Talk:Stormfreak

From Fandom wank wiki

FYI, it should be noted that this:

Although grudgewanks are usually frowned upon, the OTF_Wank moderator chose to punish Stormfreak for still being alive by banning her from the community after only two posts, yet allowing the conversation about her to continue - but only after disabling anonymous comments and new account creations.

is not accurate. Stormfreak has been permanently banned from JF itself by the JFA. That means when she shows up and identifies herself, anon commenting gets turned off. Further, OTF_Wank mods have no ability to enable or disable new account creations, which are disabled most of the time (unless you pay for an account, which would seem to be rather a waste for SF-- considering the JFA don't want her around). I was under the impression that the ban related to the block text posting is the ban from JournalFen itself-- not from Fandom Wank.

As for the suspension of F_W from LJ, I believe Te is suspected of being involved, but I am under the impression that LJ has never been forthcoming about the actual reason for suspension. So, if you've got proof it's Te, link it. -- Avocado 07:06, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

--

Stormfreak has been permanently banned from JF itself by the JFA.

Why?

That means when she shows up and identifies herself, anon commenting gets turned off.

According to SF herself, she can still post in FW, despite having identified herself well over a year ago. Also, as of right now (17 January 2006, 2:45 a.m.), anonymous posting is very much allowed at FW. So what does OTF know that FW doesn't?

(unless you pay for an account, which would seem to be rather a waste for SF-- considering the JFA don't want her around).

I think it's safe to say that SF doesn't want the JFA to be talking about her, but that would actually cause the wank to DIE, and who wants that? Nevertheless, I'll take your word for it and delete the line about the account creations.

I was under the impression that the ban related to the block text posting is the ban from JournalFen itself-- not from Fandom Wank.

Maybe, but seeing that Stormfreak was banned before then,, it was really more of a desperate "make that bitch stop making us look like hypocrites!" kind of ban. Not to mention the fact that it's been more or less agreed upon that she didn't have anything to do it, but apparently was supposed to have some kind of mind control over her minions who called themselves doing it in her "honor". I'm sure none of us here know anything about the "you're making my side look back" phenomenon.

As for the suspension of F_W from LJ, I believe Te is suspected of being involved, but I am under the impression that LJ has never been forthcoming about the actual reason for suspension. So, if you've got proof it's Te, link it.

My apologies - I thought that was just a "generally agreed upon" thing. I'll change that right away. -- Zinkshipper

---

Now, as I wasn't around at the time, I can't comment on her original banning from F_W that you cite. But, apparently she was reinstated afterward, because she posted a wank just before the block text incident. The block text (and apparently, extensive sockpuppets) is what prompted her final banning from F_W. It also prompted Zorrorojo to ban her from Journalfen (well, that, and apparently some sort of mortal insult to ZR, which was perhaps not the wisest move). Whomever was doing the posting, it overloaded the servers. It was suspected to be Stormfreak. As you say, not proven, she says it wasn't her-- but banning her made the servers stop overloading. It's discussed in the FWGH entry here.

On banning: It's difficult to effectively permaban someone, because bans by IP are fairly easily to circumvent; also, they permanently block other unrelated people who may one day use that IP. What tends to happen is when people who are not supposed to be on JF show up (e.g., underage posters), anon posting is temporarily shut down in the community affected. (It's been shut down for several months in FWGH; I'm not sure if that's SF-related or not.) Yes, when anon posting is open, anyone on an unbanned IP can post-- which would include Stormfreak. However, as Snacky said, wanking SF is generally avoided, on the principle of not encouraging her to show up on JF. That doesn't prevent people mentioning her name from time to time. -- Avocado 08:42, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

--

Now, as I wasn't around at the time

Okay, see. That's the problem. It seems to me that most of the people who have so much to say about Stormfreak and The Wank that Ate The Internet - and yes, that includes me - weren't around at the time. The original wank is missing. In fact, EVERY wank that supposedly involved Stormfreak NO LONGER EXISTS. Now, every other big wank, or wanky legend, or whatever, seems to have an original link to something wanky. This one, on the other hand, requires that we believe the sacred words of a small group of people who may very well be lying. And at this point, we don't even KNOW who was a part of the original wank, because - say it with me, everyone - the original wank NO LONGER EXISTS. Even Stormfreak herself admits that she doesn't know when or how it started. At this point, ANYONE can claim to be an original member of the wank, simply because there's no way to prove it to be contrary. So maybe...juuuuuust maybe...this wank should be allowed to swim back into the ocean because - are you still with me? - THERE ARE NO LINKS TO THE WANK. The entire GH entry was written purely on hearsay, without a single shred of proof. Not a link, not a picture, not a cache...hell, the only reason why we even know that Stormfreak is an actual wankee is because she admits to being one!

But, apparently she was reinstated afterward, because she posted a wank just before the block text incident.

Or maybe she wasn't banned yet. Boy, it sure would be nice to be able to read the wank and know for sure.

As you say, not proven, she says it wasn't her-- but banning her made the servers stop overloading.

Or at least, that's what the staff tells Fandom Wank. And I'm going to call bullshit on that, simply because it would've taken a lot of people making a lot of posts for a lot of DAYS to cause that kind of reaction to the server. And I refuse to believe that the FW staff let that go on for DAYS before they put a stop to it. Also, had it been Stormfreak, wouldn't it have been pretty easy for her to simply log into another computer and just keep at it? Switching IP addresses has never been hard. It's because of that I personally don't think ANY so-called "troll" had ANYTHING to do with the block text. I'll come straight out and say that stunt came from the JFA themselves. They were the ones who announced the banning of Stormfreak. And even though any idiot could've just logged into say, AOL and just kept right on with the trolling, LO AND BEHOLD, THE BLOCK POSTING, SHE IS GONE! THE JFA STAFF HAS SLAYED THE BEAST! PEACE HAS RETURNED TO THE VALLEY! Really? Nah. Something doesn't add up there.

However, as Snacky said, wanking SF is generally avoided, on the principle of not encouraging her to show up on JF. That doesn't prevent people mentioning her name from time to time.

And those moderators, why they're powerless to stop it! Poor little mods! It's funny. Somewhere towards the end of the Haven's existence, SF had a similar rule - it wasn't with FW, but some other group of people (Subreality?). When people broke said rule and continued to talk about the group, SF deleted the posts and banned the rule-breakers. It was a radical idea that was possibly before its time, but if the JFA staff got off their lazy asses and enforced the rule that they made, maybe things like wiki wars wouldn't happen. Just a thought. Oh, and speaking of the poor ickle, misunderstood and slandered FW mods? Sure is funny how right after this started, it's back to trying to find SF's real life information. Good luck with that one.

What slays me is this sense of entitlement that FW seems to have - that SF should have the right to talk about SF - truth, lies and everything in-between - and SF should just lie back and take it, and when she doesn't, it's because she's obsessed, or she's a troll, or she killed Baby Jesus. O RLY? Tell me, what would any normal person do if they were being made fun of? And why should SF have to quietly take it up the ass, when no other wankee has had to, from what I can see? (If I'm wrong, by all means please point me in the direction of another banned wankee. Not a troll, but an actual person who was wanked in FW and was then banned and disallowed to particpate in their own wank.) -- Zinkshipper

Okay, first of all, I seriously doubt you're not SF, or working at SF's behest. It strikes me as improbable -- and rather laughable that you think the pretense holds up -- that you can discuss the very history you're claiming doesn't exist in such (misleading)detail without one of those being the case. You rely on the deletion of evidence -- some of which was deleted because SF and her "friends" spammed the fucking servers -- to paint a half-hearted picture of a troll verily wronged. It's amusing, I'll grant you that. But, you see, SF isn't the only one who remembers her inane wankiness, and the contempt she inspires from FW didn't come out of the blue, despite your insinuations about racism in both this entry and the discussion under your username (can a desperate attempt at Godwin's be far behind? please take your time to think of an actual creative way to paint the picture of an ingenue offended, okay?) Nor do most of us care about the fandom issues...indeed, I rather imagine that SF's comics obsession was not, and is not, shared by the vast majority of either the general population or the FW one. So coming in to whine about how we're omg so meeen! is kind of pathetic on the face of it. Granted, you do bring the funny (the cries of "I'm not her! I'm someone else! Maybe even a stranger from a distant land!" will never stop being funny over the Internet, because we all know that Germany is 5000 Internet miles away from the States.) But it's a sad kinda funny, and while it's always nice to see someone jump up with accusations of racism right off the bat, it's a sure sign of a troll. wankprophet

Okay! Zinkshipper 16:19, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Or maybe she wasn't banned yet. Didn't you already say that she had previously been banned? So what's your dispute? Let's see. Your contention is that the servers didn't break. Or that maybe they did, and the JFA deliberately spammed and broke their own servers, then blamed Stormfreak for it to have an excuse for banning her? I see. Speaking of proof or lack thereof...

Unlike you, I don't give my own theories and opinions as some kind of fact. I made it plain that's what I think MAY have happened, and I did so HERE, not in the actual wiki article. Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Tell me, what would any normal person do if they were being made fun of? Most of them ignore us completely, realizing that they don't give a damn about our opinions anyway. -- Avocado 16:32, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Okay, good for them. This one didn't. So your point is...what? Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Ok, question regarding this part: What the author failed to mention is that although the Fandom Wank moderators had the ability to delete the posts containing Stormfreak's real life information (as any maintainer of any online community does), they refused to do so, and even contributed to the threads containing the information. Did FW have mods on Blurty? 'Cause I'm not remembering any. Comm owner, yeah, but I don't even remember who that was--and I'm feeling too lazy to check the fw history entry to see if that's listed. --Young Murdered Faery 10:27, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Okay, I was around when Stormfreak was wanked on F_W on LJ and on Blurty. I was around when she was banned from F_W on JF, so I remember when a lot of it went down. As it didn't directly involve me, I didn't take notes on it at the time, so my memories may not be as detailed as Stormfreak's are, but let me address some things.

1) Stormfreak can post on F_W, or any of the other JF communities anonymously (that is, using the anon commenting feature. She usually identifies herself). Her original banning was both by username (several variations) and by IP (by the JF admins). So, if she's posting under a different IP than the one banned, of course she can comment, until such time as the mods of the community turn of anon commenting, or the JF admins ban her by IP again. Personally, I don't think it's fair for people to bring her up and discuss her, and then not allow her to comment, which is why, in the past, we have tried to discourage people from talking about her. As well, it's why she has been allowed to comment on discussions about her. However, the JF admins have banned her, which means they don't want her on their site. As with minors, I feel that F_W should respect that, and do our best to keep the people banned from the site. So with the commenting, it's a toss-up between being fair to Stormfreak and doing what the site owners ask.

2) I'm going to call bullshit on that, simply because it would've taken a lot of people making a lot of posts for a lot of DAYS to cause that kind of reaction to the server. And I refuse to believe that the FW staff let that go on for DAYS before they put a stop to it.

The banning from Journalfen came from the admins, and was because of the server problems. Now, I know you don't believe this, but until recently, the server was kind of... well, it could go down if you sneezed in its direction. *g* So, at that time, the block posting of all that text could very well cause downtime in the service. Not just because of posting it, but because of all the people who were loading and reloading and refreshing the page to see what was going on. I realize you're saying that Stormfreak was not responsible for it, but I do remember that whoever posted was claiming they were doing it "for her." And when Stormfreak was banned, it stopped, so, in that case the problem was solved. Now, yes, you have a different theory as to why, but I choose to believe the simplest explanation.

3) ''But, apparently she was reinstated afterward, because she posted a wank just before the block text incident.

Or maybe she wasn't banned yet. Boy, it sure would be nice to be able to read the wank and know for sure.''

She wasn't banned yet. As far as I recall, she wasn't banned from F_W proper until the banning by the JF admins. They happened about the same time.

4) And those moderators, why they're powerless to stop it! Poor little mods! It's funny. Somewhere towards the end of the Haven's existence, SF had a similar rule - it wasn't with FW, but some other group of people (Subreality?). When people broke said rule and continued to talk about the group, SF deleted the posts and banned the rule-breakers. It was a radical idea that was possibly before its time, but if the JFA staff got off their lazy asses and enforced the rule that they made, maybe things like wiki wars wouldn't happen. Just a thought. Oh, and speaking of the poor ickle, misunderstood and slandered FW mods? Sure is funny how right after this started, it's back to trying to find SF's real life information. Good luck with that one.

Well, I suppose we could do the "mention Stormfreak and you're banned" thing. It hasn't seemed to be worth it, because she really is mentioned quite rarely, as opposed to say, Caina from Harry Potter fandom, which is on F_W every day, and really, we don't ban people very often on F_W, and it's usually not for making comments. However, if she feels she's being harassed and would like the harassment to stop, I can bring it up with the other mods.

