User talk:SilentResident

Expulsion of Cham Albanians

NOTE: The user DevilWearsBrioni is currently engaged in Edit Warring with other users, and he has done disruptive edits to the page about the Expulsion of Cham Albanians without reaching a solid consensus in the the article's talk page first. Furthermore, he has broken the 3RR in spite of warnings by other users.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you may be blocked from editing. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is recommended that in the event of a dispute, the users follow the Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines, and reach a Consensus instead of resorting to threats on the talk pages of other users. Edit warring and threatening other users with blocks in the event of a dispute, is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach, and thus, risks being reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This was explained to you on the talk page. You were warned for OR:ing. I have yet to see you actually rebut this, instead you seem more bent on accusing me of disruption, as if disruption by other editors is an excuse to break the no original research policy. Also, I would appreciate if you refrained from making false accusations about me. I did not break the 3RR. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you have not understood that the lead of the article should present every important information from the main body of the article. Alexikoua has provided sources on this matter which clearly is not OR:ing, and still, in spite of this you have chosen once again, in later edits, to REMOVE COMPLETELY these sources. What you have done is: 1) Unexplained removal of Alexikoua's sources, 2) Disruptive edits, 3) 3RR breach, 4) violation of WP:Lead, 5) manipulation of sources, 6) Failed to get the Point, 7) POV edits with positions expressed by ultranationalist political parties in Albania, 8) You have failed to reach a consensus with other community members in the article's Talk Page for your edits and insisted with them in spite of objections and concerns expressed by the others. And more. Do I have to explain what you have done? My advice to you as a friend: you have a last chance. Think twice before keeping on with this behavior, because in a such event, you will be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Have a good day, DevilWearsBrioni. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to point me to the source that makes the claim that Greek state policy was a consequence of Muslim Chams burning Christian villages. This is what you wrote: "many of the Muslim Chams that were inhabiting western Epirus, sided with the Ottomans against the advancing Greeks and had formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements and towns, with only few Albanian beys willing to accept a Greek rule in the region. This led the Greek state to adopt policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory".

Please point me to a specific sentence (or two!) which supports the bolded part. That's all I'm asking for and I'll gladly concede that you were not OR:ing if you in fact can show me this. Let's keep this factual. As for 3RR Breach (still no evidence, just accusations), manipulation of sources (again, no evidence), positions expressed by ultranationalist political parties in Albania, etc, I would be very curious to see how your evidence for these accusations fare on the Administrator's noticeboard. By initiating a report, you're required to provide evidence, and consequently it would make it a lot easier for me to refute, instead of going about it this way where you can accuse me of all possible things without repercussions. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Tsoutsoumpis' sources about the Greek government's responses to Cham Albanian raiding and burning the Greek villages by adopting policies against them, such as arming Greek guerillas in the regions where Chams lived, covers the first sentence. The second is from Baltsioti's sources which describe the Greek government's mistrust of the Chams eventually leading them adopt policies of expelling them from Epirus. As you can see, this is not a case of OR:ing at all. What case is this? Judging from the complete removal of the first half of the paragraph, it seems you were not happy with this addition. For reasons that have to do with certain political views and beliefs? Or you think it was too big and made the lead too bloated? Note that it was pretty short phrase, as supposed as per WP:Lead, nor a full-scale copy from what is said on the main body. Or maybe you saw the phrase containing different implications and that due to the complexity of the events of that time, a bigger and more precise phrase could clear things out for you? Maybe yes. But your actions contradict this. Your actions to remove this all together, and even the sources for it when they were added by Alexikoua later. Alexikoua took that bolded phrase in question and re-worded it precisely to leave no room for misunderstanding about this, accompanied with the sources, and that could have covered any concerns, but even so, you have reverted his edits. Instead of helping our efforts in summarizing the article into the lead, you have blocked the other people's efforts in that direction, even when the sources were provided. Sorry to say but your OR:ing accusation is not convincing, and your behavior contrasts that of Alexikoua and Resnjari. Resnjari and Alexikoua contribute positively by noting where a phrase could have any problems, and improve upon it with precise re-wording, to make it BETTER, not remove it. And you? You just click on revert button all the time... How is that helping, dear DevilWearsBrioni? How? With this behavior of yours, you are giving the impression that you are the owner of the article and thus, you decide what stays and what not, without consulting with others first, and without tolerating their contributions. Remember the last time I have warned you? If you ever try to remove these sources again, you will be reported and blocked from editing this page. This is not OR:ing and you may refuse to get the point even now for the lead, my friend, but this behavior cannot be tolerated. I am watching the page closely from now and on and it is on my watch list. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Tsoutsoumpis was introduced as a source by Alexikoua after I had warned you for OR:ing. You never cited him when you added ”This led the Greek state to adopt policies that aimed to drive out Muslim Chams from their territory”, so I fail to see how bringing up Tsoutsoumpis now is a valid argument. In fact, it's quite telling that you bring up Tsoutsoumpis, it shows you don't have a leg to stand on.

