Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again

Image representing Wikipedia as depicted in Cr...

Image via CrunchBase

Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne:

Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.

I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team. See it here at Die Kalte Sonne via this Google Translate link:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaltesonne.de%2F%3Fp%3D7858

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
temp

Translate works well for it, also a good piece. Wiki is a indoctrination trap for anyone not well versed in the scientific method and assumes the logical fallacy of the argument from authority is best argument to make when dealing with science.
Far too often opinion is listed as fact and facts are removed because they don’t fit the proper agenda.

Kev-in-Uk

Nothing surprises me as regards that weasel (sic) character! Wall, first and coming revolution spring immediately to mind!

knr

In the area of climate science Wikipedia is virtual worthless , as they let Connolley and his sock puppets run wild and lose . And not for the first time , the message is when using Wikipedia remember the salt .
It would not be a surprise to find the IPCC takes him on , as a ‘true believer ‘ that is the only qualification he needs to be consider by them as ‘worthy ‘ .

Wamron

Wikipedia is OK for topics that are non-controversial and not the focus of popular opinion. But as soon as you look at an entry on something about which you have some knowledge but upon which opinions run wide, then its completely shite. I am thinking of such topics as orbit the field of psychology overlapping with pop-psych.
The entries on some topics are totally laughable. Like something emerging out of watching a really poor B movie.
What is particularly pernicious is where, as in this case, the editing is cunningly contrived so as to conform to the pattern of deception otherwise prevalent in the popular media.The end result then becomes congruous, not laughable but disturbingly close to an Orwellian re-writing of “reality”.

Don’t any of these people wonder WHY they have to keep fiddling with the facts and data?

Mark Bofill

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.
————————–
It’s the KOCH BROTHERS again!
No, wait…
Oh I remember now, those are the guys who are supposed to be paying me.

cui bono

Got the gist with Google translate. Except for “Editierauflagen” (editing pads??).
And what a paean of praise to William Connelley is the Wiki article on William Connelley. What sterling work He has done for the planet; what eulogies have been pronounced upon Him by the Great and the Good; what grave injustices have been perpetrated upon Him by mere Lilliputian opponents when clearly He should be totally absolved from any infantile accusations of mischievous rewriting and editing.
Apparently and sadly, Wiki just didn’t recognise Him as the Supreme Expert that He was and is, and gave false credence to some irritating numbskulls who are not fit to read His exalted words of wisdom.
Breathes there a mere man, or a demigod? I think we should be told. Possibly by William Connelley in Wikipedia.

Thomas

There is a list in Wikipedia on which editors have been most active:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Connolley is at place 597. Anyone wanting to come up with conspiracy theories that no one can do these many edits without being paid by someone also have to who funds the other 597. The most prolific editor has more than 20 times as many edits…

Paul, Somerset

“Es war also gar kein Schiedsrichter, sondern der 12. Mann der IPCC-Mannschaft.”
“This wasn’t a referee at all, but an extra man on the IPCC team.
“Ein Schiedsrichter” is a soccer referee. A soccer team consists of 11 players. So if the referee is biased towards one team, you refer to him as that team’s 12th man.

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland

Oh, bother, a shill! Say it ain’t so!

Tom Jones

You just have to be impressed. This is straight out of the cold war. Jimmy Wales should be apoplectic

graphicconception

Die Kalte Sonne, I think.

Steve

“With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”
That can’t be true…only those who question CAGW would be paid to constantly edit wiki and to flood forums with posts…
LOL!

TheBigYinJames

Anyone who uses Wikipedia as an actual source of knowledge deserves everything they get.

knr

Thanks to Connolley and his sock puppets climate science is one of those areas on Wikipedia that simply cannot be trusted. Its happened before on other subjects due to allowing some people effective editorial control on areas then they have earned no such right . And its one reason why anything on Wikipedia needs to be complemented with salt .
But no I don’t think his being paid , I think he is a fanatic that sees themselves in a fight ‘against evil’ where anything they do is justified for the greater good . Such people can be very dangerous and their more than willing to give up everything in their ‘fight’
Its would not be a surprise to find him working with the IPCC has his total commitment to ‘the cause ‘ ,which justifies its very existence, is all they want .

Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7

I’ve run into this before on a much smaller scale with Wikipedia. Anybody can edit an article and the changes stand unless someone challenges it. So a small number of activists wtih time on their hands can alter existing entries with effectively no controls.

timbo1

It does sound very much like a day job.

