5.) Figuring there was nothing I could do about the situation, I haven’t said a word to him since. – vzaak
Vzaak did try and do something about the situation, and here is the evidence. After Vzaak posted this information, not only did I take this to WP mediation, but Vzaak actually came to my page, removed the claim, and offered an me an ‘Olive Branch’, a sign of resolution between editors.
I responded with “Thank you Vzaak for your honorable resolution to this issue and I look forward working with you again maintaining WP NPOV. See you on the page!”.
Vzaak admits “I haven’t spoke to him since.” Not a very good policy to keep if your trying to build consensus with editors on a page!
This was the second attempt to intimidate me from participating in talk by Vzaak, both of which failed – and I do admit at the time I felt vindicated. I assumed at this point that this matter was resolved. But it wasn’t.
Vzaak continues to spread personal information about me after she is warned not to.
Vzaak stealthy continued to spread my personal identity to others and plotting a case to ban me weeks before my AE hearing. Evidence is here.
Their current activity at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake appears to be a continuation of their mission which entails provoking conflict on various internet fora while outwardly not violating any TOS policies in order to observe and record consequent results. I think WP:NOTTHERAPY and perhaps WP:ROPE applies here. – LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note the irony – user Lucky Louie is:
1.) Using an internet archive link from 2003.
2.) Failing to note the link provided was written very tongue in cheek and was highly theatrical in nature.
3.) Assumed that project was still active and it does not just involve myself, but everyone on Sheldrake’s page 10 years later continuing the ‘mission’.
This irony increases when they accuse me of spreading ‘conspiracy theories’ in a later fourth attempt to ban me.
Here Vzaak creates a section on a talk page called ‘That very peculiar person‘. This was on Oct 3rd, 10 days before my AE hearing – and you can see the entire team of editors who participated in my hearing plotting.
Here is their discussion:
I’ve been notifying others by posting variants of the following message, mainly because I’m not sure how to handle this. I’ve been passing around this link. His initial appearance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake here consisted of extremely bizarre behavior…I was completely convinced that it was his Tumbleman / Bubblefish trolling persona… This looks like a true pro who has honed his art for a decade. vzaak (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
All of this is hounding and personally attacking an editor, plain and simple according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines. Again, not one single admin noted this behavior – they simply took the Vzaak’s testimony and the 3 other skeptical activist editors word for it, ignored editors supportive of Tumbleman’s case, and banned me indefinitely as a troll and not here to contribute to the encyclopedia.