaafter confirmation by wiki admin Dmcdevit·t declared Catworthy an Arthur Ellis sock.

Thank you, TropicNord14 April 2007

I suggest people read the talk page and examine the sourcing before running interference for Kinsella as he dits this as TropicNord to grind his politicakl axes and re-write history. Shoppers15 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim

The claim that Kinsella ran the 2000 war room is extremely inaccurate and makes this entry look ridiculous.

Autobiography?

The "sanitizing" of this article in recent weeks makes me wonder if it is being re-written by Kinsella or a proxy. Nortel Survivor

It isn't helpful to throw around accusations like that. If you have concerns about specific things, you should mention them instead. --JGGardiner 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, turns out he was right. 99.231.111.157 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the evolution of this article over the past few mon ths before noting whether my remark was "helpful" or not. Nortel Survivor

Because of the inaccurate claim that Kinsella ran the Liberal War Room in 2000 and many other unsourced and inaccurate recent edits and the rather ludicrous and potentially libelous material on the Earnscliffe consulting group, I have reverted this article and suggest it needs several improvements and accuracy checks. Nortel Survivor

Kinsella and Earnscliffe

People editing this page should keep in mind that Warren Kinsella (and Steve Janke of the blog angryinthegreatwhitenorth )are being sued by Earnscliffe for libel, and that those libelous statements have been repeated in the edits made on the Kinsella entry by TropicNord. Inspiron6000 User 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them to proetct Wikipedia from becoming collateral damage in this lawsuit. The suit material should be included after it's settled if it is considered notable, and the libels should not be repeated in Wikipedia.209.217.99.177 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that this is a sensitive matter and appreciate the concern for Wikipedia demonstrated, I question the edit. The anonymous WP:SPA (IP resolving to Magma Communications) did much more than remove "libels", rather s/he deleted the entire section. I add that all statements included in this section have been sourced through the media. For these reasons I have reverted the edit. Should the user feel that Wikipedia has been put in jeopardy, I suggest contacting Wikipedia directly with his or her concerns. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that 209.217.99.177 (talk · contribs) has reverted, without edit summary, my recent restoration of the "Earnscliffe Communication Group" section. I also note that this is the fourth such deletion made in the last eight hours by this single purpose account and that of 70.51.246.217 (talk · contribs). Although I find these edits to be rather suspicious, I'm assuming good faith and, following WP:3RR, am letting the edit stand. I've encouraged 209.217.99.177 to respond to my previous post (above). As I've stated I would be interested in the justification for removing the entire section when 209.217.99.177's concern appears to be limited to certain "libels" it contains. Again, I point out that all statements contained in the section are cited through reliable sources. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the Earncliffe section troubling, too. In Canada, repeating a libel leaves you open to being dragged into the same action, whether the "source" is "reliable" or not. Therefore, I have put the Earnscliffe suit into the legal action section, scaled down the material, and attempted to make it NPOV. The previous version did appear to be slanted towards Kinsella's point of view. I hope this helps. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Turkulney (talk · contribs), with all due respect, you[11], 209.217.99.177 (talk · contribs) [12] and 70.51.246.217 (talk · contribs) [13], all cite libel as the reason the section in question should not exist. Yet, no one has seen fit to indicate exactly what it is that is libelous within the text. Other editors are only left to wonder where the libelous material might be found. It is simply not possible to address your concerns about the repetition of libelous material.

That said, I will assume it has nothing to do with the only two quotes contained within the section. The first is taken from a 24 July 1995 memo written by Mr Kinsella to Charles Guité. When made public, Mr Kinsella’s words were subsequently reported by many media outlets, including the CTV website, which has been used in this Wikipedia article as a source. This memo was presented on 18 April 2005 at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and is included and on the Committee’s website. [14]. Mr Kinsella’s words are also reported at a Blogging Tories website – again referenced in this article - an organization with which, I note, you are familiar.

The second quote is an apology issued by Mr Kinsella himself, through his blog, on 8 January 8, 2007. Again, this was reported by the media, including ‘’The Gazette’’, which is used as a source in this article.

Instead of seeking consensus, 209.217.99.177 and 70.51.246.217 have chosen to address their concerns by making a blanket deletion. While I applaud your effort, I respectfully disagree that you have "scaled down the material". Where once was a 400-word, detailed account, containing twelve references, is now two unreferenced sentences alluding to some sort of legal action.

It is for these reasons that I am restoring the section in question. It is my hope that others, whether single purpose accounts or not, will work at seeking a consensus. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

These are my problems with it: 1. The libel itseld is repeated (i.e. Earnscliffe engaged in unlawful/illegal activities). 2. The blog that is being quoted is also being sued by Earnscliffe. 3. The entry appears to take Kinsella's side in the lawsuit and simply prints his version. 4. The material is tangential to Kinsella's bio. Perhaps it should be incorporated in an article about Earnscliffe, if it passes the libel test. I say "if in doubt, leave it out". You should ask Wikipedia's counsel to vet it. Libel is not a "print first, ask questions later" sort of thing. Kurt Turkulney (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Turkulney (talk · contribs), expecting others to weigh in, I've waited a bit before responding to your post. Recognizing the absence of other voices, in particular 209.217.99.177 (talk · contribs) and 70.51.246.217 (talk · contribs), I respond to your post.

1. The section in question contained no statement that was Earnscliffe engaged in unlawful or illegal activities.
2. Yes, the blog Angry in the Great White North is currently involved in a lawsuit. I am all for its removal. That Mr Kinsella's memo featured in what this article once described as a review of the "involment of the Earnscliffe Communication Group during this ten year period" is to be expected. Again, this memo is featured in the website of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is currently featured on websites belonging to CTV and the CBC. I note that you have allowed the quote to stand.
3. I have no real quarrel.
4. I have no quarrel with any effort to slim down the section.

Again, the section in question contained no statement that Earnscliffe was "engaged in unlawful/illegal activities". This claim as been repeated by you, 209.217.99.177 and 70.51.246.217 , and yet no one has yet indicated exactly what it is that is libelous within the text. Victoriagirl 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)