User talk:Ccchambers

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1291421 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Spellcast (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me in 2009. Could you please unblock me in 2022? If you take a look at the timing of the editing and discussions, you can see that I was not banned for any of the behaviors that call for banning, I was banned merely for stating an opinion in a talk discussion, not for edit warring, not for vandalism, not for any edit. Civil discussion and discourse about editing philosophies are not edits, and not cause for banning of any editor. Thank you. ccchambers (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is wrong with username gaytv. Is gay not allowed in usernames or is tv not allowed?

It's not relevant to you since you seem to be caught in an autoblock. Your contribs look OK ... I am running this by the blocking admin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a first for me! "Gay" tends to be discouraged since it can be contentious, but I certainly didn't expect the block to adversely affect another user like this. I unblocked the other account. You should be good to go as soon as the system catches up to the unblock order. Sorry about the collateral damage. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a valid autoblock. This IP is indeed assigned to you (see network name). Ccchambers, if you were intending to edit using the Gaytv (talk · contribs) account, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Username#Company/group names. Spellcast (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the autoblock, so you should be able to edit from this account. But since company names generally aren't allowed, the Gaytv account will remain blocked without affecting you. Spellcast (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove categories from your sandbox

Hi, I'd like to suggest that you remove the categories from your sandbox page by putting <nowiki> tags around the category listings. Right now, your sandbox is showing up on categories such as LGBT Hispanics.//Lawrlafo (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could figure out how to do that. I don't see any category listings and I don't know how to place the nowiki tags. I'm forgetting Wiki language faster tham I'm learning it. ccchambers

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brother Andy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Into the Night. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Neal

Hi Ccchambers. This article is very promotional in tone, and it appears from the sourcing that you may have a connection with the article subject. Would you please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make any necessary declarations. Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andy Neal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andy Neal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Neal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Andy Neal article has been removed without a consensus. It has more than 20 references, at least than 7 of which were from notable media on Wikipedia. Which administrator should be contacted to undelete this article?

Deletion discussion about Clark Kent Apuada

Hello, Ccchambers,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Clark Kent Apuada should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Kent Apuada .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Dom from Paris (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

InfoWars is objectively fake news

As Guy Macon points out at Talk:InfoWars#Let's_review,_shall_we?: Alex Jones claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps...

I would also point out that the edit Ccchambers made[1] claimed that "InfoWars does not call itself a 'fake news' website". Actually, Alex Jones did admit that Infowars is fake news. See InfoWars' Alex Jones is a 'performance artist playing a character', says his lawyer. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, CNN, Fox News and most other talk news sources are fake news because they contain satire, opinion and comedy: CNN says that the U.S. should break up like the Soviet Union. https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/15/colin-quinn-don-lemon.cnn

The arguments posed by the attorney pertained only to limited specific material identified in one legal case. Alex Jones never called Info Wars "fake news". Again, most mainstream news would need to be identified as fake news under this logic due to their modern inclusion of substantial entertainment content that is not journalistic news. By the same logic, the contrived propaganda of communist China CCN, KNCA Korean Central News Agency and old Soviet Union TASS are true news. The fact that Guy Macon must resort to foul language is further evidence that guy has a weak argument.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for being unable to distinguish between reality based sources and InfoWars. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block was not created in accordance with Wikipedia block guidelines. Block was intended as a punishment for a logical argument about facts. Guidelines state that blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. There was no damage and no disruption. There is no threat of damage and no threat of disruption.

Decline reason:

The block is not to punish you, it is to protect Wikipedia from the disruption caused by your insistence that InfoWars is a legitimate news organization. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2020 (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.

Exactly what is the disruption?

I never said that Info Wars is a legitimate news organization. I said that Ian.thomson's word "fake", plus Ian.thomson's foul language used by the adminstrators is inappropriate and unprofessional, as is ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and blocking users with whom you disagree on facts. Logical arguments about facts are not Administrators disregard of Wikipedia guidelines regarding blocks detracts from administrator legitimacy, and the abuse detracts from the usefulness and goodwill of Wikipedia and attracts ill will from users.

You have continually equated InfoWars with legitimate news websites, and you object to us using the most common term used to describe "illegitimate" (as it were) news sites -- i.e. "Fake news." If you don't or can't see the problem there, then you're not going to be of much use to us. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

— Newslinger talk 17:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your mail

No. You were blocked because you repeatedly demonstrated the inability to understand that InfoWars is objectively fake news, despite correction. That's a problem.

You equated InfoWars with CNN and Fox News. InfoWars is moonbatshit insane. If you fail to acknowledge that, you will remain blocked. If future attempts at appealing the block continue to fail to acknowledge that, your ability to appeal your block will be revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, Fake News is not an encyclopedia term. I disagreed with non-encyclopedic terminology. Fake news is terminology that connotes political bias. Merely citing a disagreement on terminology bears absolutely no connection to Wikipedia policies regarding banning editors.

I received your email, but I don't discuss Wikipedia matters by email. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If most of them use the term "fake" to describe InfoWars, then that's what we use. It doesn't matter what supporters or itself call it insofar as giving due weight to how the breadth of sources describe it. In any event, you may hold whatever viewpoint you wish, but you may not disrupt Wikipedia to express it. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

Please clarify why the permanent block was performed, not after a disruptive edit, not after vandalism, but after a discussion about the non-encyclopedic term "fake news". Please clarify how that discussion warranted a permanent block based on Wikipedia community standards and blocking guidelines. ccchambers (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #58577

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the timing of the editing and discussions, you can see that I was not banned for any of the behaviors that call for banning, I was banned merely for stating an opinion in a talk discussion, not for edit warring, not for vandalism, not for any edit. Civil discussion and discourse about editing philosophies are not edits, and are not cause for banning of any editor. Thank you. ccchambers (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was never accused of damage or disruption. No administrator ever accused me of any actions that call for blocking. There was no accusal of vandalism, warring or any other disruption. I was only accused of stating a difference of opinion in a conversation, which is not an appropriate cause for blocking of any kind, according to Wikipedia guidelines. ccchambers (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edits and discussion, I have said very little about InfoWars. The administrators are obsessed with the website, adamant about expressing biased political viewpoints, and they have been improperly hostile regarding the website. I briefly attempted to encourage Wikipedia administrators to follow Wikipedia policies regarding professional, encyclopedic verbiage, and to begin following the rules and policies of Wikipedia. The rules are clearly against bias, and the rules for banning and blocking very clearly relate to vandalism, edit warring and similar disruptions. There is no Wikipedia rule remotely related to lifetime bans stemming from brief philosophical disagreements in discussions.

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).

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

Request reason:

31 hours is the standard duration for most blocks. There is no justification for a permanent block.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2023 (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.