Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jayjg

Jayjg
Jayjg (contribs) has been with us for a few months and has made about 2000 edits. He has contributed to a large number of articles that are traditionally associated with heated exchanges of words. Jayjg, however, remains cool and factual, maintaining a sensible tone and working towards good articles. He is a respected member of Wikiproject "Judaism", and shows a good understanding of Wiki spirit. He would undoubtedly make a splendid admin. JFW | T@lk  07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been trying to read up on what being an admin involves, the various responsibilities etc. There's a reasonably long list; while I appreciate the support given to me so far, I'd like to finish reading all the materials before making a final decision.  I should be done by end of day Monday September 6.  Thanks again to all. Jayjg 23:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been through the materials, and it all seems reasonable, so I accept the nomination. Of course, the tide seems to be turning against me right now, so who knows what will happen?  Thanks all for voting, for, against, and neutral. Jayjg 19:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I propose to extend this vote for one ayd, to see if a consensus develops (right now, considering the two three late votes, it's at 78.6% 79.3%). ugen64 19:51, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 74% now. Snowspinner 20:58, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 76.5% now; quite a flurry of late activity. Thanks again to all voters who have taken an interest, for, neutral, and against. Jayjg 22:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Extended 24 hours--See talk--Cecropia | Talk 22:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) JFW | T@lk  07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  09:23, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &#8212;No-One Jones 17:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) While Jayjg hasn't been around for quite as long as I'd like (only since 15 June 2004), his work on a large number of difficult and controversial articles shows impeccable politeness and the will to work for neutrality despite holding a strong POV on certain topics.
 * 4) Antandrus 18:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) Strongly support him as an admin.
 * 5) Danny 18:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Everyking 19:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Lst27 21:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 22:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) David Cannon 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC). I know Jayig and have complete confidence in him.
 * 10) Andre 15:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Having a POV is not a problem, it's putting that POV into Wikipedia articles. Jayjg seems to be able to control that, from what I saw in his contribs.
 * 11) Austin Hair 23:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)  From what I've seen, Jayjg has done an admirable job of keeping his cool while up against POV warriors.  He has my support.
 * 12) Voting FOR Jayg because Xed is against him.  RickK 00:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) *Rick, all due respect, my friend, that is terribly stupid reasoning. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Didn't you oppose Ludraman's adminship using essentially the exact same reasoning? (See below). Jayjg 21:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I have decided to change my vote because I have noticed how polite and gentlemanly Jayjg is. I don't think I knew enough about him before, but his professional attitude is such a breath of fresh air, I think that he will make a great admin! Pitchka 22:24, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm changing my vote. I stand by my reasoning below (which has more to do with WP procedures than Jayjg personally) but Jayjg's behaviour here has convinced me that he's capable of seperating his personal POVs and admin tasks, so I trust Jayjg. - pir 09:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Viajero 16:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC).
