Connelley deletes discussions and blocks IP, Must be another fun day at Wikipedia Options

[JohnA]

After I'd put in a few inconvenient truths that Bill Connelley doesn't like, his friend Sheldon Rampton deletes them saying pathetically that they didn't include the magic phrase "The science is settled"

I reverted this vandalism with a lovely mesage to Shelly to stop screwing with history.

Then Bill Connelley DELETES my message in the discussionand deletes my edit without explanation

I then revert my discussion and add a little warming about deleting other peoples words.

He then deletes my discussion again (calling it trolling) and then for good measure blocks my IP address (a temporary ruse since I'm moving anyway)

It stops the 3RR rule (for the moment).

Should I complain to Jimbo that Connelley is deleting discussions of articles?

All the history is here before of course, it gets edited by Bill Connelley as well.....

[JohnA]

It looks as though Connelley has deleted the history logs as well. All is fine at Minitrue with your man at the speakwrite, Winston Smith.

[TabulaRasa]

It looks as though Connelley has deleted the history logs as well. All is fine at Minitrue with your man at the speakwrite, Winston Smith.

Doubleplusbad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[JohnA]

It looks as though Connelley has deleted the history logs as well. All is fine at Minitrue with your man at the speakwrite, Winston Smith.

Doubleplusbad! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Or doubleplusungood (Ingsoc dictionary, 11th Ed, 1984)

What I'd like to know is, given Wikipedia's archane bureaucracy, is it allowed for admins to delete edits, discussions and history logs?

[Somey]

I'm still seeing a version from 13:25 UTC... Are you saying there were versions prior to that that are now invisible? Connelley doesn't have oversight capability, though that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. He could've done that whole delete-and-restore-only-(X)-versions thing, I suppose.

So basically, in an article entitled "The science is settled," you tried to insert some examples of people saying things that were tantamount to saying "the science is settled," and this guy reverted you because those examples didn't use the exact phrase?

I'm as much of a global-warming alarmist as anybody, but even I think that's a little ridiculous... Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I take it the point of this is to simply discredit every claim made by the "nothing to worry about" side, even if those claims tend to suggest that the "we're all doomed" side is actually being clear and decisive, as they probably should be?

[LamontStormstar]

Wikipedia admins do this ALL THE TIME. When Jimbo is asked, he supports all their abuses.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey:

[Somey]

That's what I'm getting too. Rather than just try and get the original article deleted, they've edit-warred it into a big stub that they insist has to be exclusively about the phrase itself, and that any issues surrounding the phrase or who may or may not have used it after it was originally coined, in its original context, are irrelevant.

This was Rampton's reaction to the original version:

Almost everything in the article's original form is either POV or an outright lie (see my annotations below). This article is so sloppily written, laden with POV invective and unsupported by actual evidence, that I don't know how to redeem it.

But they actually did manage to come up with a way to redeem it, from their perspective anyway - because three years later it's still there, and he's now defending it:

The article already makes it clear that many people, including members of the Clinton administration, regard the science as clear and compelling showing that human activities are driving global warming. The fact that they believe this is not at issue. The question, however, is whether the specific phrase, "the science is settled," was coined by the Clinton administration and used as a slogan.

Fascinating, I suppose... But I have to admit, if I'd been on Wikipedia, monitoring this topic area at the time, I surely would've supported a "speedy delete" on it. But WP was smaller back then, so maybe everyone was an inclusionist?

[IronDuke]

A review of William Connelly's logs and the article logs show no deletion/restore. Unless he is a developer and did it sub-rosa with an SQL query, it doesn't appear that any deletion of comments occurred. On top of that, Connelly only blocked the affected IP for 3 hours.

This is not a commentary on the validity (or lack thereof) of the article, but the admin action here seems less egregious that (e.g.) SlimV's usual indefinite block plus locking of user talk page tactic.

[JohnA]

I'm still seeing a version from 13:25 UTC... Are you saying there were versions prior to that that are now invisible? Connelley doesn't have oversight capability, though that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. He could've done that whole delete-and-restore-only-(X)-versions thing, I suppose.

Correct. I restored a previous edit that had been censored by Sheldon Rampton, and Connelley reverted it. I then reverted it again and Connelley deleted it again, blocked the IP address and deleted all reference to my changes and to the discussion explaining why I was reverting.

So basically, in an article entitled "The science is settled," you tried to insert some examples of people saying things that were tantamount to saying "the science is settled," and this guy reverted you because those examples didn't use the exact phrase?

Bingo! If the exact phrase isn't used then according to Shelly and Bill, it doesn't qualify. Impressive, huh?

I'm as much of a global-warming alarmist as anybody, but even I think that's a little ridiculous... Pardon me if I'm being dense, but I take it the point of this is to simply discredit every claim made by the "nothing to worry about" side, even if those claims tend to suggest that the "we're all doomed" side is actually being clear and decisive, as they probably should be?

Actually this is what has happened to climate science in general. Alarmists publish ridiculously false papers claiming that global warming is happening and it must be caused by American tailpipes and then censor or attempt to censor anyone who calls them on it.

