User talk:Champthom

Talk to me.

Be sure to check out the archives as well:

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Champ, I mean it now

When I come on here and see that people like this mouthbreather have been fucking with pages while being told not to and spamming pictures of furry porn that we for some reason allow on here, and yet I have the power to neither delete the image or ban the sperg, it cuts me deep. I'm on here often enough and I've already contributed a lot to the wiki. Can you throw some Jerkop powers my way so I can sort this shit out in future? We don't have nearly enough active mods and this place seems to have this kind of shit all the time. I mean this seriously Champ, I think the CWCki could benefit a lot from more Jerkops. --Old meme 06:09, 20 April 2012 (PDT)

Before you answer him, Champ, keep in mind that I've also been here a long time and am also actively contributing; so if you decided to give Old meme jerkop rights, I sure would appreciate receiving them as well. Just saying. --T K 19 09:24, 20 April 2012 (PDT)

• You both make good points. Could you point out the furry image though, the only image I've seen by him is that picture of Chris ejaculating on Anna's face, which I've incidentally deleted because I don't think it really improves the Anna article. Anyways, about quality in general - I've discussed this issue with Anonymax, and this goes for the both of you, that as regular users you have all the tools needed to improve the quality of the CWCki. If there's an incidence such as an edit war going on, you're welcome to ask any of the admins to step in to resolve the issue. For these reasons, I don't think it's needed to add more jerkops or admins for these reasons. However, if it ever got out of control, then I would consider making someone a quality control jerkop to enforce quality standards. However, I think for the most part you all have the tools you need, just keep making good edits and reverting shit like you have been doing and I think that should be sufficient.--Champthom 22:11, 20 April 2012 (PDT)
  • He's probably talking about this picture, which was spammed on CWCki:Privacy policy. --T K 19 23:46, 20 April 2012 (PDT)

Deletion of Fail; Effects

Would it be necessary to organize a project of some kind to remove red "fail" pipes from pages across the CWCki? --IwegalBadnik 11:27, 23 April 2012 (PDT)

• Here they all are. Clean them at your leisure. --T K 19 11:57, 23 April 2012 (PDT)

Anonybot is working on it. --Anonymax 14:41, 23 April 2012 (PDT)

Fail article deleted, stupid page names corrected, Champ finally got around to deleting the furry porn. It's been a good week. --Old meme 06:39, 24 April 2012 (PDT)

• At least SOMEONE is happy.--Champthom 04:18, 25 April 2012 (PDT)

Why did you delete the article on Kim?

She is as notable as any of the gal pals, and all the info IS public, coming from the Kacey calls.--Steve Landcleamer 23:03, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

• How do you know the Kim from the Kacey calls is the same Kim Wilson? Kim is a fairly common name. You're also assuming a lot of things, like Kim is ScarletSanctum when you have no proof of that, and you're including a lot of things that are rumors like how some apology video was because Kim was upset. --Champthom 23:04, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

• 1. Chris states her name is Kim Wilson in one of the Kacey calls.
• 2. ScarletSanctum is Kim's youtube handle, as stated in SingStar Challenge.
• 3. Chris addresses in that video that he upset Kim and Kacey with the previous video.

And if the name was an issue why not just redirect the page to "Kim"?--Steve Landcleamer 23:17, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

• How do you know that ScarletSanctum is Kim? Does Chris explicitly mention it? Also does Chris specifically say Kim in that video in that it upset her? --Champthom 23:23, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

Chris does explicitly mention it. Look at this dialouge in Kacey Call 1:

• Chris: Yeah. So you know uh, Kim, you know uh, how she, uh, yeah you know, uh, Kim, I actually heard that Kim and her friend Logan actually live in the Charlton area close to the downtown mall, you know? So if you ever wanted to look her up and, you know, just talk to her, you know, find about more about the impostor for me, or you know, see what her opinion of me is on the Internet from her point of view...
• Kacey: Oh, you want me to do some undercover stuff? Chris, that is so sweet of you! You know how much I wanted to get involved.
• Chris: Oh yeah, sure. You know that ScarletSanctum account? That's hers.
• Kacey: Okay, no, I will totally, totally message her. It's Kim Woods, you said?
• Chris: No, Kim Wilson. Totally. Message her, talk to her all about me.

As far as making the video in response to offending Kim, he also implicitly states this:

"Uh, I dedicate this video to uh, Logan. Boyfriend of my gal-pal, Kim. Yeah, anyway uh, I've--I just wanted to uh, apologize for uh...offending you in anyway"

He could also be referring to offending Logan, but either way why through the baby out with the bathwater?--Steve Landcleamer 23:35, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

• Let me think about it. In the meantime, I've made a subpage for you in the meantime.--Champthom 23:39, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

So is there any hold up or is the page good to go? I've answered all your questions and it seems to meet all the requirements.--Steve Landcleamer 16:32, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

• Don't you think it might be a little bit imprudent to make a page about Kim?--Champthom 17:58, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

• Why would it be imprudent? All the information is public and sourced. All the other gal pals have pages, so what would the problem be?--Steve Landcleamer 18:37, 5 May 2012 (PDT)

• Well?--Steve Landcleamer 20:39, 7 May 2012 (PDT)
• Good God, first learn some patience, this isn't a life and death issue. Second of all, let me put it this way - in your own words, the supposed Kim calls are unreleased. Why do you think that is?--Champthom 07:18, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

Because "she"'s obviously still trying to troll Chris. Regardless, that's beside the point, while the calls haven't been released, all the information in the article has. You initially deleted it under the guise that is was "Not notable, not based on public information", but we both know that that's clearly not the cause. My page seemed to meet all the guidelines, so based on Cwicki guidelines, what is objectionable about it?

I'm sorry if I seem impatient, I just find this quelling of already public information to be pretty ridiculous and counter productive to the CWCki.--Steve Landcleamer 14:43, 8 May 2012 (PDT)

• Based on my discussions with Canine and Anonymax, I have decided to restore the article. Remember, the CWCki is form Chris's POV so Kim isn't a troll, she has not publicly declared herself to be a troll to Chris. I'd also avoid posting on /cwc/ and CWCki Forums when you make an article on a delicate topic like this.--Champthom 03:09, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

===If I may step in and say a piece===

I know I may not be towing the party line by saying this Champ, but Land has a point here. This is all information that was technically on the wiki anyway, just in out of the way places. Personally, I have no problem with covering things up for trolling purposes, because I understand the need to do so and I'm not one to whine about dang dirty stonecutters, but we have information on Kim here already. I don't care which side of the fence you're on Champ, I'll just go with what you say, but you've got to at least be consistent. Either allow the article outright, or if you object to some of the content in the article being made public, censor it and then allow the censored version to be posted. Your decision is final and no-one would be able to stop you, so I don't know what you're worried about. --Old meme 06:22, 9 May 2012 (PDT)

• True, I realize this, but the issue is that there's a good reason that Kim doesn't already have an article, mostly for privacy reasons which is indeed already covered. I'm trying to convey that subtly. Remember, Chris reads the CWCki, and loose lips sink ships. I don't think "we" released the Kacey calls, Canine tells me it was all dropped by Liquid's twin brother so it's not like we were able to filter through everything to see if anything was objectionable.

This is a difficult decision and I need to discuss it with Canine a bit more, unfortunately we have conflicting schedules so I'll try and catch him tonight.--Champthom 06:31, 9 May 2012 (PDT)

Chris's POV

• Thank you for restoring the Kim article. I am wondering something concerning what you said about the cwicki supposed to be from Chris's point of view. Why do articles like Obesity state that Chris is fat? He's said multiple times that he does not think he is. There are lots of other examples like this.--Steve Landcleamer 17:07, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

Chris and reality would be the best example of this.--Steve Landcleamer 18:13, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

We go by what Chris thinks/says unless we have decent evidence to the contrary. With his obesity, we have more than enough evidence to support this. --Anonymax 01:04, 12 May 2012 (PDT)

Permanently Banned from Message Board

I really don't understand this at all. Please respond to the email I sent you.--Steve Landcleamer 16:21, 6 May 2012 (PDT)

Never mind one of the other mods took care of this.--Steve Landcleamer 20:39, 7 May 2012 (PDT)

Comms

I'm on IRC a lot and today is my day off work so if you're around so am I! --Anonymax 02:19, 11 May 2012 (PDT)

can I help?

