Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Ombudsman (talk · contribs) has been campaigning the inclusion of external links to a website containing conspiracy theories, speculative material and other issues related to vaccines and vaccination. These links were originally added by an anon (86.128.123.85 (talk · contribs)) on 30 October, and after my removal Ombudsman rapidly restored most of them (diffs below). This has led to edit warring on a number of pages. I have requested explanation and discussion on his talk page, to which I received no response.

Ombudsman argues in edit summaries that inclusion of the link falls under NPOV. After all, all views should be represented. I dispute external links fall under the aegis of NPOV (they never have, sadly), and even if they did the views on this website are utterly fringe and appear to have little support, therefore not requiring coverage on this project. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a long running campaign to push his POV on vaccines.Geni 12:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated. I've also had difficulty getting him to acknowledge my statements that something contained problems. 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. diff reinsertion of link on Shaken baby syndrome
  2. diff ditto on vaccination
  3. diff idem on chickenpox

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:EL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. diff my message on his talkpage 31 Oct
  2. diff idem 2 Nov
  3. diff further 2 Nov
  4. [1] attempts to negotiate on talk page meet with no response.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. JFW | T@lk 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Geni 12:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Michael Ralston 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Midgley 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KimvdLinde 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JoshuaZ 18:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Complainant took it upon himself to delete a series of whale.to links added to various articles by an anon. After some of the links were restored, with relatively restrained edit summaries, complainant escalated abrasive rhetoric, disparaging this invaluable archival resource in a manner less than conducive to constructive dialog. After a longer, restrained response was provided to the complainant at Talk:Shaken baby syndrome, complainant further escalated the matter with this RfC appeal, rather than pursuing constructive dialog. This RfC seems to be an over reaction to what is little more than content dispute, though the overwrought attacks on the merits of Whale.to do need to be addressed somehow.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

  1. Ombudsman 23:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Jbamb 05:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 86.10.231.219 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. john 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by John[edit]

I maintain the whale.to website, and posted the disputed links. Jfdwolff is a medical doctor, so a vaccinator. May I suggest that he is biased regarding vaccination. Whale.to has the largest internet database of vaccine documents, so it is hardly fringe, and most of those documents have been written by medical doctors or scientists!! Just the archive on smallpox has, on-line, around 30 books or booklets on vaccination. Also listed are 50 or so books written on vaccination, most of which you will not find in any school, bookshop or library. Jfdwolff is carrying on that tradition of suppressing vaccine critics that has gone on for over 100 years, the most notable and relevant being Dr Creighton, one of the most notable medical men of his era, who was asked to write on vaccination for the Encyclopedia Brittannica, around 1910. When he looked into it he found he was against it--needless to say he article made one edition but was taken out on the next one! www.whale.to/v/creighton.html It seems that tradition is being upheld here by a medical man!

The section on shaken baby syndrome contains a large number of documents, many written by medical doctors, eg Dr Archie Kalokerinos MD, Dr Yazbak MD, and scientist Viera Scheibner, who have well documented evidence linking vaccination to SBS. These views need to be made available so people can make their own mind up, rather than have their mind made up for them by restricting the information available to them. Whale.to gets 1 million hits a year, which would not be considered a fringe website, and documents the opinions of over 70 health professionals (hundreds if you include smallpox vaccine from the 19th century), most of them medical doctors reared on vaccination www.whale.to/v/critics1.html

On measles whale.to has the largest database on alternative medicine views on measles. Homeopathy, naturopathy, and nutritional or orthomolecular medicine which, incidentaly, is medicine practised exclusively by medical doctors.

Even the link to whale.to in the "sites critical to vaccination" has been removed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination which is an obvious effort at suppression.

The section "The opposing view of vaccines" was obviously written by a pro-vaccinator, I should know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy --- john ~~~~

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. [john] 86.128.207.196 (talk · contribs)
  2. 86.10.231.219 12:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


General dispute/discussion over this statement moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman. This page doesn't exist for private debates or discussion but for discussing the specific accusations of the RfC. 86.10.231.219 06:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

This is an article content dispute, not a user conduct dispute. I see no allegation of any improper user conduct by Ombudsman other than having a fringe view and trying to insert it into article links. For instance, there is no allegation of personal attacks, insulting edit summaries, or 3RR violations (because there have been no personal attacks, insults, or 3RR violations).

