Jfdwolff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jfdwolff     Wikipedia

[A gatekeeper Allopath on Wikipedia, (know as Physicians Wikipedians).  You can see the attitude and efforts to suppress non-allopathic thinking.]

Weird World of Wikipedia By Martin J. Walker

Deleting links
[31][32] Nutritional medicine [33] [34]

Forbidding use of term allopath [they like to pretend they have no financial or professional interest in vaccination, especially to themselves.] [ref]

I have asked you in the past to desist from labeling users or groups of users as "allopaths". This is inflammatory, not contributory to the discussion, and in plain violation of WP:CIVIL. You have now repeatedly done the same on Talk:Measles. I am uninvolved in that discussion but observe that you are making the same basic policy violations as always.

You are blocked for 24 hours. Please return to contribute constructively. Specifically, try to adhere to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and consider having a close look at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My professional interest is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that you've returned to make more personal attacks on Talk:Measles. You've been blocked again, now for 48 hours. Your next block will be longer still until you learn to edit collaboratively. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Whaleto, the fact that I warred with him in the past does not mean I am disqualified from blocking him for sustained and interminable NPA and CIVIL violations. I'm prepared to do just that until John learns that calling others "allopaths" is WP:NPA and offtopic. JFW | T@lk 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Suppressing links to whale.to, in her/his own words

Jfdwolff: The link was inserted again[4]. The (un)acceptability of whale.to as an external link has been discussed on Talk:MMR vaccine, and I think nothing more needs to be said over here. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"

This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination. Everything sounds nice and NPOV, but when the matter is investigated one encounters dangerous lunacy, notoriety and dishonesty. Viera Scheibner, for example, was touted (by another editor) as a scientist with scientific arguments against vaccination until it turned out she had not published more than one paper on a medical topic, was the recipient of the Australian Skeptics' "Bent Spoon Award" and was the subject of an article in Vaccine detailing her views and modus operandi. This has to stop. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [33]

Viera Scheibner Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I now remove links as "non-authoratitive" if they are full of Google ads or promote non-standard treatments. JFW | T@lk 15:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: "I'm not sure why you call me a "vaccinator" - I have never personally administered a vaccine, and the only vaccine I ever prescribe in my position is flu vaccine. Does that make me a "vaccinator"? Please avoid labeling people. I have had a look at your site, and I'm more than just shocked by its inflammatory language, talk about conspiracies, coverups, "medical fascism" and the "medical mafia", whatever that is supposed to mean. The fact that some "medical men" have joined your ranks and are the authors of your stuff is of marginal importance to the actual issue - the fact that in this world the views expressed on your site are indeed very fringe. If you were to ask a group of 100 people to read through your site, a large majority of them would find themselves in disagreement to most of the material presented. The rest would just be confused.
    I have no problem with significant views being represented. We have a long page on Andrew Wakefield, because his views are well known and are supported by a signficant minority. Similarly there would not be slightest problem with significant minority views being represented on other vaccine-related pages. Our neutrality policy (see WP:NPOV) clearly indicates that we do not need to include your views just because they are being held by a few people, even though some may have "M.D." behind their names. Having a website does not automatically indicate notability or significance. Wikipedia is not going to be a forum for your views. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm by definition a vaccinator! Well well, we love labeling don't we. I think your website (and all your views for that matter) are not rational examinations of the evidence available put nasty personal vendettas that harm people in the long run. If I were in the business of "suppressing the anti-vaccine view" I'd be doing something completely different, namely editing the relevant articles in a biased fashion. But I'm not doing that. All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ombudsman&diff=prev&oldid=29203114

Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on whale.to is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 December 2005

There is quackery all around. Most of it is confined to specific articles, which tend to be poor on evidence. The most trouble we have had is with orthomolecular characters, who aggressively promote their version of pseudoscience (see [[Talk:Carcinogenesis]] for an interesting exchange). JFW | T@lk 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[ref]