Hey I have a capture card that does 720p,1800p,ect and wanted to know if I could use it to help (lbp videos,screen shots) does anything need to be rerecorded? also I'm moving soon so if you could say something in the next week or so (before I have to pack my computer up) that would be great. Blaziken 09:14, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

• Sorry it took a day to get back to you, just had to think as I do appreciate your gumption. To be honest though, I can't think of anything in particular, BUT that's just to the best of my knowledge. Head over to the community portal and ask there, there might be some people to have some ideas. Just do me one teensy favor - be sure to sign your posts (that's four ~ in a row) so we know who you are when you post. --Champthom 07:29, 30 May 2012 (PDT)
• thanks! Blaziken 09:14, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Bruce Johnson

The Bruce Johnson thing is real. I don't even care about the PVCC anymore. I just want you to know I'm not making up what I added to the cwicki. Would you like a wider screenshot of the facebook convo?--Steve Landcleamer 19:26, 20 June 2012 (PDT)

• How do you know it's the real Bruce Johnson? Or rather, why should we trust you? I could easily have made a Bruce Johnson account to fool you. Even if it is real, do we really need it? All it boils down to is Johnson saying he's not a pedophile contrary to what Chris said. Is this really a startling revelation, that Chris said something negative about someone and it's not true? Do we really need to confirm this, in light of Chris's history? --Champthom 23:36, 20 June 2012 (PDT)
• 'Sup bitches, guess who's back? Champy, thought I'd drop in to tell you that under the "no shit is too minor" policy, (which you should really get rid of if it enrages you so), we do indeed need to confirm everything if possible. That said this is still probably bullshit, and confirming this still isn't your job. If you want my two cents, give Landcleamer a chance to convince you of its authenticity at least. I'm sure you have high standards for what you'd accept as convincing proof, so either someone else will go out of their way to contribute something valid, or he can fail to do so and you can say no again. Worst case scenario, Steve Landcleamer turns out to be the weenest of ween trolls and goes through a lot of work to convince you of something fairly inconsequential that can be removed if it later turns out to be fake anyway. The way I see it, this isn't a real problem for you either way. Let the monkey dance. Also, your insulting summaries were hilarious. --Old meme 02:12, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

• I forgot to add in the summary that our friend Steve here wanted to be let into PVCC on the basis of this "startling" revelation. As I've said before, "no shit is too minor" should mean that we don't overlook things, not that we need to get third party confirmation on everything. Anyone who's familiar with Chris knows that his memory isn't totally accurate and he's been known to bullshit. Given that Chris has called Michael Synder a Jew, does this mean we have to contact Michael Synder and confirm whether or not he is a Jew? Do we need to contact Mary Lee Walsh to make sure she's not in fact secretly a witch planning on banning true love from Virginia? It should be pretty obvious that Johnson probably isn't a pedophile, and what does his admission of not being a pedophile say? He could be lying for all we know, I'm not saying he's a pedophile, he probably isn't, but his admission of not being a pedophile shouldn't be startling. I mean, did you expect him to say "Chris got me, I'm a kiddy piddler, I love little boys and molesting them as they sit on my lap and I do horrible profane things to them." Of course the answer is "no," why do we need to have confirmation of this?

