User talk:CMChuck

September 2016

Unblock Request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

CMChuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Renamed and unblocked, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"SoCal Uncensored" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SoCal Uncensored. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#SoCal Uncensored until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CMChuck reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello 12:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions about other editors

Hi CMChuck, if you suspect sockpuppetry, please provide your evidence at WP:SPI. Making such accusations on any other page, especially without actual evidence, is rather a personal attack than helpful in any way. I have removed your inappropriate talk page comment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide evidence (I noted that the first account had restored revisions made by the second account 12 times in the past 2.5 months, and the two were corresponding within 1-2 minutes of one another on the talk page). If I erred in how I presented this (should I have provided links to the 12 edits in question? should I have made this case in a different venue?), please let me know, as it was never my intention to run afoul of Wikipedia etiquette guidelines. CMChuck (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. I haven't yet seen the specific edits yet, so I can't evaluate whether that's a reasonable suspicion. I'd also leave that task to those experienced with processing reports at WP:SPI; I rarely visit that area. All I can say is that, yes, the correct venue would be WP:SPI, and per its introduction, specific links to these edits ("diffs") would be required.

Regarding the talk page of the article, please focus on the content of the article. User conduct is best discussed on other pages, such as user talk pages (to talk to a user about conduct concerns), or WP:ANI (to report conduct concerns about a user). If you agree to separate conduct (-> SPI) and content (-> article talk page), I'll already remove the block. The re-addition of conduct concerns to the article talk page, on second look, seems to be rather a misunderstanding between us about my concerns than intentional disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to separate conduct and content. If I pursue this further, it will be via WP:SPI, not the talk page. CMChuck (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked – mostly symbolically as the block would expire soon anyway, but as promised. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to CinnamonCinder.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]