Oftentimes I've felt like writing down what I consider to be the biggest problems at Wikipedia based on my experience. Writing a full essay would probably be a waste of time, so I'm just going to list issues that happen to cross my mind in this section, without going into specific details to avoid being polemic.
- WP:BLP is being used as a trump-card in contentious areas in an inconsistent and biased way. Exactly what the essay WP:CRYBLP is about. We've seen topic ban violations, breaking the 3RR etc. with the justification of BLP. Usually this is done by more experienced editors who "guard" the articles yet edit-war at times, or who have been sanctioned before, and have to use it as a Get Out of Jail Free card. But when we're talking about biographies, is there something that couldn't be claimed to be a BLP issue? Usually people don't edit war about petty details, so anything being discussed in a biography can be considered contentious.
- WP:ANI has devolved into an angry mob yelling "indef block" or "boomerang" to every case. Why show restraint, why be fair, if that's not what ANI is about? Better to get rid of users who we disagree with. Just recently there was a thread there where expletives and requests to revoke all editing privileges were aimed at an user for a complete misunderstanding. Obviously no one apologized afterwards. And at minimum, c. 10 ANI regulars will decide what the "community consensus" is. Think about it. WP:AE's format works better, although the problem there is that only a handful of admins participate there. If there is a contentious case, a few close admins can sway the report to whatever direction they want. On the contrary, I've been impressed by how the ArbCom cases have been handled. They've been mostly fair and thorough, something very different from how the cases were first processed at ANI or AE.
- Being nice to someone in Wikipedia is not beneficial. If you are nice and don't edit war, your edits won't be left in place if contested. You have to be arrogant, and don't even try to compromise at first. In the worst cases, it seems like some users are trying to be as nasty as possible to someone so that they'd retire. That would be a great win for the instigating user, wouldn't it? Relatedly, there has been a worrying trend of normalization of even egregious personal attacks. If you are an admin or you have plenty of important friends (WP:CABAL!), you will be defended at the dramaboards, no matter what. People will claim black is white, if needed, or the concerns will be swept under the carpet with a premature close.
- There has been a very strong political polarization after the election of Trump in 2016. I've been registered since 2006, and for sure, in the past there was hostility between nationalist groups for instance (see also: WP:ARBEE), but this is something really different. Battleground attitude has become the new normal. Good faith won't be extended to new users who don't share the right point-of-view and they will be wikilawyered and sanctioned out. Even in-def blocks will be handed out without any previous warnings fairly easily these days, citing WP:NOTHERE. It's quite Draconian at times. Certain admins will always show up at the boards if an user from the "wrong-side" is being reported.
Nevertheless, I'm not part of the WP:HTD crowd and still have faith in the project. It is amusing though, that none of these problems exist in the Finnish Wikipedia. There people who have strongly different views in politics for example can still edit in a collegiate atmosphere. I guess editors at the English Wikipedia just yield too much power because English-language articles have a multitude more Google hits and its influence is seen in several countries.