The biggest problems with Wikipedia Policies?

[WikiWikiWow]

Ironically, the NOTBURO section at WP:NOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ureaucracy

[Archer]

AGF is there to prevent new users from deleting unsourced claims put in by seasoned editors. It never applies to content added by new users. So what if a 10year editor added some OR or misquoted a source? You should leave it alone, per AGF, until such a time the experienced editor wants to fix it.

There's many discussion-terminating policies and essays that wikieditors love to quote: BLUDGEON, DROPTHESTICK, 1AM, IDHT, RGW, etc. It might look like they're linking to them to be helpful, but all it is is a warning for the editor and a signal to the other Wikibullies, they swarm on it likes flies on shit.

The very existence of hundreds of policies and not-policies (essays) makes it hard for anyone new to Wikipedia to contribute. They have BITE, but again, that is a policy to prevent new users from being uncivil to other new users, or another reason to block/ban an inconvenient editor, the policy does not apply to Admins or established wikipedia editors.

The CIVIL policy is laughable, too. It's all about what you say, not what you do. So Admins and other wikiexperts can engage in a slew of behaviors that would rightfully anger anyone, while pretending to be "civil".

What about ASPERSIONS, eh? Another policy to protect Admins and wikipedians with a lot of social capital. They can link the policies as a response, they can accuse new editors of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, they can take anyone they want to ANI/AN/ArbCom without any fear of BOOMERANG.

BOOMERANG, a policy that makes new editors think twice before accusing an Admin or established editor of improper behavior. Of course, BOOMERANG never applies to Admins or wiki-insiders, they are free to cast aspersions at whomever they wish.

So I've noticed. These points are a start, but they're about as useful as a box of ammo without a gun unless you take them to a logical conclusion - one other than wikipedia editors are assholes. They are, of course, but it's a very common condition anywhere you go and not a crime in and of itself. Rather too convenient for shameless reprobates who don't care one bit whether you think they're assholes or not.

[ericbarbour]

Ironically, the NOTBURO section at WP:NOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ureaucracy

62k bytes of COMPLETE BULLSHIT. This is all lies. It has always been lies, going back to 2001, when that stupid thing was created--by a sockpuppet that disappeared 3 days later.

Wikipedia is whatever the abusive insiders want it to be----period.

I could go right down the list of major "declarations" and show current examples of their falsity. Pointless though, because no insider will take any action to fix them, and no insider will admit they even have problems.