User talk:PJK 1993

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

Daniel Case, I would like to point out that JeanClaudeN1 has now re-added the disputed text (these are new changes initiated by the user so the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle rule should apply), here: [1]. This is completely arbitrary on the part of the administrator because as shown JeanClaudeN1 is trying to push through new changes which lack consensus and were reverted. If you decide to ignore this fact, I will seek to escalate this issue further because it is clear that JeanClaudeN1 is pushing a POV on the article and forcing through edits which are questionable and need further disscussion. Also, I'm not sure why JeanClaudeN1 was not also blocked since he started the edit war, which is clear by the edits presented. --PJK 1993 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You finally need to understand that your personal POV has no relevance on Wikipedia — what matters are reliable secondary sources on the subject. In a contentious topic area, it is especially important to rely on such sources. I reverted the addition of false information and provided extensive references based on reliable secondary literature. It also makes no difference that this false information was already added a few months ago (if anything, that only makes the issue worse). The supposed “neutrality problems” exist only from your highly biased POV. So far, your only argument has been “no consensus” — a textbook case of WP:STONEWALLING. Your other edits, where you removed information and citations without valid justification, are also disruptive. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

JeanClaudeN1, you finally need to understand how Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works (I reverted your new changes, you did not receive a consensus). Also, you are clearly pushing a POV that's downplaying the massacre. The "60 and 150" is what the knights claimed following the massacre, and this was the number pushed by German historians for centuries, and now Smoliński, I guess. However, looking at sources there are more historians that favor the 1,000 estimate. So you are pushing a bias assessment that takes the word of the perpetrators (a primary source). Also, why did you remove the "colonization" statement? Your edits are one sided and clearly you are gaming the system, since you broke the rules and the admin who pasted in the "contentious topics" tag clearly did not bother to read that the links there remind everyone to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made new changes and got reverted because you are sanitizing the description of the massacre. --PJK 1993 (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to self-revert[2], since you are taking advantage of my block and continuing to edit war. The new changes are one sided and push a POV intended to sanitize the massacre. --PJK 1993 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again only false accusations. You are providing no evidence for your claims. Your personal opinion is irrelevant for reaching consensus. Fact check: I was the one who added the 2017 source mentioning 1,000 victims.[3] You were the one who tried to push a figure of 10,000 victims (out of 2000-3000 inhabitants),[4] a figure that "historiography has completely rejected". If you know of more recent works by experts that challenge the figure of 60–150 victims mentioned in the 2021 source or provide other estimates, please name them. As for your other edits, I once again refer you to my comments here, which you ignored and blanked.[5] JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC) JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter who "started" the edit war as who continued it. While it is possible to be blocked for edit warring (as the policy makes very clear) without violating any time-based restriction on reverts, it matters a lot more who made that fourth revert within 24 hours.

Your continuing protestations about this, to me and JeanClaude, betray a battleground mentality, which if you allow it to persist after this block expires is likely to earn you further, longer blocks which, if they too fall in this or other contentious topic areas, might be made under that provision and will thus be appealable only to ArbCom.

To prevent that from happening, you might well want to read this and take that to heart. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PJK 1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Selective enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines by the blocking administrator handling the original case, Daniel Case. JeanClaudeN1 reported me to the Admin Noticeboard for reverting their new changes/additions to the Gdańsk article. However, despite JeanClaudeN1 also engaging in an edit war and being in clear violation of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, only I was blocked despite showing evidence that the changes in question were new and initiated by JeanClaudeN1. Now, JeanClaudeN1 has re-added the changes/additions in question [6] without gaining a consensus, in effect continuing the edit war while taking advantage of my block. Thus, I would like to ask that I'm unblocked, or that evenhanded sanctions are placed on both editors involved, in order to prevent edit warring by JeanClaudeN1.

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:GAB. Only your actions are relevant here. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You reverted four times within a 24-hour period in a manner, on content, that did not meet the exemptions from the rule. The others did not. Other than what's linked above, content has no bearing on conduct. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)