User talk:Dizasteras

Hello Wikipedia! I would like to politely appeal my block. The stated reason why I was blocked is confusing and surprising to me. I have absolutely no relation to the alleged user ZHAN sUN. I refuse to believe that there is one in a million chance that we live in the same city with this account owner I don’t even know? I am a university student of Arts and always researched policies and best practices before making my edits. How is it justified that quality edits were reverted? Hoping to hear from you soon. Dizasteras (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

This does not address the content of the report made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZHAN sUN/Archive(at the bottom). 331dot (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am appealing my indefinite block of 22 April 2026, imposed by Toadspike as an alleged sockpuppet of ZHAN sUN. The first appeal was declined by 331dot on the basis that I had not addressed the SPI report. I am addressing it now, in detail, and I am also addressing the conduct of the block itself.

The block doesn't meet WP:SOCK#Evidence. The SPI filed by Eric Rizoli contains zero diffs against my account. It contains no behavioural comparison against my edits. It contains no technical data. It came down to "the same articles were edited and the editor disagreed with content I wanted there." That is not what WP:SOCK requires for an indefinite block. That is content disagreement dressed in SPI clothes, and the whole thing is a bit of a circle — accuse, point at the article overlap that the accusation itself created, close.

The blocking admin's own revert summary admits the uncertainty. 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}}

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.

The G5 deletions don't meet their own criteria. G5 requires two prongs: (i) the page was created in violation of an active block or ban, and (ii) the page has no substantial edits by others. Lorena David, Zhal net ruzhya! and Mark Roberts (film producer) were created by me in 2025, before any block on this account existed, so prong (i) fails on the timing alone — there was no active sanction to violate. Prong (ii) was never examined in the deletion log. The articles were deleted as afterthought to the block, not on the back of any actual G5 examination. I am asking for WP:REFUND on all three, or alternatively WP:DRV.

On the substance of the edits themselves: the changes I made to George Chiang, Harriet Chung and Golden Lotus weren't random vandalism or sock-driven disruption. Each one was sourced edit — removing material that failed WP:V or WP:RS, trimming puffery that violated WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK, and fixing infobox fields per MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:BIO. The removal of the "Ho-Yin" string from the Latin name field came together with addition of 鍾浩賢 into native_name in the same diff, which is correct field for that character — anyone is free to open the diff and check. The COI tag and the unsourced awards section came out because the sources didn't carry them, not because I wanted to whitewash anything, and the real-estate trivia came out because WP:NOTDIR exists. I cleaned the articles up.

If any specific editor disagrees with a specific edit on a specific article, the venue for that is the article talk page, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN or WP:DRN — not an unblock request and not a sock investigation filed against the editor who made the cleanup. I am not asking anyone to agree with my editorial judgment on every diff. I am asking that disagreement with editorial judgment stop being repackaged as evidence of socking, because that route is exactly what WP:ASPERSIONS was written to prevent.

On removing maintenance tags: tag removal is governed by WP:WTRMT, which permits removal when the underlying issue has been addressed. Removing a COI tag after the COI-flagged content is gone is exactly that. If anyone believed the tag should have stayed, the next stop would be to restore the tag with a talk-page note, not to file an SPI.

On the filer: Eric Rizoli filed an SPI containing no diffs against me, no behavioural comparison and no technical data. The pattern of filing piggybacks on a closed case to get a content opponent removed, which is what WP:BOOMERANG was written for. I am not asking for sanctions against them in this appeal — I am asking that the reviewing administrator look at the filing on its own merits, because the heart of the matter is that an indefinite block was imposed off the back of a filing that wouldn't survive its own scrutiny.

Topic spread: my contributions across past year span Spanish-language film, post-Soviet cinema, and Eastern European media. The alleged master account's topic area is a narrow Toronto / Hong Kong musical theatre scene. Long tenure isn't an evidence of socking, but neither is editing the same three pages a different account once edited — especially when the edits are cleanups of WP:V and WP:NPOV failures, which any editor walking past those articles would make.

If this appeal is declined without engaging the substance above, I am going to use every legitimate review channel that exists — UTRS, WP:AN, and ultimately the Arbitration Committee. The conduct that produced this block — essay treated as policy, no CheckUser, G5 deletions of articles I created in 2025 before any block existed, a filer with the pattern described above — is not something I am going to let quietly sit in the log. I am not going anywhere on this one and the record will get walked through in front of people who are required to actually read it.

I am asking the reviewing administrator to read the SPI filing, read the block log, read the deletion log, and ask whether the standard for an indefinite block under WP:SOCK was actually met here.

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help. asilvering (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia team and Asilvering. Please listen to my ideas below. English is not my mother tongue. And I live in a country I don't want to call right now here in front of all internet. I was scared and confused about this ban, so I used GPT to add an official tone to message I tried to communicate. After I spend a whole day reading the rules.

This was a mistake. Let me please address main ideas briefly one last time. I have no relation to the ZHAN sUN or any other users attached to this case. The administrator Toadspike did not run a CheckUser verification and based his decision only on his impression. The reason he referenced WP:DUCK is not a policy rule; it is just an essay. I respect his opinion but he was incorrect. The fact that accounts were created at the same time is just a coincidence. Please run a true back-end check. If you estimate the edit history, you can clearly see that I was editing a lot more different subjects than ZHAN sUN. So our edits do not even overlap in a big picture. Regarding the edits I made to Golden Lotus, I deleted all of the promotional awards, and made the article much better and policy-correct than it is now when my edits are reverted. Everything else presented in the investigation is just an allegation. I did my best effort to clean up the articles per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and my version was a lot more policy compliant than it is now.

If main concern is the Golden Lotus musical (which I know because of the music), we can leave it alone and I will not edit it. I do not have any personal interest in it. Dizasteras (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Conditional unblock with topic bans/partial blocks from George Chiang, Harriet Chung, and Golden Lotus (musical). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)