Another prominent Wikipedia editor has been climate topic banned 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:

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.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2010 3:03 pm

I have to say from my interactions with each, Kim was far more reasonable, although a zealot, and considerably more knowledgable than William Connley.

October 15, 2010 3:04 pm

Komsomolskayapedia sends another scapegoat to the recycle bin.

October 15, 2010 3:05 pm

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:
— 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:
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

October 15, 2010 3:07 pm

Anthony, I think you got it wrong. Petersen’s voluntary ban was accepted:
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.
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)
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

October 15, 2010 3:10 pm

The discussion page for the deletion of Dr. Tim Ball from wikipedia (Professor Joshua Halpern Eli Rabett chimes in):
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?”
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]”
Dr. Ball on his own career:

Oxbridge Prat
October 15, 2010 3:11 pm

Better to read the final outcome; there were lots of last minute changes.
REPLY: Thanks, added. – Anthony

David A. Evans
October 15, 2010 3:19 pm

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

October 15, 2010 3:28 pm

The debate is closed … LOL.

October 15, 2010 3:42 pm

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.

October 15, 2010 3:53 pm

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.”

October 15, 2010 3:55 pm

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.

October 15, 2010 4:03 pm

Ho hum. The Wankapedia Bus rolls on with scarcely a bump or a thump as Connelly is tossed under. And about time, too.

October 15, 2010 4:26 pm

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:

The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones

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”.

Ian Mc Vindicated
October 15, 2010 4:28 pm

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 )

October 15, 2010 4:49 pm

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

Honest ABE
October 15, 2010 5:06 pm

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
+A Quest For Knowledge
KimDabelsteinPetersen (note: Scjessey and KDP’s voluntary restriction is much more lenient)
Stephan Schulz
11 “skeptics” vs. 8 AGWers sanctioned. That isn’t to say that the skeptics outnumber them, but that several AGWers were ignored.

October 15, 2010 5:08 pm

@ 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?

David A. Evans
October 15, 2010 5:29 pm

Ian Mc Vindicated says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Oh Gawd
I really tried to telegraph it. Seems both sides have deficiencies.

Evan Jones
October 15, 2010 5:39 pm

Hey, Anthony, check out your own bio on wiki. It has been toned down considerably and the personal snarking seems to have been removed.

David A. Evans
October 15, 2010 5:53 pm

Gary Turner says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Correct, was meant to be facetious, just struggled a little for an appropriate tag.

October 15, 2010 6:10 pm

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?

October 15, 2010 7:39 pm

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!

October 15, 2010 8:53 pm

“The bigger the lie,
The more the people believe it!”
Hitler saying
Good schools don’t allow it for reference.

October 15, 2010 10:39 pm

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.

October 16, 2010 3:03 am

Here is Connolley yesterday, Final decision: thoughts

Of the decision:
* the “scorched earth” idea is unthinking and stupid.
* arbcomm demonstrate again an inability to distinguish the valuable from the valueless; indeed, they appear to be too lazy to even try.
* in pursuit of their atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant they have failed to notice that peace has already broken out. For two reasons: the worst of the “skeptics” (MN, M4th, Cla, ATren, TGL) are all gone; and the external forcing (Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎) has been resolved in favour of Climate Science [my emphasis]. So all the disruption was for nothing.

October 16, 2010 3:10 am

I’ve been looking at Discussion pages, and once again it’s clear to me that the basic WP:NOR rule is a major stumbling-block for cutting-edge research.
Questionable journals are allowed because WMC has determined they are reputable sources, others are disallowed because WMC has determined they are not reputable sources, and all the time the actual science is only reported secondhand, the firsthand material doesn’t get a look in. So the whole of WP is Chinese Whispers, not Science, when it comes to Climate Science.

October 16, 2010 3:17 am

On the last WP thread, Njorway flagged up this sad state of affairs: “Who is NuclearWarfare?” and it deserves another flag IMO. Timothy Ball’s bio, deleted, and inaccessible if you simply type his name in the search bar.
Would someone like to write his bio again? He certainly deserves a page at WP. And I get the feeling he’s been more cruelly attacked than most. Perhaps his story felt too hot for WP to want to mention.

October 16, 2010 3:32 am

The problem with wikipedohilia boils down to consensus vs. knowledge. Consensus (which means total agreement, just to set that definition straight) and even common sense are not the same thing as knowledge/science based on observation of phenomena. I’m sorry if this is preaching to the converted, but I can see why and how “the consensus on climate change” ruled the day for so long on wikipedophilia. “Peer review” and “sources” on wikipedophilia are the same sort of surrogate imitations that pass for such in AGW circles.
And yes, there is child porn on wikipedia.

October 16, 2010 3:34 am

Poptech says: October 15, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Counter Wikipedia projects are largely a waste of time, especially anything in the wiki format…

Respectfully, I disagree. I still think it’s needed.

I have been compiling a resource for some time now, The Anti “Man-Made” Global Warming Resource

Poptech, I looked at your work. Great list. But it’s too overwhelming. And I don’t like what hits: political articles up top (not the science basics), the huge page length, the lack of annotations suggesting the value/content of each, and the time taken to surf from one of your references to another, to compare them.
Where does someone short on time start? Wikipedia of course, because it’s easily accessible, has page sections contents list that lets you jump, links everywhere let you follow through and through and through, and (in theory) it’s not just one person but a consensus statement. Even the bad articles often have good links.