David H

“With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”
How is that any different than “…it makes you wonder if Mr. Watts is employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task”?
18,320,338 people have opened Wikipedia accounts. Many people do enjoy it.
REPLY: The difference is that I don’t try to change the meaning of or history of reference works on a daily basis. And, no I’m not in anyone’s employ in what I write or allow to be published by guest authors at WUWT. – Anthony

Tucci78

Were the people controlling the Wiki-bloody-media Foundation at all interested in maintaining the credibility of “The Free Encyclopedia,” they’d drop the banhammer on William Connolley and all his climate fraudster conniving cohorts and make that shutdown absolute and irrevocable.
But they’re overwhelmingly in the Watermelon bag, aren’t they?

TomRude

In the Kopp article, it is untrue that Connolley has been “withdrawn from circulation”. Last October William M. Connolley attacked the English Wikipedia page dedicated to the late climatologist Marcel Leroux. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/death-by-stoat/#more-72186
Later, Halpern and Connolley led a concerted charge against Gerhard Kramm, who responded to their attack with scorn. As a result of sanctions in an earlier Wikipedia affair, Connolley had been limited to general climate articles and grave digging, that is only editing the pages of dead scientists, so Halpern was brought to the rescue to lead the charge against Kramm. Kramm’s page was of course deleted a few weeks later. Every time Connolley needs some help in his crusade, there is always some willing hand to do the dirty job, from all over the globe, Edimburgh, Seattle…
Always on alert, one can effectively wonder if this executor of Wikideeds is an all green altruist… Perhaps the answer lies in the unpublished climategate emails? Let’s not forget that the main donors of Wikipedia include the same US billionaires who have been funding the green disruption in Canada…

P. Solar

As I recall Connelley had about 3500 edits to his ‘credit’ when he got a temporary ban for abusing his admin position on Wikipedia.
At 5300 now it would appear he has not eased up his pace and I don’t doubt for a minute that he is being just as partisan and bigotted in his editing and using his admin powers to trump other editors.
At one time he was a Green Party candidate in his consituency of Cambridge, though he did not advertise his political activity on his Wikipedia user page. He just presented himself as a climate scientist to give himself even more supposed authority in pushing his political beliefs as scientific fact on WP.
Last time I checked his claim to scientific fame was being co-author on a couple of papers attempting to model ocean currents around Antarctica when he was working for the B.A.S.
I read the papers which amounted to an explanation that they had not managed to reproduce the behaviour of the currents they aiming to model.
Apparently he thinks being a failure at climate science means he is qualified to over ride the edits made by others. If they argue back he bans them from further edits.
He must be living from some income so perhaps Peter Gleick could be employed to find out who his secret donor is for us.

ed

I’ve had experience going up against Connelly in Wiki. I had changed references to Global Warming to “The Theory of Global Warming” and it was impossible to get that past slick Willie. If you look back at the early days of REALCLIMATE they list Connelly as their “gatekeeper” for the Wiki Project in some terms or other. I remember there being commentary about it.

This is insane. Robert Zubrin explains really well what we are up against. An excerpt:

Antihumanism is a belief system which holds that humans are destroyers [whose] activities, aspirations, and numbers must be severely constrained… In the 1970s there was a global cooling trend going on. So the antihumanists said “look, there is global cooling, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” Then in the 1980s the climate began to warm, so they said “look, there is global warming, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” The problem is always different, the solution is always the same [de-industrialization, and:] – put them in control. Its not about weather, it’s about power.

See the full 12 minute video: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/339257/robert-zubrin-why-we-need-more-carbon-greg-pollowitz

The Right Honorable Honore de Wright

“It does sound very much like a day job.”
It’s not a job at all. It’s a symptom. I have worked extensively with the mentally ill. This type of obsession and compulsion is common and at times is a bridge to psychosis.

clipe
richardK

Hey Thomas, please read their disclaimer “1.Due to a bug, the edit counts reported by Wikipedia are not always reliable for editors with high edit counts and may show extreme discrepancies in some cases.
2.Some editors use automated tools (bots and assisted systems) capable of fixing many simple errors per minute (spelling, links, etc.), or that place many informational and other notices in a short time, while others work on tasks where these tools are not useful, such as content creation and reworking, manual copyright review, and editorial dispute resolution.
In other words, they have no clue!

