I'm Unblocked From Wiki!

Update: I forgot to mention I had to double dutch promise not to post anymore links to ClimateGate emails.
==========

Wiki has unblocked me. I want to thank editor Rlevse for taking the time to do this.

There was a mia culpa on my part. It turns out I actually posted twice to the discussion page, once as an unregistered user, and once as Magicjava. The first one got deleted and when I checked a few hours latter and didn't see it, I just assumed an unregistered user couldn't post to a deletion discussion page. So I registered as Magicjava and posted it again. My apologies for the mix up.

But the important thing is now I'm free to spread all the lies and propaganda that ExxonMobile is paying me for.

BWAH HA HA HA HA!




Just kidding. ;)

Another Skeptic Blocked From Wikipedia - Me

Continuing Wikipedia's trend of blocking skeptics from the ClimateGate debate, another skeptic has been banned from Wikipedia. This time it's me.

I have a total of 1 edit to Wikipedia. Yes, just 1. And it's not even to an actual article.

On the ClimateGate deletion discussion page I said that William Connolley should not be allowed to vote on the ClimateGate issue, as he's personally involved in it. I provided two links to ClimateGate emails involving him.

And now I'm indefinitely blocked.


Screenshot showing I've been blocked.


Screen shot showing every edit I've ever made to Wikipedia. It's from the deletion discussion page. (Minus links to emails that someone edited out.)

I've sent off an email to the admin who blocked me, Rlevse, asking why he blocked me.

Late Edit:

Screen shot showing my Wikipedia editing history.

References:
ClimateGate Deletion Discussion Page
William Connolley email #1
William Connolley email #2
Wikipedia Blocks All Skeptics From Editing ClimateGate Page

ClimateGate Page Deleted From Wikipedia. More Attempts To Block Skeptics

UPDATE: Wikipedia has moved the deletion discussion page to here.
========

In the middle of the night on Monday morning, enough believers posted they wanted the article deleted to tie the count evenly between delete and keep. Then the polling was shut down early and the page was deleted. It's now a redirect to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article.

Editor Rd232 has tried to block the ClimateGate author from posting to wikipedia. This isn't the first time this has happened. Wikipedia previously blocked all known skeptics from posting on the ClimateGate article.

The deletion is under review, as it occured less than 12 hours after the delete notice was posted and there was no consensus for deletion. We need wiki editors to get over there and get this reversed.

And Rd232 needs to lose his editor privileges due to abuse.


Screen shot of editor Rd232 saying he tried to block the author of the ClimateGate article from posting.

References:
Wikipedia ClimateGate article
Wikipedia Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article
ClimateGate Deletion discussion page
ClimateGate Deletion Review Page
Wikipedia Blocks Skeptics From Posting

Wikipedia Now Trying To Delete ClimateGate Article

It looks like the believers lost the battle to control the ClimateGate page that I talked about in this post, because now wikipedia is trying to delete the ClimateGate page altogether. Deleting a page in wikipedia means the entire page and all it's history is forever gone. The public can never view it and will never even know it existed. The plan seems to be to move the article to Climatic Research Unit e-mail_hacking incident.

Only wikipedia editors can vote on whether or not to delete an article, so if you're an editor please HURRY over to the ClimateGate article and make sure it doesn't get deleted.

Thanks. :)


Screen shot of wikipedia's attempt to delete the ClimateGate article.

References:
Wikipedia ClimateGate Article
Climatic Research Unit e-mail_hacking incident article
ClimateGate deletion discussion page
Wikipedia deletion policy page

Wikipedia Blocks All Skeptics From Editing ClimateGate Page

Update:
After removing all the skeptic's comments, they've locked the page down, leaving only the believer's comments.
=======

You may have heard from Watts Up With That that a single editor had been responsible for all articles in Wikipedia related to global warming and had been editing out skeptic's views. U.K. scientist, Green Party activist, and RealClimate.org team member William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 Wikipedia articles. His handiwork included getting rid of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period and slandering scientists he didn't agree with. Connolley had his wikipedia administrator duties taken away from him in September. But that hasn't stopped him, as he's edited more than 800 articles in December alone.

But it seems there's more to the story.

According to wikipedia editor "A Quest For Knowledge", wikipedia has blocked all known skeptics from editing their ClimateGate page. Reading the ClimateGate page you can see it's little more than propaganda copied and pasted from the Huffington Post and RealClimate.

The skeptics had to be banned for trying to maximize the damage that ClimateGate would cause, says the editor. He goes on to say a group of believers are doing the reverse, trying to minimize the damage. But for whatever reason, the believers haven't been banned by wikipedia. This despite the fact that the believers are no more neutral than the skeptics were, according to the editor.

Please contact the wikipedia editors and help get the ClimateGate page up to wikipedia's neutrality standards. See below for links.


Screen grab of administrator's entry saying all skeptics were blocked from ClimateGate page.

References:
Watts Up With That Wikipedia Story
Wikipedia statistics for Connolley
Nation Post Reports the Wikipedia Story
Statement by Wikipedia Administrator A Quest For Knowledge
Wikipedia contact page
Wikipedia ClimateGate page