On systemic bias:
To paraphrase what has often been attributed to Edmund Burke...
- All that is necessary for a systemic bias to prosper is for good editors to do nothing. When dealing with non-English topics, we DO NOT insist on "only" English coverage if due diligence finds only non-English coverage. Sure, we're an English language encyclopedia, but we gladly include all topics no matter the language of their sourcing, and present them in English.
Making a Difference
Making a difference.... thanks.
What I've been up to...
Janitors wanting mops
Adminship is a personal acceptance of responsibility to the community. It is not authority nor should it be used as authority. It is simply the assignment of certain additional tools that can aid a willing editor in making Wikipedia run smoother.
Some label me an inclusionist. Okay, sure... I'd rather fix something I determined as fixable, rather than delete it simply because lacked some easy-to-do work. It would seem reasonable to me that improving articles to better serve the project is the way an encyclopdia is built. I do however balk at the use of "extreme inclusionist" or "rabid inclusionist", as use of such intentionally negative adjectives toward another editor turn "inclusionist" into a pejorative slur.
- I am not "extreme". A simple check shows I am just as willing to opine for deletion of an article at AFD as I am a keep.
- I am not "rabid". I might be dedicated to improving articles, but I have not been bitten by the rabid dog of incivility, and am not foaming at the mouth.
- Within this community, improving articles should never be thought of in the negative, as making Wikipedia a better place for its readers is supposedly the reason we are all here... as Wikipedia is about the readers and not about the editors... and immediatism is not a policy.
Unlike the definition of inclusionist, I am not a proponent of broad retention, I do not support the including of articles simply because they might be "harmless", and I do not support the including of articles deemed substandard which are found incapable of future improvement. I am quite willing to nominate something for AFD.
- Interestingly, and specially as I quite often opine a delete for substandard or unsalvable articles, no one has ever called me a deletionist. Go figure.
- And when I opine at AFDs, whether for delete, or keep, or merge or redirect, or userfy, it's nice that some take my opinion into consideration. 
- My own philosophy being that if an article has the potential for improvement, we editors should actually try to improve them as we are able, rather than demand their immediate removal. But for ANY article to flourish.... whether it be FA, GA, or lowly stub... it needs attention and care.
- I believe it is important that experienced editors not assume through actions or words that unexpanded or new articles are somehow unsalvable or without merit.
- I believe that as a community together, we should do what we can to encourage that articles become better than when we first find them... by our researching and adding sources or cleaning up grammer or correcting style and format... and so give them them time to grow through the course of regular editing.
- So I try to improve the project with the occasional improvement of articles found lacking. I have had some small successes by which the project and its readers benefit. You can help!
That said, here are a few of the articles I had a hand in expanding and sourcing for the project and its readers:
Every so often a topic catches my eye and I try to create a successful article about it.
Things to do
Always something to do...
- Re-checking for additional sources...
- Tweaking something in preparation for main pages...
- Articles that need to be watched...
- It seems there's aways something to do...
- And DYKs just waitin'... 
|And yes, you can help!|
|And in avoiding COI...|