Aloha. I've been registered since January 2004, although I made a number of anonymous edits going back to months earlier. Three-and-a-half years is probably long enough.

My motivation for editing has been sapped of late by the increasing activities of fanatical individuals, who are doggedly determined to insert their particular point-of-view into articles. Among the great faults of Wikipedia is its open-arm acceptance of those who are primarily self-interested in promoting their personal ideology, philosophy, resentment or prejudice. There are a limited number of those who write clearly, edit well and know how to differentiate between biased and neutral language -- while there are unlimited hoards of off-kilter bad writers, with apparently boundless time and enthusiasm to wear down even the most resolute of editors. Just as rational discussions are fruitless with unreasonable participants, the entropic effect of poor edits can not be fended off indefinitely. I would argue that for many articles, time and additional eyes has not improved their quality; and in many cases, the more recent are no better-- or even worse-- than those of past.

Take for example, one of the first articles I edited, Robot. Here is how the lede sentences stood on May 4, 2005:

In practical usage, a robot is a mechanical device which performs automated tasks, either according to direct human supervision, a pre-defined program or, a set of general guidelines, using artificial intelligence techniques. These tasks either replace or enhance human work, such as in manufacturing, construction or manipulation of heavy or hazardous materials.

A year later, on May 14, 2006, it read:

A robot is a mechanical device that can perform preprogrammed physical tasks. A robot may act under the direct control of a human (eg. the robotic arm of the space shuttle) or autonomously under the control of a pre-programmed computer. Robots may be used to perform tasks that are too dangerous or difficult for humans to implement directly (e.g. the space shuttle arm) or may be used to automate repetitive tasks that can be performed more cheaply by a robot than by the employment of a human (e.g. automobile production).

Today, with another year of edits, it starts with:

A robot is a mechanical or virtual, artificial agent. A robot is usually an electro-mechanical system, which, by its appearance or movements, conveys a sense that it has intent or agency of its own.

Which of those is better? The latest version of the article has some virtues, but for the most part, its writing is inferior to the incarnation of two years ago. Like a chili recipe that becomes unpalatable as countless cooks keep adding ingredients to their own preferences, Wikipedia is doomed to a constant struggle of tastes -- and mischief.

As for myself, I've grown weary of trying to "fix" the various problems, unintentional or not, which seem to be growing, lockstep with the expansion of Wikipedia content.

So for now; I'm off.

The quick stats This user has been a Wikipedian since October 2003. This user runs macOS. This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. vn-6 This user page has been vandalized 6 times. Warning to Vandals: This user is equipped with Lupin's Anti-vandal tool. 5,000+ This user has made more than 5,000 contributions to Wikipedia. en This user is a native speaker of the English language. ru-3 Этот участник свободно владеет русским языком. he-1 משתמש זה יכול לתרום ברמה בסיסית של עברית.‏ de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.

What I believe...

I believe the task of a general encyclopedia is to be useful to the widest range of people, not merely technical specialists or detail-oriented fans. While I previously described myself as a subscriber to the Wikipedia philosophy of "Deletionism", I would term myself an adherent to "Significantism"-- which I consider to be a more accurate reflection of "notability", and a preferable term to "importance". My belief is that articles should demonstrate the significance of their subject matter. In regards to articles and additions of extremely limited significance, only by weeding can Wikipedia flourish into a true garden of knowledge (to extend a clichéd metaphor.) That's not to say that obscure topics do not deserve a place here, so long as their contents are neutral, verifiable and free of original research.

I've contributed to a wide range of articles-- from science and religion, to culture, history and entertainment-- although I prefer to keep watch over a few specific ones of interest, to ensure their quality remains stable, and to reverse Wiki-entropy. In particular, I have been a long-time editor of the constellation of Lost (TV series) articles, including (re)writing nearly every section of the main article, as well as many of the ancillary pages. I walked it through two peer reviews, and was responsible for seeing Lost receive Today's Featured Article for October 3.

Some other pages I've had a major hand in developing/revising (but didn't start):

And some of the random articles I started, mostly dealing with entertainment or music: