Hi, welcome to my page. Feel free to leave a message on talk.
I am a strong believer that process is important. I promote the idea that community-oriented decision-making combined with a definite rules-based structure are necessary elements of mature project governance. I oppose the practice of controversial decisions being taken by individual admins; I oppose "boldness" with regard to admin actions. It is important that admins are very clearly subject to the community and simultaneously a part of the community: admins should be carrying out the community's wishes with regard to policy, and they should deliberate with other admins and the broader community when they encounter difficult situations.
I just wanted to say that becoming an admin is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile admins. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to admins are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted admin status is a really special thing.
—Jimmy Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry
Regarding article content and topics, I am strongly inclusionist—I believe that all verifiable information that meets a reasonable minimum standard of notability should be included. I think that as Wikipedia grows both in content and contributors, it becomes more inclusionist as a whole—there is a tendency to be more willing to include greater amounts of information, to approach topics more deeply and broadly than before. This is a tendency that should be anticipated and encouraged, alongside the tendency towards improving quality along with quantity—to expand content with minimal restriction but also to stress the importance of good writing and referencing. At the summit of Wikipedia's potential is a vast, unmatched collection of human knowledge, freely available to all and open to the contributions of everyone.