User talk:Astral Leap

Welcome!

Hello, Astral Leap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Astral Leap

Thank you for creating Maarten Groothuizen.

User:Lefcentreright, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Maybe add a Help:Infobox?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lefcentreright}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

LefcentrerightDiscuss 16:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lefcentreright:, done.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Other accounts

Did you or do you have any other accounts? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have Facebook. And why have you come a-calling? Is there a connection to the WP:NONAZIS block of your buddy with whom you share views on Affirmative action and Aryanization?--Astral Leap (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant other accounts on Wikipedia. I would appreciate the answer. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And you come here because your good friend got blocked? No is the answer to your question.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please accept cookies and welcome message from me, happy editing - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Astral Leap! Thank you for your contributions. I am GizzyCatBella and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|GizzyCatBella}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! GizzyCatBella🍁 11:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pls stop

Astral Leap, I just want to let you know that I do not feel comfortable with you "policing" my interactions on Wikipedia. This is the second time that you reported me for matters steaming form discussions/edits you were not even involved in, based on those two instances it appears that you are actively monitoring my activity — this behavior is actually pretty worrisome and I'm not comfortable with it. --E-960 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not policing you. I saw disruption, and reported it.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella ad-hoc prosecutions

Look, these ad-hoc prosecutions are getting a bit much, so please refrain from now on. I can make it an official WP:ACDS action, if you prefer. El_C 15:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I did not seek this out and this is not a "prosecution". I reported her once to AE, after she filed a baseless SPI against me (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive). She continues to stick her nose where ever I go, as she did here on 26 January (on a page not involving her) with insinuations against me, repeating the same baseless charges. The minor edit issue started for me, when GizzyCatBella reverted me (preceding two edits) with a minor flag, which is a wrong use of the WP:MINOR flag. I placed a cordial notice on minor use on her talk page, and thought she would just take notice and stop it (though her reverting my post was rude). Then yesterday she made this edit, which isn't minor yet marked minor, on a page on my watch list. The marking as minor obscures it on the watch list. My motivation in bringing this to ANI was solely to get GizzyCatBella to stop using the minor flag incorrectly - I tried first to raise this directly with GizzyCatBella, but was ignored.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I expressly focused on the technical aspect here, as rectifying the miss-marking as minor should be a very straightforward remedy and there is no reason not to rectify this.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Astral Leap, briefly: my role is to weigh WP:AGF against WP:PACT, so for reasons which I'm not sure I wish to elaborate on (let's say WP:BEANS, etc.), I think you cutting down on reporting content opponents to various noticeboards would be best for the moment. Same with engaging user talk pages of content opponents. Just make a note on the respective article talk page — other editors can pick it up (and escalate if they so choose) from there. Thank you. El_C 16:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I don't understand the WP:BEANS reference here, and I mostly am not a "content opponent" here. I vaguely understand there is some big fuss about Polish history on Wikipedia now, but I mostly do not touch this topic and I am confounded by the various forces at play on Wikipedia. It seems like everything that skirts around this becomes heated. I got into this Axis Powers issue because this an issue that cuts across the Second World War (which I mostly edit in Western Europe and some Pacific (Java)). The last time I got involved with her was because of adding Aryanization to Affirmative action (and because of Zezen, a different editor, who got blocked for this. The result was me being chased around). If you say to back off, I will back off now, but I must say I don't see how complaining on the two article talk pages (Talk:Axis powers, Talk:European theatre of World War II), about miss-marking of minor edits (as a separate section?) would've been helpful here - it's a behavioral issue, maybe technical or technical competence issue, and not about the articles.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The hope is that the BEANS component isn't actually understood. Anyway, the obvious background is WP:APL and WP:ARBEE. El_C 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, the APL thing was shouted at me by someone who looked me up on Facebook somehow, back in December during the AE. He was really pushy, and I blocked him. I am not sure I want to learn more about this, it is all very convoluted.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay...? Sorry, I'm unwilling to comment on anything which transpires on FB, in connection with this or any other ACDS topic area. El_C 17:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The Facebook guy was not an active editor. He was very angry, not at me, and I blocked him there. I was not requesting action or comment on the Facebook approach, I was trying to say I don't see this on other topics here.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm unable to comment further at this time. No idea how involved you've been in... say: WP:AP2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBIPA, WP:GS/COVID19, and so on. El_C 17:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited any of that much, well except maybe countering the Affirmative action foolishness which maybe counts as American Politics? I might edit 2021 Dutch curfew riots some more, but I haven't edited COVID that much I think.--Astral Leap (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting some fraught topic areas as examples. Not sure about Affirmative action, because I don't know the nature of the edits in question, which could relate to a number of ACDS (or even GS) topic areas, or none. El_C 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

Template:Z33 El_C 17:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from interacting with GizzyCatBella (WP:IBAN), one-way.

You have been sanctioned per this ANI report and earlier AE complaint, you being the author of both, and both being on the sketchy side (to put it mildly).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBEE#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AE block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:3RR on an AN thread that concerns an WP:ACDS matter (as above), you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. 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. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

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."

El_C 15:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C, how did I violate 3RR?!?!?! I reverted three times: one, two (edit 1)+two (edit 2), three. If you are blocking me for three reverts, are you going to block User:Volunteer Marek too? His removal of post was against WP:TALKO, made a serious accusation I was part of EEML, with no evidence, and he reverted just as many times as I did: one, two (edit 1)+two (edit 2), three.--Astral Leap (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Four reverts: one (23:29, two (23:33), three (23:37-38), four (23:46). El_C 15:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C, two (23:33 / 03:33) is not a revert. It a new comment, and it was made while my revert from 23:29/03:29 was on the page with the timestamp 02:37. The one edit in between at 23:32/03:32, by User:Levivich, did not remove or change what was re-added in 23:29/03:29. And why does Volunteer Marek get to blank my posts?--Astral Leap (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Please feel free to explore whatever avenues of appeal are available to you as you see fit. El_C 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why you think it's okay to poke Volunteer Marek with their old username over and over again, despite their objections. Even if, somehow, it is proven that you didn't actually violate 3RR (doubtful, but for the sakes of argument), I still would object to you being unblocked. You have been acting in a manner that is both suspect and provocational for a while now. If this AE block (and AE topic ban above) doesn't serve as a wakeup call for you, expect sanctions to escalate. El_C 16:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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).

Astral Leap (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 administrators' noticeboard:

I was blocked in error, I reverted three times and not four as El_C wrongly says.

Regardless of El_C's error, I must state I was wrong to restore my comments even in the face of Volunteer Marek's personal attacks and removals that violate WP:TALKO. I was flabbergasted by the repeated removals, and acted in haste. Instead of reverting Volunteer Marek's removal, I should've reported him to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. However, El_C's recommendation that I avoid reporting content opponents at boards, and my exasperation at the situation where I was accused of being WP:EEML by Volunteer Marek while he simultaneously removed posts pointing at his EEML sanction resulted in rash decisions on my part.

El_C says, in his block rationale that I reverted four times. However, I reverted three. This is a complete timeline of this:

1. 02:37 I posted a new comment expressing surprise at how many EEML editors showed up after EEML was mentioned in the thread which was about canvassing on the Polish Wikipedia by an EEML editor. My post was on-topic, and contained information from the case and links existing on Wikipedia.
2. [1] 1st undo by Volunteer Marek, breaking WP:TALKO and removing content that is entirely on Wikipedia.
3. 03:29 1st undo by me.
4. 03:32 User:Levivich makes an unrelated comment, my undo from 03:29 stands.
5. 03:33 After fixing an edit-conflict with Levivich, I respond to a personal attack (from 02:46) by Volunteer Marek. When I make this response my post from 02:37 (undo from 03:29) is on the page, and I merely added a partial copy of what was on the page, responding to a second personal attack by Volunteer Marek. This is not a revert. El_C wrongly claims on my talk page this is a revert.
6. [2],[3] 2nd undo by Volunteer Marek.
7. [4],[5] 2nd undo by me
8. [6] 3rd undo by Volunteer Marek
9. [7] 3rd undo by me, in this revert I also fixed my comment, by removing his old user name, to Volunteer Marek's liking even though this was not required, in an attempt to de-escalate.

This is three reverts, not four. I was the subject of serious personal attacks. The issue under dispute, Volunteer Marek's old username, was resolved in my last edit, so the dispute was resolved when El_C made his block. I realize any edit warring is wrong, but blocking me for a week is excessive and is not preventative.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The appeal to the community has been clearly unsuccessful; see Special:Diff/1005304044. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

I have done so. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, 331dot.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else wandering by, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_appeal_of_Astral_Leap. SQL^{Query me!} 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

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 why you should be 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.

Enough. Appeal to UTRS or ArbCom or whomever, but you are done discussing or linking to that old user name here or anywhere else onwiki, for forever, unless otherwise dictated by ArbCom. I don't care that an appeal is ongoing involving my own action —and that every other admin is just sitting there doing nothing about this, for some reason— but that Social Security search engine link, linking to the old username again in the wiki search function, et cetera, etc., all of that amounts to you still effectively poking at Volunteer Marek. You are using this very appeal to do so, which is very much to your discredit. I have no idea how cognizant you are of all of this, and honestly it doesn't really matter. Just make sure you observe these instructions once your block expires, because I am mandating you to do so. Again, will defend myself before the Committee if I have to, about any of this. El_C 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Note

You are being discussed here[8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

My articles got linked over 99 times from last time. PLEASE DO NOT BOTHER ME.--Astral Leap (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)