Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
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. |
Page: List of programs broadcast by Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guguinho2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A Account was vandalizing the encyclopedia]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]
Comments:
Constantly disruptive editing the page. This is also a sockpuppet account who has vandalized before. [8] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet is back. [9] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArkadeepN21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 10:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"
- 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"
- 08:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
- 09:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC) on User talk:ArkadeepN21 "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
Comments:
The user keeps adding unnecessary flags to the table and as well as repetitive and forked content. Posted at RPPI, still no response. Vestrian24Bio 12:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Vestrian24Bio, that's because page protection isn't the solution to this problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Traian Băsescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mewulwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]
Comments:
User violated 3RR while repeatedly reverting sourced content stating that Traian Băsescu is the fourth President of Romania, seemingly out of personal preference rather than in accordance with reliable sources or MOS.
- Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Chris Adler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 137.239.200.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */This is Chris's youngest brother. The information is misleading, derogatory and incorrect."
- 20:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */Chris's liason position with habitat for humanity and HD ended on Feb 13 2024. Chris left to care for his youngest brother who had experienced bone marrow failure and his aging father. The arrest was due to his response to a scuffle at a local restaurant where his wife was pushed and Chris reacted. Assault charges were dropped. Please discontinue posting misleading and derogatory information. Thank you- family member."
- 20:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Updated relationship info. Family source."
- 20:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */Incorrect information. Chris left his role with habitat for humanity and HD in Feb of 2024 to care for his youngest brother who had bone marrow failure. The arrest was due to his reaction to his wife being pushed at a restaurant and his response. Assault charges were dropped. This info is direct family source. The repeated misinformation is inaccurate."
- Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) to 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */False info. Chris's liason position with habitat for humanity and home depot ended on Feb 13, 2024 when his youngest brother was diagnosed with bone marrow failure. Since that time Chris has been caring for him and his aging father in between working on Firstborne. This from a family source."
- 19:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added family/personal info from family source."
- 19:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Corrected grammar from previous family update."
- 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Added clarification of awards and timeline as per family contact with Chris."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Chris Adler."
- 20:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Chris Adler."
- 20:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Again, you can not use personal knowledge for a source. you'll be blocked altogether if you don't stop."
- 20:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Chris Adler."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Already partially blocked, but, as FlightTime and Binksternet have hopefully noticed since, part of the removal was in accordance with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Not all of it; the block is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm with the IP on this, they are removing BLP violations so can claim exemption via WP:3RRBLP - in particular see WP:BLPCRIME, unless I'm mistaken (always possible), policy states we don't use primary sources to cite criminal activity. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Swiss people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C7:90A8:EF01:58E8:7D64:1D00:B407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1294565866
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1295016013
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They've been invited to discuss the issue on the talk page, but they instead reverted again.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1295177823
Comments:
I don't think a block on the IP will be useful, given how often they switch, but pagep protection could be helpful. Nobody (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- "They've been invited to discuss the issue on the talk page" I'm feeling dense, the last edit on Talk:Swiss people was in August 2024. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote in this edit summary: "It's not a photomontage or a gallery of images, but an actual picture, so MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY shouldn't apply. If you disagree start a discussion on the talk page and stop edit warring" Their answer to that was in this edit summary: "Sill goes against mos:PEOPLEGALLE should not be illustrated of images of group members". To me this implied that they have no intention to discuss this and will just revert anyone that disagrees with them. Nobody (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so what makes this, this and this not edit warring? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I reverted because I believed their edits were against consensus and MOS and therefore disruptive. Should I have reverted three times? No, but in hindsight that's easy to say. Nobody (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so what makes this, this and this not edit warring? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote in this edit summary: "It's not a photomontage or a gallery of images, but an actual picture, so MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY shouldn't apply. If you disagree start a discussion on the talk page and stop edit warring" Their answer to that was in this edit summary: "Sill goes against mos:PEOPLEGALLE should not be illustrated of images of group members". To me this implied that they have no intention to discuss this and will just revert anyone that disagrees with them. Nobody (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, since the reverting has stopped on both sides for now, I'm going to mark this as 
Stale, and just to remind everyone to take a step back before hitting that revert button. I admit, sometimes easier said than done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, then I'll go start a discussion on the talk page, but if that doesn't get any opposing replies, I will revert again, Ritchie333. Nobody (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- It might also be worth seeing if the IP is a sock, given previous discussions on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Keir Starmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mstevenskeane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [22]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]
Comments:
User has engaged on talk page but not gained consensus. Repeatedly inserting statement into lead that "during his tenure as the head of the CPS he "chose, controversially, not to prosecute" the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandel."
(sic). A user made a semi-protected edit request[29] pointing out that this reads as if Starmer made the decision personally, which the citation does not support. Mstevenskeane has repeated reinserted this inform before even engaging on the talk page, and then engaging but not seeking consensus. I think this may be a case of WP:CIR, after this response:[30]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chaptagai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295226312 by MrOllie (talk) I have support from other editors, see discussion page. Stop edit warring."
- 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295225972 by Slatersteven (talk) You are the one who is edit warring by reverting to a completely unacceptable and biased version that violates multiple WP principles. Stop."
- 13:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295222599 by Slatersteven (talk) Stop reverting to a blatantly biased version that doesn't even mention that there is a debate and conflicting studies. If you don't like my version, amend it or propose your own."
- 12:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295216761 by MrOllie (talk) Changes reinstated. Old version is unacceptable because it misrepresented the evidence and completely ignored the ongoing scientific debate."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:18, 12 June 2025(UTC) "June 2025"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 13:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sexual effects */ Reply"
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Gender-related disputes or controversies sanctions also apply in this area, and editor is aware of them. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Was just typing up a report myself. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- MrOllie I've made this an arb enforced block as they are aware of the sanctions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: [[31]]
User being reported: [[32]]
Previous version reverted to: [[33]]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
Comments:
Seems like the account is a single serving IP editing and undoing only the particular article and specifically the Controversies section Bly000 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was slightly malformed, but I was able to review it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
User:190.22.221.31 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: IP blocked 3 months for transphobic slur)
[edit]Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.22.221.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "No, other editors reverted because I'm an IP editor, not because they disagree, why? Because they didn't write any argument in the reversions, and even vandalism my talk page, they harassme only because I'm a IP editor."
- 02:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Didn't write any argument to mantain the old version."
- 02:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Another bot abusing his power as registered account, again didn't write any argument to mantain the old version."
- 02:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC) ""Admins" Didn't write any argument to mantain the old version, and only changed beacuse bots controlled by registered editors do."
- 02:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Don't argument why maintain the old version, don't contribute to vandalism."
- 01:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295146619 by MrOllie (talk)"
- 00:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "No sense give entity of something who didn't have."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See [41]
Comments:
- May just be best to semi the page (suggest one year), since this new Trump appointee is likely to be the locus of further disruption. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Haha, better suppress the edition than give arguments, what a joke. 190.22.221.31 (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I opened a discussion on Talk:Martin Kulldorff and notified the IP on their talk page. If they can tone down their attitude and discuss civilly there, I advocate we give them a chance before banning them for 3 revert violation. Ignorance of the rules is an excuse for breaking them in my opinion, and the new editor might be able to be converted given time. If an admin disagrees, I won't argue. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: they have continued edit-warring. Please do not encourage this. Bon courage (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to the edit warring, they used a transphobic slur (diff). Needs a block ASAP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 3 months. For a logged in user this would be indef for a blatant transphobic slur against another editor of this nature, but since this is an IP there might be other potential editors sharing the same IP. — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
User being reported: Kaiseredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring warning : [[42]]
Diffs on recent edit warrings/4rr:
Diffs on previous edit warring's:
On list of wars involving Bulgaria:
Bulgaria national football team:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[59]], [[60]]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[61]]
Comments:
This all happened in the last few days, including 4rr in less than a 3 Hours span on this page [[62]], not to mention several other pages where Kaiseredit is edit warring for few days now. Kaiseredit doesn't react to talk page or doesn't even bother to answer. Nor do they present any wp:rs to their additions. This is the obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I do not know how to reply to talk pages, I have not used this prior, sorry about that. I am not here to do harm, all my work has been a contribution, look it over. Kaiseredit (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- You replied to at least one post there in May [[63]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- And you are still, at it [[64]], edit warring when under a report is really, really silly. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For edit warring across multiple articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Sloughi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295380468
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295319179
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295391159
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295395049
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295394910
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sloughi&oldid=1295394888
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295397244
Comments:
Skitash first reverted another user's edit about alternative names for the Sloughi breed. I then made a compromise edit suggesting all alternative names be placed in a note. Skitash reverted me, and I warned them and invited them to the talk page. They reverted me again afterward. I'm avoiding further reverts and requesting admin review.
- I've only made three reverts within 24 hours, so I have not violated WP:3RR. By stating "Do not revert again until issue is resolved in the talk page of the topic," ElijahUHC seems to misunderstand WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Per these policies, the burden of achieving consensus lies with the editor making the change, not with those maintaining the stable version of the article, which had been in place for several years. I'd also like to note this editor's constant WP:FORUMSHOPPING against me and other editors, which is becoming quite disruptive.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Skitash (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just a reminder: WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about raising the same issue in multiple venues. This thread concerns a completely different matter and article. Referring to various past noticeboards involving you or me is odd, especially when those were about unrelated issues. Our involvement in multiple discussions doesn’t mean they’re all connected.
- I could also point to past reports you’ve made about me and call that forum shopping-but they aren't, and I won’t, because that’s not what this is about. This thread focuses on one specific issue. If you believe it extends beyond possible edit warring, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate venue.
- Given my past interactions with @M.Bitton-who I assume is the “other editor” being referenced-I’m somewhat concerned about the neutrality of their involvement here. I’m not sure how they came across this discussion.[74] [75] ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I’m not accusing either user of collaboration. I’m only noting that the other user "note" may be biased due to past friction with me, which he acknowledged earlier on a different talk page as i cited earlier. ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Jake Wartenberg: Hello, just wanted to bring your attention back to this discussion. You previously blocked ElijahUHC indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE, and later unblocked them under the condition that they avoid Morocco-related articles and demonstrate constructive editing in a different topic area, which they agreed to. However, after being unblocked, they disappeared entirely, and upon returning, immediately resumed the same POV editing on Morocco-related articles.[76][77][78] They have not made any constructive contributions elsewhere, and have only been edit warring and forum shopping since. Thanks. Skitash (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Note: a passing IP removed content without a valid reason and was rightfully reverted. This should have been the end of it, but no, the OP (who has been after Skitash for a while) had to to take it further; first by offering a false compromise
(while deleting the Arabic name without even an explanation, let alone a valid reason), and then, lo and behold, rushing to yet another venue to try to get Skitash blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As seems clear from the discussion, this is a bad-faith report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uniquesuprise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "This still does not address the contradiction nor does it address the misconception."
- 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295271595 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
- 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295270675 by Bon courage (talk)"
- 19:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Contradictory statement."
- 16:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295409398 by Bon courage (talk) Section is inaccurate and is currently in dispute resolution." (after they replied to this report)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Circumcision."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025 */ Reply"
Comments:
User has stated that "The previous reply is the last on this matter.", so it seems they do not plan to discuss on the talk page any longer. They are also aware of the contentious topics restrictions on the topic. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- This page should be systematically review for violations of POV and locked with full protection. I and other editors have been trying to add more accurate and up to date information to for a consensus on this topic. The page has a long history of misinformation including sources who have specific scientific articles condemning there research. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I am referring specificity to this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00631-y " Despite our efforts to provide a reasoned and balanced assessment of current evidence [2], they continue to rely heavily on self-cited and previously discredited studies, and repeatedly make inaccurate assessments of the quality of available evidence, based on entrenched and partisan opinion " Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- This reply is emblematic of the problems that make engaging with this editor frustrating and unproductive:
- They have never cited that source at talk, so it's unclear what relevance it has to the dispute that led to their 5+ reverts
- It's a commentary article, not MEDRS, so we wouldn't use it to support any medical content
- They've continued to edit war while responding here
- Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- 1. I have cited multiple source other editors have cited multiple sources.
- 2. It is not a commentary article it a systematic review of self cited research resulting it misinformation.
- 3. I am requesting the page be fully locked and the cited sources and materials be reviewed with the most up to date information be used to write the article.
- There is a serious POV issue with the article. Primarily with the cited sources and research being conducted as voluntary medical male circumcision while not making this clear distinction between neonatal circumcision.
- Finally the word uncircumcised should not be used. The correct term used in medical literature is intact and is listed as so in the cited articles Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- This reply is emblematic of the problems that make engaging with this editor frustrating and unproductive:
- I am referring specificity to this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00631-y " Despite our efforts to provide a reasoned and balanced assessment of current evidence [2], they continue to rely heavily on self-cited and previously discredited studies, and repeatedly make inaccurate assessments of the quality of available evidence, based on entrenched and partisan opinion " Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
And still at it [[79]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked from the article Circumcision for a week. Use the talk page to gain consensus. It's particularly disruptive to continue edit warring after responding to this report. If edit warring continues after this block expires, it will be upgraded to site-wide and indefinite length. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- How can there be consensus when these editors are push a coordinated POV Uniquesuprise (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)