Tue 3rd October 2006, 3:32am
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 2nd October 2006, 6:37pm)
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?
QUOTE(IronDuke @ Tue 3rd October 2006, 1:02am)
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.