Lew Skannen

I had a brief run-in with Connolley on Wiki over the subject of Chaos Theory.
There was a line which stated that “Chaotic systems could be seen in such phenomena as weather”. I remember that it used to say “weather and climate” but the reference to climate had been removed.
So I added “and climate” back in.
Within half a day it had been changed by Con-man.
So I decided that maybe the reference which backed it must be about weather only. So I looked at it. It was a paper about chaos and climate, not even a mention of weather!
So I changed it back with an explanation about the reference.
Within a couple of hours the con-man has removed the whole reference with a note “I looked at the article. It wasn’t very good”.
So it had been good enough to exist for at least two years when it was incorrectly referencing ‘weather’ but when it was changed to correctly reference ‘climate’ it suddenly was not good enough.
I suggest we work the con-man to death by all of us piling into Wiki and making correct changes to articles he guards.

isabelle

Much as I reference and enjoy this site, it can just as daftie as those sites you are at odds with. Mr C has a blog, talk to him about it there, save your space for what scaremongering iMessrs Stern und Gore et al are chundering out.

Doug Huffman

Using the Wikipedia remember, believe nothing that one reads or hears without verifying it onself unless it congruent with ones preexisting Weltanschauung (this latter clause excuses those who cannot read it).

Niff

One would have thought that an “editor” deleting 500 articles and banning 2000 contributors would raise some attention as to their bona fides….and it wouldn’t take long to find the Green Party affiliation. But it is also a prime example that can be referenced to affirm that the CAGW side of the argument actively stifles opposing opinions and is zealous in spreading their version of the truth. If you knew this was religious zeal rather than science, would you pay any attention?

Dodgy Geezer

I have noticed an interesting development on the Wiki.
Some months ago there was a push for people to ‘believe the consensus’, and a lot of us replied by citing instances where the consensus was later shown to be faulty – Piltdown Man, Alfred Wegener and Marshall of stomach ulcer fame were often quoted.
A little while ago I had occasion to look up the Piltdown Man entry, and I noted that it had been rewritten to make it look as if the fraud was a minor glitch, and only believed by a few deluded souls. Apparently, Piltdown man was no longer an instance where the scientific establishment got it wrong. I looked up Marshall as well, and found that his entry had been altered to read that he ‘claimed’ that he had been suppressed by the medical establishment, but that this was really proper caution, and not an instance of an incorrect consensus.
This sort of political history rewriting is proceeding through every aspect of the Wikipedia. It is no longer just controversial issues which are at risk – a lot of collateral damage is being caused…

Jim Strom

When William Connolley’s name comes up I smile as I remember a post that I read on CA when I was beginning to follow the AGW controversy:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/#comment-115067
The silliness! I’m tempted to copy it in full here for posterity in case Steve M decides to retire from his blog, but I’ll leave that for commenter John A.

Horse

Wikipedia is a joke so far as anything regarding climate science is concerned. If you click on the ‘Talk’ tab of any climate related entry Connolley will be all over the thread like rash. It should be embarassing for Jimmy Wales. This is why Wikipedia’s reputation is so poor that even quiz setters won’t use it.

Thomas says:
January 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm
There is a list in Wikipedia on which editors have been most active:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
Connolley is at place 597. Anyone wanting to come up with conspiracy theories that no one can do these many edits without being paid by someone also have to who funds the other 597. The most prolific editor has more than 20 times as many edits…
=====================================================================
I doubt anyone pays them.
Since living in their parents basement or garage attic is rent free.
It seems at least 597 people have no social life.

Jon Sanders

George Orwell in his book 1984 imagined a leftist state powerful enough to edit history. Technology has surpassed Orwell and now the capability to edit history is within reach of anyone with an internet connection. Leftists still have a drive to edit history to suit themselves. I doubt that Connelly is paid (directly). I think he is a True Believer, per Hoffer.

“Anyone wanting to come up with conspiracy theories that no one can do these many edits without being paid by someone also have to who funds the other 597.”
Not really, however they would have to determine how much time was spent on the edits. The amount that others have contributed is irrelevant as to how much time one of them has spent.

Hot under the collar

I particularly noticed this comment in the full article;
“Firstly because this campaign is hardly grown solely on Connollys crap”

John Bell

5428 different articles, or 5428 total edits? Maybe he is having an editing war with someone and has changed the same articles back to his way many times.

