User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/February

Kalu Yala

Hi there! I jus saw that you confirmed the deletion of the Kalu Yala page. I think this was a mistake as they just hosted TEDx Adventure: The Jungle- the first TEDx Adventure. This has been on CNN en Espanol, mission.tv and The Next Web (links for these are most easily found together on their Facebook page: ww.facebook.com/kaluyala). They will be hosting several entrepreneur gatherings in 2015 which should be announced in the next 6 months. (184.77.48.222 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalu_Yala

Sorry to disappoint you, but nothing of this establishes Kalu Yala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as notable in the way we use this term on Wikipedia. Basically, we need substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. See WP:N for more about this.  Sandstein  21:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey sorry I still don't understand- there have been articles by multiple reputable sources (most of which even have their own Wiki page). I pointed to the Kalu Yala Facebook page because it has all the articles together- as does the Kalu Yala Internships website (www.kaluyalainternships.com (minus the article that went up on The Next Web today. Or the article that was just posted on Gawker). This included Atlanta Business Chronicle, Fusion, CNN en Espanol, Mission.tv, ULoopThe Huffington Port, Under30CEO, and multiple college newspapers. How are these not covering the requirements of 1)significant coverage 2) Reliable 3)Multiple sources 4) Independent of the subject 5) Presumed that since it is in multiple sources it should be able to be a stand alone article. Again, I'm really sorry- obviously I'm new to this! All help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.48.222 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you post the specific links to coverage that meets WP:GNG here? I'm not keen on Facebook or having to click through zillions of links of perhaps questionable usefulness.  Sandstein  16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/la/2014/01/28/heart-panamanian-jungle-startup-village-grows/ CNN en Espanol- http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/spanish/2014/01/11/cnnee-aventurero-reportero-ted-adventure.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fkaluyalainternships.com%2F Fusion: http://fusion.net/american_dream/story/young-people-building-worlds-sustainable-community-panama-324448 Mission.tv: http://mission.tv/features/kalu-yala-a-sustainable-jungle-settlement-for-entrepreneurs.html Atlanta Business Chronicle: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0yclteq0wdwlcdf/Atlanta%20Business%20Chronicle%20Kalu%20Yala%20Article.pdf ULoop: http://osu.uloop.com/news/view.php/104693/a-few-months-in-panama-an-overview-of-the-kalu-yala-entrepreneurial-internship-program Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amanda-slavin/the-world-of-kalu-yala_b_1415934.html Under30Ceo: http://under30ceo.com/town-2-0-leader-2-0-lessons-entrepreneurship-jimmy-stice/ FSView: http://www.fsunews.com/article/20130328/FSVIEW0101/130327037/Student-works-sustain-agriculture-Panama Cavalier Daily: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2013/09/a-summer-off-the-grid UGAzine: http://georgiaugazine.com/changing-the-world-with-kalu-yala-2/ The Collegian: http://thecollegianur.com/2013/09/22/summer-aboad-in-the-kalu-yala-valley/36843/ Tiger News: http://thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=8761&sid=1 The Silhouette: http://www.thesil.ca/insideout-embracing-both-fear-and-failure-at-kalu-yala?fb_action_ids=10153332829755370&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A310183902455569%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210153332829755370%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map The Daily Reveille: http://www.lsureveille.com/news/student-learns-about-sustainability-in-panama-jungle/article_11fcff3c-36c2-11e3-9519-001a4bcf6878.html The State Press: http://www.statepress.com/2013/09/11/student-internship-at-sustainable-community-provides-wealth-of-opportunity/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.48.222 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am repoening the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalu Yala, and you can participate there.  Sandstein  09:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Datacoin

Can you please userfy Datacoin? User Dialectric said that there's no guideline for keeping drafts, but as I argued WP:PRESERVE should be applied. Diego (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, now at User:Diego Moya/Datacoin.  Sandstein  10:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the restoration because you moved the content to Draft:Datacoin with the rationale "Per WP:PRESERVE. This belongs to the community, not me." The purpose of the draft namespace is to store new article drafts, not to store material that the community has decided should be deleted.  Sandstein  10:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Who says the purpose of draft space is for new drafts only? There's no hard guideline on how to handle the draft space - article policies certainly don't apply to it, or it couldn't contain unverified content.

