I'm a little bit underwhelmed, I thought that based off the fact so many people seem to make using this distro their personality I expected... well, more I guess?
Once the basic stuff is set-up, like wifi, a few basic packages, a desktop environment/window manager, and a bit of desktop environment and terminal customisation, then that's it. Nothing special, just a Linux distribution with less default programs and occasionally having to look up how to install a hardware driver or something if you need to use bluetooth for the first time or something like that.
Am I missing something? How can I make using Arch Linux my personality when once it's set up it's just like any other computer?
What exactly is it that people obsess over? The desktop environment and terminal customisation? Setting up NetworkManager with nmcli? Using Vim to edit a .conf file?
I'm gonna comment and say that's the point.
You start out with bare minimum and install what you need. As you go you generally have an idea of what is and isn't on your system. It's not as annoying as Gentoo with all source compiling, not as anal as nix.
If something breaks, you go to ArchLinux.org and 95% of the time it's mentioned on the front page so you follow the instructions and move on. It's a very transparent distro, little drama to follow unlike Ubuntu/canonical or fedora/redhat.
It used to be harder to install and which gave some street cred, but they simplified it a bit which is nice.
The Stans give an unbalanced look at arch. I use arch because I want the latest packages, I don't want to segment my packages between my repos and tarballs when there's a game stopping missing feature on a package pinned to a 2yo version. I don't want to learn a whole scripting language to carefully craft my OS like nix either. I want a current OS that's easy to fix and easy to install packages so I can go back to what I was doing.