Jon Sanders:
I write to make a knit-pick of your post at January 30, 2013 at 3:16 pm which includes

George Orwell in his book 1984 imagined a leftist state powerful enough to edit history.

No, he wrote about a rightist state in ‘1984’.
He wrote about a leftist state in his parody of the USSR titled ‘Animal Farm’.
Like me, Orwell was a left wing socialist, and ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ were warnings about totalitarianism. This matters because the AGW-scare is promoted by totalitarians of the left and the right.
Totalitarianism is a great evil.
Richard

Roger Dewhurst

In writing a short Wikipedia article on New Zealand Climate Science I referred to Professor Bellamy as a renowned botanist, which of course he is. That bastard Connolley changed that to television presenter.

RayG

cui bono says:
January 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm
And what a paean of praise to William Connelley is the Wiki article on William Connelley. What sterling work He has done for the planet; what eulogies have been pronounced upon Him by the Great and the Good; what grave injustices have been perpetrated upon Him by mere Lilliputian opponents when clearly He should be totally absolved from any infantile accusations of mischievous rewriting and editing.
As said earlier by another:
“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god!”

That’s the same William Connolley associated with the giant UK Ofcom complaint lodged against “The Great Global Warming Swindle” video in 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm
” … The morning after the broadcast, I posted on the blog of the British Antarctic Survey’s scientist William Connolley, [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3433 ] saying that I wanted to complain to Ofcom and asking whether any scientists could help me write a comprehensive complaint. Nathan Rive [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3529 ] and Brian Jackson [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3485%5D responded to my post and became my two co-lead authors. William Connolley also agreed to peer review it. … ”
The main Ofcom complaint author Dave Rado acknowledges no less than two people from Desmogblog, Brendan DeMelle & Kevin Grandia, at this page http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/fullcomplaint/p12.htm#Bottom , along with Kert Davies of Greenpeace USA (neé Ozone Action, the place I like to call the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists in my various articles).

Russ in Houston

richardscourtney says:
January 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm
“Like me, Orwell was a left wing socialist, and ’1984′ and ‘Animal Farm’ were warnings about totalitarianism. This matters because the AGW-scare is promoted by totalitarians of the left and the right.”
You nailed it right there. There is no difference between the far left and the far right. They are the same beast.

paddylol

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.
The answer is, of course. Dig deep enough and you find the links to Geogre Soros. Soros and his pal oligarchs stand to make trillions of dollars from the consequences of climate alarmism.

banjo

I bet if someone told his mum,she`d give `im a right ding round the ear.
Probably send him straight to his room and ground him.
If he doesn`t smarten up and fly straight she should take his playstation away!
Honestly! It can`t be easy disciplining a moody teen.
Maybe his family and friends could do an `intervention` to get him out of the basement and into a pair of pants.

Anthony, you have already posted about Connolley editing 5,428+ Wikipedia articles in 2009,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
The way I read it was that Connolley helped get the IPCC’s message out by editing Wikipedia and their reference to him being on the “team” was sarcasm.

William McClenney

Connolly is just another Switch, short for S-witch, or short for Science-witch.

My comment may have wound up in the spam bin. It was:
I think it is important that the Germans are waking up to the fraud, and to the degree they have been duped. I can’t imagine they, as a people, take kindly to being led to their own destruction. It is difficult for outsiders to conceive the horrors their leaders have led them to, over the past 99 years, and the degree to which their loyalty and patriotism has been abused and wickedly perverted. Any person, such as Connelley, who thinks it a small matter to lead them down such a path yet again is fooling themselves, and will likely awaken an unexpected backlash.

Connolley is at it again and somehow retains an ability to edit Climate Change related wikipedia pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley&offset=&limit=500&target=William+M.+Connolley
You can clearly see who is in control of the Global Warming page:
http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Global_warming
FYI: Stephan Schulz, KimDabelsteinPetersen are minions of Connolley.
This is a good write up on Connolley’s behavior on Wikipedia,
http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

Greg House

It might sound funny, but it was the biased Wikipedia that helped me to understand what sort of crap the AGW concept is. I started with the “global warming” article where they honestly said that “global warming” was a statistical average thing, which meant it was not global per definition. This was an indication of a hoax to me. Second, it made intermediately crap out of all those “attributions” like ice melt on Greenland or draughts somewhere etc. It is absolutely absurd already on the junior high school level to maintain that global average can cause anything local.