Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:41, 31 July 2014

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: ].

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

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember that I opposed your candidacy, or why, and I've not interacted with you since, so I don't really have anything useful to say.  Sandstein  07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Spirit?

Let me understand: an editor improves an article, formatting a malformed infobox. He is asked to revert that. I thought the request was not serious: "degrade the quality of an article"? Really?? - But I see on ACE that it was awfully serious. Let me understand the spirit behind that. Wir können auch deutsch sprechen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point of your message. The question is whether the edit at issue violated an ArbCom restriction. Whether the intent or effect of the edit was an improvement or not does not matter for the purpose of that question. ArbCom restrictions, like bans, apply to both "good" and "bad" edits. See generally WP:BMB.  Sandstein  07:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My question is simpler. I believe that article quality is of prime importance for the project, and of a higher value than rules and restrictions. - If a restriction is in the way of improving quality, something seems to be wrong with the restriction, no? - (It would get us to far to discuss the merits of BMB.) - If I see an article improved, I click the thank-you-button, I don't go and ask for a revert. - If I would be asked to revert a good edit because of a restriction I would not do it. (This is theory, I don't get asked, I get reverted without asking.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you think that the restriction is in the way of improving Misplaced Pages, you'd need to take this up with the Arbitration Committee who imposed the restriction for what I assume are good reasons. My job as enforcing administrator isn't to second-guess the Committee's decisions, which are binding, but to give them effect as they are written.  Sandstein  08:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I was restricted without reasons given, good or bad. "Take it up" with the same people who imposed it? See also. - Effect written is "infobox", not "template infobox". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, the ArbCom is our supreme dispute resolution authority. They may not always be right, but they have the last word. If you disagree with their decisions, it's them you need to convince, not me or anybody else.  Sandstein  10:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(Well, yes, it helped a lot to have worked on Kafka to handle the socalled infoboxes case ;) - I will not waste more time, convincing them or whatever. I said I can die with my restrictions, senseless as I think they are, and I mean it. When editors died in April, I reflected that in case I die my user page will we be left with the unresolved red wounds of the case, and thought of changing that, but see above, no more waste of time.) - Can I convince you that Andy did not breach the letter of his restriction (infobox, not template infobox), and some apologies are in order? (Coincidentally: I just updated Bach cantata Vergnügte Ruh, beliebte Seelenlust, BWV 170, reading "better justice than the justice of merely observing laws and rules (Matthew 5:20–26)", - made me smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The current enforcement request should be discussed at WP:AE, not here. I've already offered my opinion there.  Sandstein  11:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification now archived

The request for clarification relating to the Pseudoscience case has been archived --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Game of Thrones season 1 soundtrack cover

Hi, could you please rename the following image which was uploaded by you File:Game of Thrones (soundtrack) cover.jpg to Game of Thrones (season 1 soundtrack) cover.jpg? I am uploading the covers of the other soundtracks and it would be easier to classify each picture

I don't think that's necessary or appropriate; the album is titled just "Game of Thrones". Also, please remember that you may not use fair use images outside of mainspace.  Sandstein  05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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/Post-SSRI_sexual_dysfunction

The instructions on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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" 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)

Socking

What do I do next? It was just confirmed that he was socking. Do I open up an AE? AcidSnow (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No need, I've imposed an indefinite block based on the SPI result.  Sandstein  19:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC on purging individuals and groups: closed

A brave closure, 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 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 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)