User talk:CousinZoidfarb

A monument to how No_good_deed_goes_unpunished on Wikipedia
First, start slowly, like using WikiLoop_DoubleCheck to help control vandalism.

When possible, follow in the footsteps of an admin, like when they've reverted an edit made by an IP user.

Then, when the same change appears for you on WikiLoop_DoubleCheck multiple times by the same IP user, respectfully give your reasons and link to the relevant policy, like that the source meets the criteria for WP:Reliable_sources. Research the WP:Dispute_resolution process and ask the IP user follow it.

When the IP user starts vandalizing the source in question, telling you to "Fuck off nazi" in their edit summaries, and reporting you for "Nazi vandalism", seek out help when the prescribed process of using the article's talk page doesn't fit. When told by community support you might be violating the Edit_warring, stop reverting the edits.

Then discover that the admin whose footsteps you were following has agreed you are a Nazi vandal and blocked your account for the same "unreliable sources" that they themselves added, without any warning or explanation. When seeking explanation from another admin, calmly point to examples where their position on project wikis as a source are inconsistent, such as open source projects like Open Source Ecology. Watch as the admin removes useful content and its source to stay consistent with their decision, but make excuses for the rest of Wikipedia having many such examples and no system looking to correct such a common error.

See how your unblock request is denied for violating the Edit_warring, even though that's not why you were blocked. See how the IP user was not blocked at all despite reverting more times and against the decision of an admin. See how "Claiming 'My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is not a valid defense" for violating the rule.

Receive no sympathy as you repeat your unblock request with further explanation. Be told "This does not convince me you understand WP:RS" even though WP:Blocking_policy says "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these."

Receive no sympathy as you repeat your request once again, have your grievances ignored, and see a long-standing editor prioritize telling you that your desire to follow the closest options for account deletion are out of reach because, "Blocked editors can't do that." See another long-standing editor say, "If you create all this drama over a 31-hour block, I agree that maybe you'd be better off doing something else, because it could only get worse in the future" without actually disputing your version of events.

Why, you might ask? My only guess is that the source in dispute violates some sort of unwritten "guilt by association" rule, where anyone who even inadvertently and indirectly shows any kind of ignorance or neutrality towards a community where distasteful behavior is permitted is, themselves, distasteful and unwelcome on Wikipedia. If so, then somehow even the admin whose footsteps I followed and the IP user's own ignorance of this association were not sufficient to offer me an alibi in this scenario. It would then be that the editor who cried Nazi quick enough, with even the most tenuous evidence, be promptly rewarded with both their opponent's punishment and their own immunity (besides of course a warning that crying Nazi isn't technically permitted).

The rest of this page should help you confirm this series of events as I describe, minus the conversation with the community on Discord, though maybe that's logged somewhere too.

Welcome!
Hello, CousinZoidfarb, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Fandom wikis
Hello, please read wp:rs. User generated content, like a fandom wiki, is not considered a reliable source and can't be used. I've re removed the fandom source you've added. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See the "Context matters" section and the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves". The source is not a fandom source, it is the official project page of the creators, whom have their own Wikipedia entry separately. Also note that you are removing not just the source, but the content, on a page and section with numerous unsourced items.
 * https://2b2t.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/70840 The context is its a public wiki anyone can edit. Click the link. Read what the wiki says. It says it isn't a reliable source. You can edit that out if you wish. That's why it can't be used. Please stop adding spam to Wikipedia. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, "Context matters". The page (without vandalism) can be archived. Even if the source is deemed improper, there are numerous other unsourced items on that page in that section. It's not spam and I didn't add it, I disagree with your assessment. CousinZoidfarb (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Go try to get a new consensus. Public wiki are not allowed. This is definitely not a reliable source on lost continent theories. It's just plain old spam. Policy is this isn't allowed. Stop edit warring in an attempt to add spam to Wikipedia. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked that wiki further. It's all swastikas and 4chan. Are you sure you want to pursue this as a source? No nazis are allowed. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nazi vandalism
Hello, I'm 166.205.97.131. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, please stop adding fan content about the "most toxic server in the world" from a fan wiki that proudly sports a swastika on its front page. This is not a reliable source, even if you believe it's "official" 166.205.97.131 (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

How is this a justification under WP:Blocking policy? I was following in the footsteps of an admin. Even if I and them were wrong, I made no effort to defy any admin decision. And if I don't understand, why did I not receive a preliminary warning and education? Aren't I even allowed to disagree with your interpretation of the policy if I don't damage or disrupt Wikipedia?

Blocked editors can't do that. "Courtesy vanishing " and "clean start" don't apply to you. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been told it was a temporary block. I don't want a "clean start". I don't want to contribute any more. Maybe I should actually leave this as an example to others of how bad contributing to Wikipedia is regardless