On the one hand, I agree with the certifiers that the Whale.to web site appears to be a fringe web site promoting scare theories. On the other hand, I have not seen any attempt by the certifiers to try to resolve this content dispute by discussion or consensus.

I suggest that the certifiers of this RfC instead post an article content RfC for consensus on whether the link is considered encyclopedic. My opinion is that it is not, but I am only one editor.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 19:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FRS 21:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)--IMO, adding links to sites with out-of-mainstream views, as long as the links are not totally off topic, is a convenient way to make readers aware of and able to access those views without overburdening the article with long discourse about the entire range of views on the topic.[reply]
  3. InvictaHOG 21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC) I think that an RfC to vote on the content makes more sense.[reply]
  4. VileRage (Talk|Cont) 10:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jacqui ★ 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I see this forming the basis of an important content RfC. --bainer (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --InShaneee 20:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- to the extent that content is an important part of the dispute Midgley 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Merecat 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Nunh-huh[edit]

Some people edit Wikipedia because they are interested in developing a free encyclopedia; others because they wish to be part of a community, and yet others because they want to use Wikipedia to popularize an unpopular viewpoint for which they have a specific enthusiasm. It suits those in the third class mentioned to characterize the resistance they meet when using Wikipedia in this way as a "content dispute", when it is no such thing. The dispute is in fact a difference not only in content, but also in both motivation and behavior.

It is necessary, but ought not be sufficient, that contributors assume an air of at least superficial civility - and those who wish can judge who has been uncivil here. The systematic insertion of inaccurate information into Wikipedia, especially on a systemic basis, remains a problem that still needs to be solved.

That User:81.111.172.198 is here to push an anti-vaccination agenda is clear from their contributions at mumps, where they would have us report, as fact, their personal conclusion that mumps vaccine is unnecessary, rather than the attributed conclusions of medical advisory groups which recommend otherwise, and at Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics [2] where they exhort other anti-vaccine advocates to push their views in Wikipedia.

No one has any objection to reporting the recommendations of anti-vaccine groups as such: the objection is to enlisting Wikipedia as the voice of advocacy, and the degradation of accurate articles into unattributed anti-vaccine screeds.

  1. -- Nunh-huh 02:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- JFW | T@lk 10:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Tearlach 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JoshuaZ 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TenOfAllTrades[edit]

Ombudsman has espoused something of a fringe view on the cause of autism, and has been campaigning against vaccination in general. He is certainly entitled to his viewpoint, and in most of the articles he edits some mention of the anti-vaccination perspective is appropriate. (Whether the science is good or not, there's certainly a social and political impact.)

In general his writing is good but biased; this is true of many of our editors and I don't believe it reaches the level of being a user conduct issue. Per Robert McClenon's view above, the validity or usefulness of an external source is best discussed in an article content RFC, rather than a user conduct RFC.

Ombudsman does need to be careful with his use of the word 'censorship' and similar sorts of accusations in his edit summaries. WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and all that. To his credit, the tone of his objections has shown improvement—as far as I know, he hasn't accused anyone of being a pharmaceutical industry 'shill' for some time.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 08:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by 81.111.172.198[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Not only should it be valid to include references to the material on the whale.to website, I believe there should be a Wiki page devoted to it. It is an international phenomenon in itself and perhaps Ombudsman might assist in starting that off.

The site is a remarkable compendium of information and knowledge and it is not judgmental either. It brings together all kinds of information from some very learned sources but does very little more. There is little or no editorial or attempt to persuade. It is commendable and adds greatly to the source of human knowledge. Because of the actions of a few, it is unlikely Wikipedia will be ever emulate it.

The use of invalid arguments from Jfdwolff such as that 1,000,000 hits a year for the whale.to site is trivial serves to show in their proper context the other invalid arguments advanced in similar vein above and elsewhere.

Further, Users like Jfdwolff, Nunh-huh, Geni and some others have been following a practice of editing pages describing routine mild childhood illnesses to make the illnesses appear serious when they are not. They label as "anti-vaccinators" anyone, like myself, a parent who sought accurate information on risks of childhood diseases and who tries to edit the relevant pages to make them accurate.

