Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Preliminary statements

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.

Ah, there's "baseless accusations", only one comment later than I'd expected. LEvalyn's observations are neither baseless nor accusations, and I plan to demonstrate as much in the evidence phase. -- asilvering (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bananakingler

Due to the overwhelming evidence already delivered by other editors, my lack of experience and my current personal life (the meatspace) I for now will disengage. I will only say that in my experience all three users: m.bitton, skitash as well as R3yboy have an unhealthy relationship with eachother and towards the editing in general. I was hounded multiple times by them with reasons like „unhelpful“ or „not an improvement“. Due to them being almost the only one who revert me, I thought that this kind of communication would be normal here. But when I reverted skitash with the reason „unhelpful“ he tried to frame me as rude and used it against me in the last ANI, despite me learning this kind of language from them.

They tried everything to get me blocked and to reduce the visibility of Amazigh content even after consensus on the talk page. After they understood that they will not get away with deleting it, they‘ve hidden it in a comment instead. But of course only the Amazigh name, not the Arabic one.

At one time every time I was worried of getting again accused of doing some kind of offense. They even started bullying me on their talk-page after I commented something on a threat where they discussed how to get me banned , , . When they reverted edits of me they also reverted the last 5 or more edits I did, even on topics they didn’t show interest before and obviously without even reading them. (they admited on ANI that they deleted on accident the addition of the Olympian medalist I added)

Please consider that i this is not the full extent my answer. I saw multiple users expecting my response so I provided a quick one with not all of the problems.

Ping me if you need anything from me.

Please take in mind that R3YBOY helps skitash and m.bitton „win“ fights, for example by edit warring and alligns with them against the inclusion of anything Berber related. He also participated in the shenanigans where I ask for a third opinion on a discussion with skitash where he stops responding, by giving one single answer, alligns with skitash or m.bitton and never responds again.

So yeah he knows what he is doing…

One last thing: m.bitton is known for emailing users to do edits for him, even when banned.

M.bitton came back to editwar over non-Algerian food and give our warning for users he disagrees with

It would be hilarious if it would not be so sad that the m.bitton and skitash gang up to edit-war to ensure the lede of Tamazgha says it would be a „fictitious entity“ , even manipulating the talk page

The really hate anything Berber related. Skitssh continues to edit war instead of talking in the talk page

@M.Bitton Could you please explain why you ony reported me and not skitash for edit warring? {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1344959568}

Statement by M.Bitton

Since I can't prove the negative of people's beliefs, I'll keep it simple.

• I sincerely hope that I'm not expected to explain why some editors share my interests. The interaction tool doesn't say much: this, for instance, is my interaction with someone who shares a small part of my interests in North Africa, and this is my interaction with someone I share no interests with.

Looking at the list that was provided by Asilvering:

• 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with me.
• 4 and 5 are about the same thing: an old dispute involving multiple editors (summarised in this comment). I will also note that the only scholarly sources in that article have been found and shared by me and the last two reverts (Special:Diff/1328642314 and Special:Diff/1328816364) are part of what I do (while others count my reverts). Even though I have no wish to go down memory lane, I will happily explain any part that you deem appropriate.
• 6, 7, 8 and 9 have nothing to do with me.
• 10 speaks for itself (disruptive editing, LLM use, assumption of bad faith, referring to Reddit threads about me, etc.)
• 11 has nothing to do with me.
• 12 Daseyn (someone that I have never ever interacted with before) included me in a 2025 report because of what I said to a sock in 2023. Go figure!
• 12 Bananakingler, an editor with whom I interacted once (after I rightly reverted their misrepresentation of a source) accused me of all kind of things. How is that normal? The mudslinging in that report is what led to this one.

The way I see it, preventing vandalism and POV pushing comes at a price: those who want you out of the way will piggyback on each other's hollow reports to make you look as the problem, and since admins don't have the time to do details, they could easily fall for it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: LEvalyn's accusations are totally baseless. For context, I think you ought to read this and this (I know it's old, but they brought it up). M.Bitton (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Please note that Jacobolus has been canvassed to this case. M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: Forwarding a courtesy ping isn't inherently canvassing. Could you please substantiate or strike that allegation? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: They left a comment on their talk page. If that's not canvassing, then I will strike it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton, per the lead of WP:CANVASS: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's the way I saw it (given their comment here), but since you don't appear to share my concerns, I will strike it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Clicriffhard: the only editors that I threatened to take to ANI were those who were violating the BLP (anyone who agrees with them shouldn't edit a BLP). M.Bitton (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• @Valereee: all the cited scholarly sources describe it as Maghrebi. Also, the issue was about replacing "North African" with "Maghrebi". M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• @ToBeFree: I have been watching that edit war for the last three days and only interfered to force them to use the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by R3YBOl

Out of all of the reports that @Asilvering listed, only two are related to me. one that took place in April 2025 (almost a year ago) I was reported for canvassing, I did do canvassing by telling Skitash to revert someone on a page. I was not aware of canvassing policy at that time. The second report that got partially involved in the last ANI that Asilvering mentioned in the list, which I got accused coordinating and never disagreeing with any of these editors (Skitash or M.Bitton), I have suggested about including an information in the infobox and then it turned into a disagreement with M.Bitton, one of the editors I am being alleged to coordinate with (he suggested removing the information from the infobox). Kowal said that it is possible that I could be looking for fights. I think that this is a personal attack, a WP:ASPERSION. It is hurtful to imply that I "find disputes they're in and help them 'win'." I just simply give my opinion regarding a discussion or a dispute and that's it. I support the idea of designating North Africa as contentious topic, as Many IPs and newer users that I did have disputes with them before are hard to deal with. As they sometimes add unreliable sources, false info, or they cite sources that do not verify their claims. Therefore, I support designating North Africa as a contentious topic. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

@Robert McClenon I agree that designating North Africa a contentious topic would be a good idea. An admin has suggested this in the past, and many editors are aware that there's a large off-wiki presence of people aiming to disrupt the encyclopedia, similar to what happened with Azerbaijan, Assyrians, and Kurds. Just today, a new account (Noiselvatici) was created, which immediately began edit warring on Burnous and forcing massive undiscussed changes there, before posting about it on Reddit. In that post (where their Wikipedia username is visible), the user named me directly, used derogatory language, and encouraged others to join. And I see that many in the replies are threatening to doxx me. I reported the matter to ANI, but the links were redacted there, so I'm unsure whether I'm permitted to share them here. I was told to bring this matter to ARB. Skitash (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek For sure. The edits in question tend to be varied and span various topics. That said, off-wiki individuals, especially in Reddit communities, like to portray me (and others) as "pro-Arab" or "anti-Berber" purely because I, along with many other editors, tend to revert additions of Tifinagh names due to many content policy-related issues. These would include WP:OR and verifiability (hard to confirm the exact spellings online or RS), relevance (per Template:Infobox settlement and MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV), and existing consensus (e.g. the RfC in Algeria, keeping Berber names in the body rather than the infobox, as no official Berber script is chosen by the state).

Bananakingler tends to share that perspective, placing a strong emphasis on Berber/Tifinagh elements in most of their contributions so far, in addition to what they alleged about me and others. I don't want to speculate, but Bananakingler's account was created shortly after one such post (regarding Oriental (Morocco)). These off-wiki discussions go beyond criticism, actively canvassing members to coordinate Wikipedia edits, framing disputes in racial/ethnic terms ("Arabization" vs "indigeneity"), and include harassment and doxxing threats. Skitash (talk) 02:03, 17 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)

I apologize, Guerillero. It seems that I did not keep the meaning consistent between my message here and my message to the clerks. I failed to note here that I was trimming it as best as I could, but I have only been able to get it to about 650 words or so with quotes excluded. In any case, I will consider both what was said to me from my email and what was said here. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I have thought about it and have decided thank to advice given from my email to the clerks that it is likely best to save said comment for the evidence page. The comment is primarily focused on what happened at both Shakshouka and Talk:Shakshouka leading into the three times there was an ANI discussion as a result. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: My understanding has been that this has been a Maghreb issue involving those who are pro-Maghreb and those who are not, but it seems that Skitash might disagree there. (At the least, I can say that M.Bitton has reverted multiple editors who have suggested that Shakshouka is not just a Maghreb dish. Diff/1076934061 & Diff/1219123309) In any case, I am willing to look into this over the week. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bananakingler: Could you please make a statement if you are going to continue editing? +Skitash: Could you both attempt to work together if you both are going to be editing the same articles during this case? Additionally, I don't think the warnings to each other during this case are helpful. (Specifically, Diff/1343639898 & Diff/1343642264.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: You can be annoyed with reverts being counted, but it is a fact that you said years ago Most of the issues have recently been resolved. The problem that remains is over a specific claim that is made by a dictionary. (Special:Diff/1231757790) Nearly two years later and there has been an additional 83 edits reverted with nearly every one of your edits to Shakshouka in that time period being a revert. To me, that sounds like continuing problems, not resolved ones. (And to add, the only user who has come close in that time period seems to be Skitash with 12 reverts in all 12 edits since June 2024.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, your complaint about LEvalyn is odd to me. The two edits you linked to are from the only user who agreed with you at the third ANI discussion and your reply to me at the same discussion. The first feel odd as everyone else could be described as neutral to opposed to your opinions of the situation. The second feels off because it was where you made accusations about LEvalyn without diffs (even when asked to provide them) while failing to discuss why you fully reverted LEvalyn in this edit. (Diff/1219627318) You might want to review your examples and potentially consider different ones. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:42, 17 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)

CaptainEek, tbh I think this is inappropriate and it would've been best to ask other arbs off-wiki, but basically Algerian nationalist, so pro-Arab, anti-Berberist (slanted article btw, see abstract), anti-Morocco and pro-SADR (basically Morocco has been colonising Western Sahara). See king of the hill (game). Other POVs are typically Moroccan, Berberist, or NPOV. Disputes surrounding cultural items are pretty good signs of tendentious editing, as ethnicities try to claim ownership/origins of a particular dish or piece of clothing. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I thank the filing editor for having searched for DRN filings involving M. Bitton, an editor who has a history of being asked to take part in discussion at DRN, and erases the notice of the noticeboard filings. Participation in DRN is voluntary, and erasing the notice is a valid way of declining to participate. However, there have been 20 such filings. That is a long history of conflict. I see the issue as not so much their choice not to participate in dispute resolution, which is voluntary, as being involved in 20 disputes about which other editors requested dispute resolution. An editor who is 20 times asked to take part in discussions at DRN is an editor who gets into a lot of conflicts, largely about North Africa. The two most recent such cases were Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_270#Morocco and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_265#Algiers, the latter case also involving Skitash.

ArbCom should open a case and consider at least two issues:

• Should any editors be topic-banned from North Africa?
• Should North Africa be a contentious topic?

I may add to this statement in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Some editors have raised issues about the editing of mathematical articles by M. Bitton that may be only marginally about North Africa or the Maghreb. It may be wise for ArbCom to leave the scope of the case open during the evidence phase along with the identification of the parties. It will be less complicated to have a case with a bifurcated scope than to split the case into two cases.

Some regions of the world are contentious topics because the regions are divided between different nationalities or cultures. The Maghreb is such a region because it is a meeting place (and sometimes a clashing place) for at least three different cultures and ethnic groups that arrived in different millennia: the indigenous Amazigh or Berber culture; the Arabs who conquered the region in the first century of the Islamic era (seventh century CE); and the Europeans, mainly French, who were the colonial power in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries CE.

S Marshall says that admonitions to editors to be more patient, collegial, and collaborative usually do not work. That is unfortunately true. What ArbCom must do instead is to decide what sanctions are needed to minimize disruption from editors who think that they are always right, including editors who divide the community for whatever reason, including that they agree with some members of the community and disagree with others.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case, define a contentious topic, and decide what sanctions are needed for editors who have shown that they are often not collaborative. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal - There is an allegation of tag teaming. The primary allegation is stonewalling by both M. Bitton and Skitash. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Samuelshraga

I contributed several pieces of evidence to the most recent ANI thread, as well as pointing to disruption ongoing during the ANI thread from some of the parties. I was also the editor who reported M.Bitton last Spring that led to their last block (by Asilvering). I agree with Asilvering's view of the issue, and think a case needs to be opened as ANI failed to take action even as numerous uninvolved editors saw the problem Asilvering is pointing to.

I'll add that Robert McClenon is right to bring up the prospect of North Africa being designated a contentious topic. Part of the issue here is the long-term tendentious editing pointed to by Asilvering's case request, but another is that there is genuinely plenty of sockpuppetry and nationalistic POV-pushing the other way. An evidence phase may be useful, though I think the problems will be fairly easy to demonstrate.

