Long-time anonymous user (roughly since 2003-2004), I eventually (mid 2006) decided to register, mainly because I wanted to create some articles, which at some point got reserved for the elect only. I have very broad interests, though New Zealand topics make up a lot of my work on here. I watchlist obsessively, but not indiscriminately. I'm also a strong inclusionist, and do admit that I sometimes chafe under the 'no original research' rule...
As an inclusionist, I believe that everything of verifiable notability should have a place on Wikipedia (even if it is notable only to a smaller subgroup). I consider 'content-pruning' (as opposed to pruning non-verifiable or commercial material) to be one of the more unpleasant experiences of Wikipedia. Even more so where done without at least some explanation.
Throwing rhetoric bombs like Fancruft!!! to me often is simply another way of saying "Your interests are lame and I laugh at the fact that you took all that time to write up your favorite book/game/movie series." This is not what Wikipedia should be about. Discuss weaknesses, in style, verifiability or content, but rein in your 'AfD'-instincts except for the very worst.
I must admit that I do not spend enough time involved in the Wikipedia community (though I try to attend all real-life meetings in my area), and that some of my work is 'drive-by' (though hopefully without the associated sloppiness). The reason for this is the fact that I already spend too much time on here, and would rather communicate live with people in the remaining time. Which is not to say that I won't happily communicate with YOU on my talk page or yours - but you won't find me often on message boards or forums...
As for Wikipedia/Wikimedia organization, this puts me at the disadvantage of not being involved enough to know of/vote on many things with good conscience and knowledge. I try to restrain my irritation with some of the limits and restrictions which the community, its founders or administrators, place upon it by the knowledge that communities need rules. But it isn't always easy to follow those you disagree with!
"Atheists have been accused of defining themselves only in negative, defensive terms. In fact, we define ourselves by absence - of belief (belief in God, and for most of us, all things "supernatural"). Our positive values are derived from philosophies like humanism, from common sense, and from a gut-level (instinctual as opposed to God-given) respect for life. And as these values are also held by many believers, we see no need to stake any kind of exclusive claim to them just to define ourselves."
- - From an unpublished 'letter to the editor' I wrote (2006)