Kathryn Cramer put up her own page on Wikipedia, referencing herself.

Note the warnings that they are giving her:

Kathryn, you risk being blocked for disruption without further warning if you continue to edit this way. You’re creating articles that don’t assert the notability of the subject. You created a page about yourself. You’re relying on blogs and personal websites as sources. You created an attack page on someone you claimed had defrauded you — you even included his description, presumably so that Wikipedia’s readers could help you to track him down? You’ve made serious personal attacks against editors on and off wiki. In short, you seem be trying to turn Wikipedia into an extension of your blog, which won’t be allowed. Please read the content policies and try to edit in accordance with them; see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. You should also review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well knock her off of there, then, and stop being so nice to this crazy woman! Behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

Kathryn, your transparency of what you are doing at Wikipedia is clear. You even took your version of Cafasso entry after wikipedia editor deleted parts, you moved the unredacted - your version - to Google, posted it and superimposed wikipedia’s logo on that to lend credibility to something that was not acceptable to wikipedia - that is like slapping a CBS, CNN logo on a piece that never aired on CNN? Your use of wikipedia is in question. You are using Wikipedia’s credentials to substantiate your claims and for personal revenge! that is abuse. what you are doing to other cafasso victims is abuse as well. wikipedia does not deserve this and i dont appreciate being dragged into your revenge with cafasso under the umbrella of wikipedia! you have also publicly misled and buried your complictiy with cafasso - so on balance, your overall postings are misleading. on accuracy, it is negligence; on rudimentary standards of substance, an editor would not publish outside of wikipedia, and when cross-reference all these notes on all of these entries, you have inconsistencies. on one entry you claim cafasso is a lone ranger against idema yet you write on GoDaddy, you filed complaints on idema with GoDaddy and 4 police agencies and then do this edit on GoDaddy about idema and harassment; you list victims and then you neglect to mention your complicity as in charges on your credit card for cafasso to commit interstate stalking against Lynn Thomas at casoblog. there is alot editorially that should be questioned. this analysis of what you are putting wikipedia through is as close to a full blown mainstream news story on the abuse and misuse by some of wikipedia to settle sources - this breaches ethics journalistically; this is very transparent. christine dolan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.156.57.153 (talk • contribs). February 1, 2007 9:12am

Interestingly, I can see no response from Cramer as it would appear she got caught again with her pants down. She is, in fact, self-publishing with her typical delusions of grandeur and here is more on Wikipedia ‘talk’:

I’m not sure I understand why Cramer’s essays in The New York Review of Science Fiction aren’t listed individually. The reason given in the edit summary was that they’re believed to be self-published. I don’t think the NYRSF is an example of self-publishing, as defined in WP:V and WP:RS–the magazine is hardly a vanity publication, as the Hugo nominations and the existence of an editorial board should show. She is one of the editors of NYRSF, but I’d imagine it’s pretty normal for literary periodicals to publish essays by the editors.

Furthermore, the essays weren’t being used as a source for the article, except in the rather narrow sense that they are sources for their own existence, so I can’t even see why self-publishing would be a problem here. –Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a “poisoning the well” problem here. Kathryn Cramer has promoted herself both by editing here and by promoting her version of her bio elsewhere. SlimVirgin and others are trying to create an unbiased bio based of reliable published sources; but that is being made difficult by repeated efforts to hijack the process by various self-promotional eforts by Kathryn Cramer who claims Wikipedia is nothing more than a blog and treats it as if it were one. WAS 4.250 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the pages on Joe Cafasso, Kathryn Cramer, David Hartwell and GoDaddy, she has been doing a lot of self publishing in order to manipulate interest in one direction. It’s no wonder the editors at wikipedia are having difficulty with her; she’s a mindless drone with an agenda who doesn’t know when to stick a sock in it.

In What Wikipedia is Not, they state:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for talking. This means that you should only put facts in an article. You should not put your thoughts about something in an article. An article is for the truth, not what you think.

Kathryn doesn’t know how to distinguish between facts and her non fiction world, because to her, they are one in the same. It is quite interesting what she’s been publishing at her blog about Cafasso, minus her cooperation and support of what he’s done thus far. In addition, she seems to be on some kind of a mission in order to publish something on her blog and use Wikipedia as the source; even though she created that source. She isn’t getting the kind of resistance that she should be the editors, in my opinion. They also state about original research (like Cramer’s)

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a “novel narrative or historical interpretation.”

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.

I don’t think Pleasantville, the editor of several of the interesting entries, who is Cramer, understands that rules; that they apply to everyone. In typical elitist ‘ruling class’ fashion, she thinks the ‘rules’ are for everyone else.

Thanks to Jo’s Cafe