You seem to have been in the thick of the wank for a significant amount of time, and I know that you know that even if SF felt she was being harassed, the last group of people she would confide in is anyone here. Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

You know, I can understand why she wouldn't want to. But I'm being completely honest here - if she feels she's being harassed by F_W members, let us know. Like I said elsewhere, it's probably time for a reminder of why we do not discuss her, and to let it go, in any case. --Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

SF's a big girl. (Or is that "I'm a big girl?") I'm sure if this was ever a cause of strife from her, you (and the entire world) would hear of it. IIRC, the last time that FW was a source of strife for her, Blurty stepped in. I never got the impression that she's upset by it all, just a little confused as to why it's still going so strong, so many years later, when SF officially left her fandom in 2004 (and to my knowledge, never picked up another). It's not like any of this wank is new, just disputed-as-all-hell. I'm right next to you on the "let it go" boat. :) Zinkshipper 19:16, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

just a little confused as to why it's still going so strong, so many years later Could you explain, please, how one wank being posted in the last - what, year? - by accident and by someone who hadn't even heard of SF beforehand, IIRC, wherein she is a minor contributor under an entirely different name that most people didn't even recognize, equates to "still going so strong, so many years later"? If SF thinks the F_W world revolves around her, then someone really needs to get the hell over herself. --PuiPui 00:33, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

(waves my hand) Look around. It wasn't like someone said "Hey, isn't that Stormfreak?" and someone else said "Oh, yeah. Hmm." There was an entire mini wank-within-a-wank, and when SF made the mention that she never went into hiding, the mods went into OMGSOOPERBAN!!11 mode. That's power, to make an entire community scramble to disaccomodate you just because you showed up.

And if people were actually sitting up writing wiki articles about me, about events that happened three years prior, making up shit off the cuff where their memories failed them, I'd be pretty conceited myself. Icons, communities, sockpuppets, flamewars, and lonnnnng, passionate drawn-out posts? Legend has escalated SF from a BNF to a fandom. And she has you guys to thank for it! Zinkshipper 02:35, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

People were writing articles about Sarah T, Te, and Cassie Claire and her BNF fangirls as well. And aside from scotch's obvious grudgewanks about CC, I don't even remember when was the last time they were prominently featured in a wank. (In fact, when was the last time anyone from Smallville was wanked?) So by your account, they should feel just as conceited? --Young Murdered Faery 02:55, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Why shouldn't they? Because they don't meet your benevolent approval? Oh, that's right. They should feel shame that they failed to get your seal of admiration. Oh, that I may someday wear that sacred badge....(crossing my fingers) Zinkshipper 05:24, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

...we're passing out seals? Since when? And if that's the case, I'm going to ask for a fuzzy cream-colored one to match that icon I got from Sep.--Young Murdered Faery 09:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Also, point of clarification: the Journalfen admins and the F_W mods are not the same thing, nor are the F_W mods "staff" of Journalfen. Journalfen is a journaling service, like Livejournal. People who mod communities on LJ are not "staff" of LJ, and the same is true at JF.

And, please, which of the mods are trying to track down SF's real life information? That came from one of the F_W mods? Which? How do you know that?

I simply made an observation that since this whole kerfluffle began, someone has tried to look up SF's real life info. I didn't mean to suggest it was a FW/JF mod, though I will say that's exactly who I think is behind it. But again, it's my theory, nothing more. Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

I'm doubtful that it's a F_W mod, but okay, it's your theory.--Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

5) What slays me is this sense of entitlement that FW seems to have - that SF should have the right to talk about SF - truth, lies and everything in-between - and SF should just lie back and take it, and when she doesn't, it's because she's obsessed, or she's a troll, or she killed Baby Jesus. O RLY? Tell me, what would any normal person do if they were being made fun of? And why should SF have to quietly take it up the ass, when no other wankee has had to, from what I can see? (If I'm wrong, by all means please point me in the direction of another banned wankee. Not a troll, but an actual person who was wanked in FW and was then banned and disallowed to particpate in their own wank.)

I mentioned this above, but no, I don't think it's fair that SF isn't allowed to participate in discussion about her, which is why we try to discourage discussion of her, and why she's been given leeway in anonymous posting. There's only one other person I can think of who fits the same situation as Stormfreak (like I said, F_W rarely bans people), and that's Seris. Seris is a banned wankee, for similar reasons (not allowed on JF by the JF admins).

6) Ok, question regarding this part: What the author failed to mention is that although the Fandom Wank moderators had the ability to delete the posts containing Stormfreak's real life information (as any maintainer of any online community does), they refused to do so, and even contributed to the threads containing the information. Did FW have mods on Blurty?

No, we didn't have mods on Blurty, so I'm not sure what that's about. There weren't any mods to make a refusal. As well, I don't remember any posts on Blurty containing Stormfreak's real life information, but, as I said above, I didn't take notes on the situation. And since the comm was TOSed there, there's really no way to check. I remember people posting her photograph, though.

Assuming that's true, are you trying to say that NO ONE had the ability to delete a post? Not even the person/people who created the community? Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

No, I'm not trying to say that. The OP had the ability to edit or delete a post (I assume - that's how it works on the journaling services) and the owner of the community would have had the maintainer/mod powers and while not able to edit, they would have been able to delete the post. All I'm saying is that there were no mods at the time, thus they could not have refused to do anything.--Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Personally, I think a huge part of the problem was that Stormfreak seemed to believe that F_W was made up of her Subreality enemies, and thus, was out to get her. While it was true that some of the Subreality people were members of F_W, and I think, used that to go after her on F_W, the majority of F_W members were not Subreality people, and had no idea what the whole fight was about and were just enjoying the wank. The same still holds true now, which is why, I think, all the questions about who Stormfreak is.

7) Snacky writes: The original SF wank, back on LJ, had to do with her battle with the X-Men comicfic gang. Just your regular wanky stuff, except that Stormfreak kinda lost her shit over it. Stormfreak counters: I was wanked here at F_W because I made a post in my LJ about the patheticness of this community, and how sad it is that people can't just do their thing w/o being scrutinized by other nerds - who happen to think they're nerds of a higher pedigree. In other words, I pissed on F_W before F_W knew who I was. You people got mad and copped a "how dare she!" attitude. Wacky hijinks ensued.

Like I said, I didn't take notes at the time. Stormfreak was just another wank back on LJ (which would have been late 2002-early 2003), and that's how I remember it. I certainly don't remember her posting in her LJ (because I don't read it) and I don't remember a "how dare she!" attitude among F_W members, but again, I'm sure we remember things differently.

8) The original author of this entry wrote: Stormfreak screams that she has some valid gripe toward Fandom Wank, but it's all smoke. Smoke or not, most people would agree that any wank that crosses into real life is taking things too far, as voiced by backfromspace. In Stormfreak's case, the racist attacks, real life invasion and attempted professional sabotage made Stormfreak's grudge against the community more than valid. Even if Fandom Wank wasn't the driving force behind the racist attacks - a notion that Stormfreak herself has entertained - the fact remains that the Fandom Wank staff did nothing to stop the spreading of her personal information.

I completely agree that any wank that crosses into real life is taking things too far, and agree that Stormfreak should do what is necessary to stop that from happening.

However, Fandom Wank, as far as I know was NOT the driving force behind the racist attacks. Certainly there was no locked posts to members giving Stormfreak's information and asking them to make these attacks. I know I would have remembered that, as well as refused to participate in such a thing, and would have joined SF in complaining to Blurty. That's the reason I see SF's grudge against the community as invalid - if this was the act of individuals, acting separately from F_W, there was no way the F_W members at large could have known about it. I don't question that there were people on F_W at the time with a grudge against SF and who could have used the comm to get at her (see my above comments about the Subreality people), but I don't think the comm as a whole can be blamed for that actions of unnamed individuals.

That's the reason I see SF's grudge against the community as invalid - if this was the act of individuals, acting separately from F_W, there was no way the F_W members at large could have known about it.

That's the reason I see SF's grudge against the community as invalid - if this was the act of individuals, acting separately from F_W, there was no way the F_W members at large could have known about it.

Whaaaaaat? Taking away the whole racist thing (since that's apparently what you want done), there's a whole stinking plethora o'shit that we could concentrate on. The posting of pictures? The mocking of nearly everything she wrote in her LJ about her childhood, her eating disorder and her bipolar? The "come and mock for she is banned" attitude? Okay, let's say that none of that is valid. So SF posting pictures of people and calling them ugly (and not even doing it here at FW!) is...what, exactly? Zinkshipper 19:12, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

And yet the block text and the supposed FW trolling, well...Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

As I've said elsewhere, someone posted block text and trolled F_W. I have no proof it was SF, and have not claimed that it was.--Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

As well, I repeat again, there was NO F_W "staff" on Blurty. There were no mods at the time, and the only person SF could have complained to would have been the community owner. If there had been mods, the issue would have been addressed and the posts deleted (as has happened on JF since).

And as for the suggestion that had the nonexistent mods seen the information, they would've deleted it, well...that goes back to believing your good word.

Okay. That got wordy, and I know it's tl;dr. One more thing: I'd like to edit some of the bits of this entry, specifically this:

Originally, Stormfreak was blamed for Fandom Wank being thrown off LiveJournal, but it turned out she had nothing to do with it. It has been suggested another fan fiction writer named Te (ironically, another African-American female writer) was the catalyst behind that decision, but there's never been any concrete reason given as to why Fandom Wank was removed from LiveJournal.

Because I don't ever remember Stormfreak being blamed for F_W being TOSed off LJ, and I don't think we should be naming Te as the reason either. Nor do I like the implication of racism here, and think it's bullshit.

I didn't mean to assume that people were accusing Te because she was African-American; I just thought it was a funny coincidence. I'll take that part out. Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Thanks. I actually had no idea that Te was African-American until you wrote that.--Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Proposed article text

Actually, I'm tempted to change this whole entry to

She Who Must Not Be Wanked

Stormfreak has a long, contentious, and due to deletions and TOSings, unrecorded history with Fandom_Wank. It's all been one huge wanksplosion all around, though. She doesn't like us, and we don't like her. See fwgreatesthits for all the details that anyone can remember.

And leave it at that. But I suspect it won't be left. -- Snacky 16:42, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

::But I suspect it won't be left.

Which is sad, since that's pretty much the most accurate description we're going to get with the proof that's left. I know I'd lose everything that I've written here, but I honestly think it's a fair assessment of the situation, especially since the FWGH post will be allowed to stand. Zinkshipper 18:36, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Well, we can give it a try. Let me check if I can lock a page to future edits. --Snacky 19:04, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Snacky-- you can lock the page via "protect." One of the other mods could conceivably unprotect it, but I certainly have no wish to do so. I would suggest (as I said) an addition to note that there is a general request that she not be discussed on FW, any related communities, or JF at large. Zinkshipper, does that strike you as a reasonable addition to Snacky's article? -- Avocado 19:44, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Thanks for doing it!--Snacky 20:15, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

If there are any problems with the current version, please let me know. Otherwise, are we cool with this? I am now going to alter the "Stormfreak in the Night" article to link here automatically (instead of having to click on the link), and verify that all wiki links to that article point to the Stormfreak article instead and don't reference nonexistent subsections. -- Avocado 20:22, 17 January 2006 (GMT)

Wow, holy crap. Despite being told not to discuss Stormfreak...that's exactly what's happening, and it's all led by Snacky herself! Because making an annoucement and just LOCKING the post would've been too easy - nope, not only did she have to make the annoucement, she had to make damn sure to link to SFs current LiveJournal so that everyone could be specific as to where to find her now. Why am I not surprised? I cannot WAIT to hear the defense on this one. Zinkshipper 01:34, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Dude, I did what I said I was going to do - put up a reminder not to wank Stormfreak. I saw no reason to disable comments at that time, and figured if it got out of hand, I would. And you linked to her current LJ on the wiki, so I didn't think it was a secret (and I thought it would, you know, help people to know who she was so as not to wank her). I've disabled comments and removed the link to her LJ, as per your request, but whatever. You're bound and determined to think SF is being persecuted by F_W, and nothing I say or do is going to help. Sorry to have wasted both our times. --Snacky 02:40, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Dude, I did what I said I was going to do - put up a reminder not to wank Stormfreak. I saw no reason to disable comments at that time, and figured if it got out of hand, I would.

In other words...you saw no reason to discuss Stormfreak in the FW community. Good call, Slick.

And you linked to her current LJ on the wiki, so I didn't think it was a secret (and I thought it would, you know, help people to know who she was so as not to wank her).

I linked to her LiveJournal because HELLO, YOU ARE STILL ALLOWING DISCUSSION TO STAND. Her LJ was already linked before I even got involved, and I don't see anyone doing anything to stop it. Oh, and I LOVE your little extra commentary of the post being locked by requests of mice, as opposed to you taking responsibility for making a DUMB ASS DECISION. Fandom Wank: Is It Ever Our Fault?Zinkshipper 04:32, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

No, you linked to her LJ in your version of the wiki ( Stormfreak adds: As for me "getting in trouble" at school, that's a lie. The staff was annoyed and angry, but not at me. It was "who are these annoying crackers and why are they sending us viruses and calling us monkeys"?). And yes, Stormfreak indentified herself in her comment on otf_wank. So I was not aware it was a secret. Perhaps you should have made it clearer: "We can identify SF as Rattlerbrat, but no one else can."

As for my little extra commentary, you weren't the only mouse that complained about it, and you know, I was actually enjoying the irony of the mice asking for comments off, so I complied.--Snacky 14:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

I can't believe Zink could write the above if s/he'd actually read the comments. Asking for clarification (especially on IP banning in general) =/= persecution. Are we even reading the same post? (Rhetorical question, answering optional, reply not guaranteed.)--Young Murdered Faery 03:03, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

What are you, NEW? I was PARTICIPATING in the thread, you...never mind. GRAH! Zinkshipper 04:32, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

If you were, either it wasn't in the thread I was in, or you were a late addition before it got deleted, because I got off the computer for a few hours after I posted the above comment (and had already signed off JF before that). In fact, I think I missed the anonymice asking for comments to be turned off. (Woe?) But! Don't mind me. Carry on as you wish.--Young Murdered Faery 09:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

In fact, I think I missed the anonymice asking for comments to be turned off. Funny, because I missed that, too. And it's going to take a bit of convincing to get me to believe that people came running to the defense of SF, asking that the thread be locked, and Snacky just up and did it out of the sheet goodness of her heart. The only thing I saw were a couple of posts rightfully pointing out that making a thread about a person who isn't to be wanked and leaving it open for critical discussion was kind of hypocritical at best and just flat-out stupid at worst. The rest of it was wank.

For the record, I posted as a mouse, but I signed my posts, so not all of the anon comments were from me. 12:35, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Zinkshipper 12:35, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Part of the problem we've encountered is that some people have never heard of Stormfreak, while others know Stormfreak isn't supposed to be wanked and yet have no clue who Stormfreak is now, others still remember they're not supposed to wank her, but forget and engage in discussions if she shows up. There are 3K+ members of F_W, and who knows how many readers who aren't members. There are related communities, and those communities don't necessarily share mods with F_W. There are a lot of people who weren't around 2+ years ago, including me. If the goal is that Stormfreak not be mentioned, people need to know whom they're not to mention. If no one says, "by the way, Stormfreak now uses this handle," then we're going to end up in the same situation again. Please think about what you want to accomplish, what we want to accomplish, and how we can go about doing it. -- Avocado 03:19, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

If the goal is that Stormfreak not be mentioned, people need to know whom they're not to mention. If no one says, "by the way, Stormfreak now uses this handle," then we're going to end up in the same situation again.

What rubbish. Snacky her given permission to wank on Stormfreak as long as the name Stormfreak isn't used. Which accomplishes...well, nothing. And since Stormfreak Who Is Now Rattlerbrat isn't even writing in ANY fandom, then there's no reason for her current username to ever BE on any of the JF sites, is there? There are some posts in that thread with her name in it that I didn't see any problem with - if she's being wanky in the eyes of the poster, whatever. That's not what caused the wank. What CAUSED it was some idiot saying "LOOK EVERYBODY! STORMFREAK!" as if that fact in and of itself was wanky. And rather than that poster being told "Hey, we don't wank her" and being told about the evils of grudgewank, it was able to go on...and oh look, it's still going! Zinkshipper 04:32, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Snacky her given permission to wank on Stormfreak as long as the name Stormfreak isn't used.

Don't make up things I didn't say. You know, I've tried to be helpful to you here. I've listened to what you said and tried to come up with a solution for you, I've been respectful to you, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt. You've offered me none of that in return - instead you've insulted me, made up motivations for me, implied things about me, and twisted my words at every turn. I've taken what you said in good faith - that you were here as SF's concerned friend, even though she no longer cared about F_W, and wasn't distressed by it in any way. Like you said, if she had a problem with F_W, she would deal with it, like she did when F_W was on Blurty. But you're particularly obsessed with this whole thing, which, by your own admission, you weren't involved in at all, and you seem to have a need to make me the bad guy in this whole scenario. --Snacky 14:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

And rather than that poster being told "Hey, we don't wank her" and being told about the evils of grudgewank

So basically what you wanted was to dictate what was said in the announcement. Got it. --Snacky 14:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Don't make up things I didn't say.

Oooh, I really wouldn't go there.

I've been respectful to you, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt. You've offered me none of that in return

No, really. Stop it. Between this, your own added wanking and your refusal to follow your own rules, I'm tempted to call you a liar.

So basically what you wanted was to dictate what was said in the announcement. Got it.

I expected you to be a woman of your word, which you obviously are not. My fault for believing you to begin with. Once a snake....SubstituteZS 16:12, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Final word.

Snacky's trying to do her best here. Perhaps she should have disabled comments in the first place, but she didn't. They're disabled now. She removed Stormfreak's current LJ from the post because you objected. Sarcastic comment aside... Wanking Stormfreak is still forbidden. That hasn't changed. Now, to your objection that Stormfreak's current handle is irrelevant because she's not associated with a fandom: OTF_Wank = wank not associated with a fandom, and therefore off topic for fandom_wank. Look at the other posts in that community. That's where the original problem took place. The fact that Stormfreak is not associated with a fandom anymore doesn't mean discussions she's involved in won't end up there, and that's what happened in this case. Such discussions could also end up in i_wank, which is not limited to fandom; or conceivably tech_wank, which is limited to technology wanks on places like slashdot; political_wank if there's something politics related; or clairvoyantwank, which is also not fandom limited. So, yes. Considering that the communities I've listed are not restricted to fandom-- and that some have nothing to do with fandom at all-- I think there is a reasonable need to let people know whom they're not supposed to be wanking. -- Avocado 05:06, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Snacky's trying to do her best here. Perhaps she should have disabled comments in the first place, but she didn't.

Not that my opinion matters here, but you're asking me to believe that snacky - having been in the thick of things since day damned one - honestly thought in her heart that she could mention SF's name, point out that her wiki has the special privilege (such as it is) of being locked, and no one would wank if left with an open post? What, pray tell, was the topic of discussion going to be about? And even if I could just chalk that up to a horrendous error, the fact is even after locking the thread, she still had to get her little snarks in. IMO, (and ONLY IMO) she totally knew what she was doing.

Again, you're ascribing motivations to me, which I have not done to you. I've taken everything you said at face value, and believed you were being honest about wanting this to stop. I've done my best to accomodate you, and you still want to make me the one doing everything wrong. And as for "having been in the thick of things since day damned one" - how the hell would you know that? You were not around, by your own admission. My having been a f_w member and having read wanks doesn't make me "in the thick of things". At the moment, I'm a f_w mod, and I mod the wiki, which is why I was trying to help you out.--Snacky 14:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

OTF_Wank = wank not associated with a fandom, and therefore off topic for fandom_wank. Look at the other posts in that community. That's where the original problem took place.

And I agree, but the very first post (the FIRST post, the FIRST MOTHERFUCKING POST) was a post about fandom, making it off-topic from the jump. It should've been deleted then (by a mod or by the OP); rather, a mod came in, banned SF, and left the comments open for the eventual pile-on. It wasn't about Stormfreak-as-Rattlerbrat being wanky. That came later, and when it did, there wasn't any mention that she was once Stormfreak. It was pretty much "damn, that rattlerbrat is a wanky motherfucker", and there was peace in the valley. Zinkshipper 05:46, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Here is where we stand. The wiki article has been edited as Snacky proposed and you agreed. You have previously indicated you're content with this version. It is protected. Both sides can walk away satisfied. At this point, I request we close further discussions on the topic of Stormfreak, fandom_wank, and all associated communities. -- Avocado 07:56, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Curse my time zone. Ok, putting down this wiki page after this.--Young Murdered Faery 09:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Both sides can walk away satisfied.

Except for that whole still (grudge)wanking about Stormfreak post, which is a direct conflict to the no wanking about Stormfreak in ANY wank communities rule, and the part where snacky clearly says: ...pretend you don't know her other LJ name. If you wank her under that name, fair game, I guess since we're not supposed to know it, evidently (which means that OMGSTORMFREAK! will simply become OMGRATTLERBRAT!), sure. No arguments here. Zinkshipper 12:35, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Okay, explain it to me. If we can't tell people what her name is, how are we supposed to say she's off limits for wanking? If she's wanked as Rattlerbrat, we stop the wank, and that's it. But since we can't tell people her name, then we can't ask them not to wank her. What's the point then?

Actually, never mind. You've got what you wanted out of this whole thing - to be a massive shit-stirrer, and to make sure "The Legend of Stormfreak: Poor Little Victim of The Evil Fandom_Wank" is still discussed, three years after the fact. For some reason, even though SF herself doesn't want the attention, you're bound and determined to bring it to her. Well, carry on. If she's brought up again on the wank communities, the mods will do their jobs, and I'm sure you'll do yours (hysterically screeching about how everyone is OMGSOMEEN TO SF!). I'm done. --Snacky 14:21, 18 January 2006 (GMT)

Any chance you can translate that whining into English? Because all I managed to get from that was WAAAAAAH! WANKWANKWANKWANKWAAAAAANK! Zinkshipper 15:16, 18 January 2006 (GMT)