For those who don’t know, William Connolley, a Real Climate founding contributor, has been the most prolific climate information gatekeeper at Wikipedia, and was the subject of this Lawrence Solomon article:
Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information
Given the volume of his volunteer Wiki output, one wonders how he supports himself with regular work.
Bishop hill reports today:
A correspondent writes to tell me that Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee are currently examining the conduct of people involved in the ongoing saga of edit wars over climate change articles.
The allegations and counter-allegations over who did what and when can be seen here.
There has now been a draft decision issued and it looks as though, hot on the heels of losing his SysOp privileges, Dr Connolley may be up for a ban. He will be accompanied by at least one sceptic.
(As always with Wiki, please don’t get involved if you are not already)
A look at the list of grievances is interesting, note that Lawrence Solomon’s page is in an edit war.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision
Edit warring on Climate Change related articles
6) During the course of this arbitration case, the following articles required full page protection due to edit warring. [3]
- Lawrence Solomon (10 July 2010 for one week)
- Hockey stick controversy (10 July 2010 for one week)
- The Hockey Stick Illusion, (15 July 2010 for one week, 1 August 2010 for one month)
- Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (21 July 2010 for one week with protection lifted on 27 July 2010 and then Indefinite full protection 27 July 2010)
- Michael E. Mann (5 August 2010 for one week)
- Robert Watson (scientist) (23 July 2010 for one week)
Four of the six articles involved in the eight edit wars are biographies of living people. Almost 30 editors were involved in the eight edit wars that resulted in these page protections; two of these editors, William M. Connolley and Marknutley, were involved in seven of eight edit wars.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
7) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC’s regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008).
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
8) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17])
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [18],[[19]]) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page. [20]] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page.[21] After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley has shown Ownership
9) William M. Connolley is acknowledged to have expertise on the topic of climate change significantly beyond that of most Wikipedians; however, this also holds true for several other editors who regularly edit in this topic area. In this setting, User:William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment. (Selection of representative examples: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31])
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley BLP violations
10) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject’s notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements. (Selection of representative examples: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40])
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
================================================================
The list of solutions that Wiki members can vote on don’t bode well for Mr. Connolley
William M. Connolley banned
3.1) User:William M. Connolley is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months for long-term violations of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:BLP.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
- Comment:
- (Please note that some of the remedy proposals here are alternatives.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)
3.2) User:William M. Connolley is banned from all Climate Change articles, broadly construed, for one year. He may edit their talk pages. This editing restriction specifically includes modification of talk page edits made by any other user, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley’s user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley topic-banned (BLP)
4) User:William M. Connolley is banned from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person, where the person’s notability or the subject of the edit relates to the topic area of global warming or climate change.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
William M. Connolley restricted
5) User:William M. Connolley is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil remarks, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or violations of WP:BLP, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. This editing restriction specifically includes modification of talk page edits made by any other user, on any talk page; in the case of posts to William M. Connolley’s user talk page, he is free to remove posts without response.
- Support:
- Oppose:
- Abstain:
h/t to WUWT reader Stephan
Wikipedia has become a bit of a joke. I stumbled upon a trivial but annoying saga last week.
On some AGW site they were discussing Chaotic Systems and saying how Climate doesn’t qualify as chaotic and can therefore be accurately modelled. (rubbish, of course)
The AGW believer gave a link to Wikipedia to explain what Chaotic Systems are.
The person debating him on the board noticed that in the very link he gave in Wiki there was the line “Everyday examples fo Chaotic Systems include weather and climate.”
That was back in 2007.
I looked at the same link today and the entry had been changed to :”Everyday examples fo Chaotic Systems include weather.”
The words “and Climate” had been surgically removed!
But the original reference was still there.
It is a paper entitled “Climate chaotic instability – Statistical determination and Theoretical background”
So why had the words ‘and climate’ been removed??
These people are beneath contempt.
Now if something could be done about the rude domination of global warmers in the comments at YouTube global warming videos….
Glass, china, and reputation are easily cracked, and never mended well.
Franklin
I echo all that I hear, check this wikipedia article that I wrote into the editors talking about errors and the cherry picking of data to show this anomaly in antarctica temperatures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy#cite_note-ThompsonSolomon-11
Two years later, the errors are still there, antarctica ice is at an all time high, and SUPPOSEDLY Antarctica is warming….Its trash like this that turned me off of wikipedia a long time ago for any political subject.
I just love the reason that Antarctica appeared to be cooling for a little bit: The ozone hole. Its still there and now its warming? Ice extent near a maximum? Jeez lol.
He’ll just buy a new tower with a different IP address and use a different identity—same guy, different name.
Here’s a fine example of the mentality that’s now going into “climate”
science thanks to the fostering and sponcership of William M. Connolley,
his chums at RealClimate, and gents like Mike Mann:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11076786
Can a study like this really be called peer reviewed ?
Will it be cited as a source in the next IPCC report ?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm
“He’ll just buy a new tower with a different IP address and use a different identity—same guy, different name.”
I wouldn’t bet a postage stamp against you, Amino. The cite above is that in the past, he continued his explicitly forbidden behaviors. Why would anyone expect this tiger to change his stripes now?
With a rap sheet like this why isn’t he banned for life? This man has irreparably destroyed wiki. He has set an example for knowledge destroyers in other fields and I’m sure this is happening as we speak. It is an insidious virus that can’t be really eradicated because it is alive and capable of reviving the damage. Surely the HFC23 scam in China (adjacent thread) isn’t the worst environmental scam in history. We need an article with the countless environmental scams and a voting buttom to decide the top three (Pachaury’s conflicts of interest, hockey sticks, hiding declines, WWF and green pc non-peer rvd stuff in IPCC repts,making CO2 a dangerous toxin….)
I’ve been banned twice. Just changed IP’s. But every time I edit my edits are almost immediately cut. I still have a few pages up , but nothing in AGW. I did notice that an irrelevant update was removed even though I provided a link due to a supposed violation of BLP. So for those interested the pop artist Mika is a plagiarist but Wikipedia won’t admit it.
The head may have been removed but the body lives on. Connolley has many minions in place to complete his dastardly deeds. Wiki has a LOT of work to do to regain credibility with me, specifically in the climate arena.
We are removing the curtain to truth one day at a time.
Paul
Exactly how do they propose to keep him out? What’s to stop him coming in and doing edits under another name, from another IP address, or whatever? Surely this is largely unenforceable?
Have you seen his wiki entry? check it out. vapid. Surprising that he has one. But in it, it talks about his blogging and wiki editing. talks about him being a former sysop.
But if you try to add something about him being removed as a sysop. it gets, get this, reverted.
“ONLY APPROVED INFORMATION SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE.”
“Surely this is largely unenforceable?”
Which is, ultimately, the problem with Wikipedia. You can not trust the information you are reading.
007 says:
August 24, 2010 at 7:29 pm
“Have you seen his wiki entry? check it out. vapid. Surprising that he has one. But in it, it talks about his blogging and wiki editing. talks about him being a former sysop.”
Yeah it is pretty silly, but it helps propagate the meme that he is some great climate scientist when he is really just a mathematician with little to no training in science.
They also think that the climate change articles are good because, get this, a study that asks David Archer (Real climate founding member) if the wikipedia articles on climate change are good surprisingly found came to the conclusion that they were good.
Wikipedia quotes Real Climate and verifies that same content by going to another Real Climateer.
The corruption of Wikipedia by climate ‘scientists’ is just one part of the story. How difficult it is to get a balanced view of the Israel/Palestine issue into Wikipedia. I was barred from editing articles because they said I engaged in ‘edit-warring’. Well, it takes two to edit-war, so I asked if the other edit-warmonger had been banned too. The administrator said that I was saying ‘he did it too’, which is not what I was saying. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, but Wikipedia editing is easily used by dishonest people.
I just saw an announcement that on August 25 at 8:30 a.m. CBC’s radio One show “The Current” will have a topic on Wikipedia.
“How Wikipedia became a key battleground in the fight for public opinion.”
Sorry, when is the ban supposed to be activated? Just a few hours ago, Connolley edited dozens of articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley
I encourage all interested parties to look into the online response of Connolley to allegations here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_William_M._Connolley
Of note is Connolley’s stated reason for his actions. “Examples of the “skeptic side” making *any* positive contribution to the science are so rare that I can’t think of any, even small ones; making substantive contributions is unknow. (sic)”
What’s worse is that in reading other posts providing support for Connolley parroting the same thing. Denialists have no convincing papers and “septics” ( as they like to call you) are on the fringe. Yup…a fringe element.