Lastly I'd just suggest that while I agree fully with the text of Asilvering's case request, the other arbs should probably change the title. WP:Tagteaming in the sense of explicit off-wiki co-ordination is basically impossible to prove (though some explicit on-wiki co-ordination was exposed at ANI). The other behavioural aspects of this case are extremely easy to substantiate. I would suggest that arbs agree to hear evidence about behaviour in North African topics or the Maghreb generally. Unfortunately I don't see a more specific framing that will work - disrupted topics include languages, localities, BLPs, national and international politics and minority ethnic groups. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

CaptainEek This is not a case just about Maghrebi cuisine. Disrupted pages/talk pages include Geography, North Africa, Imane Khelif, Kabyles hadra, History of the Jews in Algeria, Marinid dynasty and dozens others. Kowal is also right to say that conduct issues do extend outside the North Africa/Maghreb topic area, but the examples here are all within it. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yamla you received information (I'm assuming privately) about attempted block evasion and meatpuppetry by M.Bitton - using email - last year. Given that co-ordination is one of the issues this case was requested to address, I would think that whatever information you received should be passed on to the committee (presumably also privately, unless that's not necessary). That evidence like this exists is also a reason for the committee to accept the case. Samuelshraga (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by LEvalyn

Asilvering mentioned being a spectator to a messy series of disputes I was involved in at shakshouka; I strongly endorse their filing. I would also add: I am perplexed by the priorities of someone who can make 110 edits to tagine while leaving many unsourced paragraphs. As SuperGoku said at shakshouka, It is clear that there is currently a problem here over something. ArbCom's strict word limits strike me as uniquely well-suited to resolving the particular kinds of problematic editing I have seen from M.Bitton. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Taking your invitation to be explicit, I would say that Skitash and M.Bitton share a strongly pro-Algerian POV, often with a pro-Arab flavour. I've mentioned food because those are the articles I have touched (on these articles, M.Bitton's POV leads him to describe foods as "Maghrebi" rather than allowing them to be identified with non-Algeria countries), but I also see reason for concern around the use of Berber languages in articles, Algeria's claims to the Western Sahara, and the Algerian boxer Imane Khelif. One core reason it feels like a "POV" rather than a more benign "area of interest" is that I see Skitash and M.Bitton evaluate evidence and policy differently case-by-case depending on what presents Algerian Arabs in the best light. I am by no means an expert on this geopolitical topic either, and so I consider it symptomatic of the underlying problem that I am nonetheless quite confident in identifying pro-Algerian-Arab as the POV of concern. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@EasternShah I'm not an ArbCom regular and was under the impression that diffs were primarily desired in the evidence phase. I can certainly provide some if the committee wishes. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I recommend ARBCOM accept this case. I was hesitant when I first saw it, because I don't believe the volume of evidence is beyond the community's ability to handle. But the topic is niche, and the principal actors have a tendency to bludgeon everyone else out of the discussion (see AN/ANI threads above). AE could likely handle this but we're not in an area covered by arbitration remedies for the most part. I will note that M. Bitton in particular has been warned for their conduct multiple times at AE in the PIA area (I will supply evidence if it is needed), suggesting there are general problems with their approach to disputed topics. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Mdm.Bla

I am uninvolved in this dispute, but I was vaguely aware of its existence from being summoned to an RfC on North Africa. I'll add to the point asilvering made about [getting] their opponents, who have much less experience with Wikipedia processes than they have, sanctioned that the filer of that RfC, Axiom Theory, is another inexperienced user (145 edits at the time of writing) who has been reported twice at AN3 by M.Bitton for their edits on North Africa. I will be expanding on this later today, but the tl;dr is that Axiom Theory, like Bananakingler, is a new user who has been subjected to substandard conduct by M.Bitton and Skitash while having engaged in less-than-perfect conduct themself. If this case is accepted, arbs should consider examining the apparent pattern of biting in this topic area, if the problem is more widespread than it appears, and how it can be prevented in the future. mdm.bla 16:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

In the first report, Axiom Theory had reverted two edits of M.Bitton and Skitash each; they were pageblocked by Acroterion for bright-line edit-warring in the middle of an RfC. The second report resulted in both users being warned by EvergreenFir; M.Bitton only presented two reversions. As to whether or not North Africa/the Maghreb should be designated as a CTOP, the fact that both of these reports led to North Africa (i.e. the main page for this topic) being fully protected for the second and third times this year ( ) suggests that, at the very least, CTOP designation should be on the table. mdm.bla 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Skitash has twice strongly warned Axiom Theory (1st, 2nd) after a single revert of M.Bitton's edits at separate pages (1st, 2nd). The three users have engaged in a back-and-forth of adding and removing warning templates for DE, harassment, etc. (see their talk page histories). Axiom Theory hasn't edited since March 1, but I suspect they would have been brought to ANI if this conflict had continued. What I see here is Axiom Theory being bitten by two editors who disagree with them on the content and responding as one might expect. While Axiom Theory's behavior is not great, M.Bitton and Skitash should know better. Being right is not enough and does not excuse their conduct; I say that as someone who agreed with them at the aforementioned RfC. mdm.bla 17:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking into Jacobolus's statement, I'm unconvinced that the dispute extends into mathematics; it looks like that disruption stems from being an article where mathematics and the Maghreb intersect. See also Special:Contributions/109.107.227.242 and Special:Contributions/109.107.227.188, who pushed a similar POV as M.Bitton on Arabic numerals before being blocked at ANI. As for the title, I would suggest Maghreb or, as I haven't seen any disruption concerning other Maghrebi countries, History of Algeria and Morocco. mdm.bla 00:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EasternShah

LEvalyn, you've said all of that without an diffs to back anything up (even a vague gesturing at any of their edits). I'm not very experienced in this part of Wikipedia, but to me that seems like an aspersion, lack of good faith and personal attack. Also note that Algeria has never claimed Western Sahara, but they have backed the Polisario front against Moroccan (and formerly Mauritanian) actions. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Bananakingler it is very strange to call the removal of unsourced content editwarring, please strike this accusation. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO does not exempt all removal of unsourced content. Bananakingler does not need to strike that accusation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Its pretty obvious that nationalistic POV-pushing by removing sourced content is vandalism in my opinion. I do not think that any well-intentioned user would disagree Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not the place to get into an extended back-and-forth, but understanding vandalism is important. WP:VAND says that [e]ven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. NPOV contraventions are on the list of things which are not vandalism. Therefore, I disagree that it is vandalism. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Uhoj

Some of the parties have treated lower venues not as opportunities to amicably resolve disputes, but as tools for winning. They have engaged in a multi-party pattern of behavior that discourages dispassionate contributions.

Skitash has subverted WP:3O numerous times.

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

@HouseBlaster and Izno:, I'd suggest Maghreb as a case title or at least the primary identifier. "North Africa" traditionally includes Egypt and Sudan, whereas these disputes are firmly centered on Algeria, with overlap into Tunisia and Morocco. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by GiftedIceCream

In adition to @RobertMcClenon, the Committee should also consider IBANs esp. because they were brought up in the latest ANI thre . GiftedIceCream 14:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@BananaKingler can you post here? We are waiting for your pov and opinions. GiftedIceCream 14:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

The phrase which ... strikes me as some of the most absurd stonewalling I have ever seen in my time on Wikipedia in the opening statement reminded me of discussions that have taken place at Talk:Arabic numerals and Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system over the last 2–3 years (currently on the talk-pages there). The stonewalling by M.Bitton in those discussions (which did not involve me or any other named parties, AFAIK) is IMO quite shocking. (The issue in question is whether or to what extent those articles should ascribe ownership of the modern decimal & numeral system to the Arabic or Hindu worlds; see for example this post by jacobolus, a frustrated mathematics-focused editor who has been heavily involved in the discussions there.) While this does not mostly involve North Africa, it is clearly related. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

With respect to the assertion that my notification of Jacobolus constitutes canvassing, the section WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification states that [a]n editor ... can place a message ... [o]n the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). In my opinion it would be highly uncourteous to quote someone by name here without notifying them, but in any case it is clearly permissible. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Jacobolus

Edited statement: I don't really know how Arbcom pages work, sorry for any procedural faux pas.

I don't have experience with North Africa articles, but discussions about mathematical topics with M.Bitton have been extraordinarily frustrating (demoralizing, demotivating) because the reverts fly fast with little explanation, the constant focus afterward is on wikilawyering and (rudely expressed) arguments about politeness rather than content or substantive criticisms, direct substantive questions are ignored, there is little effort to refer claims back to reliable sources, and the goal seems to be enforcing one person's somewhat mystifying personal preference rather than seeking consensus or truth.

The result is a constellation of very poor articles which have been blocked from substantive improvement for many years, with most editors who tried to contribute quickly giving up. Making even marginal and uncontroversial improvements feels like pulling teeth.

To elaborate: The title Arabic numerals is a very common wikilink and common search target, and the page gets high traffic (much higher than related titles). As commonly understood (as can be seen from e.g. examining the context of wikilinks to that title), the phrase refers to the predominant written number sytem and its structure and use.

M.Bitton and a few other editors have for years closely minded the article. They decided that the scope should be limited to the shape of the specific "modern" digit symbols 0123456789, with particular attention on the detail that the symbol forms proximately descended from some which were used in the Maghreb or Al-Andalus. Information about the use of the same number system in other parts of the Islamic world is deflected to Eastern Arabic numerals, and mention that this number system was transmitted to the Islamic world from India is minimized. Formerly they completely suppressed links to Hindu–Arabic numeral system and History of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, but after an extended fight those are included. They essentially treat the article as part of a taxonomic tree of articles about symbol shapes, like an article about a biological clade; the specific scope chosen for the base of the clade at Arabic numerals is the numbers used in North Africa c. 900 AD, and anything outside that scope is treated as, at best, historical background. Any effort to describe the nature or purpose of the number system is removed.

The effect is to park a (in my opinion) slightly off-topic, confusingly organized, very underdeveloped, and somewhat misleading article at a high-traffic title. I still can't quite figure out what M.Bitton's motivation is, and I was never able to get a clear explanation of their vision or preferences for the page(s) in question, despite repeated requests – such substantive questions are invariably deflected with accusations about "aspersions" – but can only speculate based on the pattern of their reactions (such as revert summaries).

At some point I'll hopefully muster up the motivation to do something more about it. –jacobolus (t) 18:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• I edited my comments. Does that help? I have limited experience with this forum. –jacobolus (t) 18:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

@AirshipJungleman29:, @Izno:, @HouseBlaster:: If I may opine I would agree with 'Maghreb' as the case/potential CTOP scope, as it includes Mauretania, which is not traditionally part of 'North Africa' yet is more closely involved culturally, politically, and editorially with the conflict area than Egypt and Sudan are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Katzrockso

I would also urge ArbCom to accept this case. I have little familiarity with this topic area, but have come across some of these disputes via the WP:3O process, as well as some of the WP:ANI discussions. At Talk:Kabyles hadra, it become very quickly clear to me that there was some POV-pushing going on, where sources are being twisted (or sometimes no sourcing whatsoever) to support contentious (to put it lightly) claims about ethnic groups.Katzrockso (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: - I would suggest that the locus of the disputes is not "North Africa" in the very broadest sense, but more specifically when it involves North African/Maghreb-related controversies that relate to ethnicity, culture, language, history or politics. Perhaps M Bitton is involved more broadly in other North African articles, as seen by their participation in the Imane Khelif article, but this is not the locus of the actual disruption.Katzrockso (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall

Arbcom can instruct editors to be more patient and collegial and collaborative, and tries this fairly often. It doesn't work.

If someone's starting point is that they're right and everyone else is a timewasting fool, then them suddenly becoming patient, collegial and collaborative isn't going to happen.—S Marshall T/C 10:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• If any bright line rules were being broken here, the community could have dealt with it. They aren't.

Instead these editors stay scrupulously within the rules, but they're efficient and effective in how to apply them. Attempts to change an article these editors are watching are met with a terse, low-effort response. Voluntary dispute resolution processes are ignored. Mandatory ones are curtly answered. No interest whatsoever is taken in other editors' thoughts or points.

Arbcom should take the case, please.

The minimum way Arbcom could respond is to designate a CT and give it to AE admins to make the calls. But a better way would be to give clear and specific directions about exactly how named editors should change their behaviour, so AE admins get easier decisions and everyone's expectations are set correctly. I hope that's the outcome.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• We're a collaboratively written encyclopaedia. Someone who's unwilling to collaborate is someone we can't work with. We're often very patient with people who have lots of edits. Let's not be too patient.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Clicriffhard

Similarly to others, I've found M.Bitton's approach to the Imane Khelif article and its talk page frustrating for some time. Clearly it's an article that attracts strong views and disagreements, but there are plenty of editors on all "sides" of the disagreements who have managed to put their arguments in comprehensible, constructive, and broadly respectful ways (no, really). By contrast, M.Bitton's participation has included:

1. Near-constant threats to take editors that they disagree with to a "board", often based on vague and improbable accusations of policy violations that they're unable or unwilling to substantiate;
2. Frequent suggestions that editors that they disagree with should take them to a "board", as if constructive disagreement were not an option;
3. Avoiding every attempt that anyone ever makes at conflict resolution on their talk page, often deleting those attempts with a hostile or dismissive edit summary;
4. Long one-against-many arguments - with editors including those with whom they are broadly aligned on content - some of which have appeared so persistently unreasonable that it becomes difficult to maintain the assumption of good faith;
5. Fairly extreme talk page bludgeoning in general;
6. Seemingly indiscriminate reversions of article edits, even when those edits were doing self-evidently reasonable things like removing an unsourced statement from a BLP;
7. A total absence - as far as I can recall - of even the slightest concession to the arguments of others, or indeed anything else that might suggest that they're willing to engage with countervailing arguments or critically examine their own.

I'm under no illusions that M.Bitton is the only editor who has participated on that article or its talk page in a disruptive way, but I honestly couldn't name one other editor who has presented as much of an obstacle to calm and respectful disagreement, let alone constructive collaboration.

Needless to say that I have no way of knowing whether M.Bitton's conduct relates to Khelif's Algerian nationality, but the patterns of behaviour described by others above suggest to me that it plausibly could. If you accept a case, and if the article for an Algerian boxer is deemed to be in scope, then I'll try to detail some of the above with diffs and you can make up your own minds. Clicriffhard (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with DanielRigal that there's no obvious reason to suspect collusion on the Khelif article. The relevance of the article depends entirely on the scope of the case, i.e. is it collusion specifically, or something broader in relation to conduct issues in the topic area? Clicriffhard (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by DanielRigal

What's the actual accusation here? Meatpuppetry of some sort? Is there any actual evidence for this?

Anyway, I'm not active in articles about North Africa much but one place related to a North African where I see M.Bitton is at Talk:Imane Khelif. You know who I don't see there? Skitash. If they really were joined at the hip, at least on everything North African, then I would expect to see them both there. Now maybe one lack of a swallow does not a winter make but what I am not seeing here is anything that proves collusion. I am seeing people who find M.Bitton annoying complaining about various other things. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

CaptainEek, the arguments are always about who gets to claim the food, which version is authentic, who stole which from whom, how it's correctly consumed, and always how it's identified culturally or nationally. So, for instance, if people are going to argue that shakshouka is more Tunisian than Algerian, someone pushing an Algerian gastronationalistic point of view might insist that it be called Maghrebi rather than Tunisian. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, sorry, was shorthanding in order to answer a direct request for a primer on the geopolitics of why food is so important without writing a book. The issue is of course much deeper than "where did shakshouka originate?" and goes to issues of colonialization, cultural erasure, the importance of food in national identity, and of course in the specific case of shakshouka, that it became more globally recognized after being adopted into Israeli cuisine and included in the cuisine's cookbooks. Maghrebi isn't incorrect; the dish is historically known throughout the region, so editors trying to find some area of compromise might decide that was acceptable. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

EggRoll97, please note that I have blocked Skitash and Bananakingler for edit warring. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, thanks, I saw that--but I came from the 3R board and initially looked only at the edit warring. I could hypothesize, and I could come up with a plausible accusation, but that's really a matter for this board here. I wanted to put a stop to that particular nonsense first. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

I can't help but notice and note that the edit war mentioned by Drmies above was continued by M.Bitton when Skitash stopped. . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's a plural "them" in M.Bitton's 20:07 message above, reverting to either revision just makes things worse, which is why WP:PREFER is limited to administrators. If it's a singular "them", M.Bitton just proves my point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)