This process can be seen now on the mumps page.

Name-calling such as "anti-vaccinator" is immature and is not to be expected from a professional medical doctor, which is what I understand Jfdwolff is. It is also an illogical form of argument to dismiss valid arguments with incorrect labelling and name calling instead of proper dialogue and debate.

A brief view of some of Nunh-huh's edits and the comments attached show how aggressive and insulting her approach is and that it is worse yet than Jfdwolf's.

Mumps is second to chickenpox as one of the mildest of all routine childhood diseases. However, JfDwolff tries to harp on about mumps causing sterility in the first paragraphs instead of a more accurate description and when sterility is an outcome so unbelieveably rare that there are no accurate figures to document it. She further fails to provide any adequate explanation for her deletion of a perfectly proper edit which provided balance to an otherwise wholly misleading Wiki page. Instead she demands an explanation of what is wrong with what she has added. That appears to be a perverse approach.

There is an agenda here and it is to deny accurate information on childhood disease risks to parents and prevent anyone correcting the inaccuracies.

I do not believe the Dr James le Fanu of the Telegraph is an "anti-vaccinator" but he has questioned in the Telegraph why we vaccinate against mumps. This was done in the context of the "epidemics" of mumps at colleges and universities. These "epidemics" have occurred from the very process of introducing vaccination which has transferred the incidence of the illness from children where it is harmless to adults who either did not gain lifetime immunity from the natural disease or for whom the mumps component of MMR just did not work or for whom the shorter term immunity of vaccination may have just worn off.

In summary, parents who turn to Wikipedia for information on childhood illnesses are being denied proper and accurate information.

Jfdwolf, Nunh-huh, Geni and others should stop pursuing their own agenda as it damages the reputation of Wikipedia. 81.111.172.198 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

A short response. Your assertions actually have very little to do with the issue under discussion, namely whether Ombudsman was right to reinsert links to a site known to contain an indiscriminate collection of information, part of which in violation of copyrights. It has very little to do with the fact that I'm a doctor, a vaccinator, and a mumps alarmist.
"Mumps is second to chickenpox as one of the mildest of all routine childhood diseases." Have you ever looked after a child with chickenpox? I am not suggesting all children should be vaccinated against varicella zoster, but have you thought about this? JFW | T@lk 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at myself when I got it and at my son when he got it. And I have thought a lot about it www.whale.to/a/chickenpox.html John

I was asking 81.111.172.198, actually. JFW | T@lk 17:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly adopt a more civil tone when dealing with people on Wikipedia especially when they are perfectly entitled to post comments and especially when they are being helpful. You cannot excuse bad behaviour by appealing to your nationality. I am sure many Dutch people are very polite. And there is no excuse for using Wikipedia for pursuing personal vendattas against individuals and there is copious evidence of that. 81.111.172.198 12:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 18:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But surely from what I have seen [User:Jfdwolff|JFW] spends a goodly deal of time doing this - feeding the trolls. Is this breaking the habit of a lifetime (spent on Wikipedia - sadly it seems)?
81.111.172.198 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by 81.111.172.198 - INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR BY JFDWOLF[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This RfC was initiated by Jfdwolff alleging inappropriately as it turns out that Ombudsman's conduct was inappropriate.

However, it seems Jfdwolff has been contravening clearly stated Wikipedia directions concerning her own conduct and she clearly is not prepared to comply with acceptable Wikipedia conduct.

It is not Ombudsman's conduct which is at fault but Jfdwolff's.

In particular, it is stated very clearly in each summary section for "Outside Views" that "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view."

I now require that Jfdwolff deletes the edit she has made to the summary I added to this RfC.

She has inappropriately edited two "Outside Views" on this page. In those she has added inappropriate comments. She has done this in an inappropriate manner and inappropriately contrary to the express terms of the rubric prefacing the template for each "Outside View".

Accordingly, she should also delete the other edits as they are also not endorsements of an "Outside View". If she wishes to engage in a dialogue with a Wiki User who has posted an "Outside View", she should kindly do it either on her own talk page or on the talk page of the User concerned.

