Back in the day (as early as 2nd September, 2002) I used to edit anonymously; I createdCluster bomb,Domino theory,Reformism,Riot Act,Satanic ritual abuse,Squamish Five, andWinnipeg General Strike, among others. It's immensely gratifying to see how much better those articles have become in the last five years. Compare[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6], and[7] with their present versions. Yes, those were the halcyon days, whencolorless red links slept furiously, awaiting article creation, on all sorts of important topics. A sentimental tear falls. But don't think that Wikipedia was ever an ideal world. Sadly, some of my first edits were also part ofmy first edit war, regarding information about US military aid in the rape ofEast Timor. I evenassumed bad faith!. Oh, the shame.

When I found out that anonymous editors cannot upload images, I createdUser:Wji. Wji was active until he went back to high school, where he edited as an anonymous user, and forgot about ever having a user account in the first place. Fascinatingly, in August 2007 I became involved in a content dispute atCaterpillar, Inc. over information which I forgot thatI had introduced toCaterpillar D9 almost four years earlier. Plus ça change!

These days I am firmly convinced that the application ofWikipedia policies and guidelines is the best way to write a comprehensive, balanced, and factual encyclopedia. There is no clear line after whichconsensus-building andflexibility end andWikiality begins. And while calm and objective discussion is the best way to determine the application of policy, some editors seem to have absorbedvon Clausewitz's dictum about theextension of policy by other means.

I tend to shoot from the hip on talk pages, and I also have an interest in controversial topics including theArab-Israeli conflict among others. This unfortunate combination has got me intotrouble once or twice; I'd like to apologize to anyone I've offended. I willnot apologize for working strenuously to fix Wikipedia's severe neutrality problems when it comes to Israel. It's not possible to knowwhether to what extent there really is anorganized campaign by outside activists behind it, but ultimately, that doesn't matter. Thespecial relationship between Israel and theAnglosphere should not be in operation on Wikipedia; that'ssystemic bias at its worst.