Proposed parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by asilvering

  asilvering's statement contains 445 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

  M.Bananakingler's statement contains 446 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

Due to the overwhelming evidence already delivered by other editors, my lack of experience here and my current personal life (or how one user funnylie called it: the meat space) 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 each other and towards the editing in general. I was hounded multiple times by them with reasons like „unhelpful“ or „not an improvement“. Due 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 hired it in a comment instead. But of course only the Amazigh name, not the Arabic one.

At one time every edit I did gave me an adneraline rush cause 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 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.

Statement by M.Bitton

  M.Bitton's statement contains 459 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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)

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

  Skitash's statement contains 488 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@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

  Super Goku V's statement contains 496 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

  Kowal2701's statement contains 328 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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)

Statement by Samuelshraga

  Samuelshraga's statement contains 388 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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

  Mdm.Bla's statement contains 444 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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)

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

  Jacobolus's statement contains 498 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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)

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)

Statement by Clicriffhard

  Clicriffhard's statement contains 420 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

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 GrayStorm

Probably not important in the grand scheme of things, but it's bugging me a little, and idk if I'm allowed to edit it, so just puting it here to be safe: There are currently 8 accepts, not 7.
1. HouseBlaster
2. Eli
3. theleekycauldron
4. Izno (not bolded, which might be where the confusion is coming from)
5. HJ Mitchell
6. Aoidh
7. ScottishFinnishRaddish
8. SilverLocust
GrayStorm^{(Talk to me|My Contribs.)} 01:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

North Africa: Clerk notes

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

• @Jacobolus: Your statement is currently over the word limit, at 612 words. Please trim your statement to the limit of 500 words. If you would like to request an extension, you are free to do so either through the use of the {{@ArbComClerks}} template, or by emailing the clerks-l list, depending on the manner you would prefer. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Jacobolus: Yes, your statement is now in compliance with the word limit. Thank you for trimming your statement. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

North Africa: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse, obviously. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Waiting for statements. @Super Goku V: a 1k word statement is rarely helpful at this stage, especially when it is effectively a part of a previous discussion. Please try to provide a focused statement on if we should accept a case or not. The rest may be useful at the evidence stage. My guide to arbitration may be useful. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• I expect to support accepting this case—a dispute with lots of unsuccessful, attempted resolution is a prime candidate for arbitration—though I also want to hear statements before doing so. I am particularly interested in hearing from M.Bitton. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • +1. I also want to hear from the parties, but I'll note that R3YBOl is actively editing and hasn't posted, and M.Bitton may have a newfound passion for the meatspace. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'll stop beating around the bush. There is a chronic issue, and Skitash wants to present off-wiki evidence. Therefore, this is squarely our responsibility. Accept, titled North Africa (WP:ARBNA), accepting private evidence, and using the b-list. I think the recent trend of accepting new party submissions during the first week of the evidence phase would work nicely here; we can start with the five proposed parties. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Similar to those above, I'm interested in hearing from M.Bitton and inclined towards hearing this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • To be clear, accept. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Looks like there are good reasons to get involved relating to our public and private roles – accept per HouseBlaster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Can someone give a primer on the geopolitics here? I feel like I'm missing something. I know that food is culturally important and can lead to much drama. I remember a guy getting blocked about the Cuban sandwich. But are the worst examples here really about shakshouka and tagine? That appears to be how this issue came to attention, but could folks lay out perhaps a broader picture of the issue? I don't know enough about the geopolitics to know at a glance what POV the parties are being accused of pushing. Are M. Bitton/Skitash pro-Maghreb? Anti-Arab? Are we afraid to say lest we cast aspersions? I'll go to bat for whoever tells me, in plain and direct language, what the potential POV's are, and how folks think the parties fit into that, and how that is causing or not causing issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. I am not convinced about the suggested name above, and I disfavor the retitling as done since this was opened. Let's leave that to the scope work that comes post-accept. Izno (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't particularly care what name we go with. I care greatly that we spend a collective maximum of, let's say, 15 editor minutes on picking a name. Pick a neutral, concise name and call it a day. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Concision matters less than precision; so far as we know, the topic is not in fact North Africa. Izno (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Accept. M.Bitton's conduct certainly seems to have been discussed extensively, we have accusations of coordinated editing preventing consensus from forming, and there is evidence of obstruction of dispute-resolution processes. I'm happy with "Maghreb" or similar as a scope as long as it's not too restrictive; we need to be able to examine evidence of broader problems and the comments about mathematics articles warrant examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. The drafters can discuss the name and its implications for the scope, but the underlying issues seem to warrant a case. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. For scope I'm happy with either of Maghreb or North Africa, and would like to allow evidence of similar behavior of named parties outside the topic area. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Chaotic Enby

Do conflicts between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, that do not directly involve Arab countries, fall under the scope of the extended-confirmed restriction? I've recently seen several PIA-related actions in that regard (most recently, this protection of Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei), and, while I see the connection if we are considering the topic as broadly construed (given the indirect role of Iran in the conflict through its proxies), having an explicit clarification one way or the other could be helpful.

To clarify, I'm not requesting any action against The Bushranger (whose action only happens to be the latest example I've seen of this), just wanting to clarify the limits of where ECR applies.

Statement by The Bushranger

Requesting removal from the case as a party per the OP's statement. On the position itself: the limitations of the search function mean I can't find it to link it right off hand, but this did come up at ANI or AN recently (during 2025) and agreement was that the Israeli-Iran conflict falls under it; of course it's entirely possible Arbcom may see otherwise! - 00:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Removed as a party. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think that some arbs are displaying a lack of familiarity with the subject matter at hand when they express doubt that this should be covered, or that this is a post-1979 concern. Prior to the 1979 revolution, agitation around the Pahlavi monarchy’s ties to Israel and their policies towards Palestinians was a central element of the ayatollah’s polemics against the monarchy (see the Timeline section of Iran–Israel relations, particularly the two subsections about the Pahlavi period focusing respectively on Pahlavi’s policies and the activities of the Islamic opposition). The current Iranian government’s claims to legitimacy (as in, how it justifies its rule to its population) are directly tied to its opposition to Israel, and Israel’s own hostility to Iran following the 1979 revolution is based on the reciprocal recognition of this ideological commitment by the Iranian government. Military confrontations between the two are thus deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, at least for as long as the Iranian and Israeli states continue to exist in their current forms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that the suggested rescoping of the restriction to cover "Israeli politics" would also be workable, although I would amend that to "Israeli politics and/or Palestinian politics", since the political activities of Palestinian factions should be covered by the topic even when it's not something immediately impacting Israeli politics. In a sense, the "Arab-Israeli conflict" framing is an atavism of the 1930s-70s when it could be said almost without exaggeration that there was a general conflict between Zionism/Israel and the whole Arab world. Successive peace treaties with Arab governments, as well as the expansion of the conflict to non-Arab states, complicates the designation of "Arab-Israeli". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I think the statement "It also armed the terrorist proxies around us in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Judea and Samaria, and it shed our blood." from "Read Netanyahu's full statement on Iran attacks" is probably enough to designate it as "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I don't think the Israeli-Iranian conflict is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it should definitely be considered a contentious topic anyway of course. Perhaps just make it simple and clear that Any military action or violence by or against the State of Israel is designated as a contentious topic on Wikipedia. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Per Guerillero's comment, if Iranian politics and American politics are CTOPs, probably so too should be Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact, maybe instead of the Arab-Israeli conflict being a CTOP, PIA (Palestine-Israel articles) should be slightly rescoped to be simply PIP: Palestinian and Israeli politics. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The current hostilities are certainly "related to AIC" per leekycauldron, and are certainly "deeply intertwined with the Arab-Israeli conflict" per Rosguill, but that doesn't make them wholly "part of" that conflict.

The entirety of the State of Israel and its very existence is inseparable from the Arab-Israeli conflict, so really anything to do with Israeli politics should be ECR unless that's too restrictive. In which case something like the "national and international politics of Israel" or "Israeli foreign policy" should be ECR. That way local/small-scale/municipal/minor Israeli politics and the like wouldn't be ECR, which would be the drawback to applying the restriction to all of "Israeli politics" in general. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

The Iranian government is deeply embedded in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Iran's support for Hamas is frequently cited as the rationale for hostilities between Iran and Israel. I don't see how the Israeli-Iranian conflict would not be covered by PIA. Broader Iranian politics may fall outside it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Abo Yemen

While I believe that the Iranian-Israeli conflict is a CTOP, I do not think that it should fall under the name of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is not Arab. See also Rosguill's statement. I think that there should be a rescope 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In reply to @CaptainEek's suggestion that the definition should be extended to the '"Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict' (which is technically a wrong wording, since it isn't everyone in the Middle East but Israel against Israel), I suggest that all post-1948 Middle Eastern politics be designated as a CTOP 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by ToBeFree

