I hadn’t noticed this yesterday, but the second most prolific climate revisionist at Wikipedia has also been banned from posting on the climate topic.
By a vote of 4-3 Kim Dabelstein Petersen has been topic banned, just like RealClimate founder William Connolley:
Also, It appears there was [initially] no support for Mr. Petersen’s voluntary self ban of 6 months.
[Update: the final outcome is a 7-0 vote for accepting voluntary ban, details here]
In fact, there’s a number of disruptive people that have been up for bans and restrictions.
Read about them all here under this URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision
It is rather long, lots of scrolling needed.
I’ll also point out that there are some skeptical editors that have been banned as well, such as “theGoodLocust” and “MarkNutley”. It is unfortunate that they got caught up in the revisionist firefight, but their efforts in trying to keep Mr. Connolley and Mr. Petersen from having free reign can also be seen as “disruptive” per the Wikipedia rules.
It is akin to breaking up a schoolyard fight, where the principal says: “I don’t care who started it or who hit who, you’re all going to detention”.
Perhaps now we’ll see some settling down over there.
Thanks to WUWT readers “movielib” and Mark Nutley for the tip.
I have to say from my interactions with each, Kim was far more reasonable, although a zealot, and considerably more knowledgable than William Connley.
Komsomolskayapedia sends another scapegoat to the recycle bin.
The thing turned into a ghastly hairball. Thank God I was busy at work, and didn’t get caught up in it.
A couple of prominent editors deserve a fair bit of credit for whistleblowing, I think:
Editor ATren: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ATren
— who has a long discussion of the affair, which makes my head hurt just to look at
and Editor Cla68: his “farewell address”
I worked with Cla pretty regularly, and found him to be a knowledgeable and helpful editor. His Wiki user page makes interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cla68
Both were topic-banned for their trouble, and I think you called it right, Anthony. It was really like school politics — incredibly vicious & petty.
Here’s the final list of disciplinary actions:
* The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);
* William M. Connolley
* Polargeo
* Thegoodlocust
* Marknutley
* ChrisO
* Minor4th
* ATren
* Hipocrite
* Cla68
* GregJackP
* A Quest For Knowledge
* Verbal
* ZuluPapa5
* JohnWBarber
* FellGleaming
* The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
o Scjessey
o KimDabelsteinPetersen
* The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
o Stephan Schulz
o Lar
Anthony, I think you got it wrong. Petersen’s voluntary ban was accepted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29
Item 19.1:
————————————————————-
KimDabelsteinPetersen’s voluntary editing restriction (remedy)
19.1) KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk · contribs) has proposed a binding voluntary restriction that he makes: (i) no edits of whatever nature to Climate change articles, their talk pages and associated Wikipedia process pages, broadly construed, for a period of six months and on expiry of the six-month period is limited to one revert within the topic, reverts of blatant vandalism excluded; and (ii) no edits of whatever kind to biographies of living people, broadly construed. This editor is instructed to abide by these restrictions.
Support:
1. Explicitly to replace (19). This editor, incidentally, has just completed a two-month self-imposed editing restriction within the topic. This new proposal would help pave the way towards perhaps removing the restrictions altogether in due course. Roger Davies talk 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
2. Excellent suggestion by Kim. Shell babelfish 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
3. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Roger’s comment. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Adequate, first choice over 19. — Coren (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
6. First choice. Risker (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
7. First choice. – Mailer Diablo 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
——————————————————————
As you can see, it was supported unanimously.
Your image of Item 19 shows several people saying they prefer the remedy in Item 19.1 (voluntary six month ban) so that was the one that was adopted.
(Thanks for your thanks to me.)
REPLY: I’ve updated the post to reflect this, thanks -Anthony
The discussion page for the deletion of Dr. Tim Ball from wikipedia (
Professor Joshua HalpernEli Rabett chimes in):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball
William Connolley commenting on SBHB’s talk page as they deleted Dr. Tim Ball from wikipedia: “Tim Ball was a brilliant success. What about Gerhard Kramm?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris#Gerhard_Kramm.3F
Connolley replying on his blog to comment #8 by SBHB “[Your aspirations are dashed: no-one has banned you, as far as I can tell. That means you get to do all the work from now on, tee-hee -W]” http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/more_random.php#comments
Dr. Ball on his own career: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28598
Better to read the final outcome; there were lots of last minute changes.
REPLY: Thanks, added. – Anthony
To you perpetrators of evil theGoodLocust and MarkNutley.
How dare you smite our angels William and Kim?
The only good thing that has come from this is that you too were smitten by the wrath of Wiki you evil barstewards. Unlike you, our fallen angels will have to live on climate change grants in perpetua whilst you will retire on your corporate cheques from Big carbon! I hope you rot in Hell. /sarc
DaveE.
The debate is closed … LOL.
WMC’s blog Stoat describes “taking science by the throat”. I found some amazing info on stoat packs that seems too good to miss so here’s my comment again.
Each ban like this helps but it does not change the underlining design problem of Wikipedia,
Wikipedia is nothing more than “Truth based on who edits last”
Comparison of Wikipedia and other encyclopedias for accuracy, breadth, and depth in historical articles
(Reference Services Review, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp. 7-22)
– Lucy Holman Rector
“The study did reveal inaccuracies in eight of the nine entries and exposed major flaws in at least two of the nine Wikipedia articles. Overall, Wikipedia’s accuracy rate was 80 percent compared with 95-96 percent accuracy within the other sources. This study does support the claim that Wikipedia is less reliable than other reference resources. Furthermore, the research found at least five unattributed direct quotations and verbatim text from other sources with no citations.”
The search for truth and scientific rigor is often a lonely and thankless task. But we engineers, thinkers and followers of scientific method do not care that we lose an arm or a leg or even our Wikipedia lives in the pursuit of worth. As long as others jump into the breach when needed and take up the fight when we are no longer able.
Ho hum. The Wankapedia Bus rolls on with scarcely a bump or a thump as Connelly is tossed under. And about time, too.
Thegoodlocust, Marknutley, Peter Tillman… and more I’ve noticed from Wikipedia here… and there would have been even more but for the predations of WMC driving many away without even attempting to join the edit team:
I’m very interested to see what we can do, positively, as a skeptic community, to provide a fair correction to Wikipedia – as well as to the Royal Society “guide” and Peter Cook’s “Skeptical Science”. Warmists have their sources easily available – as Tom Fuller says, so many refer to Wikipedia, even if we know better here – and WP does give important references. I’m convinced we need more positive, directed, consolidated action that mere rants against WP.
I believe we still need a Wikipedia-type skeptics’ consensus statement, IOW a wiki, a cache of wiki pages that has room for all the different scientific points of view on the principal issues – except for one. We don’t need the WMC warmist-propaganda POV, that already exists at WP.
WP’s “No Original Research” rule is what trips up science at the cutting edge. I am not sure of the answer, and it’s worth discussing, but I wonder if this might work for starters: With each scientific POV (where there are clear forks), a table listing points for and points against. Or with major different POV, an index page with each summarized, and linked to separate pages for each. That way, Ferdinand Engelbeen’s following is honoured as much as Tom Segalstad’s: and of course, neither conclusion supports the CAGW hypothesis.
From my experience, I would suggest front pages for a skeptics’ wiki editable by any proven skeptic; comments pages open to all within WUWT-type rules of courtesy etc. That means someone in charge who can set page editability, and delegate admin/editorial status appropriately. I shall probably go back and teach myself how to take on the top admin level (I forget the MediaWiki term), if nobody beats me to it.
Is anyone willing to provide a MediaWiki platform for this? I started constructing the pages and structure needed for exactly this, with admin status, on the MediaWiki platform that Shen from Climate Audit provided. Sadly, and very strangely, it disappeared one night into the great blue yonder; and I had not saved the many pages I’d done. But it taught me a lot, in particular, that we need a wiki without warmists, simply to have enough peace to reconstruct a complete picture again. Such a wiki also needs to explain prominently just why, from the skeptics POV, warmists need to be held in check – so that nobody can say that “the skeptic wiki contrarians are simply censoring other POV”.
To : David A. Evans
Your post is as idiotic as it gets…you talk about fallen angels….there you go with that religion based faith of climate change….when will you wake up. The revisionists of past climate events ( like erasing anything that gets in their way of spreading fear ) will not be able to edit the truth..imgine…what a commentary .
PS.,..I am not paid for by anyone. Your team lost the debate ( if we ever had one )
Counter Wikipedia projects are largely a waste of time, especially anything in the wiki format.
The Idsos have created a database that covers quite a bit of the subject matter,
CO2 Science Subject Index
And I have been compiling a resource for some time now,
The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource
Oh I’m famous now; I’d better get to work on my sex tape ;).
For those interesting in the numbers, I’ll mark which editors were considered “skeptics” (many actually believe in AGW, but disliked the methods of the other side) with a “+”:
William M. Connolley
Polargeo
+Thegoodlocust
+Marknutley
ChrisO
+Minor4th
+ATren
Hipocrite
+Cla68
+GregJackP
+A Quest For Knowledge
Verbal
+ZuluPapa5
+JohnWBarber
+FellGleaming
Scjessey
KimDabelsteinPetersen (note: Scjessey and KDP’s voluntary restriction is much more lenient)
Stephan Schulz
+Lar
11 “skeptics” vs. 8 AGWers sanctioned. That isn’t to say that the skeptics outnumber them, but that several AGWers were ignored.
@ur momisugly Ian Mc Vindicated:
Did you miss the “/sarc” tag? To me, it was more facetiousness than sarcasm; but there you go.
Or maybe you forgot to tag your response?
Ian Mc Vindicated says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Oh Gawd
I really tried to telegraph it. Seems both sides have deficiencies.
DaveE.
Hey, Anthony, check out your own bio on wiki. It has been toned down considerably and the personal snarking seems to have been removed.
Gary Turner says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Correct, was meant to be facetious, just struggled a little for an appropriate tag.
DaveE.
Hey, Anthony, check out your own bio on wiki.
Is having your own wiki page better then being on the cover of the Rolling Stone?
@Papertiger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
Note handsome new photo, courtesy of Himself and YT 😉
I should add that Mark Nutley gets much of the credit for improving the page, with substantial contributions from Cla68 & others. Both Mark & Cla are now topic-banned, sigh.
This whole business reminds me of the “Five Stages of a Project”, by the wise old bird who wrote the industry gossip column at Skilling’s Mining Review years ago:
1. Excitement, euphoria
2. Disenchantment
3. Search for the Guilty
4. Punishment of the Innocent
5.Distinction for the Uninvolved
Deep enough!
“The bigger the lie,
The more the people believe it!”
Hitler saying
Good schools don’t allow it for reference.
Perhaps now we’ll see some settling down over there.
Until the owners of Wikipedia get more involved, and make stricter guidelines, it will continue. It won’t happen on its own.
Here is Connolley yesterday, Final decision: thoughts