Manul/Vzaak’s Evidence, Debunked

UPDATE: Wikipedia editor VZAAK had their accounts changed and merged to Wikipedia user/Manul. It is highly possible the name change was due to this site’s publication.

In this study I am breaking down each of Vzaak’s points in testimony on each page. Read more of the narrative of my first 5 days editing on Wikipedia and my encounter with Manul/Vzaak for full context

Read more: How Wikipedia Editor Manul stalked, harassed, and hounded me my first five days editing on Wikipedia.

 

Within minutes of the AE forming to ban me (link), user Vzaak had an incredibly detailed case already prepared with a case made against me for trolling Wikipedia.

 

 


Manul/Vzaak’s testimony:
1.) I was the first person to make contact with Tumbleman. It began with this edit in which he removed a quote because he thought it was “an interpretation from a negative science writer”. (Verify IP is him: [49]) Had Tumbleman taken a few seconds to look at the source, he would have found that it is a quote from Sheldrake himself. After ignoring my explanation of the quote [50] he came on the talk page to complain. vzaak

 

#1 Debunked:

None of the diffs provided by Vzaak support the statements she is making. This is one of Manul’s consistent ‘tricks’ – its a shell game. There is nothing inappropriate in those links.

What really happened and what the links show:

When I first went to the Sheldrake article, I was amazed to find morphic resonance being defined in somewhat of a flakey manner as “mysterious telepathy type connections between organisms” which seemed like a rather informal way to describe it and not fitting for an encyclopedia. The source was from a very opinionated article on New Scientist. I was mistaken that it was not attributed to Sheldrake, but I was correct that is was an informal definition.

Sheldrake used this definition in his book, but he used it to describe the taunts he received from his colleagues at Cambridge, and this definition was actually used by Sheldrake as a story to describe how his detractors viewed his hypothesis, far from a formal definition as I originally suggested.

While my case study is not a defense of Sheldrake (I’m clueless on the science of his ideas and have no idea of the veracity of them one way or another) the point to reference here is that I went on the Sheldrake talk page, informed Vzaak that I was mistaken in my edit and agreed that it should be reverted, apologizing even and informed Vzaak that after I do my research I will find a proper source. Surely this is not evidence of trolling, but rather just a editorial type disagreement, and one I also surrendered.

After I apologized and conceded, Vzaak kept on pressing this case, as if she was unsatisfied that it was such a non controversy and she still wanted to have something to harass me about.

Below is from my exact response to Vzaak, which you can read and verify here.

 

Vzaak – getting very unclear to me why this is still a source of confusion for you. I already addressed this once above. I was mistaken about attribution and therefore withdrew my claim based on that error since I assumed you were giving attribution to the journalist and not sheldrake, therefore making it ‘horribly biased’. I was mistaken there. My claim of potential bias however, which I am still researching, is about the possible bias of the context in which Sheldrake’s quote was used by Scientific American…… Therefore, if this is the case, and i research the reference in question and I determine it to be taken out of context or not how Sheldrake formally defines his hypothesis, I will remove it once again with this argument specifically because it would lean towards a bias on the page and in violation of WP: NPOV. Until then, there is no reason for you to keep addressing this to me because until I do this, your edit stands.

 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*