This is certainly too much a grey area for a speedy deletion - for content that has not been recreated but WP:REFUNDed. The community consensus has not been altered, Datacoin is still a redlink, which is what was decided at the AfD. You haven't addressed the ongoing discussion that was supported by two editors, so your decision to close is in no way a clear indication that the content should be hidden from view - no one has argued for that besides you and Dialectric, and you didn't participate in the discussion; if you had such a strong opinion about the possibility of a move to draft, you should have added it instead of closing it. Diego (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page interloper wandering by...I'd never heard of this Draft: space until now, and what I see at WP:DRAFTS at the moment is an unimpressive mess that the creator(s) didn't plan out very well, e.g. how to mesh with AfC and the Incubator before creating anew project space. I would vigorously oppose a side-stepping of the AfD process by allowing deleted content to be Draft-spaced. That's like Redemption Island replacing being voted off the island, which I never liked. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As he has discussed a bit with me on my talk page, Diego is pushing a position that almost all afd deleted articles should instead go to draft, which I see as a pretty radical position, running counter to years of Afd precedent. For unclear reasons, he appears to be using the Datacoin and V-play as test cases for implementing this idea.Dialectric (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Diego Moya: Deletion generally means "remove the content from Wikipedia". All proposals to introduce some sort of soft deletion by moving the deleted text elsewhere have so far been rejected by the community. Userfication is sometimes used because a particular editor wants to work on the article such that it can be restored. But just undeleting it and dumping it in the draft namespace in the hope that somebody comes along and improves it (how would they even find it?) would defeat the purpose of deletion, which is to remove content that we as a project (currently) don't want. Sorry, but you can't use the draft namespace as an end-run around deletion policy.  Sandstein  15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Deletion policy says, "The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."  Also, the tone of your comments such as with the word "dumping" do not show impartiality.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Userfication or incubation is a possible outcome of AfD, but here consensus was to delete rather than to incubate the content.  Sandstein  09:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• The record at [1] shows, "2014-01-30T10:45:58 Sandstein (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Datacoin (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: undoing restoration - the draft namespace is for new article drafts, not for bypassing a deletion decision.)".  G4 is not the same as an editorial consensus of the editors in draftspace to remove an article.  An issue with the AfD is that the closer did not explain the closing.  The fact that the closer was then willing to Userfy to the editor who argued that there was no material that needed to be hidden from view, implies that the closer did not think the WP:PROMO arguments compelling.  Nonetheless, I think the WP:PROMO concern remains even if not sustained, and I know from the AfD that the article was created by a spa.  What I request is that the references and categories from the article be posted and preserved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• That won't work, because we don't retain talk pages without an associated main page. I can however dump the material in your user space.  Sandstein  09:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin is the talk page of the AfD, which is commonly accessible.  I've never known of an AfD talk page being deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I somehow misread the link as the talk page of the deleted article. Anyway, the article had no references, and only one category, Category:Cryptocurrencies. I leave it up to you what you want to do with this.  Sandstein  07:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks.  I will so notate the AfD talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking by user Zimmarod

Hello, I'm topic banned to edit anything related to Azerbaijan and Armenia, but could u please look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan&diff=prev&oldid=593135323

as User:Zimmarod completely cleared well referenced sources about Guba Mass Grave, especially when both sites are properly working and it includes enough information about the topic. Could u please take action.

I also would like to ask, when I can appeal the ban as I really would like to edit topics about culture. Moreover, my last 3 months been trouble free. --NovaSkola (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This message violates your topic ban, and I'll block you in enforcement of the ban as soon as I get around to it. Any non-banned editor can request enforcement via WP:AE. You may appeal a ban at any time.  Sandstein  22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Most respectful question

I am concerned that you did this with the comment "rm personal attacks etc" when I provided you specific cites to the debates in question, which, in their totality, constituted my evidence of bullying and personal attacks in an attempt to clarify the comment you "warned" me about. I have no wish to abuse any forum, but your comments concern me, as first you warn me for casting aspersions without evidence, then you remove my evidence when I provide it. I could of course provide a longer list of diffs, but I do not want to be viewed by you as abusing the forum or this talk page, so if you could kindly clarify what would be required for you to consider retracting your "warning" on the pseudoscience page, I would be most graciously interested in seeing a way to clear my good name; what is the most appropriate way and place for me to present this evidence? Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen and others have explained to you on your talk page that you are mistaken. The warning is appropriate and will not be retracted. You should in the future stay out of AE threads that don't concern you directly, and not make any accusations of misconduct towards others except in the appropriate forum and with convincing evidence in the form of diffs. What evidence you submitted was not suited to prove misconduct.  Sandstein  13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Stay out of AE thread that don't concern you?" Pardon me, but doesn't AE seek "uninvolved" people to comment and offer a neutral view? As far as my comments about Wolfie, what concerns me is that he didn't get the same treatment when he started making personal attacks on Olive. Had you simply removed his comments as well as mine (including his attacks on me as well as on Olive) and warned him about personalizing a thread, I could at least give you a nod for consistency, but as it sits, I have to say that I question your objectivity and neutrality; it is very clear to me that some animals are more equal than others. It is a bit absurd that this arose over what was clearly a fringe editor; we all agreed on that point. But I do think your harsh tone and that of Wolfie is not helpful to dealing with these people, it actually tends to confirm their own beliefs that they are the true prophets of god or whatever, persecuted by all. Much better to just gently ease them out the back and use a lot of WP:IGNORE on their drama and appropriate ANI for any actual behaviors, such as edit-warring. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, AE doesn't seek views, or at least I tend to ignore statements that merely express an opinion. That's because AE doesn't work by consensus. What AE does seek is actionable evidence in the form of dated and explained diffs. Everything else is merely noise. I am advising you not to interfere in AE discussions because so far you have contributed nothing useful to them, and instead you have wasted a lot of time of others and made personal attacks that distracted from the topic at hand.

You use this page to repeat your assertions that one editor attacked another, but again you do not provide evidence in the form of diffs. I care nothing for links to long discussion threads. If you want to provide evidence of misconduct, you must link to specific diffs and explain why they are misconduct, and you must do so at the same time as you make any allegations of misconduct, not later. If you continue in this vein, I will make you subject to an interaction ban or other restriction. This is my final communication in this matter.  Sandstein  22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here. You provide no links to the specific guidelines and policies that support your assertions, you merely issue dictates. It's clear I am beating my head against a wall. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw second request from a third party.

Hello Sandstein, As I was looking in at WP, I noticed a few threads revolving around Montanabw and yourself. My first thoughts are that you are overstepping your authority (which does not extend beyond any other admin's). I DO understand that you often use your hours on wiki to parole Arb related items, but I would ask you to step back and re-evaluate this particular situation. I fully admit that I am not on wiki 24/7 at present, however I see no justification for this unilateral restriction/sanction you have placed on Montanabw. Actually I see justification for "warnings" for other editors. To be quite honest the "involved" thought crossed my mind when I saw the people involved.

I don't have the time or inclination to debate the situation; I simply ask that you step back and re-evaluate things here.

Thank you, and best wishes, Ched — ChedZILLA 23:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Because you are apparently not acquainted with the somewhat peculiar process of discretionary sanctions, you my have misunderstood matters. I did not impose a "restriction/sanction", but gave a warning, as required by the arbitration enforcement process WP:AC/DS. Please do tell me why you think I was too involved to act as an administrator here.  Sandstein  04:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Diffs in block entries

Hello Sandstein. Since you often use diffs in your blocks to point to the rationale you might consider trying out a new software feature called Special:Diff. This makes it possible to format a diff as a wikilink and even to use pipe notation to hide the full text of the link. Clickable diffs can now be included as documentation in edit summaries or block entries. Details are at User talk:Guy Macon#When including diffs in edit summaries, consider using a wikilink. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks!  Sandstein  04:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi Sandstein - I just discovered that the page appsFreedom has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppsFreedom, Inc. I am not sure what was missing or why this was deleted. Can you please shed some light and what should I be doing to rectify this situation...

