Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Mishradeepanshu027 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 1 month)

    [edit]

    Page: Ranbir Kapoor filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Mishradeepanshu027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238139369 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
    2. Revision as of 18:15, 30 July 2024
    3. Revision as of 18:36, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237625673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
    4. Revision as of 18:43, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237628498 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
    5. Revision as of 13:43, 1 August 2024 "Undid revision 1237733673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) do not act as a journalist so please do not change this I work in wikipedia as software developer, hence you will be banned forever @Krimuk2.0"
    6. Revision as of 10:12, 5 August 2024


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 09:34, 2 August 2024 "Warning: Edit warring on Ranbir Kapoor filmography"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) to 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Ranbir Kapoor filmography

    Comments: Slow burn edit warring by this disruptive trying to game the system. Fails to abide by WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline and doesn't seem to be interested in discussion / WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD when reverted. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried to threaten user User:Krimuk2.0 here, claiming to be a 'software developer' working for the 'wikipedia'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 month for edit warring and WP:THREATEN issues. @Mishradeepanshu027: even if you did in fact work in wikipedia as software developer as was claimed, attempting to weaponize that to intimidate others into allowing you to force a particular edit into an article is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Herplas reported by User:CFA (Result: Declined)

    [edit]

    Page: Onam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Herplas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) to 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238804988 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      2. 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238806724 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      3. 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238807417 by Fsrvb (talk) stop edit warring or you will be reported"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC) to 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238179782 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      2. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176965 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      3. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176687 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      4. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176029 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      5. 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238175600 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      6. 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238029143 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      7. 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238028528 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      8. 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238028209 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      9. 17:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238027228 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      10. 17:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238026859 by Fsrvb (talk)"
      11. 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238026729 by Fsrvb (talk) mass revert as per WP:NPOV"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Onam."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 19:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Onam "/* Onam and islam - small section */ new section"

    Comments:

    User is clearly aware of WP:3RR because they warned Fsrvb (the other war-er) of it. C F A 💬 02:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.30.193.7 reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: British princess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 82.30.193.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]
    5. [6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [8]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

    Comments:

    User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:NebY (Result: page semi-protected, put on 1RR under CTOPS)

    [edit]

    Page: Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: HouseplantHobbyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Staff and infrastructure issues */ This was before the police investigation and even the first arrest of Letby, it's not a recent doubt expressed."
    2. 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Are you accusing me of creating that section? Because, if you look, I didn't"
    3. 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper"
    4. 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove totally unreferenced section"
    5. 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove sentence referenced to a forum"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    On 29 July 2024, HouseplantHobbyist was blocked for one week block for edit-warring[10], following warnings on on 27 May 2024[11] and 19 July 2024[12], all for this same article, the only one they edit. They've returned today 6 August 2024, and in less than an hour undone editors' work by deleting existing content four times and also edit-warred to reinsert their own material[13]. NebY (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NebY, those aren't reverts, with the exception of this edit: [14]. So, I've done one revert. Those other edits are edits of existing long-term content, some of which has been there for weeks, they're not reversions of recent edits. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the warning you issued[15] says and per WP:3RR: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. On your return today from being blocked, with the edits listed above you deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not true, NebY:

    • This removal I made today: [16], was of content you first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[17].
    • Secondly, the content that I removed here: [18] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [19], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirdly, this removal of content [20] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
    • Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits you've listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [21]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [22]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from your list [23] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [24]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [25]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those removals of content were also manifestly needed on a BLP, such as this edit which removed content referenced only to a random forum/blog!: [26]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read what I said above, or even Sirfurboy's own acknowledgement below that my edits did not breach 3RR? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So if you're defining reversions as just removal of any existing content, you are also edit warring, as on 4 August you did these three reversions within only 20 minutes, then just after the 24 hour limit was up you did a fourth the next day:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]

    HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Although there is not a technical 3RR breach yet today (because your edits were done in two uninterrupted sequences) they are reverts. This [31] reverts content another editor added today. As is this [32]. This [33] reverts to your text from before you were blocked that you added here [34] and when I took it out just now, you immediately reverted it back in. [35] You are aware of WP:ONUS but I reminded you of that on your talk page and asked you to self revert. You did not, but continued removing content (which are all reverts) e.g. [36]. There are others in there. You made a revert to the lead sentence that is good, but is still a revert.
    Now Neby's edits you dredge up also count as a single revert for purposes of the 3RR rule. It is not edit warring, it is a sequence of edits. And that would be true here too - there would be technically two edit-sequence reverts, but the reason Neby will have brought this here is because your very first action after a block for edit warring was to rush through the article - the only article you edit - reverting all the material back to the way you had it before your block, without using the talk page - and immediately reverting your material back in again after it was challenged, without any thought of talk discussion. I think there is a prima-facie NOTHERE case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This removal I made yesterday: [37], was of content first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[38].
    • Secondly, the content that I removed here: [39] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [40], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirdly, this removal of content [41] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
    • Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [42]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [43]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from the list [44] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [45]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [46]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accept that my edits today do not breach 3RR. In which case, a complaint alleging NOTHERE should be made through the appropriate channels, not on the 3RR noticeboard. You can’t just come on here and acknowledge that the editor is not in breach of the issue the noticeboard exists for, but while you’re here state your hopes that they get blocked for something completely different. And may I remind you Sirfurboy that you previously unsuccessfully reported me here for edit warring and were instead rightly told that you yourself were edit warring and need to stop: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484#User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't comment on that previous case because I was busy. But you will notice that what you called my reverts 3,4 and 5 were, in fact, a single run of 3 edits. They had the effect of changing material, some of which you had put in there, so technically a revert, yes. 6 was not even a revert. So you see that an admin can still determine there is edit warring even when there is no 3RR breach? You were over 3RR there. Maybe not the wisest thing to draw attention to it. And a reminder: I did not report you here in this report. I asked you to self revert in the hope you would avoid a referral here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined After reviewing the above discussion and the most recent back-and-forth on the talk page (and we do mean back … and … forth), I have decided that the article and its editors would be best served not so much by another full protection but by 1RR and the indefinite semi-protection the talk page already indicated it was under. I will be logging this at CTOPS as well. Daniel Case (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarksmanRifle reported by User:Wburrow (Result: Blocked 2 weeks; subsequently indefinitely blocked as a sock)

    [edit]

    Page: 2026 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: MarksmanRifle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk): Pot kettle black"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) to 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk)"
      2. 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on 2026 FIFA World Cup."
    2. 18:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Also specifically warned about violating 3RR on 3 Aug Wburrow (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Celjski Grad reported by User:അദ്വൈതൻ (Result: Reporter blocked 72h)

    [edit]

    Page:2018 Kerala floods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

    User being reported: Celjski Grad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the User's reverts

    1. Revision as of 15:34, 6 August 2024 [52],
    2. Revision as of 17:00, 6 August 2024[53],
    3. Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2024 [54]
    4. Latest revision as of 22:27, 6 August 2024[55]

    These reverts are edit warring over style before the user's third reverting(as listed above) I have notified the user for disruptive editing at user's talk page here Revision as of 20:01, 6 August 2024 [56] Also at the article's talk page under the section which the user started, I have explained the valid cause as the following before the user's third revert WP:MOS specifically states

    Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. … Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.[c] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted

    see the MOS for the respective footnotes. The entire article uses million in parenthesis. Considering that fact and the WP:MOS guidelines I am again reverting to match the consistency of this article. as seen here Revision as of 19:57, 6 August 2024[57]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:(after user's third revert) [58]


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

    അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff one is not a revert, it is my initial change. The remaining three are in response to your reverts while the issue is undergoing discussion on the talk page and pending WP:3O. Celjski Grad (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celjski Grad: Arguably in this instance your first edit was a revert from the state of the article in June when അദ്വൈതൻ changed it to lakh. Putting that aside for the moment, a third opinion has since been provided by IOHANNVSVERVS. In addition all other editors who've commented have supported the "million" position. അദ്വൈതൻ, it seems to me that you are refusing to abide by consensus. I am unwilling to block Celjski Grad in this scenario. I am more inclined to block you for edit-warring against consensus. Please respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23 user named Celjski Grad
    sought third opinion at its platform on Revision as of 22:25, 6 August 2024 [60] and the opinion came at Revision as of 22:26, 6 August 2024[61] at the article's talk page all after Celjski Grad made celjski's third revert(as I listed above). അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @അദ്വൈതൻ: I'm aware of that. I'm asking you if you're willing to abide by the consensus of using million?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23 this[62] is the version of the article before the user Celjski Grad made changes. There it is provided as About ten lakh (a million) million within parenthesis concurring with MOS:INDIA. MOS:RETAIN says When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
    What exception do exist to change ten lakh (a million) to a million when this article has strong national ties to Kerala a state within India that uses Indian Numbering System? What ambiguity exists when the Western numbering system is provided in parenthesis? So consensus should have been obtained prior to changes by user Celjski Grad, how does the onus of obtaining consensus fall on me?
    As Wikipedia editor, I am supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
    അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Holydiver82 reported by User:Nemov (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

    Comments:

    Editor has been warned to stop edit warring and find consensus but continues to make contentious edits. Nemov (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    trying to figure out how adamstom97 can make multiple reverts of edits based on no consensus but he is not the one edit warring. apparently he did not like his WP:OR being removed
    n Holydiver82 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: Holydiver has reverted only 3x in the last 24 hours; the other revert you listed was on August 5. And I think Holydiver has a point about Adamstom.97. Although they too have not violated 3RR, they have been edit-warring with multiple users over the last several days and rather combative on the Talk page in a discussion with you and another editor who bowed out because they didn't like Adamstom's insistence on being correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, I even went out of my way to simply change the wording based on the sourced article rather then just revert back to nothing. but Adamstom.97 has basically claimed ownership of the article and if you look at the recent edits pretty much reverts any edit he does not do. also the Nemov even posted in the talk page about the problem with Adamstom.97 taking ownership of the article and not looking for any consensus. the page in question has most often been reverted by Adamstom.97 who refuses to allow any other editors to contribute to the page, as you said some editors just announcing they are leaving rather then fight with him Holydiver82 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23I warned the user over a month ago and the reverted edits go beyond 48 hours on a issue that's currently under discussion. They keep adding back anyway. Nemov (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the section in question was only added on 8/5. how could you have warned me a month ago about edits the have been made within the last 2 days. again trying to figure out why you have no problem with Adamstom.97 constant reverts, edit warring, and ownership of the article Holydiver82 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.161.49.73 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: Koenigsegg Jesko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 75.161.49.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Jesko Absolut */"
      2. 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Performance */"
    2. 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Koenigsegg Jesko."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Ongoing vandalism to this article by a user under various IP addresses. Has been reverted and warned by multiple editors, but continues the disruptive behavior. Bahooka (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1239216013"