Talk:White knight

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Svenka really isn't the same sort of counter-troll as Robert Simmons V. Bob was actually a troll, who fought the trolls to gain Chris's trust and he turned out to be a pretty heck of a troll (see the church audio). Svenka is a troll who seems to be doing this because s/he thinks it's funny to fuck with us fucking with Chris instead of fucking with Chris. The two really are different sorts of creatures. --Champthom 05:23, 5 May 2009 (CEST)

More importantly, is there a reason the church audio isn't mentioned in Robert Simmons V or Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church? Axe 08:19, 5 May 2009 (CEST)
  • Actually, no, and I just think it's because people forgot it exists because it only came out like, a day before the date Chris had with Emily. That and no one felt like listening to an audio that was mostly a church sermon with Chris either singing loudly or saying "HMMMM, INTERESTING" very loudly to things the pastor was saying. --Champthom 20:27, 6 May 2009 (CEST)

Chris is abusing his monthly tugboat

Chris is stealing our taxpayer's money.. and I believe "Old Time Rock And Roll on Shredwud" is the worst example of him abusing his monthly tugboat. Pulled out from one YouTube user's comment: "As Americans suffer the worst recession in living memory, with tens millions of people struggling to put food on the table and keep the lights on, a lazy, would-be rapist and pedophile spends his days playing video games at taxpayers expense."

Should I point this out as one of the few reasons why White Knighting should be justified? --shogun 05:30, 19 October 2009 (CEST)

Redirects from Counter trolls and anti trolls

I think these two ideas can be mentioned briefly in this article, but since they're not, I think they need to be in order to keep the redirect. It seems that anti-trolls and counter trolls are not the same as white knights.

White knights are people who see Chris and go "BAWWWWWWWWWW, he's an autistic, people are bullying him, I should troll them instead since they're being mean" or "LEAVE CHRIS ALONE!" I can't think of too many genuine white knights. Maybe Harbal was.

Counter trolls are people who see us and say "Wow, these fuckers spend all their time trolling a retard and that's fucking pathetic. I want to fuck things up for them." I think this might be Svenka's real intention, not so much a genuine concern for Chris but because she gets some joy of fucking up the efforts to fuck up Chris.

Anti-trolls are people who decide to work false flag and act like they're on Chris's side, fighting off trolls and making videos in hope of gaining Chris's trust. This is what Robert Simmons V more or less did, troll Chris by pretending to fight the trolls in order to gain his trust. --Champthom 20:34, 6 May 2009 (CEST)

You're right, I made a mistake. This article already encompasses both white knights and counter trolls (with or without hyphen?) and I think it should stay that way because the listed reasons can apply to both groups. If it stays, it should be restructured a little and renamed to something like White knights and counter trolls. Then write a short article on Anti-troll, or redirect it to Trolls? Axe 05:51, 7 May 2009 (CEST)

Moar on the white knight antics

There's moar here. --Anonymous 07:29, 7 May 2009 (CEST)

Block vs. Ban

Blocking and banning are different on Wikipedia. A ban is an outright, written "You [the person, not the account] are not allowed on Wikipedia anymore" instated by the whole community, while a block is just one admin blocking the account. Semicolon 03:51, 12 August 2009 (CEST)

True - in case of Wikipedia. However, I was talking about Chris's behaviour websites in general. I don't mind either term being used in the article, though - in most other websites, these terms would be mostly synonymous. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 11:18, 25 August 2009 (CEST)


In the Empathy section, there is a note that the people in question empathizing with Chris are autistic; it reads awkwardly because all auts lack empathy and are, by definition, psychopaths. --Robotnik 01:22, 9 December 2009 (CET)

  • hahaha what? sauce plz --sonichuis44 04:03, 9 December 2009 (CET)

How serious should this article be?

There is a website called RationalWiki that primarily exists to uncover the lulz that pseudoscience pushers promote. (Think of it as ED for geeks, if it helps.) The contributors generally take a humorous approach on a lot of topics. Yet, at some point, they found out that the article on Andy Schlafly was ranked high in Google, so they decided that the article should be serious and factual in tone, so that people who're considering paying money for (*ahem*) high quality home-schooling tutoring and online courses at a family-friendly (*ahem*) encyclopedia would know what they're getting.

So this brings me to this question. This is a relatively important article, and I hope that most people read this early on when they first stumble into the big mess that Chris has made. This article is already fairly serious in tone, and is shaping up into a nice guide on the topic of "why helping Chris has been found futile, and why the trolls actually have a good point". Should we put in some deliberate effort and place in guidelines here to make sure this article stays that way? "This is an important article. Feel free to improve it. Just keep in mind, more so than usual, that you shouldn't ruin it." --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thought there Wwwwolf. That's a question that covers more areas of the CWCki than just this article, and I've never really seen it addressed. Conventional wisdom seem to be:'If Champthom likes it, then it's good enough for me'. Problem is, I'm never sure what Champ actually likes. Policy time? --YawningSquirtleRedux 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a protocol (it sounds cooler than policy). You could set a number of guidelines/rules regarding how a page should be created and maintained. I think in light of the Wallflower incident it would be a good idea since the Cwcki should be held to a higher standard (than, say, the ED). Sounds like there should be a topic page on this issue. --Caboose_-1 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
We have some of those rules in place already. Style hasn't been addressed in detail though. --YawningSquirtleRedux 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Style is something we need to work on. However, let me address first this article and then about what makes a good CWCki page and the rationale of what I think is good.
To be honest, I'm not a fan of this page. It's very well written, don't get me wrong, but it's not very encyclopedic. It's more of an essay on why one shouldn't white knight for Chris than an article that one would look for information about past white knighting attempts for Chris. Personally, I'm not even a big fan of what constitutes a white knight since in some circles, anyone who doesn't want to see Chris hit in the face with a baseball bat is a "white knight." There's also a tendency to assume that people knew everything we know about Chris now back in 2008. Vivian's AIM chat with Chris is perceived as "white knighting" when this was back when people thought that maybe Chris could be reasoned with.
However, I tend to leave it be since it's an exception for the rule. If we were strict, then Audiobooks would need to go in the Fan index because there's plenty of other fan works Chris has mentioned before that don't have their own entries but it's the exception to the rule given the fact it's core of troll culture. Likewise, this article is an interesting look at meta-trolling, that is topics that arise from trolling Chris himself. Fuck, in a way this article could very be reworked to be called "Meta-trolling" but nobody would know what the fuck that means.
I think it's very possible to make this page better, though I'm not entirely sure how. I know ED has a template along the lines of "This article is good, don't fuck with it" so maybe something along the lines of this here?
Also, let me all let you in on a secret - I tend to run CWCki in a common law fashion. I try to see myself as the judge, I generally look to Wikipedia to see how they handle things (in other words, established precedence) and as things come up here, I try to establish a precedent based on the circumstances and try to find a general principle to govern things. Ideally, a wiki should work that when people collaborate, some sort of order arises spontaneously that works for us.
Just like we're not ED, we're also not Wikipedia. We're CWCki. We can do what works for us. I personally think we should lean towards Wikipedia than ED, but we have flexibility.
Now, what makes a good page and when should it be created? There's obvious cases when a page should be made - new media arises, that sort of thing. But what about something else? First, ask - "How does this relate to Chris? Is this something crucial into understanding Chris?" I recall around the time of the Father Call, people wanted a page for Matt Devoria. But then you ask - "Can this material be incorporated into another page? Can it be done without going off on in another direction?" Easily Matt Devoria can be incorporated into the Father Call - otherwise, you have an article where it's along the lines of "Matthew Devoria is Kacey's father" and that's it. Furthermore, is it essential to know who Matthew Devoria is outside the context of how he relates to Chris? Obviously you need to know something about Clyde Cash or any of Chris's sweethearts in order to understand why Chris is rambling on about these people and how they're connected to Chris. Then, ask "Is it exceptional enough to have an entire article written about it?" Someone pointed out that it was odd that Heather Inglesias has her own page despite being an off screen character while certain characters who have actually appeared in the comic have not. I believe such a page is warranted because the reasons why Chris created Heather (to appease people into thinking he's not a total homophobe, such that it would ruin his chances for china) gives us some insight into Chris's mind.
If I delete a page, it's usually for a few reasons. Obvious reason #1 is namefagging - someone thinks they're troll persona is SO COOL that they deserve an entire page about it (this hasn't happened in quite some time). Most common reason is usually because it's something that can be incorporated into another article or really doesn't deserve an entire article. I recall people making articles for those radio shows Chris appeared on and I deleted those articles because a one like reference to those shows could easily be made in the content they discuss (I think someone made an article for a transcript of the show, which is kinda iffy, IMHO. Need to consider that). A lot of the time though, it's people don't plan. They make an article, might write one sentence and that's it. You don't have to write the entire article in advance (though it helps), but at least leave an idea of what you're aiming at on the talk page so people know how to proceed. If you make a page, say "Chris and his parents," don't write a one sentence like "Chris doesn't get along with his parents (I'm not saying this should be a page, just an example). Sometimes it's not so much I delete a page because I think it shouldn't be a page but it's just so awful and all over the place that I think it should be scrapped and people start over. If it looks like people put considerable work into it, then I'll usually make a subpage of the original page creator's user page so they can work on it before making it a proper article again.
Style, I agree, is one thing we could work on, namely in tone and whatnot. But as I said, we do have flexibility and we can do what works. Personally, I'm not a big fan of setting everything in stone since that can ruin flexibility as people point to the rules and say "See? You have to do it MY way!" I do think that the Style guide needs some work in terms of tone. We really should be avoiding essays like this article and focus more on encyclopedic toned articles, yet still make articles pleasurable to read to encourage people to utilize the CWCki. --Champthom 07:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Champ, it's times like these that I remember how much I love you. You're saying you want some work on the style guide? --YawningSquirtleRedux 11:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

TV Tropes

I spotted a TV Tropes white knight attempt on the Sonichu page, so I added it. By the way, does this article need rewriting? I'm inclined to think so. -Ronichu 00:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Tropers aren't bad people, (though they are often people with incredibly bad taste). I assume whoever wrote that read this article in full, and really genuinely wants Chris to stop being such a monumental screwup. Their linking it back here is probably their way of admitting that it's (low-level) white knighting, and that it really is futile.
Granted, it's all a moot point because Chris has never read TVtropes.
Anyways I think this article is pretty good, but Ronichu, so far all your works have been awesome, so if you have plans to make it better, by all means go nuts.--Beat 03:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if this can classify as "white knighting". It's "inadvertent white knighting" at best. They don't seem to have any intention of stopping the trolling or even acknowledge the trolls outside of "all your fans are trolls". Other white knights we have on here have directly tried to interfere with trolling/stop it. I don't think that's the case here. While Chris getting help might put an end to trolling him, I doubt they had that in mind, not that it's ever even going to happen. Basically, I'm saying, "should we just remove this section" or "can we re-write it to point out that their white knighting is unintentional"?--Spinningwindmill.gifDrSerbiaSpinningwindmill.gif 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone think Chris did infact see the message and erased it himself? SerenityMoonstone 21:32, 8 August 2010 ((EST))

  • That's not his style. If he saw it, based on the CWCki vandalism, he'd probably blank the page and then add a whole bunch of 'TVTropes is a load of BULL!' style comments. Subtley is not sonething Chris does, ever, with anything. --Ronichu 18:54, 8 August 2010 (PDT)
  • It is known why it was taken down it was part of a general attempt to avoid flamebait and they knew someone somewhere would link Chris to the page and start an edit war. Sam
Actually it's because Fast Eddie is trying to run a media analysis site that avoids saying anything, no matter how horrible, is actually bad. And because his usual solution to problems is to gut an article and lock it forever. He's been known to make ridiculous statements on the forums to the effect that criticism is bad, critics are horrible people who lack the sparkly gift of creativity, and that Yahtzee is a horrible bastard for making fun of a game he did some work on. He literally believes that any site which doesn't enforce a strict code of positivity will become Encyclopedia Dramatica (seriously, he's said so in as many words and without a hint of irony) and that it's somehow possible to describe a work like Battlefield Earth or Sonichu without ever stating it's only remarkable as a textbook example of how to use every narrative tool in existence badly. He's fifty years old, hangs around on a forum full of maladjusted teenage anime fans who worship him (or they disappear) and looks like the bastard offspring of a drifter and Captain Ahab. In other words, he's probably doing it because can't figure out why everyone's so mean to Chris. Ted Van Gruder 10:02, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Speaking of 50 years old... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talkcontribs) 10:20, 17 January 2012 (PST)

White knights with no good intentions for Chris

I have a couple of examples.

Anna McLerran is believed, by some, to only enable and defend Chris for attention and to cope with her own insecurities.

Jessica Quinn tried to influence Chris a few times for her fat fetish; for example, encouraging him to go along with the transition method through prunes and soy sauce, just to make him more attractive to her.

Should either of those examples be listed in this article? Steampunk Mage (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible new subcategory

I feel like in the modern CWC landscape, white knights and weens have become nigh-indistinguishable and I almost feel like a new article on Orbiters would be a way to cover the grey area between these two.

There's Enablers. PsychoNerd054's working on a proper article for it on his userpage. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Honest question about revisiting the tone and length of this article

The themes and ideas of this page seem to cross-over a lot with A-Logging, Weening and Enabling. I feel a good portion of this article repeats itself and over-extends the notion that Chris-Chan isn't a guiltless and is the biggest contributing factor in his own troubles. Especially with the recent creation of the Enablers Page can we not condense the article?

On the question of cutting things down I notice the"Chris will not even read your message" is another section that can just be put into "Chris will reject your advice" or "Chris will reject your disclosure of the truth"

The sections of "Chris is beyond pity" and "Autism does not excuse a bad person" touch upon the same idea. Both say that Chris is a visibly troubled person, but that trying to help him will be in vain. I also feel inclined to question the tone of these two sections. If the point of these two sections should be to make people realize that Chris is beyond help, then why does the tone of both seem designed to absolve readers of any pity they might feel for him? To me, this is a fundamentally different conversation than telling people not to white knight for Chris, especially when the opinion of this page seems to lean into towards the verdict that Chris needs professional or institutional help.

-D1cksandtr1cks (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Solid points, I agree. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)