Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive 2

message: Thanks, all! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh... - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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. Geedubber 16:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I ''knew'' you could play nice!

message: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This entry

message: 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)
thread_title: This ends, now

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You're . 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I buy the argument that Kinsella is.206.191.56.34 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Ellis

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why no mention that Kinsella is a criminally insane narcissist?

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputed?

message: :::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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kinsella's Dad

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: OK, I am semi-protecting. Play ball! - CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Before it's unblocked

message: 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)
thread_title: Game On

message: Is KInsella related to W.P. Kinsella, the writer?Arthur Ellis 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Today's Bizarro Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hot Nasties

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Pete Peters edits

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

text: Use  - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Debate

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Stop the war!

message: 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. Cowman109Talk 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've done that before, believe it or not... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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. Cowman109Talk 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is disputed? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Retiring from [[Warren Kinsella]]

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

message: 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." Here Magazine (2006). The revolution that never came Retrieved July 3, 2006."
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)
thread_title: Legal action against blogger

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

text: 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)

text: *shrug. Huh. Well okay. Thanks for the answers -- Chabuk 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  request for protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seems we're agreed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsorship scandal/Gomery inquiry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Blogger Lawsuits

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Slapp suit silliness

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Uncited Material

message: 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)
thread_title: Why is this page being re-written by Kinsella?

message: 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)
replies: text: Heh, turns out he was right. 99.231.111.157 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Autobiography?