Chumchum7

Stola

So afaics, Gitz created the repetition of Stola himself, then used that repetition as fresh grounds for removal. It was you the one who created the repetition, here [1], and my 13 March edits were consecutive edits with no intermediate revert. I suggest you self-revert your submission at ArbCom, because you are presenting a trivial mistake of yours as if it were my manoeuvre against Stola, while I was just doing trivial copy editing there. Honestly I didn't give a f* about Stola! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Validalt

Hi Chumchum. On your userpage you note that you are a validalt and that you had disclosed to a checkuser. Some Arbs would like to confirm with that checkuser that this validalt complies with policies and guidelines for such accounts. Can you please let me know either here or by email to ArbCom who that checkuser is so that we can confirm this with them. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello User:Barkeep49. I disclosed to User:Girth Summit, after Girth Summit got involved in a dispute at Talk:LGBT-free zone and then went about and CUed my account. -5.173.73.63 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any recollection of this disclosure. That could just be my memory failing, so I've checked a few obvious places. When I search my emails for 'Chumchum7', I get a couple of hits from when they've pinged me in discussions, but I don't find any actual e-mails from them; I can't find that Chumchum7 has ever edited my user page; I've looked through the history of this talk page, and I do see a discussion between myself and Chumchum7, but that was about copyright issues, I don't see any disclosure there; I also see no disclosure at Talk:LGBT-free_zone. The CU log does not record any checks by me on Chumchum7's account. If this IP editor is Chumchum7, perhaps they would be willing to log into their account and jog my memory about how they disclosed. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Barkeep49,User:Girth Summit: First of all, User 5.173.73.63 is not me and they ought to explain to all of us what they are talking about. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have blocked the IP. Can you please answer my question Chumchum? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Barkeep49, I disclosed my two accounts by email to User:Primefac. Both accounts purposefully have the same email address, which I pointed out to Primefac at the time, in order to show admins that they are from the same editor. I'm happy to do the same for you now, it it helps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be appreciated as Primefac hasn't been able to locate the emails. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Strike that. We found the disclosure. Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty paranoid about personal details

So pardon me for answering you here as I have not disclosed my email to people that I know better. (Although the little that I know about you is positive.) I did not mean she was sanctioned in *this* case if that is the reason for the question. If you go to the evidence section about her, there is a discussion of a previous case, Holocaust in Poland I think. The sanction was for bypassing the talk page and going straight to Arbcom with a source concern. I previously was blindsided by being accused of whitewashing Nazis in simultaneous wikidramas. See Azov Regiment at RSN and subsequent events. This is Ukraine not Poland. We can discuss this further if you like but I am at the tail end of a very long day. I am glad you thought I was eloquent but I stayed up all night to write it since I knew I wouldn't be available today until after the phase closed ;) must sleep now. I will check in with you later tonight probably. Pacific time zone. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've looked, maybe I am blind but I still can't see the sanction. Can you point it out somehow? -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This case is closed or I would link it there, but sure, I can post a link here in a while; awake now. It was a boomerang on a case against VM, but he has a lot of cases with his name on them. Btw, I have said several things about VM and I am not sure which you are agreeing with, but that's ok too. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

If to be precise it was just a final warning at AE rather than an actual sanction, then I think I have found it myself and no further help is needed, thank you. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I went back to sleep. Now that I am less sleep-deprived, I was talking about this, if that is what you found. A warning is a sanction isn't it? A matter of record, and appealable afaik. If I used the wrong word, welp, sorry about the confusion, and I hope BK doesn't hold it against me. Hope that helps.

My intention in the post was to answer the people saying that she was warned for reporting a sourcing violation. No, she was warned for not deigning to freaking *talk* to people, which was exactly the problem *I* had with her. That maddening episode, to give you a taste of its dumb-ness, started when I said that before we called Azov a Nazi brigade in wikivoice, our sources sould be better than a police blotter item about a man getting arrested in Belarus for wearing a The Punisher t-shirt , because the policeman thought it was the emblem of the Azov brigade. This was, believe it or not, much debated, and also featured GCB (and Mhorg) as well, in a starring role. Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Polish parliamentary election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Youthquake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)