Further, an interesting read consists of the evidence of one editor named SlimVirgin. While she argues that the NYTimes is noteworthy as a reference of more interest was her talk page. located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin
It takes awhile to get through but you’ll learn that SlimVirgin tries to do the right thing with regard to editing ( in my brief assesment though she seems misguided in many other things discussed). The “doing the right thing” is based on her discussions with another apparent wiki editor named ScienceApologist (SA). SA’s discussion with SlimVirgin is astounding and an insight into how the liberal AGW alarmists work. In a discussion of Mann and his Hockey Hooey, SA is worried about balance. SA is worried about handling false allegations against Mann so SA reconciles the bad stuff with…”I’ll work on adding a lot of sources so that the top-heavy criticism of Mann is balanced by the overwhelming praise he has gotten from his supporters. By the way, we should probably indicate which one of the commentators are scientists and which ones are not, shouldn’t we? ” Sound familiar?? A look at SA’s talk page shows how balanced he/she is… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist
Guess what everyone? Global warming denialism is a pseudoscience. Connolley is the tip of the iceberg folks….
Luboš Motl says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:17 pm
“Sorry, when is the ban supposed to be activated? Just a few hours ago, Connolley edited dozens of articles:”
The proposed remedies haven’t been voted on yet. AFAIK this’ll happen towards the end of the week. His ban is definitely not a certain thing, and I suspect they’ll topic ban him but allow him talk page access since they think he is an expert. Of course, the talk page is where he chases people off with incivility, baits them into responding in kind (and then one of their friendly admins show up to ban them for such a response). or argues ad nauseum with silly/circular arguments he doesn’t understand until people give up.
Why does anyone bother with Wiki? It’s a joke, forget it, except for comic amusement. As for WC, he is poisonous to the truth about the global warming fraud. It’s like going to the Pope and asking him “What’s the best religion?”, only this time heretics don’t have to be burned when there’s admin privileges and the delete key.
@Smokey:
The $175m from Koch Industries is pure advocacy money for things like what we do here.
Their Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries does not mention the $175 figure, but who reads Wikipedia anyway.
The money Washington spends is for endless research. These people do not do hardcore advocacy or any advocacy at all. The best they can do is a press release from some university who no one reads.
This whole thing makes me feel uncomfortable. I have reached my financial limits.
“With regard to errors in general, whether falling under the denomination of mental, typographical or accidental, we are conscious of being able to point out a greater number than any critic whatever. Men who are acquainted with the innumerable difficulties of attending the execution of a work of such an extensive nature will make proper allowances. To these we appeal, and shall rest satisfied with the judgment they pronounce.
– William Smellie, in the Preface to the 1st edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica”
Quote from – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica
OOPS!
After finding that perfectly good wiki articles, when linked in a skeptic article, would be mysteriously re-written to gut them (thus debasing the article saying “look here”) I first tried just saving the content ‘in case’. Lately I’ve simply gone looking for non-wiki sources. Some time ago I adopted the standard of just coping ALL the relevant material and leaving out the wiki link. (Why bother with a link if it won’t be there when you return?). So I’ll say “From the wiki:” and quote the text, but no linky.
In the end, I now mostly use them for pictures (but even then I save a copy, as some pictures have mysteriously changed location…)
I have to agree with the folks saying “too little too late”. I can no longer trust Wiki to:
1) Have unbiased information.
2) Be stable
3) Be reliable
4) Be free of political hack jobs.
And at that point, it’s not very useful anymore. Even on non-climate things, I find I’m reading them with much more ‘skepticism’ than before. Always, now, doubting that anything said there has truth in it. For anything of importance, I seek out confirmation before believing it. Once you see a politically motivated bully squad dominate one area, all areas get “Danger – Warning” signs…
FWIW, at one time I was contributing photos to wikimedia. (I’ve seen some of mine used on the internet… kind of cool…) I’ve stopped that, too. Why? Because simply looking at the word ‘wiki’ now has a faint taint of unpleasantness about it. I simply don’t want to be helping it any more. For a volunteer organization, driving away the volunteers is a bad things… driving away those with the strongest sense of civility and the strongest sense of morality is doubly bad. And driving away the kind voices leaves little of interest in what is said.
So I’ve taken my camera and gone home. And when I was contributing photos, I’d thought of getting involved with articles. Now you’d have to pay me to do it. (I will do very unpleasant things for pay, but not on my own time). Life is too short to drink bad wine, and Wiki has become too much vinegar…
[snip – sexual preference has nothing to do with this article ~mod]