Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Bob's boss in bizarre hoax | Main | Staying... »


William Connolley has been topic banned by Wikipedia. Climate change is now off-limits for WC.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (65)

A sock puppet tells me that we've not seen the last of The Stoat!

Oct 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Frankly, I don't know why this guy hasn't had a lifetime ban years ago.

8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation.

8.3) ...William M. Connolley has shown an unreasonable degree of Ownership over climate-related articles and unwillingness to work in a consensus environment.

8.4) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject's notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements.

8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.

Oct 14, 2010 at 6:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

We all have our faults. Some are, indeed, bigger than others. The occassion reminds me of an old saying, "Pride goeth before the fall."

Oct 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPascvaks

@ScientistForTruth: And they suddenly realised this?

MC Well, I suppose I should have told you a long time ago, but... Well,
Brian... your father isn't Mr. Cohen.
Brian I never thought he was...
MC Now none of your cheek. He was a Roman, Brian. He was a centurian in
the Roman army.
Brian You mean... you were raped?
MC Aw, at first, yes.
Brian Who was he?
MC Naughtius Maximus his name was. Mmm. Promised me the known world he
did. I was to be taken to Rome, housed by the forum. Slaves, asses
milk, as much gold as I could eat. Then he, having his way with me,
and VOOM. Like a rat out of an aquaduct.
Brian The bastard.

Oct 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Don Pablo used this a while back but I have used it many times...

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Abe Lincoln

Oct 14, 2010 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

What's a sock puppet?

I don't have to ask what William Connolly is - I know: [snip].

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Wikipedia reflects the state of play in science in microcosm - a tight-knit group with access to power and a zeal for using it drives the alleged consensus where they want it to go and long after the rot set in people with greater authority than the zealous decide to act.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

@ Gareth

A sock puppet in Wiki-speak is pretending to be someone else, ie the continuation of Stoating by other means.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Connolley has had backups like Short Brigade Harvester Boris and IIRC ScienceApologist and several others. But none had their finger on so many "No pressure" red buttons of death.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterLucy Skywalker

Aside from Connolly, please note further down the list another sworn enemy of the truth is taken to task

KimDabelsteinPetersen: topic-banned
19) User:KimDabelsteinPetersen is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterLondon Calling

Great news. I had left Wikipedia because of people like William Connolly and Kim Dabelstein Petersen.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Tol

Long list of CC topic banned. WC did not go alone.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

People like Connolley prove the naivete of the original Wikipedia concept. Well-meaning but completely vulnerable to fanatics.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter B

Does this include not tampering with climate scientist biographies ?

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterjazznick

This is my final email response to a private discussion with Wikimedia Foundation staffers during last December's fund drive. I wonder how much more money William Connolley cost them in lost contributions during 2009.

Hello --

Thank you for your quick response.

I have read Mr. William Connolley's talk page. He is vile, arrogant,
flagrantly biased, egregiously non-neutral, and very much lives up to
the descriptions in the blogosphere.

He is not at all humbled by his ability to contribute to Wikipedia,
but rather uses that ability to his own biased purposes. There are
comments from other Wikipedia contributors about his bullying even
today, on his very own talk page.

This is the kind of person who destroyed Usenet 10 to 15 years ago.

I find the presence of such people on Wikipedia disturbing and
disappointing, because I like Wikipedia.

I will consider contributing again, financially and otherwise. But
your board needs to do something about this kind of person on
Wikipedia. The bullying arrogance, and the non-neutral spin doctoring,
it completely unacceptable.

Usenet used to be a great resource and benefit to its users. People
like William Connolley trashed it.

No need to respond, I know you have other things to do.


Oct 14, 2010 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterGarry

A weasel is weasily identified but a stoat is stoatally different.

Oct 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseakeraftertruth

How did he come by Stoat?

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterj ferguson

simpleseakeraftertruth says:

'A weasel is weasily identified but a stoat is stoatally different'.

Try telling that to a sock puppet.

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

j ferguson asks:

'How did he come by Stoat?'

He has a blog: 'Stoat - taking science by the throat'.

And the MWP out by the back door.

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

My point exactly. Your & my anonymity here proves it. 'Only by his words shall we know him'.

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:22 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseakeraftertruth

A little faith in Wiki is today restored.

But geez.. the length of time it's taken to get something/anything done to slow or to stem the harm being inflicted on the 'pedia by Connolley makes the British government look like it's on crack.

Yeah, a little bit of faith is restored, but I just can't hold out any hope that the topic bans being handed out will address the problem. After Connolley will come another (and probably it'll be stoat himself) and the process of warmy disinformation and misinformation will just continue in perpetuity.

I'm pretty much satisfied now that Wiki will never pin down a stable and balanced presentation of the historic state of climate knowledge, let alone the current state, because Wiki administrators are predisposed to forgive known biases in gratitude for knowledge from authority.

Connolley was always an interested party to the climate topic, and it was always widely known that he was. He's only banned now because, being such an odious character, he couldn't keep his mouth shut or feign humility while a complaint about him was still open. As a result of this, Connolley nailed shut his own Wiki coffin. Wiki had no choice, but you can bet yer butt they wished they'd had.

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

It good to see a nasty little person get what is coming to them, but should we care about the views of a failed climate scientist?

Oct 14, 2010 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn

I wonder if there is any relationship between William Connolley and our very own ZDB and Bishop Phil?

They all need a ASBO lodged against them given their sociopathic tendencies . At least Wiki -- at very long last -- acted. Maybe there is hope for Wikipedia, although I somehow doubt it.

Oct 14, 2010 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

The formal warning has just been posted on WMC's talk page here.

Oct 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

@ Don Pablo

Z is certainly a parrot (though not a sock puppet). As for where she gets it, who knows?

I've somehow missed BP's contributions here, so no comment.

Oct 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Aw! I used to play a game on wiki. Every time I found myself on a page with a subject that was climate related, after I had finshed reading it, I would make a bet with myself about just how recent the last Connolley edit would be and then click the View History tab, It rarely took more than one page back to find one. I gave KimDabelsteinPetersen half points, but it wasn't the same.

Looks like they may recede into the past a bit. For now.

Oct 14, 2010 at 10:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Connolley page not up-dated yet.

Oct 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseakeraftertruth

Let's see if this does anything to improve Wiki's dismal reliability on global warming issues.

It can't hurt, but will it help?


Oct 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered Commentermanacker

Connolley's bias wasn't/isn't exactly subtle. If he'd been more nuanced with his edits, then he might have got away with it.

Oct 14, 2010 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

I wonder how quickly his editing can be undone? It would be interesting to try (e.g. the Hal Lewis piece) and see how long it stays that way.

Oct 14, 2010 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Without the CRU revelations (Connelley was represented as I recall) and the good work of the Bishop, M&M, and a host of others, this might have taken a lot more time.

Connelley was able to resist pressure to have him removed because he had powerful backers. It is the loss his backers power that has finally allowed the weasel to be removed.

Oct 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug in Seattle

@ Doug in Seattle

Who says:

'It is the loss his backers power that has finally allowed the weasel to be removed.'

First, I'm not sure I share your confidence here.

Second, WC is a crafty shape-shifter. He would probably call you out over your use of weasel (understood) instead of stoat while posting as a badger.

Oct 14, 2010 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise."

Anyone know what this means? I didn't think WMC had any great expertise in many of the fields he edit warred over.

Oct 14, 2010 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Sorry for causing the snip your Grace! (I forgot where I was for a moment.)

Oct 15, 2010 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

not going....

14 Oct: Guardian: Damian Carrington: Chilean miners leave BBC too broke for live coverage of Cancún climate talksThe rescue is a vivid story but a leaked memo reveals the dent it has made in the BBC's capacity to report from the Cancún climate talks
But according to a BBC memo leaked to me, reproduced in full below, the cost of the Chilean mining spectacular means just one solo correspondent in Cancún will have to feed the many and ravenous mouths of the BBC's television, radio and online output. I pity the fool ...

Oct 15, 2010 at 12:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Re. the concept of 'edit-warring': the Wikipedia editing process allows dishonest people to undermine discussion. You might be barred for 'edit-warring' while the other edit-warrior, who has done exactly the same amount of edit-warring as you have, is allowed to continue:

Oct 15, 2010 at 1:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterXeugene

wanted to respond to jane coles' response ("wonky code" thread) to john blake, who had mentioned "BBC recipient had chosen to suppress the astounding scoop for weeks" in reference to the release of CRU emails etc. bish must know this is a pet topic of mine:

jane, why presume that paul hudson "probably received no more than a "strand of CRU emails" when he received enough for him to be the first person to state they were "authentic" when other MSM gatekeepers were attempting to cast doubt:?

23 Nov 2009: BBC: Paul Hudson: 'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications
I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

PRECISELY what Hudson received is still unknown. there should be full disclosure as BBC is funded by the public. it is an ongoing issue:

13 Oct: Telegraph: Neil Midgely: BBC told to ensure balance on climate change
Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial “Climategate” leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, even though he had been in possession of them for some time...

there have been accusations that Hudson is a mere weatherman; however as his blog states:

"BBC: Paul Hudson - about this blog
I've been interested in the weather and climate for as long as I can remember, and worked as a forecaster with the Met Office for more than ten years locally and at the international unit before joining the BBC in October 2007."

from 9 Oct 2009 when Paul Hudson wrote "Whatever happened to global warming?" revealing what no MSM had previously revealed - the simple fact that the temps weren't rising according to the CAGW script - he posted threads on 12 Oct the day he received Climategate emails, then on 16 Oct, 19 Oct, 6 Nov, 13 Nov, and 19 Nov before mentioning, on 23 Nov, after Climategate broke, that he received "the chain of e-mails on the 12th October". WHY didn't he disclose this prior to 23rd November? WHO "forwarded" the "chain of e-mails" to him?

on 12 Oct he wrote:

12 Oct: BBC: Paul Hudson Blog:
A few points about my article
2) Did the models predict that temperatures would level off?
None of the climate models suggested that global temperatures would not rise any further for at least another 10 years, which is what we have observed. The Hadley Centre model does incorporate ocean cycles. But that doesn't alter the fact that the models did not predict this. So the question must be, will it/has it captured the negative PDO that some scientists say will last for the next 20 odd years - and if it hasn't, why hasn't it?
(NOTE)I also know that the Met Office are currently conducting research into why temperatures have levelled off/fallen from their peak.

on 6 Nov he wrote:

6 Nov: Paul Hudson: Global temperatures - and the future
So either from 1998, or looking at underlying temperatures 1999 onwards, then at the very least temperatures have flat lined - global warming has, at least for the time being, faltered - despite a relentless rise in C02 emissions.
Now some of you will say that the period of time is too short to draw any conclusions. But I am only trying to highlight the fact that global warming has, at least for the time being, levelled off.
The full article can be found on the Met Office website ; it explains why the Met Office believes levelling off of global temperatures is to be expected at times

The Guardian jumped on Hudson, complete with "denier" accusations, considered Hudson's piece "provocative" twice, ignored Hudson's years with the Met Office ignored the fact hudson got his info from the Met Office itself:

13 Oct: Guardian: Leo Hickman: Climate change sceptics seize on BBC after lines blur between news and views
Blog about drop in global temperatures over the past 10 years was unexpected grist to the denialists' mill
On Friday lunchtime, the blog by Paul Hudson, a "weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire" (this title is important and its significance will become clear later)....
The blog had the rather provocative heading, "Whatever happened to global warming?" ...
Presumably it was a spin-off of a short report Hudson had put together for a segment on Sunday's Politics Show discussing the claims made by UKIP's Yorkshire MEP Godfrey Bloom that "man-made global warming is a myth based on bad science"...
Furthermore, Paul Hudson was now being described as "climate correspondent, BBC News", a subtle but important difference from "weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire", because it could be read as meaning that he was an integral part of now very familiar team of environment journalists at BBC News that includes the likes of David Shukman, Richard Black, Roger Harrabin and Sarah Mukherjee...
It had a provocative title and gave disproportionate emphasis to the views of the sceptics, and dealt with an issue that has been discussed ad infinitum for years....
comment by gourdonboy on 15 Oct after a multitude of posts:
Despite all the whinging, the above article conspicuously fails to address the substance of what Paul Hudson's article said.
Namely, that global temperatures over the last decade have shown a flat trend, or even slightly negative and that the climate models were unable to predict this.

what irked Leo Hickman the most was "By yesterday, the story had been linked to on dozens of websites popularised by climate sceptics and had even been blessed with a prominent trail on the Drudge Report. As a result, it has remained the most popular story on the BBC News science and environment site for the past four days.:

the reason it was "popular" was simple. EVERYONE GOT IT. the models were wrong. we had been sold a crock.

Oct 15, 2010 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat


Wikipedia has FINALLY seen the light on this character, who once claimed that a particular individual (with no relationship to the subject) could be "a reliable source" for an encyclopedic entry in the biography of a living person. eGads!

A monster - encylopedically speaking. Good riddance.

Now for his cohort: Kim P.

Oct 15, 2010 at 2:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterKip Hansen

I'm far less concerned about the gravitas that, the unfortunately initialed, Willy Connelly hasn't brought to the debate than the educational abuse visited upon young and pliable minds by public-funded "educators".
On a scale of 1 to 10, he's hovering about zero. Teachers, tamed and made receptive by authoritative repetition, are the real culprits!
The "better", the teacher, the greater the influence they have to shape youthful thinking and thoughts.
I've held the mildly paradoxical thought, for too many years than I can recollect accurately, that the most influential of teachers are those who cause the most harm.
I'll stop there and await the responses of those who confuse wisdom with worship.

Oct 15, 2010 at 2:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Could someone call cndy's carer and tell them that they've forgotten to give her her medication this morning.


Oct 15, 2010 at 6:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing"

Preserve the value!!!!!!!!! Excuse me, I just have to go kick the dog!

Oct 15, 2010 at 6:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

OT but this looks like it could be fun...

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Don't kick the dog Pete - go kick cndy and make sure she has taken her Haldol.

Meanwhile having come to this story a little late - I am delighted that this bigotted and arrogant individual has been given his comeuppance.

Not before time - my only concern here is that his blatent manipulations were, by being so blatent, easily seen for what they were. I do not doubt that with a mindset such as he demonstrates, our little WC will find another drainpipe to peddle his shite.

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

Oh dear lord - it is all coming out now! - many thanks for the link Pete

I will sit back with a cuppa and watch this unfold.

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

For many years I maintained faith in Wikipedia despite being aware of growing criticism that it was not a reliable source of information but an instrument for the most zealous activists. No one showed me how wrong I was as much as William Connolley did. Last year when I asked Connolley whether the point-of-view photo (not acceptable according to Wiki rules) on his Wiki page was the best he could offer to a website he was an editor of, he replied asking if I thought the toy in his backpack was cute. For me, that was when the credibility of Wikipedia died once and for all.

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:24 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

"Don't kick the dog Pete - go kick cndy"

lol, Mind boggling Doug and the dog saw me coming and ran!

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Wikipedia - Although it's been a source of mirth around here, I came away from the place thinking I may visit again, if I decide life is suddenly not short enough.

Tks for the link Pete, I wonder if Josh will have the RS in remedial maths :)

From the RS site...

"Our mission

To expand the frontiers of knowledge by championing the development and use of science, mathematics, engineering and medicine for the benefit of humanity and the good of the planet."

Fixed ;¬)

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete and Doug.
To be honest I found the link down on Jo Nova and have now seen that J.D. has it the the Telegraph and someone has given WUWT a tip on it.Things have just been moving so fast this week!

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete Hayes

Mathgate? Blundertgate? or Kaiser's new clothes :)

Oct 15, 2010 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete

Lawrence Solomon has a short article on this story

Oct 15, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>