 * 5) After hours of searching, I found only one single instance of Jayjg stating something to the effect of his POV being NPOV, when I thought it wasn't, which is why I feel confident in supporting his candidacy. His manifest civilty is a strong additional plus! --Ruhrjung 02:07, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * 6) +sj +  05:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Zero 02:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Hey, wait a minute! I know who you are! :P -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:59, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * 9) ugen64 19:29, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Would make a great admin. Yelyos 19:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) CryptoDerk 19:51, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) I orginally voted neutral, but this is a borderline case and adminship should be no big deal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) I agree. Mike H 22:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) [[User_talk:Anárion|&#57360;&#57408;&#57382;&#57408;&#57368;&#57381;&#57412;&#57360;&#57414; (Anárion) ]] 22:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) DanKeshet 03:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Jmabel 05:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Slightly mixed feelings here: Jayjg is a bit of a POV warrior, and I'm not sure all of his contributions have been positive, but I am sure that he understands and cares about the difference between what he does as an editor and what he would do in the capacity of an admin. I trust him not to abuse the latter. -- Jmabel 05:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I believe him to be biased on several important topics, to the point that I question his ability to remain neutral in disputes and use powers such as protection responsibly and without bias.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  18:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you never represent a POV anywhere, Blankfaze? JFW | T@lk  19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, no, not really. I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible.  For instance, I have removed vandalisms and POV additions (although I agreed with some of them) from George W. Bush and other articles.  Wikipedia is supposed to be about informations, not opinions.  And I am not certain that this user understands that. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  19:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So you wouldn't consider insisting on British spellings over American spellings on the grounds that British English "is correct English" and "the superior and proper form of the language" to be POV? :-O Jayjg 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha. Well, I don't really "insist".  As I said on my talk page, I don't go changing United States Secretary of Defense to United States Secretary of Defence or something of the like.  I only correct AE spellings in articles I come across that are not at all related to the US, and on extremely visible pages such as the Main Page, of course!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg is highly biased towards a POV that I find rather extreme (which in itself is of course completely legitimate). He is very persistent and dedicated to pushing this POV to the exclusion of opposing views. On the other hand he is very professional and polite. The question is whether he will maintain this professional conduct as an admin, or whether he will use the increased powers in the same way he uses his "common" Wikipedian's powers (i.e. to push his POV). It is of course impossible to predict, we are asked to express trust in advance. Normally I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is that once I have given away my vote here, I clearly have no realistic means to hold him to account in the case where he does abuse his admin powers (and judging by the vote at Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so. So after debating about his nomination all day for a while, I have decided to vote against change my vote(NB not because of his POV but because with current Wikipedia procedures I can't bring myself to take the risk of endorsing him strongly enough). - pir 19:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, pir, and your explanation on my Talk: page as well. Jayjg 05:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Kim Bruning 19:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Pirs argument is rather strong, so I'm going to be a bit lazy, and just agree with hir. I'll certainly give due consideration in a month or two when Jayjg comes by a second time. :-)
 * 3) Noisy 01:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Normally I wouldn't vote without personal experience of a contributor, but the lack of unanimity in this instance made me look at the contributions list. My opinion – from an admittedly brief perusal of the list – is that Jayjg has too narrow a focus to be a true admin ... (I'd be surprised if his watchlist tops 200) ... and that some usage of the 'Show preview' button would have significantly cut his number of edits. Finally, I've been here about the same time, and I don't recall seeing the name on any of the community pages that I frequent.
 * 209 actually, when I just checked it. What is a reasonable number for an admin? Jayjg 01:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Gee, is a large watchlist a requirement for adminship? I have all of eight pages on mine, and obviously one of those is my own user page (no prizes for guessing the other seven). --Michael Snow 02:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreement. I was just made admin and I've used my watchlist all of three times. Honestly. Mike H 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm up to 222 now; as a result, I now feel approximately 6% more fit to be an admin. ;-) Jayjg 03:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) From what I've seen so far, I haven't been too impressed. Would perhaps reconsider at a later date. Ambi 07:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) If he isn't aware of "how rogue admins are reigned in" then he needs to do more reading before becoming an admin. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I think I'd like this to come back for reconsideration in another month or so. Snowspinner 20:39, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Jayjg has made some fine contributions. However, he seems to be a bit confrontational in some of his edits and explanations. I do not think that he is rash; indeed, he has handled volatile articles rather calmly, such as those related to Judaism and Christianity. I'm not against him recieving adminship; I just think that Jayjg should attempt to be a better communicator, especially if he becomes an admin. --Slowking Man 22:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Pir basically. As long as adminship is given out as a life tenure without possibility of recall, I can't support someone with a strong POV like that. Despite all the "janitor" talk, adminship in the present system is a position of considerable power, and power tends to corrupt. But as I have not seen particular misbehaviour on his part so far, I won't oppose; and I would readily support if there was any real, functioning mechanism for de-adminship in place. Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) *Good points both on the issue of adminship. I don't understand how "rogue" admins are reigned in either, and that is worrying. Jayjg 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Mike H 19:22, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Next time will probably be best.
 * Ditto Mike H. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (changed vote to support)
 * 1) I really like what I've seen of Jayjg. He has seemed to be calm, rational, and persistent in his view without being exclusionary of the views of others.  The whole thing with Xed's votes is a bit moot, as Xed surely does seem to be new and a little too motivated.  The only reason that I'm not voting for Jayjg is that I want a little more time on the project before the nomination.  I.e. barring anything really disturbing happening, I will vote 'yes' on the next nomination, which I hope is made in 8 weeks or so. Geogre 15:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *Thanks for the compliments, and its true I haven't been on Wikipedia all that long. Jayjg 15:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I just reviewed his edits on Yasser Arafat and basically I agree that he passed over that fine line of POV in his edits, even by so very little. However, is this reason to fear adminstrator abuse? I don't know. Gadykozma 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) *Good feedback on the edits and adminship. Thanks. Jayjg 15:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * Engages in stalking behaivior. Highly biased in issues related to Israel.--Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is based solely on a disagreement on Druze, where this user attempted to push a certain POV. He's only been around for two weeks. Xed, if you think this is stalking, you ain't seen no edit warring yet! Please revise your vote after looking through the edit history of Jew. By Wikipedia standards, this is no stalking. JFW | T@lk  19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If I could add 10 more votes to 'Oppose' I would. As well as stalking me, he accused me of making up this quote by Nixon - "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". This is not acceptable behaviour for an administrator.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * See also this RFAr. I request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline (which won't happen anyway). JFW | T@lk
 * I'm to be ignored because I disagree with you? What an unusual system of democracy.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No, you are to be ignored because you seem to make frivolous or ridiculous (or both) assertions. JFW | T@lk  20:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * By 'frivolous assertions' I suppose you mean my opposition to harassment via email.--Xed 20:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've removed your vote because you are presently banned for trolling. It can be reinstated if you behave yourself. JFW | T@lk  22:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * vote reinstated by third party - thanks--Xed 22:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * My concerns about Xed's vote remain. A single spree of edit wars is a poor reason for voting against adminship. I note that Xed has been unbanned. JFW | T@lk  23:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg has accused me of making up a quote. I have mentioned this many times. you have failed to address this, as well as telling me which way to vote. Additionally you have made patronising comments such as " It can be reinstated if you behave yourself", "revise your vote after looking through the edit history" and "I would urge you to reconsider your vote". --Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have a reputation of being patronising, paternalistic, pedantic and every other word with a P. Making up a quote is an accusation that can be dealt with on the page's (or user's) talk page, and not here. And, see below, I have giving up trying to change your mind. Can I now go back to editing, please? JFW | T@lk  23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please note: JFW has attempted to delete my opposing vote after I refused to take his advice to change my mind--Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. I deleted your opposing vote because you'd just been banned for trolling. As the decision was made to unblock you, I did not oppose Blankfaze's action to reinstate your vote. I am not trying to force you to change your vote. I am simply very concerned by your general behaviour on Wikipedia and I refuse to let this influence this RFA vote. JFW | T@lk  23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A patent lie. You say above 'request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline' BEFORE I was temporarily blocked. You wanted it removed from the start--Xed 00:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked for your vote to be ignored because you were trolling, which later led to your blocking. Will you stop hairsplitting? JFW | T@lk  00:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Jfdwolff please stop feeding the trolls. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Are Xed and Pitchka sockpuppets? - pir 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed certainly is. JFW | T@lk  21:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Pitchka is a sockpuppet, but his other username (User:Timothy001 hasn't voted. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (Moved from Texture's vote)