It is her attitude and behaviour which is inappropriate and clearly not that of Ombudsman. This is now logged here.

81.111.172.198 18:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to respond to allegations made about myself, thank you very much. But you have still not said anything about the case actually under discussion here. In fact, I should have removed all your comments for discussion on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mistress Selina Kyle[edit]

This guy is a crackpot who believes that there is some kind of conspiracy to infect children with autism. This is a view sometimes shared by parents who refuse to accept that the heritability of autism (and so the fact that they are partly responsible - simple denial). He's been spreading this kind of rubbish throughout autism-related articles and articles on individual researchers.

It's widely accepted by psychiatrists and psychologists that autism is genetic, there is no need for "your children are given injections that make them autistic!!!" conspiracy theories akin to the American "DENTISTS ARE POISONING ARE WATER WITH FLUORIDE!" paranoia.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General dispute/discussion over this statement moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman. This page doesn't exist for debating the causes of autism, but for discussing the specific accusations of the RfC. Tearlach 09:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by 86.10.231.219[edit]

INTRODUCTORY

This RfC is ill conceived. This Outside View appears to be almost unique on this page in addressing directly the issues stated to justify the RfC. It is also regrettable to see instead others engaging in direct and thinly veiled personal abuse and attacks. This RfC also appears to be a further example of a small clique of Admins and other users suppressing views they do not agree with. That, as can be seen here, is directly contrary to the policy they cite for this RfC. Also regrettably, this RfC appears to be part of a trail of evidence on Wikipedia to support a suggestion of stalking and harassment of User Ombudsman. This Outside View also responds to issues raised by Mistress Selina and responds in order to further demonstrate the inappropriate basis being put up by others for this RfC. Whilst User Mistress Selina Kyle does not appear to be part of the clique concerned, she does provide evidence to support that this kind of behaviour is all too common in Wikipedia:-

".... systemic bias is way too widespread - it's too easy that groups of similar-thinking people can band together to instantly revert people that challenge their points of view: as an article said about wikipedia somewhere it seems a few too many admins are in cliques too ...." [[3]]

That seems to be on point.


COMMENTARY

The NPOV policy is clear:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

That clearly supports the inclusion of links to reference material to provide balance and alternative views.

JfdWoolf also either fails to or chooses not to understand that a link to material is not the same as setting out that information in Wikipedia and therefore cannot infringe the NPOV policy. In accordance with the policy "Readers are left to form their own opinions." In following a link readers know they are not consulting material from Wikipedia and they can judge for themselves.

The proponent of this RfC's own statement also demonstrates the futility of this RfC and is an admission of an agenda to suppress information. JfdWoolf states (above) in presenting the case for the RfC:

"... the views on this website are utterly fringe and appear to have little support, therefore not requiring coverage on this project ..."

JfdWoolf's POV judgemental "utterly fringe" remark is an admission that the material sets out a different perspective. That alone which brings the material fully within the NPOV policy in providing "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one" ie. the latter being the one JfDWoolf's clique promote as part of their agenda to the exclusion of others.

JfdWoolf's comment "the views of this website" also misleads because it presents the POV that the links are to views of the whale.to website. In contrast, the whale.to website is a compendious collection and a library in itself of quotations and material by many thousands of different sources including many experts in their fields. Accordingly, JfdWoolf is trying to make a shortcut of blanket exclusion of all material referenced on the whale.to site. That is unjustified and contrary to Wikipedia policies and ethos.

The reality is that if JfdWoolf and followers want to exclude a link they must justify that on a case by case basis and not just delete links willy nilly (and that behaviour is evidence of the edit warring JfdWoolf and followers admit to engaging in this RfC). Evidence in this RfC of their attempts to justify removal prior to deletion appears absent which suggests a policy pursued by them of edit warring. There should be rational dialogue before deleting material. Evidence of that dialogue is not readily apparent from this RfC. And it is in any event difficult to attempt to justify the removal of mere links to reference material when the NPOV policy positively legislates for other views to appear in the text of Wikipedia (let alone in material that is merely linked to).