Ian Mc Vindicated
October 16, 2010 4:27 am

To Dave….sorry, I misunderstood your post….I really didn’t see the ( sarc ) at the end….

October 16, 2010 8:03 am

If there has been such a victory, why is the content of Hal Lewis’s resignation letter still air-brushed from his wikipedia page? A kinder, gentler form of censorship… is still censorship.

October 16, 2010 8:49 am

I’m shocked and pleased!
It seems as though the “editors” of Wiki really are trying to ferret out the “emotion”…and stick to “the facts”.
I really regard this as a “net win” for objectivity!
Kudo’s the the VOLUNTEER Wiki staff for taking this BULL by the HORNS.

October 16, 2010 8:58 am

twl says: “If there has been such a victory, why is the content of Hal Lewis’s resignation letter still air-brushed from his wikipedia page?”
twl, the problem with putting the resignation letter on his entry is that it would give undue prominence to the letter in what is a very limited entry on the chap. So, I tried to find more information to add to the wikipedia entry, and to be honest, all I’ve found about him is the news about his resignation. I couldn’t even find a CV or a list of publications and without that there’s almost no point even trying to tidy up his entry.
So if anyone knows where to get more hard information on this guy please post it

October 16, 2010 9:49 am

The reputational damage to Wiki is already severe. Where I used to just ‘quote the wiki’, I now must first save a copy (as folks would regularly go erase / rewrite articles to which I pointed). And now I simply go elsewhere first. I’ll use the wiki if I need a non-copyright to quote, but otherwise it just gets an ‘avoid’ now.
Maybe someday they can fix their issues, but I’ve not got that long to wait… Though “good on them” for at least starting / trying. (But I fear the “food fight” methodology is not amenable to repair.)

October 16, 2010 11:45 am

While anyone on the Watts Up with That site is well informed and far above average in intellectual capacity, Wikkipedia is widely used by the unsophisticated and generally accepted as a source for factual information. Please, do not dissmiss it as unimportant. Millions of students, at all levels, use it as the unquestioned source of truth. It is becoming the internet authority. Google usually lists Wikki as one of the first few sources on any search.
Those of us who are working to correct the bad science behind the CO2 global warming scare, must give a high priority to making Wikki a fair and balanced source.
I urge my highly respected Ph.D.-holding heros to organize a committee to take on the project of editing the pertinent Wikki articles. You will be reaching far more people than by publishing papers and writing articles in journals. By correcting the information in Wikki you can make a huge impact on the outcome of the issue.
Remember, ultimately public opinion controls the politicians, and the elected officials control the purse strings on the research dollars, and the research dollars control science and the ouput of science controls the media that controls public opinion. Wikki is an important seat on the merry-go-round.
We need your help Ph.D. scientists. Please make Wikki a priority.

October 16, 2010 3:58 pm

‘Wikkipedia is widely used by the unsophisticated and generally accepted as a source for factual information.’
I wouldn’t go as far as calling people unsophisticated, bone heads sure, but not unsophisticated. :p
But you’re right though, people take what is written at heart, and that’s the intelligent way. If you go to a encyclopedia you automatically expect what is written to be true and factual at the time of its writing. Period. Period. Period.
That’s why I hate the idiots who rule wikipedia, because by their allowing fundamentalistic extremist, i.e. bias only, sources to write they’re making themselves as a source effectively useless as a source of reference.
It used to be that people made fun of encyclopedia references due to the inherently old entries, but now days with wikipedia it’s because the source lacks the facts of its own time, i.e not because the fact is old and out dated but because it’s not even there in the first place.

October 16, 2010 7:43 pm

Lucy, the reason for the volume of reference material at my site is due to the volume of material that exists and what I have still only covers a fraction of it. You thinking it is too overwhelming, not liking the political links, the huge page length ect.. is your opinion and yours alone. Everyone else that has contacted me (hundreds of people) have all found it to be a valuable resource. The only other comprehensive science resource I have found besides mine is at CO2Science, every other one is missing way too much information.
Someone short on time can start with the simplified version.
The reason they start with Wikipedia is because Google assigns Wikipedia a 9 out 10 PageRank and anyone trying to compete has no remote change of listing higher than Wikipedia in search results. Google effectively created the monster by listing it literally first for every search result at the founding of Wikipedia way before it could possibly build up such an insane PageRank for everything. Alexa also ranks Wikipedia as the 7th most popular site on the web, effectively behind 4 search engines, facebook and YouTube.
Long term I prefer informing people of how Wikipedia really works then trying to fight it.
John, I agree with you and am not dismissing it as unimportant rather attempting to inform people of it’s unreliability. Long term this is much more important than attempting to partake in endless edit wars on Wikipedia.

October 19, 2010 4:24 pm

I saw that William M. Connolley has made some slight revisions on “my” Wikipedia page. I do not completely agree with him, but this is no reason for an editorial war. Only my professional homepage mentioned before is authoritative.

M. Jeff
October 21, 2010 7:21 am

From today’s WSJ Opinion:
Wikipedia bars a global warming censor from editing its pages.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights