User talk:Wopr

Shall we play a game? --Cat out 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on free software categorization of POV-Ray

Since you previously commented on the categorization of POV-Ray, can you please comment in Talk:POV-Ray#Free_software_categorization_straw_poll Karnesky 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for gender and post-1932 US politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Izno (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Wopr (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder on the post-1932 US politics notice above. starship .paint (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is controlled by an anonymous unelected mob of biased people who are not accountable for their political biases and whatever discrimination and sanctions they impose onto editors who present criticism about their own bias, or try to bring some neutrality into politically charged articles. Wikipedia has no public central authority that's accountable and could be held responsible for bias and discriminatory conduct for political reasons. Wikipedia time and again shows heavy political bias towards one side when it comes to politically charged articles, which are pretty much nothing more than hit pieces and propaganda thinly masqueraded as "encyclopedic articles", and since all administrators seem to be biased towards this side, there is literally zero hope of getting any sort of actual neutrality into these articles. Any edits removing bias get reverted in seconds. Any discussion about this bias is always quickly shut down with all sorts of excuses (like "this is not a forum"). Essentially, Wikipedia is run by an anonymous mob of heavily politically biased self-appointed tyrants. Do you honestly believe I give a flying f about those "arbitration committee" rulings? You can remind me about them all you want, it makes absolutely no difference. When I wrote "you must be joking" above, I really meant it. Wikipedia is a joke. (A rather dangerous joke, given how seriously it is taken by so many people.) Wopr (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wopr, I don't think you care about the arbitration committee. I do believe you that you think this all a joke. It was just a reminder, you are free to ignore it, or remove the notices - but make sure you read them carefully first. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say. That's all I will say. starship .paint (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wopr is spot on here. Wikipedia has a strong liberal political bias, and nowhere is it more obvious than in the Donald Trump article -- and in the threats shown above. If you dare to point out the obvious liberal bias, you get threats. This is why I don't allow my college students to use Wikipedia for any reason. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice

Greetings Wopr. After seeing your posts at Talk:Donald Trump, I came here to encourage you not to be discouraged with Wikipedia. There's a certain way this place is maintained, and it usually produces pretty good results in the long run. Obviously, the case of Donald Trump is both current and controversial, which makes things more complicated. If you look at Donald Trump in music, you'll see how rappers were rather friendly or admirative of him in the 1990s and 2000s, and suddenly turned fully negative when Trump announced his candidacy (well, first they mocked him as not standing a chance, then they called him a racist who should get killed). It seems to me that a similar phenomenon has been going on in the media, so that Wikipedia currently reflects that. Things may change as Trump gets evaluated as "just another president" some day. If people like you only come here to criticize the current coverage and slam the door against the WP:CABAL, our articles will indeed remain biased longer than they should. Please try to contribute. — JFG ^talk 07:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To better grasp where I'm coming from, and how you can help without getting shut down, perhaps you should read this recent analysis of behind-the-scenes editor discussions, in which I was interviewed along with several other "regulars": Donald Trump’s Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone — JFG ^talk 07:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why Trump has a false statements section

Because the reliable sources have highlighted how groundbreaking his lies are. If reliable sources said the same about Hilary Clinton and AOC, we would have the same sections in their articles. starship .paint (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic source 1: We expect politicians to stretch the truth. But Trump is a whole different animal. He lies as a policy.
Academic source 2: Trump is not the first president to be at odds with the press, but the amount of lies he delivers and his aggressive attacks on and constant undermining of the legitimacy of the media, is unprecedented
Academic source 3: It has long been a truism that politicians lie, but with the entry of Donald Trump into the US political domain, the frequency, degree, and impact of lying in politics are now unprecedented starship .paint (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. If "reliable sources" said the same thing about Hilary Clinton or AOC, there would be no such sections in their articles, because Hilary and AOC are liberal, and Wikipedia has a heavy liberal bias. Wopr is correct -- the Donald Trump article is a political hit piece, whose authors have cherry-picked their "reliable sources" to support their biases. SimpsonDG (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a serious accusation without basis in fact. Keep in mind that articles are edited by editors of all persuasions, and they must all use RS. Your complaints should be directed at RS, and thus realize that you are preventing your students from learning from RS. Trump is not the same as others. You should realize that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump is not the same as others." You just made my point for me. The liberal bias in Wikipedia, such as you've just displayed, is precisely why I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia for any reason, and I advise them not to rely on it for anything in the future. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

That statement isn't the least bit controversial. Trump does all he can to not be like others. Any Trump supporter knows this, and it's why they love him. To deny it is to insult him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your controversy is with the RS, not editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpsonDG: - "Trump is not the same as others." You just made my point for me. - that's not bias, that's the sources talking: I just provided three academic sources making that point. If "reliable sources" said the same thing about Hilary Clinton or AOC, there would be no such sections in their articles, because Hilary and AOC are liberal, and Wikipedia has a heavy liberal bias. - oblige me, provide me three academic sources saying the same thing on any such person, and I will push to edit it in. starship .paint (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@starship.paint. Bull. I'm not about to waste my time doing research to find "three academic sources," which you would no doubt reject in any case. You know as well as I do what would happen if I were to add a "list of lies" to the AOC or Hilary articles, no matter how many reliable sources I had to back it up. My edits would be reverted within seconds, and a team of admins would immediately pig-pile on me with more bans and blocks than I could count. I would get every kind of threat imaginable short of death threats. The point here, of course, is that Wikipedia pretends to have a neutral point of view by insisting on the use of "reliable sources" -- yet what sources are considered "reliable" is completely subjective and subject to the very liberal bias that Wopr and I are pointing out. SimpsonDG (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpsonDG: - perhaps you should be taking a more open-minded and collaborative approach. I'm also okay with reliable sources from the media quoting academics.

WaPo: [1] quotes Michael R. Beschloss: "When before have we seen a president so indifferent to the distinction between truth and falsehood, or so eager to blur that distinction?"
LA Times: [2] quotes George C. Edwards III: "White House scholars and other students of government agree there has never been a president like Donald Trump, whose volume of falsehoods, misstatements and serial exaggerations — on matters large and wincingly small — place him 'in a class by himself"
Toronto Star: [3] quotes Douglas Brinkley: We've had presidents that have lied or misled the country, but we've never had a serial liar before. And that's what we're dealing with here

So what you have to do, is find reliable sources that describe someone as an exceptional liar. Either that, or find sources stating something is an exceptional lie. Then we can talk about how to include it in the article. By the way, have you heard of false equivalence? starship .paint (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@starship.paint Again, you're making my point for me. All three sources you've listed are well known to have a strong liberal bias. Quoting three far-left liberal media outlets to support your position is not a "neutral point of view." This is nothing but liberal political opinion masquerading as "scholarship." SimpsonDG (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SimpsonDG: (1) Even if the sources are biased, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources: biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. ... Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. and (2) Read them again, it wasn't the biased source proclaiming it to be so. It was the source quoting an academic. (3) I already brought out 3 pieces of scholarship at the start of the discussion. starship .paint (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a scientist. I understand what it means to really know something. All you've done here with your "three academic sources" is to find three people who agree with your opinion. That doesn't make your statements neutral, or unbiased, or "reliable", or correct. All you've done is to fool yourself into believing you're doing some sort of "academic scholarship" that ultimately leads to unbiased results. You've done nothing of the kind, and I'm not fooled for a minute. SimpsonDG (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual DS alert refresh: GG

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

―Mandruss ☎ 10:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual DS alert refresh: AP2 (retry)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

―Mandruss ☎ 10:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are badges of honor for me. Every single one of them is a testament to the political bias and totalitarian ideology that's behind it. I will keep fighting against political bias in Wikipedia, and I will keep protesting biased articles whenever I see them, by suggesting changes towards neutrality in them. I am not going to toe the party line. These ridiculous warnings are not going to make me stop, so you might just as well ban me right now. Wopr (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Incel

If you abuse talkpages again as a forum for screeds on people you don't like or view as political opponents, you will face discretionary sanctions or a plain old block for disruptive editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go right ahead and sanction all you like. Wikipedia editors do not like their political biases and racism being pointed out. If I'm blocked for pointing out your hypocrisy, then so be it. I will not toe the party line. That incel page is a complete disgrace, way too long for such a topic, full of irrelevant minutia and racist and sexist accusations, and nothing but a tool and resource for political activism. It doesn't have a shred of encyclopedic integrity to it. Wopr (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wopr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Not here to build an encyclopedia"... How utterly, utterly ironic. My intent is to fight against political bias in Wikipedia and make it more encyclopedic instead of a tool and resource for political activism. And because of that, I get blocked because I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia". The irony meter is off the charts here. I have never disrupted an actual article, I have never changed or reverted anybody's edits without first starting a discussion about why something should be changed, I have never vandalized any article, nor is my intent to start doing it at any point, I have never participated in any kind of edit war. The only places I have ever discussed the political bias issues is in the talk pages of articles, and the Wikipedia policy discussion page. I have never vandalized anybody's responses to me. Even though I have never done any of this, nor broken any rules, I get my opinions removed from my personal user page, and I get blocked from editing. I am not allowed to have these opinions even on my own user page. So I have to ask: Why is this topic not allowed to be discussed in Wikipedia? Every single time it's discussed, it gets blocked within minutes. Anybody who wants to remove political bias from Wikipedia gets sanctioned, blocked, and his opinions removed. What possible reason could you have to block and censor such opinions, even from someone's personal user page? What is so objectionable about my user page that it had to be removed? Wopr (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

~~You are blocked by community consensus.~~ This is based in part, but not entirely, on violations of WP:SOAPBOX based on your user page. I examined your user page as it existed before it was deleted and it's unambiguously an abuse of WP:SOAPBOX. As such, I see no grounds for attempting to overturn the consensus of the Wikipedia community which lead to your block. I also believe it likely you have previously edited Wikipedia under a different account, thus would likely be violating WP:SOCK. However, this did not factor in to my decline of your request. Yamla (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) You've been here since 2006. In those 13 years, you have a total of 85 edits, including 6 deleted. Of those edits, 3 have been to mainspace. The rest of the time you spend arguing and posting screeds. Wikipedia is not a platform for your agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline July 10, 2019

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wopr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never used another account to edit Wikipedia, and I find that accusation offensive. I have never tried to circumvent anything or hide my actions. As for the soapbox policy, it quite clearly and directly states: "Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages", and that's exactly what I used it for. If you disagree with that, please explain what exactly is "disruptive" about it. The rules of Wikipedia explicitly allow me to have an opinion about Wikipedia's policies on my user page. It doesn't matter how many edits I may or may not have made. You are breaching your own rules because you don't like my opinions. Wopr (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Link to relevant though brief ANI report Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least provide me the contents of my original user page, in some manner? I naively did not make any backups of my text there, and apparently deleting a page makes it completely impossible to see what was originally there (or at least I cannot find any way). It is not cached in wayback machine either. Wopr (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can email this to you, if you enable email on your preferences page. This can be tricky; happy to point you to the right place if you can't figure out where to enable this. Note this does not give me access to your email address; that remains private. --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I set up my email address. Wopr (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have still not receiving anything in my email. Wopr (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check now! --Yamla (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got it now. By the way, I never got a satisfactory answer to why my user page was removed, even though, as noted earlier, Wikipedia rules explicitly allow for such expressions of opinion in user pages. I also notice that a similar text of mine in this page has been quietly removed. It almost makes me tempted to think that it has been censored because it's true. All of it. Wopr (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. WP:SOAPBOX. Your claim is that the content of your user page was not disruptive (and therefore allowed). That was not my opinion, nor the opinion of the blocking admin who deleted the content. You are, of course, free to disagree. Note, though, that you maintain access to this talk page solely so you can request an unblock. Continuing to argue whether or not your user page was disruptive would be inappropriate except solely within the limited constraints of an unblock request. WP:GAB can help you understand how to craft a reasonable unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So one single admin gets to remove people's user pages and ban them. One singular anonymous unaccountable person with such an amount of power. How exquisitely tyrannical and dictatorial. Which is, of course, par for the course assuming that everything I wrote about political bias in Wikipedia is true. And I have absolutely no reason to think it's not. I think it's amply clear that there's no chance in hell I'm going to ever get unblocked, so why even bother? You might just as well block me completely, because it's not going to make any difference. Wopr (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Talk page access revoked. That still leaves WP:UTRS if you later change your mind. --Yamla (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a mistake

In my decline of your unblock request, I falsely claimed a community consensus to your block. As pointed out to me by Bbb23, this is incorrect. Your actions were raised at WP:ANI but your block was just a regular admin block. There's no community consensus. While I still would have declined your unblock request had I realised this, I want to be clear that you are not under a community sanction. --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #66217

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #66461

is closed. I did warn them. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]