Talk:The Wallflower

Ye olde shit

Okay faggots, listen up. No personal details. Ever. Clydec 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would photos of her count as personal details? There's a photo on this page clearly showing her. --Marco 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to the photo that's currently up there it's a shop - in particular, the facial features are so different that nobody could possibly connect her to the picture unless they'd seen the source photo. --Team CWCket 11:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Gotcha. Brofose 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here? Didn't Chris just inform us that this girl is no longer interested in him, with Message to the Trolls? So why are we locking down details about her now, when EDF can do no more damage? Or is there more to this?--Sonichuistehcool 01:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that she got some sort of email/phone call, but we don't know enough about her or the situation to assume that she's fully out of the picture. Until then, it's better to have less info than too much info. Brofose 01:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some explanation please? I mean, all the other galpal articles have info, what happened here? Dave

• i have received a message from wallflower herself asking for her info to be removed. while i'd rather not remove any information, at the same time, the article was focusing on personal details about the wallflower that weren't at all related to chris. since i'd rather avoid any trouble here, i've complied with her request. this new article should be used purely for chris-related information, since she is part of christory. if chris uploads information, then you can add it here, but don't add anything you found through internet investigation or whatever. --Cogsdev 01:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A'ight, but can we have a background on the story on cwcki? You know, what happened for them to break up and stuff. Loserbrain 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no break up as far as I know. But I'm sure something must have happened between yesterday and today. We can document the drama but be vague. Example: Dedicated trolls found her information and then Chris got mad. Real mad. Clydec 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Does this mean all the sweetheart pages are going to be changed? -PeaceCeapPea
        • Most of the sweethearts were trolls. Megan avoid this site like rape, so I don't think we need to worry about it. Loserbrain 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Why are we doing this? Didn't Megan ask us for her dox to be taken off the internet? How do we know the message wasn't sent by a troll or a white knight?--Dan Dash 02:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the latest video from Chris? He found the CWCki. I guess "WallFlower" used Google. Another thing; Chris volunteered the info we got on him. She dint. We dint passed the Dox of other sweethearts or made fun of them as we did with her. Just for this, It had to be removed. Griffintown 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• My apologies for deleting this page this page. I just woke up and I was confused about what the fuck was going on. I thought some faggot thought Chris was talking about two different girls. I absolutely agree with Cogs one hundred percent, if Wallflower requested this page to be taken down, I think that's a humble request given that the article was a threat to her wellbeing. It's not so much trying to cover our asses, I really can understand that the Wallflower (unlike Megan, who really didn't have much of an online presence) would have trolls be a very real threat and unlike Chris, she probably doesn't feed off negative attention.

I regret that I did not address the dox in the pages. I really wasn't a big fan of having her Facebook, MySpace, etc. profile on there, aside from Chris related issues, mostly because we don't do the same thing for Megan and we shouldn't encourage faggots trolling Chris related people who have little to do with Chris.

I think one lesson from this is we need to discuss some sort of privacy policy for CWCki. A less brash version of Clyde's dictum is that we should possibly treat pages about people only from the Chris universe perspective, that is how Chris views them and sees them as opposed to digging into personal details from online investigations. But yeah, people, let's not do shit like post MySpaces, Facebooks, and don't post people's personal information unless Chris posts it on the Internet for everyone to see. --Champthom 07:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Seems fair enough. There was, in retrospect, no hope of keeping a lid on this whole thing, I think, no matter how much or how little personal info got posted here - as soon as her given name got out there, it was inevitable that some goof was gonna link her to this or to the ED page or to the sex doll video or whatever else. But that seems like a good policy for simple decency's sake. I apologize for getting carried away with all the links on the page yesterday. Dkaien 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the wording of this article should be more explicit as to how and what kind of idiot it was that contacted her over all this. I mean most EDF retards won't read krapple or PVCC etc. but they do read the Cwcki, and it might help in the future to have here an example to hold up of what exactly happens when you go the JULAYYY route of trolling. Hurrrr2 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Who cares about it, it seems something else is stirring within Chris. Guess he still has it out for me. Hmph. Clydec 07:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I think we ought to be more careful with the information we post here. Most if not all CWCki contributors are either on /cwc/ or PVCC, but the readers are partially dumbasses (not just from EDF, I presume) who will fuck shit up. Yes, it's a shame this happens, but ultimately we are to blame here. It was very obvious the CWCki article on her would lead to someone contacting her. Documenting information is important, but perhaps there should be some articles protected from viewing? I don't know. --Wtv 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• combine with the sonichu crystals to the [Wallflower] page?? I Love Little Girls 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

no they want that page gone, that's why it's over here without any references to her personally. --Digital 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

oh, i see. whatevss I Love Little Girls 11:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I thought the same thing so don't feel bad. tl;dr is that Wallflower asked for it to be removed and Cogs complied, because it was a reasonable request. --Champthom 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, now we turned into Moralfags and we are going to censor trolling, for the sake of the trolls who already know who she is. Also, it is not that difficult to do a fucking google search and found everything there is to found about this girl, so this is just stupid. If you had any respect in the first place for any of the friends or family of chris chan you would not have all the information you have on them all over the page, and that's not the case, so for what I can see here this is a very hypocritical position, or this is just part of a trolling plan.--SGSS01 10:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One, we're not Moralfags.

Two, the dox was removed by her request. Three, if we put the dox back up, she could net us some downtime for invading her privacy and personal life. So fuck off. Pfargtl9000 21:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking down the page because we put information already publicly available on the internet?, lulz, let her send in detectives, send in police, send everything in her power!. I'm sorry but that's not a valid reason, we have personal information about a lot of persons, and many of those don't even use the internet, or is information we got from hacked mail accounts (Cole), and fuck, he really could take the site down just for that, and we still have his article.--SGSS01 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a legal liability out there. Chris says most of what he wants. If he sue the site for libel, he will lose since all the material here mostly came from his own (dirty) hands. Wallflower on the other side came from nowhere and the tone used to describe her was quite unflattering. Keeping Wallflower previous page on line would had brought to this site much trouble (including legal ones) so it was wise to shut it down. Griffintown 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• What about the things that were coerced from him? Do those fall under acceptable use or not?--MoarLurk 04:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Coercing implies some form of entrapment. At any time Chris had the possibility to walk out and stop posting on the net as Chris-Chan. He dint. Up to there, humping his PS3 is on fact voluntary from his part. Griffintown 05:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We can put name what is she going to do? Chris reveal her name. We are NOT moralfags. If its on the internet its public information (as long as it is not credit card numbers, passwords, or SSN) we are just data mining. --Psycatalyst 21:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any troll can go data-mining. We are not trolls, we are Christorians; Holy scribes monitoring the advent and life of the "Messiah Of Fail". It is in our upmost interest to play nice. How many of us would salivate over an e-mail of five lines from Megan ranting about Chris? Let's be nice to the Wallflower; she might bring us something great in the future. Griffintown 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Srsly though...

To improve the article:

1. Wallflower really isn't a sweetheart. Nothing public about this yet but as most of you can tell, she's more or less Megan - because she has managed to be around Chris for more than five seconds, Chris takes this to mean sexual interest and a serious relationship.
2. We need a pic of a Wallflower. Like, literally, a flower growing out of a wall. Not a drawn pic, but an actual photograph. Shouldn't be too hard to fine, just don't feel like it now. --Champthom 12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here you go a photo of what resembles Heather with Clyde Cash --Psycatalyst 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"We need a pic of a Wallflower. Like, literally, a flower growing out of a wall." Moralfag my ass. Pfargtl9000 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

--Curseshot 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're winner. Pfargtl9000 02:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pimp Claim Responsibility

This bloke known on YouTube as "ThyEnvysGreed" claim he's the one who alerted wallflower. What should we do with this faggot? Griffintown 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's possible the guy's full of shit and just taking credit for something. Going by the comments 'they' have been making, this is quite likely; his 'group' seems to be out to make a name for themselves rather than just have a laugh at Chris's expense. Aside from that, just do what everyone seems to be doing already; spam his comments informing him of what a massive prick he is and that he should lay off the fucking donuts. JerichoJack 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• This. Seriously, guys, let's not give credit to faggots who want attention. Damage is done, we need to move on. Besides CWCki is about Chris, not so much faggots like this. --Champthom 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with the comment spamming, just piledrive him into the dirt. He fucked up an opportunity for some awesome shit. I would understand if he were trying to get a laugh out of messing with Chris, but he's just looking for e-fame. I say we don't give him that much attention unless it's totally negative.--JRampancy 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll need to find the picture I saw on /cwc/, but he also had an account on Fanfiction.net and I think that's how he alerted her, since I don't think they allow anonymous reviews anymore. And it was the same screen name.--Blazer 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Well gentlemen, I believe it's time to do what we do best. IT'S TROLLING TIME, LADS.JerichoJack 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Faggot deleted it. Did anyone save it? blind justice. to each his own. 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's right there Griffintown 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! blind justice. to each his own. 19:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll, you guys. Attention will only make him stronger unless we find his house (which is unlikely). Until someone can dox him, the best course of action is to ignore him, depriving him of his e-fame. Bonus points if fifty different accounts simultaneously claim that they're the ones who pissed off Wallflower so nobody takes his claims seriously.--MoarLurk 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't believe he tucked tail and ran away so quickly. He did post on A message to the Trolls which is still there for the viewing. Meeko 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)meeko
    • There's also a message in Don't Mess With Me, still in plain view and for all to see. He's like The Pinch - a coward who wants e-fame. Pure and simple.--Blazer 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• He destroyed your guy's plans to get drama out of a guy! Oh no. Just calm down. Seriously, it's not a big deal. Chaosakita 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• It is. Chris is the most interesting when conversing with "normal" people - especially women. --Derpalerp 08:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I found anothe possible leaker on twitter he/she says and I quote "Sonichuproducts @CWCSonichu I dare your faggot ass to do a curse ya fuck yo momma or whatever it is on me, I told Heather you dirty Retarded bitch."

could it be a lead or just an attention seeking fag?--Wintermute 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Krapple did a bit of detective work and found that he has another account-"6thof66" or something like that. Calls himself "the Agonstic Saint" and says he rejected his real name- his friends call him Sage after some wise man, according to him. He's 24 and lives somewhere in Texas. He lives alone and cut off all ties with his family. His videos there are mostly of him bitching and moaning about religion in general and Christianity in particular. Most importantly, one of his videos shows his license plate number- BJ6-G449. Make the most of it.--This guy 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Never mind, the above isn't thyenvysgreed. It was a fake lead put by a butthurt ED lurker with a grudge. He still looks like he's worth trolling, though.--This guy 14:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that Chris has dropped her name...

Is it ok to mention her first name on this page?--AdderCress 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have a point, and I see the logic, but I think the whole point of removing her name was sending a message to the rest of the trolls (and the external observers) that we are actually decent people. To go back on that would be to lose a social lead which is more valuable than the person's name. Again, this is just what I think. Feel free to prove me wrong. Thelieisacake 15:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• But there is no point in hiding her name, the problem with his page was the loads of information about her, not related to Chris, and since Chris mentioned her name; her name, her relation to Chris and anything Chris related shall be posted here, no more info about her. Basgon 16:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• You make a fair point, however given that Chris 1) assumes that it's a video only Tito will watch (forgetting that public YouTube videos are, you know, public) and 2) he's retarded like that, the thought that mentioning her name again probably didn't cross his mind. However, Wallflower asked us nicely to remove her page and adding her name back would sort of violate the spirit of that agreement. --Champthom 16:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I understand, but then, should we censor part of the kilt video when Chris says her name?, of course, keeping a copy of the original, and linking it on the page, and replacing her name with the pseudonym in the transcript. Better safe than sorry.Basgon 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion, censoring the material would only draw more attention to the Wallflower's identity. People would start looking at the stuff that has been deliberately removed and get more and more curious and try to find it. Especially if we have a copy of video with the name bleeped or transcript with the name removed, while Chris has the actual video up on his own account. My idea would be not to cover her identity specifically (which this article already does that), but if Chris keeps rambling about it, there's little we can really do. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• But this page, as well as the LittleBigPlanet one reference the wallflower's name and her likes, is not really hard to find her anyways.By the way, someone already censored it in the kilt video.Basgon 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• It would be nice if someone contact Wallflower and tells her that Chris keep on yelling her name on the internet while wearing a dress. I am concerned with all this. A well-determined Grieffer can still reach her because the manchild can't keep his pie-hole shut.Griffintown 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've sent two messages to her on Facebook and she hasn't responded yet. Also, PVCC isn't telling us something--Scarlet/Kim/Emily knows Heather, according to Chris.--MoarLurk 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting twist. In this case, our best option is to lie down and wait for the PVCC to make their moves. They always bring the best Lulz. Griffintown 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The CWCki needs to be smart about this kind of thing. When a person is angry about Chris's antics and actively asks the CWCki to take their information down, that person should be respected. It's fine to document Chris's antics that he publicly puts online, but Wallflower did not ask to be a part of Chris's online life and has specifically tried to distance herself from all this. For that matter, I'm of the opinion that if Megan ever came to the CWCki and asked to have materials taken down or hidden, it should be done, too. Same goes for Bob, Barb or anyone else who has not deliberately made themselves a part of Chris's online life. If a person deliberately makes themselves a part of Chris's online life, then their "details" are a fair thing to put up. If they are trying as hard as they can to get away from Chris's online life, then their "details" should be respected. The CWCki needs to be wise when it comes to liabilities. It is one thing to put up Chris's funny antics that he's made known publicly. It is another thing to put up unnecessary personal details of a person who has never asked to associate with Chris in a public way. Besides, all said and done, there's no need to document her name or her personal information to track Chris's stupid antics. It doesn't make Chris's antics any more funny. This brings up a great debate for the CWCki though: how far is too far? For me, I would hope there are limits. This is not a "lulz" site. Elephant 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My two cents is adding first name is ok since he mentioned it and it is an unspecific referential index, which means it is vague. I don't see a problem with putting their names online since you can get records with their names on it from realtors, department of elections, white pages, or the city accessor's office for free. We should put in Damian Antaria and Heather into the article since Chris mentioned it. The CWCki Only records encounters with Chris not personal information such as SSN or credit card numbers. By your logic we would have to take down the site if Chris makes the request which is NOT going to happen. The CWCki site is only recording what Chris is doing. If anyone is to be held liable it is Chris for revealing the information. For example: When Scooter Libby leaked info on Valerie Plame the CIA agent to the New York Times, the New York Times did not get in trouble If trolls wanted to find the information they would with or without the CWCki. --Psycatalyst 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I support her name not neing intentionally added here. I do, however, think it is stupid to try to hide her name intentionally. I think we should refer to her as the Wallflower, but if Chris says it in a video, merely changing it in the transcript is not only ineffective, it is annoying. If he presents the information, it takes 2 seconds to watch the video and hear the name. We let it stay in the transcripts merely for the sake of flow, but then we don't call her by that name anywhere else. I think that will give everyone pretty much what they want, as her name is not spread and her info is not known, but it isn't an eyesore to read and I don't have to be constantly reminded that I'm not supposed to know her name. Tl;dr: Hiding the name on purpose is futile and, in a selfish light, detracts from my experience (which I rail against with full force). Don't take it out of what he says, but don't put it up elsewhere. That also means that the people who missed all this won't go insane trying to find info. Meh, my idea sucks, but I'll put it out there. Thelieisacake 21:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it's easy to put the information together; if you Google up the information that Chris has given, you can find her easily. I think we should do more or less as you've said- present exactly what Chris says and not link the two together. Anyone who is really confused can look it up. It's no less confusing to a newb, IMO, than the articles that refer to Chris as "Ian" and Liquid as "Chris". BubblegumPinkButler 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Flibel

• In case no one has been keeping tabs, the alias currently in the page had been discarded, so now we should be completely safe. (Did one of you talk to her?) --LeninandMcCarthy 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• For those of you keeping score at home, Chris himself has published her full name on the Cwcipedia under an exhaustive list of 'Past Sweethearts'. (yes yes ffffffff, goddammit chris, etc etc) Considering this nugget of fail was yielded unprovoked by the manchild, would it be against the 'no irl names' rule on this page to at least link to his cwcipedia page on here? Hurrrr2 02:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Name Change

In his most recent video, Chris refers to the wallflower as "Damian Antaria". I suggest we change the article to reflect this. "The wallflower" is simply a name the trolls gave her. Our purpose here is to document Chris, and so, if this is what he calls her, this is what we call her. This isn't meant to throw her personal information out there, or even link this article to her writings. If Chris wants to give us this name, then that's her name. Just saying. What do you guys think? --Megaman 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons; First, Wallflower asked that we remove all her personal info. This includes, in my opinion, her pen name. Then, many Christorians out-there have adopted the name "Wallflower" to name her. Why changing that good habit and risking confusion? Griffintown 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Chris thinks we took this page down because he told us to. I think we need to make it clear that we removed the information because "Damian Antaria" asked us to, not due to Chris' bloated ego and aggressive, one-sided demands --Megaman 02:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris probably just takes quick looks at the pages, i doubt that changing the name will have any effect on him, besides, the page states ""The Wallflower" aka Damian Antaria...", so, there is no need for a name change, it would be like changing articles like " Punchy sonichu" to "Punchy "Fighting" sonichu", considering that's the species for Punchy, but trolls know him as Punchy Sonichu.Ttherefore, no name change is needed.Basgon 03:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, I agree the name is fine as is. --Megaman 16:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So as long as its not Chris asking, we can't put information up on any person if they say stop? So if Bob or Barbara is overheard in a video or phone chat saying they don't want to be on the internet, we need to take down all references to them? Double Nega 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a separate case we will need to visit if it happen. The guideline regarding WallFlower was simple; she's a victim of Chris. The term "Megan 2.0" applies here. If she asked the material to be removed, I think it is ethical to do so. Bob and Barbara are enablers. This is a whole new ballgame to me. Of course, Chris being the fucktard that he is, will keep on dropping her Dox everywhere. We don't need to be "insensitive" as he is. Besides, WallFlower might be tempted to talk to us if we play nice... Griffintown 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Her Side of the Story

Has anyone tried contacting her to get her side of the story? If she is an innocent victim of Chris, than we should allow her to post her version of events as to how they met, and whether Chris was actually her boyfriend (Which I highly doubt) or merely just an friend that he wanted to rape. I know she sent an email asking for her page to be taken down, so that must me that the admins have an email address for her. It would be very enlightening to learn what relationship she has with Tito, and if she became Chris's new Megan. If she's already stated that she doesn't want to comment, that's cool. she's been victimized enough SargentPickles 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• she's already contacted the cwcki herself. similar to megan, she doesn't want to tell her side but fair enough. just let her be. one day, the truth may come out but not now. Clydec 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

True. I only bring this up because it seem's she has surfaced on youtube, talking about Chris. Whether the accounts is real or a fake is up for discussion SargentPickles 11:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Remove the fanfiction.net image?

I was wondering- should the "How to troll trolls & Chris" image (the_link.jpg) of fanfiction.net be removed? Surfshack Tito has been shown to be the one who informed the Wallflower about Chris's true life & internet infamy. I didn't recollect seeing any info about the "ThyEnvysGreed" person on the article anymore (unless I missed it just now), so I kind of think it should be removed because it really doesn't have much to do with the Wallflower herself or Chris, not really anyway. I thought I'd ask here first, though. Meeko 18:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)meeko

• I have uploaded the image for two reasons. First, we have the historical context. This is THE message that blew-up Chris's cover as a decent bloke and ended the 8 hours Wallflower Saga. Then, it also proves us our prominence as the source of everything CWC-related. Wallflower wasn't pointed to ED but to us. This says something by itself. Griffintown 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My only thing though, is how do we know that this is how Wallflower found out? Chris has said Tito did it (after saying Clyde did it, of course), but Tito hasn't revealed how he did it. My problem is that all we have to go on is the claims of 'ThyEnvysGreed'. Also, Chris hasn't specified how Wallflower found out, nor has the lady herself. We don't really have any proof of it, is all. Meeko 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)meeko

• No, we don't have a point-by-point list about how Wallflower found out Chris's faggotery. This is something she might explain to us if she so chose. This being said, the screen shot proves us that someone hinted the lady towards the CWCki. For me, this is close enough. Griffintown 13:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of, I have contacted Wallflower myself, but through the Private Messaging feature, like a normal person, as I too have a Fanfiction.net account. Should I have done something?--SniperFire16 06:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Probably not. She's as much a victim of Chris's assitude as Megan was; there's no point in putting her through more trouble. -- Revolver Octopus 06:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I know, but still...SniperFire16 06:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, can we leave Wallflower alone, she wants to be able to forget about Chris, so even if you're trying to be friendly/useful, it would be wise just to leave her to it, and refer any burning issues to Cogs, who was contacted by her in the first place. Thanks --YawningSquirtleRedux 06:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Friend Zone

"He has no truck with the notion of "just friends." The Wallflower may have felt otherwise, which could explain Chris's angry remarks on the subject of the "friend zone" in the 15 January 2010 edition of the Mailbag."

I'm not sure about this section staying in. Chris has been angry at the Friend Zone as early as Mailbag 4 which was way back in November.Wise dude321 05:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the name?

Since Chris has (once again) dropped The Wallflower's full name, can we change the name of the page? I know that we're only to upload information as it pertains to Chris but since he put it up on the Cwcipedia does that make it legit to put her name up here now? --Caboose -1 02:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

She asked us not to.

So no. We shouldn't. Ever.--Beat 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Chris is retarded. We are not retarded. Lemme rephrase that; just because Chris does it, that doesn't make it okay for us to do it. We are better than him, rememeber? Plus, as the almighty Beat already said, she specifically asked us to take down the info and we are not ED. If she changes her mind, the info can go back up, but not before then no matter HOW many times Chris says: I DO NOT WANT ANYONE MENTIONING <her full name> ONLINE EVER! -Ronichu 03:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Shit, I'm almighty now? When did this happen?--Beat 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Face it Beat, you are awesome. Griffintown 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• April 11th, 2:31am GMT. Just FYI. -Ronichu 04:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• To reiterate, the reason the page was changed was because Wallflower's personal safety was threatened by this page - not that we were hurting her directly, just that people were posting doxs and stuff and were starting to harass her (in other words, this is why we can't have nice things). The fact she's a fanfic author, not that attractive by conventional Western standards of beauty, and her information is easily available online makes her a target for your average Internet troll.

I'm not a big fan of censorship. I find it abhorrent. I am someone who believes information should be free and whatnot. However, Wallflower did make a request and it's always been the case where if someone felt that their privacy was threatened, we would accommodate to their request (i.e. "plz don't sue"). Unlike Wikipedia, what we're doing isn't exactly kosher to begin with (i.e. an entire wiki to document the misadventures of an autistic shell of a man for purposes of internet trolling as opposed to a free and open source of information)

My solution would be as such - instances where Chris mentions her real name are mentioned, but not linked to her. We keep this article and perhaps mention these instances where the name is mentioned.

CWCki should serve as a portal for uncensored and unadulterated access to Chris and his mind. Otherwise, a wiki cannot truly function. --Champthom 09:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant. Champ says it better than I ever could. Mind if I quote this post any time people keep bringing up this issue? -Ronichu 09:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So quick question, what if Chris (in all his fucktardary) was stupid enough to tell info about her on the internet (like where she lives, her phone number, and other personal info and pictures) would that mean that we would have to record it? He did it with Megan and other people in his life, how do you know he's going to do it with the wallflower? --Yoshi2021 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If Chris did shit like that, it's my personal hope that his sysop would delete the page and tell him to quit his shit. Yeah, I know we're doing the whole "No shit is too minor!" thing, but most of these girls are actual people. They don't deserve newfags sending them pizzas for the rest of their lives just because they weren't openly cruel to a retard back in high school.--Beat 13:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the most honourable Beat on this one. I believe for now the official policy is that we document any time Chris drops her name, but not link it to the Wallflower article, as long as it's not something that a) implies she was going out with him or b) makes her super-easy to dox.

Specifically:

If he mentions her full name yet again in the transcript of a video, then we can transcribe it verbatim.

If he creates a video with her pen-name name as the title, we can transcribe it verbatim.

If he makes a list of his gal-pals with her real, full name as confusingly both a "friend" and an ex-girlfriend, then we have to replace it with The Wallflower.

• So basically yeah. Don't make it seem like she was going out with him, don't make her super easy to dox, and you can mention her name where-ever Chris does. Otherwise, it's the Wallflower. Ronichu 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't bothered reading everything on this talk page, but I think we should just bite the bullet and call her "Heather". Maybe throw in a "(Last name omitted)" for when Chris used her full name. Going out of our way to replace every mere mention of this girl's name with some nickname is, in my opinion, annoying and unprofessional. Besides, "Heather" is in plenty of transcripts, why can't it be the name of this page?Kynes 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• *sigh* Because the CWCki promised the Wallflower that we would. And the CWCki holds to its promises. -Ronichu 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Also, breaking the promise unless we are explicitly told to do so by Wallflower herself means that we're as bad as Chris. So no.--MoarLurk 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think mentioning only her first name doesn't violate the agreement. I think her main problem was the pictures and links to her facebook. You know what? It doesn't even have to be Heather, I'd settle for "Damien" at this point. Anything's better than "Wallflower". I can't wait for Cogs's final verdict on this. Kynes 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Stating CWCki Policy

[The following, title included, is a section I drafted tonight with the aim of putting on the main page. Normally I would just stick it right there, but speaking for the CWCki admins is not something I can reasonably do, humble pleb that I am. I feel that the following passage adequately sums up what the CWCki should and will do, without giving the impression that the CWCki will simply remove whatever anyone feels is not perfectly aligned with their own interests.

Anyone can edit the following as they wish but if a Jerkop says it should/shouldn't say something, please don't change it. The intention is to transmit CWCki policy to newfags, retards and casual readers alike.] -Ronichu 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

CWCki Policy

In March 2010, Chris announced he had a lady friend, a "wallflower" at a meeting for young adults, hereby referred to as "The Wallflower." In a video he released, he dropped her name which allowed more malicious minded trolls to find dox on her and used the CWCki page to post her doxs, her unique fanfiction, etc with intents of trolling her. Given the harassment she received and the potential damage, it was reasonable she felt her personal safety was at risk. As such, she requested that the CWCki rename her page and remove instances of her personal details.

The CWCki administrators intend to uphold their promise to the Wallflower, a promise made in good faith. Chris, however, continues to drop both her real name and pen name in numerous videos, blog postings and pages on his CWCipedia. This makes concealing the Wallflower's identity harder and harder by the day and to *completely* protect the Wallflower would require censorship utterly unprecedented on these fair pages. It would severely compromise the CWCki's stated goal of recording and documenting Chris' life.

As such, the CWCki's policy (if it can be called that) is loosely defined as "to adhere to the spirit of the agreement with the Wallflower". That is to say, the CWCki will not make her real name and identity particularly easy to identify, nor will they disseminate Chris' demented idea that the two of them were dating (they most certainly were not, despite what Chris says).

Essentially, any media in which Chris mentions her name in passing will be transcribed faithfully BUT not linked to this article. However, any media that Chris releases that strongly implies (or outright states) that the two of them were dating OR any media which puts her real identity in significant danger will be faithfully transcribed; in this instance, any reference to her will be replaced with "The Wallflower", with a note that these changes were performed and what was removed. It is the belief of the CWCki admins that this fulfils their obligation to the Wallflower.

With that in mind... the bottom line is that the CWCki cannot protect the Wallflower from Chris. We cannot control who views the YouTube videos where he places her pen name as the title and repeatedly begs her, by full and complete name, to have sex with him because $100 is too much to pay for a hooker. By and large, the damage has already been done and nothing the CWCki could have done would have prevented it, nor can we put the genie back in the bottle now that it's out in the world. However, we will adhere to the spirit of the agreement with the Wallflower until such time as Chris makes the situation untenable, or the Wallflower wishes to renegotiate her agreement.

Reply

Absolutely beautiful, better than what I was going to do. However, in this case, it's ultimately up to Cogs as she has the final word in this situation and I'm not one to fuck with Cogs. However, I do believe you provide a rationale for mentioning her real name in instances where Chris utters it and no where else.

The only thing it fails is that ultimately, we should not link her real name to the Wallflower and I believe that banning would be a suitable punishment for those who do. I added a bit of history, because people might need some background, but not sure if the right language to communicate this other bit I'm mentioning.

Well done, but as I said, this is ultimately Cogs's decision as the deal was between her and the Wallflower and trust me, you do not want to fuck with Cogs. --Champthom 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Plus the bit you added Champ, proper Christorians know anyway, and casual troublemakers needn't know It makes sense just to leave the Wallflowers TRUE and HONEST name in black. You mean you don't really run this place? --YawningSquirtleRedux 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. Just basically gotta get Cogs to sign off on it. I'll leave this to sit for a day or two, then I'll poke her on her userpage. If I can't get a reply in a week or so, I'll post it since generally people seem to approve. -Ronichu 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. Ing. Shit.

So he went and did it. He made a goddamn page on her.

The thing reads like 14 year old girl's breakup livejournal. Starts off about how wonderful she is, then angrily blames her for having a facebook page. Then gets all pissed off that she wants nothing to do with him. He makes some reference about "Swapping DNA in a movie" (likely a moronic reference to kissing), and at one point goes "n*****" which hilariously combines racisim and Chris's pathetic censorship. He ends it with a copypasta version of our page, with the bit about anonymity missing, probably in a rare moment of cognizance that we're being more respectful to the poor girl than he is.

It's Lulzy shit but the fact that this is basically him passive-aggressively begging trolls to harass her for daring to not have sex with him pisses me off to no end. I'd really honestly prefer it if Sysop (in her great wisdom) burned the page to the ground before too many people see it. Just tell him that this sort of unmitigated bullshit won't fly and maybe get some tardrage but I kinda doubt that's gonna happen.

Anyway there's plenty of stuff on the page we can incorporate into our article, namely Chris's completely batshit thoughts on her without breaking our word to her, but this whole thing is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth.--Beat 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• THIS. I don't know what to make of the whole mess. Someone need to open a channel to the girl and tell her about this crap. The whole "DNA swapping thing" is creepy even to me and I am quite hard to shock. Griffintown 02:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• DNA swapping -- did he ask for a drink of her soda and then slobber on the straw? Maybe he sneezed in the popcorn. Squirrelbait 03:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Cogs deal extend to the CWCipedia? or is for all domains under her control? --YawningSquirtleRedux 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know, but, I hope it does. I think, in the meantime, we should glean what we can from this page and put it on here since it does have to do with Chris. I'm not saying copypasta the entire page (save it just in case, though), but do what Beat said - put in Chris's batshit insane thoughts on this.--Blazer 02:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Added link to The Wallflower's page that Chris made under "External Links". --UJ1A1985 02:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, Chris still has a braincell left - he blanked Wallflower's page and changed her name over to her pen name! HA! I hope this was because she got to him and got angry!--Blazer 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Never mind, Chris just made a new page using her pen name. W. T. F.--Blazer 03:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed the link, now it leads to the newer site.--UJ1A1985 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I saved a copy of the original on my sandbox. I will edit it to conform to CWCki's policy on this matter. Most disgusting for me was how Chris said he would 'Accept an apology FROM HER for breaking up with him. And he takes no responsibility for the CONTENT of the CWCki, instead blaming her (????) for even reading it. God fucking dammit, Chris. God damn. -Ronichu 03:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fuck it. I will just use Chris' revised edition since it does the work for me. -Ronichu 03:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lovely Weather

There is speculation in this article that Lovely Weather may be based on She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. The fact that her IRL name rhymes with "weather" makes this seem quite plausible. It seems a shame not to be able to use at least her first name in the article. Squirrelbait 02:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit I'd never noticed that. Although I think it might have been touched upon- given that Chris use of entirely fictional OCs is virtually unheard of. --YawningSquirtleRedux 02:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Chris is denying the connection in his new Wallflower page on the cwcipedia. It would be interesting to know exactly when he met her, to see if the timing matches up. Just noticed that he used the word "lovely" to describe her when he wrote about meeting her at that adult social group thing ("met a lovely woman there who likes me too"). Squirrelbait 03:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Chris claims that he met her in late January and Lovely appeared in late December. Of course, that may not be the full truth--he went through a period in November where he was trying to find IRL Dating Education and it's not unlikely that he joined the group in late December after he complained to Rocky about the JERK who kicked him out of a relationship management class. and took a whole month to get the courage to actually talk to Wallflower, at the time creating a fictional version for his fictional self to fuck.--MoarLurk 03:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What kind of stupid name is Lovely Weather is anyway? I'm stumped--UJ1A1985 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

It's a retard joke out of a winter holiday carol. It is explained in the Lovely Weather entry. Griffintown 04:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• God dammit you guys, I know you wouldn't know this but Chris didn't meet Wallflower until January of this year, Lovely Weather came about in December because it was Christmas and he'd listen to "Sleigh Ride." Sons, I am disappoint though. --Champthom 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry daddy. :'( -Ronichu 08:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I like my version better. At the very least I think speculating that he may have based Lovely on Wallflower will piss him off even if it's not true.--MoarLurk 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)