- I am not going to say "it is other way around", but I believe, whether it is customary or not I really don't know, that I can make strong case in my own defense by stating how things are from my perspective. Both of these subsection on my Talk-page are important for scrutiny: this (1) and this (2). I started contributing to Hrvatinić and related Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić article in fall of 2018, in hope to develop both from stub/start to at least C. I engaged in conversation (sometimes edit-summary would be sufficient) and left massages on both articles talk pages when required (the Hrvatinić article Talk page is problematic because failed undo of unwarranted move without discussion by User:Gryffindor, it's trapped on second undo of the double-redirect). The editor, who at one point clearly explained to me how he perceiving edit-war as if it's a "pissing contest", and who now filed this report, appeared only week or so ago, and without adding one punctuation mark in either of these texts, he simply started reverting most of my work in this second article, removing it complete with new additional and very much needed reliable sources, adequately referenced for the change. Most important thing here is that he was reverting article to old version of text based on misinterpretation of source, and worse, to a state in which important bits of text are literally unsupported by reference, and categories unsupported by such text. Additional reliable sources were dismissed and removed with all the edits in one sweep move, with, at that point, only some complaints and accusations in edit-summary. But obvious reason which is revealed later is that he perceived my edits only as a removal of bogus and anachronistic ethnic labeling of editor Shokatz preference (it is medieval subject and person), which led him to put forth accusation of me "having agenda". Another important thing is that his claim how I refused to discuss issues is completely and utterly disingenuous, which both articles' talk pages as well as my own, can testify to the fact. I was more than willing to resolve potential content dispute and, this is of utmost importance, in particularly problematic interpretation or misinterpretation of referenced sources. He never appeared on articles' talk pages, only appeared on my talk page, where dates should be taken into considerations too, with various accusations based on preconceived assumptions, labeling my replies as "gibberish", calling me to "drop the act", and after a week or so of torture, with uppercase threats in edit-summary, after which I was quite tired and disgruntled, so I left him this final massage in attempt to present him with an anguish he was putting me through for 10 long days, and hopefully close whole affair. He's response is - really something - after which(!) he proceeded to file this report. Both articles in question were neglected for 15 years, with miserable statistics, and with the subject that is obviously obscure and uninteresting for the wider community. Editor seem to relished that situation, because there was no other editor(s) to express their view over content and dispute, just like his comment on my request for page-protection which I filed yesterday - I guess he would prefer it unprotected. His very first edit, that can be considered contribution of material, happened yesterday, and it was inclusion of file in Hrvatinić article with rationale based on utter misinterpretation of source text, although editor never pasted a reference(!) they just expressed in edit-summary their interpretation of source from reference on another file, and this is important to note, it is a reference and a source which I added earlier to another file in that article, amazingly, one that editor struggled hard to remove. I removed the file, with clear explanations both in edit-summary and article Talk page, but that's not something he concerns himself with. Issue escalated much earlier, when I tried to do what he's done today here, but being completely inexperienced in these matters (edit-wars and process of resolutions) I made terrible mistake and made Arb-request, which was rightly dismissed, instead coming here. I also realized that one of us clearly breaking 3RR rule, but who is in breach I can't say because I am little bit baffled with a way 3RR guideline is utilized, so that's on admins to say. Yesterday I filed a request for page-protection in proper place to which he responded with a comment like this expressing his displeasure, maybe ? In more than 10 years I was never warned let alone sanctioned - it is reasonable to have some disputes over such long period, especially when having in mind that I am contributing majority of my edits on extremely contentious subjects in extremely contentious forum, which is Balkans. On the other side is the user who is obviously very well versed in sophisticated edit-warring, reverting and POV pushing, which is clear from both his Talk page and his edit-history. He was sanctioned on more than one occasion for such behavior across the years (which also means he didn't learn much in all that time between blocks and other disputes with other editor, except maybe how to wage edit-wars more efficiently and effectively). It is my believe that it's worth indicating that, just like in case of these two articles, all his troubling behavior stem from his deep sense of ethno-national identity (even editor's very username is ethnonym). Every revert, every edit-war he had, and any random edit that appear as non-problematic, is almost exclusively concerned with issue of ethnic labeling of his preference - whether it was pushing ethnic background on notability of some personality here, or naming bird with specific ethic prefix, or contentious issue of Krajina Serb-Croatia relations, or moving entire article based on his edit in which he changed surname of historical personality of one particular ethnicity, Korenić, into ijekavian, Korijenić, just to emphasize that it should be of another specific ethnicity, all the while being completely wrong.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)