User talk:Dizasteras

Second unblock request: wrap inappropriate use of cu needed tag

← Previous revision Revision as of 04:59, 26 April 2026 Line 71: Line 71: '''The blocking admin's own revert summary admits the uncertainty.''' {{u|Toadspike}} reverted my edits with the summary "revert sock edits – whoever you are." The phrase "whoever you are" is a literal admission that the blocking administrator did not know who I was at the moment of imposing an indefinite block. An indefinite block under [[WP:DUCK]] (which is an '''essay''', not a policy and not a guideline) is a heavy outcome to hang on that. '''The blocking admin's own revert summary admits the uncertainty.''' {{u|Toadspike}} reverted my edits with the summary "revert sock edits – whoever you are." The phrase "whoever you are" is a literal admission that the blocking administrator did not know who I was at the moment of imposing an indefinite block. An indefinite block under [[WP:DUCK]] (which is an '''essay''', not a policy and not a guideline) is a heavy outcome to hang on that.

'''No CheckUser was ever run.''' The block was imposed by non-CheckUser administrator on the basis of behavioural inference alone, without the technical step that exists precisely for cases like this. {{checkuser needed}} '''No CheckUser was ever run.''' The block was imposed by non-CheckUser administrator on the basis of behavioural inference alone, without the technical step that exists precisely for cases like this. {{tl|checkuser needed}}

'''On the administrator conduct that produced this block:''' the blocking administrator (a) reverted my edits while explicitly stating they did not know who I was, (b) imposed an indefinite block without running CheckUser despite the tool existing for exactly this situation, (c) deleted three articles under G5 without examining whether the G5 criteria were actually met (see below), (d) imposed an indefinite block on the basis of an essay rather than a policy or a guideline, (e) treated content disagreement as conduct evidence in violation of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], and (f) gave no individualised reasoning in the block log connecting my specific conduct to the alleged master account. Per [[WP:ADMINACCT]] administrators are expected to be able to justify their actions when challenged. I am challenging these actions and I am asking for that justification on the record. '''On the administrator conduct that produced this block:''' the blocking administrator (a) reverted my edits while explicitly stating they did not know who I was, (b) imposed an indefinite block without running CheckUser despite the tool existing for exactly this situation, (c) deleted three articles under G5 without examining whether the G5 criteria were actually met (see below), (d) imposed an indefinite block on the basis of an essay rather than a policy or a guideline, (e) treated content disagreement as conduct evidence in violation of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], and (f) gave no individualised reasoning in the block log connecting my specific conduct to the alleged master account. Per [[WP:ADMINACCT]] administrators are expected to be able to justify their actions when challenged. I am challenging these actions and I am asking for that justification on the record.