When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understandWP: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.
Violations of other restrictions, likeWP: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 abehavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from abold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregiouspoint of view edits and other good-faith changesdo 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. Seehere for exemptions.
19:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC) "Please stop monopolizing the article. All the changes come with their source, gathering together to edit war wont help. If you disagree with my changes make your point in the talk page."
19:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC) "Please refrain from edit warring and deleting sourced content. I already provided you with the sources asked. The own article you sent me says that you should never revert a change without a proper explanation. There is no consensus to be reached, you asked me for sources to make a change and I provided them. Enough"
15:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC) "The source quotes Al Marrakushi about what Abd lmumin said about the Koumiya tribe: "Je ne suis pas de cette tribu mais de celle des Qays 'Aylân. Je suis né dans cette tribu et y ai grandi" in english: "I am not from this tribe but from that of the Qays 'Aylân. I was born in this tribe and grew up there.". This addition deepens the public's understanding of Abd Imumin and his relationship with the Koumiya tribe."
Thanks for reminding me of their aspersions that go as far back as the day they joined the project (June). In fact, they accused me of being biased in their third ever comment, then, in their fourth, they saidI was told that you M.Bitton has been here deleting edits since 2014 (which is a clear indication of sockpuppetry).M.Bitton (talk)20:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of24 hours I have further availed myself of the multi-blocking capability to block them from the page for two weeks.Daniel Case (talk)20:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Daniel Case I don't know if this is the place to post this here but this accounttook part in the engoing conversation in Almohad Caliphate article's TP less than an hour after its creation. Carlos' laterreply to me was strikingliy similiar to the new account's reply. BestNourerrahmane (talk)20:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[17] (reverted),[18] (reverted),[19] (reverted),[20],[21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[22]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[23]
Comments: The user, who has already beenblocked recently for edit warring on an article about a similar topic (phonology), insists on acting as if they own the articles they edit. Added to this is the fact that they ignore reliable sources cited in the article and, by engaging in original research, modify a technical term from at least two of them, as if claiming to know more thanAryon Rodrigues, one of the greatest linguist of Brazilian Indigenous languages. Moreover, the useradmits to not speaking the language in which the very sources they use are written. Because of this, for example, the phonology of Kipeá wasfactually incorrect for years! Their attitude is intransigent; they have already been warned, and judging by the block log, this behavior is unfortunately not new and seems to be the account's modus operandi: trying to win by exhaustion, assuming they won't be reported here.Yacàwotçã (talk)07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yacàwotçã The first two shouldn’t even count, because we just went over the updated source (from 2012) and since then, I have accepted it.
But yet you are still incredibly stubborn on the format of the charts. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. Because of the format does not even need to match the exact same one in the publication source, and that is a fact. And yet you are that insistent on claiming that I am “edit-warring” over a format that is just plain sloppy and difficult for users to read. I rest my case.Fdom5997 (talk)14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected (full) for 3 days. Honestly I can't tell if this dispute is still underway. Leave me a note on my talk page if you both have consensus to lift the protection earlier. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated on your talk page, that's not a phoneme, but rather a phone. Adding it to the phoneme table is adding a factual error. The vowel table on both sources are clearhere andhere.Yacàwotçã (talk)05:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either 1) you are incapable of realizing that it is a table of phonemes that establishminimal pairs (in which case it would be a matter ofWP:COMPETENCE), or 2) you have already realized that you made a mistake and are now trying to control the damage with one flimsy excuse after another (in which case it would be a matter ofWP:DROPTHESTICK). The thesis mentions dozens of realizations (phones) of the vowel phonemes, and you only added one of them (and in the phoneme table), turning the article into something bad.
Calling me “ignorant” and saying I am “turning the article into something horrendous” is just completely ad-hominem and hyperbolic. You need to learn to be open-minded and tone down your incredibly opinionated takes. You are not contributing anything useful to the conversation by slandering me like this.Fdom5997 (talk)12:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected (full) for 1 week. My bad. I thought I had protected it earlier but apparently failed to hit the button after setting up the protection. Subsequent warring will result in blocks on all parties. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)16:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does support the second half of the statement, the part it follows. The first half did have a ref, but not a good one, and it was removed in May. The "citation needed" template is supposed to be a prompt for people to go looking for one, not a "remove me" flag. Sumanuil.(talk to me)22:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Insanityclown1: I fully protected the article which is what I did in April 2024 concerning the same issue (that is, I think the edit warring is again over the "is/was" wording question). A very quick did not show "an RfC back in June". Please link to it.Johnuniq (talk)05:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policyWP:LEVELSOFCON is clear. RfCs are a higher level of consensus than local talk page discussions. RfCs have wide community notifications, and in this case significant participation, You don't overturn an RfC like that based on local talk discussions, much less when there are objections to it. --GreenC06:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfCTalk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore)/Archive_2 says to use "is" in the lead sentence. The article currently says "was". There were some talk page discussions recently about it, multiple editors disagreed with overturning the RfC. And there was also no notification of previous RfC participants. The article is clearly pushing a POV contrary to established formal consensus, and attempts to add an NPOV tags have been forcefully disrupted. --GreenC05:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far. Ping participants from the RfC and it will go up. Nobody likes their !vote to be unilaterally "rejected" without knowledge of consent. --GreenC06:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1318913694 byInexpiable (talk) Still not on the current list. Source linked only cites "Persons Appearing on the List More Than Once" with Cindy Rodriguez Singh Dates: 07/01/25 - 08/21/25. 8/21/25 (indicating that's when she stopped appearing on the list) was 2 months ago."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[29]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[30]
Comments: Reverting is outside 24 hour period, but as perWP:3RR " Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, ".LibStar (talk)22:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made four reverts in four days (not "just outside 24 hours") and I don't have intentions of making any further. However, the issue I have is that I have not received any valid explanation as to why the content should not be there. Let'srun merely said "UNDUE" and never gave any further explanation, while LibStar's explanations are "I object", "redirect is a redirect not a merge", and "there is no consensus to include this", as well as messages on my talk page giving me a definition of what "merge" means and that a warning is "fully justified" in response to my asking for a reason.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, I am closing this without action (and yes, when I glanced at the history quickly I thought it was 4 reverts in 24 hours and 2 minutes as well!).Black Kite (talk)23:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "UNDUE" can be a valid reason, but I have not received any explanation as towhy it is undue. Meanwhile, things like "this is not a merge", "I object", and pasting the definition of a merge on my talkpage are not helpful to figuring out whether the text should be included.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, they really don't have to until a discussion seeking consensus is started, at which point they should explain in further detail their opposition. Edit summaries aren't the place to go into that type of detail. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)23:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion opened on my talk page, but the only explanations I received there were that"A merge or merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page" and that "[warning you] is fully justified" in response to my replies about the reasoning. Also, while its true I only just opened the Zaire discussion about 30 minutes ago, its kinda annoying that LibStar's edits since then are all proposing for deletion more Olympians, part of a long-standing pattern of immediately nominating for deletion Olympians after I try to discuss things with him or demonstrate that other PRODs are wrong (I can show evidence for this if you like).BeanieFan11 (talk)23:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that@LibStar: has been short and terse with their own words. I do get a feeling that they are expecting BeanieFan to be more experienced with Wikipedia, hence the use of templates and copy/paste answers. Answering a query ofSo? That's still not a reason for removing the text. with [[tq|The template is not "pointless" but fully justified.}} is particularly odd. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)23:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think LibStar expects me to be "more experienced" – we've both extensively edited/interacted in the Olympic area for years and this is far from the first time I've received unhelpful responses like that from them.BeanieFan11 (talk)23:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
Blocked – for a period of24 hours I have further availed myself of the multi-blocking capability to block them from the page for two weeks.Daniel Case (talk)20:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked for a period ofPonyo The partial block has been extended to sitewide for that duration.Daniel Case (talk)19:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected (full) for 3 days. Honestly I can't tell if this dispute is still underway. Leave me a note on my talk page if you both have consensus to lift the protection earlier. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)03:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]