Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case opened on 01:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Status of this case

This case is open.
Please post evidence on the evidence page before 23:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC). You may find the guide to the evidence phase useful.
The workshop is also open for submissions until 23:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC). You may find the guide to the workshop useful.

WP:ARBMAGWP:ARBMAG

Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Target dates: Opened 24 March 2026 • Evidence closes 23:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC) • Workshop closes 23:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC) • Proposed decision to be posted by 21 April 2026

Scope: disruption related to the Maghreb and the conduct of the named parties in general

Case clerks: Sennecaster (talk) & EggRoll97 (talk) Drafting arbitrators: HouseBlaster (talk) & SilverLocust (talk) & HJ Mitchell (talk)

This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although any private, confidential, or sensitive evidence must be submitted by email to Arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Case information

Involved parties

asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Bananakingler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
R3YBOl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#Taluzet_at_Berber_languages (June 2023, Skitash reports Taluzet, closed without action, RFC suggested)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#Tunisians_and_Tunisian_Arabic_edit_war,_Non_neutral_point_of_view (November 2023, Asmodim reports Skitash, closed without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive361#User:Skitash_violating_the_Neutral_Point_of_View_of_Wikipedia_under_articles_about_Maghreb_civilisation,_edit_warring_when_objected (April 2024, Taluzet reports Skitash, archived without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1154#User:M.Bitton_and_WP:CPP (April 2024, LEvalyn reports M.Bitton, archived without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#Problematic_RFC_at_Talk:Shakshouka (June 2024, Robert McClenon reporting, archived without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive486#User:Potymkin_reported_by_User:Skitash_(Result:_Blocked_48_hours) (August 2024)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Likely_SPA_demonstrating_WP:BATTLEGROUND_behavior_on_Algeria (September 2024, Skitash reports Monsieur Patillo, closed without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive365#The_topic_on_Amazigh,_berber,_wiki_page. (October 2024, TahaKahi reports general issue, closed without action)
User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_53#Question_about_the_Battle_of_Firaz (April 2025, Kansas Bear reports Skitash, R3YBOl, Rxsxuis)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#Request_for_arbitration:_User:Tacosjajajajja_vs_User:_M.Bitton,_User:Skitash_and_others. (June 2025, Tacosjajajajja reports M.Bitton and Skitash, boomerang)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Concern_Regarding_User:Skitash_–_Persistent_Reverts,_Ignoring_RSN_and_Consensus (May 2025, ElijahUHC reports Skitash, archived without action)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#Brigading,_Bias,_and_Revert_Abusing_on_the_MAK_article_by_Skitash_and_M.Bitton (December 2025, Daseyn and Monsieur Patillo report Skitash and M.Bitton, boomerang)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1217#WP:NOTHERE_behavior_and_disruptive_editing (February 2026, Skitash reports Bananakingler, archived without action)

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

@Jacobolus: Your statement is currently over the word limit, at 612 words. Please trim your statement to the limit of 500 words. If you would like to request an extension, you are free to do so either through the use of the {{@ArbComClerks}} template, or by emailing the clerks-l list, depending on the manner you would prefer. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Jacobolus: Yes, your statement is now in compliance with the word limit. Thank you for trimming your statement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
@Drmies: Acknowledged, thank you. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/0/1)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Recuse, obviously. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Waiting for statements. @Super Goku V: a 1k word statement is rarely helpful at this stage, especially when it is effectively a part of a previous discussion. Please try to provide a focused statement on if we should accept a case or not. The rest may be useful at the evidence stage. My guide to arbitration may be useful. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I expect to support accepting this case—a dispute with lots of unsuccessful, attempted resolution is a prime candidate for arbitration—though I also want to hear statements before doing so. I am particularly interested in hearing from M.Bitton. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
- +1. I also want to hear from the parties, but I'll note that R3YBOl is actively editing and hasn't posted, and M.Bitton may have a newfound passion for the meatspace. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'll stop beating around the bush. There is a chronic issue, and Skitash wants to present off-wiki evidence. Therefore, this is squarely our responsibility. Accept, titled North Africa (WP:ARBNA), accepting private evidence, and using the b-list. I think the recent trend of accepting new party submissions during the first week of the evidence phase would work nicely here; we can start with the five proposed parties. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Similar to those above, I'm interested in hearing from M.Bitton and inclined towards hearing this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- To be clear, accept. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Looks like there are good reasons to get involved relating to our public and private roles – accept per HouseBlaster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
noting that we are aware of the edit-warring tempblocks on Skitash and Bananakingler. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Can someone give a primer on the geopolitics here? I feel like I'm missing something. I know that food is culturally important and can lead to much drama. I remember a guy getting blocked about the Cuban sandwich. But are the worst examples here really about shakshouka and tagine? That appears to be how this issue came to attention, but could folks lay out perhaps a broader picture of the issue? I don't know enough about the geopolitics to know at a glance what POV the parties are being accused of pushing. Are M. Bitton/Skitash pro-Maghreb? Anti-Arab? Are we afraid to say lest we cast aspersions? I'll go to bat for whoever tells me, in plain and direct language, what the potential POV's are, and how folks think the parties fit into that, and how that is causing or not causing issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Accept. I am not convinced about the suggested name above, and I disfavor the retitling as done since this was opened. Let's leave that to the scope work that comes post-accept. Izno (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what name we go with. I care greatly that we spend a collective maximum of, let's say, 15 editor minutes on picking a name. Pick a neutral, concise name and call it a day. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Concision matters less than precision; so far as we know, the topic is not in fact North Africa. Izno (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Accept. M.Bitton's conduct certainly seems to have been discussed extensively, we have accusations of coordinated editing preventing consensus from forming, and there is evidence of obstruction of dispute-resolution processes. I'm happy with "Maghreb" or similar as a scope as long as it's not too restrictive; we need to be able to examine evidence of broader problems and the comments about mathematics articles warrant examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Accept. The drafters can discuss the name and its implications for the scope, but the underlying issues seem to warrant a case. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Accept. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Accept. For scope I'm happy with either of Maghreb or North Africa, and would like to allow evidence of similar behavior of named parties outside the topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1.2) With the exception of arbitration pages, Bananakingler (talk · contribs), M.Bitton (talk · contribs), and Skitash (talk · contribs) are topic banned from the Maghreb region and banned from interacting with one another, both broadly construed. This temporary injunction automatically expires when this case is closed.

Passed 8 to 0 at 03:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

More information 0) Appeals and modifications ...

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.