Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 25 January 2020

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Sávy reported by User:Dey subrata (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Converted and moved from WP:AIV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Page: 2019–20 I-League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Participants:

• Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dey subrata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

• Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continuous and persistant vandalism of the article 2019–20 I-League, deliberately adding factual and unsourced materials again and again even after warned of no doing it.. I try to discuss with the user but there was no hope. The user was warned several times, even I have brought the issues every time I warned, but seemed to have totally ignored. I have given a final warning, thought it will stop doing it. But same, I try to discuss the matter even after giving the final warning, but there was no reply, even I have opened a discussion at the article talk page with the hope that the user will response but instead of response the user again vandalised with removal of materials and adding wrong, factually incorrect and unsourced materials into the article and also violated the WP:4RR also. Its out of control now, I don't think the user will change as he had a history of vandalising article and was previously blocked in 2019 for vandalism. Dey subrata (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Semi-blind guess: Partial block for both... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Why me? I have opened discussion and warned the user several times. Secondly, I am not adding anything factually incorrect and wrong information in the article. Please go through the Savy's talk page, I have brought to him every issues but the user have ignored every single time. Secondly, a lot of articles on Indian football are maintained by me, I have never added anything factually incorrect in any pages ever. Always try to engage in discussion and here the user have totally igonored any kind of engagement in discussion. Even I opened a discussion at the article talk page, but of no use. The user had a serious history of vandalism and edit warring, copyright violoation and edit warring for which was blocked once before. Dey subrata (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, looking at the user's block history, you may well be correct, and this may well end in an indefinite site-wide block for Sávy, who has not yet ever edited a talk page nor their user talk page.

However, repeatedly reverting someone's edits while linking to the edit warring policy is pretty... bold. I assume you're relying on the "living persons" exception of WP:3RRNO. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Yes, I simply reverted because that was what need to do, because those information were incorrect, wrong and unsourced, and its not that I have not brought the issue to the user. I also did, but there was no response. This somehow follows the point 4 and 7 of WP:3RRNO and but those incorrect materials are not healthy at all for a article which is about a ongoing top league of a country where readers visit frequestly for correct information not wrong information and which have a viewership of avg.20000/month.Dey subrata (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree Check, the user again added factually incorrect, second some unsourced, third a section which was previously several times being asked not to add as already List of 2019–20 I-League season roster changes page exists and we the editors who work on WP:FOOTY never add such in the main league article, rather spilt into another article per WP:LENGTH, WP:SUBARTICLE & WP:SPLITTING. I don't have any hope of changing in his edit behaviours, since been blocked 3-4 times in past and warned multiple times by very experienced editors like Coderzombie but were failed attempts, no engagement in discussion from the user's side. The user should be blocked immediately, it has became a daily issue in the article. Dey subrata (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Dey subrata here. The user continuously adds unsourced information and engages in edit warring. In spite of leaving multiple messages on their talk page, never engages with other editors. Support site wide ban. Coderzombie (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• My semi-blind guess turned out to be incorrect. I don't think it's necessarily vandalism; this appears to be the result of disruptive good-faith editing. Nevertheless, the repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN justify a block. The complete lack of communication and three previous blocks make it an indefinite one. @Dey subrata and Coderzombie: Thank you for your patience and the detailed explanations that finally made me notice the amount of disruption.
  Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:174.254.66.7 reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Blocked 3 months for block evasion)

Page: Dmitry Medvedev (partisan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.254.66.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
In fact, the deletion was initiated by an IP user with a blocked range: --Nicoljaus (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Same as the range block applied to the IPv6 range, which the first IP was caught up in. Looks like ducky evasion of the range block which was placed for evading a block. Nicoljaus you must notify the editor(s) you report here using something like {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~, as it says at the top of the page and in the edit notice for this page. This is even more needed for IP editors as they do not get pings, so wouldn't even get any indication of this report. Next time, make sure you do. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 01:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, my mistake, I'm sorry.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Msasag reported by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (Result: )

Page

Kamrupi culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Msasag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937150693 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
2. 06:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937149820 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) to 06:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
   1. 06:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937149167 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"
   2. 06:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */"
4. 06:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Language */There was no Old Kamrupi language, if so provide source. And it's already covered in Assamese language."
5. 06:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937147061 by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kamrupi culture."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is persistently edit-warring to remove well sourced information plus citation, they are unwilling to reply to warning on their talk. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User Bhaskarbhagawati has been trying to push his point of view on Misplaced Pages since 2012 and has been consistently disruptive.

• He was recently served notice at ANI:
• The notice lead to an extensive DRN discussion
• This led to a number of moderated RFCs , , , a discussion and a final move
• After this extensive exercise, we have arrived at a consensus that
  • Kamarupi Prakrit is different from Kamrupi dialects
  • Kamrupi dialect is best characterized as a dialect and not a language
  • Kamrupi dialect is actually a group of different individual dialects.

Since then, user:Bhaskarbhagawati has been pushing his point of view in these other pages, in contravention of the general consensus that we had reached. If there is an edit warring, then Bhaskarbhagawati himself is one of those indulging in it, and he has been pushing a POV that has been discarded by the community.

Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both Msasag and Bhaskarbhagawati have been edit-warring on Kamrupi culture and on other articles, e.g., Early Assamese, having exceeded 3RR in both articles. Bhaskarbhagawati, you have a fair amount of gaul to bring an edit-warring report against another user when you yourself are equally guilty. @Chaipau: The ANI thread is from last April, which is not exactly "recently". This board is not generally suitable for an in-depth review of an editor's conduct. If you feel that Bhaskarbhagawati's conduct continues to be disruptive, you should take them back to ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 i agree that i should not violated the rule myself, i gave in my frustration. Issue brought in by another user is resolved after decade old discussion (since 2012). User provided link to DRN, which reads (see above): (Eleventh statement by moderator Here is a summary of the contested points. User: Bhaskarbhagawati has requested that Goswami, Medhi, and Sengupta be included. User:Chaipau has requested five changes to Kamrupi dialect, and six changes to the articles on the old language. We are in agreement that the first paragraph of each article is satisfactory. Do the other editors agree to the specified changes? Robert McClenon (talk) 6:46 pm, 9 May 2019, Thursday (8 months, 16 days ago) (UTC+5.5) Twelfth statements by editors First paragraph of Kamarupi Prakrit No change. Any change should take into account that Kamarupi Prakrit is the article about the language in Kamarupa before 1250 AD, and is different from Kamrupi dialect. First paragraph of Kamrupi dialect No change Any change should take into account that Kamrupi dialect is the article about the modern dialect some evidence of which exists from 18th century. I am not making any pointed refutation of Bhaskarbhagawati's proposed changes at this time.) Chaipau (talk) 1:22 am, 13 May 2019, Monday (8 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+5.5). They agreed there to not to refute any particular proposed changes, but now, they went back to their old position that Goswami (subject of current edit warring) should not included. I invested two three months in that DRN to solve the issue, i don't know what to do now.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon was the moderator of the June 2019 DRN which was mentioned above. I've posted to make them aware of this AN3 complaint. I agree that both Msasag and Bhaskarbhagawati have broken 3RR, so admins have discretion to take some action if they think one or both parties are at fault. Due the background, this might be viewed as a long-running edit war. From a quick read, it seems that it is usually Bhaskarbhagawati against everyone else. Bhaskarbhagawati has already been notified of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a totally unnecessary situation brought by User: Bhaskarbhagawati. Now he's even preventing me from creating articles related to "Kamarupa". He removed and reported Early Assamese, perhaps because he calls it "Middle Kamrupi". To be honest I don't have much experience on Misplaced Pages policies but I'm aware of edit warring. Seeing him ignoring discussion results, trying to force his views going against everyone, removing the article I have been writing, I got frustrated. He even reported! He has been creating a lot of troubles it seems and wasting our time and efforts. Early I thought he had some misunderstandings, but it doesn't seem that he tries avoid them, rather he has been pushing the same views, and perhaps for revenge he's also troubling other topics where we are involved. And by the way this "Kamrupi" issue brought by User:Bhaskarbhagawati is something that doesn't even exist. I have seen just two people having a similar view with Bhaskarbhagawati that Kamrupi is a separate language from Assamese language and they referred to the wikipedia articles of Bhaskarbhagawati. So knowingly or unknowingly Bhaskarbhagawati is bringing this issue. Msasag (talk) 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note i have hardly edited articles involved in DRN since its conclusion, (involved administrator asked to take some break to cool down the issue). I think after elapsing of several months, those citations which are agreed on by all on said DRN can be used now, atleast in related articles (which is case now) and other party will not edit war on it but it is not the case.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbro reported by User:TheAmazingPeanuts (Result: Blocked)

Page

Music to Be Murdered By (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
This editor has violate the three-revert rule by keep removing and reverting content just because they disagree with the score of the album, and it doesn't help that the editor is uncivil as well. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I warned User:Nbro that he seemed to have violated 3RR on the 23rd per this message. His response was: ...Do not bother me! I will not touch that article anymore! You're just a complete waste of time. Should this be taken as an agreement to stop edit warring? Is it enough to avoid a block? EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The editor has stop warring but the response to you was not civil at all (WP:CIVIL). The editor has made several uncivil comments to follow editors throughout the day , I know that isn't enough for a block but that behavior is unacceptable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor has been uncivil, telling me "I don't give a fuck about your threats. Go threatening your pet." (Edit) when I warned about a block for edit warring. The editor then said "I will keep reverting the addition of this ADM average bullshit. And I will also remove it from all other Misplaced Pages articles I am interested in." (Edit) indicating that they will continue their pattern of disruptive editing based on their personal opinion. A warning should at least let the editor better understand how Misplaced Pages works and encourage them to behave better in future disputes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Besides the edit warring and personal attacks, User:Nbro has also been deleting others' comments from Talk:Music to Be Murdered By. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kavin Mudaliar reported by User:Luigi Boy (Result: )

Page: Mudaliar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kavin Mudaliar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937245007 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
2. 08:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 936500314 by Mr.Sarcastic (talk)"
3. 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 934382280 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
4. 20:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933742994 by Luigi Boy (talk)"
5. 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933835769 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
6. 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 933542170 by Xenani (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been warned several times. He's trying to push his view resp. adding synthesised OR. On the talk page there's a discussion ongoing, however, it doesn't seem to be really helpful to set out the problem. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bones Jones reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: No violation)

Page

White phosphorus munitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bones Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937334524 by MrBill3 (talk) No, there's no consensus to ADD this information, the other user is currently arguing why it should be here. Until they have made their case, it should not be here."
2. 07:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 05:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "We don't need all this excessive detail and random people who don't matter saying things"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on White phosphorus munitions. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Recent mass reversion */ mass revert undone, discuss here step by step or get consensus"
2. 11:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Recent mass reversion */ cmt/r"

Comments:

• I'm not entirely sure how making exactly three reverts counts as a 3RR violation. Bones Jones (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bones Jones, Nor am I. More than 3 reverts is a 3RR violation, MrBill3. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I withdraw this report, as constructive dialog is occurring on talk page and a fourth revert did not occur. MrBill3 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  MrBill3, In the future, i'm pretty sure it's best to report when an actual violation has occurred instead of bringing it here preemptively. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  point made Moonythedwarf, of note the article is subject to arbitration 1RR restrictions, so both myself and Bones Jones probably actually violated edit warring policy. MrBill3 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  MrBill3, :ohno:

  Well, Good luck. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 18:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Talk page edit notice is not good enough, as the Arbitration Committee recently clarified — there needs to be a mainspace 1RR edit notice (also the awareness criteria need to be satisfied). I have now done so as well as applying extended confirmed protection to the article. So from now on, it is subject to 1RR. I also note that, per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version should remain in place while a dispute remains unresolved. El_C 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ratherous reported by User:Jabo-er (Result: )

Page: 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ratherous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (I skipped this part because the article is being heavily edited)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user keeps on reverting my edit to use a more appropriate map on the article concerning the ongoing epidemic. I have given my arguments on the talk page and even requested for Rfc. However this user has kept on reverting and has given no counterargument (or any argument at all).--Jabo-er (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:JamesAndersoon reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)

Page

Anna Blinkova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JamesAndersoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937491343 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
2. 10:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937489149 by Tomcat7 (talk)"
3. 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937423148 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
4. 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937414553 by Wolbo (talk)"
5. 21:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 937406309 by Wolbo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */ new section"
2. 20:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
3. 22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
4. 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ivana Jorović. (TW)"
5. 23:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) "/* Please stop with the non-guideline charts */"
6. 10:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Anna Blinkova. (TW)"
7. 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Anna Blinkova. (TW)"
8. 10:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC) "/* January 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tried on JamesAndersoon's talk page, tried in summaries, brought up one 50/50 item at Tennis project talk page... no response and he never leaves a summary of his edits. We have Guideline charts and he's ignoring them. If something might be changed he needs to bring it to the Project's attention and discuss instead of a forcing the issue. We tried but it is now out of hand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So you posted here, when I reply to your comments on my talk page? Why you don't respond there, instead of going here? Intresting ... probably cuz you don't have answers.

Just go to Anna Blinkova's page and you will see how much good stuff I made there, but you rather want to do that. For everyone to know, that this guy ignore others mistake, but prefer to watch what I do. Cheers.

Talking about not responding in summary, you probably forget how I have some problems with other users, protecting guidliness, and you don't say even a singles word. That's the reason why I don't respond now, cuz knowing how he behave in the past, it was pointless to tell him something. And yeah, this guy is okay with that that so many career statistic's page stay on only one source??? Ok ...

We crossed in the mail on your talk page response as I was busy writing here when you were posting there. And what you posted in reply doesn't help at all. And I don't watch what you specifically do but I have thousands of pages on my watchlist. I asked you to stop so many times, as have others, but nothing from you. I'm leaving it for administrators now as I'm getting tired trying to fix all the bad charts and bad sources... again as others have pointed out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If you were tell it to anyone that do something against guidliness, I will listen you just like I did it before, but cuz you made fool of me, always changing your mind, sometimes you do this good, sometimes not, but for other is ok, i'm forced to do that. But don't worry, they will block me cuz you know the best, but you don't want to show that, and you don't want to use "force" on other users that are against guidliness. Ofcourse, you will let it to administrators, cuz you don't answers for questions that i ask you. And you almost never did. Than ask yourself why I behave like this to you. JamesAndersson (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And one more thing, he reverted my collapsible legend-tables, but not on Ivana Jorovic's page, cuz there I don't made that change. It was made by another user a year ago, that now join Fyunck on these (un)realiable sources. So fyunck don't want to made change on Ivana's page, cuz they are now together against my edits. JamesAndersson (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The reverts by JamesAndersoon are a clear violation of WP:3RR, particularly, but not limited to, the Anna Blinkova article. He also gave no explanation for the reverts. And when finally he does respond edits like show a clear battleground mentality. And personal attacks like are simply not acceptable.--Wolbo (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Germanic peoples (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Andrew Lancaster and i disagree on what the main topic of Germanic peoples should be. This has resulted in controversy.

Last week Andrew Lancaster flagrantly broke the 3RR rule, and received a warning from Fram (i received one too). The article Germani was subsequently protected.

Andrew Lancaster (and i) then resumed edit warring at Germanic peoples. Dougweller then protected Germanic peoples, and warned Andrew Lancaster (and me) that additional edit warring might result in a block.

Two days ago i spent some time cleaning up the article Germania, while adding additional sources and content. Andrew Lancaster then followed me to the Germania article, and resumed edit warring by completely distorting key content that i added. I then contacted Dougweller about Andrew Lancaster's continued edit warring, but Dougweller is to busy to look into the issue and adviced me to take it to a noticeboard.

Today i started an RfC at Talk:Germanic peoples to gain community input on what the main topic of the article Germanic peoples should be. Andrew Lancaster has now extended the edit warring to Talk:Germanic peoples itself by removing my RfC. This makes it impossible to reach a consensus on the issue which has resulted in this controversy. Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is not the correct venue for the complaint. There is no edit-warring at the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring