CWCki:Policy

Community Portal
Forum	News	Policy
Help	Technical	General

For discussion of CWCki policy and rules.

everything i say is important so it goes on top also purging the CWCki

I'm honestly tired of the resources being used on the CWCki for stupid bullshit like talk pages and user pages and fan works and speculation and etc. I'm sick of both the time spent on that and the ACTUAL resources. I've been trying to solve this god damn internal 500 server error and I'm fairly sure it has to do with the large amount of stupid pages and stupid edits that have been made over the years (this is sad, YEARS)

So stop spending time on the CWCki doing bullshit like making shitty templates denoted you are a cool guy or making a stupid sonichu troll art that's really neat and all and start working on actual stupid bullshit like mumble chats or something. at least that'll entertain more people than all this other shit people have been doing. Clydec 09:48, 14 August 2010 (PDT)

Purging histories.

At some point, I think we will need to purge the histories of high-edit count articles. I know that's against wiki standards, but I'm up to solving this 500 internal server error once and for all. Clydec 09:48, 14 August 2010 (PDT)

Fan Works policy

right now there aren't really any rules regards what can and cannot go in the fan namespace. this is because i trusted users to judge for themselves whether or not their work belonged on the cwcki. so, let's get its purpose straight: fan works was meant to be PVCC's troll productions subforum, but public. it is not, however, a mirror site incase deviantart goes down. i feel that some individuals are forgetting that this is a wiki about CWC. now, it's quite tricky to say what can and cannot be hosted here. there are very few examples of things being uploaded that are completely unrelated to chris or sonichu. however, i will try my best to clarify what is appropriate.

Examples of good fanworks:

• A drawing of CWC saying DYKES DYKES CHINA being placed into the "CWC's Second Message" article
• An "artist's depiction" of something we have no pictures of but how it may have looked, i.e. Chris in the mall with his attraction sign, Chris using his "red string of fate", Chris's IRL confrontation with Mary Lee Walsh, Fapcup, etc
• Comics what are actually funny

Examples of bad fanworks:

• A Sonichu comic depicting how you think Sonichu should have been
• Shitty recolored Sonichu and Rosechu "original characters"
• Your shitty fursona with a Sonichu tail shoved up its ass

to summarise, i think the distinction lies in whether or not it is actually related to chris. there are lots of things related to sonichu, many of which include chris, but are actually disconnected from chris's antics themselves. i don't think these are appropriate for this wiki, and i see their numbers increasing(although i would like to refrain from naming names).

please discuss any changes or clarifications that you wish made, however i would like to implement these new rules by the end of the week. if a user feels their own uploads were, in light of these policy changes, in error then they can remove them now to save the jerkops the trouble of removing them later.

PEACE, AND HAVE A GOOD DAY --Cogsdev 21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could we see just what works are and are not on the chopping block? Just so we can see where we stand on this. Bill Lumburg 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• i guess it might be useful to have a template for that --Cogsdev 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No. When the purge is complete you will know exactly where you stand. --Delabonte 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, does one need any kind of admin status to delete files? I'm trying to figure this out. --Xanabit 03:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just who decides what's worthy?

I can get behind the fact that you want this wiki to be about Chris, with his Sonichu works simply being an extension of him. What bothers me is how all this hate coming from users complaining about fan works they simply don't care for. If fan works are removed all together from here, I'd be alright with that. But when someone said "all Sonichu-related works need to go, except the ones I like!" it seems more like favoritism rather than objective policy. --Xanabit 00:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though I myself am hardly unbiased. --manwithoutabody 00:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's almost like this wiki is run by trolls who cae not for your feelings.--Delabonte 01:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because we troll Chris doesn't mean we can't deal with each other in a civilized manner. --manwithoutabody 02:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't troll shit, spud. DrShoggoth 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can anything be done on this site without creating a shitstorm? This isn't some crusade against drawfags, and it shouldn't be painted as such by EITHER side. The site is about Chris, and the large amount of coverage on his creations is only because they made up such a large part of his life. The CWCki isn't about Sonichu, it's about Chris. Maybe some exceptions can be made, but for now fanworks not directly about Chris need to go. I myself enjoy many, especially Fear and Loathing in CWCville, but unless it is used to successfully troll Chris, it doesn't belong here. Thing is, we need a peaceful resolution to this. Shit with faggot users and /cwc/ is bad enough, we don't need this to blow up. Maybe exceptional fanworks can be allowed; if not, they can be hosted on DA, or perhaps a site devoted to Sonichu. The artists and fans need to remember that this isn't an attack against their work, it's just policy. Users who want to be active in the execution of this policy need to not be dicks about it, and be responsible about it. It's not "deleting shit one doesn't like," it's removing unnecessary images and articles. --Schuzrum Dias 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I've said before, I will print out every page, bind it, and mail it to him when I'm finished. Which should be in two weeks or so. If my works are deleted before then, I'm not going to worry too much. In fact, it wouldn't bother me much at all if the entire fan section was removed and all fan art was deleted. I'm just a little put off from the vitriol a lot of the critics are spewing. --Xanabit 03:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You think he's going to read it, that's cute. --Delabonte 03:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, what's the harm in trying? The most it'll cost me is a few bucks in postage. Well, that and the markers. Now I understand why he textwalls so much, those things dry out quick! :P --Xanabit 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I could totally get on board starting a new site just to host these things. If we do so, though, we need clearly-defined criteria as to what gets to stay. Limiting ourselves to stuff Chris has seen would be fair, but it would need to be absolutely enforced. Which is to say, we couldn't have a page on Chris Gets Laid, excellent though it is, unless he himself responded to it in some way. -Manwithoutabody 03:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could do that. That's entirely acceptable, as it focuses on Chris and its activities. What you couldn't do is a story about a Sonichu recolor having some dumb adventure while Chris gets laid as a side-story. DrShoggoth 03:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well by those rules, we'd have to delete the page on Sonichu Is Dead, because Chris barely appears in it. We need a single, objective policy for what gets to stay and what doesn't, regardless of quality. --Manwithoutabody 11:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there has to be some kind of objective criteria, not just what largely seems to be "Your fic/comic is bad, and you should feel bad, ur a furfag lawl." If you want to cut fics because the Fan section is getting out of hand, fine. Just come up with a standard that makes sense and enforce it. If the "How you think Sonichu should have been" rule is enforced, then the entire fan section will be pretty much gutted. If we go with the "About Chris not Sonichu", well pretty much every fic has Chris' Mary Sue Avatar Combined with his real self on there, so where's the line? Is it IRL Chris, or Comic Chris? Mellowyellowsalvation 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I think limiting ourselves to stuff to which Chris has responded makes the most sense. He either did, or he didn't, and there are no shades of grey. --Manwithoutabody 02:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I've said elsewhere, I personally think the Fan Works index is more of a hassle than it's worth and we should get rid of it. Clyde has suggested a separate wiki and I think that might be the best solution. --Champthom 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would agree that a second site for fan works would probably be the best course of action. However, I think we should consider keeping notable fanworks (that is, those that Chris has responded to) here on the CWCki. --ThatMan 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • This site is for things that have trolled Chris, so we should absolutely keep them. However, I notice that lots of things that don't fit those guidelines have survived the purge. Why? --Manwithoutabody 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Examples of bad fanworks

