This editor has been awarded the Citation Barnstar
This editor has been awarded The Working Man's Barnstar
This editor has been awarded the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This editor has been awarded the Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Nowhere near as active as I used to be – mostly due to being busy doing other things, but also because Wikipedia as a community has proven itself absolutely incapable of:
dealing with editors (including administrators!!) who persistently violate WP:CIVIL despite repeated blocks
identifying and dealing with editors (especially administrators!!) who persistently WP:GAME the system to suit their philosophical ideology
identifying and dealing with editors who are WP:NOTHERE; examples include:
those who WP:PLAYPOLICY to pursue personal goals/crusades, largely to the detriment of the encyclopedia
those who WP:BATTLEGROUND, sometimes due to an inability to accept the outcome(s) of community discussion(s) they disagree with; subsequent behaviours often involve various levels of incivility, stonewalling, gaslighting, brigading and attempts to relitigate recently closed discussions at every opportunity
WP:MOS warriors who WP:PLAYPOLICY in their quest to enforce their own preferences, disregarding guidelines such as MOS:VAR and ignoring common sense
likely paid accounts or farms that often participate benignly for the most part, at least initially and often at AFD, before defending questionable articles en-masse or switching focus to push a particular POV in a controversial topic area
understanding and following it's own policies/guidelines (particularly WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:C); allowing small groups of editors to consistently violate or abuse these fundamentals harms the project immeasurably
differentiating between speculation, opinions and facts, often in violation of WP:NPOV/WP:CRYSTAL (N.B. opinion pieces are only reliable sources of the authors opinion; one person's truth ≠ fact)
applying WP:NOTDEM/WP:VOTE consistently, especially in areas such as WP:XFD, where groups of editors often sway outcomes by weight of numbers and WP:GAMING tactics (including by administrators!!) despite their non-policy/guideline based WP:ATA !votes; closers who correctly weight the arguments routinely get accused of WP:SUPERVOTING
producing coherent subject notability guidelines; as with most areas, groups of editors who share a narrow interest produce distorted results, such as criteria that justify articles with zero chance of ever having any WP:GNG-level sourcing and facilitate bot-like mass-creation of worthless micro-stubs (essentially nothing more than database entries) and synthesis from bare statistics; attempts to improve guidelines are generally countered by various WP:GAMING tactics (including by administrators!!)
It is startling how many administrators (often those from the early days) have failed to adjust to changed consensus in this area, and still argue to keep everything that barely scrapes over very low bar criterion but has almost no substantive sourcing; or worse, fail to weight !votes correctly when closing discussions as a result of their intransigence
addressing any of its fundamental problems
All of which (at times) makes it a rather unpleasant and frustrating experience.