Practice is a bit faster than process here. I've already placed some protections based on the statements here on this page after initially saying "Iran is not an Arab country". Rosguill's statement above is very helpful. I think it would be time for a formal close or perhaps ideally even a motion amending WP:CT/A-I similarly to the current "Clarifications and amendments" section of the South Asia contentious topics page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Agree that iran-israel conflict should obviously be ECR protected and fall under PIA restrictions as well. Don't think a blanket ECR on all Israeli politics or all Palestinian politics, as I saw some folks above suggest, is a great idea, as that covers a large portion of ground. obviously most of it probably should be ECR, but not all

there are some editors who complain they cannot edit on topics they know due to overly restrictive ECR, and though I'm glad ECR covers and prevents most of the fire, if there is some part of the politic that somehow doesn't get covered by the conflict (i.e. Israeli income tax policy, Palestinian traffic governance, etc.) and editors don't attempt to even toe the line, it would be problematic for them to be stopped. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Nil Einne

While the war isn't expected to end anytime soon, it would be useful for this clarification to come sooner than later. E.g. IMO it would help to manage the talk page if it was clear reports of Ali Larijani death by Israeli strikes are covered by ARBECR. But as the alleged defacto leader of Iran with a significant internal focus it's not clear at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

For the purpose of avoiding ambiguity, we should also specify whether content that solely relates to conflict between Iran and the United States is also covered under this provision as part of the "broadly construed" element, and whether that conflict is required to have some locus to Israel or not. To me, this seems to argue in favor of potentially carving out a new CTOPS area specifically for Iran (or perhaps Iran and geopolitical/military conflict), which could then cover both the Iran-Israel portion and the Iran-US elements of the conflict, without creating bizarre edge cases. For instance, it's clear that even under the present terms, Iranian missile strikes against Tel Aviv count. It also would seem reasonable that an Iranian missile attack against a U.S. ship as part of this conflict, would also count -- even if the tactical instance of the strike does not involve Israel, it sits within the broader lens of a conflict that does. But extending that further -- what about Iranian-sponsored Houthi missile strikes against US forces that occur just outside of the direct conflict? What about Iranian EFP attacks in Iraq against U.S. forces? What about Iranian cyberwarfare attacks against U.S. interests? None of these things are truly unrelated to the broader conflict between Iran and Israel, regionally. However on an individual basis, that connection may not be readily apparent, or may very attenuated. Moreover, I don't think there's likely to be less editing problems (behaviorally and otherwise) on an Iran-US CTOP than there would be in the Arab-Israeli one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 5: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Yes, to my understanding the general conflict between Iran and Israel (Iran–Israel proxy conflict) is considered "Part of the Arab–Israeli conflict". That's what the main article on the topic says, and many articles about it are placed under EC protection as being within PIA. As to why, my understanding is that the origin of the enmity between Iran and Israel after the 1979 Islamic revolution is mainly the Arab–Israeli conflict (particularly the Palestine–Israel conflict/the dispute as to the legitimacy of the State of Israel). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be inclined to extend the CTOP (not the ECR) to other content about either Israel or Palestine. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I believe it does. Daniel (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Iran is not an Arab country, so I am hesitant to say that the Iran–Israel conflict is entirely covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict ECR. Parts of Iran–Israel conflicts are covered via the broadly construed clause, but I don't think there is a blanket rule. (On a related note, for contentious topic actions, Iranian politics is probably more applicable.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Arab–Israeli conflict is our most fraught topic area, and it has a long history at ArbCom. Five PIA cases, plus many related cases (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), plus the innumerable times we have considered PIA-related ARMs and ARCAs (not least the most recent fiasco).

  We are well past wit's end in PIA. Consequently, we have consistently employed our most bitter medicine to the topic area. Anything that PIA touches is a contentious topic, and subject to 1RR, and subject to ECR, and (until November) all formal discussions have a 1,000 word limit. We created a bespoke restriction which forces editors to spend time not touching the cesspit. We depart from WP:PREEMPTIVE—a policy that comes from our bedrock principle of anyone can edit—by mandating that ECR be enforced automatically, without room for admin discretion. Upon PIA misconduct, we allow admins to issue restrictions with and severely limit the right to appeal, and we permit broadening topic bans beyond PIA.

