What is Fan History? • What are Fan History's goals? • What are Fan History's rules? Intern with Fan History!

From Fan History Wiki

Contents 1 PoV 2 Admin lock 3 Article updates 4 Removal of POV tag? 5 email from Lady Sybilla 6 Multiple POVs 7 Unlocking 8 Multiple POV box 9 POV rearrangement 10 Blood Roses 11 Article Deletion Request

[edit] PoV

I'm slapping a POV tag on this article now as some recent edits are starting to head into personal attack and biased territory and need to be cleaned up. There has already been one vandalism attack and I am also going to go through recent edits to make sure relevant links are not removed, and to tone down some of the language being used.--Sidewinder 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you need any additional admin support from me, please let me know. --Laura 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now it looks like you're the one who added in Caito's personal info, Sidewinder. I capped the original edit, but the info's still in the page's history and it doesn't look good in the least bit. Also, the only thing to save this article may be a thorough slash & burn. --Random

Caito's personal information has again been removed, and the edit history has been removed again as well. I'm certain that whatever happened, it was an error, and I expect that Sidewinder will confirm this when she is online again. --Tikatu 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Text messaged and e-mailed Sidewinder about this. She said, "Have one of the other admins step in and state that information was removed and that the information was completely deleted from the records as per our policy."

Nicole is not a supporter of LadySybilla. I know her. This is not malicious.--Laura 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Computer locked up for a second. The situation is due to problems with the extension for saving drafts. Nicole was editing it. If it autosaved an earlier version and she went back to edit it, it might have loaded the problematic version and she saved it, just tossing on a POV with out scrolling all the way down to see if it was a current draft.

We had deleted the edit by Artistic as soon as we saw it. We corrected Sidewinder's accident as soon as it was brought to our attention. This was an accident as a result of autosave. Nothing more. Nothing less in regards to Sidewinder's edit. The information was put originally by Artistic. That is where the problem comes from. --Laura 04:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the edit history item by item to double check; the edit has been utterly removed. --Tikatu 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, we've been aware that fandom_wank was sending traffic our way. We don't like to get mentioned on fandom_wank because we have been really working hard on learning, growing and moving on. So with fandom_wank watching, do you think we would blatantly break our own rules? Subject ourselves intentionally to the mob? The answer there is no. Our goal has been to avoid fandom_wank since August 2008. We're not going to intentionally set ourselves up to be wanked by intentionally posting that information. If anyone thinks that we were the ones to originally include it, I can provide caps which show that Artistic was the one who originally included that information. --Laura 04:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Laura has summarized exactly what it appears happened with the page. User:Artistic revolution put in the link to Caito's personal info in the article around 9pm EST, based on my recollections and livejournal discussions at the time. Here is a screencapture, in fact, of our conversation when I notified User:Laura of what I'd seen Artistic do.

I certainly had no reason to have purposefully set out to break wiki policy in "outing someone" when my whole intent was to stop someone else who was doing just that at the time--breaking policy by posting personal information. My mistake was only in not checking that a draft version had been auto-saved which included this information I had been attempting to remove. The matter was quickly dealt with by the other mods when notified, however, and now the article is under admin lock to prevent anyone else from attempting to do the same.--Sidewinder 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Admin lock

Because of the Fandom Wank connection, and the possibility of further vandalism, I've locked this to admins only - after consult with Laura. --Tikatu 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If things go quiet in another week or two, it can be opened back up again. In the mean time, that is why we have subpages. --Laura 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm for opening it back up eventually, but first making sure bias problems are addressed so it doesn't just turn into a grudge match and/or ongoing edit war. In the meantime, I would encourage anyone with issues about this article (and related pages) to bring them up here on the talk page(s), or email support@fanhistory.com --Sidewinder 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The grudge part was ... annoying. Artist made a few good edits that helped make the article less biased against her and provided another perspective. The jumping the shark thing just... (Total repeat of the situation with Rescue Rangers. They tried to work in the context of Fan History's rules in order to handle PR because of the situation on EncyclopediaDramatica. And when that didn't help them elsewhere, splat! Fan History rules get tossed out the window.) ... yeah. I don't feel like, in terms of the people contributing to the article, were doing much anti-Russet Noon attacks. (Outside the one vandalism thing which looks more like a fandom_wank troll for LULZ than anti-LS.) It just needs a bit more time before we can unlock it so that we don't have to worry about problematic edits sitting for a few hours. (This makes the whole assume good faith part of a wiki hard to do.) I'm babbling. But when you and Tikatu or betsy or random think it okay to lock, I'll support your decision.

And for anyone else reading this? Please feel free to contribute on the talk article to explain what should be edited in the mean time. I don't check fandom_wank. I don't believe Tikatu checks fandom_wank either. We won't necessarily see any thing that should be included unless some one comes here and points it out. We're more than willing to give multiple perspectives their due but we need some one to help provide them. Because of the mention of Fan History and our own inadvertent involvement in this story, I think that myself and other admins really want to be careful on any edits involving ourselves and this situation going forward. It is hard to figure out how to write yourself in to history as an active participant and do it fairly to all parties involved. -Laura 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Later today I will add information on the latest with the "FanHistory Wars" (I have some actual non-wiki work I need to attend to first, now that the vandalism has been dealt with). I'm about to post some discussion on the russet-noon.com talk page further about this before adding anything more at this point.--Sidewinder 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Will poke Tikatu when I see her later to see if there is anything she needs to say or contribute to. --Laura 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I only check F_W sporadically, and usually only the top level posts (unless I find something intriguing). Had no idea about the Russet Noon wanking though. Shows how little I do visit, I guess. --Tikatu 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article updates

I'm trying to update the article with new information. Any help that people can provide in regards to the latest kerfluffles, I would really appreciate. It is hard to report on a site that you are a contributor to. If I make any mistakes, please let me know. --Betsyb 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the edit about the fansites not covering this? I got that information from Laura on the admin mailing list. How do I cite that? --Betsyb 03:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if I can find a refernce link somewhere I'll add it.--DarkAngelFan06 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV tag?

Given the current statement on russet-noon.com that LadySybilla now feels the article represents a more balanced viewpoint[1], do the other admins agree we should go ahead and remove the neutrality dispute tag? Was anyone else objecting to the tone of the article? I vote for taking the pov tag off at this point.--DarkAngelFan06 13:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I approve of this message. --Betsyb 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If she is okay with it, I don't see any reason not to remove. She was the one who had the biggest issue with it after all. The next question becomes, should we unlock the article? --Laura 13:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could take off the admins-only lock, but I would keep anonymous lock on for now. Allowing other registered users to edit at this point should only add to proving our desire to keep it fair. That said, if we get more vandalism or insertion of clearly biased attacks, then the admin-lock will have to go back up, and for much longer than just one day.--DarkAngelFan06 13:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Tikatu changed it to admin lock, after the vandalism by LadySybilla. The protection lock against anon edits was done by betsyb after the LULZ anon edit. [2] So yeah, I'd be happy if we allowed it to be open to registered users as an expression of belief in "Assume good faith." I can unlock it to reflect that. And I'll remove the relevant boxes. --Laura 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the boxes and the admin lock, but I agree that we should keep the anon lock, especially after the exposure that the page had on F_W. I'd rather not deal with anymore edits done for just the lulz. --Tikatu 13:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. I've tried to update the article with the most recent events as even-handedly as possible.--DarkAngelFan06 14:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just popping in to say, I also approve of removing the POV tag, and I am quite fine with letting other mods continue to take care of editing and monitoring the article at this point. I'll stick to the back seat. If I see information I feel may be worth adding, I'll pass it along to the other mods to determine if it merits inclusion at this point, and allow them to phrase the wording if so.--Sidewinder 18:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] email from Lady Sybilla

This is a copy of an email sent to the support address from Lady Sybilla on April 21, 2009. I'm adding it here for the sake of open discussion.

This update is regarding the copyright claim to the blood rose image used for the cover of the novel.

I am forwarding you the email I sent to Charli Siebert last night to try to verify that she does, in fact, own the copyright to this image.

In this email, I'm also requesting that she officially allows me to use the image for the cover. I didn't want to offer her money, because I don't want to offend her or make her feel like I'm trying to bribe her.

However, if she does respond to my email, I am willing to purchase a license from her if that's what she decides she wants. This, of course, after she does verify that she owns the copyright.

Something important I'd like to point out about this claim is that the statement in the image caption doesn't provide any U.S copyright official documents that prove the ownership of this image. I would really appreciate if you added a "citation needed" tag to this claim to clarify that this matter needs more evidence.

A link to an artist's site doesn't prove legal ownership of copyright, especially when considering how much this image is being used all over the internet. Also, Charli Siebert hasn't made any public statements regarding this issue, even though it is quite possible that she has already been contacted by people who have taken a personal interest in tainting the reputation of Russet Noon.

Please be kind enough to add the "citation needed" tag to this image caption, or, if you think it's best to create a sub section to address this dispute.

Should I post the forwarded email as well? --Tikatu 04:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the entire email, including the forward to Charli Seibert, in a historical document. Email to FH support re:Charli Seibert, and added it to both the Russet Noon and Lady Sybilla categories. I know we haven't yet addressed Lady Sybilla's issue; should we do so, and if so, how? She has, after all, removed the image from her cover art and is looking for a new image. --Tikatu 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple POVs

An admin asked me to include this suggestion on this talk page after a situation on the Roswell page came up. One way to do a personal narrative is to create a subsection with your name and perspective. For example, ===Laura's perspective===. Below that, I/you could give a first hand account of the events in question. If they don't match the other version, that is fine as it is another perspective. It doesn't need to match as we all have our own perspectives. It doesn't need to be unbiased because our own accounts generally have bias. The section summarizing the event however SHOULD be as unbiased as possible. --Laura 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unlocking

As traffic has fallen off and we're less likely to deal with vandalism as a result, I've unlocked this article. If vandalism starts back up again, the article will be locked again. --Laura 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple POV box

I replaced the {{MP}} box on the Different perspectives section of the article. Article editors should leave it place. It is important that users understand why that section is there. --Tikatu 23:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POV rearrangement

LS's POV is now broken up into pieces, and slotted in where it seems to fit, subject-wise. I wanted to move those images she added so they didn't stretch the page out with tons of white space. Each section of the POV is clearly marked with a {{MP}}, so there shouldn't be any trouble finding them. And I did very little content tweaking, just removed the "PS" that she put in there. It made more sense to me to group the subjects together instead of putting all the information in one place; it makes the POV response more immediate. --Tikatu 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blood Roses

We still have not received any notice at all from Charli Siebert or from you about the images. We've asked for confirmation of Ms. Siebert's wishes - in particular, the email she sent you, asking you to remove the image. Please forward it to support at fanhistory.com so we can deal with this issue. Crossposted to File talk:Russet-noon.jpg and User Talk:Artistic revolution. --Tikatu 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tikatu,

Thanks for letting me know. I'll be uploading a screencap of Charli's most recent email later on today. I'll also forward it to the support email address for verification. Thanks again.

Artistic revolution 13:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deletion Request

This article does not qualify for an article deletion request for two reasons:

1. It is an article that is not about a person.
2. The person involved meets the notability standard based on her appearance on fandom wank. Because she is notable, she does not qualify as being non-notable.

--Laura 01:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)