Dear Laura,

With all the respect you deserve, may I please ask you some questions? I'm under the impression that there's a double standard in your policies. If I understand correctly, your goal is to have every editor contribute unbiased additions to articles. Please don't take offense, but may I ask why Wikipedia has your site blacklisted?

In regards to the Russet Noon article, on one hand, you seem to be suggesting that Sidewinder has no vested interest in it. You say her name is Nicole and that you know her. On the other hand, though, you point out that FH wants no connection to fandom wank.

And yet, having reviewed Sidewinder's edits, I can see that she only adds edits that reflect Caito's POV, not to mention links to wank postings. Is it a coincidence that Caito herself has admitted to have been editing the Russet Noon article? If Sidewinder is not Caito, or one of Caito's sockpuppets, then what is Caito's username? Are you sure Sidewinder's account is not related to Caito's?

The following quote was copied from Caito's Russet Doom Saga Part III posting. I'm linking to a screencap from russet-noon.com in case Caito decides to change the posting, but here's the URL to the wank I'm referring to: [1]

Yesterday, April 20, Caito posted the following:

"Lady Sybilla farmed the Russet Doom Supplementary Links Collection and changed my format a little to make the attention seem less wholly negative."[2]

I think this quote makes it clear that:

1. Caito has been editing the Russet Noon article to add a link collection that is openly biased against Russet Noon. 2. Caito is upset that the article now presents a "less wholly negative" perspective.

Now that I have been blocked from editing articles here, Sidewinder steps in edits the article numerous times.[3] Mysteriously, all her edits channel Caito's POV and she continues to add links to the fan wank, even despite the fact that you've said you don't want any connection with them ("Our goal has been to avoid fandom_wank since August 2008."):

Caito responded to this on April 9, 2009, in the fandom wank posting including her emails with LadySybilla.[22] In the comment, Caito stated:

"1. When I posted about the spam thing, I made a point of saying it was a rumor, and asking whether or not anyone could verify it (no one has). Rumors are not the same as accusations, and I didn't post that rumor originally anyway. Your beef is with the anon on that Twiblog, not me.
2. Why do we assume Lady Sybilla stole the cover art? Um, because the evidence points to that conclusion. There's no proof that Sybilla was duped, except for her saying she was. Also, I couldn't have known that when I posted the original wank report anyway; I can only work with what I have, and it's not my fault if my sources make you look bad."

In conclusion, I would hope you live up to your own standards and find out exactly what is Sidewinder's real interest in editing this article over and over again. It is perfectly fine to document the negative attention that Russet Noon has received, but why is it that only the user who is trying to balance the article is the one that gets banned?

I don't see any other administrators editing the article as earnestly and as repeatedly as Sidewinder is doing. Seriously, please take some time to study the pattern in Sidewinder's contributions to the Russet Noon article. And also may I add that, just yesterday, Betsyb thanked me for providing balance to the article.

I know I made a mistake by posting Caito's whois information where it didn't belong, but it's not like I tried to add it again after you guys deleted it. I complied with your regulations at all times. However, if I'm going to be banned from editing the article, then why is it that your biased administrators are still allowed to continue editing it? How is this impartial?