User talk:Sandstein

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:

• Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.

• Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.

• If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].

• If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.

Start a new talk topic

Proposed restoration of "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" page

Hi, I am writing to ask if it would be possible to discuss the restoration of a deleted page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

The instructions on Wikipedia say that I should first speak to the administrator who deleted it. I hope that I am correct in doing so.

Since the article was deleted in January 2014, the original author has come forward and addressed, in detail, the various criticisms that led to the article's deletion. It turns out that a number of statements made in the deletion discussion were incorrect. Additional peer-reviewed material has also been published.

I would be happy to provide details/links. Thanks. Hhk89 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of a lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Can you provide such sources that were not already discussed in the deletion discussion?  Sandstein  19:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The deletion discussion singled out a particular paper from Dr Bahrick. A number of criticisms were incorrect:

• It did not require only a single peer reviewer. The journal uses a “single blind” review policy ie. multiple reviewers know the identity of the author, but not vice versa.

• It is not the sole publication on which Dr Bahrick has served as lead author.

• Dr Bahrick is a licensed PhD Psychologist and experienced researcher, with direct access to a large number of SSRI users, and not simply a “student health centre councelor”.

• The “speculative” articles on premature ejaculation were large, placebo-controlled studies.

Aside from that, the Wikipedia PSSD page was full of Pubmed references from credible journals that I would have expected to be WP:MEDRS compliant, including Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, and the Journal of Sexual Medicine.

The case reports did not come from a single academic group as stated in the deletion discussion.

A new peer-reviewed article has since been published in the Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. “120 cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhk89 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hm, in my view, claiming that the deletion discussion got it wrong is not helpful, because on Wikipedia, consensus is what matters, no matter whether it's right or wrong. The only possible argument for restoration might be the new article you cite, but I lack the medical knowledge to evaluate it. I'm asking the advice of Formerly 98, who nominated the article for deletion.  Sandstein  17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand that this is a very troubling issue for those involved, and it is not my intention to be insensitive. I'll mention that HhK89 has mischaracterized some of my prior statements above, but since most of these mischaracterizations are not critical to the discussion, will not address these one by one. Mainly I'll just point out that demonstrating that SSRIs are useful for the treatment of premature ejaculation is not really evidence that they cause a permanent post-treatment sexual disorder including impotence and loss of libido, so I think that particular point is irrelevant.

The article was nominated for deletion based on two issues

• Lack of MEDRS compliant sourcing: The article contained only a single nominally secondary source, and that was in a non-MEDLINE indexed journal and thus not MEDRS compliant. The author, Dr. Bahrick, is closely associated with the research group that published most of the 20 or so case reports published up to that time. So this "secondary source" did not really provide the outside validation of primary research that is at the heart of the MEDRS requirement for secondary sources.

• Undue weight. Worldwide, somewhere between 100 and 500 million people have taken SSRIs. At the time, there were 20 peer-reviewed case reports of this hypothesized syndrome in the medical literature. (Case reports are not allowed as sources by MEDRS). Thus we had a separate article on a putative side effects that is non-life threatening, of unestablished causation, and apparent extreme rarity.

David Healy has been very critical of the decision to remove this article. There used to be a lengthy article here on David's website criticizing specific wikipedia editors for their role in this decision, but the commentary seems to have been removed. Healy contacted me personally about the removal of the Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Wikipedia article by email requesting a phone discussion, and I believe that his submission of the review article cited by Hhk89, the removal of critical comments about Wikipedia editors on David's website, and this request may be components of a coordinated campaign.

This being said, David did succeed in getting his review article published in a peer-reviewed, MEDLINE indexed journal. What I am unclear on is whether this review article still counts for the purposes of MEDRS as a reliable source if was written as part of a campaign in concert with the author of the removed Wikipedia article to get that article restored. I'll let others decide on that.

The issue of undue weight still stands in my opinion. David has collected 120 case reports of supposed drug-induced permanent sexual dysfunction (across three drug classes, not just SSRIs) and collected them into a review. These are still case reports, not results from a randomized trial, or even a cohort study. And there are only <120 of them among the several hundred million people who have taken SSRIs. Does this rise to the level of needing a separate article? EVERY drug has troubling or even fatal side effects that occur at a rate of one per every few hundred thousand patients. Shall we have articles on each of them?

The symptoms experienced by these individuals are unfortunate and sad, but very rare, not life-threatening, and of unproven causation. I have not and do not object to a brief mention of this proposed syndrome in the SSRI article, but think it undue weight to have a separate article. I'd also suggest that if David's article is used as a source, the article should mention his financial conflicts of interest, as he runs a web based "Adverse drug effect consultation service"[1] through his website. This page contains an advertisement of Healy's availability as a paid expert witness (Item #3). Formerly 98 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Formerly 98. Hhk89, because this article seems to have a complicated and problematic history, I am of the view that it should only be restored after consensus to do so is obtained at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hhk89 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC on purging individuals and groups: closed

A brave closure,[2] and as per my word, I will go ahead and carry out the purge of all people and groups listed in Category:antisemitism and its subcategories in the coming days, as you've decided consensus is that such a purge is long overdue. I don't intend to violate the letter of WP:3RR, but if I am otherwise blocked you'd better have my back. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: No, I did not say that there is consensus for any "purge". The discussion was about whether to remove instructions from the category page, not about whether to remove pages from the category, and it did not result in consensus. You should obtain explicit consensus for any potentially controversial mass edits in advance, or you risk being blocked for disruptive editing.  Sandstein  06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Um... what part of "This category... must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic" were you unclear about when you closed the purge debate and decided to keep that instruction? I've already purged Category:Antisemitism in Germany and Category:Antisemitism in Romania. I was the guy insisting this was a bad idea in the first place. Now I'm getting it both coming and going. I refuse to be crucified just because the administration can't make up their damn minds. Mixed messages herein abound -- Kendrick7^talk 03:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether text should be removed from the category description, and it resulted in no consensus to do so. My administrator authority does not extend beyond establishing this. If you interpret the outcome of the discussion as anything else, you do so at your own risk. I or "the administration" have no power to decide anything else. I recommend that you work together with others from the discussion to set up a cross-category RfC, as many have suggested, to explore further options about what to do now.  Sandstein  06:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you actually could have decided to enforce the clear reading of WP:BURO, that our rules should reflect actual practice, not the other way around. Your dismissal of the rule as mere "text" suggests you hardly took into consideration the matter at hand. Our existing policies should actually override mere nose counting.

Furthermore, I am hardly inclined to open up the discussion so that this cancer can spread to who knows how many more categories beginning with the phrase "anti" given the ongoing indifference of the administration towards taking our most fundamental policies into account on this topic. I will rather magnanimously carry out the order. Sadly, I haven't run into anyone else who cares so far.... -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Hi Sandstein. I think User:Uishaki may have a point in their current unblock appeal - the timestamps show that they have not edited anything regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict since being informed of the topic ban. There was no consensus in the arbitration result to block this user, so I'm not clear on why you've done so. I'm assuming that I've missed some element of the arb case or the editing history; could you expand on your reasoning for the block, please? Yunshui ^雲_水 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I too am interested (and concur with Yunshui's assessment of the situation). If you could ping me when responding to Yunshui, I'd be most grateful. Nick (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui and Nick: Thanks - the block was made in error, I misread the timestamps of the last edits and the topic ban, respectively. I have undone the block and the log entry.  Sandstein  11:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jolly decent of you. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 11:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, ignoring RfC

This is not the complaints department. Please refer to the appropriate fora for requesting admin action.  Sandstein  18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the Blue Army (Poland) page. A statement that User:COD T 3 had been reverting out of the article became the basic of an RfC I launched. The conclusion of the RfC: [3] upon its closure was "There are no !votes on this 16 June RFC. However, because it is equivalent to 14 June RFC, it will be closed based on the above. The statement does properly reflect the source." Diff here: [4]. So, I re-added the statement, and was promptly reverted by User:COD T 3, a single-purpose account designed to remove negative info about this military unit. Article history is here:[5]. A discussion of the latest reverts is here: [6]. I am requesting that this user be banned from this topic. How long can one editor have veto power over an article's content?Faustian (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Two (and only two) outside contributors weighed-in on the second RfC on the BA talk page. Below are their definitive statements: User: Truther2012 Are there other sources confirming both rapes and scrolls? It looks like the entire very controversial statement is based on a single source. Faustian, if you feel that this statement is that important for the integrity of the article, you should be able to provide more sources. Personally, I do not see why it is so important, as most armies commit similar crimes.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC) User: SMcCandlish I have to agree with Truther2012 that "most armies commit similar crimes", and thus insisting on levying a mass rape charge against the Blue Army is not really pertinent, as well as not actually feasible under WP:SYNTH with this particular sourcing. Please see also my how-to, WP:How to mine a source for a tutorial on how to get more information out of source material in a step-wise fashion. Regardless, you're going to need more of it than this very short, confusing partial quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC) That seems reasonable to me. It is clearer within this larger-context quotation that the "laundry list" is in fact describing the "Jew-bating and pogroms".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC) How anyone comes to the conclusion that this discussion yielded consensus and a mandate to add the highly controversial statement to the BA article is beyond me! User Faustian is completely unreasonable in interpreting theses statements as consensus, and by adding the disputed text, user Faustian is creating situations which are disruptive to the BA article. --COD T 3 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC) If anyone thinks admin action is needed, it should be requested at WP:AE, Generally, though, admins can't act against questtionable content alterations, but only against problematic conduct.  Sandstein  01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Would a longstanding pattern of persistently reverting info from a referenced source, ignoring an RfC, and misrepresenting what someone concludes (he pasted earlier comments rather than later ones, above) in order support his quest to exclude from an article info he doesn't like, count as problematic conduct? That single purpose account has basically done nothing but veto info that presents the Blue Army in an unfavorable light. It's been happening for years. Here's the same editor when he was posting as an IP: [7], for example. Here's the same editor falsifying what a source had written: [8]. It just goes on and on. He already has had discretionary sanctions for a while: [9]. Coming back to this, the most recent issue, what does someone have to do to get info from a reliable source into an article if one editor insists on reverting it?Faustian (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC) And sure enough, when I added another fact, he reverted. His edit summary: "This article is not Encyclopedia Judaica, and will not be written from a Jewish perspective." He has indeed violated 3R: [10], [11], [12], [13].Faustian (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC) NO. The statement was removed not because it comes form a "Jewish" source, but because Encyclopedia Judaica -an encyclopedia- as a tertiary source is not recommended when making controversial statements on a WP page. Other users advised Faustian to avoid the use of such a source in the past. The controversial claim, insinuates a mass charge of insubordination, yet it is clear that the problem was with individual elements of the BA not the entire 68,000 strong army. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Request archived

The clarification request you have filed regarding the infobox arbitration case has been archived to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request_for_Clarification_.28July_2014.29 as it was declined. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Sandstein, Stephan Schulz said he'd be satisfied with a statement from me saying I wouldn't do that again. I added that. My explanation of things was to show what I was thinking at the time I made the edits. It didn't seem to me a problem, especially as the complaint was coming from MastCell who bears no good will towards me. However, uninvolved admins have weighed in and I agree I should not have edited there. So please, do not block me. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You commented repeatedly on a thread entitled "people associated with the Tea Party movement". If you lack the judgement to recognize obvious violations of your topic ban, what meaningful assurance can you give that they won't continue to happen? MastCell ^Talk 03:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)