As I've said before, I don't like people bothering Chris tangentially related to Chris about stuff. I think having known Chris is punishment enough, it doesn't help to have epic ween trolls like Steve here think they're gonna get into PVCC on the basis of harassing these people and asking them for information about Chris. I think it's pretty damn weird and spergy to do this, that is to contact people with tangential relations to Chris and ask them details about Chris. Someone on the CWCki Forums is like "No, it's not weird, it's just like liking any celebrity like the Kardashians." Here's the thing - I don't think celebrity magazines are hunting down the lady who served one of those Kardashian people coffee and doing a full length interview. It's bizarre, I would be weirded out if some person went up to and wanted me to tell them everything I know about some person I vaguely remember from years ago.

This isn't exactly someone who served Chris coffee, it's a major figure in Christory.--Steve Landcleamer 15:43, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

Burden of proof is on Steve and he's on shakey ground. I don't trust him one bit. I don't like having things that could very easily be false on the CWCki because it hurts our reputation and people already distrust the CWCki as it is, I don't need to give them more reason to distrust it. I don't want to give people an incentive to make up fake bullshit and post it on the CWCki with the thought they'll be declared an epic ween troll for getting "new" "content" and that they'll get into PVCC and that mommy and daddy will finally love them because they'll no longer be wastes of human flesh.

You have to REALLY convince me here, Steve. --Champthom 03:18, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

• Hey, no objections from me. Steve wants to dig up trivial information to try and get into PVCC, that's his business. It's not like it would at all harm the CWCki to put up a single quote from the man if it does turn out to be true. Though really, you need to do something about the abundance of ween trolls trying to get into PVCC, or even just normal idiots desperately begging for it, like 16BitAlex. Maybe the guys in the forum itself or on IRC get a good laugh out of them, but I personally just get depressed when I see people like Stevey-boy cluttering the CWCki recent changes, desperately pursuing some unattainable goal by making bullshit edits and whining as hard as possible on talk pages. It wastes your time, it wastes mine, it's rather sad, and it's not even entertaining enough for the guys on /cwc/ to get more than a single thread from it. All in all, a pathetic affair for all involved. I would suggest temp-banning Pipecleaner if he continues to make a nuisance of himself after this, under your "Drama whoring" clause. --Old meme 06:13, 21 June 2012 (PDT)
• Champ, you have my email. This might be a dumb idea on my part, but I'm willing to give you the facebook login information so you can see the message for yourself. I'm willing to trust you to not fuck with the account, just to go into the private messages and verify the authenticity. After that can I be allowed back to the cwicki forum, under the understanding that I'll never ask to join the PVCC again?--Steve Landcleamer 07:50, 21 June 2012 (PDT)
• I think /cwc/ has made a good point, a point I have, is that - what did you expect him to say? Of course he's going to say he didn't molest Chris, even if he did molest Chris he's not going to admit it to some stranger. So having him say that he didn't do it isn't saying much, because either way he'll deny it and that really doesn't add anything to the discussion. And like I said, given Chris's background, we know he exaggerates things, and that his recollection of events aren't always the most reliable, do we need to actually get confirmation of this?

Ignoring the issue you wanted to get into PVCC, I don't see what it really adds to the discussion. I also don't want to encourage people to hassle people connected to Chris to get information.

If people feel like it absolutely, positively must remain in the article, I'd say something like "From a Facebook message purportedly from Bruce Johnson..." or something like that so people can interpret it however they please. --Champthom 02:38, 22 June 2012 (PDT)

• Alright, can we keep it in under that wording?--Steve Landcleamer 06:34, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
• How do we even know it was from Bruce anyway? I'm not doubting Steve Landcleamer has a message on his facebook, I'm 100% sure that if anyone where to get onto his facebook they would find said message...I'm doubting that it's Bruce. People have been faking to be people Chris knows for quite a while (like Megan), this wouldn't be a first.--4Macie 09:10, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
• Why would someone make an entire fake facebook account full of pictures and friends, on the random change that years after its creation someone recognizes them as Chris Chan's old principal, just so they can dish out false information? If that was the case surely they wouldn't have just said that Chris is a liar and insane.--Steve Landcleamer 10:43, 22 June 2012 (PDT)
• May I ask a question? Even if you did successfully contact Chris's old principal, why was the only thing you could ask "R u pedo lol?". The big questions about Chris's time at NGE are "Why was he sent to the principal?", "Why exactly did they record his screams, was it because he was a repeat offender?", "Why was he transferred there from Greene County Primary?", and "Were the principal's lap incident and scream recording incident the same incident?". Any of those would be worth adding to the CWCki, and it would have cleared away most of the fog surrounding the event. Instead you asked for information that everyone already knew. It's like you stumbled into a garden containing hundreds of delicious alien fruits and came back with a half-eaten ordinary banana.--MoarLurk 15:00, 22 June 2012 (PDT)

