Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics

Discussions

View of User:86.129.121.203

I believe that editors need to keep a close watch on Ombudsman's activities with regard to vaccines. Examination of his edits and many of the topics he has started show a clear agenda of alleging that autism is an epidemic, that it is substantially caused by vaccines, that there is a "medical establishment" cover-up, and that those who try to edit wiki along lines of established evidence - which does not support any of his propositions - are malign, if not corruptly influenced. In pursuit of this, he has created page after page overlapping with existing subjects, generally creating alternative narratives to those worked on by others over many months. He has also added a network of links that would tend to lead readers away from the contributions of others. He has repeatedly deleted links on such pages - most often to delete links to the autism page, where he has been unable to gain influence. He has repeatedly breached the three-reversion rule in his attempts to promote a handful of anti-vaccine activists, edited comments on his own page, making it difficult for readers to follow what's going on. He plainly has no specialist knowledge of any of these topics, and in the rare cases where he references a claim, it will generally be to an anti-vaccine opinion website. I am all for free speech and multiple viewpoints, but I would hope that those with real knowledge of autism can find the time to follow this phenomenon. Misinformation on these topics has caused real distress to parents, and, in my view, exposed children to real risks. 86.129.121.203

It would be nice if you placed informative explanations in your edit summaries 86.129.121.*; it would be even nicer if you also acquired a user name, rather than using a dynamic IP. It is interesting you appear bent on thinking for readers, intent on deleting salient information, content instead with adding disinformative inuendo and smearing those whose views apparently offend you. Millions of parents are already extremely distressed by the epidemic of neurological disorders afflicting their children. Their needs are not well addressed by patronizingly obstructionist editing. Exposing children to far too many vaccines, whose benefits are often dubious when taken individually (and compounded when consumed in massive quantities), is a grave danger you seemingly are unwilling to consider. Ombudsman 21:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Editors need to keep a close eye on a number of other editors' activities. There is a great deal of vaccination damage being done and covered up by officials and health professionals across Europe. Parents who try to get medical help for vaccine damage cases can find themselves being accused of MSbP (now legally recognised in only two countries as having no scientific basis) and having their children taken away and into care (where the children are even less likely to get the medical care they need). The following news release is particularly informative and those who recklessly censor valid NPOV information they do not agree with need to be watched most carefully. There is a vociferous band whose activities are likely to be compounding the damage already being done by exaggerating the risks of disease and downplaying the hazards of vaccines. The ones to really suffer are in the third world, whose nutrition is so low they are at the greatest risk from vaccine viruses and of course the mercury which is not being removed from vaccines for the third world.81.111.172.198 12:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance

The EFVV has completed a 6 year study and collected over 1000 cases of vaccine reaction. A report is available in FIVE languages, as paper copy or CD. This report has been sent to various MEPs ......

www.efvv.org

Document for journalists

Who we are

The EFVV is a European group comprised of the .... parents' associations, doctors and other practitioners who are concerned about the undesirable secondary effects of vaccines, and - in countries where vaccination is compulsory - lack of freedom to choose:

· Association Liberté Information Santé (ALIS) (France)

· Liga para la Libertad de Vacunaciones (Spain)

· The Informed Parent (United Kingdom)

· Society of Homeopaths (United Kingdom)

· The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (United Kingdom)

· Nederlandse Vereniging Kritisch Prikken (Holland)

· Stichting Vaccinatieschade (Holland)

· Groupe Médical de Réflexion sur les Vaccins (Switzerland)

· COMILVA (Italy)

· Associazione vittime dei vaccini (Italy)

· AEGIS (Luxembourg)

· LiSa (Germany)

Preventie vaccinatieschade (Belgium)

and numerous medical and other professionals

Over six years the EFVV conducted a study of the secondary effects of vaccinations, using a questionnaire translated into five languages, which was made available to health practitioners and members of the public.

The analysis of the collected data is published in a REPORT, available in five languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Dutch), and also on a CD which contains our complete work in all five langauages.