Most of the fan works don't seem to fall in any of those categories. Is there something else that's a problem?--trombonista 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, a lot of the admins are just fickle, want things they specifically don't like deleted no matter if there was a good reason or not, and don't seem to realize that trolls don't necessarily have to be asses to anyone and everyone. NoVu 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Right. It's that, it has nothing to do with an overwhelming majority of it being some sick fucks fantasy and has virtually or literally nothing to do with Chris. They're just angry, angry DAMN DIRTY SLANDEROUS TROLLS. Sully 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• To avoid altercations like this, I would delete the index entirely. Simply put, there are other, far more suitable venues to put this, so you won't ever have to lapse into offended rage, or conversely, argue with trolls sticking their 'n***** noses' in your business. --Jump 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dumb suggestion

Why couldn't we just grandfather stuff in? --GandWuser 12:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

my suggestion

wipe everything and start a new wiki because i'm cutting down everything that's eating up resources. Clydec 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• people should pay attention to me more. also pay attention to me. Clydec 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. --Manwithoutabody 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

i've been considering moving to a new version of mediawiki, but might as well wait for 1.16 to reach stable. this should go on technical though i guess --Cogsdev 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys

The admins are at liberty to delete whatever the fuck they don't like. It just so happens they don't like torture porn involving Sonees and Roseys and comics intended to piss Chris off a la Asperchu. I know Asperchu gave you all hope for your fan comics and getting into the annals of troll history, but Asperchu happened because until then no one had attempted anything like it. The way to get into troll history is not to follow in the footsteps of more famous trolls, but to find areas of Chris's psyche no one has prodded before and poke the shit out of them until you get an angry YouTube video. If you really really REALLY still want your fics visible on the internet, make your own Sonichu site for fanworks or join a preexisting one, such as Cafe Rosechu (which is run by the girl who made Capering Berries). ... As for the underage guro, fucking stop. That's disgusting. --James Lamp-Eye 22:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• What he said. --Inos 07:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you missed something

Both the [1] and talk page for my crap remains, as well as all the pages I uploaded. I'll take care of it... if someone can tell me how to delete pages. --Xanabit 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and NPOV

Recent events have brought up these issues, so let's address them.

First, let's do our best to aim for some semblance of NPOV. Things considered by us to be good humored may not be taken that way by others. So yeah, try not to insult other sites, users, etc.

Harassment - yes, there are fuckwits on this wiki. There's fuckwits on any wiki. But don't point it out to them. People need to be able to edit without fear of harassment from others for their users. It's one thing to tell someone they're wrong or being just stupid, it's another to tell them they're now under watch by a group of people with various intents. I really can't ago against Cogs, as she has different ideas how to run the CWCki than I do, and she is the site owner, but please don't harass other users. If they're stupid, just point it out and explain calmly why but telling them they're fuckwits is no way to do it. Srsly, I expect a bit more from you people. --Champthom 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the statement about NPOV. When i edit articles that's usually what I'm going for. The CWCville article was ridiculous and full of shit that just wasn't the case, as are a great many articles. People making jokes and idle speculation at the expense of reality.

So kids, keep the memes out, and if a facet of Chris' mind or life is an unknown leave it that way instead of inserting your own idle speculation. We're here to document the real CWC (and related fictions about CWC created by the real CWC), not to create our own CWC. Dr. Herodotus P. Shoggoth :Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences, Medallion Guardian, Imperial Emu, Emeritus of the Ancient and Justified Order of the Turtle 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So, essentially, kill them gently? --Jump 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've been thinking that maybe the best solution at this point would be to prohibit any discussion of matters unrelated to Chris and the CWCki, even on your own user page. Thus, many of the members who had been harassed or whatever in the past would probably have never been targeted in the first place. Granted, I would prefer if we didn't have to limit the users right to say what they want, and it would certainly be a pain in the ass to enforce,but could potentially prevent most if not all of the harassment issues. --ThatMan 21:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• This wouldn't be an entirely bad idea, given that I know Wikipedia has basic rules about user pages, namely it's used to discuss one's contributions to Wikipedia and nothing more. Good thinking.--Champthom 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• It might also help if suggesting that we resolve a bureaucratic issue without resulting to namecalling didn't result in vague threats. --Star Platinum 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • agreed. I'm not exactly the biggest contributor on here, but even I've seen Delabonte threatening others for asking him to be a bit less abrasive in his messages, asking why exactly they were in trouble for something, or even not sharing the same opinion as him. Why does this guy get away with it? Also, I don't care if he's "respected by Cogs" as has been said, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to abuse his position, spam angry templates on other people's accounts just because he doesn't like them, and generally treat everyone else like shit. NoVu 00:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree on this policy. This kind of harassment brings down CWCki's appearance in a whole. It makes us look less like a reputable source on an autistic manchild and more like a restricted community of threatening rep destruction and overenforced rules. There is no need to attack innocents just for casual talk or for living certain lifestyles, it's just plain wrong in general. Delabonte is just a person who feels privileged and like he needs to point out things about people and act like he needs to be a Jr. Mod of sorts. To be frank, this is annoying and just rude. I'm a member of many places, but never once have I done anything like go out and go "OH NO THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING MY RULES TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE !" and not a lot of people here have before. It's inappropriate, immature and quite low IQed. So, in conclusion, and tl;dr: Agree with idea, down with empty threated non-mod steam-filled members. --Sen. John Eniggy, finishing opening statements for case on the Congressional floor 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not to be a jackass or anything, but try and keep in mind where you are. This is a website dedicated to trolling an autistic manchild. Many of the people here are involved with other trolling operations and such. Lots of trolls like to target furrys. By ousting yourself as a furry here you're essentially making yourself a black man at a Ku Klux Klan rally. Not saying that all of this harassment should have occurred, but it certainly wasn't unforeseeable to the victims. --ThatMan 05:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• ThatMan has nailed why Delabonte and others feel warranted in acting like they do and this is pretty much the justification for some of Cog's and Clyde's actions here. Remember, this is a critical site of Chris, essentially out to troll him, and so you're not going to be attracting the same sort of people to edit as say, Wikipedia. I can talk to Delabonte about shit.--Champthom 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, I'm not a furry (they scare me, to be quite honest- I'd sooner run through traffic and fling myself off a highway bridge than be one) but the point here, as shown by your post is, is about the exploits of Chris and the trolls who have trolled him, not a place for people to use trolling to vent their anger upon here. I don't support weeabooism, but I also don't support using CWCki as a stress ball. --Eniggy 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, Chris is a particularly bad furry, so bashing them is arguably part of our mission. We shouldn't get carried away, but I don't think anybody would object to the occasional snippy comment. --Manwithoutabody 21:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User pages for banned users

Anyone opposed to not having user pages for banned users? Seems to be taking up space and seems sorta silly. I once said something along the lines of "To serve an example" or something but now I think it's just a waste of space. Anyone opposed to deleting user pages of permanently banned user? --Champthom 23:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. --James Lamp-Eye 23:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the user. I see no problem in deleting some of IBAGeneva's accounts, but we should keep a couple of examples (maybe between five and ten?).--trombonista forgot to sign

I would agree that we should just delete their pages so as to not waste space, but is there any way we could possibly mark that they were banned when their signature is shown on talk pages and stuff like that? I just feel like this would help prevent any potential confusion between users who are banned and users who don't have user pages. --ThatMan 01:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• A short page about wby they were banned sounds good. --Ronichu 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That actually gives me a better idea, maybe their could be a page of banned users, with notes showing the reason for why they were banned. When a user is banned, their userpage could just be a redirect to this page.--ThatMan 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

fuck what I was about to say, the best balance between saving space and giving good examples of what not to do would probably be to do what ThatMan suggested. ThatMan, you have done a great service for the operation of the CWCki. I salute you, good sir. NoVu 05:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well that settles it. People, you have 24 hours to make a page (in the CWCki namespace) with a list of banned users and their rationale. In 24 hours, I will delete all the banned user userpages.--Champthom 05:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)--Champthom 05:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do what I can. --Ronichu 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• My lord, it is done. --Ronichu 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

I think the usage of them is getting a bit out of control.

As I see it:

1. unless you have a very convincing reason why a userbox should be on the main namespace, it really should be on a user's subpage.
2. we get rid of some of the categories of of userboxes - it's handy to know which CWCki users are also PVCC members, it's not quite as important to know which CWCki users practice martial arts.

Thoughts? Any justifications why we should keep userboxes as they are? Personally I'm tempted to say that we should make user boxes as part of one's user subpage or at least remove the categories for most of these.--Champthom 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they need to be culled. Specifically, the ones that don't have anything to do with Chris.--MoarLurk 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way is fine. They're not exactly a big part of the site. --Edward 15:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll keep my own userbox whoring under control. Just thought I was being clever at making more Chris jokes. (Keep in mind that I didn't add all those userboxes indicating race/gender/and religion, though I did modify the one for my own race.

But I think the "Armchair psychologist" could be kept for some practical use, like a barnstar award for those who have contributed much analysis of Chris's mindset. --SeventhBase 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say here that armchair psychologists are not why we are here. We are here to document Chris, not theorise on his mindset. That stuff is okay in tiny doses but if you plan on doing it so often that you want a box for it, go to cwc.--Delabonte 03:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Nationality might be useful, if only to establish about what time said user would be active. But stuff like cats, or naive, etc. have no practical use. Bill Lumburg 20:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have time zone stamps then? Honestly I've thought that these userboxes were stupid for a while, glad to see I'm not alone in that. Honestly only a select few of them really seem necessary. Other than ones related to staff positions held by certain members and perhaps something useful such as what Bill Lumberg brought up, none of them really serve any meaningful purpose. --ThatMan 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously not all of them have to be useful, as some of them are just fun and a way to encourage people to edit the CWCki. A time zone stamp would be good, though the nationality userboxes tend to be more flavorful (i.e. it's funnier to say something about the fact you're an American than you live in GMT -5). Some could in theory be useful - if you're a drawfag, then people can ask you to draw stuff for articles and whatnot.

Problem people are having is that people are getting carried away - do people really need to know you're a Zoroastiarian? Do people need to know you're a weaboo who's into manga moreso than anime? I think in general, we need to work on making pages, in the style of Wikipedia, serve as a way of describing one's contributions to the CWCki, not just a "about yourself" page.

There's nothing wrong with the userboxes, like I said, it's people getting carried away is what seems to be troubling.--Champthom 21:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line? I think that's the real problem; there's no set limit to what the userboxes should be for. Having "flavorful" userboxes tends to be a gray area that needs some definition. Bill Lumburg 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• It should be pretty simple: keep the nationality boxes, Warrior, Observer, and the like, and the awards. We don't need to know if you're straight or gay or if you're Christian or atheist. We just need where you're from, and what you're doing here. --Schuzrum Dias 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuckwit Alert template

I propose we remove the Fuckwit Alert userbox or whatever it's called. --Ronichu 02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am happy to do the removing myself--Ronichu 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, go for it Notslowpoke 03:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronichu, you can't remove shit here. --Delabonte 03:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Correct. Neither can you. I'd just like to politely point out that you are not a mod here. I think it's high time you were either directly promoted to be one so you have a badge to go with that attitude (at which point you can cast down proclamations from on-high with righteous fury) or learn to accept that you are not a mod here and act accordingly. I'm not fussed either way. The overwhelming consensus from users (and some people who are mods), irrespective of if they have that userbox or not, seems to be that it should go. So unless an actual CWCki mod steps in and says not to, in a few days I'll start removing the userboxes from user pages. If you re-add it, it's page vandalism and will be treated accordingly (reverted). I have little patience for wanna-be mods acting like their big brother is the sheriff so they can just do what they please. This isn't PVCC, it isn't ED, it isn't a place for you to do whoever the fuck you want and go around posturing, making vague threats and acting like you own the place. You don't. Cogs does. If she wants you to to have unlimited power, she has that ability to grant it to you; if she grants it to you, all well and good. Then it's official. Her website, her decision. But until then the CWCki is ONLY about documenting and discussing Chris (and occasionally peripheral other stuff). So either get on with with the task at hand, or get promoted and make your inane desires official policy, or go back to EDF/PVCC where you can be lord of all creation or whatever the fuck. PVCC and the CWCki have different mods and this is by design. TL;DR so either officially become a mod or shut up and behave yourself. --Ronichu 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

“	It's one thing to tell someone they're wrong or being just stupid, it's another to tell them they're now under watch by a group of people with various intents. I really can't ago against Cogs, as she has different ideas how to run the CWCki than I do, and she is the site owner, but please don't harass other users.	”
Champthom, on this very page.

Now obviously I'm not a admin or a Jerkop or PVCC or anything, but it seems to me that the fuckwit alert template causes way more problems than it solves.--Beat 04:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's very tedious for me when furries who have barely been here for six months act like they own the place and presume what Cogs does or doesn't think. I think what bothers you here is the fact although we are presumably "equals" (lol) I did something you never could, and excercised power you don't have. As has been pointed out before, I am just fufilling the wishes of the PVCC. May I remind you Cogs okayed the template and it hasn't been an issue until you brought it up now? If Cogs says take it down (and she might), well, then the template should be taken down. Until there they remain as a reminder for certain furries (who want to be big elite trolls) to back off a certain user. Go back to doing piss poor imitations of women, Ronichu. The only person making a big deal of this are those who have fallen under my hawk-like gaze. My mind is closed on the matter. --Delabonte 16:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point a few things out. First off, you've made 952 edits to this wiki in your 15-odd months here. That's 1.8 edits per day. Ronichu has made 842 edits in 6.5-ish months, which is 4.2 edits per day. Ronichu is known for devoting hours to transcriptions. You are well known for plastering the wiki with "Not a Forum" templates. I wouldn't overstate your influence here. While you may have done something which is vaguely useful at some point in the past, Ronichu has done far more for this wiki than you have and even Champ is getting fed up with your antics. Ronichu made a good point and I suggest you get off your high horse and learn something. Freecell 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And I just want someone to explain to me what the fuck I did wrong to get the template, and why i'm also the target of all these vauge threats. I didn't even touch that "certain user". Check the entire page history; I've done jack shit to interfere. What is my crime, and at what point did I try to be a "big elite troll"? --Edward 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• You probably got it because you posted on the Coffee Place talk page. Pfargtl9000 Spam and Eggs 18:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So? I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that I got this template for those two sentences. --Edward 19:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why I've banned Delabonte

Delabonte was a good user. He's edited a lot and contributed to the CWCki. However, after receiving warnings on the CWCki and a PVCC thread discussing the CWCki, he continues to spend most of his time on the CWCki harassing users and enforcing arbitrary rules. Yes, some of you did do stupid stuff. However, telling them that they're "under watch" and whatnot is no way to do it. Cogs in the PVCC thread conceded that Delabonte went "too far" in some regards and others accused him of taking the CWCki more seriously than I do. I do take the CWCki seriously but I find that setting low but reasonable expectations of users leads to less frustration on my part.