Firstly, if you read the screenshot, you'll see I did ask him what really went down with Chris being sent to his office and having his screams recorded. All Johnson says is Chris is liar. Secondly I figured asking private information out of the blue about a former student would get no answer, by connecting it to the fact that Chris is getting sued by Snyder (who he also claimed was a pedophile), the message comes across as a concerned citizen looking out for Mr. Johnson, rather than some creep obsessed with Chris, and thus got a reply.--Steve Landcleamer 13:56, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

• I would also add that just because the Facebook profile is full of pictures and friends doesn't mean it isn't fake. It could just be a -really- good fake. The kind of fake that leaves no obvious evidence that makes it easy to discern as a fake. As to why someone would have done it, stranger and less tactically sound things have happened, enough that I can conceive of and not be surprised by someone doing it for exactly the reasons you mentioned, regardless of the lack of point in doing so. -Perpetual Lurker 15:17, 22 June 2012 (PDT)

I will be happy to provide you a link to the facebook page, along with it's postings dating years back, and you still tell me this is can all be chalked up to an elaborate troll scheme.--Steve Landcleamer 15:43, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

• You don't need to. I checked the page in its entirety (at least as much as I had access to) before I posted here, and did again before posting this. I think this is more of a difference of opinion than anything: the factors that convince you that it is real (profile in existence since 2008, existence of friends and wall posts, etc), don't automatically convince me. Like 4Macie said, if this is a fake, it is hardly the first time someone has done it. I'll also reiterate my opinion that a -really- good fake will not have any obvious signs that it is a fake. I'm not saying that the profile is fake, just that there isn't any compelling evidence that it isn't. My official position is that it exists, and people more savvy and/or more connected than I can verify the truth of it all if they choose to. Whether it is or it isn't, I'm inclined to agree with Champthom in that Bruce Johnson not being a pedophile is hardly an earth-shattering surprise. At best, it's just (allegedly) confirming something everybody but Chris already believed to be true. -Perpetual Lurker 17:51, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

• Does anyone object to keeping this info under the wording Champ suggested, "From a Facebook message purportedly from Bruce Johnson..."? --Steve Landcleamer 15:43, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

• I don't think we should put it on here at all until Champthom is convinced it's real. Also; epic ween, brah.. --Old meme 03:33, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

My thoughts

I think the wrong focus here is whether it's indeed real or not. Supposedly this Facebook profile has been around a while, has plenty of photos, etc. What motive is there for someone to go into such detail and for what purposes? It's pretty easy why someone would want to impersonate someone like Megan or someone Chris knew from high school - so Chris will see these people, decide to talk to them, and they'd then be able to troll Chris. What purpose is there for someone faking Bruce Johnson? Why would Chris decide to contact Bruce Johnson? I can only really imagine Chris deciding 1) to look up Johnson and 2) taking the effort to contact him mostly to say something like "You molested me you pedofork!" and mind you, Chris is pretty lazy so he wouldn't go to that much hassle. So we have to possibilities - 1) someone has planned since 2008 to troll Chris and has created a believable Facebook profile, all for the motive of trolling Chris or 2) it's actually Bruce Johnson. Occam's razor would suggest the latter.

I think the real issue here is - how can we be sure it's real or not? There's no way of knowing whether this is real or not. Are we supposed to take Steve's word for it? What's to stop other people from making similar claims? People love making shit up about Chris and using that as a way to get attention for themselves or in Steve's case, to try and get into PVCC. The CWCki was designed purposely to separate truth and fact and that's why I take this sort of thing seriously, namely that I don't like things of dubious origins to be cited as facts on here.