  Before broadening PIA, I would want evidence that we need all of that to quell disruption. I agree with leeky when she said I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. I disagree we should expand all of PIA before we try less extreme measures, such as expanding just a contentious topic (either PIA or IRP). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• The present conflict absolutely does. -- asilvering (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• I would argue that the most recent strikes do fall under the ECR. WP:BROADLY specifies that Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic. In other words, anything that falls under the topic area is always covered by the CT, broadly construed or not; but when a CT is broadly construed, anything broadly related to the topic area, which necessarily includes being broadly related to key subtopics of the topic area, is also covered by the CT. While it's debatable whether the most recent strikes fall under the CT – like House said, Iran isn't a direct belligerent to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli wars with Arab proxies notwithstanding – they are very closely related to the Gaza war and the proxy conflict, and as such I would say the strikes are covered. I think the spirit of the rule also supports this interpretation: this topic area is going to see a lot of the same disruption that the Arab–Israeli conflict area normally gets, because of that close relation to PIA, and I think it only make sense that admins will be able to address the same disruption with the same set of tools. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, I don't agree that all conflict between Israel and Iran is inherently AIC, it should be case-by-case; but I do agree that the current hostilities are broadly related to AIC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• It probably isn't under a plain reading of the text passed by previous arbcoms. Iran isn't an Arab state. However, it is clear that between IRANPOL, AMPOL, and PIA this should be covered due to all of those topic areas touching the current conflict to some degree. To limit confusion, we should pass a motion explicitly stating that this is covered by one to three of the three existing CTs. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Guerillero, it's clearly covered by IRANPOL and AMPOL. But PIA has ECR, so it's important whether it's under this one specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am willing to vote that the scope of CT, ECP, and topic bans for PIA explicitly includes conflicts between Iran and Israel. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• I admit that for some reason I'd always thought of Iran as being Arabic, although I realize it is more properly considered Persian. In a technical sense, Iran isn't really an Arab state; it has only a handful of Arab speakers. But it is part of the middle east, and obviously has a long history of conflict with its neighbors and also Israel. Iran also supports the proxy conflict between the Arab Hezbollah and Israel, which is obviously covered under Arab-Israeli conflict. I would support expanding our definition to "Israeli-Middle Eastern" conflict, if that would help cover the current conflict. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would also support amending the scope :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would also support amending it, it seems necessary given the present circumstances. - Aoidh (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Although a strictly literal reading would say no, the current conflict is undoubtedly an extension of the ongoing Gaza War and Israel-Iranian relations in general overlap considerably with the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm not sure I'd say historical conflicts/relations between the two would automatically be covered by the CTOP but some will and current events certainly are in my opinion. As others have noted, aspects are also covered by the CTOPs for American and Iranian politics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• It seems like we're going to want a motion here. I've workshopped wording on a few, and before we get to voting, I'd love to get some feedback on these options:
  • Direct expansion: Remedy 4 of Palestine-Israel articles 4 is amended to read:

    For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "areas of conflict" are the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, and the Iran–Israel conflicts, broadly construed.

  Any sanction imposed under, or remedy applying to, the existing contentious topic scheme is expanded to cover the new area of conflict.

  • Sister contentious topic: Iran–Israel conflicts, broadly construed, are collectively designated as a contentious topic. Any sanction imposed under, or remedy applying to, the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic area also applies to this topic area.
  • Expansion/clarification: For the purposes of arbitration enforcement, the Iran–Israel conflicts should be considered broadly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
  • Narrower expansion/clarification: For the purposes of arbitration enforcement, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be considered a part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and anything broadly related to it – including the 2026 Iran war – is part of the contentious topic area.

I think they all have strengths and weaknesses – implementing this cleanly in the most complicated CTOP is not easy. It would be nice to overhaul and modernize some of the language, but maybe that's for another motion, at another time. open to thoughts :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I like option 4 best here. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Option 4 looks good to me. I'd also be fine with 1. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer option 4. It doesn't necessarily have to be a motion (posted at WP:ACN) rather than just a clarification (posted at WP:CT/PIA#Clarifications and amendments) by majority or rough consensus. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 for option 4. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Option 4 is a good, low bureaucracy way to handle this without fully rescoping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

As six is currently a majority, this carries. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by EarthDude

