User talk:Azuresky Voight

Hi, as you can see at the infobox's documentation, subsequent_actions isn't supposed to be used for decisions/rulings. Just letting you know. pandakekok9 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Azuresky Voight. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dennis Jose Borbon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. JBchrch talk 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the page is not considered an "attack page" because it is not "unsourced". Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content is just one example. JBchrch talk 11:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article about a criminal whose acts has been documented in reliable sources. It is not an attack page. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. JBchrch talk 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about criminals should be deleted for being "disparaging"? Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you have sources. It was not in a neutral tone, it was in an extremely hostile tone. You clearly are not able to write about this subject in a neutral tone so leave it to other editors to cover the topic. Repetition of this sort of use of Wikipedia will result in a block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means please rewrite the article in a "more neutral" tone, since it is not unsourced. And the "hostile" notion is a bit of an exaggeration. It is only appearing disparaging because the news articles that tackled the subject has not stated anything good about the subject. So how will you write an article about a criminal in a "more neutral tone"? Please demonstrate by rewriting the article. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am acting in an administrative capacity here and will not get involved in the content. I just noticed that you created the page a second time after it was deleted as an attack page already. If I had noticed that before I had warned you then you would be blocked right now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considered reliable sources frequently cited on wikipedia articles such as PhilStar, Daily Inquirer, Gma News, Abs-Cbn news, Rappler, etc. have all written articles regarding the subject (Dennis Jose Borbon) and his crimes so those articles can be compiled to a wikipedia article. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again it is not an attack page because it is an article about a criminal whose acts have been documented by news outlets that are frequently cited by wikipedia. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We take our biographies of living people policy very seriously and violating it is a very fast way to leave to project. If you want to work in the area you had better study it because you have already made 2 serious violations of it. A 3rd will result in a block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the subject is already dead since March 2021 according to his former lawyer's tweet: https://twitter.com/yesyesyo13/status/1376315991257358343 so it is not a living person biography. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same policy applies to recently deceased people. You really should actually read the policy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy about recently deceased is for unsourced/poorly-sourced materials. The article I wrote cited reliable sources such as news articles from the main news outlets in the Philippines (gma news, abscbn news, manila times, daily inquirer, philstar, rappler, etc.) all writing about the subject and telling the same thing altogether. How was that "poorly-sourced" or unsourced? Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted under this part of the policy that you clearly still have not read: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. All of the sources in the world does not remove the requirement that it be neutral in tone. I am finished explaining this to you, I have given you a link to the policy and you are being held to that standard if you edit any article about a living or recently deceased person. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see how the article was "contentious". The subject's notability is the fact that he is a criminal who has victimised politicians. And it was documented by reliable sources. Writing an article about the subject based on news headlines is just stating the fact of the matter. And there is nothing questionable about that because it is well-documented by news outlets. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the subject is dead. And is an article about a criminal whose notability is for being a criminal. The article has not libelled him and has only summarized that he is a criminal. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Azuresky Voight: the problem is that the article you wrote does not adhere to the WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE policies. If you want to take a look at a neutral, well-written article about a criminal, see for instance Ted Bundy. JBchrch talk 12:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to rewrite the article based on Ted Bundy's template. Thanks. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you not to. Another BLP violation will result in a ban from the topic of BLP, and frankly I don't think you understand the concept. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Salvio 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Azuresky Voight! Your additions to Dengvaxia controversy have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mocha Uson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

-Object404 (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one vandalising the article of Mocha Uson, disregarding the BLP policy on neutrality and turning wikipedia into a tabloid by adding contentious material against the subject. Please block User:Object404 from editing Mocha Uson article. @User:Bbb23 @User:HighInBC He has records of sockpuppetry and vandalism in the past.Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not engage in vandalism, nor sockpuppetry, and that instance of alleged "sockpuppetry" was years ago when I was not aware of certain WP policies. I was appropriately disciplined, have served my time, and now continue to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. -Object404 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding BLP policy using WP:RS to vandalise certain articles and calling subjects as fake news peddler, propagandist and adding contentious materials against LGBT people does not seem to be the acts of a disciplined and productive person. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the topic of living people and recently deceased people broadly construed for a period of 1 year.

You have been sanctioned for BLP violations, misapplication of the BLP policy, and edit warring on BLP articles.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for violating your topic ban with this edit[1]. I made it a short 48 hour block because I am assuming you did not read the notice, or do not understand it.

I suggest that you read WP:TBAN to understand the nature of this ban. Further violations will result in a block of at least 6 months or possibly indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to any admin reviewing an unblock request I forgot to mention it in the block summary, but this is an arbitration enforcement block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to increase the length of your block, but consider this an only warning. The personal attacks against another user you made on my Talk page (now removed) and in other parts of the project are unacceptable. If you make them again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly is the "personal attack" there? Azuresky Voight (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unfair that I was the one sanctioned for bringing to attention the <topic ban violation removed>, who has been previously warned for adding <topic ban violation removed>. I deem the action taken against me as biased and unfair when the erring editor in the first place was not sanctioned even after making <topic ban violation removed>.Azuresky Voight (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing those <topic ban violation removed> using WP:RS as an excuse is WikiLawyering. And instead of actually investigating the issue, the admins called to take action focused on the alleged "personal attack" against the concerned editor to ignore the issue about the <topic ban violation removed>. Azuresky Voight (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your only avenues of appeal are described here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. You can consider option #1(ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision) off the table.

Keep in mind the restriction from the topic of BLP also applies on this page, and everywhere else on Wikipedia. The only exceptions to the ban are described here: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans. Specifically it is not okay to be talking about what other editors did or are doing in the subject area you are banned from.

Topic bans are enforced very strictly and their scope is broadly construed. If you can't completely avoid the area, including commenting on what others did or are doing in that area, then you are going to find yourself removed from Wikipedia altogether. Topic bans are generally used as a lesser alternative to indefinite blocking, but if they are not obeyed then that is the likely result.

I am removing your talk page access until your current block is over. I sincerely hope that you will read and understand the topic ban policy and comprehend the gravity of your sanction. Your post today contained multiple violations, I have made it clear which parts are in violation by redacting them. There will be no further tolerance when this block expires, another repeat and you will be blocked for at least 6 months and up to indefinitely.

If you can manage to avoid the topic as the ban requires then you can continue to edit Wikipedia in other areas. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for editing on the topic of living people[2][3][4][5] on the page Rappler, Mocha Uson Blog and other pages, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:34, 16 August 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I find it absurd and unfair to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for six months due to a certain topic ban on Biography of Living Persons. The admin who imposed the ban is User:HighInBC. The first ban is the result of me getting in a dispute against another editor about the offensive content (specifically hateful anti-LGBT content) at the BLP article about RJ Nieto. I have created petitions to block the editor who added such hateful content from editing the article, but instead of investigating the content added, I was the one sanctioned for "my behavior". I have also unearthed the previous violations of that editor but it was considered "a personal attack". I was ultimately "topic banned for six months fom BLP articles" and have been blocked from Wikipedia 2 days ago. After which I went on editing non-BLP articles (specifically, Rappler and Fake News In the Philippines, Mocha Uson Blog) which are not BLP articles. So I was surprised that I was blocked again "based on an arbitration enforcement" about BLP, with the sanctioning admin citing the edits I made on the articles about certain companies and topics. How was that fair? BLP topic ban, in my understanding, is a ban against editing BLP articles. If it extends to not being allowed to editing articles that merely includes names of living people, like the founder of a company, isn't that abusive or misusing an admin tool? How am I supposed to edit an article whose details about its founder was already there, if that too is considered a BLP violation? It's absurd. It doesn't make sense. If I am to avoid editing all articles that involves even a single name of a living person, it should have been told clearly in the sanction notification. And in the first place, if such is the case, the imposition of the topic ban is oppressive and unjust. In another edit I made, I have added the name of a journalist who wrote the article I have used as a citation—this too has been considered "a violation of a topic ban on BLP", even if the article I have edited is not a biography. I am quite confused how a topic ban on BLP extends to merely editing articles names of living people, or adding content that contains names of living people on non-BLP articles, even when and especially when such edits do not cause harm to such people, or the purpose of the edit is not focused on their biography. In the first place, I am quite confused how I got blocked in the first place for raising an issue that BLP articles contain anti-LGBT materials simply because such materials have citations, when BLP policy on neutrality clearly states these are not allowed. To add insult to the injury, the editor who has added such content has not been sanctioned in any way. The editor has also tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet with an account not on English Wikipedia, and this issue was raised on the Talk page of User:HighInBC, the admin who has imposed the sanction. I find it unjust and unfair for me, an LGBT editor, who is trying to protect biography of LGBT people from hateful content, to be the subject of this sanction. Based on the behavior of the editor I have been in dispute with, and on his conversation with the admin who imposed my sanction, I have reason to believe the two are friends and I have been the subject of an unfair decision, and that I have been the subject of discrimination. The content in question is this one I removed in this diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037294490 It was first added to the article by an IP account User:108.52.121.147 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/834416373 which has been the subject of several disputes regarding the article, has been removed several times for being properly identified as libelous and contentious, and violates BLP policy on neutrality, but the editor who I have been in dispute with insist on restoring the content, arguing that it has a WP:RS, and ignoring all protests that it was indeed contentious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/845363063 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/931927159 I have also suspicion to believe that the anonymous user that initially added this and the editor who keeps restoring it are the same person, because the editor and the IP have the same writing voice. Additionally, the editor also insists on adding the adjective "pro-Duterte" to the lead of the article re RJ Nieto. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038233612 In fact, before I revised the article to fix its contentious tone, all the problematic content were added by the editor. These include: * Calling the subject fake news peddler * Calling the subject a state-sponsored troll * Accusing the subject of inciting violence against journalists and so on in the guise that these are WP:RS. In fact, most these citations are merely opinion articles, and that despite having citation these should have long been removed for severe violation of NPOV. HighInBC completely ignored this and has been more focused on sanctioning me. Up to this point, the article about RJ Nito remains an attack page against the subject. This is also ignored by HighInBC. He is more focused on sanctioning me for editing non-BLP articles. The article about RJ Nieto has also been edited by a potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet of the editor, as indicated by these wikidiffs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038448712 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038523392 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038525120 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037871744 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037731466 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039042688 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037540674 These actions by the editor remains unsanctioned as well. I hereby appeal, in good faith, to overturn my sanction, and question the motives for the sanction altogether, why the sanctioning admin has focused more on blocking me while allowing the editor who has been maintaining an attack page against a living person, who is specifically an LGBT person, and the article discriminated him based on that, while also editing the attack article using at least two sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I am requesting explanation from the sanctioning administrator regarding this, as it has led me to believe that the BLP policy implementation is incongruent for different editors. It is ironic even that raising an issue about a BLP article results in sanctioning of the editor raising the issue, and ignoring the editor maintining the attack page altogether. I request the arbitration committee to reconsider my case, as I deem it both unfair and unjust, and also abusive, and also to reconsider the initial issue I have been raising, which is the problematic articles maintained by the editor, and also to investigate his sock/meatpuppets. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