People, some words of wisdom:

1. read between the lines of what I or someone like Cogs or Clyde says, as it'll clue you into things.

1. don't contact Chris or anyone you think might be Chris. Yes, I hate to break it to you but you're probably not going to get through and if you do you're going to piss people off. As I've discussed with Ronichu before, you can contribute to trolling Chris in a lot of different ways than trolling him directly. As he aptly put it, it's like the Air Force - only a tiny percentage of the Air Force actually flies planes, the rest are support. If it's any consolation, I've never directly trolled Chris (well, there was an IRC chat but that was one small instance) and I probably won't.

1. try to contribute to CWCki. I do not mean to offend anyone by saying this, but please don't use CWCki as any of the following (not inclusive): a place to plug your fan work and not contribute anything else, a place to "express yourself", a place to attempt to troll Chris, a place to create drama, etc.

1. rules are not always absolute on the CWCki. Cogs and Clyde have very different admining styles than I do. As I've said before, this is ultimately Cog's site so she gets to do what she wants and I really can't stop her and sometimes she does things that go against general policy. However, the nice thing about not having absolute rules is that they're flexible when they need to be. In any case, don't cite things I say when someone is being an ass because if they're being an ass, they probably don't give a shit about what I said a few months ago. Tell them why they're being an ass, how being an ass is not helping their cause, and that they should stop being an ass and you'll be getting farther along without creating drama.

You'll avoid pissing people like Delabonte off if you manage to follow these rules. If you have questions about stuff, feel free to ask people in IRC or contact me. In general, the adage of "LURK MOAR" holds true.

Delabonte is only banned for six months. Originally I planned for a year but I think six months is more sufficient. Hopefully he will use this break to reflect on things.

His general concern about the quality of CWCki editors is valid and his zeal in trolling Chris can be appreciated on some level, but his tactics of going about it have no place here. So yeah, let's cut this drama and get back to editing the CWCki. Time I spent writing this could have gone to something more worthwhile, like helping Fuckingstupid transcribe some Mumble chats.--Champthom 22:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this and everything else. --SeventhBase 02:55, 5 August 2010 (PDT)

Hey faggots

If we are all done arguing about templates and about who put one where and what not, there's a few long overdue transcriptions and shit that could be worked on. Quit being a bunch of drama queens, all of you. I don't give a shit how many edits you have, what you have produced or who fucking hates who. Take my fucking advice and work on community projects or your own projects and ditch that whole wall of text above. If any of you in the above section keep it up, I can guarantee that someone at the top is going to come along and yell at this shitload of faggotry. We need all of you here doing stuff.

Let me rephrase that slightly: we need all of you here doing something less dramatic and more helpful. --Fuckingstupid 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. --Ronichu 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan.--Beat 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls

To formalize this, feeding the trolls and vandals is strongly discouraged. Anyone who taunts, insults, etc. a troll no matter how much they really deserve it will be warned first, then banned temporarily on the second offense. Multiple offenses will be dealt with longer bannings. Just as a warning. --Champthom 18:05, 12 September 2010 (PDT)

User talk pages

I've been noticing quite a few of you have been leaving unneeded messages on the talk pages of other users. While not a flagrant violation of CWCki rules, it's still something I feel should be avoided. If somebody is doing something you don't like, take it up with a jerkop and they will investigate any misconduct (these being shitty edits, forced content, ect). If you look at Champthom's topic above this one you will see that this topic runs along the same lines, only it extends to all user talk pages and not just those of vandals. It's best not to pick fights with other editors, because you're not just representing yourself when you make a post, you're representing the CWCki as a whole. CrassCrab 14:30, 26 September 2010 (PDT)

Contact Information

I feel the need to clarify our policies towards the posting of personal contact information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, home address) of those who are in contact with Chris. The posting of said information is forbidden. Posting said information here voids the neutrality of the CWCki, changing it from a passive repository of Chris doings, to a base from which trolling attempts are launched. Please take this into consideration. CrassCrab 14:52, 5 October 2010 (PDT)

Video Upload Dates

Recently there seems to be some confusion over the upload dates of some videos. It's far easier to just go by the date specified on the YouTube video page - as that not only gives us a static point from which to base dates, but it is also the date when the video was uploaded, rather than when it finished processing. OH and did I mention that YouTube is in the same timezone as the CWCki? --Anonymax 18:19, 12 October 2010 (PDT)

JenkinsJinkies Policy

JJ is not Chris. I believe that Chris is lying about being him. I'm pretty sure he's a badass troll who hitchhiked from Boston at age fifteen. That's not so unbelievable, right?

Anyway, until we say otherwise, anything Chris says about being JJ is a lie. We don't want to scare him off now, do we?

If this is too subtle for you, I can answer all your questions here: http://qchat.rizon.net/?&channels=%23cwcki-fun

Just remember, anything I tell you is to remain off of CWCki. Canine 20:49, 6 November 2010 (PDT)

Ok, an update. Our best researchers have determined that JJ actually is Chris. SURPRISE

So you can start putting his posts from trollingtrain and his application on cwcki. Go, go and edit to the extreme! Canine 16:48, 30 January 2011 (PST)

I'll start an article for the video if nobody else has yet. Any idea what it should be named/what it was named? I didn't save the original. Freecell 17:09, 30 January 2011 (PST)

JenkinsJinkiesCwckiApplication.MOV Canine 17:28, 30 January 2011 (PST)

Reminder about jerkop powers

As a reminder, jerkop powers are limited to dealing with vandalism , as per my memo on Jerkop powers. By vandalism, we take a page from Wikipedia by stating that vandalism is a deliberate attempt at violating the integrity of CWCki. CrassCrab has been using his jerkop powers as editorial influence which he had no right to do. He will be banned until 00:00 GMT Christmas day (his sentence was originally a week but 'tis the season and whatnot) which should give him time to reflect. --Champthom 18:29, 23 December 2010 (PST)

Shut down the CWCki to selected users

all we get is stupid edits, i think we have 90% bad edits and 10% good edits now. there is no new information. the only thing we can do now is refine old articles and people are doing a bad job of it because speculation is gay and i hate you all etc. -- Clyde 21:24, 16 January 2011 (PST)

I'm actually kind of interested in this idea, but I have three questions. 1. On what scale do you want to measure good/bad edits? 2. Who keeps their accounts? 3. How do people without accounts apply for one (assumedly, it would be possible to do this because otherwise when people left, the editor base wouldn't replenish itself)? I mean, preventing retarded edits is obviously a good idea, but if it's "we'll just ban a couple retards and prevent new accounts", that might prove counterproductive. Some of the more recent new accounts actually have improved the wiki, even if only in a small way. On the other hand, if it's "ban everyone except for 4 or 5 people", the integrity of the wiki would be preserved, but new content/revision of articles would also be a slower process and, as some recent edits have shown, there have been a lot of typos/oversights in old articles that prove that the wiki still isn't perfect. Freecell 02:14, 17 January 2011 (PST)

• No Clyde, this is a bad idea and goes against wiki standards. I do think we need to work on style, that is what should go in an article and whatnot. --Champthom 13:43, 17 January 2011 (PST)

User page and talk page policy discussion

Recent events have made me think that perhaps we should consider our policy in regards to user pages and user talk pages.

Generally, one has been free to do with one's user page as they want within reason (i.e. not use it as a pastebin or something like that). In regards to use talk pages, I've found that while it's encouraged that you keep all comments posted on there available for good form, one is free to remove comments.

Now here's the problem with user pages. Sometimes people use them to "express" themselves and well, shit like this goes down. While I do my best to make CWCki a safe environment where people can edit freely without fear, I cannot protect everyone from being trolled themselves. So I think we need to discuss a new user page policy, perhaps limiting to CWCki related projects.

Likewise, user talk pages. Obviously one is free to remove trolling, but some people think comments should be preserved.

So, what do you all think of this? Obviously, I'd like to solicit some discussion before anything is implemented so let's discuss what you all think about user pages and talk pages.--Champthom 16:42, 2 February 2011 (PST)

I think editing other people's comments, where ever they might be, is pretty faggy and shouldn't be tolerated.

But people shouldn't be harassed either. I would say that we can't trust people to only remove comments that "cross the line". They'll be more likely to get offended at personal comments. Conflict of interest and whatnot. Perhaps they can complain to an admin? Canine 19:54, 2 February 2011 (PST)

I think a good policy is to get a little tougher on the relevance of the CWCki to Chris. Essentially if an edit doesn't in some way relate to Chris, or an article on the wiki, then should it really be made? That said, here are my suggested guidelines:

- "Apolitical": The CWCki is apolitical. While discussion of Chris's stunted views on politics (and those around him) is permitted, it's not a place to push your own agendas. ("Chris, like all lefty pinko welfare state advocates, has no idea about how taxes work", "Bob, like all fascist, warmongering Republicans, hates brown people" etc etc).

- "The Snowflake Rule": The CWCki doesn't care about you. You are not a precious snowflake. Even if it focuses on Chris, don't link to your personal website, your webcomic, hat store, ED page, whatever. It might be absolutely brilliant, but it has no place being 'pushed' here. Don't compare yourself to Chris, nor dump your own embaressing personal information here. Nobody cares you have autism. Nobody cares you're also a virgin with rage. See Not A Forum.

- "Hornet's Nest": The CWCki is frequented by trolls. A lot of trolls. Despite a firm anti-harassment policy, if you choose to kick the hornets nest, it can't protect you from being stung. Be polite, don't push your own agendas, contribute meaningfully and selflessly, and harden up. You don't have to have the last word.

All I got for now. --Ronichu 14:16, 4 February 2011 (PST)

Question About Articles on trolls

Kind of a newfag so this question may have been asked before, but its been on my mind. I can understand why topics on Trolls don't have 'real' information (Such as the TRUE and HONEST CWC) as thats outside of the purviews of wiki and isn't at all necessary. But I think there should be disclaimers on articles that are 'In-Troll'. Not that I don't think that readers can't read between the lines (or recognize the blatantly obvious), I'm just a bit OCD and would like there to be more internal consistency (for example the article on Autism says its painfully obvious the TRUE and HONEST CWC isn't, while several claim he is).--Scherzo 20:05, 20 February 2011 (CST)

• I think the issue is that the articles get written when it's still relevant e.g. creating the Jackie article while she was still in the picture. Since Chris might browse the CWCki at any time, the articles have to not give shit away. Because nobody is really sure when the people stop being important (because nobody knows what Chris will do), the articles never get rewritten. That's just my take on it, but I don't know if that's right or not. Freecell (t/c) 07:52, 21 February 2011 (PST)
  • Well there's supposed to be an improvement drive, and it's looking like the days of trolling CWC have come to an end. I think this should be considered for improvement. I'm not saying there needs to be any sort of Real-life behind the scenes bullshit for the trolls, I don't want that. But just a bit more consistency between articles would be good. --Scherzo 16:15, 21 February 2011 (CST)

The Wallflower policy and extending it

I think we should formalize The Wallflower policy. Someone who's up to it, write up a policy regarding using The Wallflower on here, namely how it was at her request. Ideally the person who gets around to writing this would go through the community portal and the Wallflower article talk page to understand the specifics of the policy. Try and do the best that you can and I can fill in the gaps. Ronichu wrote a good one a while ago but I can't find it. Whoever gets around to it, post it here.

I have been thinking, I think that we may want to extend this policy. Not so much that we change all of Chris's friend's article names, but namely removing personal references from articles, namely current MySpace pages, that sort of thing. I have a feeling that Chris might be using the CWCki to stalk his gal pals and I'd prefer not to enable Chris. However, I'd like to get some feedback before we did anything with it, so thoughts on personal info on pages? Should pages have references to current career statuses, MySpace/Facebook accounts, etc.? --Champthom 18:42, 7 March 2011 (PST)

Public Domain Certification

Not sure if this should go under policy or technical or whatever, but I'll put it here.

I noticed that this website is under Public Domain, but when you click on the link at the bottom, it takes you to a Creative Commons page that says the Public Domain Certification is retired and should no longer be used. Apparently it should be replaced with a "CC0 Public Domain Dedication and Public Domain Mark" according to the website. I'm wondering if that's actually necessary or if just putting "Content is available under Public Domain." at the bottom of the page is good enough. --T K 19 14:07, 5 June 2011 (PDT)

• I'd talk to Cogs about that. We're sorta liberal on copyrights, and most of the stuff uploaded here probably couldn't be considered public domain under the strict definition. --Champthom 05:05, 8 August 2011 (PDT)
• The long and short of it is that public domain as a concept is still OK if you're just looking at the United States, but Creative Commons wants to promote the CC0 dedication as a global alternative, because not all countries have the concept of public domain. (For example, I'm in Finland, and technically I'm not allowed to renounce copyrights on my works. But I absolutely don't care what people do with my CWCki contributions. So there. =) So if CWCki stays on PD, it's not a huge issue. Saying the material is explicitly CC0 would just clarify legal issues for non-US contributors. Also, as Champ says, we have stuff that definitely is copyrighted. We'd need some sort of a clear legal policy that dictates what material is and what material isn't covered by this, but it's another matter altogether if people would want to work on such policy. (Takes away time from productive stuff. Crafting elaborate copyright policies might make people look like CWC-obsessed geeks. And so on and so forth. =) --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 04:01, 9 August 2011 (PDT)

De-memeing the CWCki

You know, as I continue to contribute to the CWCki, I often see things in a new way. One such thing is the use of memes on the CWCki. Now I've always been alright with appropriate use of memes, as trolls are our primary readership so it makes sense to have cultural references that are relevant to them. But on the other hand, I've come to realize that this might be lazy. Instead of coming up with our own jokes or utilizing the many rich and unique Chris related memes, we're just stealing jokes from elsewhere. I also feel that it affects our credibility, as speaking in troll parlance makes us seem biased towards trolls.

So pretty much what I'd do is try to remove as many memes as possible - getting rid of reaction images (which, IMHO, are a waste of space and just lazy), changing "Sauces" to "References", that sort of thing. Obviously keeping references to memes that are appropriate to understanding Chris related phenomena.

As this is a rather large policy proposal, I'd like to have some people's thoughts on the matter. Personally I think it'd be an extension of "CWCki is not ED" but I'd rather ask other people what they think since like I said, it's a big policy move and some people like memes.

Thoughts? --Champthom 01:10, 2 September 2011 (PDT)

• YES. DEAR GOD YES. I don't have a problem with most memes, but some of this shit is getting way out of hand. "Reaction images" are not funny anyway, and when I rewrote Chris and religion I found no less than three of them in quick sucession, and I couldn't even remove them all because they were the ONLY images for that particular section of the article. I'm always changing "sauces" to "references" anyway, because for some reason it's extremely prevalent, (and by the way Champ, don't think I don't know you started that annoying trend. You and me will be having words later). I would also like to remind people of the previous state of the Ian Brandon Anderson article, which I like to call the CWCki's malignant tumour, and remind you all that until recently we had a page about a fucking Advice Dog spinoff. Like I said, I don't have a problem with memes, if they're funny at least, but all this stuff that you're talking about like the reaction images is just shit that's clogging up the toilet. --Old meme 08:59, 2 September 2011 (PDT)

• I agree. Memes that die are often used incorrectly, without or out of any funny context. Reaction images are something that stuck when Chris was pumping out videos, however, like you said, they are lazy and only clog the toilet. In the article Champthom had shown, we are not here for "epic lulz", nor are we trying to be biased towards the Trolls. We only bash Chris when there is proof to merit it. So I agree that we could take out a few memes that are just kinda there, without purpose. I am curious what you guys think, too. Ash link 09:17, 2 September 2011 (PDT)

• When someone who has "Meme" in their name makes a case against memes, you know they have something to say. Well since I haven't heard any strong arguments for keeping the status quo, I think we should go about de-memeing the CWCki. I'll reword the "not ED thing to relate to this. I'm not going to ban every use of a meme, just strongly discourage it and avoid it as a matter of style. --Champthom 07:45, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

• I guess I see your point, but put thought into it before deleting. I admit 3 face palms on the religion article is a bit much, but 1 face palming religious figure I feel is needed. I guess if the meme Really fits it should stay. Like Paul reacts to chris' video I feel is very appropriate, or the bitches and whores pic on the one article is okay, because its right next to the part where chris starts saying women don't do this this and this, but they do. So yeah overkill and needless placement of some should be scraped, but chris gets trolled by memes and internet related culture alot, id like to delve further, but im at work posting this from a phone. Theiselybros 09:23, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

• Oh wow. It's actually happened. We can at last look forward to a brighter future with less ED inspired retardery on these pages. No more dumb reaction images everywhere. The CWCki is blessed this day comrades. --Old meme 08:09, 20 September 2011 (PDT)

• 167 pages use "Sauces", can admins use some kind of shortcut to change them all at once? Eamoo 04:30, 5 October 2011 (PDT)

Removal of "Reaction Images"

There is an abundance of tangentially related "reaction images" in almost every article. In an attempt to streamline the wiki and free up some space, I suggest we trim the fat by removing reaction images and cheap Photoshops. As an example: This article, everything goes. --Megaman 22:56, 18 September 2011 (PDT)

• Well given at least two people have been in favor for this, why not? --Champthom 07:43, 19 September 2011 (PDT)
• Endorse this policy. --Anonymax 09:58, 19 September 2011 (PDT)
  • Well, I'll just get started then. I'm going to be fairly zealous about removing images and marking them for deletion. If it's just an image for a pun, or joke, it's going. --Megaman 12:13, 19 September 2011 (PDT)
• Note that my endorsement of this policy is purely for images unrelated to Chris, such as random celebrity "reactions". Not that we have many, but any which are of Chris and/or his family should probably stay. --Anonymax 12:20, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

• Double note: I have a working tool which will help make the process of mass deletions easier. Once I get canine to run a maintenance script on the CWCki, I will use the tool to help delete the images with as little effort as possible. Note that this tool is manually operated and each deletion is manually checked - but just thought I'd mention it to prevent any RSI from anyone who was thinking of undertaking a completely manual deletion process. Good work on the tagging so far though. --Anonymax 12:30, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

User page policy

I've implemented a policy on user pages. If anyone feels they can elaborate on it, by all means do so. I've noticed though that a lot of the people getting trolled on /cwc/ were brought to their attention through their user pages on the CWCki which is why I'm tightening down on user page content, as I'd rather not see people get trolled. --Champthom 06:20, 23 September 2011 (PDT)

• I thought trolling was okay as long as it didn't actually happen on CWCki? I've got to see Champ, I am disappoint. --Old meme 08:12, 23 September 2011 (PDT)
• We've had...issues in the past. This policy is purely something we can point to and fall back on if we need to. I've added a section on the rules about editing user pages. It's a fairly simple rule - if it isn't your own user page, you most likely shouldn't be editing it. --Anonymax 09:07, 23 September 2011 (PDT)

New Fan Works Policy

Now before anyone goes apeshit, I don't mean bringing back the fan section. That thing is better off dead. I want to open a discussion on our policy with relation to fan videos and fan art used on this wiki for articles. We have a lot of this stuff on our pages, and the quality varies considerably. I was inspired to do this when a user called Cleftpalete, (a man after my own heart), went on a crusade to cut all the faggotry out of the CWCki. In his edits, he removed a lot of fan art and fan videos, and for that reason some users saw fit to revert his edits. Thing is, I agreed with him. Those images and videos often were just stupid and pointless, particularly the ones on the homos article that seemed to serve no other purpose than to go "LOL CHRIS IS GAY WHAT A FAG LOLOLOLOLOL".

However, even though I reverted them back so that the fan videos were removed, the opposition did make some good arguments in favour of them. Particularly since one image was actually an Artist's Commune commission and some of the videos on the Bob Chandler page were tributes. For that reason I spared those. What I'm getting at, is that we need a cover-all policy about fan art and fan videos that can allow us to remove or at least move the faggy stuff and keep in the stuff that's relevant and serves a purpose. And no, we can't just keep everything. CWCki is not free advertising for your shitty Chris remix on Youtube, or a place to dump your manga interpretation of Sonichu.

That said, begin discussion. --Old meme 02:33, 28 January 2012 (PST)

• There was once a time where I pretty much allowed anything in terms of fan art. However, around the time some user uploaded very bizarre pics that looked like a 3 year old did them in MS Paint with bizarre summaries like "lol rosechu has been very bad" made me reconsider it. Generally, my rule of thumb is that if it illustrates a Chris related concept, it has merit on the CWCki. Now there's probably stuff on here that doesn't meet these qualifications specifically. I think that there's some very good fan art out there by very talented artists and I think they merit a place on the CWCki. For instance, I just uploaded a picture of Chris doing a self portrait ala Normal Rockwell. It doesn't strictly illustrate a Chris related topic but you gotta admit it's pretty good. I'd like to see more artists contribute to the CWCki so we can have some original content to illustrate Chris related topics. But what I'm not crazy about is when articles will have art for the sake of having art or (one of my peeves) huge ass sections in video articles with various remixes and stuff. True, there are some great fan remixes and such but when there's like 20 of them on a given page, that's hella annoying.

The problem of fan art is that I really don't want to judge fan art's merit based on whether it's "good" or not, as that's mostly an aesthetics issue and I'm no art critic, so I think it ultimately has to come down to whether it illustrates a Chris related topic or not.--Champthom 07:57, 28 January 2012 (PST)

• In this case I think we need to set a standard as to what relates to a topic and what doesn't, but I think quality needs to be a factor as well. Having poor MS Paint drawings used as an image article just makes a page in general look bad. Let's take something easy with lots of images relating to it for an example. The Oversized Drinking Straw of Fail. Look through the gallery, and tell me what you think would and would not be appropriate as an image on that page. And on an unrelated note, I would like to request that I be promoted to some position that will allow me to delete files, because god fucking damnit look at the last image of that gallery. --Old meme 08:38, 28 January 2012 (PST)

• Hello, this is what I think are the problems when it comes to images;

1. Pictures of icons "reacting" to Chris. There is really no point to this, we know Chris is stupid, I don't think an impromptu picture of Lucille Ball is going to affect anyone but the idiot who posted it.. Actually I would go so far to say no pictures of people unrelated to Chris unless they are there to truly prove a point (like having a picture of Leonard Bernstein on the Christopher's name change page).

2. Pictures that only Weaboos/Bronys/Sonicfags/Etc. Can Understand This is bad because it embarrasses the CWCki by bringing the A-log type people who inhabit the CWCki to light. We want to look better than Chris, not on the same level.

3. Good images? If an image is actually good there is really no reason why it shouldn't be on here (IF it is actually Chris fan work). If an image is a shitty photoshop and funny then keep it too.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry if I caused any chaos earlier. Cleftpalete 13:37, 29 January 2012 (PST)

We actually don't allow reaction images anymore. They were in almost every article and they just aren't funny. I thought we had them all by this point, but I guess some slipped through the net. The other points I can also agree with, but I think they're a bit too vague to actually make a policy about. I think the unspoken rule is that uploading your own artwork to the CWCki is generally a bad idea. Upload it to some other site, and if people like it, it'll end up here anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (PST)

• With regards to point three, I think we need a place to compile the images that come under that "good image" definition, e.g. all the stuff that is considered good or funny like our current picture of the now but that we can't put in any other articles, and from then on either something goes into an article, goes into that page, or we delete it for being useless and faggy. Right now we just have a category for fan art, and that's cluttered with loads of fan works and crap that survived the purge or reaction images that have been removed but no-one ever got around to deleting, which speaking of which someone really should. --Old meme 08:19, 31 January 2012 (PST)

Month articles

I made a post about this on 2013 and I'm not sure if anyone will bother to read this, but here goes - I think for 2013, we should just have the 2013 article and have months as subsections, like the 1990s articles. If, by some remote chance, Chris comes back to the Internet and posts daily, then we can always make separate articles for each month. But while he's being a recluse and we might get one minor update a month, if we're lucky, I don't see the point of having an entire article for a month if it just has one thing like "Chris changed his Facebook profile image" or something like that. I bring this up because I know people in the past thought it was helpful to make month articles in advance but I don't think that's the case. --Champthom 01:32, 30 December 2012 (PST)

Chris's gender

So it appears to be confirmed that Chris now considers himself a woman and prefers to be referred to as such, which brings up to the issue of whether we are to refer to Chris as a man or a woman in terms of pronouns.

Obviously people have strong opinions and biases on each side, but we need to remember that regardless of what your opinion on the issue of transgenderism is, it's really not our position to judge whether Chris is actually transgendered or not. However, I think we do need to consider at what point is it acceptable to refer to someone as their preferred gender - is it just by saying you're transgendered? Is it when you start doing therapy? There's obviously social protocol about this which I'm not sure. From what little I understand, I believe you're supposed to refer to people by whatever gender they prefer and not to question their motives.

I'm inclined to say we refer to Chris as a "she." I'm not a big fan of that idea personally, it'll be a shitload of work to rework all the articles to reflect this, but again, this isn't about my personal views on the matter but rather what's best to provide at least somewhat neutral, less-biased information about Chris. This is why I think we need a "Chris and gender" issue as it's getting more complicated than the little section we have in Chris and sex which mostly reflects less relevant information we knew about Chris and how he viewed his gender.

It might be prudent, I think to maybe wait a month or so before we do anything. There is a chance Chris will decide to be referred to as a man for some reason and for that reason, it might be worth a wait to see if he wants to be referred to by female pronouns. --Champthom (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right on the issue. As much as we bash Chris, his gender is his own, and we have to respect that to some degree. I'm perfectly fine to fix any pronoun/grammatical change where it's needed, but I think we should wait until about January before deciding.

There's also a few new articles that need to be made, as the 'cat/dog' spambox seems to have stopped working; including a page for the upcoming 2015. Boomhauer (talk) 5:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, we severely need to add a page about that brushfire video Chris made in October or November! --FromtheWordsofBR (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I say wait for it until January like what Boomhauer posted, but there's one point I think I should refer Chris as a "she" for now which is the Facebook post where William refers Chris as "her". Alan Pardew (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between the CWCKi and Chris is a hostile one, so I don't think we should concern ourselves with the courtesy of Chris' pronoun preferences. --Holdek (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not quite; if anything, the CWCki has been (or at least now is) dedicated simply to documenting Chris, not provoking. In fact, there's been a lot of de-a-logging for old articles, recently, albeit a few jabs here and there are fine, when in proper context. Boomhauer (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it hosts his private info, including his nudes. --Holdek (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And even more articles outlining his lifestyle and psyche; what's your point? That we have pictures of him in his tighty-wighties? Boomhauer (talk) 1:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of that stuff has been released by third parties or often times, Chris himself. It's not really our fault if Chris is a poor judge of character. The goal has always been just to document, a lot of the confrontation with Chris were more or less due to efforts to appease certain people but the ideal has always been to be a neutral party in all this. We still have work to do in this regard but in any case, our position is not outright hostility and I'd like to reflect this by doing whatever's appropriate to refer to Chris's preferred gender.

As an update, it looks like Chris is referring to himself (herself?) as "Christine" on Miiverse or whatever, but still "Christian" on Facebook. --Champthom (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris hates the CWCki, and the CWCki is the primary repository for cocks that are invasions of his privacy. Are we really going to pretend anything otherwise? XD

But anyways, I don't think the burden is on us to re-write the pronoun usage on the entire CWCki because of Chris' recent decision. Maybe stuff going forward, but that would probably be confusing. --Holdek (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should simply refer to him as a man, for now at least. It'd take quite a bit of work, going back and retconning gender pronouns, and even then, do we refer to him as female consistently, or only after he began identifying as a woman? Not to mention, Chris is of course really whimsical - what appear to be strongly held convictions of his can cave overnight, sometimes with very little impetus - look at his U-turn on drinking, and lesbians (admittedly, that one has vacillated a bit, and was always quite a bit more nuanced). Lysistrata (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Update

According this latest Facebook post, Chris specifically requests to be referred to with female pronouns. The intention of the CWCki is not confrontational with Chris and I've done my best to keep the CWCki from being used as a tool to troll Chris. Some people have in the past but it that was because my protests were ignored.

Usually when I'm not sure how to approach a wiki based issue, I look to a site like Wikipedia to see how they handle it as to see what sort of precedent exists. Probably the most notable case is the case with Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) where there was a huge debate over how to handle the article when Bradley announced he is transgendered and wishes to be referred to as Chelsea. The issue of timing of when to refer to Chris as a "he" or a "she" was brought up and based on that article, the article describes "she was born..." as opposed to "he was born..." even though biologically she was born with male genitallia.

Again, the CWCki's place is not to piss off Chris directly or intentionally at least. It's always been to inform people with an attempt to be impartial through with a healthy dose of criticism. I realize that many people have strong opinions about transgenderism in each way or the other, but it's not really our place to let our personal opinions determine policy. The common decency thing is to refer Chris by his preferred pronoun (I apologize for using "his," old habits die hard) as you would anyone who announces they're transgendered.

I think our case is a bit more complicated than the Chelsea Manning article on Wikipedia. The article was just one article and maybe a few related articles that might have referred to as Manning, whereas we're dealing with changing pronouns in just about all of the over 1000 articles on this wiki. It'll take an effort to change every single masculine pronoun referring to Chris to a feminine one. We've waited a month and it seems like Chris is very serious about his female identity, he's made comments like "no operation yet" and this is no longer just something crazy he's doing to attract women.

So here's a few options we could do:

1) Go through each and every article, change masculine pronouns to feminine in reference to Chris. My concern here is any edit wars over those who insist that Chris be referred to as a man and with thousands of articles in question, it could be nasty and more work for poor admins like Alan.

2) We leave the pronouns as they are. We however have a disclaimer in one of the policy pages that says that while we acknowledge that Chris prefers to be referred to as a woman and female pronouns, for the sake of simplicity, we will leave pronouns just the same. Henceforth, we would start referring to Chris by female pronouns.

Again, this is a huge policy decision, probably the biggest one we've ever had. That's why I'm kinda coming out of my inactivity to bring this. If we do go with a massive change of all the pronouns, I will even contribute towards the effort. As this is a major policy decision, I'd like to see what editors feel should be done about the matter. --Champthom (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I say go with option 2. If possible, I don't mind having the disclaimer at the main page too. Alan Pardew (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Between these two options I would go with the second one. --Holdek (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Edit: To add to my comments in the above discussion, I would also opine that if we were creating this wiki tomorrow, we might use female pronouns, but the bulk of the wiki is already extant. To use another analogy, if I was writing a new book about Chris, I might use the female pronouns, but if I was just publishing a second edition of a book I wrote a year ago, with some updates, I wouldn't go through and change all the pronouns. --Holdek (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with option 1 is that Chris has historically identified as a "STRAIGHT MALE" who exhibited major homophobia up until 2014. Retroactively changing all his pronouns around with that kind of context still present would confuse the shit out of people. Plus you still have the crapton of people who refer to him as "he" after his announcement anyway for whatever reason. I say we wait and see what jail he goes to. My vote would be for option 2, with cautious editing from that point on, I guess. Zero (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I say option 2. --FromtheWordsofBR (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• To add some meat to the discussion, let's allow for discussion until 26 January. I figure two weeks is ample time while not letting discussion drag out too long. I want to set a deadline so we're not discussing this and then failing to do anything as we don't know when to end discussion and when to act. Then we can determine the best course of action based on the general consensus of editors.--Champthom (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it's best at this point to postpone the discussion until after Chris's hearing in February. Since he's more than likely to land himself in quite a bit of trouble, his perspective of the whole thing might change; not unlike previous times. I, personally, would still support changing the pronouns, but again, it's up to Chris in the end, and he isn't very good at keeping to his word on transgenderism. Boomhauer (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If this case is like the last one, he'll get another continuance in February. Such a significant decision about the wiki shouldn't hinge on just a single event in Chris' life, anyway. --Holdek (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is a specific event that will decide whether Chris spends most of the year in prison. There's no harm in waiting half a month. Boomhauer (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Realistically, he's not going to spend most of the year in prison. --Holdek (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chris' new gender seems to have been a long time coming, but the change is still relatively recent, and I remain agnostic as to whether it will be permanent. I would rather just wait a few months, maybe up to a year, before deciding on the CWCki policy, but that would inevitably cause confusion and edit wars. For now, I would favor option 2.
  That said, if we do decide to go through the trouble of option 1 (changing all Chris' pronouns), would it be a good idea to replace them with templates? For example, "his" becomes {{CWC-possessive}}, "himself" becomes {{CWC-reflexive}}, etc. That way, if Chris changes gender again in the future, we would simply change the templates' content, and it would be globally reflected. Downsides are that: a) it would be cumbersome and unnatural for both retroactive and future edits, b) getting all editors to use the templates would be difficult, and c) it could be extra work with no payoff if the new gender is indeed permanent.
  For pre-existing content where Chris' original gender is directly relevant, we could use a heading template that says something brief about how Chris now identifies as female, but was male-identified during the events in the article, and have the heading link to a more detailed explanation and/or the relevant CWCki policy. This is probably a good idea regardless of whether or not we change any pronouns retroactively. This would be in combination with a more general disclaimer at the main page as Alan mentioned. -CWCTime (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Champ, any ruling on this? (Boomhauer, for what it's worth, Chris made a pouty face when his lawyer and the court clerk referred to him as Barb's "son" and as a "male," respectively.) --Holdek (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's gotten to the point where Chris is quite serious about his new identity, i.e. almost always referring to himself as 'Christine', now. I'm still a bit skeptic as to whether he's being very honest about being a trans-woman, but nonetheless it's only polite we refer to Chris using feminine pronouns (and as Christine, when using her full name) for any new or ongoing articles. And, of course, the disclaimer, as previously mentioned, addressing that fact. Boomhauer (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Further update

I was sorta holding out to see if anything happened, but I've been really bad at keeping track of this. I have no idea how reputable this is, but at least according to someone on Kiwi Farms, they contacted Chris who indicated that he doesn't mind being referred to as either pronoun though he has a slight preference for being referred to as a woman. I'm not sure if anyone has been referring to him as a woman, I can't imagine too many new pages being made. It looks like the main Chris article mentions it in passing. I have no idea what the protocol is on this, I guess we might as well be status quo if Chris doesn't have a strong preference to be referred to by one gender exclusively. I don't know if this is even accurate but it could be plausible. In any case, we should maybe just see about asking Chris in the future when it comes to things like this. --Champthom (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)