Thanks in advance... Vaidy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaidysubr (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check your link... it doesn't work. (See also WP:GRA.)  Sandstein  06:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

AppsFreedom, Inc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted because a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppsFreedom, Inc. found that the topic does not meet our inclusion criteria, found at WP:N. If you want it undeleted, you must find sources that meet the criteria described on that page.  Sandstein  09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ARBCC notice request

First one

Hi, Please consider delivering and logging the ARBCC template notice to jdey123 (talk · contribs). Not that bad behavior is prereq for these "did you know" notices, but if you wish to know what prompts my request here are some samples

Section blanking

• First blanking of the FAQ
• Second blanking of the FAQ

AGF/Civil

• "...this entire subject is complete, unadulterated bullshit." 17:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Why is there an FAQ section on this talk page, spouting the same propaganda as on the main article page. This is supposed to be a discussion page, no wonder there are massive edit wars when you guys spout bullshit." 17:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Second one

Sanford123445 (talk · contribs), note the lovely diatribe on the article itself

We might have talked about this before.... the existing process is a bit unclear... do you mind being asked to do this here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Both done. No problem, I forgot about your first message here. Though technically I suppose you could warn and log this yourself, it doesn't have to be an admin.  Sandstein  15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. whether non-admins can do this has been a subject of some debate elsewhere, and doing it this way seems cleaner somehow. Is it OK if I bring future requests here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you made any required notifications yourself. Being an administrator or uninvolved is not needed for this.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it another shot, though if anyone complains (again) will it be ok with you if I reference this thread in the ensuing discussion ?

Yes, though it's not as though my opinion has any particular authority.  Sandstein  19:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Understand, it's just a good second opinion to back up a thread from another admin on my own talk page in case I get accused of bad faith or battlegrounding in dishing up these FYI notices. Thanks for the past assistance, and this thread I think is a wrap unless you have something else to add. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk is appealing at AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Ivan Štambuk. You can respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Summichum AE request

Hi Sandstein,

Reading your recent comment at AE that you were unwilling to take action because the report lacked an appropriate diff of a warning made me recall a recent request at the administrators notice board where an editor presented clear evidence of a 1rr violation in an ARBPIA article and requested that the editor (not the same user as the AE case) receive a formal warning.

Unfortunately despite the clear evidence of a 1rr violation the request was ignored and no warning was given. Now you are saying that a request at AE will be ignored if there is no warning. Put together it appears to be a dysfunctional system. I wonder if you could advise on what course of action should be taken against editors who's pattern of editing indicates that they are ignoring the rules given that (a) admins ignore reasonable requests to issue formal warnings and (b) admins ignore AE requests that lack the requisite warnings. Dlv999 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All editors may warn others. Being an admin is not required. Requesting a warning at ANI or elsewhere is therefore pointless.  Sandstein  23:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Return of Disruptive Editor onto the Blue Army (Poland) article

Mass removal of information here by an anon IP: [2], and then blatently lying on the talk page about a source that he removed. Evidence here: [3]. The anon claimed " I had a chance to read the "sourced" text on Google Books, and found that nowhere is Gibson called an anti-semite, or that he held a personal hostility towards jews." Googlebooks has the actual quote: ""He [Gibson] stood out for his antisemitism even in an era when genteel disdain for things Jewish pervaded the clublike atmosphere of the foreign service. Upon their arrival in Warsaw, the Yankee diplomats [including,. of course, Gibson] found their prejudices confirmed by an almost physical repugnance towards the city's exotic Orthodox Jewry...to Gibson and his colleagues, the Jews represented antagonists and also a source of sport, and ridicule of Jewish traits, customs, and appearance became the favorite expression of camaderie within the legation."

The arguments and behavior strongly match that of a previous anon who was blocked [4], suggesting it is the same person.Faustian (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you asking me to do?  Sandstein  16:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to ask to have the article semi-protected, but the IP has backed off from removing sourced content for now, and is making some statements that are borderline original research [5] (justifying antisemtici violence because supported the Germans?) that may still be okay.Faustian (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As expected, the IP has become disruptive. He has become User:COD T 3. He has now decided the change the intro: [6]; it seems obvious he is simply removing a neutrally presented version of events with one that excuses anti-Semitic violence. I reverted him twice but will stop now. I mentioned this in the article's talk page: [7].Faustian (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Content discussion does not belong here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You make all this sound so sinister. Yes, I did create a profile User:COD T 3… that's not against the rules, is it. Also, you say that I'm using my "own research". Yet, the source I provided is from a book found on Google Books that you yourself used to reference your POV in this article. As a matter of fact here is the link to the page Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 103. --COD T 3 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC) He just was dishonest about a source again: [8]. This is the second time; there should be no tolerance for that.Faustian (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Faustian keeps accusing people of the worst things to win his argument... that they quote sources not related to the subject matter. Well, here is the exact sentence form the book. BTW, General Jozef Haller was the Blue Army's commander. "General Jozef Haller's army - especially earned a reputation as notorious Jews baiters… The anti-Jewish zeal of those soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznan province, where Jews sided with the Germans during the Polish-German conflict of in the winter of 1919. --COD T 3 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (Sigh). Here is the full text: "Two Polish units - Poznan regiments and General Josef Haller's army - especially earned the reputation as notorious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski. The anti-Jewish zeal of those soldiers derived from the situation in the Poznan province, where Jews sided with the Germans during the Polish-German conflict of in the winter of 1919. Similarly, the actions of Haller's Army, which had arrived from France, might be explained by the fact that some contingents came from the United States, where Jewish-Polish relations went from bad to worse." So there is one reason for Poznan regiment crimes and another for Haller army crimes. He is using the explanation for the Poznan regiment violence to excuse violence by Haller's Army and falsely attributing this to the source. Given the obvious and blatant falsehood already described above regarding Gibson, one can assume this is deliberate and not a mistake. Faustian (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Ok, and having said that Faustian… your statement only proves that you are a malicious jerk; trying to ban contributors instead of arguing the points like civilized editors. There is no reason you had to run to senior editors to make this point. You could have stated this exact comment on the article's talk page, as I only use the limited resources of Google Books, and have access to the text that is displayed to me. In any case it shows that you have a tendency to bully inexperienced editors, instead of arguing the points. Especially, that I did not revert the paragraph in question, and submitted the new text for peer review. --COD T 3 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) It isn't "bullyng" to demonstrate when someone has been dishonestly presenting sources.Faustian (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've warned the user of discretionary sanctions. That should be all for now.  Sandstein  06:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Haller's Blue Army peer review request

Hello, I would like to request the assistance of senior editors like yourself to look at the neutrality issues surrounding Haller's Blue Army article. The Controversies section appears to use language, and content to overemphasize specific POVs, and creates un-due weight issues to the overall structure of the text.

Content issues collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Redundant statements re-emphasize similar points: (the two phrases are only one sentence apart). many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light. As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests. Overstating wrongful claims; as those made by historian William W. Hagen. If his claims were soundly disproven, why include them? More importantly why does the paragraph go into such detail about the events of the pogrom when the Blue Army was not even there in the first place? Also, as noted by historian Edward Goldstein, the Blue Army was accuse of several pogroms; that they had nothing to do with, so Hagen's wrongful accusation is nothing unusual. Finally, other editors proposed to remove the text in the past. Also, you agreed above that it'd be a good idea to remove Hagen. Can we do that? Volunteer Marek 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC) The Blue Army was wrongly accused of committing the Lviv Pogrom of 1918. Historian William W. Hagen claimed that after helping to capture Lviv, some army units together with Polish civilians, engaged in three days of violence against the Jewish and Ukrainian inhabitants of the city, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.[29] But the army's participation in the pogrom is highly disputed, and according to the Cambridge History of Poland, when the Lviv Pogrom actually took place the Blue Army was still in France fighting on the Western Front. Also, it has been documented that the first units did not reach Poland until the spring of 1919, nearly five months after the actual pogrom had happened.[30] The Kronika Polski lists 14 April 1919 as the start of the first transports form France to Poland,[31] and historian Kay Lundgreen-Nielsen stated that the first units of the army did not leave France until 15 April 1919; its departure having been delayed by opposition from Britain and the United States.[32] Thus, requiring a special protocol before the Blue Army was allowed to return home to Poland.[33] Over emphasizing individuals not directly linked to the Blue Army. The entire paragraph about Hugh S. Gibson, and his opinions about the Jews are completely irrelevant to our topic. Also, the American envoy did not come to Poland to look after Haller's troops. Finally, his reporting on the "food riots" is also not directly related to this article, as the events primarily occurred during civilian unrest, and not done by the army. The United States sent an envoy to Poland, Hugh S. Gibson, a man who stood out for his antisemitism.[25] Hugh Gibson along with Dr. Boris Bogen, who was the general director of European relief operations of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), were tasked by the United States Government to investigate the situation.[26] Throughout their stay in Poland, Gibson and his colleagues ridiculed Jewish traits, customs, and appearance.[25] The official report sent back to Washington stated that many of the newspaper reports in the American press had been inflated, and Gibson himself wrote in his correspondence that he was concerned about separating fact from rumor. In his investigation, Hugh S. Gibson also addressed the issue of "food riots", and after investigating the circumstances reported that an even larger number of Christian shops had also been ransacked, thus disputing the claim that all the violence was strictly a product of anti-Jewish sentiment. Gibson also claimed that Zionists were conspiring with Berlin; according to historian Carole Fink, Gibson emphasized Jews' "social, economic, and ideological transgressions" and described the victims of the pogroms as "exploiters." [27] Gibson also expressed the opinion that Jews in Poland ought to "reform themselves" and assimilate into general Polish society.[28]

I recommend that the above listed statements be removed form the article as they only support a specific POV, create un-due weight, or are not directly related to the subject. Finally, because of the small status of the article the only other admin actively contributing to the text, and monitoring the content is user Faustian. So, if there is a dispute, the easiest way to eliminate the debate is to get someone blocked. And, his text additions to the Controversies section are continuing to grow without any checks and balances. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you're in the wrong place with this request. I'm not knowledgeable about or interested in the topic. Please see WP:DR for suggestions about how else to involve others to help resolve content disputes you may be involved in.  Sandstein  16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reconsider

Hi Sandstein,

Could you please in any possible way reconsider your topic ban towards me? Maybe you could give me a second chance? Jaqeli (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should I do this? What has changed since the sanction? And could you please link to it?  Sandstein  17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone deserves a second chance and I think I deserve it. If I won't keep my word than I won't ask you again. I just need a second chance from you. Jaqeli (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not an argument why I should assess the situation now any differently than at the time at which I imposed the sanction. I can't review the sanction, at any rate, because you didn't provide the link to it I asked for. The appeal is consequently declined.  Sandstein  17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What link? Jaqeli (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The one to the sanction you were appealing, as mentioned in my message of 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC), above.  Sandstein  18:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not appealing anything. I want you to show some goodwill. At least define my topic ban with "X" months that I will know my topic ban expires on "X" day. Jaqeli (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Sanctions end once they are no longer needed. It's up to you to convince me that this time is now.  Sandstein  19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I recognize that I was too emotional and made a statement what could have been offensive for others. It was my mistake and I recognize this fact and such behavior won't happen again. I regret that I was too emotional back then and made somehow that statement I believe indeed offended many. I recognize that and all I want is a second chance to be able to contribute for common good here on Wiki. Jaqeli (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you bother yourself and respond? Jaqeli (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I already did. You've still not provided the link.  Sandstein  16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)