User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 46

Help!
It seems as if Ted Wilkes and Lochdale, who are banned by arbcom ruling, have created new sockpuppets and are now again removing large blocks of naterial from the Elvis Presley article. See, , etc. May I ask you to inform some unbiased administrators about what is going on there. Unfortunately, administrator Thatcher131 has banned me from the related article because I have tried to reinstate the deleted paragraphs, and he has not yet corrected his mistake. For more details, see. Onefortyone 05:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into the details, but you are on probation, see Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but as far as I can see I have not violated this probation, as I have only reinstated well-sourced material which has been deleted by the newly created sockpuppets. Onefortyone 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the Oversight --Steve (Stephen)talk 02:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for help
Dear Fred,

I would like some help getting an editor named User:Calton to cease his personal attacks against me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. This editor has a record of uncivil discourse with others, and has targetted me with the same back before the Starwood arbitration. He is now participating solely, IMO, to discredit me (in fact, he says as much) and perhaps bait me into another battle of some sort. He has no real input to the discussion other than attacks on me. He has been warned by another editor about his tone, and responded uncivilly to him as well. I would like him to cease, and perhaps his attacks struck from the discussion.

Here is the case , which (unsurprisingly) involves Mattisse; in this case, she has opened it as a criticism of Thatcher131 for suggesting in a personal e-mail that she might put her past grievances behind her, or consider changing her username like Jefferson Anderson has done. She asked for comment, and includded a great deal of material from the Starwood arbitration as "evidence", even though the issue Thatcher131 was commenting on was the recent sockpuppetry issue involving User:BackMaun, User:Alien666 and User:RasputinJSvengali and their harassment of me and User:Jefferson Anderson. I felt I had a place in the discussion since my name is all over both the e-mail and the evidence; why Calton decided to simply attack me there I do not know. I complimented Thatcher and said that IMO his advice was appropriate, and that Mattisse's complaint was unreasonable.

Mattisse evidently rallied uninvolved editors to this discussion, and it has become unecessarily contentious. Here is an example, though in this case the editor voluntarily tempered his tone.(IMO, causing trouble for Thatcher131 was probably the whole purpose of this case.) I don't want to respond in kind to User:Calton's insults and attacks, but he has been asked to cease and desist and refuses to do so.

I have been involved in Mattisse-related conflicts from the first week I edited. I have not instigated any of them, nor retaliated on the work of a single editor, merely sought to defend myself and improve my editing. The Starwood arbitration is over, these three new socks are blocked, but my troubles go on. I hope to avoid a whole new round of conflict from whoever Mattisse can get to bear the banner.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. Rosencomet 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you expect that Fred shall help? --Iamunknown 16:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess if I knew what can be done in such a circumstance, I wouldn't have to ask him. But he is an arbitrator, and therefor knows better than I what the proper action is to be taken when an editor enters a case requesting feedback on a question like "is this a good proposal", and instead of commenting on the question posts a string of attacks, insults, and uncivil language against one of the other editors who did provide feedback. Perhaps as an arbitrator he could caution this individual against such behavior, and it would carry more weight than the words of a simple editor (one did try, but was rebuffed). Perhaps he could even get the insults stricken from the text of the case as irrelevant and inappropriate to the conversation. Maybe there's some other appropriate thing to do; I don't know. Maybe just advise me as to how to deal with such unprovoked bad behavior. Rosencomet 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss myself. She just keeps on and on. Everyone's patience runs thin, and other than saying, "take this nonsense to some other forum", we don't know how to deal with it. Fred Bauder 16:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, well. The case has been archived anyway. To quote an old saying, "What can't be cured must be ignored". Rosencomet 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calton is quite ... blunt ... sometimes, but he or she is (IMO) a very valuable contributor. I'm never quite sure what to do with a valuable contributor who also has less desirable qualities.  I guess that's why Arbitration is here (eh Fred? :-P).  I archived it, hoping it will go away (it did); certainly no good things could have come from that discussion.  --Iamunknown 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fred
I have a question. Every edit that I make is followed by a certain Wikipedian who writes derogatory and nasty comments about me personally and does not even talk about the substantive issues of the edit. He/She reverts anything that I do. I have mentioned this to you before. I have asked him/her to stop engaging in this behavior. He/she brings up things that I have done four months ago, six months ago, one year ago and then uses that to justify the nasty, rude, non-civil behavior. Am I correct to assume that his/her borish behavior violates Wikipedia rules because if I read the rules correctly Wikipedian are not supposed to badger, intimidate and be rude to other Wikipedians--even if those Wikipedians have a track record of doing those types of things in the past? Another example of this behavior just happended on the Al Gore III article: (cur) (last)  02:09, 1 May 2007 Eleemosynary (Talk | contribs) (5,708 bytes) (rv to previous version. Getaway/Keetoowah once again using false, red herring arguments to push POV. REVERTED! : )) (cur) (last)  20:49, 30 April 2007 Getaway (Talk | contribs) (6,226 bytes) (Previous removal of info was based upon that there was not a reliable source. Please leave in all reliable sources.) Honestly, I don't know what to do to stop this behavior that clearly violates Wikipedian rules.--Getaway 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded previously. Even if you are the user formerly known as Keetoowah, there is no excuse for the rudeness being expressed toward you. Please be courteous yourself and use the dispute resolution procedure. Fred Bauder 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Fred Bauder: I realize that you have responded before.  My goal was not to drive you crazy.  I will move on to get assistance elsewhere.  I have been watching the Wikipedia dispute resolution process since I started and it seems clear to me that without a long, long list of examples of rude and inappropriate behavior then it is next to impossible to stop a Wikipedian from acting inappropriately toward other Wikipedians.  I brought the issue to your talk page because you have a high profile and now I have a record of this particular Wikipedian’s behavior on your talk page, seen by you.  I am merely establishing a record of inappropriate behavior that violates the rules of WP:CIVIL.  I will move on now, but I will be referring back to this series of inappropriate actions on the part of a certain Wikipedian.  I will move elsewhere to record the actions and inappropriate behaviors before I move to the next step of dispute resolution.  Thank you for your time and assistance.--Getaway 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason Getaway is not interested in dispute resolution is that he is a blatant political troll with a long history of policy violation (and blocks). Kaldari 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That is not true.  As I stated above, I will keep a record, where others can easily see it, and then I will follow up with the dispute resolution process.  As far as I can see at this point in time, the Wikipedian that I have been talking to Fred Bauder about is attempting to get me to engage in a screaming match of some kind or an edit war, etc. where I can be tarred and feathered.  Also, I find your comment to Fred Bauder to be in the same vein.  You are violating Wikipeida policy (WP:CIVIL) with the hope that I will retaliate with uncivil invective in return which will provide you with the proof that you need to justify whatever actions you have in mind. --Getaway 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedian rules on personal attacks states: The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.  Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways.  Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. My comment is:  Clearly these rules apply to admins as well as regular Wikipedia users.  Eleemosynary constant references to things that I might have said or done three, six or even twelve months ago violates this basic policy of Wikipedia.  Also, Kaldari's references to my good faith attempts to have Al Gore III remain an article is also a violation of this policy--even if Kaldari is an admin.  The rules clearly state that they apply to ALL Wikipedians.  I would ask, once again, that this behavior stop.--Getaway 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote the original version of that. Fred Bauder 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Getaway's continuous violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and a score of other policies, from as far back as to when he was editing as "Keetoowah" to as recently as a few days ago, render his above comments as hypocritical as they are comical. He will continue to be called on his disruptive, POV-pushing edits to political pages, which are almost exclusively done in bad faith.  His red herrings and deflections will continue to be ignored.  That he construes all evidence of his disruptive edits as "personal attacks" might be indicative of a persecution complex, but it's hardly the problem of his fellow editors.  I encourage him to follow Fred's advice and take this to dispute resolution, where the disinfecting power of sunlight can shine on all his Wiki behavior.  However, I won't hold my breath waiting.Eleemosynary 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaniack is Back
I think you know this guy: FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation
In this you made an accusation that I use propeganda sources similar to the protocls. Or maybe I did not understood you. In any case which sources that I used are in your view propeganda sources ? Zeq 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a good faith effort to find and use reliable sources. Fred Bauder 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrespectively of that, the comparison was in poor taste. El_C 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm here for similar reasons, on WP:ANI he has mentioned that an editor has been removing links to WP:OR outside sources. Since I could be one of those who has, and seeing what he said about Zeq's sources, I'm curious to know what's wrong in his view with the sources in question. Naturally since Zeq was here first I'd ask you give a more detailed answer than, I think you are making a good faith effort to find and use reliable sources. This doesn't answer what you see as wrong with the sources he/she found. If you are right, how are any of us to improve our editing if you won't say what's wrong with it? Anynobody 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeq and I have had detailed discussions about sources regarding Arab-Israeli issues. You are referring in your example to Anti-Scientology publications. Your conflation of the issues is not helpful. Fred Bauder 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm good, your answer on WP:ANI is appreciated. I hadn't researched Zeq's question but it seemed to be the same "category(reliability of sources)" as mine, if you've answered it elsewhere then I think everyone is happy. Anynobody 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, I still don't see how your comments (the one about sources is just one) fits what you ar saying here.
 * The issue is evidence.
 * If you have evidence I used improper sources - please present it.
 * If you care to look at the evidence, look at the massive amounts of edit-war, source removal and NPOV violations that are prsented in the evidence section against Zero. There are other violation of him - all documented there. I hope you are not planning to ignore evidence. I trust that you will look at it and if you disagree with the evidence you will explain why. Zeq 07:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more a matter of using good sources improperly then using bad sources. Fred Bauder 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, evidence: You said I am using bad sources. support your claims Zeq 15:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

COFS/CSI LA
Replied on my talk page. ··coe l acan 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * oops. ;-) You know you're editing the archive, right? ··coe l acan 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Romania
Hi. Now that arbitration has been rejected, the next step I'd like to take is to ask you to participate in the discussion on an informal/non-binding basis so we can come to some sort of dispute resolution and tag removal. Would you be willing to help out, or should we try and solve the problem ourselves (something which hasn't really worked)? Biruitorul 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify
Hi Fred. I am just wondering what you meant with this contribution. Specifically, was there an RFCU done on me with regard to Jason Gastrich, or were you referring to an RFCU on Jason Gastrich in which I was named? Thanks. I appreciate it. Infinite Improbability Drive 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive was declined, and this user refuses to answer if s/he had a previous account.
 * Fred, this is surely a sock of someone. However, I'm not inclined to think it is Gastrich for the same reason Josh unblocked him.
 * However, this user's distruption (WP:CIVIL, WP:TE, WP:NPOV, and so on), and refusal to answer if s/he had a previous account is worthy of a block.Arbustoo 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious
Per User:Lombax - is there an issue per: Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy? - jc37 09:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I would not characterize that user as projecting a "sexual persona". Fred Bauder 16:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! So it's not just an issue of a minor showing their age, or identifying information (such as pictures)? Thank you for clarifying : ) - jc37 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the situation is rather ambiguous, one thing is the pictures, another is his declared interest in CSI. Fred Bauder 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  - Could you explain? That confused me. - jc37 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous means tending to confuse. Fred Bauder 01:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually meant your response, rather than what your response was referring to : ) - jc37 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Time line
"Ian makes the point that the material is already in the article, while Zeq is focusing on the introduction ".

Fred, this is not the correct time line. The material was added to the body of the text much later. The decline to participate in mediation occured before. Please look at my comments and correct the facts based on the correct timeline. Thanks, Zeq 10:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I need to check the time line again. But one thing is clear: you claim that "Zeq edit war" This is not in an void ? who was the other party to this edit war ? it is the tag team of Ian and Zero. Please makes sure your description of the facts is complete. Thanks. Zeq 10:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The key issue in this dispute is the words "antisemitic". Ian and Zero wanted to keep these words out and insisted on "anti-zionist". You yourself in the past commented that he was anti-semitic. In any case this was the core of the dispute and it is clear by the evidence of the edit-war: Ian and Zero repeadly remove the words anti-semitic from the lead of the article. This diff (among others): is missing from your description of the facts. Zeq 10:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your diff is dated February 22, 2006. I will check into "anti-Zionist" versus "anti-Semitic". Fred Bauder 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the Text Vs Lead is a strawman put in by Ian. The matrial was added, removed and re-inseted from the body of the text (I never noticed it and this confused my time line).
 * In nay case this is not at all the real issue. I have added to the arbCom case the exact words by Zero about why he declined the mediation (he refused to accept the validity of the source) - see his exact words. I also included some of his edit-war on the "anti-zionist Vs. "Anti-semitic" and his removal of wikilink to Nazi-Germany (this was really something he objected cause many of his edit summaries include PA on me) - all is documented. Zeq 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence page
Fred,

there is pleanty of evidence in the evidence page.

see this as a tiny example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Use_of_Original_Research_and_misleading_info_in_edit_summaries_-_to_justify_Zero.27s_removal_of_WP:RS_material

and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Use_of_questionalble_and_unreliable_sources_-_prefering_only_his_own_POV

Zero has a crsade against this person:  He even edited the article about him in wikipedia to change the Hebrew spelling of his name (and he made a spelling mistake :-)

Zeq 16:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AntiCoelacan/Eblem
His e-mails to me implied as much, but I'm glad that Checkuser confirms it. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers, – Rianaऋ 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief request
Hello Fred, I realize you are probably busy, so if you can not fulfill this I understand.
 * Request: Please confirm for those who don't believe reports written by the Congressional Research Service are government reports. I've tried to explain as best I could that a federal employee working for a branch of the Library of Congress (CRS), who writes a report for Congress has written a government report. I have only ended up sounding too "lawyerish" as the other party put it. Another editor and myself cited a quote by you on this very subject, I'm hoping the real McCoy will impress them more. The quote we cited and the issue can both be found here:Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2 questions for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FZeq-Zero0000%2FWorkshop&diff=129006855&oldid=129003997

PS I am a big fan of what you are doing. You need to learn from Zero how tio be more subbtle. Zeq 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (that apply to me as well)

Fred, Simple question: Are you going to complety ignore the evidence about Zero's edit-war ? removal of sources ? POV-pushing and sockppupetry ? The evidence is clear (other than sockpputery which has not yet being interduced) - can you decide if you can see the edit-war or is it too hard ? Zeq 04:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred, You mention you are going to look at Zero's editing.

Have you bothered looking at the sea of evidence presented in this case ?

here are few highlights (but there is more):





see edit summary here:   Zeq 08:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred, Simple question: Are you going to complety ignore the evidence about Zero's edit-war ? removal of sources ? POV-pushing ? Zeq 07:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply. However, point 3. I was making above was that although ArbCom has banned the 'worst' anti-FG offenders, they have not reciprocated by banning the same editors on the pro-FG side.  This has caused an upset in the balance that may have a negative impact on the future of FG-related pages, especially when it comes to arguments regarding content, etc.  I agree that the matter about FG seems far more than what any human can possibly handle, but then there is so little we know about what is going on behind the scenes for this issue!  Jsw663 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

typo
"Zeq did not respect the ban" ? Zeq 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zero0000#Zeq_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zero0000#OK_let.27s_try_to_be_polite_here

Fred - why are these warnning to Zero being ignored ?

Why is his edit-wars being ignored ?

Is it just because he is labled "anti-zionist" and I am labled "Zionist" or there is more to it ? Zeq 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal
It would be helpful to me if you would explain why you voted to decline, so that I will have an idea about how I am still falling short of expectations and what I can do to get there. Everyking 07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We had this discussion privately before, Fred, and you stopped responding to me when I asked you how I could express my views regarding these subjects in an acceptable manner. I do not believe my expression of views is "inappropriate agitation", but if it is, I badly need to know how to change my approach so that the ArbCom will not object to it. Everyking 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unjustifiable edits on Falun Gong page
Fred Bauder I understand that you are one of the high level admins who monitor Falun Gong pages. Earlier today Dilip rajeev made these unjustifiable changes without any discussion on talk page. He is a Falun Gong practitioner and a known edit warrior. It is this kind of edit he just did that provoked many edit wars on Falun Gong pages in the past. Can you please warn him, thanks. --Kent888 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about my edit on List of groups referred to as cults
Hello. I am curious about why you singled out this edit and posted a warning on my talk page. First of all, the edit was made one year and three months ago. Secondly, you said: "That the Arbitration Committee did not impose restrictions on you for biased editing should not be regarded as license for engaging in it", as if I had engaged in this kind of "biased editing" after the ArbCom case. Thirdly, I never engaged in any edit warring to keep the entry on the list. Fourthly, the name of the page is "list of groups referred to as cults", meaning that it's not a list of cults per se. Fifthly, even Wikipedia is mentioned on the list at the moment! You can be assured that I did the edit in good faith, and I'd like to get some clarification to this issue. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are having problems with understanding English ?
Read this again and try to figure out what I wrote. I showed how other people violate POINT - not that I did it. other have done it. You are really showing your bias again and again it impres your judgment.

read this again:

"You see if someone wants to hide the fact that Quisling collaborated with the Nazis, in Wikipedia he can do that. You get it? Quisling the guy his name is synonymous with being a collaborator - In Wikipedia you can hide his past, burry the word Nazi out of Quisling biography? People have done that here: [3])

Really. So that they can use this as an example to remove the word Nazi from the biography of other collaborators such as Amin al-Husayni and he also used it as "evidence against Zeq" here: [4] so that "ArbCom" can ban me."

Zeq 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, forget your lack of understanding. where is the so-called "disruption" ? show me one bad-faith edit ? Zeq 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

here are some strong words in lead do you want to guess who put them there ? Baruch_Goldstein Zeq 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:W. Frank
Re. unblocking, did he manage to explain why he said he had emailed me, yet the email was signed User:Gaimhreadhan and from the latter's email account? There is a lot of contradictory information from these two users. Tyrenius 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius: I have offered and continue to offer direct physical proof (ie Passports, Birth Certificates, Driving Licences, etc) that G and I are two separate individuals to any administrator that
 * 1) undertakes to keep our home and work addresses confidential and
 * 2) is not anonymous (so that if I or G are subsequently targeted, the police can subsequently trace who was given this sensitive information).
 * Please e-mail me this "contradictory information from these two users" and I may be able to assist in removing any confusion from your mind. I reiterate: My WP user name is a subset of my passport name and this is also true of the user you believe/believed is my puppet or vice versa.
 * I believe you have acted in good faith, Tyrenius, so please be kind enough to assist in appointing somebody {not anonymous) to come to our offices (or my flat above our offices) and inspect our respective documentation if you still believe that we are not two different human beings with different opinions. Obviously we share certain opinions: the rule of law, that the earth is round, that murders should not go unpunished. We do also both agree that balanced articles in WP should not be subverted by extremist minority opinion cliques acting in concert - but then that is an agreed stance shared by the majority of editors here. The fact that both I and G do not wish terrorist atrocities to be sanitised or hidden from our readers does NOT make all editors who share this viewpoint meatpuppets of each other. I believe that I am mature enough to recognise that WP insists on verifiable sources for any edited text and I do not believe that any of my future edits will breach this principle. W. Frank 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are still worried about introductions
try this, I am sure it fits your POV:, Zeq 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkalada
I hate to make a request like this, but I think User:Alkalada should be put on probation and blocked permanently when he makes the slightest racist insult or something like that. You've blocked him four times yourself, so I'm sure you know what he's like. His recent contributions (like the rest) are wholly motivated by an attempt to erase Serb and Croat history from Bosnia, which isn't what I'm complaining about, but his constant trolling which is utterly tiresome and a waste of everyone's time.

Recent "fun" edit summaries include Edit vandalism by known serb ultranationalist (reverting a officially sourced edit by myself) and thats nice, why dont you show me your bosnian passport (ditto), plus random trolling on my talk page (telling me that he knows who I "really am"). Among his older edits I saw ''You are talking completely bullshit. It is cetnik bullshit'', where četnik is a racist word for Serbs, like kike is for Jewish people. So I say give him one last chance (after 4 or 5 blocks), and then goodbye.--Hadžija 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Today's insulting nationality based statements here (all serbs, reject truth and evidence and doesnt listen to what other wants to say and ends with the childish provocation "Zivjela Kosova"=Long live Kosovo), and admission of multiple accounts here--Hadžija 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)