William Connelley - The Opinionator, How one extremist skews Wikipedia Options

[JohnA]

An extremely interesting profile of William Connelley by Lawrence Solomon in Canada's Financial Post:

The opinionator

At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, May 03, 2008

Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate. He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeller, but those accomplishments don't explain his influence -- PhDs are not uncommon and, in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.

He was the Parish Councillor for the village of Coton in the U.K., his Web site tells us, and a school governor there, too, but neither of those accomplishments are a claim to fame in the wider world. Neither are his five failed attempts to attain public office as a local candidate for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council as a representative for the Green Party.

But Connolley is a big shot on Wikipedia, which honours him with an extensive biography, an honour Wikipedia did not see fit to bestow on his boss at the British Antarctic Survey. Or on his boss's's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss's boss, none of whose opinions seemingly count for much, despite their impressive accomplishments. William Connolley's opinions, in contrast, count for a great deal at Wikipedia, even though some might not think them particularly worthy of note. "It is his view that there is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global warming, and that the various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarize this consensus," states his Wikipedia page, in the section called "Biography."

On BLPs of accomplished scientists that Connelley doesn't like, there are the familiar tactics known to WR only too well:

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at Wikipedia -- an a dministrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds -- in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley's supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favours.

Absolutely they don't apply to Connelley. Next to Slimvirgin, I regard Connelley as one of the most serious historical revisionists on Wikipedia.

Now read on: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics...l?id=490337&p=1

[Derktar]

Here's an earlier column by Solomon relating to this:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ts-solomon.aspx

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Absolutely they don't apply to Connelley. Next to Slimvirgin, I regard Connelley as one of the most serious historical revisionists on Wikipedia.

I agree. However, allow me to request of all participants that they kindly stay on the William Connelly topic. For those who want to debate the subject of Global Warming, we have a lovely thread called Global Warming: Fact, or reality?, and that's where I moved the posts about Fred Singer.

[Ben]

Here's something I wrote in one of Connolley's RFC's a few years ago. The National Post article is just doing the same-old "deniers are being denied! liberal media!" schtick (surprised they didn't mention conservapedia) but I certainly agree WMC has caused a lot of problems, so I thought I'd repost my thoughts on the matter for a little more in-depth "on the front-lines" perspective. Here's my analysis way back in 2005:

My opinion on the cause of the problem is that WMC often uses technically correct rhetoric, but not science, to make the case for global warming. This leads skeptics to believe they are being shut out of the conversation, which is what happens and likely what WMC is attempting to do. This is unconscionable in science, and results in skeptics pushing POV in an attempt to break through WMCs' disingenuous style of writing (likely the result of a personal backlash towards skeptics). An example would be WMC's argument over whether to include "all climate models predict global warming." The word all while possibly technically correct, is a rhetorical, not a scientific, self-justification which further enflames skeptics. The same would be true if a skeptic wrote "most" or "some" in that sentence. The result should be that the whole sentence should be re-written. Something like "Many different climate models are used in predicting climate. The models used by climatologists have all predicted global warming." Which gets the point across, and I doubt skeptics would have a problem with this since it is not "closed" and can be added to/re-arranged/qualified without causing much of an argument on either side —Ben 22:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Down the road, I'd like to see articles where the reader creates his or her own argument with the methodology of climatology and the NPOV facts discovered. The reader is free to challenge the methods and the facts without having to pick apart rhetoric calculated to exclude their ideas from the article. The argument is not forced upon them, the methods and facts used are provided so they may discover for themselves, whatever their opinions may be. I also would like to see the politics dealt with separately from the science. I hope that this will happen soon, considering the ever-increasing urgency in educating people about the science of climate change, but I fear it will not be due to the style of writing and the personalities involved... ...--Ben 22:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Putting aside for a moment the question of who is right and who wrong on global warming, Connelley is, as John says, right up there with Virginia Slim with respect to an impressive mastery of all the tactics of POV pushing and WP:OWNership. He doesn't debate other editors, he suppresses them.

[Dzonatas]

In evidence presented by Inclusionist on the George-WMC ArbCom case: (click on "in evidence" link for deeper links)

"Connolley stirkes me as the type of editor who will abuse his admin status to enforce his pov."--User:TDC, at Connolley's admin election.

[edit] William M. Connolley has repeatedly abused his adminsitrative powers

The episode in this case is not the first time that William M. Connolley has misused his administrative powers.

In my three years on wikipedia, Connolley has consistently abused his administrative powers more than any other admin I have ever seen.

Connolley has a long history of using his adminstrative powers in edit wars he was involved in:

Seven independent administrators:

1. Dmcdevit, 15 May 2008,
2. User:BernardL 15 May 2008,
3. User:User:Bigtimepeace 15 May 2008,
4. Viridae, 17 April 2008,
5. Aqwis, 14 April 2008
6. Chaser,[19]
7. FeloniousMonk, [20]

All found that William has abused his administrative powers over several months by blocking editors he was in an edit war with, violating Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes.

Here are William's violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. All blocks can be found on William's block page.

1. In an edit war with User:Chris_Chittleborough on Hockey stick controversy William blocks Chris. Administrator Chaser later states "you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with" On William's page Chaser says:
"Will...you can't block users you're in disputes with. The policy is unambigious and ArbCom has indicated the same thing. This is the kind of thing that people get de-sysopped for."[21]
2. In an edit war with User:Lapsed Pacifist on the page Shell to Sea‎[22], William blocks Lapsed for the reason "repeated re-insertion of unsourced material"
3. In an edit war with User:Jaymes2 on Global warming William blocks Jaymes2 for the reason, "repeated insertion of tripe"
4. In an edit war on Global Warming with User:Sterculius William blocks Sterculius for "Tendentious edtis at GW"
5. In an edit war with the actual person User:PiersCorbyn in the article Piers Corbyn, which William actively edited before and after, William blocks User:PiersCorbyn for 3 hours, reason: "COI violation"
6. In an edit war with User:Wedjj on Global Warming William blocks Wedjj for 8 hours, reason: "disruptive editing"
7. In an edit war with User:Supergreenred William blocks User:Supergreenred (see more details above)
8. In an edit war with User:Britcom on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and Global Warming William blocks Britcom for 8 hours, reason: Restoring incivil comment for this edit:[23] in which Brit says: "Don't be a hypocrite WC"
9. In the same edit war with User:Britcom on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and Global Warming William blocks Britcom for 24 hours ‎reason: Incivility
10. In an edit war with User:Wikzilla at Global warming‎ William personally blocks Wikzilla twice for Three-revert rule violations.
11. In an edit war with User:ConfuciusOrnis at Climate change denial William blocks User:ConfuciusOrnis twice. William is chastized by admin User:FeloniousMonk for William abusing his administrative powers once again.[24]
12. In an edit war with user:207.237.232.228 on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change William blocks anon for three hours for this statment: "Buzz off hippy" [25]
13. With User:DHeyward on Global Warming William blocks DHeyward, length: 8 hours, ‎ reason: "violation of 1RR on GW; incivil edit summaries" There appears to be no 1RR because of arbcom. User:Viridae reverted this block.
14. In an edit war with User:Lapsed Pacifist on the page Shell to Sea William blocks Lapsed for 3 hours giving the reason as "incivility" for this edit[26]
15. For comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which William actively edits, William blocks 65.12.145.148 for incivility for this comment "A great read for all you cool aid drinkers."
16. In an AfD which both User:Lordvolton and William are arguing in, William blocks Lordvolton for 8 hours for "incivility". [27]
17. William blocks User:HalfDome for incivility because of comments on the page Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, which he actively edits.
18. William again blocks User:HalfDome for incivility because of comments on the page Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, which he actively edits.
19. William blocks User:Isonomia/User:Haseler for a comment on William's talk page. [28]
20. William blocks User:Jepp for comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an article William actively edits. Reason: "Inserting false information: incivility"
21. William blocks User:Dean1970 for comments on Carl Wunsch, an article William edits regularly.
22. William blocks User:71.211.241.40 for comments on Global warming controversy‎, an article William edits regularly.
23. William blocks User:Juanfermin for 3rr on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, an article William edits regularly.
24. William blocks User:UBeR for comments on The Great Global Warming Swindle‎, an article William edits regularly.
25. William blocks User:Peterlewis for comments on Historical climatology, an article William edits regularly.
26. William blocks User:69.19.14.31 for incivility on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
27. William blocks User:Likwidshoe for incivility on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, an article William edits regularly.
28. William blocks User:Kismatraval for "spam" on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
29. William blocks User:69.19.14.29 for trolling for this comment "One thing is clear: this Wikipedia article and its fanatical guardians are a perfect example of how and why Wikipedia cannot be considered as a reliable source of knowledge." on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
30. William blocks User:Grimerking for 3rr on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
31. William blocks User:Dick Wayne for posting youtube link on The Great Global Warming Swindle, an article William edits regularly.
32. William blocks User:DonaldDuck07 for "incivility" for comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an article William actively edits.
33. William blocks User:Rotten for "incivility" for comments on The Great Global Warming Swindle, an article William actively edits.
34. William blocks User:219.64.26.28 for "repeated posting of own content to sci opp on cl ch" for comments on Scientific opinion on climate change, an article William actively edits.
35. Because of an argument on his user page with newbie User:Alexandergungnahov, in which Alexandergungnahov accuses William of vandalizing his page by adding a Welcome sign, William boots Alexandergungnahov for 8 hours for NPA.
36. On a page that he actively edits, Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png William blocks User:24.59.148.187, for the comment "making up B.S. excuses to", reason: incivility

Administrative abuse involving me and others on the same page

As Connolley was abusing his administrative powers again he wrote that he wanted to start a "major flamewar" and admitted that he broke Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes:

Time to start a major flamewar I think. may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator... is a problem, in that only the people involved understand the issues, have followed what is going on, and can issue blocks in a timely manner...There should be some way for admins to block people they are involved in disputes with. There also need to be some safeguards on it, I suppose.[29]

1. William protected the a page he was editing, and [30]
2. then proceeded to remove 15k worth of text. [31],
3. Two days later William unprotected the article bringing it down to semi-protection.[32]
4. William blocked Supergreenred [33] for reverting him, in what he calls disruption. here.
5. Admin Aqwis then unblocked Supergreenred because "Due to the blocking admin's violation of our Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes policy"[34].
6. William blocked me in an edit war [35][36].
7. I had requested the page be protected[37], and William removed the protection [38].


Inclusionist (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other admins have been desysopped for fewer Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes abuse

At least 7 other admins have been desysopped partly for fewer Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes abuse, see User:Inclusionist/Bad.

[Astrotrain]

At least he's open about it. The worst admins are those who use proxy editors to edit war on their behalf, like in the Troubles disputes. I imagine he will get off with it, like the useless Brownhaired girl

[Dzonatas]

WMC has this to say of the article about him:

No and no. You mean, Solomon? He is a pro-coal anti-wiki blogger - he isn't a reporter. That wasn't an article, it was an opinion piece

Wikipedia admins don't write articles about the people they block and for the reasons they block. I'm sure many will agree that the text written and used to justify blocks on users are only an "opinion piece."

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Peter Damian]

This is really quite disturbing. Connelly was one of the few people left on Wikipedia I really respected and trusted.

Are there any links to the background surrounding the blocks above?

[Dzonatas]

This is really quite disturbing. Connelly was one of the few people left on Wikipedia I really respected and trusted.

Are there any links to the background surrounding the blocks above?

There are deeper links if you go to that section. There is also a discussion on the talk page. Where SirFozzie made this statement:

This more seems like an attempt to piggyback off actual mistakes that WMC made to try to re-fight past battles.

I'm wondering about all the old dirt that gets brought up by Durova and SirFozzie and used against editors. Like it is ok for them to do it and get people blocked, but when others do it then Durova says this:

This may be within its letter, but certainly far outside its spirit.

I'm surprised Durova and SirFozzie didn't say the same or make the same defense when Kirill posted all the Giano quotes. How is it that the post FT2's head on a platter was in the spirit of Wikipedia?

Without looking at the background (without GW issues), we can see here that WMC made a block against a single contributor to that head on a platter thread, and it wasn't to the person who started that thread outside the spirit of Wikipedia. That is controversial in itself for that reason, and SirFozzie and Durova seem perfectly capable to understand that, as they shown to make such assertion against others. Now, they are arguing the letter of the policies (wheel-war, sock-puppetry, etc). It begs the question, why did WMC single-out to block one editor? When SirFozzie suggested to desysop WMC, why didn't Durova post any comments against the desysop of WMC like she did when WCC posted evidence?

The background evidence that Inclusionist posted shows where WMC blocked editors while in content disputes. This whole mess is about to repeat itself, as MastCell says he is inclined to block WCC. If it was a content dispute, MastCell wouldn't be able to do that since he wouldn't be an uninvolved admin.

[Bob Boy]

This whole mess is about to repeat itself, as MastCell says he is inclined to block WCC.

Much of that discussion seems to be some kind of Spanish Inquisition about the name of Weighted Companion Cube's former and/or alternate account, and the threatened block is under the sockpuppet policy. I am completely unable to understand the fetish that some users have over hunting down alternate accounts, or condemning anyone who uses them. Why should anyone care? And when did the policy get changed to say that alternate accounts couldn't contribute to policy discussions?

[Dzonatas]

And when did the policy get changed to say that alternate accounts couldn't contribute to policy discussions?

The policy page itself never got changed or updated to say such, but MastCell points to an ArbCom ruling. There was a recent discussion about that on ArbCom: "Scope of the Arbitration Committee to create new policy and process."

[guy]

There was a recent discussion about that on ArbCom: "Scope of the Arbitration Committee to create new policy and process."

If ArbCom cannot make policy, how can they discuss whether they can make policy?

[Alison]

At least he's open about it. The worst admins are those who use proxy editors to edit war on their behalf, like in the Troubles disputes. I imagine he will get off with it, like the useless Brownhaired girl

Evidence, please? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Dzonatas]

There was a recent discussion about that on ArbCom: "Scope of the Arbitration Committee to create new policy and process."

If ArbCom cannot make policy, how can they discuss whether they can make policy?

To kinda paraphrase from that link: One question that is brought up is about the syntax of the arb-rules, and arbcom clarifies that they are not limited by syntax. They go further and state that less syntax restriction doesn't mean arb-rules automatically create policy or process for a broader scope. The history of delegation is pointed out to show how traditional authorities of arbcom have been put into admin duties/tools, but it is also noted that the admin doesn't inherit the authority even if they get the delegation of ability. One case that appears to clarify all this more is the BLP special enforcements, where if an admin acts as an authority to resolve any BLP related issue, then that action must be specially logged and justified. We can see that special log is still empty as of this date.

With that said, there was something interesting that guy brought-up earlier.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Gold heart]

Is "William Connelley - The Opinionator" losing control of his senses. He blocks Bardcom under mistaken identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...0M.%20Connolley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bar...ked_for_3_hours

I was happily talking away to my old friend TharkumColl, when William Connelley - The Opinionator comes along and blocks Bardcom, and accuses Bardcom and me of being sockpuppets.

Has Connelley lost the plot, maybe he should de-admin? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

My "talk" with "old friend" TharkumColl,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.107.68.59 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by Gold heart:

[Dzonatas]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Let's get this straight, did WMC ask Wikipedia's checkuser agent to identify, disclose information, and confirm connections between usernames and an IP address?

Did Alison publicly post that information?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[Alison]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Let's get this straight, did WMC ask Wikipedia's checkuser agent to identify, disclose information, and confirm connections between usernames and an IP address?

Did Alison publicly post that information?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

[wikiwhistle]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Let's get this straight, did WMC ask Wikipedia's checkuser agent to identify, disclose information, and confirm connections between usernames and an IP address?

Did Alison publicly post that information?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

It's called checkuser? Happens all the time. It's not like it was linking to his real name or something- to be clear, Goldie was posting using his IP- Alison didn't disclose the IP in this instance, if that's what you mean. He disclosed it himself, it's one of the drawbacks of editing as an IP that erm... people can see your IP.
----
As to Goldie's erroneous remarks about Connolley and Bardcom- he was blocked due to his british isles stuff, the block log doesn't mention socking or anything.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle:

[Gold heart]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Let's get this straight, did WMC ask Wikipedia's checkuser agent to identify, disclose information, and confirm connections between usernames and an IP address?

Did Alison publicly post that information?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

No, he didn't, AFAIK. However, I declared that there is no connection between the IP editor and Bardcom. Gold heart has already extensively used that range, has broadcast it on here (up to an hour ago!) and has already got other editors in trouble over his IP editing.

Please note that privacy policy does allow disclosure and linking of IPs to accounts, where necessary. Not that it applies here but just sayin', is all ....

You did link the IP to the account. Problem Alison, you have to be far too clever, and blurp it out. You did publicly post that information.