The inclusion of the term "broadly construed" here would align with the August 2025 ARCA request regarding scope of IMH. According to the linked request, IMH is already supposed to apply in a "broadly construed" manner. With WP:CT/CASTE now including the term, it would only be confusing and misleading for editors if the other subtopic is also applied as broadly construed in practice, but not stated as such. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to comment that the main reason I bring this up is due to the discrepancy regarding the usage of the term "broadly construed" when it comes to CTs. For instance, as @45dogs has highlighted, many CTs include the terms "broadly construed" or a variant of it, as is the case with WP:CT/PIA and WP:CT/CF. Out of the 23 contentious topics (including the two subtopics of WP:CT/SA), 17 explicitly state either "broadly construed" or the aforementioned variation. If such a practice is widespread but not uniform, then new coming editors or editors who don't fully know the workings of CTs are bound to misled over the scope of many of these, such as IMH as I've brought here. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by 45dogs

This does seem to be a larger discrepancy than just IMH. The list of CTOPs that don't specify broadly construed are:

• The Arab-Israeli Conflict
• Biographies of living people
• Infoboxes
• Gender and sexuality
• Pseudoscience and fringe science
• Historical elections
• Yasuke
• Indian Military History

PIA and CF are unique in that they specify broadly interpreted, rather than broadly construed. From my check, all the other CTOPs specify broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 07:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Indian military history: Clerk notes

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

Indian military history: Arbitrator views and discussion

• aren't CTs broadly construed unless otherwise specified? I'd be fine clarifying that explicitly if there's a discrepancy, but I would default to saying it's broadly construed anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  They are, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Contentious topic restrictions, and there's nothing about this CTOP that specifies otherwise. - Aoidh (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ECR is a separate restriction from WP:CT, but ECR likewise notes that it "applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed". (But yes, it is a tad confusing that one ECR subtopic of WP:CT/SA now says it is broadly construed while the other is silent.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 08:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Permission gaming.

Talk:List of Palestinians

Melat Kiros

Violations of WP:ARBECR

Yet another Gaza Genocide move request

Request concerning Riposte97

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

GENSEX

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

There's a discussion on the Donald Trump talk page regarding whether the Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration can *really* be called persecution in wikivoice. I am on that page arguing yes. Riposte has taken the opposite stance, saying that it is extremely bad taste to compare the same measures against other minority groups throughout history (wrt to the appropriate use of the word "persecution") to the actions being discussed here. Not because of the stance he has taken, but in the course of his discussion of that stance and more widely in the GENSEX topic area, Riposte's conduct since his last GENSEX AE thread two weeks ago has been subpar.

I would have waited for more severe conduct before filing this, however @Tamzin previously said to please bring GENSEX AE cases much more often. Kindly give him the trout or something?

1. Mar 1, 2026 Personal attack
2. Feb 18, 2026 Aspersions on a talk page discussion about Imane Khelif
3. Feb 18, 2026 Personal attack on the Imane Khelif page

Previous edits raised in the last thread by various users:

1. Feb 6, 2026 Editing the Imane Khelif page without sourcing for the purpose of, per theleekycauldron, casting doubt on Khelif being cisgender
2. Dec 28, 2025 OR to a similar effect

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Feb 14, 2026 Just two weeks ago, he was warned for GENSEX conduct.
2. June 22, 2024 BRD warning on Hunter Biden. Not relevant to GENSEX, but the jump from the Hunter Biden page to the Donald Trump page is not a far one.
3. TBan from indigenous peoples of North America for conduct raised at ANI

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

1. Feb 14, 2026 Being warned for GENSEX conduct two weeks ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Has a userbar calling himself a member of the God Emperor's Inquisition. I trust we're all nerds enough here to recognize the connotation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Riposte97

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Riposte97

Riposte97's statement contains 677 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

Bruh. Riposte97 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath are you saying Americans are a race? Be serious. In any case, we’re both Australian, and you know as well as I do that yank is not used as an insult. Riposte97 (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron re the two edits of 18 Feb, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek. My detractors have failed to mention that I apologised once it was made clear to me that it was coming across wrong.

The comment today was the gentlest possible rebuke to somebody appearing to indirectly suggest that I would support the holocaust. Riposte97 (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I see we’re getting the band back together. Well, I’ve no interest in responding to everyone point-by-point. Uninvolved admins can assess the strength of those arguments. I still find bizarre the hand-wave that Imane Khelif, an Algerian Arab, is ‘basically black’ because…why? She’s from Africa? That is actual racism, not just an accusation that can be weaponised in a petty online crusade. Riposte97 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As a side note, she is not an ‘indigenous Algerian’ either, as far as I can tell. That term in a domestic context does not mean what it means in the West, and would seem to imply she is a Berber. Riposte97 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 read the sentence after the one you selectively quoted. Riposte97 (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger, I stand by that comment, and if that means I fall on my sword, so be it. Simonm223 said Riposte97 has asked the lead to introduce doubt as to whether Khelif is a woman (emphasis mine), quoting me as saying "stating unequivocally that she is female is, in my view, no longer responsible". In the very next sentence, I say, "It would be more responsible to say that Khelif was born a woman." I don't believe it is battleground behaviour to call our that kind of selective quotation. Riposte97 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Arcticocean Could you please tell me exactly what I've said that violated content rules severely enough to merit a ban? Or is the rule that if enough mud is thrown at someone, some has to stick? Riposte97 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants I doubt you'll need to retire to your fainting couch, particularly considering that just since the start of February, and just on that page, you have attacked fellow editors again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Riposte97 (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

...and again and again and gearing up for some gravedancing re this very thread here. Riposte97 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm probably close to the word limit, so I will content myself with one final observation: something that is hugley disruptive to this project is when a brigade comes together to systematically pursue someone with a different opinion on noticeboards. It wastes an unbeliveable amount of editor time, and when successful, is a large contributor to the systemic bias of this website, weakening the experience for readers. Riposte97 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

As the Alans, Goths, and Vandals continue to circle the borders, I'd like to request a modest word extension to defend any other points that emerge. Riposte97 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I'm not alleging a coordinated conspiracy, just making what I think is a pretty obvious observations about how noticeboard discussions operate. They are far more likely to be an extension of a content disagreement than some kind of neutral community assessment of behaviour. The person filing this complaint freely owned (with commendable honesty) that we had a content disagreement. Some of my other accusers in this thread have said far more objectionable things in GENSEX from an objective standpoint, but decided to lay the boot into me, I assume because our disagreements trump consistency. Riposte97 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As a sidenote, are delusions of grandeur not permitted? Apologies, I was unaware. I will restrict self-comparisons to the Mughal Empire and smaller. Riposte97 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

  MjolnirPants's statement contains 395 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I don't have a whole lot of experience interacting with Riposte. In fact, most of my interactions with them consisted of them apparently fishing for a reaction that they could use to get me removed from this topic.

The result of those efforts was a narrow escape from a boomarang. Which, of course did not seem to register, as no sooner was that thread shut down, they decided to cast more aspersions on editors who disagree with them.

See specifically this comment of mine in the above-linked ANI discussion, where I lay out some problematic diffs I'd found with a look at just part of the first page of their edit history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation.

@Toadspike:, see the statement by M. Bitton, who observed the same behavior. I would note that I can be a sort of lightning rod for this sort of nonsense, as I'm generally unafraid of using sarcasm, foul language and colorful euphemisms in my communications, and that creates the impression of a hotter head than I actually have. Also, being the author of WP:NONAZIS doesn't help. So it's not surprising that efforts to the same end directed elsewhere weren't followed through as far as they were with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• I woke up today to find that Riposte is still engaged in the exact same type of behavior that almost caused their WP:BOOMARANG back at AN. They decided to cast some aspersions again. For context, the comment they are replying to was one in which I said that the transvestigation of a successful female athlete was motivated by "hate", and in which I implied a distinction between the editors here and those engaged in pushing this narrative. It's quite telling that they would take an attack on a minority belief as a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Many of the diffs of mine Riposte just posted were previously posted in the ANI thread they started about me. I've documented how that went, above. This one in particular illustrates how bad-faith Riposte's attack is: I'm literally directly answering a question without providing any commentary or interpretation. Just a factual answer to a direct question.

(Apologies if I have exceeded my word count. I will not post here again unless asked a question.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Result concerning Riposte97

