Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. Seven support or oppose votes are a majority.
More information Abstentions, Support votes needed for majority ...
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5
Close
Shortcut
Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

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

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

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

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Temporary topic and interaction bans

1.1) With the exception of arbitration pages, Bananakingler (talk · contribs), M.Bitton (talk · contribs), R3YBOl (talk · contribs), and Skitash (talk · contribs) are topic banned from the Maghreb region and banned from interacting with one another, both broadly construed. This temporary injunction automatically expires when this case is closed.

Support:
  1. Thanks to HB for writing this up. After two rounds of edit warring while the case is still in the evidence stage, we have reached this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Supporting below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    We can make reasonable adjustments if necessary but the conduct at Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima, Oriental (Morocco), and the bickering on Drmies' talk page, this is absolutely necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    Indenting in favour of the proposal below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. This is unfortunately necessary given the ongoing behavior. I'm fine with R3YBOl being omitted, per the below discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC) per discussion below.
  2. In favor of the below injunction which does not target R3YBOI. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comments:
Looking at the each user's contribution history, the edit warring and re-litigation of the recent edit warring blocks needs to stop, now. This is not a finding of fault; it is just a pause on further disputes until we have dealt with the root of the issue (whatever that may be). I do want to give a reasonable opportunity for responses—that's only fair—but I am strongly inclined to support this (or something similar). The stick needs to be dropped, and given the history of edit warring blocks, I don't think a warning will be sufficient. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster: Can we remove or split R3YBOl? They've been basically inactive for a week, I don't think they need to be enjoined for the moment. (Normally I would do this as an amendment or alt, but injunctions work on net-four so that gets tricky.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Splitting R3 would be reasonable. They weren't involved in the latest round. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I can also get behind that. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Support:
  1. per above :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  3. All three editors named have edited since this an injunction was proposed. I therefore support, as I said above, because the edit warring needs to stop. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  6. Aoidh (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  7. First choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  8. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

M.Bitton blocked

2) M.Bitton (talk · contribs) is blocked. This temporary injunction automatically expires when this case is closed and implementation of the decision is complete.

Support:
  1. Continued disruption during the end stage of the case and some other discussion is pending. Izno (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  2. I was going to block two days ago as an individual admin, but didn't get enough feedback from other arbs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  3. Support and implement immediately upon net four. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
  4. This should be taken as the date of commencement of the siteban for fariness's sake. That decision is made and we're wrangling with other details. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI