On June 6, someone with IP address 220.127.116.11 added this passage to Christopher Monckton’s wikipedia page (emphasis mine):
Monckton has been published in academic journals on the subject of climate change and his principal calculations have been reviewed and found accurate by one of the IPCC’s expert reviewers. Monckton is currently studying higher mathematics at university level. The Guardian was compelled to publish a correction the day after one of its columnists had criticized Monckton’s climate-change analysis as scientifically inaccurate, and is reported to have paid Monckton Â£50,000 in damages.
A few hours later, someone with the same IP address complained:
“I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed, I may be contacted at email@example.com. If I am not contacted, the action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. It is likely to attract considerable publicity, and it will serve as a useful warning to those who come across it that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I shall be applying for an order that all Wikipedia content that in any way references or identifies me should not be permitted to be broadcast on the Internet within the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
“I shall repeat what I have told Wikipedia before: the article about me, which is presumably supposed to be a straightforward biography, is repeatedly amended to make libellous comments, particularly in connection with a) my alleged views on the HIV virus; and b) my alleged views on climate change, both of which have been seriously misrepresented. Also, despite my repeated attempts to remove it, a link has been posted to a hostile article about me, but without posting any link to the correction which the newspaper in question was obliged to print the following day.
“I have done my best to get this matter resolved by other means, but without any success. Unless I hear from Wikipedia, it will become unlawful for Wikipedia to transmit any material in any way mentioning or identifying me into Scotland, and my US agents will apply for the judgment of the Court of Session to be enforced, with damages and costs, in whatever jurisdiction wikipedia uses. It is not acceptable that I, as the victim of a libel in my own biographical entry, should be prevented from editing or removing the libel, while Wikipedia can continue unmolested to blacken my name.”
The IP address 18.104.22.168, by the way, is from the same ISP that Monckton used in his emails to me.
George Monbiot, intrigued by the claim that his column had resulted in a Â£50,000 payment for damages, wrote to Monckton. He has posted the exchange, and just look at the way Monckton squirmed. Monckton would not specifically deny making the edit, but kept trying to evade the question, eventually pleading ill health and threatening yet another law suit.
Monckton seems to have a habit of making things up.