Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitration Committee proceedings
More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Tag-teaming in North African topics   14 March 2026 0/0/0
Close
[edit]
Open cases
More information Case name, Links ...
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Pbsouthwood (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)
Close
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

More information Request name, Motions ...
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 5 none (orig. case) 28 February 2026
Amendment request: Indian military history none (orig. case) 13 March 2026
Close

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Tag-teaming in North African topics

Initiated by asilvering (talk) at 02:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by asilvering

There is a long-term pattern of tendentious editing in this topic area that inhibits the normal consensus-building processes and drives out newcomers. In particular, this pattern is centred around two editors, M.Bitton and Skitash, who edit so closely together that WP:3O is impossible and edit wars inevitably end in their favour as they can "force" a WP:3RR violation on the opposing party. This pattern has resulted in several sockpuppetry reports about the pair. The two accounts are, in my view, extremely unlikely to be operated by the same person, but the editor interaction tool illustrates the problem nicely: . I don't believe I have ever seen such extensive overlap between two accounts.

I've picked these AN/ANI links as prior attempts at resolution because a) they demonstrate that normal admin/community processes have been unable to handle this and b) because ignoring these processes is part of the problem (see for example - M.Bitton has never, not once, showed up to dispute resolution). In addition, I believe arbcom is better equipped to handle fact-finding and discussion of this case because its processes mitigate the stonewalling and sealioning that characterize many of these prior disputes. POV-pushing is also heavily involved.

I am filing this case request following the no-action archiving of the February ANI thread linked above. Accordingly, Bananakingler and R3YBOl have been added as parties; R3YBO1 was also accused of co-ordinated editing with M.Bitton and Skitash, and Bananakingler was the "opponent" in the dispute.

You will notice that Bananakingler stands out among the parties as having significantly less experience. M.Bitton and Skitash are typically able to get their opponents, who have much less experience with Wikipedia processes than they have, sanctioned at WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. Other discussions break down because of stonewalling, or because they are seen as content disputes. Counter-accusations of off-wiki co-ordination, such as this one, are common. As an experienced editor who has obviously not come here via a content dispute, Reddit, or wherever else, I have decided to bring the case myself. I have never, to my recollection, been involved in a content dispute with M.Bitton or Skitash, though in the interests of full disclosure, I was LEvalyn's sanity check in the shakshouka dispute, which still strikes me as some of the most absurd stonewalling I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia. I have responded to, but not taken action in, the ANI discussion that led to this case, because I was the most recent admin to sanction M.Bitton.

Statement by Bananakingler

I'm busy with personal things for the next 7-9 days but I'll try to respond to direct questions.

Statement by M.Bitton

Statement by R3YBOl

Statement by Skitash

@Asilvering: I understand why you may see it this way. We do share many similar topics on our watchlists and are in similar time zones which naturally leads to overlapping editing patterns. But that is simply normal collaboration among editors who agree on certain things. Me and M.Bitton obviously had disagreements before, and the same goes for R3YBOI and M.Bitton. Moreover, there are many other editors with whom my interests overlap and who I have rarely (or never) disagreed with. As was discussed in the recently archived ANI report, and as @TarnishedPath has pointed out, the allegations appear to rest primarily on speculation by editors who "cannot say yes with certainty" rather than concrete evidence. As for claims of driving out newcomers and inhibiting consensus, I tend to explain all of my edits and reverts substantively in edit summaries and talk pages to support open discussion rather than obstructing it or WP:STONEWALLING (i.e. reverting without policy-based rationale). Skitash (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Super Goku V

Given my participation in that last discussion, I should probably post the comment that I didn't finish, but was working on. I am going to wait on an extension request given that the unfinished version was nearing 1,000 words. In the meantime, I will mention that during the latest ANI discussion, I felt that the Maghreb region should likely be viewed as a contentious topic, which would be the Committee's jurisdiction. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Kowal2701

Thanks to Asilvering for taking this on, seconding the need for a case here per my comments at the ANI thread . FTR I've commented in a couple of their disputes, usually ones that become RfCs. The community has been hopeless at dealing with this. While M.Bitton's battleground conduct isn't limited to North African topics nor newbies ( , these sort of comments illustrate that nicely), it's the driving away of newbies from already quiet topics through baiting and weaponisation of conduct noticeboards that is particularly antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos and goal. It's extraordinary how admins have turned a blind eye to this. Following his last block, an editor commented "this particular user, M.Bitton, while prickly, is one of the important barriers against nationalist POV pushing in multiple topics", and it appears this is widely and uncritically accepted, despite it being possible for someone with only cursory knowledge on the topic to perceive his own editing as "nationalist POV pushing". IIRC, I first became aware of Skitash after participating in an RM to move a page they created away from "Sunni Arab genocide in Iraq", which didn't have a single source supporting the genocide label. I refer to conduct in other areas so arbs don't assume misconduct is limited to North African topics. I'd recommend arbs do a bit of reading up on Maghrebi politics and nationalisms, only so that they can recognise possible biases, if they are to accept this. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Tag-teaming in North African topics: Clerk notes

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

Tag-teaming in North African topics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

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)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI