Edit warring

1) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Canadian Politics case. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Gaming the system

2) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:EEML. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination

3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Part of principles from WP:EEML and Tropical cyclones case. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think coordination is the best explanation here. asilvering's editor interaction shows extensive interaction, but on 50% of the pages, M. Bitton's and Skitash have "minimum time between edits" at >37 days apart. On about 25% of the pages, the minimum time is >200 days apart. I don't think people coordinating off-wiki will have this much patience. More likely, these individuals have been heavily edited certain topics for a long time.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that by sheer chance, the probability of encountering each other increases over time and activity. M. Bitton has made 63,955 edits over 11 years.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The principle has already been passed in other cases, so I'm not going to defend it per se, but rather its application here. I think it's unarguable that Skitash and M.Bitton (and to a lesser extent R3YBOl) consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view and that they did so when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute. See for example this part of Uhoj evidence which addresses the no prior participation part quite specifically, or my evidence as it pertains to repeated WP:MUEW.

If the evidence were limited though to pushing the same POV in the same discussions, I would be more sympathetic to your point - there's an unclear threshold between this as a normal phenomenon between editors who happen to broadly agree on topics where they both edit, and where this becomes a presumed problem. The evidence goes well beyond that though: the 3O manipulation in which Skitash repeatedly subverted a dispute resolution procedure in favour of M.Bitton (Uhoj evidence) without any on-wiki notification or communication about the disputes between the two. Sure, it's possible that Skitash just decided to do this independently, by closely following M.Bitton's contributions, just like it's possible that their collaborative edit warring and support for each other in edit wars and talk page disputes - even those where they've never previously edited - is achieved this way. But it's not possible, as your comment suggests, that this is just a statistical fluke of prolific editors. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Tag-team editing

4) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:ARBR&I. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

1) The Maghreb topic area has been subject to persistent sockpuppetry (Samuelshraga, M.Bitton & Skitash's evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ANI

2) Evidence that has been brought to Arbcom about M.Bitton and Skitash's behaviour had previously reached WP:ANI, which repeatedly failed to recognise or deal with the disruption. (Katzrockso, and also Monsieur Patillo, Kowal2701, Super Goku V)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Monsieur Patillo

3) Monsieur Patillo was subject to an indefinite block (later rescinded) after Skitash wrongly accused him of vandalism (Monsieur Patillo, Katzrockso). Monsieur Patillo made 3 ANI filings about disruptive behaviour from Skitash and (in one of them) M.Bitton after which they received a 1-way interaction ban with Skitash in relation to their conflicts with Skitash and M.Bitton, while ANI failed to recognise or deal with the disruption by Skitash and M.Bitton reported by Monsieur Patillo.(Katzrockso evidence) Some of the same disruptive behaviour such as subversion of the Third Opinion process has now been brought as evidence to the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Maghreb should be a CT

1)Articles related to the Maghreb region, defined as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara, Mauritania and Libya are designated as a contentious topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adding in light of Daniel Case's proposal below which is probably a requirement for the ECR I think should be added. Modified the scope in light of this message from an AE admin. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Also noting that I'm not adding a sunset here, but I hope that this is something that can be repealed eventually. Not every area needs to be a source of interminable disruption just because it was one once. I think it's entirely possible that this topic area could become less contentious. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SnowFire's comments below that the problem at hand isn't that the Maghreb is a contentious topic, but rather the disruptive behavior of certain editors. Designating the Maghreb as a CT indefinitely would likely be an over-correction, as you've stated. A sunset clause is preferable if a CT designation is absolutely necessary, and I believe your extended-confirmed restriction proposal has its merits. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I am totally neutral on whether a sunset clause is added to this by default. If it isn't it is my hope that the committee would be able to repeal it in a year if the topic area isn't too hot. The "reason" I suggest adding it (even if temporarily) as a CT is because it occurred to me it would be a prerequisite for applying an ECR, but if not then I would walk back this proposal (basically we agree). Samuelshraga (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This should be Mauritania, no? I would suggest expanding the scope to explicitly include ethnic groups (e.g. Kabyles & Berbers) and language (e.g. Amazigh), since those have been significant loci of disruptionKatzrockso (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops - fixed, thanks. Re: the proposal about specifying explicitly the areas most likely to be disrupted, I'm not sure exactly what language would work but it might be a good idea because the topic area is extremely broad. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I would propose borrowing language from other topic areas that extend to language and ethnicity. WP:CT/IPA states All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.

WP:GS/AA states Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction. (WP:CT/AA is less explicit).

Something like All pages related to the Maghreb region (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara, Mauritania and Libya), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, language and social groups might work. I am not sure if social groups have been the subject of any contention, so that might be unnecessary. Katzrockso (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Given this motion, the words "broadly construed" are unnecessary. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Precious little evidence was presented to support the notion that Tunisia, Mauritania, or Libya are contentious. The bulk of the evidence concerns Arabs vs other ethnic groups (especially Berbers) and Algeria vs Morocco. Uhoj (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This pretty much sums it up, infact a large portion of Berber related pages that were frequented by Skitash and M.Bitton are now placed under "Neutrality of this article is disputed" warnings Yaghmosus (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Tunisia has featured in the parties' disputes, but I agree that the topic area as defined in my proposal is significantly broader than the disruption. Workshopping down the definition of the topic area is probably a good space for improvement here. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protection (limited duration)

2)For 12 months following the closing of this case, the topic of the Maghreb will fall under the extended-confirmed restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adding reasoning here because I doubt it's self-evident.

The reason for a temporary ECR is to mitigate what I think the effects of this case might be:

I think it's likely that the off-wiki forums where new editors came and clashed with some of the parties to this case will see an opportunity at its conclusion to get stuck in promoting POVs that have previously been stonewalled (Moroccan claims to Western Sahara and Berber language names are two obvious ones). An ECR might temper this wave, and allow some of these newcomers to understand the rules and how to judge where their preferred changes are appropriate and where they aren't.

A year's ECR might also convince some of the sockpuppeteers who want to participate in the topic area to come in from the cold and take the WP:STANDARDOFFER.

I suggest a sunset because it's a really broad topic area so an ECR is quite an extreme step, and the remedy is as much to deal with the effects of a resolution of this case, as to deal with the sockpuppet problem that has come up in evidence. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea since this wont restricted most of the Involved parties especially the ones that have the most evidence against them. Yaghmosus (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While this doesn't restrict the involved parties (there are other proposals elsewhere in this workshop for topic/site bans), I believe Samuelshraga makes clear that this is a preventative measure for off-wiki, new users who might take advantage of an involved parties' restrictions and re-add contentious / POV edits. Though the off-wiki evidence is private, I believe the evidence of sockpuppetry supports these concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I see, would like to add that just a semi protection would be enough for the issue you stated, as full protection would also lock out people who only edit from time to time (like me in this case) Yaghmosus (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yaghmosus I see your point that it would lock you out - and to be honest that's not very fair as I don't think you've done anything wrong. However I think it might be temporarily necessary because of what I expect will happen from a lot of other areas. Maybe a 6 month sunset would be better. Just to confirm what Nice4What says, it's absolutely true that this restriction won't restrict the parties who have been the source of most of the disruption so far, but it's aiming to prevent disruption that is reasonably foreseeable from new users and established sockpuppeteers using new accounts (and to incentivise them to go legit). Samuelshraga (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Maghreb designated a contentious topic area

1) Articles related to the Maghreb region of Africa, defined broadly as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Western Sahara, are a contentious topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This remedy is my only reason for participating in this case. I have been calling for it for a long time as the ANEW reports and page protection requests over the past several years continue to match or sometimes even exceed those arising from the long-designated, similar Horn of Africa contentious topic area, which covers a few countries in another corner of the continent. I am not sure about the countries I have listed ... Libya is often considered part of the Maghreb but does not seem to have generated any editing problems, but Mauritania may have. That can be fixed before this proposal is adopted. (belatedly signed) Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battleground. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions

An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked, or when discussion has broken down. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process through discussion, collaboration and consideration, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes. -2011-11

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Refusal to use dispute resolution

Some uses of the dispute resolution procedures, such as Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard are voluntary. However, repeated refusal to use dispute resolution procedures is inconsistent with the collaborative nature of the editing of Wikipedia. Repeated refusal to use dispute resolution procedures may be construed as tendentious and may result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is not a good principle to set in the general case. Users do not have to engage in dispute resolution. However, a user declining to engage in dispute resolution is still responsible for their behavior, and needs to stop having disputes. Hold a binding RFC if the matter is content, or escalate to ANI / Arbcom if truly crossing the line into claimed sanctionable misconduct on one side. The problem is that there are good faith editors who should not feel "obligated" to go into a dispute resolution they feel is counterproductive or mountain-from-a-molehill, and there are disruptive editors whose form of disruption is insisting on long, extensive arguments everywhere. The DRN is useful but it's much more useful when all parties go there voluntarily to hash out a dispute. If parties feel "forced" then DRN will be less likely to resolve an issue.

Of course, it's fine as a piece of evidence if certain parties are edit warring and not being collaborative, whether that be in edit summaries, the talk page, or a lack of appearance at DRN. But it's a whole-spectrum view that matters, i.e. an editor who is edit warring and rude and gaming the system is a problem, even if someone doing this (hypothetically) also participated in dispute resolution. SnowFire (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with SnowFire in that I don't think the issue in this case, and certainly not the principle I'd generalise, is about refusal to engage in formal dispute resolution procedures. It's more about the general refusal to let disputes be resolved, and in this extreme case about the deliberate stymieing of efforts to resolve disputes that evidence showed very clearly with subversion of Third Opinion.

The line from the previous proposed principle seems better suited: Sustained editorial conflict and using the dispute resolution processes to game the system is not an appropriate way of resolving conduct disputes. I think if we just removed the word "conduct" (so that it also covers content disputes) or repeated the line with "content" instead, we'd cover the same ground in a way that I think would better articulate the general behavioural expectation that has been at issue here. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Users do not have to engage in dispute resolution That's correct in one sense - users don't have to engage in dispute resolution, but they are expected to.

Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if internal discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content is from the Muhammad images case . Katzrockso (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Behavioral standards

Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:.

Tag-team editing

4) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:ARBR&I.

Presumption of coordination

3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Part of principles from WP:EEML and Tropical cyclones case.

Locus of Dispute

This case relates to tendentious editing of articles about the [[Mahgreb\\ region of North Africa, especially about Algeria, and the conduct of certain editors in that region.

M. Bitton

The editing of M.Bitton has largely focused on the Maghreb region, and especially Algeria, and has been tendentious

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M. Bitton and DRN

M. Bitton has been named as a party at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard 20 times. They were not properly notified 7 times. They declined to take part 13 times, usually by erasing the notice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Skitash

Skitash has edited tendentiously about the Maghreb region.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Skitash and DRN

Skitash has been named as a party at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard 9 times. They declined to take part 5 times, usually by erasing the notice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tag Teaming

M.Bitton and Skitash have acted as a tag team to interfere with editing of articles about the Maghreb region.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Contentious Topic

The Maghreb is designated as a contentious topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M.Bitton Admonished

M.Bitton is admonished by the Arbitration Committee for tendentious editing in the topic of the Maghreb.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M.Bitton Topic-Banned

M.Bitton is topic-banned from the topic of the Maghreb. This ban may be appealed in twelve months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Skitash Admonished

Skitash is admonished by the Arbitration Committee for tendentious editing in the topic of the Maghreb.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

1) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Civility, which has 3 different versions. I just took the first of the set. Civility is not optional. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Neutral point of view, which has a ton of different versions. I just took the first of the set. This is "do not be a POV-pusher" principle. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

M. Bitton

1) M. Bitton has been uncivil and non-collaborative (Mdm. Bla, Uhoj, Samuelshraga, asilvering, JayBeeEll, kowal2701, LEvalyn, jacobolus, WikiUser4020, Super Goku V, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, Alaexis, ElijahUHC, Yaghmosus, Katzrockso, AndreJustAndre), and gamed the system via using claims of Wikipedia policies and claimed rules but actually in service of pushing a point-of-view (Uhoj, Samuelshraga, asilvering, kowal2701, Nice4What, LEvalyn, Sirfurboy, Bananakingler, PositivelyUncertain, Yaghmosus, Scharb, HetmanTheResearcher, SnowFire, Monsieur Patillo, AndreJustAndre). These disruptions extend to topics only loosely related to the Maghreb such as food, dogs, and mathematics (Samuelshraga, asilvering, JayBeeEll, Kowal2701, jacobolus, GeogSage, Super Goku V, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, HetmanTheResearcher). SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It might be worth noting that these alleged disruptions have extended to topics not related to the Maghreb as well (1,2,3) (unless this needs more evidence?). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nice4What: For the sake of clarity, I agree - this is what my second sentence indicates. SnowFire (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I read topics only loosely related to the Maghreb but wanted to emphasize it was beyond this (topics with no relation), but I now understand what you intended with the second sentence. Thanks for replying! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the edit warring and tag-teaming deserve a mention here, especially as they were so extensive. Ditto with proposed FoF on Skitash below. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Skitash

2) Skitash has been uncivil and non-collaborative (Mdm. Bla, Uhoj, Samuelshraga, asilvering, LEvalyn, jacobolus, WikiUser4020, Super Goku V, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, ElijahUHC, Yaghmosus, Katzrockso, AndreJustAndre), and gamed the system via using claims of Wikipedia policies and claimed rules but actually in service of pushing a point-of-view (Uhoj, Samuelshraga, asilvering, Nice4What, LEvalyn, Bananakingler, Yaghmosus, Monsieur Patillo, AndreJustAndre). SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M. Bitton banned

1) M. Bitton is indefinitely banned. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I disagree with a diagnosis of the problem that the Maghreb is a contentious topic. The problem is that there are editors involved who are not complying by Wikipedia expectations of civility and neutrality and avoidance of edit wars, per presented evidence. I wouldn't normally offer remedies in Workshop, but offer this due to other proposals that understate the severity of the problems here and misidentify the cause. Remove the specific editors causing problems in multiple topic areas and who are displaying an uncivil style which is unlikely to improve on other topics, and I imagine the topic area of the Maghreb will settle down naturally. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you're probably right that the Maghreb does not need to be a contentious topic indefinitely, and that most of the disruption is about the specific parties here. However there is a genuine issue of sockpuppetry against M.Bitton and Skitash (and for such things as Berber identity and language, Moroccan nationalism including claims on Western Sahara). I think making it a contentious topic for a while will help keep a lot of the disputed content more stable, even as there's doubtless going to be a significant correction after this case (I foresee a lot more Tifinagh names in the future). Otherwise I think that that correction could easily become an over-correction. Hopefully in a year or so things will be settled and a contentious topic designation could be repealed. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

These were my thoughts as well. Maybe a recommendation to have a motion to make it a CTOP if there are further ANI/ANEW reports over the next year? Imo the only bespoke remedy needed from the drafters is how to mitigate sockpuppetry and off-wiki coordination in the short term. It's already a very quiet topic area, if this results in tbans and site bans it'd become a ghost town. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While I am disappointed in the conduct of M.Bitton (from the evidence provided and their actions during this case), in my opinion I believe that this is likely excessive. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I am of the belief that a topic ban (Maghreb) likely isn't enough for M.Bitton based on the evidence provided by SnowFire, though perhaps "indefinitely" makes it excessive. I am not well versed in arbitration, but could the option to appeal after a year or two be worth considering? Anyone feel free to correct me regarding the norms. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC); edited 19:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC).

All indefinite bans (site, topic, interaction, page) are appealable after a time period, which will be specified in the remedy. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Having re-read the evidence again, I can see where their actions have met the grounds to at least be temporarily blocked. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not seeing such a harsh remedy be substantiated by evidence. They have made positive contributions outside of Maghreb area: Al-Morabito Mosque, Medo-Babylonian conquest of the Assyrian Empire (which they helped become a GA) etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:06, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has banned many users who made excellent contributions. WP:CIVILITY is a dead letter if it can be deflected with "that's a nice article they wrote." More generally, I don't have high confidence that the documented problems in one domain don't extend to others. Someone who twists sources and rules in one region likely does so elsewhere. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@SnowFire I've been observing this case from a distance, but on a similar note, I'd like to echo here what I wrote during PIA5 (and also applied to a degree during ATC2). I've trimmed it for conciseness/relevance, as the original statement addressed an arb's vote rather than an uninvolved editor's opinion:

"aside from the persistent incivility they're really quite a good editor," ... effectively makes them a WP:UNBLOCKABLE because it's been clearly stated ... that their civility issues can be partially excused by their quality of edits. That's, in my opinion, an awful precedent to set, not just for ARBPIA but for enwiki as a whole. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Snowfire and Kip, you would actually need to demonstrate that problems in one area extend to another, people aren't guilty by presumption. I've edited alongside M.Bitton for many years now, and I've found their approach to be constructive and civil (even if terse at times) on Islam-related articles, which has been a mutual focus of ours. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by other users showed that these issues extend beyond the Maghreb topic area. The article on Jesus is a good example of this. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The stuff on Jesus is prior to their last 1-month block of being uncivil. I don't see much evidence of being uncivil on the Evidence page that is both after their 1-month block and outside of the Maghreb area.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:58, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The first one is a stub from 10 years ago, the second they made 4 edits fixing someone's sfn errors . Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Partially in response to Kowal2701 above, I've seen M.Bitton for many, many years fight vandalism and bad editing on a variety of Islam-related and Middle East-related articles (I can't say about the Maghreb topic-area because I don't have much experience there). I am happy to provide diffs, but I realize the evidence phase is already closed. And the last admin (Yamla) to block M.Bitton also noted "You have a significant number of constructive edits here" (which was presented in Samuelshraga's evidence section).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Also want to note that after their last block, M.Bitton apologized and expressed remorse for their actions that feels genuine to me. They've also made efforts to mend fences with whom they have disagreements. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Skitash banned

2) Skitash is indefinitely banned. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See above comment. SnowFire (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While I agree the evidence presented suggests the behavior by M.Bitton extends beyond the Maghreb topic area, is the same the case for Skitash? If not, is an indefinite ban proportional to the conduct or would a topic ban sufficiently curtail the disruption? Katzrockso (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The tag-team edit warring between Skitash and R3YBOl (my evidence) is not confined to the Maghreb topic area, and Skitash's advocacy for Arabic names/languages as against others isn't either. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the case for "only" a topic ban is stronger here, but per asilvering's evidence, I'm not confident that an editor who produces something like () will produce a neutral article on a non-Maghreb related movement / extremist group / activists / faction / etc. SnowFire (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

For reference, I believe it is Asilvering. Katzrockso (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. SnowFire (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing this be substantiated by the evidence. Most of the evidence focuses on disruption on the Maghreb area. Skitash has significant positive contributions outside this area (User:Skitash#Articles_created).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

If Skitash is truly civil/constructive elsewhere on Wikipedia (evidence might need to be provided), then perhaps a topic ban (Maghreb) is more appropriate than a siteban. I am, however, convinced by TheKip's point that creating quality articles does not give a free pass for misconduct. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

While I am disappointed in the conduct of Skitash (from the evidence provided, their actions this year, and their actions during this case), in my opinion I believe that this might be excessive. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

As with the above, I can see where their actions have met the grounds to at least be temporarily blocked. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Consensus

1) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth to competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From the Gibraltar case.

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

2) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From the Portals case

Bludgeoning

3) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:ARBPIA5

Pillars

4) Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:ARBR&I

M.Bitton behavior

1) M.Bitton has engaged in non-neutral editing and POV-pushing on a number of articles (Samuelshraga evidence, asilvering evidence, Kowal2701 evidence, LEvalyn evidence, Scharb evidence, Monsieur Patillo evidence, Uhoj evidence, Bananakingler evidence). M.Bitton has engaged in disruptive editing practices, such as stonewalling (Kowal2701 evidence, Nice4What evidence) and bludgeoning (Sirfurboy evidence, Monsieur Patillo evidence). M.Bitton has engaged in uncivil behavior (Katzrockso evidence, WikiUser4020 evidence, HetmanTheResearcher evidence, Scharb evidence) that WP:BITE new editors (Mdm.Bla evidence, Alaexis evidence). M.Bitton has engaged in edit warring (Super Goku V evidence, LEvalyn evidence, Kowal2701 evidence, Nice4What evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tag-teaming

2) Skitash, M.Bitton and R3YBOl have operated as a WP:TAGTEAM to support each others POV (AndreJustAndre evidence, Kowal2701 evidence, ToBeFree evidence, Katzrockso evidence, Uhoj evidence). RY3BOI, Skitash and M.Bitton subverted the purpose of the third opinion noticeboard (Uhoj evidence, Samuelshraga evidence, Bananakingler evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

National and territorial disputes

?) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4.1.7 at WP:ARBPIA5. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute

?) This case is in regards to conduct issues in both editing and discussions in the North African (Maghreb) region.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Influenced by 4.2.1 of WP:ARBATC2, WP:ARBINFOBOX2, and WP:ARBIMH. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Biting of newcomers

?) Participants in this topic area have violated the guidelines at WP:BITING of avoiding biting genuine newcomers by tag-teaming or otherwise appearing to work together to hinder or otherwise block contributions from newer editors. (Mdm.Bla evidence, Samuelshraga evidence, Super Goku V evidence, Alaexis evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I accidentally deleted my notes on this, but part of the wording ("avoiding biting genuine newcomers") was based on an arbitration case regarding administrator expectations. (Always have a backup copy of your notes...) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Appearance of collaborative editing

?) M.Bitton, Skitash, and R3YBOl have given an appearance of co-coordinating together primarily through their reverts to various articles and their edit warnings to users editing in the Maghreb area, along with their on-wiki comments to each other. (Mdm.Bla evidence, Uhoj evidence, Samuelshraga evidence, Kowal2701 evidence, Nice4What evidence, LEvalyn evidence, Super Goku V evidence, ElijahUHC evidence, Katzrockso evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Slightly based on this proposed remedy at the workshop for WP:ARBSCE. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

ECP by default

?) All articles whose topic is strictly within the Maghreb topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified 4.3.1 at WP:ARBPIA5. Requires either a contentious topic area or an extended-confirmed restriction proposal to pass first. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

(I do believe a CT or ECR is recommended, but I was undecided as to which was needed, hence why I didn't propose either here.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton-Skitash-R3YBOl discussion interaction restriction

?a) M.Bitton, Skitash, and R3YBOl are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other's discussions with regards to Wikipedia:Third opinion (subject to the ordinary exceptions). They are allow to participate together in discussions that have not had a third opinion request posted. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on 3.3.1 at Ebionites 3. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton-Skitash-R3YBOl third opinion restriction

?b) M.Bitton, Skitash, and R3YBOl are indefinitely considered to be one party with regards to Wikipedia:Third opinion (subject to the ordinary exceptions). They are allow to participate together in discussions that have a third opinion request posted, but cannot remove a third opinion request by participating. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A modified version of the above restriction based on 3.3.1 at Ebionites 3. Not fully what I would recommend, but it is an alternative to the above and something along this line might be better. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton revert restrictions

?a) M.Bitton is restricted from reverting more than once (WP:1RR) on articles in the Maghreb region. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed. This restriction will automatically expire 36 months after the Maghreb region is no longer designated as either a contentious topic area or under an extended-confirmed restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally believe something like this is recommended given the evidence. First half is based on memories of past actions. The last sentence allows for these restrictions to expire after enough time has passed so that they are not permanent, though the Committee might decide otherwise that an indefinite restriction is more preferred. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Skitash revert restrictions

?b) Skitash is restricted from reverting more than once (WP:1RR) on articles in the Maghreb region. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed. This restriction will automatically expire 36 months after the Maghreb region is no longer designated as either a contentious topic area or under an extended-confirmed restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally believe something like this is recommended given the evidence and actions during the case. First half is based on memories of past actions. The last sentence allows for these restrictions to expire after enough time has passed so that they are not permanent, though the Committee might decide otherwise that an indefinite restriction is more preferred. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Bananakingler revert restrictions

?c) Bananakingler is restricted from reverting more than once (WP:1RR) on articles in the Maghreb region. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed. This restriction will automatically expire 36 months after the Maghreb region is no longer designated as either a contentious topic area or under an extended-confirmed restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally believe something like this is recommended given the evidence and actions during the case. First half is based on memories of past actions. The last sentence allows for these restrictions to expire after enough time has passed so that they are not permanent, though the Committee might decide otherwise that an indefinite restriction is more preferred. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

R3YBOl revert restrictions

?d) R3YBOl is restricted from reverting more than once (WP:1RR) on articles in the Maghreb region. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed. This restriction will automatically expire 36 months after the Maghreb region is no longer designated as either a contentious topic area or under an extended-confirmed restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While I personally believe something like this is recommended given the evidence, I believe that this one might be most difficult to pass as R3YBOl reverted the least of the parties out of all of the evidence presented. First half is based on memories of past actions. The last sentence allows for these restrictions to expire after enough time has passed so that they are not permanent, though the Committee might decide otherwise that an indefinite restriction is more preferred. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Bananakingler's extended confirm revoked

?) Bananakingler has their extended confirm revoked. They may re-earn it by making 500 new edits. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally, I believe that Bananakingler needs not just a break from this topic area, but from the main contentious topic areas. They are a new user who is still learning our policies and procedures. I believe that their interactions with other parties in this case have not helped them positively learn how to work with the community and that they have instead picked up some bad habits from their interactions in the Maghreb region. I feel that this is a chance for them to effectively reset and attempt to learn how to edit, though I will admit that this is an unusual proposal. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton banned

?a) M.Bitton is banned from Wikipedia for a period of three months. They are also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Maghreb topic area, broadly construed. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on 4.3.2 at WP:ARBSAQ. An alternative to at least one proposed remedy. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Skitash banned

?b) Skitash is banned from Wikipedia for a period of three months. They are also topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Maghreb topic area, broadly construed. This restriction can be appealed 12 months after this case is closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on 4.3.2 at WP:ARBSAQ. An alternative to at least one proposed remedy. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Super Goku V submission

Super Goku V states that LEvalyn filed a request at DRN on 27 June 2024, and that M.Bitton declined to participate, by erasing the notice of the DRN filing. This erasure illustrated a pattern by M.Bitton of not taking part in dispute resolution.

Super Goku V also mentions a report to WP:ANI that I made on 30 June 2024. That report also showed that M.Bitton was edit-warring with LEvalyn over an RFC. Edit-warring is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: