Long-time reader, inactive contributor.

The Wikipedia project has existed for so long that its policies, guidelines, and enforcement have unintentionally worked as a sort of 'selective pressure' to retain not so much the best and most dedicated editors, but instead to retain a number of sophisticated and unsophisticated bullies and bad-faith actors. They have learned to operate within the bounds of a bureaucratic system which is incapable of beginning to tackle the issue, and has decided the best response to this dynamic is not only to ignore it, but to actively defend the situation as it exists.

A major assertion I have is that senior editors have learned how to game the system insofar as navigating articles to a state that suits their own biases, and then will undermine any and all attempts to build consensus to change the the state of the article. This is a fairly obvious manner of gaming the system, a phrase which is specifically called out and several examples given in a number of WP policy pages, but senior editors – and even administrators – are uninterested and/or unwilling to investigate such cases when brought to their attention. On the contrary, they are immediately defensive of such an accusation. This could be because they recognize the problem is endemic and has no ready solution, and believe by ignoring it the general public will remain unaware of it. On the contrary, the general public is very well aware of this dynamic and I will use this userpage to document examples par excellence as such.

Examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1231311811#User:Pincrete's_bad_faith_contribution_to_Move_request_discussion. A long time editor with almost 50,000 edits at time of this WP:ANI feigns neutrality or disinterest on what the title of a contentious Wikipedia article should be. The editor has regularly objected to any and all move requests for over a decade, and when asked to elaborate on their rationale, has always, balked and prefers a circular argument that a "consensus has been formed", to any evidence-based conversation. While the editor claims their opinion is informed by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, they never elaborate on how the policies they cite actually support their view, and prefers to argue about WP:ONUS rather than ever answer any direct questions.

The ANI was dismissed by editors with no clear rationale. Most editors dismiss it as 'too long', make false equivalencies about the expectations of behavior and policy familiarity of an editor with 50,000 edits as opposed to one with about 150, and do not take it upon themselves to have any initiative to investigate. The ANI is closed less than 24 hours after it is opened.