Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence

Response to the teaming allegations

• Me and M.Bitton had a number of disagreements over time. R3YBOI and M.Bitton have also disagreed with each other. These demonstrate that we are not operating as a coordinated team who automatically support one another.
• R3YBOI did ask to contact me on Discord at one point, but I explicitly did not agree to that request. I offered general help as a gesture of goodwill, as I was barely familiar with the editor at the time.
• The specific instance R3YBOI sought assistance was to revert IP disruption that had occurred eight months earlier (in August 2024). There was no active content dispute, so this does not constitute "canvassing" into a current dispute. R3YBOI has already presented their own explanation on this matter.
• Any occasional overlap in 3O requests and talk page comments is not the result of coordination. Me and others share many of the same articles on our watchlists and are active during similar time zones in a relatively small and niche topic area. As a result, we naturally notice the same ongoing disputes and end up commenting on the same issues independently. I would intervene in matters I see on my watchlist regardless of who else had already addressed them.
• On the contrary, M.Bitton does not always agree with my position. In one 3O request, they instead took a neutral stance, while a subsequent uninvolved editor responded to the 3O and ultimately agreed with my position.

Response to the biting allegations

• Axiom Theory was, along with now-blocked socks such as Ryuudou and Ethiopian Epic, repeatedly re-adding disputed content while active RfCs were still ongoing. In many cases the restorations were made without edit summaries, even after Axiom Theory had been page-blocked from North Africa.
• My {{uw-unsourced3}} warning to Yaghmosus followed an earlier {{uw-nor2}} warning for adding WP:OR/personal commentary. The {{uw-npa4}} warning was issued because of the repeated personal attacks directed at me, e.g. calling me "lazy" and "cherrypicking" as I was being civil and collaborative. Despite this, we have been able to engage in some constructive discussions.

Participation at noticeboards

• Me, M.Bitton, and R3YBOI have sometimes participated at the same noticeboard discussions, though these typically involved a broad range of others editors as well. All of us were involved in the same content disputes.
• I do not believe we have "gamed the system" by reverting editors until they hit 3RR. From the examples provided by Samuselshraga, these editors were engaging in highly disruptive behavior. Most have since been blocked or globally locked for various disruptive behaviors including socking, being WP:NOTHERE, edit warring against multiple editors, etc.

Off-wiki campaign

I'm aware of what appears to be a coordinated off-wiki effort involving doxxing threats and canvassing to recruit new editors specifically to target editors such as myself, M.Bitton, Nourerrahmane, Austronesier, and R Prazeres, which draws editors like this, this, this, and this. I will be submitting the relevant evidence privately.

Berber languages

• The treatment of Berber languages is a complicated and unresolved issue in the Maghreb. Berber is not a single language but a group of numerous mutually unintelligible languages, comparable in diversity to the Romance languages.
• For this reason, adding a "Berber languages:" template and following it with an unsourced or selectively chosen word, or adding translations in three uncodified Algerian Berber varieties (for a subject that concerns the entire Maghreb region) is problematic.
• There is also the issue of relevance, MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, and verifiability. Editors have noted the difficulty in confirming correct spellings and usage, especially given the lack of standardization. As for Algeria-related articles, that's a whole other script issue (there has been an RfC over this).
• In the cited example above of the reverts at Marinid dynasty, the use of Tifinagh there would be considered anachronistic for the historical period (see Neo-Tifinagh).
• A large part of these unsourced translations were added by 85.148.129.62, a disruptive sock of the LTA known as Lala migos.

Bananakingler's behavior

I would like to draw attention to Bananakingler's conduct, which had been almost entirely focused on Berber identity-related topics.

• They have repeatedly restored the same disputed content across multiple articles despite opposition, including:
  • Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima (7 times)
  • Azrou (8 times)
  • Nador (8 times)
• They have continued to pursue old content disputes even after asilvering explicitly instructed them to leave me alone, reopening disputes on Tamazgha, Oriental (Morocco), Berbers, Berber Spring, Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima, etc.
  • After I reverted them for restoring disputed content, they brought it to Drmies's talk page, accusing me of edit warring. They subsequently reverted me on the same article, making three reverts within 24 hours.

• Prolonged WP:BLUDGEONING and repeating the same points despite opposition
  • General unhelpful changes like repeatedly removing the word "minority" from the sourced 2024 census statement "a minority of 13.8% natively speak Berber languages" claiming the word itself is unsourced WP:OR.
  • Talk:Standard Algerian Berber: Contesting factual content (which three editors wish to keep) without providing valid justifications, and then accusing others of stonewalling when they stop responding.
  • Talk:Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima: Getting into semantics, using a disambiguation page (Language dominance) as a source, making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, eventually restoring their desired addition after months of bludgeoning.
• Deleting other editors' comments and personalizing talk page headings.
• Immediately assuming bad faith
  • Issuing edit war warnings after an editor reverts their unsourced addition once.
  • Warning an editor after they unpersonalized a talk page heading, reverting another editor who also tried doing so.

Skitash follows an Arab nationalistic anti Amazigh Agenda

He removed the notable people section for Berbers since according no other ethnic group would have it but kept it for an ethnic Arab group despite editing that article multiple times and even contributed to it. He edit warred for YEARS the framing of Tamazgha being a „fictional entity“ and used for it unreliable sources by Arab nationalist Think tanks. He edit warred this over a span of atleast 3 years while driving atleast 10 good faith editors crazy. (11 if you include me). May 2023 November 2023 December 2023 February 2024 March 2024 March 2024 April 2024July 2024December 2024 February 2025 March 2026 While doing that he (together with m.bitton) manipulated the talk page to hide disputes about his illigetimate addition

That’s not normal behavior.

He claims that Berberism would be about Islamophobia (while the majority of Amazigh people are Muslim)

He deletes tifinagh, even after reaching consensus on the talk page.

He manipulates articles so that the visibility of Amazigh culture is minimized. For example by selective removing Amazigh scripture and demographic data on Nador for a total of 3 years , ,

He stonewalls discussions about the origin of Moroccan food as long as the current state says it is not Moroccan

Removing the Berber Portal from Berbers and other related references to Amazigh related articles Even for the Berber calendar

Removing any sentence that expresses unity from imazighen and replaces them with sentences highlighting differences (here he used „populations“ instead of „population“ implying that the imazighen are peoples instead of people, also see the paragraph just factual wrong)

Prefers sentences that express a higher Grade of primitivity towards imazighen

Cherry-picking statistics that make the number of imazighen look smaller

Cherry picking articles that imply a the outdated demographic theory of the Maghreb from imazighen to Arabs

Removes Amazigh etymology for no good reason

Removes pictures with relationship towards imazighen (this one for the hilarious reason that the „mothers ethnicity does not define“ his ethnicity, since his mother was Amazigh)

Frames imazighen as a minority despite most of the Maghreb being ethnically and culturally Amazigh only by language Arab

Introduces semetic genetics for some reason on an article about Berbers

M.Bitton follows an Arab nationalistic anti Amazigh Agenda

Similar m.bitton expresses dislike towards imazighen for example by by removing pictures of cultural objects and people attributed to imazighen (please note how skitash continued edit warring this for him )

Even on articles that solely focus on imazighen he ensures that the first foreign language mentioned is Arabic

He removed the notable people section of Amazigh people for WP:Other reason. While doing that he deleted a whole section of pre Arab contact of imazighen about Christianity.

He prefers Algerian Berbers over Moroccan ones for example by changing the order they are mentioned

Skitash does not solely say the truth to achieve his goals

He falsely accused me of sockpuppeting, gives inaccurate information, straight up lies to mods, including his lie that I would have reverted 3 times within 24 hours. Which I did not do. One edit was on the morning of the 25., the other two in the afternoon of the 26. but he maybe hoping that someone misreads the date I guess? The first one wasn’t even a revert.

M.bitton lacks awareness of his wrongdoing

He does not understand that he is involved because he also engaged in edit warring and prefers to blame me 100% for his own mistakes.

He is also incredibly rude: „ Go waste someone else's time with that garbage“

Skitash and M.Bitton act as one account. R3YBOI supports them

While skitash and m.Bitton had small irrelevant disagreements, like about if in article is supposed to be named Al shahid or eshahid, they have a long history with each of agreeing defending each other (Like here or on the ani case before), edit warring together and bullying and intimidate other users together. Then using the warning of each other as „another user has already warned you already“ without disclosing that the other user is someone who always agrees with them.

