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)(Thread)

(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)

(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)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

I know Sidewinder. I've known her for many years. She has helped out on Fan History in some forms since almost the beginning. She has helped me research various issues of fandom history. She's gone out of her way to research early fan fiction in regards to Led Zeppelin. In one case, she kept poking around and asking people about it for about two years before we found out what we needed to know at MediaWest. I can honestly say that, given our long history as friends, working on this project and other projects, User:Sidewinder has no interest in doing anything other than documenting what appears to be an important fandom issue. The repeated edits were, on her part, an attempt to move away from the language and tone used in the fandom_wank "wank report" and make it more neutral and factual. That many of the most repeated viewpoints around the web currently 'are negative is something you cannot blame her for. You can't blame her for bias on the article. She is reporting what happened. --Laura 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is information that puts Russet Noon and its author in a more positive light, if there are sources that you think do a better job at documenting the situation, if you can find articles that are biased in that direction, please provide links to them. I will personally ask User:Sidewinder to include them in the article. Contributors just need the base citations to work with. --Laura 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is because different administrators volunteer/are charged with different tasks. Sidewinder is primarily involved with content development, promoting Fan History at conventions and policy development. That's her job. Given that, it is not surprising that User:Sidewinder would be the one most involved in the editing of Russet Noon. She and User:Betsyb are our two content developers. It is their job to add information to articles that could use improvement, to articles that might be of interest to fandom, to create starting places for others who might be scared of a blank page, to work on articles that are high traffic and need improving. --Laura 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The Russet Noon article falls into those areas where we would want to expand on it. Our admins did some similar editing in the Category:Jon and Kate Plus 8 category when we found out that Jon Gosselin might have had an affair. The fan community there went boom! Documentation and article improvement by our admins happen. Sidewinder just happens to be more interested in Twilight fandom (and the Supernatural fandom) then she is in other fan communities so the task to build that article fell on her. --Laura 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

I would really, really like to be in your corner. I would. Heck, my blog entry about it pretty much is biased in your direction of wanting to see what would happen if you succeeded in your goal. But comments like this are not helping your cause. While you've been banned from editing pretty much everything but your talk page, you could still have provided links to where she did that. You could have capped specific things in the history of the article that included bias, explained why providing primary source documents was biased... but you didn't. And on a wiki dedicated to documenting the history of fandom, when you provide no documentation and stopped making an effort yourself to be unbiased? That's kind of fail. --Laura 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also a really cheap shot at User:Sidewinder who had previously worked towards integrating your information, your position, into the article in a cohesive way. You took some one who was willing to give your perspective a fair hearing, who left in things like "Money will go to charity," and tried to make it as unbiased as possible regarding the ownership of the domain and use of your cover art, and you attacked Sidewinder? Way to cut off your nose to spite your face. --Laura 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you thought the article was biased, then you could have... you know... followed the advice on the rules and tossed on a {{POV}}, commented on the talk page to explain where you saw the bias and asked us for help to fix that. And you know what? We would have happily done that for you. Just like we tried to do with the Rescue Ranger fans and the people contributing to the AdultFanFiction.Net article]]. We really try hard at what we do. We make mistakes. We learn from them. And we really want to help our contributor base. Seriously, if only you had contacted us and asked! --Laura 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to this)(Parent)