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This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.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, May 2022. To test the current Wikipedia environment, I briefly came out of retirement to make 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 actor'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. Incredibly, 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 was being accused of being a traitor to the United States (a capital crime) -- and all for neglecting to "source" a 1980 TV actor's strike. Wow, that sure escalated quickly. It's pretty clear that the Wikipedia environment is now more hostile and bullying than it ever was. No requests to add sourcing. 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.

Now, if my workplace were run like this, we wouldn't have any employees. Everyone would quit. At the very least, it would be impossible to attract the best talent. Likewise, by perpetuating this hostile, bullying environment, Wikipedia is driving away the best people who could be providing the best quality content to the project. Someone may come in -- maybe a world-class expert in their particular field -- write an outstanding article on their topic of expertise, only to have it immediately deleted. And the deletion will inevitably be accompanied by threats: "I'll have you blocked!!" "I'll have you banned!!" "You violated WP:ZWR and WP:GGX and WP:RRVZ!!" and so on. The would-be author, having been threatened and having no idea what these arcane abbreviations mean, leaves Wikipedia, never to return. I've personally seen this happen. If this continues, the quality of Wikipedia articles will quickly plummet.

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)