R3YBOI is an anti-Amazigh Arab nationalist

He solely edits articles related to the Islamic world and tries everything to frame Arab. His hate towards Kurds and Persian is much more shower. However i will focus solely on his misconduct towards Amazigh heritage. R3YB0O is deleting Amazigh names and tifinagh from Wikipedia for no good reason and sometimes even against consensus

He supports m.bitton on a vote wether or not the Kabyle hadra a Amazigh group in Algeria are „French invention“. Of course he just like the other anti Amazigh editors voted for it

He calls Tamazight „clutter“

R3YBOI games 3O

He writes one single comment on a dispute with skitash so technically 3 persons are involved and deletes my 3O-Request

skitash has a personal vendetta against me

Not only did he focus most of his words in his thread here to accuse me, he hounded me , tried to get me blocked multiple times, even by saying wrong things about me like I would be a sockpuppet for obvious bullshit reasons , mass deletes my edits, even completely innocent edits like adding Olympian medalists to a city while calling me „unhelpful“ intimidates me and threatens to get me blocked (look at my talk page he gave me like a dozen warnings) and bullied me on his talk page

Responses

Unfortunately he keeps stating factual incorrect things about me doing 3 three reverts within 24 hours. It’s actually hilarious. None of the articles that got edited by the user who was said was a sockpuppet has ever been edited by me. He stated factually wrong things, out of uncertain motivation, taking the risk of blocking two innocent users.

It is hopefully visible that the only users I ever had trouble with are the 3 users who intimidated me after my addition of Amazigh etymology of city names. By bombarding me „warnings“ after every edit I did. There were some other people Arabist accounts involved too.

M.Bitton & ECR Enforcement

My only interaction with M.Bitton was at Talk:Imane Khelif on 2/12, where I felt he was being disruptive. Sirfurboy has already covered it, but our conversation can found here: . I wanted to see if he had similar patterns and immediately found concerning behaviour to a new user on the Mizrahi Jews page. The incident is about how to describe the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries.

• 2/11: TA makes first edit , M.Bitton reverts citing ARBECR

• 2/12: @Serentty, presumably the TA, starts talk page discussion ; M.Bitton removes discussion stating Not an edit request (per WP:ARBECR) .

• 2/13: Serentty makes a new discussion , and points out their preferred version was the long standing text until an IP changed it in October 2025 (diff here ); M.Bitton removes discussion saying Not an edit request (see your talk page)

• 3/15: a month later, an ECP editor makes change to disputed text; is not contested

I'm admittedly new, but this came off as weaponizing ECR to STONEWALL the status quo. It's hard to understand why M.Bitton didn't self-revert after Serentty informed him a non-ECR account changed long-standing agreed on language. Instead, he deleted the whole discussion.

There was also concerning ECR enforcement behavior at History of the Jews in Algeria, a non-ECR page. For context, there was an ongoing conversation about describing Jews leaving Algeria following independence:

• 3/2: TA adds section to talk related to ongoing talk discussions ; no editors contest new section

• 3/3: M.Bitton adds content to lead, including a link to Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, an ECR protected page

• 3/5: Same TA comments in new RFC ; M.Bitton reverts citing ARBECR and keeps reverting over objections

• 3/6: MBitton starts talk discussion , stating "either this directly related to the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world or it isn't.

• 3/6: MBitton opens discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests again referring to Jewish exodus from the Muslim world

Ultimately, M.Bitton did not gain support at either talk page ( Arb here and talk here) and the TAs RFC comments remain.

STONEWALLING & RFCs

I would also like to point out the Jews in Algeria very-long talk page discussion (starting here) and the subsequent RFC here. In the RFC, only M.Bitton opposes inclusion while six editors support (at least in part).

• MBitton's argument for exclusion is the Evian Accords and 1963 nationality code . Granted, he does provide a secondary source that summarizes the accord/code .

• One editor's observation:

• In the RFC discussion section, an editor proposes a new approach , all editors agree, except MBitton STONEWALLING:

There was no real debate on whether the info was due for inclusion, nor were there any policy-based arguments for exclusion. This was one editor creating obstacles and wasting hours of editor's time.

Repeated removal of Tifinagh after discussions By Skitash

There have been long discussions about including Tifinagh, where some level of agreement or compromise was reached. Despite that, the content gets removed again later, which makes the whole process feel pointless and repetitive.

Discussion about inclusion and attempts to reach consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#Tifinagh

Later removal of the same content after that discussion months later by Skitash : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oriental_(Morocco)&diff=prev&oldid=1331775775

---

Pattern of mass removals in short timeframes by Skitash

This is not just a one-time issue. There are repeated waves of edits where Tifinagh is removed from many pages in a very short period by skitash (by the hundreds), which feels more like a systematic approach than normal editing.

Examples of multiple removals within short periods: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&offset=20240314121835

More removals shortly after: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&offset=20240314115434

Additional sequence continuing the same pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&dir=prev&offset=20240314121819

---

Interaction between Skitash and R3YBOI

There are also interactions between these users around the same topic areas, including thanking each other and asking for off-wiki contact, which raises questions about coordination.

Message including thanks and request for Discord contact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skitash/Archive_2#c-R3YBOl-20250514123800-Skitash-20250514121300

Request for help on a related article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skitash/Archive_2#h-Battle_of_al-Asnam-20250415214800

---

Conduct by M.Bitton in discussions

This user has had many negative interactions with me, and at this point I’ve honestly lost hope in going through them all, especially after multiple ANIs that didn’t lead to anything. Still, here is one funny example to lighten up this Arb case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_Sahara_War#c-M.Bitton-20250605205300-ElijahUHC-20250605204900

---

Ongoing disputes over Amazigh-related content

This issue extends beyond just text edits and affects other types of content as well, like images and representation of historical figures.

Discussion about inclusion of an image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kusaila#RFC:_Lead_image_for_Kusaila

M.Bitton's misconduct during Couscous talk page discussion

Stating that the french wiki is unreliable .

Stating that one of the sources that I used which is "L'exploration scientifique de l'algerie" is unreliable because they (according to him) also made the "kabyle myth" , after I stated that those 2 instances are decades apart he just stated "you're wrong" and stonewalled the argument.

This was after he claimed that the population of Maghreb had been "Overwhelmingly Arab speaking for centuries", after I stated that his statement is debatable, he simply proclaimed "There is nothing debatable about that. It's a fact." , making a discussion practically impossible.

Actively tried to disassociate The Berber languages from Couscous stating since they don't have written link as the reason , after another editor pointed out that this is simply his invention of a rule in wikipedia , he proceeded to devolve the entire argument into a bunch of passive-aggressive responses

Skitash's misconduct during Couscous talk page discussion

This is mostly on the matter of MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, Skitash kept asserting that the lead sentence should only use the one most "closely associated" language (based on parameters that are for the record undefined) , doing so after multiple instances of multiple editors stating that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV doesn't single out a "closely associated language" but specifies that in the case where there are more than one "closely associated language" none of them should be placed in the lead sentence. , not only did he not acknowledge these statements a single time, before the discussion sporadically ended, I made 2 more statement directly targeting this to him specifically and there was no response whatsoever, completely stonewalling the entire discussion.

Nationalist editing

M.Bitton edits to History of the Jews in Algeria shows a clear pattern of pushing a nationalist agenda: oversimplifying that "all" the Jews left of their own accord in 1962, ignoring that about 10% remained as of 1963, and censoring all alternate perspectives and information about their mistreatment by the new Arab government over the next decades.

History of the Jews in Algeria Removes sourced content, whitewashing Algerian history stripping Jews of citizenship, because that counters user's nationalist agenda.

History of the Jews in Algeria Again, censoring content about what happened to the 10% of Jews remaining in Algeria in 1963-1970 and how they were mistreated.

History of the Jews in Algeria Censoring yet another user adding context to the flight and expulsion of Jews from Algeria.

unwarranted accusation of genocide by the Algerian Jews against the Arabs. As a matter of fact, Algerian Jews mostly avoided the conflict and participation was limited and even on both sides. However, M.Bitton takes the maximally negative view of Jewish history and maximally positive view of Arab history, as always, dismissing evidence for viewpoints they don't agree with as "nonsense" and "irrelevant."

Algerian leader Ahmed ben Bella Removes NYT-sourced content about Ben Bella’s family origins in Hejaz. Because it shatters the illusion that the expulsion of the Jews from Algeria was some sort of indigenous liberation.

history history of slavery in the Muslim world Improperly removes numerous valid sources which don't match user's CPOV agenda

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world Whitewashes (future Algerian nationalist) Saïd Mohammedi's role in the war from fighting for the Luftwaffe to fighting on the eastern front

Making up rules

Prioritizing French sources over English sources on English Wikipedia: Irrelevant English version shows little understanding of Wikipedia rules despite prolific contributions

Hostility

M.Bitton barely puts the "C" in "CPOV". For instance: making up a 1 hour rule to intimidate and using the arbitration process as a threat: "In case you decide to disappear: if you don't self-revert within the next hour, you will be reported." Every interaction with this user is needlessly hostile.

M.Bitton frequently invokes AGF, abusing the rule in order to bully other users who call out their obvious CPOV behavior and get in the way of their nationalist agenda.

Frequently calls others' contributions "irrelevant" and "nonsensical".

Non-neutral editing

Defending Hezbollah outlet Al-Manar, it’s not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. It's bad enough to promote Hezbollah propaganda like Al-Manar, which has produced an infamous antisemitic series about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and really should be covered by the No Nazis rule.

Coupled with the long bias against Jews and above-mentioned censorship of claims of historical antisemitism, it is clear that M.Bitton is a major habitual and deliberate violator of the standards of the Wikipedia community who has made the site a worse place and is here to promote a nationalist agenda that steamrolls over other ethnic groups.

M.Bitton pushes an anti-Morocco POV on Wikipedia

For the following section, I will alternate between edits that push a POV against Morocco, then show other edits that demonstrate double-standards by M.Bitton.

• Argues that official government positions of Ghana and Kenya support recognition of Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco: . Ignores official government position from Finland that supports Morocco in the conflict: .

• Argues that Moroccan sources are not reliable sources for anything to do with Western Sahara: (No explanation is given. However, Morocco being an active belligerent in this conflict is a good reason why Moroccan statements should not be used as reliable sources.) However, M.Bitton defends inclusion of statement that the Al-Tanf military base was occupied by the United States. When another user points out that this statement came from the Assadist government (an active belligerent when the statement was made), they give no reply:

• Removes "support" section for Morocco arguing (among other reasons) that the "support" parameter is no longer used (that parameter is no longer used.): . Restores "support" section for another Maghreb-related article arguing that MOS is not a policy and the recent removal of "supported by" didn't change anything: .

M.Bitton's incivility is not limited to the Maghreb

The incivility and frustrating experiences when having discussions with M.Bitton are not limited to topics relating to the Maghreb. This example regarding whether to call Jesus 'Jewish' in the first sentence of the article on Jesus is a good example: .

• WP:BATTLEGROUND comment after another user mixes up two words: No, you had it wrong (admit it). Note the contrast with when M.Bitton mixes up words. They find no fault of their own: That was obviously a typo: obviously, I meant "that haven't been discussed." .
• Alleges OR on another user's end, refuses to follow up when asked by that user. .
• Puts words in another user's mouth. .
• Declares AndreJustAndre to be in the ignored list... forever! with his friend Vegan416 on the 28th of November: . Two days afterwards, M.Bitton goes right back to arguing: .

And generally, the comment threads involving M.Bitton on this discussion devolved into long-winded one vs. many debates with extreme bludgeoning and general incivility despite editors repeatedly providing evidence against their proposed changes: .

Monsieur Patillo is a common party in these disputes

• Monsieur Patillo was first blocked from en.wiki for for using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes. in relation to their conduct with Skitash. . Following another admin Liz's objections to the block and a discussion with Monsieur Patillo, they were soon unblocked .

• Monsieur Patillo filed 3 ANI reports against Skitash and M.Bitton in November and December based on Skitash's indiscriminate reverts and non-collaborative attitude, Skitash prevents any search for compromise (citing Wikipedia:HOUND), Skitash and Bitton's behavior to prevent conflict resolution through intended mechanisms (WP:3O) and (WP:WIKIHOUNDING)
• Monsieur Patillo was subject to a one-way interaction ban with Skitash after the third ANI report . M.Bitton & Skitash supported the interaction ban.
• Monsieur Patillo and M.Bitton engaged in extended discussion at Talk:Kabyles hadra
• Another example of Skitash removing 3O requests for which they are involved in is for Monsieur Patillo's 3O requests , something Monsieur Patillo lamented at a common 3O editor's talk page .

I bring up Monsieur Patillo not because I think their behavior is worthy of sanction, but because they have consistently also conflicted with Skitash and M.Bitton over Mahgreb-related topics. In addition, this is a good example of how community processes have failed to deal with the disruption and how M.Bitton (ab)use ANI to remove ideological opponents from the topic area.

Kabyles hadra

One curiosity that always bothered me (and I believe has been brought up before) was how Skitash came to the Talk:Kabyles hadra page. I came across the page because it was later mentioned at ANI. But Skitash !voted in the RfC less than an hour after M.Bitton cast the second !vote in the discussion (which was itself 4 hours after the RfC opened). This was a fairly new page, having been created on 12 Dec 2025 . It was an RfC, but Skitash participated in no other RfCs around that time , raising the question of at a minimum whether Skitash was following M.Bitton's edits to support their position.

Anti-Kabyle slant by M. Bitton

I am not an expert here, but I will add a somewhat older 2022 example consistent with asilverling's evidence above. I attempted to expand Lalla Fatma N'Soumer (complete with checking out books at a library, etc.) and was met with uncivil accusations of inserting "unreferenced material" from M. Bitton that succeeded in driving me far away from the topic.

• diff Removes "Kabyle" from the lead, claims "ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned in lead"
• diff, diff Reverts everything I wrote, including add "Kabyle" to the lead. I cannot stress enough that the previous English article was very poorly sourced and that I consulted the sources Fr Wiki used, so I find the claim that this is about source-integrity dubious.
• diff Removes "Kabyle" from the lead, again. Adds in an Arabic version of the name. At this point I gave up.
• diff, diff (much later) Skitash calls the Tifinagh name "OR" and reverts and puts the Arabic back.

I don't want to get into the weeds of an old content dispute but the short version is that not calling her a Kabyle in the lead is not consistent with the sources I read, which routinely and prominently mentioned her as Kabyle as well as the movement / resistance she was part of being Kabyle-based. It'd be like insisting on removing the word "Irish" from the Molly Maguires for an American equivalent.

Removals of Iranian attacks on Arab countries by Skitash

I was editing the current Iran war 2026 page and saw Skitash deleting my (and other editors) edits about Iran attacking Arab countries. This is the first edit where I noticed it. As the summary, he put "rmv clutter; these details mentioned in the article". That summary makes no sense because the infobox is supposed to reflect the article.

These are the other edits where similar things happened: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Systematic removal of Berber names : other examples

• Sétif Province : Skitash remove the tamazight name under the pretext of WP:OR . As it is not WP:OR because the city uses this inscription, Bitton supports Skitash, claiming that the Berber language is WP:UNDUE . M.Bitton then takes over with a delaying tactic on a talk : .
• Kingdom of Beni Abbas : Removal of "At Muqran" (berber name) sourced by the Berber Encyclopedia while a discussion was taking place on the talk page at the same time. You can note that M.Bitton takes over with a WP:BLUDGEON and when asked to explain why sourced information should be removed, he ridicules his interlocutor . The Arabic version, however, was not subject to this removal by Skitash, despite lacking an apparent source.

In other articles, Skitash appeared without ever having contributed to them, but following additions I made. This raises a question about the method by which it got there (WP:HARASS ?):

• Timimoun Province : Since the Berber name is perfectly sourced, he's removing it this time for "Not closely associated with the topic." So, according to Skitash, the Arabic name is associated with the subject, but not the Berber name.
• Constantine Province : idem
• Sidi Bel Abbès : idem

This stance contrasts sharply with the deployment of Berber writings in Algeria : , . The same behavior can be seen on pages relating to Morocco: .

Modifications to "arabize" ethnicity of North Africa excessively

• Banu Hilal. Skitash reintroduce a version based on a generalist book (Libya, a Country Study) while removing material supported by specialized academic sources (Encyclopédie Berbère, Gabriel Camps, etc.) He also dismissed these sources as WP:FRINGE: . A similar line of reasoning appears in the article Arab migrations to the Maghreb.
• Algeria : Skitash introduced a figure stating the population as 85% Arab and 15% Berber (infobox) , citing the CIA Factbook. However, the source (CIA Factbook) indicates “99% Arab-Berber” , which differs from the figures presented in the article. Attempts to align the content with the source were reverted, with objections based on WP:OR .
• Algiers (Talk:Algiers#WP:UNDUE,_origin_of_the_name) : any mention of a possible Berber/Tamazight origin of the name is consistently challenged, even when presented as a hypothesis. Discussions tend to focus on questioning the reliability or adequacy of the sources, which are never accepted as sufficient.
• Kabyles hadra (I'm not going to go into all the details again; others have already done so). I remind that the WP:OR started on the page Talk:Kabylia, M. Bitton stated: they are like all other Arabs of the region who speak Arabic. The claim of "Arabized", besides being impossible to prove, is as meaningless as "Berberized" . Despite the presentation of sources in Talk:Kabyles_hadra this position was maintained by Bitton (it therefore imposes a WP:OR). Skitash and R3YBOl also supported M.Bitton’s claim that the term is a French invention, although no supporting evidence was provided in the cited sources.

Lack of neutrality and a non-collaborative attitude

• WP:3O : Disruption of the conflict resolution attempt has been observed. This issue has already been discussed by other contributors.
• MAK: While his edit was contested and reverted: , , Skitash added it, exceeding the 3 edits , , . These edits were made without apparent consensus on the talk page : and continued to add content without apparent consensus, despite differing POV, including a right of reply published by TV5Monde .

Pov-pushing regarding the Berber language

• Skitash and M.Bitton attempted to present an inconclusive RFC (Talk:Algeria/Archive_3#RFC_on_Infobox_and_Lede, small number of participants, tie for one of the proposals) as a consensus preventing the introduction of Berber names. This method aims to impress inexperienced contributors.
• MOS:FORLANG (in fact : MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV) , : One reason cited was that only one language should be introduced in the first sentence. However, the rule does not specify that this language must be Arabic, and it was applied in Berber-speaking areas (e.g., Béjaïa , Kabylia ) without a clear consensus. This MOS was the subject of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 26. While the discussion was leading to a consensus  : M.Bitton and Skitash engaged in an revert on the page of the MOS : , . During the discussion I detected similarities between M.Bitton's argument and that of a polemical/conspiracy book which is far from academic considerations on the subject:: .

Arabization of cultural elements

• Qashabiya: Skitash removed sourced content, and replaced it with material supported by press articles and other non-academic sources. The use and interpretation of these sources was subsequently disputed on the talk page . Skitash hid my comments citing WP:NPA and filed a report at WP:AIV alleging harassment and personal attacks , stating that the questions and remarks were personalizing the discussion. The underlying sourcing concerns remained unresolved.

Katzrockso's observations

• Regarding this blockage it was lifted 24 hours later following an explanation with the administrator ToBeFree. This is the same undue report as in the Qashabiya case..

• ANI 2025 and Iban : I did two ANI requests. As a result, I was asked to participate in conflict resolution (editorial). I tried WP:3O, which was misused by Skitash as explained above. To complain about this process and about WP:HARASS, I opened another (third) administrative request. Simply because it was the third ANI, it was suggested that I be placed under IBAN. I did not contest this and did not want to get more involved so as not to irritate the administrators. I have witnessed some highly problematic behavior from these two contributors and have tried, on my own scale (and perhaps clumsily) to raise awareness about it.

M.Bitton and Talk:Kouloughlis#Removal_of_sourced_content

In this article, M.Bitton opposed the introduction of sourced content, without providing any valid arguments and without proposing an alternative. He does not explain the cherry-picking he alleges, and his argument implies a WP :JDL.

asilvering

• Arabic Numerals: I objected to redirecting "Arabic numerals" to "Hindu–Arabic numeral system", which led to jacobolus casting aspersions (see the end of that discussion) before taking it to NPOVN (where they framed it as something else).

• Talk:Barbary slave trade: that's an uncalled for personal attack.

• Couscous: discussion showing an editor pushing a pov, making baseless assertions and then backtracking when presented with the facts.

• Geography: in the NPOV board, most of those who weighed in agreed that the 2023 CIA map violates the NPOV policy, which some suggesting the use of the UN map.

• Ibn Battuta: see discussion and how we treat his contemporaries,^{3, 4, etc.} (i.e., we avoid anachronism).

• North Africa: I objected to a lot of related things. Also, at least three of the editors who were pushing that POV are socks (see the SPI report).

LEvalyn

ToBeFree

• I reverted Bananakingler's edit because they kept edit warring (during arbitration) while falsely claiming that the source doesn't support the material.

Samuelshraga

• Samuelshraga has been after me ever since they violated 1R. They are always there to add oil to any BS report about me.
• Mentioning "Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah" while leaving out the background (see this, this and the "you have a history.." accusation that followed) is very disingenuous.
• Suggesting that this comment is some attempt at invalidating a 3O is also disingenuous.
• Look at how much time and effort they spent on the last ANI report. Would anyone who is here to build an encyclopedia do that?

Nice4What

84 is properly sourced. They are linking to two discussions^{5, 6} that show them making claims and disappearing.

Sirfurboy

Imane Khelif: some editors kept violating the BLP, while others (such as Sirfurboy) kept absolving them of wrongdoing. Luckily, Valereee stepped in to stop the nonsense.^{7, 8, 9}

Kowal2701

• WS: 84 is properly sourced.
• Aidi: describing the reasoning that is based on what the sources say as fallacious is extremely disingenuous.
• Kusaila: Kowal2701 agreed with me. Go figure!

Katzrockso

• I offered a way to create something that resembles an encyclopedic article (by renaming it first), but that was rejected by those who know absolutely nothing about the subject (despite them admitting that what I suggested is in fact the common name). They opted instead for the use of a source (written by a nobody) that uses racist stereotyping from a bygone era.

• I'm going to assume that Katzrockso doesn't understand what pointy behaviour is.

Monsieur Patillo

• Patillo's battleground attitude can be seen in this discussion (that they linked to). It's so bad, it ultimately leads to others being confused.
• This disruptive behaviour (highlighted by ToBeFree) was followed by this and a lot more.
• The Tamazight/Berber issue is explained here and summarised here (nothing has changed since then). This is worth a read if you want to understand why activists are pushing Tifininagh all over the place. Incidentally, the same ones will argue ad nauseam that there are no Arabs in the Maghreb, only Arabized-Berbers (who forgot who they truly are and from whom, Arabic should be expunged).

Bananakingler

• Accusations others of racism.
• Accusing others of lying.
• Calling those who disagree with them "Arabists".

jacobolus

• Unfortunately, jacobolus has a habit of personalising the discussions and then whinging when told to cut it out:

1. They tried to push a ridiculous POV. When that didn't work, they resorted to casting aspersions before taking it to NPOVN where they framed it as something else.
2. Once again, personalising the discussion from the get go.
3. Again, the same thing, while falsely describing their aspersions as "a discussion".
4. Just last week, they accused me of "pretending".

Robert McClenon

• I don't remember the context for those DRNs, but the last one in that list exemplifies what I've been dealing with.

HetmanTheResearcher

• HetmanTheResearcher is clearly acting in bad faith: Here's what I said to them. I even went out of my way to help them with the basics.

WikiUser4020

• Thanks to WikiUser4020's misleading statements and WP:SYNTH (about genetics alone, while proposing a change that includes "ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity"), we are now officially the only encyclopedia known to man to have an article that says The countries and people of North Africa share a large amount of their genetic, ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity and influence with the Middle East/West Asia, East Africa and the Sahara. in the lead and in Wikipedia's voice to boot. Some people will claim that the bunch of suspected socks and an anti-Arab !vote had nothing to do with this nonsense (that isn't and will never be covered in the article's body).

ElijahUHC

• Perhaps ElijahUHC (formerly TahaKahi) can explain why they emailed an editor to ask them to !vote against the inclusion of Arabic.

AndreJustAndre

• Since I reached the word limit, I will only say that AndreJustAndre has a history of synthesizing sources while falsely claiming that they are not (even when provided with the proof by two different editors).^{10, 11} They did the same thing here (this comment explains why their claim is factually incorrect).
• Maybe AndreJustAndre could explain why they changed their !vote right after this !vote (long after admitting that the name that I proposed is the common name). Why the sudden change of heart?
• You'll also notice that the editors who agreed with me actually have some knowledge about the subject (at the very least, they understand the meaning of the Arabic word "kabail" and the history of its use).

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.