October 2025
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Almohad Caliphate, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Dont worry, I just found another source which says specifically that the Lisan al gharbi was the official language of the almohads. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ait Mzal. 
Note: this is the second time that you misrepresent the sources and refuse to provide quotations when challenged (see Talk:Ait_Mzal#Failed_verification and Talk:Abd_al-Mu'min#October_2025). M.Bitton (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are you for real? I told you I will do it when I have the time for it. Stop harrassing me. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- You didnt fill up the dispute resolution then I will do that whenever I feel like it Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ait Mzal. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. M.Bitton (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is not an attack, you are a team that is more than obvious, I am a single person I do not have the time for everything. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- "I will do it when I have time for it, this is not my work and unlike you I do not have a team." is this an attack? Really? Where is the attack? Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ait Mzal. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ait Mzal. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Carlos_Hernández_Cabrera reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: ). Thank you. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 17:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I dont understand why you report me when its them who are vandalising and edit warring, I tried so many times to reach consensus but they ignore the talk page and just continue reverting edits. Its also them who broke the three revert rule. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Block extended
A partial block is placed when disruption is limited to one article or area of the encyclopedia. Since being partially blocked, you have continued to edit war and display WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, including starting a baseless SPI, across the project. As such, I've modified the block to site wide. You've blanked previous block notices, so I won't bother leaving a new one; you can find the instructions to appeal in your talk age history and at WP:GAB.-- Ponyobons mots 17:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see unfair that I didnt have the opportunity to even give my version of what happened. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Carlos Hernández Cabrera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Hello, this days I have been dealing with the next users: @M.Bitton @Skitash They have monopolized plenty of pages regarding the history of North Africa, they have been reverting my edits many times without reasons, I have been compliant with everything they asked, adding the quotations and sources when they requested it, but instead of finally reaching consensus, they just proceed to ignore me and keeping reverting edits. I believe these behaviours are harmful for the community and I do not get why its me that its banned when its them who broke the three revert rule and vandalised the Tekna article, I also suspect this to be a case of socketpuppetry since they take turns to revert edits or they back each other to make impossible reaching a consensus. I feel that I should be unbanned since everything I did is from the good faith.
Decline reason:
Hard to see good faith given the number of warnings you received. In any case, the actions of others aren't relevant here, only your own actions. See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an unblock request appropriately. Yamla (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
October 2025
Carlos Hernández Cabrera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I would like to request reconsideration of my block for edit warring . I acknowledge that I made a mistake by engaging in an edit war, even though my intention was to improve the articles using reliable academic sources. I now understand that, regardless of how strongly I believe my edits are well-sourced, reverting/editing repeatedly is never appropriate and that I should have sought administrative resolution assistance instead. My edits were made in good faith, with historical accuracy and neutrality, I also provided all the quotations and sources that I was requested for, and tried to reach consensus via talking page/dispute resolution multiple times. But I recognize that the way I handled disagreement was not constructive, since I have been frustrated due to my work in the articles Ait Mzal, Almohad Caliphate and Tekna have been reverted without a proper reason and the attempts of reaching an agreement were futile. But still, I should not had let my frustration handle the situation. I kindly ask to be unblocked so that I can return to contributing productively to Wikipedia. Also I would like to ask what is recommended to do in a situation like this so I can understand better the functioning of the platform. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- In response to your query, you should read WP:Dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
| Duplicate unblock request |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Carlos Hernández Cabrera (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI) Request reason: I was banned for sockpuppeting, but I have never done that. First accussation: Some kind of Almohad POV-pushing at Talk:Almohad Caliphate#Masmuda aristocracy. The second account has only ever made one edit, which is to support the first account in that talk page dispute. Toadspike [Talk] 14:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC) - I am not related to that user, someone supporting my point of view does not mean that I am sockpuppeting. Second accussation: I've been wondering about this one too. Note also that this user has also opened a frivolous SPI against several editors here, which leads me to suspect they're familiar with SPIs due to past experience. That said, this is a topic that has attracted various socks and SPAs in the past, so it may be hard to pin down the right candidate, and it's possible that we're dealing with off-Wiki forums that encourage meatpuppetry on the topic. - Yes I did open a SPI investigation against other users who I believe they are socketpuppeting, since these users act all toghether backing each other to monopolize different pages, by blocking consensus and taking turns to revert edits to not break the three revert rule (the same people that reported me). The fact that I opened a SPI investigation does not mean I am sockpuppeting. Toadspike may have already looked into this and perhaps they're also stale, but is it possible for CU to also check this against the socks of VICTOHH1 (archive here) and بوكوس (archive here)? Both somewhat similar LTAs focused on Almohad history and, in VICTOHH1's case, who used Spanish-looking usernames before. R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Third accussation: PS: courtesy ping to M.Bitton, in case they have other thoughts on a possible sockmaster. and also to make them aware of the bogus SPI (see my comment above), though I predict it will go nowhere.(Nevermind, it's already been closed accordingly.) R Prazeres (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC) @PhilKnight: While I have no idea whose sock Carlos Hernández Cabrera is, there is no doubt in my mind that they are socking: in this edit (less than 24 hours after "joining the project"), they said I was told that you M.Bitton has been here deleting edits since 2014. Also, for what it's worth, Kozioğlu did previously create a Spanish username (Alfredo_de_Garcia), just like "Carlos Hernández Cabrera". -About the "they said I was told that you M.Bitton has been here deleting edits since 2014." The reality is that I just googled their name and found out in reddit that they have a bad reputation for monopolizing articles. I am a complete new user in wikipedia. Also having a spanish username is not a proof for anything I live in Spain what username you expect me to have? I have been banned for no reason, I did no sockpuppeting, I only have two wikipedia accounts, this one, and another one which I do not even use. I kindly ask for my block to be removed and the case to be reviewed. Decline reason: If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC) |
- Hello Carlos Hernandez Cabrera. Somehow you used the {{unblock}} template twice in the same edit. To make the system work properly you should only make one unblock request at a time. I have collapsed the second (redundant) unblock template but will wait for another admin to consider your first request. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Hi @Carlos Hernández Cabrera, after reading the link that Phil Knight provided, can you please explain how you'd approach the situation differently if it were to happen again?
- Blocks are only intended to prevent disruption, so it'd be really helpful to show that you're aware of how to act in future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- If I am not able to reach consensus via talk page and dispute resolution I would open a report in the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and if it still does not work, open a report in the Administrators Noticeboard. Or just disengage temporarily. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Ait Baamran
Hello, Carlos Hernández Cabrera. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ait Baamran, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Ait Baamran
Hello, Carlos Hernández Cabrera. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ait Baamran".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)