These documents show that, contrary to official information, secondary

effects of vaccinations are:

• Much more frequent
• Much more serious
• More numerous with successive vaccinations
• Responsible for the onset of new and more complex degenerative pathologies (fibromyalgia, diabetes, autism, many different auto immune illnesses)
• Usually dismissed by medical staff, remaining unreported.

Our suggestions

· Exhaustive information on the secondary effects of vaccination should be made available to everyone,

· The setting up of a strict, independent vaccinovigilance that collects all side effects from vaccination,

· Victims of vaccination-damage should automatically receive compensation, irrespective of who they are,

· Laws that guarantee fundamental rights should be respected,

· Absence of discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people (school, work,

services.)

· Abolition of compulsory vaccination.

View of User:86.138.124.13

Bear in mind, however, that this "noticeboard" has been set up by a single individual who is campaigning against vaccines. (unsigned comment by 86.138.124.13 14:24, 13 November 2005)

Bear in mind also that he is not an ombudsman. Isn't this page really a user-space page? Midgley 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Ombudsman, this page isn't in your userspace so it's not appropriate for you to delete a civil discussion of your own behaviour.[1]

I notice that you berated User:86.129.121.203 for not placing informative explanations in his edit summaries, then you deleted his comments with a misleading edit summary ("add assessment table").[2] With all due respect, you're the last person who should be criticising other editors' use of edit summaries, since yours are often quite misleading. And, despite several warnings, you continue to mark controversial edits as minor.

I find it interesting that you deleted all criticism of your own behaviour (without offering any explanation) but you left intact the off-topic anti-vax rant which was in the middle of the discussion. Are we to infer that only opinions you agree with are welcome here? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain the rationale behind your selective deletions. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsman, edits like this one make it very difficult for the rest of us to assume good faith. A few observations:

1. You argue that "personal attacks from anons don't belong in project space", but I see no evidence of a personal attack here. Perhaps you could point out the particular comment you think violated WP:NPA. You have no right to delete comments from this page just because they're critical of your behaviour. If you honestly believe someone here has violated WP:NPA, report it at the administrators' noticeboard.

2. There is no requirement that editors log in or register an account in order to have an opinion here. User:86.129.121.203 has as much right to express an opinion here as anyone else, including you.

3. At least four editors seem to think this is an appropriate forum to discuss your behaviour. If you disagree, please explain why instead of unilaterally deleting the discussion.

4. As usual, you've marked your edit as minor, though you know damn well it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:Minor edit.

Please don't ever delete any of my comments again. If you think I've made a personal attack against you, feel free to report me at the administrators' noticeboard. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Under terms of Obudsman;s indefinite probation, "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing"[3]. Removing commentary by wider community on his actions, claiming in edit history to have moved to talk page (as per [this), when bulk of material is not transfered (as here) is being disruptive. David Ruben ^Talk 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion belongs on this talk page, not the project space. If you look at the discussion, you will note that the text of the first two comments are phrased similarly; misrepresenting a simple cut and paste error the way you have is dead wrong. The material had gathered dust for two years, and much of it quite off topic, much like the attempts above, most of which deflect disruptively deflect attention from attempts address notable aspects of the burgeoning vaccine industry's impacts. Ombudsman (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow Ombudsman, you've been banned from this page and yet you intevene again because you see fit - short block imposed. At least accurate transfer this time from project to talk page. However the project is the notice board and comments about your actions therefore seem appropropriate on the notice board; whereas this talk page should be about how the notice board operates but not the actual notices themselves. Do other editors here feel this (accurately transfered) thread belongs back on the project page, or remain here at talk. (If the latter, then I'll recind Ombudsman's ban) David Ruben ^Talk 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If Ombudsman genuinely believed that discussion belonged on the talk page, I find it very strange that he'd leave the off-topic anti-vax rant intact in the "Discussion" section of the project page while repeatedly deleting all the comments that were critical of his behaviour.[4][5][6] I think it's also worth pointing out that it was Ombudsman who originally created the "Discussion" section on the project page,[7] and he contributed to it himself.[8] It was only after he was caught out deleting comments he didn't like (and after he ran out of excuses for his deletions, and after he was banned from editing the project page) that he suddenly realised it wasn't the appropriate place for discussions. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)