JfdWoolf also provides no evidence for the judgemental POV remark that the "views" have "little support". That is not borne out by the Alexa rankings for the site which appears ample evidence to the contrary. Visitors to the whale.to site can see it has over 1 million hits per annum. That is hardly "little support" nor is it "utterly fringe".

However, those kinds of remarks among many others are strong evidence for the proposition that the proponents of the RfC seek to suppress access to information in order to ensure their view prevails to the exclusion of all others. Accordingly, this RfC should be retained as it is part of the evidence of the pursuit of an agenda by this clique and an agenda which appears contrary to clearly stated Wikipedia policy. It also appears a further example of the abuse of Wikipedia policy to pursue agendas contrary to the Wikipedia concept. Consideration should be given to steps to address this.

There is much more that can be said to dismantle the somewhat paper thin case put up as inadequate justification this RfC. The writer reserves the position to return to this Outside View to add that material and to justify further other remarks made above.

There are also many personal attacks on this page against User Ombudsman and others. That is outwith Wikipedia policy and there are comments which demonstrate others are pursuing their own POV's to the exclusion of others.

It is unfortunate that the term "Crackpot" has been used and it is instructive here to provide evidence that the views of others are not "Crackpot" but highly relevant and accepted.

Contrary to the assertions by Mistress Selina it is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA [Increases in Identified Cases of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Trudy Steuernagel, Kent State University JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 3/2005 138]. Further, genetic epidemics are medically, scientifically and logically impossible. It is impossible for the scale of increase seen in the USA across multiple individuals and especially not in one generation. Regrettably, her outside view is abusive and incorrect and is a testament to the vitriolic and POV attacks on those who have researched and attempt to put the facts in the public domain and whose attempts are suppressed by those who do not wish to see those views adopted.

The Steuernagel paper very early on quotes the AAP "there is no disputing the fact that autism now affects a significant number of people in this country (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001)" and refers throughout to autism as epidemic. The paper commences by quoting Time magazine on the issue because it has become so important with so many Americans now seriously affected. Also early on the paper states "The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the development of policies to address the autism epidemic". This paper is all the more significant because it is sceptical of the autism/vaccines/mercury neuro-toxin connection.

This paper says in no uncertain terms that autism is now a considerable problem. It sets out to address the policy to be adopted to what it refers throughout as the autism epidemic. And it does so whilst acknowledging what is becoming a rear-guard fight to downplay the problem by the medical profession (who some see as the overseers of the epidemic, if, as some also believe, it is caused by vaccinations). This paper is scholarly, well-read and evidence-based, quoting authority for the proposition that autism is epidemic.

The Steuernagel paper is not isolated and more information is available on these issues (including material which is referenced on and can be consulted via the whale.to website).

Here is another peer reviewed example:

PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. e277-e282 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1958)
National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD*, Matthew D. Falb, MHS* and James G. Gurney, PhD - Center for Autism and Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland Divisions of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota:-
"The drastic increase in the prevalence of the autism classification presents a major challenge to the nation’s special education service systems and is one that has already triggered responses from federal, state, and local agencies.32"
"It has been suggested that increased substitution of autism for mental retardation3 and/or language impairment27 diagnoses might be accounting for some of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. If this substitution occurred with special education classifications, then increases in autism prevalence with subsequent birth cohorts would be accompanied by decreases in mental retardation and/or speech/language impairment prevalences. As shown in Fig 1, mental retardation prevalence shows no birth cohort effect; in other words, there is no suggestion that prevalence is decreasing (or increasing) among younger cohorts. The cohort curves overlap to reproduce faithfully the shape of a cross-sectional curve of prevalence according to age (curve not shown). Trends with age are as expected for mental retardation, with prevalence increasing steadily through age 8 and then leveling."
"Similarly, the curves for speech/language impairment indicate no cohort differences. The patterns with respect to age are as expected. At young ages, speech/language impairment prevalence is many times higher than that of autism; however, prevalence decreases dramatically from age 7 to age 17 years. The decrease in the prevalence of speech and language impairment is likely a result of children losing this disability category classification, which is expected to occur to a greater extent for this category (ie, in cases of articulation disorders and dysfluency that resolve with time), compared with the other categories."
"The curves for other health impairments are notable for 2 reasons, ie, because this is the disability classification that typically includes children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and because there are strong cohort differences. Prevalence is higher for successive birth cohorts, with the greatest annual increases occurring between the 1980 and 1984 birth cohorts. Within cohorts, the prevalence of other health impairments increases sharply through 11 years of age, with the rate of increase gradually decreasing in successive years."