for the reasons outlined at WP:AE permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (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.

Please be patient as I post your appeal. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal is posted: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Azuresky Voight. Note that your appeal is well over the 500 word limit(over 1000 words), this will be handled by someone other than me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azuresky Voight, please reduce your appeal to approximately 500 words (by my count you are at about 1100). If you refuse to modify it, I will do so for you. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GeneralNotability Please do. If allowed, this should be added as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HighInBC#User_Azuresky_Voight_sockpuppet_account%3F Object404 has been accusing me of harassing him by accusing him of sockpuppetry when he did it first on HighInBC talk page, who seem to be close to him, linking me to an account that is not even on this Wiki to be considered a sockpuppet. Since I cannot post on SPI noticeboard, I also request to have my request for SPI against Object404, Crisantom and the IP address user for sockpuppet investigation. I rest my case that the BLP policy has been lax on certain users adding contentious materials on some articles while harsh on others, especially to people like me who got topic banned, and while my edits on non-BLP articles have been non-disruptive and good-faith, that was simply ignored by the beaurocrat administrator who seem to have no other means of entertainment but to keep on blocking me. I also rest my case that the edits on RJ Nieto's article were anti-LGBT motivated, and the sanctions against me are anti-LGBT motivated as well.

Evidences / wikidiffs regarding Object404's sockpuppetry were already on my previous response. And if I may add, <private information redacted>. Azuresky Voight (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you post non-public information about an editor again(outing) I will increase you block to indefinite and revoke talk page access. You have been warned about posting non-public information about editors before. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those information are public. Simply googling his username shows those details. How was that "outing"? He claims revealing his info is "dangerous" to him when his name and work details are tied to his username elsewhere and visible by a simple google search. You can block me all you want, I won't bow down to beaurocratic pricks like you. Lick your ass. Azuresky Voight (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Azuresky Voight: Your topic ban appeal has been declined so the topic ban still applies, WP:AE permalink. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note this user has engaged in block evasion as User:RhoNuPsiDelta. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to evading your block and breaching your topic ban again I am increasing your existing topic ban from 1 year to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]