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

[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?

[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: Fri 11th July 2008, 4:35pm

[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?

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F

My "talk" with "old friend" TharkumColl,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.107.68.59

This post has been edited by Gold heart: Sat 12th July 2008, 8:05pm

[Dzonatas]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F

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?

[wikiwhistle]

Futher reading on Alisons page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ali...r:Gold_heart.3F

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?

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: Sat 12th July 2008, 10:44pm