Second, you are distorting what Tsoutsoumpis says. He does not claim that Greek state policy was adopted as a consequence of the burning of Christian villages, that’s merely your interpretation and personal analysis. Instead, he asserts that local civillians were armed by the Greek and Ottoman governments; Muslim bands raided villages, and ”Greek irregulars responded in kind from January 1913 onwards”. Apart from the fact that you’re falsely equating Muslim bands with Muslim Chams, interpreting the ”arming of Greek irregulars as a response to Muslim bands raiding villages” as a form of ”Greek state policy which aimed to drive out Muslim Chams”, is arguably a desperate and farfetched attempt to correlate the two. Not only that, you are demonstrably wrong. Baltsiotis writes that state policy was "embedded in the prevailing nationalistic ideology of the Interwar period". Consequently, even if you want to argue that arming irregulars during a war is a form of state policy, the time periods do not coincide.

As for Baltsiotis and ”the Greek government's mistrust of the Chams eventually leading them adopt policies of expelling them from Epirus”: can you point me to the specific sentence? Where does Baltsiotis make the claim that state policies were adopted as a consequence of village burnings? Also, when and how did this ”mistrust” emerge according to Baltsiotis? Perhaps before the 19th century?

”Yet this situation was not a novelty. Prior to this period, Chamouria was already a nuisance both for the Greek state and the Christians of Epirus who identified themselves as Greeks.[…] Concealing the existence of the Albanian language appeared as a concept as soon as the possibility of Greek expansion into Epirus appeared. Dimitrios Hassiotis, a historian and politician who supported Greek claims, writes in 1887 that in the whole of the Chamouria region, only in Paramythia do “some of the inhabitants understand the Albanian language for commercial reasons” (author’s emphasis). The initial distortion of facts was followed by an effort to account for the allegedly “occasional” use of Albanian. This “appeal to hope” is not only applied to the distortion of the linguistic reality of the area as perceived by non natives, but is extended to a wider spectrum of facts and evaluations. An example of the way this “appeal to hope” was accepted as reality is that Greek officers in the interwar period truly believe that Italy and “Albanian propaganda” are to blame for the reactions of the Muslims in Chamouria and not Greek policies implemented in the area.”

"The existence of a region (Chamouria) whose population was roughly half Muslim and almost entirely Albanian speaking was considered a serious problem for the Greek state, which had to be confronted both practically and discursively. Every pro-Albanian movement in these areas had to be eliminated by all means."

”The behavior of the Greek Army, in conjunction with the legislation implemented at the time, deeply affected the Muslims and confirmed the first serious fissure between the Christian communities and the Greek State on one side, and the Muslim communities on the other. Tensions between Muslims and Christians in the area began in the late 19th century when the Christian element gradually improved its financial and social status.”

”For a more detailed narration of the fighting and the battles that occurred in the area during late 1912, the use of local population and the burning of villages by both sides see K. D. Sterghiopoulos”

On the talk page I have argued that both sides engaged in burning villages. Yet, you maintain that it's important to mention that Muslim Chams burned Christian Orthodox settlements in the lede. Why is that? Do you intend to show and suggest that these events caused the Greek state to adopt discriminative policies against Muslim Chams, and will you be able to explain on the OR/NPOV noticeboard how this reasoning isn't suggestive/UNDUE and POV/OR? Furthermore, could you tell me why the following is POV: "Though at first reluctant in joining Ottoman forces, Muslim Chams – regarded as enemies by the Greek army – sided with the Ottomans in late 1912, while local Christians were enlisted in the Greek forces, giving rise to local conflicts." Does this sentence alone not encapsulate the events that transpired? What is specifically missing there? The burning of villages committed by both sides? Or by only one side?

Lastly, like I've told you before, I certainly don't mind admin intervention and I would have preferred it if you already went ahead with it. Repeating it ad nauseam does not help your case. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep sure, keep telling yourself this and that. I am sorry, but the Administrators won't like when any invalid and non-existent cases of OR:ing are used to justify any edit warring attitudes and disruptive behaviors of your part on Wikipedia. I could be very excited to see how such an argument can make any sense to anyone, and especially to the Admins.

And please do not continue with your endless arguments, it became clear and evident that this never-ending debate won't get anywhere. I could appreciate if my talk page is kept practical and compact. Thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

"As soon as the Balkan Wars started and conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Greece occurred, the Greek side attempted to approach the local Muslim representatives in order to discuss the possibility of a Greek-Albanian alliance. However, many of the Muslim Chams had already formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements in the area of Paramythia, Fanari and Filiates."

Does this mean that Muslim Chams had already (meaning as soon as the Balkan wars started) formed irregular armed units and were burning Greek inhabited settlements? Is that really what Pitouli-Kitso claims? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. This is a question just for me, or are you opening up a discussion? I think it is more useful and practical to raise discussions about an article, on that article's relevant talk page, which is visited by multiple people at a time, instead of the user's personal talk pages. The more people that can get involved into a discussion, the better. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, you were asking this question in relation to the ongoing discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard? My replies will be posted there (on the ANI), not here (on this Talk Page), to keep the discussion in one place and as compact as possible. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you intend to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Expulsion of Cham Albanians or should we proceed without you? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AE request template and statement size

Hey there. I removed your request for arbitration enforcement because you removed major sections of the template you need to follow, plus it was way too long. Please make sure to include necessary information like confirmation you notified the person you're bringing to AE. Make your statement succinct and clear. Remember, AE is only for enforcing arbitration decisions, like the application of discretionary sanctions in relevant topic areas. You're free to re-submit whenever you like, but please follow the proper format so commenting admins can easily understand the situation. If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem:, my apologies, this is my first time filing a request in the AE, may I ask what this template for filling a request, has to be like? -- SILENTRESIDENT 04:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I found it, thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 04:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have any other questions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem:I am confused now :S While a template can be added, it cannot be edited that way. What am I doing wrong? :S -- SILENTRESIDENT 05:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you picked the wrong template. You want the "Click here to add a new enforcement request" one. Once you click it, it'll open a page with sections already there. Fill in the information it asks for. It should look like this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. -- SILENTRESIDENT 05:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you intend to go forward with this? I would love to have the opportunity to rebut the false narrative you've created about me. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. What exactly do you mean "false narrative you've created about me"? To say this, is to accuse me of assuming bad faith of my part. Why you just don't stop with your accusations? First these false OR accusations, and now Bad Faith? -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This should be a comic:

Person A: Person B has ruined our Wikipedia lives and I can't withstand this odd kind of persecution anymore. Lately I am seriously considering quitting the Wikipedia Project just because of all this, as the stress Person B is causing with his disruptive attitude towards the other users, including me, has pushed everyone to the edge, as you can see from the tone of our messages towards that person who is not willing to ever stop. [More accusations...]

Person B: I would like to rebut the false narrative created about me.

Person A: HOW DARE YOU YOU ACCUSE ME OF ASSUMING BAD FAITH?!? Stop these accusations!

Seriously though, do you intend to go forward with this? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are you mocking me? Haven't you done enough grievance already? Why you just don't stop? -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote a 5,000+ char report about me at ANI, and pestered various pages with how I should be blocked from editing, and how everyone is tired of my "disruptive attitude" and now you're playing the victim? I read your accusations, now I'd like a platform to rebut them. Don't you think that's fair? You clearly feel persecuted for some reason, the only way to solve this would be admin intervention. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The report is under preparation. When it is submitted, you will be informed accordingly. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I wanted to know. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So, any updates? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@DevilWearsBrioni: I have decided to withdraw the AE Report, as it came to my notice that there was no prior ARBMAC warning given to you, neither in your talk page, nor in any of our discussions. Because of the lack of any ARBMAC warnings in the past, you won't be reported and I have the report withdrawn. However, it is advised that the next time you act more cautiously and avoid any disruptive behaviors on Balkan-related topics, as they are under ARBMAC. Now that you know this, and you are aware of ARBMAC, I hope you refrain from violating them, because breaching them will get you reported to the AE and an Administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on you if you repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I can assure you that I was already aware of ARBMAC. I will continue editing the Cham expulsion page; false narratives, temper tantrums, lies and half-truths will not discourage me from editing. As such, it is advised that you actually go through with the report. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)