Wikipedia is an excellent way to do this kind of censorship - not only can you delete the edit but you can remove all evidence that the edit ever took place, and delete the discussions as well. Then you block the Ip for trolling knowing that no-one will ever inquire why an IP address was blocked.

After all, who are you going to believe: me or your own lying eyes?

A review of William Connelly's logs and the article logs show no deletion/restore. Unless he is a developer and did it sub-rosa with an SQL query, it doesn't appear that any deletion of comments occurred. On top of that, Connelly only blocked the affected IP for 3 hours.

This is not a commentary on the validity (or lack thereof) of the article, but the admin action here seems less egregious that (e.g.) SlimV's usual indefinite block plus locking of user talk page tactic.

Well there you go. Accoridng to the logs it can't have happened so I must be a lunatic, right? (No I'm not accusing you of anything...it's ironic).

If the IP was blocked, then the question is why, but according to the logs that IP address has never made an edit - so why block the IP address?

Somey can see which IP address I was using this morning because I posted here with it and then he can see that that IP address was blocked for 3 hours for "trolling" by Connelley. But why, unless the address was used to edit something that Connelley didn't like?

So to make this a perfect crime that never happened, all Connelley has to do is delete the logs for the IP address I used and no-one will know that anything happened. So you'll have to be quick.

This post has been edited by JohnA:

[Somey]

Somey can see which IP address I was using this morning because I posted here with it and then he can see that that IP address was blocked for 3 hours for "trolling" by Connelley.

Sure enough, it was (I hope you don't mind my reposting the IP - if you do, LMK-ASAP):

13:41, 2 October 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.204.101.210 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (trolling/junk)

But were you looking at the history for the article itself, or the article's talk page? I see three reverts on the talk page, but only one on the article. Sorry, this is confusing... Also, I guess now that Cyde is gone (no doubt temporarily), the word "trolling" is back in vogue. Though I guess it was never really out of vogue, really!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.204.101.210

[JohnA]

Somey can see which IP address I was using this morning because I posted here with it and then he can see that that IP address was blocked for 3 hours for "trolling" by Connelley.

Sure enough, it was (I hope you don't mind my reposting the IP - if you do, LMK-ASAP):

13:41, 2 October 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "216.204.101.210 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (trolling/junk)

But were you looking at the history for the article itself, or the article's talk page? I see three reverts on the talk page, but only one on the article. Sorry, this is confusing... Also, I guess now that Cyde is gone (no doubt temporarily), the word "trolling" is back in vogue. Though I guess it was never really out of vogue, really!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:216.204.101.210

There were two reverts to both the article and the talk page, but only in the parallel universe where Wikipedia admins don't engage in blatent censorship.

No I don't mind the posting of the IP address in this case.

So the question is: if the IP address was blocked for trolling, where are the edits from this address?

Answers to Jimbo Wales....

[EuroSceptic]

Connelley was right in reverting you.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey:

[guy]

which are most exaggerated among residents of the Americas south of the Canadian border and north of Mexico.

Not to mention those west of the Canadian border.

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey:

[Ben]

The problem with Connelley's climate change articles is that he thinks he is a good communicator. I had a run-in with him to try and make the global warming articles interesting and readable for your average person and nearly got banned for my troubles. Of course, at the time I was naive and didn't realize how messed up Wikipedia was, and still is.

Connelly may know the science but he cannot write an encyclopedia article. Knowing the science and writing--especially so a layman can understand--are quite different beasts. He doesn't seem to understand the role that structure, framework, and definition plays in communication. That might not matter if you're a climatologist putting numbers into a computer all day, but it certainly matters if you're a writer.

On top of that, he's got a gigantic chip on his shoulder about climate change skeptics. Everything he writes poorly is made even worse by his contempt for anyone who questions the science. Even worse, he thinks anyone who questions his writing is questioning the science, so he shows contempt to them too. This comes through in his condescending lecturing style of writing and passive-aggressive way of discussing. This, of course, leads to more angry skeptics, which makes the chip on his shulder even bigger until the only way he can satisfy his urges to defeat the skeptics is to become adminstrator/dictator and simply block anyone who disagrees with him, because he has to keep fighting them. He fights them because he does not know how to win, and that's because he does not know how to communicate. He plays dirty instead.

I agree with the anthropogenic theory of global climate change, but Connelly's writing style makes more skeptics not less. Presented with a condescending contemptuous article, it's no wonder that people become angry skeptics, or have their conspiracy theories and skepticism reinforced. The problem of misguided skeptics will not go away until Connelly does. He is not helping whatsoever, and he's making things worse instead of better.

---

Just to add, in my view, the fact that there is an entire article devoted to the quote "The science is settled" gives away Connelley's focus. He is focused not on communicating, but convincing by whatever means possible (in this case, an appeal to authority).

This post has been edited by Ben:

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey:

[JohnA]

I would like to make the point that this is NOT about the rights and wrongs of what I wrote (although I can justify what I wrote by reference to facts)

What this is about is someone like Connelley sending edits he doesn't like and discussions he doesn't want straight into the memory holes of Wikipedia. What was Wikipedia supposed to be about? Was this decided by consensus? Where is the great Experiment in Democratization of Knowledge?

[Placeholder]

/

This post has been edited by Joey: