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

From Fan History Wiki

One of your edits was deleted. Please review Help:Rules and Help:People if you need help in understanding why. I can reached via e-mail if you want more info. As the information is public, you aren't being banned but if you do that again, having been warned, you will be for two weeks. If you think that the Caito information is important to be documented, then please do it on the article about her. The article about Russet Noon is NOT the right place for it. --Laura 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Dear Laura,

I am truly sorry, you are absolutely right. I apologize, please give me another chance. It will never happen again.

Artistic revolution 06:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You were banned for essentially maliciously putting in personal information that was not intended for fannish, or business consumption. Help:People basically says you risk getting banned for that. Considering how much trouble we have gotten into in the past over inadvertently publishing that type of information, we're not really in a position where we can unban you for the actions you took and the intentions behind them. (Assuming good faith is based on intent, not action... and your intent looked pretty malicious. I've not seen an apology to Fan History or Caito for that act.) Your ban ends in two weeks. If you want to comment here with links that support your position, we will try to integrate them into the article. When your ban ends in two weeks, you can edit again so long as you follow the rules. The second ban? It will be permanent. --Laura 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ban 2 Adding your own point of view... 3 Russet Noon : Lady Sybilla's perspective 4 Blood Roses 5 You've been permabanned

[edit] Ban

Upon further review and discussion among the admins, we have decided to give you a two-week ban, which is our standard for vandalism and other first offenses. Please bear in mind that further edits of the type which was deleted will result in a permanent ban. --Tikatu 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Dear Tikatu,

I truly apologize. It will never happen again. I promise. Artistic revolution 05:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • 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?

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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?

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)

I can add in follow-up that Caito's IP does not match that of the anonymous poster to the Russet Noon article--nor the IP of anyone who has made any edits whatsoever to FanHistory in the past.--Sidewinder 18:27, 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)

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."):

Again, using fandom_wank as a reference source does not equal having a "connection" to them. Fan History has many, many links to various fandom sites that we have no connection to. We have linked to and extensively cite FanFiction.Net. We have links to LiveJournal. We have links to and discussion of controversy in the John and Kate Plus 8 blogging community. We have links to a number of Rescue Ranger sites. We have citations to EncyclopediaDramatica. Just because we cite them does not mean we have "connections" or official relationships to them. --Laura 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On fandom_wank, people post publicly. They often leave comments which, contain a lot of useful information that cannot be cited elsewhere. In the case of this particular article, fandom_wank comments have been useful in pinpointing the exact dates and timeline of events which have happened. Some of the screen caps that were posted of russet-noon.com for instance, just cannot be found elsewhere. That the overwhelming information currently presents a history that may appear "biased" towards one viewpoint or another, again, is a reason why, after your edit with Caito's address in it, the Neutral Point of View {{pov}} tag was placed on the article. It was placed there by User:Sidewinder. She did this to encourage others to add information and viewpoints which had not been found or seen so far. Working towards a neutral article often requires a lot of effort by multiple parties when the subject is controversial. In those cases, we try to encourage contributors to use the talk page for an article to try to resolve conflict and create an article that pleases everyone. (Or makes everyone universally unhappy. Either works.) Our admin team was initially very pleased to have your constructive edits added which expanded upon other points-of-view. However, when you added additional information without utilizing talk pages to give context to your edits, we didn't feel like we had many other options. --Laura 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

I don't see any other administrators editing the article as earnestly and as repeatedly as Sidewinder is doing.

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)

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?

Again, Sidewinder has no personal stake in this matter. The outcome does not effect her in the least. She is not involved in Twilight fandom. She is not an active participant in fandom_wank. She has no investment in this matter beyond wanting to provide documentation of an important and interesting fandom event. She does not have any relationships with the players involved. I don't think she has read the books or seen the movie. She doesn't want to make a name for herself in fandom through Fan History. (Because, as admins, we've really worked hard on depersonalizing the wiki and making it less about the personalities running it since August 2008.) Sidewinder isn't biased and you've yet to offer evidence that she has that I can't refute with favorable contributions towards your perspective. --Laura 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Tikatu said the article was going to be blocked for some time. The only person that seems a little too interested in restoring public access to it is, once again, Sidewinder: "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."[4]

I specified no time length for the admin lock. Laura suggested a couple of weeks before Sidewinder commented in agreement. I personally don't see that her comment was out of order or that she was showing undue eagerness to have the article unlocked. It is common sense to wait until the bulk of a furore passes before re-opening such an article for public edit, and such things are usually open-ended.--Tikatu 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why Sidewinder has no problems with the unfounded accusations against Russet Noon's author in the article. She only resorts to reporting "bias problems" when the article tries to advocate a POV other than Caito's.

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)

Laura, I am appealing to your professionalism. Please analyze the pattern in Sidewinder's contributions. Thanks.

Artistic revolution 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Laura,

I'm not interested in antagonizing you. You have been objective, but I still have to insist that Sidewinder, whoever she is, hasn't been. She might not have the same IP address as Caito, but her editing patterns are dubious. I have listed the evidence on my website because I'm blocked from doing so here.

In all honesty, still don't see the connection. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Really, I'm not. Everything Sidewinder has done has matched with what she has historically done on Fan History. I'm not seeing any behavior that deviates from our rules, from her role on Fan History. I have not seen anything on her LiveJournal which indicates any sort of collusion. The people I know who might be on her filters, if she was filtering content away from me, haven't reported that she has been posting about this in a way to indicate that she is connected to fandom wank or that she has a vested interest in hurting you. And I've asked about three people. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned previously, I know Sidewinder personally. I've picked her up from the airport. I talked to her on the phone. We worked a dealer's room table. She was one of the few people who stood with me when we had our own troubles with fandom_wank. I know she is not Caito, has had no connection to Caito in the past, and that there is no basis to making any such connection. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And IP evidence supports this beyond my own personal knowledge. You yourself have posted that Caito is from Japan. Her IP address originates from Japan. User:Sidewinder? Not so much. Sidewinder given me permission to post her IP address info. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you track the IP addresses there? None originate from Japan. Some may originate outside from where she lives as she travels extensively. In the USA. Which is not Japan, nor Asia. If you really believe this, please, please, please, please, give me something to work with beyond your gut feeling. I need some evidence. If you can provide some evidence, if you can prove she is Caito, I promise to take action against her. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to edit the article, then at least Sidewinder should also be prevented from tampering with it any further.

Sidewinder made the point to open the neutral point of view dispute and Talk page herself. She did this are the Russet Noon article after the page had, in fact, been "tampered with" by an anonymous editor. (You can view those edits here and here.) It was around this same time that you, yourself, added in material in violation of our wiki rules which are outlined on Help:Rules and Help:People. From my perspective, she didn't tamper with anything. This is a wiki. It has rules. She edited the article to bring it back in to compliance with our policies. If she hadn't done what she did, another administrator would have undone your edits. We were already talking about your edits and how to handle them on LiveJournal and our admin mailing list before we took action. I could have made those edits. Betsyb could have made those edits. Tikatu could have made those edits. Random could have made those edits. It just so happens that Sidewinder was the one who did it. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That said, I have opened discussion on Sidewinder's talk page to discuss the issue of bias in her contributions and how to handle her involvement in editing it as we go forward. We discussed whether Sidewinder should consider stepping back from editing the articles related to Russet Noon. Whether or not she is biased, I believe Sidewinder is more than willing to amend her bias statement and not edit articles related to Russet Noon once she finishes making edits that she promised to do. Edits I see no reason to not allow her to make because I'm still not believing the accusation of bias. However, as part of our desire to strive for neutrality, we take accusations of bias seriously. She won't contribute further once those edits are done. If she does, you can inform us and we will delete them. Tikatu and myself, along with one or two other Fan History administrators, are willing to step up to work on these articles as we work to present a fair and accurate history regarding the situation surrounding Russet Noon. --Laura 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to interject here. Sidewinder has been more than accommodating and gracious during this situation, especially considering that you've pilloried her on your site, accusing her of being someone she isn't despite all the evidence to the contrary. We would much rather have her continue the fine work she has done on the Russet Noon article. However, you have tied her hands with your specious accusations. Now you will have to deal with the rest of the admin staff with one strike against you. I suggest that you choose carefully those items you consider to be biased. We will strive to be as fair and accurate as she has been, but we are only human, after all. --Tikatu 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All in all, as I said before, I'm not interested in antagonizing you. Based on your reasons for why Wikipedia blacklisted FH, I know you can understand how I feel in regards to Russet Noon. I have seen that your procedures reflect professionalism. This is why I appealed to that.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter and in an open forum such as these talk pages. Fan History has made mistakes in the past, which we have worked very seriously to correct in how we handle certain matters today. --Laura 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologized to both you and Tikatu, but never received a reply. At least at Wikipedia they lifted the ban. Sure, they deleted the article, but they were reasonable enough to lift the ban. I'm sorry if the procedure I followed to try to negotiate with you guys was not what you expected.

We have our policies, again, because they work for us. We are not Wikipedia and our rules are different. Fan History and Wikipedia have different purposes, different rules, different goals. We operate in different communities with different expectations. A lot of this is outlined on our philosophy page. If you have not read them, please do as they will really help you understand our perspective going forward because, as stated earlier, we are not Wikipedia. --Laura 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to bannings, we have a general, minimum two-week ban period for first offenses to violating editing rules. We feel this allows for a long enough "cooling off period" where we can have contact with the party involved, explain our position, and allow them time to decide how to proceed once the ban is lifted. It is also a short enough time period that they don't have to wait too long to deal with problems. We have learned from experience that this time period works. --Laura 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your ban, we are not lifting it. This would not be fair to others who have violated the rules. Your ban ends in two weeks. When it is over, you are free to contribute again, so long as you follow the rules. We are not Wikipedia and what Wikipedia did is irrelevant to this situation. --Laura 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather have you delete the Russet Noon article altogether than to continue with this conflict. Once again, it is not my intention to antagonize you.

We do not intend to delete the article about Russet Noon. As per our rules outlined at Help:Article deletion, you can see:

Pages on general fandom information such as fandoms themselves, geographical locations, conventions, fanzines, kerfluffles, fan fiction archives, and episodes are generally not applicable for deletion unless it can be proven that the article has no relevance to the world of fandom.

Russet Noon does not meet the criteria for deletion based on those guidelines. The article is going to stay unless there is some compelling reason to remove it.

If you are unhappy with the content, please help us improve it by providing links to citations which are favorable to your position, additional primary sources, screen caps of information that support your claims such as you bought the art, etc. Invite your supporters to contribute to the talk page for Russet Noon to give advice on how to improve the article. Have your supporters help edit relevant, unLocked subpages in a way is unbiased and helps highlight your position. Talk to us here on this talk page and quote particular lines that you think are biased and how you would fix them. Unless you're quoting the specific text, we can't know what you have a problem with or how to fix it. Just deal with the reality that the article is staying and think of solutions based on that reality. --Laura 01:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic revolution 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article staying and I also understand you're not the same as Wikipedia. I respect your decision to keep the ban and will wait for it to be lifted in two weeks. I guarantee you I will abide by your site rules when my editing privileges are restored. My concern is with Sidewinder's pattern of edits, which seemed biased in my perspective. However, I will trust that you know Sidewinder well and that you will monitor any further edits of the Russet Noon article. I, too, will watch the edits and will use this talk page to bring any dubious contributions to your attention.

As for the bloody rose image, I have been doing some research and have found that it's being used and edited by people all over the internet. I visited the site of the artist who allegedly owns the copyright to it and will contact her to ask for evidence of the actual copyright, since it is very easy to photoshop a copyright watermark on a picture. Once I verify that she does, in fact, own the copyright to the image, I will be more than happy to negotiate a licensing use for the Russet Noon cover. This process will take time, though, so all I ask is that my dispute to the claim in the image caption is allowed to remain there until I can settle this issue. I will also delete the Fan History Wars page as soon as I get a chance, since I don't want to waste any more energy on playing the fandom wank game. Thanks very much.

Artistic revolution 02:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this press release for addition to your Russet Noon article. Thanks.

http://www.prlog.org/10223460-lady-sybilla-the-darth-vader-of-fandom.html

Artistic revolution 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done --Tikatu 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adding your own point of view...

An admin asked me to include this suggestion on this talk page after a situation on the Roswell page came up as she thought it might be a really useful approach to editing the article once your two week ban expires. 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 03:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Russet Noon : Lady Sybilla's perspective

Hello! We've noticed you have been editing the wiki again after your ban expired. So far, your edits have been good ones and we're very happy to have you making edits in good faith. We wanted to let you know that we added Russet Noon#Lady Sybilla specifically so you can write your own version of the events that took place with out any bias issues.

We're also looking for confirmation regarding Charli Siebert‎ that we requested. We haven't received the information. Please post it here or e-mail it to support@fanhistory.com. Thank you. --Betsyb 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks very much.

Artistic revolution 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the {{MP}} box on the Different perspectives section of the Russet Noon article. It is important that users understand why that section is there. --Tikatu 23:02, 11 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 Russet Noon and File talk:Russet-noon.jpg. --Tikatu 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for forwarding the email. I have started to blur the "Blood Roses" image in the screencaps that we have of your website, and upload the images again, deleting the old images. My take on the artwork is that Ms. Seibert doesn't want it available for copying anywhere, so I am acting with that assumption in mind. --Tikatu 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. She wants any and all images displaying the blood rose deleted. I appreciate your kindness. Thanks very much for removing them.

Artistic revolution 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You've been permabanned

This is a notification that you have been permabanned from editing Fan History Wiki as you've been warned before, after you faced a two week ban for vandalizing the wiki. The edits have been rolled back. If we can trace any future edits to you, those socks will be permabanned and the edits will be rolled back. Your situation has been deemed notable so even if you so desired, you would not be eligible for deletion based on Help:Article deletion. If you have any questions about your ban that are not answered by Help:Rules, please e-mail me at laura[at]fanhistory[.]com. --Laura 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)