 * Do you have any examples of rogue admins being censured in some sort of permanent way? I've never seen or heard of it being done. In fact, as far as I can tell, if one is persistent enough (regardless of whether or not one is an admin), one can never be permanently censured or banned from Wikipedia, since inevitably some admin somewhere will un-ban you. Some admins seem to make it a policy of un-banning people. Jayjg 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's an attitude that worries me. You don't seem to have respect for the position.  How can you be expected to fulfill the obligations with that opinion of the position you aspire to?  in cases where admins have used their power in questionable circumstances they have been taken to account.  I haven't heard of any actions that required censure "in some sort of permanent way".  Do you have an example in mind that was not reviewed by the community? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I highly respect the position, but I am also aware of the issues surrounding it. This does not mean the position itself is bad, but as Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning have pointed out, Wikipedia "clearly ha[s] no realistic means to hold [admins] to account in the case where [admins do] abuse [their] admin powers (and judging by the vote at Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so."  The question here is not whether you have heard of any admin actions that required censure in some sort of permanent way, but rather, what is the procedure that would be followed in such a case.  Do you have a Wikipedia page I can examine which outlines an agreed upon process for such cases? Are Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning wrong? To clarify further, if a legal system had a methodology for appointing judges, but none for removing them when warranted (e.g. for taking bribes, mental illness, etc.), then I would be concerned about that as well.  This wouldn't, of course, mean that I disrespect the position of judge itself; rather, when powers are granted, but there is no way of "un-granting" them, then everyone should be concerned.  Jayjg 02:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with Requests_for_comment? It used to be Requests for review of administrative actions and you can look there for past claims against admins and any actions taken.  I don't know of any since it was combined with Requests for comment. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question at all, and the issue remains. It is quite clear that there is no procedure for removing admins (if necessary), only a procedure for creating them. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, sir, we can agree on that. There is no real way to hold admins accountable, short of the snail-speed Arbcom.  THAT, sir, is precisely why I'd not want to risk giving you admin powers!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your honest feelings on the subject, Blankfaze. I appreciate the feedback. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You haven't yet given me an example of what you are worried about. Where has an admin needed deadminship?  Give me that one example where misuse of admin abilities has not been addressed.  Who is this admin you need removed?  What did some admin do that makes you think it is necessary?  Rogue admins are reigned in.  This has not yet had to involve deadminship.  The adminship process is to weed out anyone who would do something so bad as to need removal.  I'm glad that it has proven successful.  I am having trouble following your complaint or lack of understanding of admin oversight. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  04:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe I have made my position clear, which is, I understand Pir's (and others) concerns about the situation itself, that there exists a process for creating admins, but none for removing them (if necessary). The issue is not about any specific admins, but about the process of creating admins itself, which is a one-time event; while it may weed out people who might initially "do something so bad as to need removal" there is no guarantee that a decision made at one point in time might still be appropriate at a later date.  People do change. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No-one is aware of how "rogue admins" are reigned in, including you, because there is no process for doing so, and because it apparently has never been done, so there is no precedent either. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I have answered you but you have not answered my questions and don't appear to agree that there is oversight of admins. That convinces me more that you should not be an admin.  Do you think you will be beyond control when you have adminship?  Is that why you want it? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  04:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of who answered whose questions is getting us a bit bogged down at this point, so I'm going to move on from that, as it's making the tone of our discussion more confrontational than I would like. Regarding potential adminship for me, of course I wouldn't be "beyond control", and I have not sought adminship, but, as a pleasant surprise, have been nominated for this honour.  Oh, and I agree that there is oversight of admins, and have never argued to the contrary (though there still is no process for removing admins); in any event, that's great news, because now you don't have to be "convinced more" about my unfitness for the position. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Texture, I don't think you're being quite fair. As user:Pir notes, Jayjg has shown to be perfectly capable of seperating POV on article material and administrative/community activities. I would frankly find him an unlikely person to be become a rogue admin. He has not requested admin powers - I take responsibility for nominating him, and he has - to be perfectly honest - been more hesitant than anything in accepting the nomination. I think Jayjg is a thorough contributor and will make a thorough admin who will adhere scrupulously to policy. From the above I cannot possibly determine what question you'd like Jayjg to answer! Rogue admins are reined in with RFC/RFM/RFAr, and perhaps with the new accountability policy. What more is there to this question? JFW | T@lk  05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Texture, while perhaps being a tad overagressive, is being plenty fair... Pir (though I think him a good chap) is wrong, flat out WRONG in this case. Not only is Jayjg incapable of separating his POV from his editing, he blatantly puts POV into articles!  He's right up there with POV wackos like VV and Rex071404... And, for the record, there is no "new accountability policy"... the proposal failed.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  06:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating your honest opinion again, Blankfaze. As you can see from the voting, other contributors strongly disagree with your POV on this, but that's the way it is sometimes on Wikipedia; one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit".  Oh well, if everyone thought alike life would be pretty boring. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit" Not necessarily. If a person is so highly biased that they distort, misrepresent or even falsify facts, it is more than just a question of opinion. To pick an uncontroversial example, holocaust denial is not a case of just one person's NPOV is another's highly POV edit. Demonstrable, proven facts must not be subject to political discourse at Wikipedia, even if they are outside of our beloved encyclopedia. Otherwise, we will be writing an Orwellian encyclopedia where we aren't allowed to state clearly that 2+2=4, but would have to say that some people think 2+2=4 whereas others believe it to be 5 and other 3. (To avoid misunderstaning, I'm just stating a general truth here, I'm not implying anything as to your edits.)- pir 11:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi pir, thanks for your thoughtful paragraph. However, I think it's possible you read a little bit more into my comments than I intended. I do think many things are amenable to reasonable proof. The problem is, some people "distort, misrepresent, and falsify facts" without even believing they are doing so. Either they are simply not well enough read in a subject to know fact from supposition and fantasy, or they are highly indoctrinated in a set of beliefs, or (for various reasons - emotional, cognitive, etc.) impervious to rational discourse. In other words, things may be reasonably proven, but many people are not reasonable. Sometimes one reaches a point in a dispute where it becomes clear that your worldview and those of the person you are debating with are so far apart that there is no way a concensus can be reached. In that case, you are left with two choices; either continuing to press your position, or withdrawing from the debate, "agreeing to disagree". Sometimes I feel strongly enough that my own view is correct that I tend towards the former, while other times I just don't think it is worthwhile pressing my case. Regarding blankfaze's views on my edits, I already pointed out in the pages that I felt he was holding me (and others) to a standard to which he didn't hold himself, and that his views differed radically from those of other editors. He clearly disagreed, and I felt the dialogue had gone as far as it could go without leading to animosity. In such a case there is obviously no point in saying "I'm being reasonable while you're not", when the other person feels the exact opposite. Thus I opted for the more neutral statement one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit", which didn't insist that either side was correct. Jayjg 21:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Orwellian encyclopedia, I see traces of that in many articles, and I do attempt to improve it when I can, or am knowledgable enough to do so. Your "uncontroversial example" of Holocaust denial is, in fact, highly controversial, and (to my mind horrifyingly and sadly) there are tens of millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in this world who sincerely believe there was no Holocaust, or that it was engineered by Jews/Zionists. And they do regularly come to Wikipedia insisting that their view be included i.e. "some people say that around 6 million Jews were deliberately killed by the Nazis, while others say that at most a few hundred thousand Jews died, that it was not deliberate, and that the current beliefs are a plot by Jews/Zionists to create the State of Israel and hold the world to ransom." A quick perusal of the history of the Holocaust article will show as much. In such cases I strongly resist the "some people believe 2+2=5" views, with mixed results.  However, many debates are not as clear-cut as whether or not 2+2=4.  I've been involved in debates with some people (including, in my view, excellent ones with you) in which I felt at that my viewpoint had strong merit, but that the weight of opinion on the other side made it necessary to accede to their preferred presentation. Jayjg 21:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)