==For Dr. Tim Vickers==

Undoubtedly Wikipedia is an important world resource on many topics. Certainly Wikipedia needs to maintain a high quality of references underpinning its articles. That is exactly why the references I have provided in the article must be accepted. They are based on considered conclusions from a wide range of quality sources. They are an accurate reflection of the work of Ed O'Loughlin made by people that know this area. There is no contrary evidence which any editor has brought to light. 
 

Therefore, blocking me (on trumped-up Wikipedia "charges") does not bother me in the least. However, it is a sad reflection on your own processes. Why?

(1) Administrative editors specifically deleted my (concise) position statement in the RfC section and supplanted it with their own statement in an attempt to influence the RfC. These Administrators of Wikipedia were simultaneously advocating a particular viewpoint on O'Loughlin's work, and judging the validly of a contributing editor's references and attempting to silence him.

(2) The repeated deleting by Wikipedia editors of the words "media monitoring groups" and substituting it with the words "Jewish groups" (when they are by no means exclusively Jewish) will be of general wider interest, I think, and may have certain other implications.

(3) The comment by Manning that on advice he would overturn the blockade on me seems itself to have been overturned without explanation and an attempt was made to cover this up. With all the Wikipedia rules and procedures this arbitrary behaviour is rather unsatisfactory.

(4) As a scientist, Dr. Vickers you would realise that in consciously acting as an instrument to suppress knowledge you are acting in a way that must compromise your reputation and makes you vulnerable.  

Oh and 124.191.92.25  .