But also, let's consider - why the hell is this so damn important? I mean, it's just Steve saying "Chris says you're a pedophile" and Johnson says "No I'm not." Is that really startling? Will this totally change the way we look at Chris's claim? You know what? Even if he was a pedophile, do you really expect him to admit to a strange he molested children? So his confession says nothing really. I think that a reader of the CWCki should be familiar with Chris's track record with memory in that he tends to remember things in his favor (like that he was a Pokemon gym leader vs. Lucas and Mimms's claim that he only did it one time when all the regular people were out), plus that repressed memories in general can be dubious and that it's very easy to construct pseudo-memories. Let's be VERY generous and let's say that Chris was indeed molested by Bruce Johnson. Does this really excuse his homophobia? I'd say no. True, it'd be a more valid reason than thinking that you can "turn" gay but I think that really only justifies not liking one particular gay person. Let's say a black person robs me - does this justify me being racist to all black people? No, that'd be silly, just because one particular black person harmed me doesn't mean I should hate blacks as a groups. Same thing applies to Chris and gays.

Side note - Steve, don't break up one of my posts, because it looks like you wrote that whole bit when I in fact did.

In regards to your comment, you're right, this isn't like someone serving coffee - it's much weirder. It's more like if a complete stranger approached you on the street and asked you about the guy who sat two seats in back of you in English class and demanding you tell them every single detail about them. No, Chris isn't a celebrity, he's our bizarre obsession and we need to be honest with ourselves, it's sorta weird. If it wasn't for trolling, Chris would be an ordinary, dull person, albeit with some eccentricities but just an ordinary person who you might look at a few extra seconds if you were to pass him by but not a celebrity by normal standards. If you think it's normal to contact people who vaguely know people from ages ago and ask them for every single detail about said person, they'd probably think you're some sort of stalker or there's something mental with you.

So should we have this tidbit on the article? Like I said, I don't think it really adds anything. If it's generating this much furious debate, I don't think it'd be wise to include it. This isn't about me not being convinced, it's about not convincing the CWCki community as a whole. Like I said, I don't think we're losing out on anything major here.

Those are my thoughts at least. --Champthom 05:20, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

Why not include it? Isn't there an inherent interest to here Johnson's response even though it is what we'd assume it would be? It can only make an article stronger. Take for example a New York Times article about an alleged criminal, it will always make a note that they contacted the accused, even if the person simply replies with a refusal to comment.

Including Johnson's comments in the article helps verify what people suspect about Chris (he made this incident up). Isn't further information/confirmation better than none?

As far as proving the facebook message was not some photoshop, I'm still offering Champ access to the acount so that I can prove I am not doctoring things (and if I was wouldn't you expect the details to be a lot juicier?)--Steve Landcleamer 17:41, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

Seriously, why are you trying so hard for this? I'm pretty sure anyone who reads what Chris thinks about Bruce would naturally assume that Bruce didn't actually touch Chris inappropriately and that Chris's screams were not recorded for Bruce's amusement... --4Macie 21:15, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

I've already explained myself. What is the harm in including it?--Steve Landcleamer 06:46, 26 June 2012 (PDT)

So would you like the account info? I'd like to definitively prove that this is real and move on.--Steve Landcleamer 17:26, 27 June 2012 (PDT)

• I don't think anyone doubts that you received the message, the uncertainty lies in whether the account you received it from is genuine which cannot be proved by someone logging into your FB account. And also whether it's important enough to go on the CWCki anyway. Samboy 02:07, 28 June 2012 (PDT)

The what's wrong with the wording Champ suggested, "From a Facebook message purportedly from Bruce Johnson..."? We've already established that there's an incredibly slim chance that it's a fake account, and this would reflect that small margin of error.--Steve Landcleamer 06:41, 28 June 2012 (PDT)