Still The Achilles Heel of Wikipedia Maybe someone who checks in on this talk page might now where to go with it First a public reply to Dragons flight and maybe his own sockpuppet Freestylefrappe Hardly a sockpuppet when I used the very same name followed by a 2 Or are you talking about blocking Pgio too who simply agreed that someone here is quite a J rk I asked so clearly that you wouldn t take away WMC s opportunity to block me himself I would have been proud But you knew that too right Wikipedians I freely admit that my own level of civility here has lowered even against my own admonishment to others to avoid such behavior All I can say is that it is a VERY difficult dynamic to avoid when some here play by such despicably manipulative and base rules of engagement I m thinking of that dichotomy between people who claim that their Ends or so worthy that they should get a pass on their occasional stray from acceptable means vs those who retain some hold on the idea that they will be judged by their Means no matter the final outcome This is made all the more difficult where users such as Admin WMC who know full well the self imposed limits of their opponents demand verbal civility on one hand and yet play such extensive games of pretend to forget I didn t see that written ten times before and ALWAYS selectively choose the lowest hanging fruit in a nest of specific challenges to their type of behavior contributions and edits Worldly people understand the sensitive nature of situations like these Educated people especially those through the School of Hard Knocks know that these situations are more often set ups initiated by the manipulator The manipulator has at least learned the fine art of camouflage where they can hide very well in plain sight flying the banner of Democracy Failing to acknowledge this simple possibility marks one as either the manipulator or just a pseudo intellect As I ve said before and will say again If users like WMC were genuine they d acknowledge human fallibility and the basic rights of dissident opinion Doing so WMC would quickly gain my support of his presentations on mainstream understanding He gets that part right VERY OFTEN and has demonstrated a tenacity to seeing his POV upheld Good for him and why I have absolutely no trouble with his dominance over others trying to write articles presenting such information Yet why Why does he refuse to acknowledge his lack of verse in material outside of his very public field of knowledge Why does he go so far in his chilling drive to stifle the good faith presentations of non mainstream fields Please I m not just talking about aether theories alone The electric fields have plenty to say about corollary causal dynamics in cogent presentations about a very possible relationship to atmospheric phenomenon Damn if WMC shouldn t be reading some of that stuff instead of JUST pointing out how it s counter to the formulas used in current Climate Models I mean just forget about the LONG history of trial and repeated errors in aether postulation the mysteries of electricity still surround us and we would all benefit by keeping an open mind about that In the least do we really think it wise to insist by near constant omission any possibility that Birkeland or Alfv n currents effect our conductive atmosphere I m not saying that WMC s models need to be trashed or even that he should modify them this afternoon but it s highly suspicious that he suppresses the postulations and formulations from even the notable sources working on competitive modeling It is so suspicious that is why I question his objectivity and point out that he IS a PAID agent of tax dollars vested in a particular model That he doesn t acknowledge and recuse himself is just annoying to say the least That Wikipedia doesn t impose some boundaries on this user s blinding conflict of interest casts a far greater doubt upon Wikipedia NPOV all together