Back in the day (as early as 2nd September, 2002) I used to edit anonymously; I created Cluster bomb, Domino theory, Reformism, Riot Act, Satanic ritual abuse, Squamish Five, and Winnipeg 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, when colorless 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 of my first edit war, regarding information about US military aid in the rape of East Timor. I even assumed bad faith!. Oh, the shame.

When I found out that anonymous editors cannot upload images, I created User: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 at Caterpillar, Inc. over information which I forgot that I had introduced to Caterpillar D9 almost four years earlier. Plus ça change!

These days I am firmly convinced that the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is the best way to write a comprehensive, balanced, and factual encyclopedia. There is no clear line after which consensus-building and flexibility end and Wikiality begins. And while calm and objective discussion is the best way to determine the application of policy, some editors seem to have absorbed von Clausewitz's dictum about the extension 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 the Arab-Israeli conflict among others. This unfortunate combination has got me into trouble once or twice; I'd like to apologize to anyone I've offended. I will not apologize for working strenuously to fix Wikipedia's severe neutrality problems when it comes to Israel. It's not possible to know whether to what extent there really is an organized campaign by outside activists behind it, but ultimately, that doesn't matter. The special relationship between Israel and the Anglosphere should not be in operation on Wikipedia; that's systemic bias at its worst.