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?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

sidewinder

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Also, welcome to my seemingly endless stable of sockpuppets, sidewinder.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Wikipedia has our site black listed because back when I was first learning how to promote, I inappropriately added links to Wikipedia projects. When I was told to stop, I ignored them. Lesson learned. I later talked to Brion Vibber and others involved with Wikipedia at RecentChangesCamp 2008 about that and if we could get unblacklisted. They explained to us that Wikipedia does not consider wikis to be valid sources of information, to be good sources. Subsequently, even had I not done gone about link spamming, we would never have been allowed as a source because of that. It is just how Wikipedia operates and it is also a lesson in what happens when you break the rules. There are consequences and we are suffering them as a result. --Laura 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanting "no connection" does not equal never referencing fandom_wank if and when it happens to be the most thorough source of information on an issue of importance to fandom as a whole. Fan History does not intend to compete with the Fandom Wank and its wiki. Fan History and Fandom Wank maintain separate interests, goals, and policies in regards to the wiki and the general community. Our admin team, through our actions on the wiki, try to avoid being subject to wank on fandom_wank and creating further wank which negatively impacts Fan History. But when a kerfluffle or wank becomes of widespread interest and attention in fandom, we cannot simply "ignore" fandom_wank as a useful source of information, timeline data, and links. Just because we cite them does not mean we are trying to become a featured subject on fandom_wank. It creates too many credibility problems for us. --Laura 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sidewinder pulled many of the links through simple Google searches where these were the top links that were being references throughout the internet. (The links that she pulled are the same ones I pulled up when I googled "Russet Noon" to see what all this was about for myself when admins brought it to my attention.) Sidewinder also included and/or protected press releases that presented LS's point of view in order to help provide a fair and unbiased accounting of events. If there are other links out there that present the other side of the story more accurately, we welcome their addition. But we're not going to remove links from sources that don't favor her or that are not fundamentally neutral. The goal of an article like Russet Noon is to present both perspectives. And in addition to that, our philosophy is Move, don't remove. --Laura 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Caito does admit to NOT having edited, and offers her IP address as proof. Her IP address would not match that of Sidewinder who has given me permission, should I want it, to share that to prove that she is not Caito. Caito is, as your whois information says, from Japan. Sidewinder's IP is not pulling from the same continent. --Laura 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The chances of Caito having been a sock, or even a close friend of Sidewinder, and would manipulate this all for LULZ and to attack you are slim to none. If you want more information why, I suggest checking out metafandom's fanhistory:expose tag. Our relationship with fandom_wank doesn't lend itself to that sort of conspiracy. --Laura 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sidewinder

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)