Users who endorse this summary: (sign with ~~~~)

  1. 86.10.231.219 12:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Leifern 10:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Ombudsman 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Tearlach[edit]

I don't think the predominant view that this is just a content dispute (supporting Robert McClenon) takes the wider implications seriously enough. There may be none of the usual personal attacks, insulting edit summaries, or 3RR violations, but Ombudsman (talk · contribs) - along with Whaleto (talk · contribs) - is nevertheless clearly a POV warrior.

A glance at his edit history shows, as Nunh-huh points out, that a large proportion of his edits are attempts to increase the profile of anti-vaccination on Wikipedia and to shift the slant of existing articles to give greater representation of an anti-vaccination viewpoint. Other edits do similarly for minority views on autism and altmed topics. It's a substantial and targeted attack on the neutrality of a large category of Wikipedia articles.

I don't much like, either, his standard welcome message to newcomers - your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable! - which seems aimed at fostering the idea that WP:NPOV is negotiable and a matter of individual taste. It isn't.

The situation needs serious watching. Tearlach 04:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this view with one qualification -- no "insulting edit summaries"? A look at Ombudsman's contributions shows a regular pattern of edit summaries that not only insult but openly accuse others in highly uncivil ways. A recent sample is the edit summary he used when he removed the {{expert}} tag from Bipolar disorder (falsely marking it as a minor edit): "rm expert tag; no point in seeking such input regarding a pseudoscience article - especially not after the AfD 'success' of pill pusher apologists in having the Expert worship article deleted". I don't know about you, but I think actively obstructing the improvement of an article is reason enough to have grave concerns about Ombudsman's commitment to helping build an encyclopedia. The fact that his edit summary actively accuses other Wikipedians of being "pill pusher apologists" makes it even worse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken; I've struck out that section. Another addendum: I think an RfC over Whaleto (talk · contribs) is well overdue, on similar grounds and for use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. Tearlach 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas all the vaccine pages are vaccine promotion articles. Which is POV. As for your comment about self-promotion, that is whale.to promotion at most, and since all links there are suppressed it can hardly be that. I was surprised there were no pages to any vaccine critics, so I am rectifying that. Not a bad idea since, due to the bias here and elsewhere, people think they are all cranks. Whereas they figured out smallpox vaccination was a fallacy. And they were very prominent medical men Charles Creighton, Edgar Crookshank, William Job Collins, plus National Anti-Vaccination League. Maybe if you read them you will get a proper balance as to the true reality, along with recent ones Neil Miller, Viera Scheibner, Beddow Bayly, Robert Mendelsohn, Archie Kalokerinos, Walter Hadwen. Your comments suggest you are not informed on the anti-vaccination viewpoint, let alone the truth. I expect you will then congratulate me on balancing out the bias on Wiki, assuming you are unbiased yourself. john 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be closed, and Ombudsman's behaviour continues. In particular, I object to his alteration of other editors' comments in rfa discussions Autism epidemic for one, and the constant stream steady drip of incivility in his edit summaries, some of which give substnatially less than complete indications of the degree of change they apply to. Midgley 21:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Motion for Cloture[edit]

  • It is unclear if the comment left by Geni to 'show' he tried to help resolve the complainant's problem is valid. It neither addresses the complainant or the complainant's content dispute problem. Since neither of the signers themselves engaged in overtly offensive 'behaviour', and lacking adequate evidence of attempts at resolution (little time elapsed between initial complaint and RfC, the complainant's problem has only been evidenced on, perhaps, one or two days prior) this matter should be closed and converted into an RfC on whale.to Ombudsman 05:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion. Merecat 04:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't "close" RfCs. They stay open so long as people are willing to comment, thus the name. You may be confusing this with ArbCom cases. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
eg: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others Midgley 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman&oldid=1142569709"