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Riposte, regardless of what -isms those comments might be described as, can you explain what your thought process was in deciding that those comments were constructive before posting them? (From Feb. 18 onward, to be clear. The other edits have already been considered.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Riposte97: It's certainly one of the bolder strategies i've seen to – at an AE where you're accused of being incivil to people you disagree with – accuse every editor who disagrees with you of being in a conspiracy against you in which you compare yourself to the Roman Empire and do not provide evidence. and, re the word extension: no, you are not getting one preemptively, and even if you did have actual text to respond to, I'm not exactly inclined to have you contribute more to the discourse in considering what your contributions have been so far. I still think that the edits from previous AEs aren't live controversies, but I agree with Arcticocean that they should be examined here as part of the pattern of conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• While Riposte97's edits before 18 February were reviewed in the previous AE report, the edits are still relevant now. Enforcing admins previously (including me) then regarded the breaches of decorum as trivial, but the breaches are continuing to mount up. With the benefit of a longer period of analysis, I think it is also becoming apparent that the breaches are invariably directed at users with opposing editorial views and taking place within live discussions of BLP controversy. I think this is rising to the level of topic ban to prevent further disruption. I'd like to hear the view of other enforcing admins. Arcticocean ■ 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Repeated warnings are highly unusual and not generally encouraged under CTOP. In my view, another warning would be an inappropriate outcome from this enforcement request. Enforcing admins have broadly agreed that there has been misconduct and battleground editing. Unless another admins objects or raises a new concern, I will impose a topic ban as the enforcement request outcome. Arcticocean ■ 22:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  As Toadspike has now objected, I am going to wait a few days for further comment from other admins. We don't by any means require unanimity here, and indeed only one admin appears to think a warning is the maximum justified sanction, but leaving more time for admin discussion cannot hurt. Arcticocean ■ 17:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• The first diff was not really an appropriate response to what came before it, but considering what came before it was a comment comparing another editor's views to failure to condemn the Holocaust followed by a frustrated rant, I don't think Riposte is responsible for derailing that conversation. The comments on nationality (diffs 2 and 3) were in poor taste, especially the second one (diff 3). However, since Riposte apologized for these and struck the offending term, and since Simon says he "wasn't personally very offended", I don't think any action is warranted.

In my view, the evidence supporting the accusations of racism is not clear enough to be sanctionable, and similarly the two diffs linked in Simon's first reply do not seem sanctionable. To sanction an editor for expressing a point of view, that point of view must be so extreme that it is disruptive. The points of view expressed here have not, in my view, reached that high bar.

MjolnirPants's first diff shows Riposte speculating on other editors' motivations, which is basically never appropriate and might warrant a warning about personal attacks. I have not reviewed all the diffs linked in MjolnirPants's ANI comment , which argues that there is a broader pattern of disruptive talk page conduct. That ANI thread was closed with a recommendation to take complaints against Riposte to AE, but it doesn't look like that was done or that these diffs have been reviewed here, so we may want to review them. The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation. Toadspike [Talk] 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

After reviewing the comments made by my colleagues' and others since my last post, I remain undecided. Riposte's behavior has not been exemplary, but neither has the behavior of several others here, not least the repeated and in my view spurious accusations of racism in this very thread. I fear hewing strictly to the two-party rule and letting a lot of concerning behavior slide will be seen as an endorsement of that behavior and will not be the best outcome we can get for the project. Toadspike [Talk] 00:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: I think you're right that there's more to do here, but it might make more sense to start with a fresh thread on one or more of the people we also want to look at. Doesn't have to be a super-detailed filing, just "follow-up on this thread, concerns that were raised include x y z". This thread is already pretty big and I worry that expanding the scope now would be unwieldy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the diffs in the ANI comment linked by MjolnirPants, as well as the others they linked. The only two I found possibly actionable are and . The former seems to be implying that Naomi Klein's political views make her book unreliable for a sentence on Trump's communication style, which was also supported by other sources. The latter is just a really insensitive statement to make. I'm not impressed by how many of the MjolnirPants's descriptions of diffs in their ANI comment are inaccurate at best. I also don't like how many of them are effectively arguing that an editor expressing their opinion on a talk page is some kind of behavioral violation. Users are allowed to express their opinion about sources and blocks, even if those opinions are wrong.

Riposte has since dumped three dozen diffs of alleged personal attacks by MjolnirPants. Several of these are obviously not personal attacks, which reflects poorly on him. Many may be, but that is out of the scope of this thread and should be reviewed in a separate filing. As an aside, I strongly recommend that MjolnirPants stop threatening other editors with admin action; it is generally sufficient and more polite to call out misbehavior without explicitly spelling out the potential consequences.

Reviewing M.Bitton's comment, the only parts that seem actionable are Riposte's speculation on other editors' motivations (e.g. "People feel their personal credibility is at stake"), which I already covered in my first comment.

