User talk:SimpsonDG

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

After six years of editing on Wikipedia, I've decided to quit the project. I am no longer willing to make contributions to Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia was a nice project when it started, and I enjoyed working with other editors to contribute new material and improve what was already there. But things have changed drastically on Wikipedia in the last few years. The entire project has been taken over by bullies who seem to lack any common sense or interest in improving Wikipedia. Instead, their only goal is the ruthless enforcement of their interpretation of thousands of Wikipedia rules, regulations, and policies by deleting anything they deem non-compliant. This endless wiki-lawyering has created an openly hostile environment, and it has become almost impossible to contribute anything at all without having it immediately deleted, or to participate in a discussion without being threatened. Wikipedia has become "the encyclopedia that no one can edit".

I've been involved in quite a few projects in my life, both paid positions and unpaid volunteer projects. I can say, without hesitation, that Wikipedia is BY FAR the most hostile work environment I've ever been involved with. The Wikipedia "administrators" are the worst of the lot. Many of them seem to be only interested in acquiring power and authority within Wikipedia, and bullying other editors with threats to have them banned or blocked. Anytime you attempt to contribute to an article, your motives and credentials will be questioned, and your edits will be immediately deleted. If you complain about the instant deletions, these administrators will retaliate by searching your edit history and deleting your previous Wikipedia contributions one by one. I have personally gotten caught in some of this crossfire from time to time, and even had one administrator vandalize my user page. I recently caught another administrator rifling through my edit history for the sole purpose of looking for something he could threaten me with. It's no wonder that Wikipedia is hemorrhaging editors.

In addition, I've noticed a strong liberal/leftist political bias exists in Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to quote "reliable sources" in order to remain "neutral" -- but who decides what is a "reliable source"? The majority of administrators and regular editors seem to hold the view that liberal news outlets are "reliable", while conservative news outlets are "unreliable". This, of course, introduces a liberal political bias into Wikipedia. My attempts to point out this bias on talk pages have themselves been deleted.

Consequently, I've decided to quit Wikipedia and devote my energies elsewhere. Also, I've started a Wikipedia alternative called Nanopedia, where I'll be posting new encyclopedia-like articles from now on.

It's a shame it's come to this, but Wikipedia just isn't the same project that it once was. SimpsonDG (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(Update) See the "May 2022" discussion below. To test the current Wikipedia environment, I made ONE edit to ONE article on the 1980 miniseries "Shogun," where I mentioned that much of the reason for its high ratings was the TV writer's strike going on at the time, so it was the only new TV programming on the air. I didn't happen to provide a source; I just remembered that being the case. Because I didn't provide a source, my edit was immediately erased, I was accused of "continued distruptive editing", I was threatened with being blocked if I didn't stop, and I was sent threatening e-mails. I was then accused of supporting Vladimir Putin's Russian regime, supporting Communist China, supporting Kim Jong-un's totalitarian regime in North Korea, and thereby presumably I'm being accused of being a traitor against the United States (which carries the death penalty) -- and all for neglecting to "source" a 1980 TV writer's strike. Wow, that sure escalated quickly. It's pretty clear that the Wikipedia environment is as hostile and bullying as it ever was. No helpful comments or suggestions or discussions from editors or admins -- only threats and accusations and more threats. Wikipedia is still being run by bullies.

And it looks like I'm not the only one to notice the liberal bias in Wikipedia. [Shuichi, Tezuka (October 22, 2020). "The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia". Retrieved June 18, 2022.] SimpsonDG (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

---

You inspired me to follow suit in what you did!

I know you probably won't get this message for months, years or ever, but here is how my time on Wikipedia started out. I was a new user, making contributions and exploring this site as an editor around 2013 and upon trying to put maps within the infobox of a articles that are about ancient empire's, I needed to provide the best sources, which I did, however users were none of the less hostile to me.

Fut.Perf. or more accurately I like to call him Future Imperfect at Sundown and a few others were openly hostile to me! Especially on the paleontology articles which were meant to be my main focus on Wikipedia! Rather than trying to help me or work with me, they tried to shut me down as in the past and as with you, you know full well through their past that they have been VERY successful in a lot of cases!

Their bias is another factor that gets in the way of things! New contributions especially! Hence why I am retiring from Wikipedia indefinitely as well and on a side note, I've checked out you website! Not sure what happened to it, but it would be nice for that ship to sail rather than sink if you get what I mean!

So that is all that I have to say, had I come across you earlier when you were still active, you would have been the saving grace when it came to me starting out back in the day. Regards! Kirby (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's really a shame Wikipedia has come to this. It was a good concept, but has ultimately fallen victim to human nature, and peoples' desire for power and authority over others. English Wikipedia, at least, is now run by bullies. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(Update) Future Perfect at Sunrise is up to his old tricks again. (See his current talk page.) He is one nasty, rude, ill-mannered administrator, who seems to not know how to do anything but threaten people. He's one of the reasons I decided to leave Wikipedia. I'm going to keep an eye on him and give him a chance to clean up his act; if he continues, I'll report him for Administrator abuse. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

This guy should NOT be an admin, he treats everyone with total disrespect. If we ever get a chance to vote people out, he will be among my first choices. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. This guy is unbelivably rude, nasty, childish, and bullying. I don't think I've seen him do anything but make threats and call people names. He really should NOT be an admin. SimpsonDG (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Propose remedies

Since, you're the one who opened the ANI thread, you should actively participate in the discussion as well (which you have, but only to some extent). I think it's time your propose remedies if you really want something to be done. If you need any help with wording, feel free to ask anyone who commented at the thread. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 10:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like it was closed (a second time). I reopened it the last time so I won't contest again. If you're really willing to do this, DRAMACOM is the way. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 13:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I did propose a remedy (warning or temporary de-sysop) but all I received for reporting this admin abuse was personal attacks against me, as if I were the problem for reporting it. What I'm seeing is admins who ruthlessly attack regular editors for any infraction of WP policies, but who rush to defend each other against any reports of wrongdoing by one of their own. This smells of nothing but corruption at Wikipedia. It's a mystery to me why anybody would be interested in editing Wikipedia anymore. Frankly, at this point, you all can do whatever you want. I'm going to advise my college students to not use WP for any reason, and I'm going to stop using it myself. I'm done with Wikipedia. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I know exactly how you feel: sorry to see you leave. :( Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel your pain

I, too, know exactly where you're coming from regarding frustration and futility in trying to edit articles, going back well nigh nine years, right up to the present day. I've adapted a term John Lennon used, which I invoke to describe the kind of $#%#$%# editors and administrators you've had the misfortune to deal with: "Wikipeedles"! 2601:545:8202:4EA5:29E9:6C64:8DF:BCFD (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

May 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Shōgun (1980 miniseries), you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is why I almost NEVER try contributing anything to Wikipedia anymore. I make ONE contribution to one article to include some important information that had been omitted. I did not happen to include a "source" for the information. So within seconds, you erased everything I wrote and started making accusations against me of "continued disruptive editing." And rather than adding a source yourself, or making a helpful suggestion, you come here on my talk page and make threats, then make additional threats by sending me threatening e-mail. I was hoping the Wikipedia environment may have improved over the past few years, but it looks like it's only gotten worse. There seems to be more bullying than there ever was. Well, threatening to "block" someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia anymore is a pretty empty threat. And, because of your threats, I'm going to continue to advise my college students to NEVER use Wikipedia as a resource for any reason. SimpsonDG (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Seven years ago, you retired from Wikipedia. In May, you violated Wikipedia's policies at an article about a 1980 miniseries and responded by disparaging volunteers who are doing their very best to enforce the policies and guidelines that have made this a top ten website worldwide, except in places where governments censor it. Ponder that. When you attack Wikipedia, you are objectively allying yourself with Putin's Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, and the North Korean dictatorship. Three weeks later, you pop up at Talk: Ashley Biden to make comments that provide evidence of your profound misunderstanding of what reliable sources actually are on Wikipedia. Many conservative sources are rated reliable and many left or liberal sources are rated unreliable. How does that fit in with your predictable and mundane narrative? If you want to "retire" as you stated seven years ago, then please feel free to stop editing. If you want to revoke your retirement, then fine. Be productive and well informed. But please do not make profoundly uninformed comments. I worked for a company for ten years several decades ago, and finally get a pension from them now. I am retired. I do not go into their lobby after all these years and shout out my ill informed criticism of their management and shortcomings. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You're making my case for me, providing additional evidence of what is wrong with Wikipedia. My recent edit was to test the waters and see if Wikipedia has become any less hostile in recent years, to decide whether I want to return. It hasn't. It's gotten worse. Much worse. While attacking me, you fail to address any wrongdoing by FlightTime, who accuses me of "continued disruptive editing" for simply failing to provide a source for one recent edit. That's going WAY overboard and getting into bullying territory. Now YOU come on my talk page and accuse me of being a communist and a fascist and supporting Putin, PRC, and North Korean simply because I point out liberal bias in Wikipedia -- and yet you're the one doing all the name-calling and censoring by erasing my comments and edits. Rather than address any of the bias problems I pointed out, you choose to simply erase my comments and ignore the problem. You've given me further justification for continuing to tell my college students to avoid Wikipedia as a resource at all costs. Now go away and stop bothering me. SimpsonDG (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Reality has a well known liberal bias.
I would also add that Wikipedia is not the place for you to run your "tests". And, your editing is disruptive because it is all opinion and violates WP:NOR. Saxones288 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I shouldn't HAVE to test the waters of Wikipedia to find out whether WP:CIV has come to have any meaning in the last few years. Clearly it hasn't. That policy is widely ignored.

Also, you don't seem to understand what happened here. I made ONE edit to ONE Wikipedia article, where I added an important fact that had been omitted from the article. Not an opinion. A FACT. And it wasn't even controversial -- I just pointed out an actor's strike that was going on at the time. I didn't happen to include a source -- and for that I was accused by FlightTIme of "continued disruptive editing." No helpful suggestions. No asking me to please provide a source. All I got from him was accusations and threats. I later restored my original edit, and DID include a source. Then Cullen328 came along, and must have spent hours and hours carefully pouring over my edit history, looking for anything he could threaten me with. Apparently he has a HUGE problem with me coming briefly out of retirement for a few minutes after several years to make a single edit. He then went on to accuse me of allying myself with Putin's Russia, communist China, and Kim Jung-un's North Korea. So there you have it. I make a SINGLE simple edit to the Wikipedia article on a TV show from 1980, and within a few days I'm accused of being a traitor to the United States and supporting multiple totalitarian regimes -- a crime which carries the death penalty. In short, Callen328 believes I should be put to death for even mentioning liberal bias in Wikipedia. Now you tell me -- what happened to all this "civility" in Wikipedia?

I see you've re-deleted my contribution to the Shogun article. You didn't even read the source I provided, did you? Well, it's not important enough for me to fight over it. If it's so important to you that you're going to have a temper tantrum, then I'll just leave the omission in place, and consider it yet another error in Wikipedia. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments in this section. I will be printing this out and distributing it to all my college students to show them WHY I will not be allowing Wikipedia to be used for any reason in any of my classes. Your comments have been very helpful in making my case. In short, it's strongly politically biased to the left, it's FULL of errors, and it's being run entirely by bullies like the three of you (FlightTime, Callen328, and Saxones288). With your recent behavior, you've shown yourselves to be very poor ambassadors for Wikipedia.

I'd hoped that maybe the editing environment at Wikipedia would have improved and become more civil over the years, but I can see it's going in the opposite direction -- becoming increasingly hostile and incivil, with editors and admins doing nothing but making threats and unfounded accusations and reverting edits as a show of their power to bully others into submission. I don't plan to return to Wikipedia. Based on your recent actions, I consider it to be a failed project. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)