I think that covers most of the evidence here. I would support a warning for Riposte97, primarily on grounds of civility. I oppose a topic ban as the previous warning was for different issues ("Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV" ) and I do not see the violations here as sufficient to justify a topic ban, especially in relation to the vast quantity and severity of accusations made. More broadly, we should not refuse to issue a second warning simply because we have issued a previous warning in the same topic area. Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Toadspike: To issue a warning at AE, I think we have to conclude that either 'no actual violation occurred' or 'exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate'. If I may ask, are you viewing the receipt of a previous warning for disrupting the topic area as an exceptional circumstance? Or is it the possible tit-for-tat conduct that you regard as exceptional? Arcticocean ■ 13:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not how I understand the quoted bit. A logged warning is an editing restriction. We are allowed to issue warnings even if a violation occurred.

Re: "tit-for-tat" – the high proportion of irrelevant diffs and unsupported accusations here makes clear to me that we have two camps of editors here going after each other primarily because of their content disputes. In CTOPs this is not "exceptional", but on the project as a whole it is. I took this into consideration as I don't want to reward this kind of behavior. Toadspike [Talk] 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand your position better now. Thanks for responding. Arcticocean ■ 17:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• I support a logged warning of Riposte97 for persistent battleground conduct (including violations of the policy against personal attacks), which would be Riposte97's second logged warning in the WP:CT/GG (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. It is already rare for an editor to receive two logged warnings for the same topic area instead of a topic ban, so if Riposte97 does not improve their conduct in this contentious topic, their next reported policy violation in WP:CT/GG is likely to result in a topic ban (instead of a third logged warning) even if it is of similar severity to the ones reported here. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC); edited to strike superseded position 11:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you are thinking about a second warning, you should probably bite the bullet and issue a topic ban instead -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  That is certainly one of the rules of thumb that have been used on this noticeboard. With Riposte97 continuing to engage in battleground editing in this enforcement request itself (e.g. Special:Diff/1341588355), I would not support closing this enforcement request without some kind of action for Riposte97, and I am looking for a remedy that would curb this conduct issue in a proportionate manner. Riposte97 appears to apply different behavioral standards for other editors than they do for themself, as seen in the list of diffs they allege to be personal attacks in Special:Diff/1342638113, which suggests that Riposte97 is behaving in the WP:CT/GG contentious topic in a manner that they already understand to be below Wikipedia's conduct standards. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Riposte97: Speculating about another editor's motivations based on what you assumed their nationality is (Special:Diff/1339082921) and then telling the editor that they should stop acting like a person of that nationality after they stated their nationality is different than what you had assumed (Special:Diff/1339091605) are both instances of battleground conduct. Unless an editor cites their own nationality in the discussion, there is no valid justification for bringing it into the conversation as part of your argument. While Simonm223 did not take serious offense, that does not make your comments about their nationality acceptable.

  Please note that you have exceeded your word limit here to post additional accusations against editors who are not even within the scope of this enforcement request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"), despite having been denied a word extension due to the quality of your participation here, which is yet another example of battleground conduct.

  Based on Riposte97's behavior in this enforcement request and the fact that Riposte97 had already received a logged warning in WP:CT/GG, I agree with Guerillero that a logged warning for Riposte97 would be insufficient, and I would support an indefinite topic ban of Riposte97 from WP:CT/GG for persistent battleground conduct, although I would also support a lesser remedy if there is one that can adequately moderate Riposte97's talk page behavior. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited to add missing word 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have applied the AE participation restriction to this enforcement request, as editors are continuing to make arguments that are outside the scope of this request ("the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"). Anyone who wants to post a complaint about any other editor's conduct may file a new report. — Newslinger talk 11:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Request concerning Rejoy2003

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SerChevalerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rejoy2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#User sanctions (CT/SA)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 17 March 2026 Added "Citizenship: Indian (from 1961)" on Premanand Lotlikar, in direct violation of their sanction to not add "Indian and/or Portuguese nationality designations"
2. 18 March 2026 Same behaviour on M. Boyer
3. 16 March 2026 Same behaviour on Maestro Josinho
4. 15 March 2026 Same behaviour on Krishna Moyo
5. 11 March 2026 Added info on Portuguese citizenship at JoeGoaUk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/1326739812 User has an active sanction against them

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict at Special:Diff/1326739812 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been warned multiple times of this behaviour. I was hoping that this would stop after the sanctions, but this has unfortunately continued. I am also concerned about WP:BLP issues at JoeGoaUk, previously discussed at Talk:JoeGoaUk/Archive 1.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1344250631

Discussion concerning Rejoy2003

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Result concerning Rejoy2003

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.