Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

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

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

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

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

For this case there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. Seven support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5

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

Proposed motions

[edit]

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

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

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

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

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

Temporary topic and interaction bans

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

M.Bitton blocked

[edit]

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

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

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; good-faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Support:
  1. As is tradition! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

[edit]

2) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Disputes will inevitably arise and editors will have strong feelings, but the purpose of Wikipedia's content dispute resolution processes is to reach a consensus about how best to present information in an encyclopaedia, not to "win" the dispute.

Support:
  1. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

National and ethnic disputes

[edit]

3) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Support:
  1. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Should note that I lifted this almost verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Necessity of dispute resolution

[edit]

4) Many strategies for resolving disputes—such as requesting a third opinion, visiting the dispute resolution noticeboard, and following the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"—are optional. Following the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is not.

Support:
  1. This is a new principle. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The tag-teaming evidence and hop-ins and misuse of the processes listed here weight heavily on me, and this is the principle in which it should be voiced that that's not ok (rather than simply identifying these as optional). I suppose, what I actually wanted is (slightly) in §Purpose of dispute resolution, making this also somewhat a duplicate in sense. So, another moral oppose. Izno (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Purpose of dispute resolution

[edit]

5) The purpose of dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia, formal or informal, is not for one side of a dispute to "win", but to establish the best version of a page in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These processes only work when all parties engage with them in good faith. Refusing to engage, disregarding outcomes, or insisting on further dispute resolution before changes can be made can all be construed as tendentious editing.

Support:
  1. I would rather go with the active "is" over the passive "can all be construed as", but that is a minor issue22 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. goes to the tag-team edit warring FoF. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I take Guerillero's point but I wrote it as "can be construed" because I can imagine circumstances where some of those things can be done in good faith and I don't want to encourage spurious dispute resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Third opinion

[edit]

6) Disputes between exactly two editors are eligible for the third opinion process. While the process is neither binding nor mandatory, it can be disruptive if editors who are involved in a topic area habitually show up to disputes listed at third opinion to prevent outside editors from providing their perspectives.

Support:
  1. Another new principle. (I wanted it to be principle 3, but alas.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With a nod towards the tag-team editing warring FoF. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think there is a generalization of this principle applying to other ways to ask for help and that either not being received or having been received and subsequently misused by biased observers that might have been good in the context of §Necessity of dispute resolution. However, I don't think the findings of fact currently listed merit inclusion as a principle here. Only one mentions it directly and that almost as an aside. As such, a moral oppose. Izno (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Bludgeoning

[edit]

7) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible. Being right on the merits of the discussion does not excuse bludgeoning.

Support:
  1. I want to highlight the final sentence: Being right on the merits of the discussion does not excuse bludgeoning. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Girth Summit (blether) 20:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per the first time I voted on this iteration of the principle. Izno (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also opposed the first iteration of this principle, in the same case as Izno links, and I don't see that this is an improvement. As to the last line, I'd rather we have just added our classic BRIE principle. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Edit warring

[edit]

8) Edit warring is prohibited. This is true even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. While not stated in the principle, reverting an edit with the edit summary ~"please stop edit warring" is a sure sign that you have just joined in the edit war. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Illuminates the tag-team edit warring FoF nicely. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Should go without saying really. Not that it's not sometimes tempting to get sucked into an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Girth Summit (blether) 20:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of dispute

[edit]

1) This case concerns editing about the Maghreb region (western and central North Africa, including Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, and the disputed territory of Western Sahara) and editing about related topics, with particular focus on the conduct of the following named parties:

Evidence about named parties outside the topic area was accepted.

Support:
  1. This is pretty standard in cases; topic-specific remedies might not be appropriate if the thing to be remedied is also present outside the topic area. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Girth Summit (blether) 20:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Temporary injunction passed during case

[edit]

2) Bananakingler, M.Bitton, and Skitash continued to edit war while this case was open (Bananakingler block log, Skitash block log, ToBeFree evidence, conversation at Drmies's talk page). This led to a temporary injunction prohibiting the three editors from interacting with one another and editing about Maghreb topics, with the exception of arbitration pages. The injunction expires under its own terms when this case closes.

Support:
  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We don't do very many of these in 2026 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Girth Summit (blether) 20:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Izno (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Temporary injunctions have become very rare, so the fact that one actually got imposed bodes ill for the sanctioned. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Tag-team editing

[edit]

3) M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash have engaged in tag-team edit warring and have often supported each other in content disputes, including some listed at third opinion, preventing outside editors from offering their opinion. Whether or not these actions are coordinated, they have given the impression that the three editors act as one (Samuelshraga evidence, Kowal2701 evidence, Nice4What evidence, AndreJustAndre evidence, Uhoj evidence).

Support:
  1. The "jump-in" evidence is what clinches it for me. A lot of the evidence highlights actions that could definitely be examples of coordinating, but also have more innocent explanations. But when your first edit to an article is to back up an ideological ally, those explanations aren't available anymore. From there, the innocent explanations for the rest of the evidence lose credibility: If these editors are gonna do that, there's no reason for me to assume that their edits just so happen to goad newer editors into breaking 3RR, undermine the usefulness of 3O, and influence any noticeboard discussion that could potentially end in an adverse content or conduct result for a friend. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. These editors have denied coordinating their actions and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to take their word for that. But the effect is the same when two or three editors habitually back each other up, appear out of nowhere to support each other, shut down attempts at dispute resolution, and break the spirit of the three-revert rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think there is enough here to support this finding. Regularly agreeing with someone is one thing, but the evidence here indicates that this is on another level. Girth Summit (blether) 20:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I originally voted in favor of this but noted "I don't love the phrasing of "the three editors act as one" but its a minor quibble; the point is, they tag-team". I then got down to Remedy 2, and realized that this FoF is being used to support that, and my quibble became much bigger. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Bananakingler

[edit]

4) Bananakingler has edit warred in the topic area (Skitash evidence, M.Bitton evidence). During this case, Bananakingler accused others of racism and lying without the required support for such serious charges (Skitash evidence).

Bananakingler is a relatively new editor, joining the project in May 2025. When this case opened, they had made approximately 500 edits to the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. The proposed decision seems to suggest that Bananakingler's conduct is at least partially attributable to learning to edit in a topic area dominated by hostile and potentially tendentious editors. I'm not sure I'm convinced of that, but the drafters have had a lot more of an opportunity to get familiar with their style and I'm not inclined to leap over them to deny someone a chance. I will say, though, that their edit warring was really not trivial. Also, the accusations of racism (some of which persist in the evidence, just in somewhat softer language) fall on the wrong side of assuming good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arriving at ArbCom, the most labrynthine of all Wikipedia's dispute-resolution processes, in your first 500 edits is unfortunate and I'm more sympathetic to somebody like that than to somebody with tens of thousands of edits who has gamed processes to their advantage. That said, further disruptive editing will not bode well for them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have some sympathy here, per Harry. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I also have lots of sympathy for someone who has been subject to M.Bitton and Skitash (who, reading the tea leaves, I suspect will at least get a topic ban from the Maghreb) and thrust into arbitration within their first 500 edits. I'm therefore looking for something less than a a full, immediate topic ban, which allows Bananakingler to improve while guarding against future poor behavior. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Perhaps they have not had an ideal example set for them by the people they have interacted with in their initial edits; regardless, the fact remains that they have done this. Girth Summit (blether) 20:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Izno (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

M.Bitton: conduct within the Maghreb topic

[edit]

5) M.Bitton has engaged in extensive disruptive conduct within the Maghreb topic area. This includes:

  • Biting newcomers (Mdm.Bla evidence, Alaexis evidence)
  • Attempting to evade a block by emailing editors with requests to make particular edits (private evidence, block log)
  • Pushing a pro-Arab–Algerian point of view (asilvering evidence), including these double standards depending on what aligns with their point of view:
    • Whether something should be described as "Maghrebi" or by anachronistic terms like "Moroccan" or "Algerian" (Samuelshraga evidence)
    • Whether to give credence to official government positions regarding the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (HetmanTheResearcher evidence)
    • Whether to include a "support" section in {{infobox military conflict}} (HetmanTheResearcher evidence)
  • Exhibiting a battleground mentality (M.Bitton evidence, private evidence)
  • Obstructing consensus-building, often in concert with others, by:
    • Bludgeoning discussions by overwhelming opponents with repeated comments (Sirfurboy evidence, HetmanTheResearcher evidence)
    • Stonewalling discussions by refusing to compromise or seek middle ground and putting hurdles in the way of good-faith proposals (Kowal2701 evidence, PositivelyUncertain evidence, AndreJustAndre evidence)
    • Refusing to engage in informal dispute resolution requested by opposing parties (ToBeFree evidence, Uhoj evidence, Samuelshraga evidence)
  • Edit warring (Super Goku V evidence)
  • Violating the civility policy (jacobolus evidence, Katzrockso evidence, Bananakingler evidence)

They were blocked for one month by asilvering (talk · contribs) in March 2025 for their conduct within the topic area.

Support:
  1. I especially want to highlight this comment (from a conversation over a dog breed, by the way). What it shows to me is that M.Bitton clearly understands a very nuanced line between civility and incivility – when it applies to him. That is the bar he sets. But it's never stopped him from dishing the same thing out to others again and again and again (which he quietly edited, something he has chastised others for doing) and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again ... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wrote a good chunk of this so I obviously support it. I think the email thing is a bit of a red herring—I would urge anyone reading not to assume that, because you can't see it, it's more significant. The proposed findings and remedies would be just as damning without it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I disagree with Harry on the signficance of the email evidence—to me, it gives insight into what's going on inside M.Bitton's head. This is someone who believes their perspective is the One True POV, and pesky rules like "WP:CANVASS", "WP:EVADE", and "WP:MEAT" are just obstacles that need to be overcome. That being said, I do agree with Harry's conclusion: this FOF is incredibly damning even without the private evidence. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A remarkable set of conduct when it's outlined like this. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Girth Summit (blether) 20:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I am struck by how long this has been going on --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

M.Bitton: conduct outside the Maghreb topic

[edit]

6) M.Bitton has also engaged in disruptive behavior elsewhere, often but not always in connection with Maghreb-related disputes. Examples include:

  • Obstructing the consensus process by:
    • Bludgeoning discussions (Sirfurboy evidence) and stonewalling (asilvering evidence, JayBeeEll evidence)
    • Threatening an editor with arbitration enforcement (AE) for allegedly violating the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy; when another editor questioned what the BLP violation was, M.Bitton threatened that editor with AE too (Sirfurboy evidence)
  • Incivility towards other editors (HetmanTheResearcher evidence)
  • Edit warring over a self-created map derived from the CIA World Factbook, apparently motivated by the source's non-recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, then resuming the edit war a year later (asilvering evidence, jacobolus evidence, Alaexis evidence)

M.Bitton was warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL in December 2024 within the Arab–Israeli conflict, has been subject to a two-way interaction ban with Aciram (talk · contribs) since October 2025 (editing restrictions log), and has been blocked multiple times for edit warring (M.Bitton block log).

Support:
  1. ... and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. The style is so insidious, too; just the right amount of condescension and personalization. Enough that the recipient will very much take offense but not enough that an admin would know what he's doing just by looking at that comment in isolation. The stonewalling that goes along with this is also truly unreal: M.Bitton will find a thought-terminating cliché that backs up his position and beat you over the head with it until you are confused and mentally drained (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). Just reading the evidence for this case left me somewhere between exhausted and furious. His conduct is deeply corrosive to the collaborative environment, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to undo that damage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What clinched this for me was the map dispute on the geography article. On contentious articles, you could maybe, just about make an argument that this level of toxicity is somehow mitigated by other people's behaviour and the nature of the topic. But the dispute over the map was ridiculous. Imagine being perfectly fine with a "non-neutral" map (as if a political map could ever be neutral) until precisely the moment it stops recognising your preferred disputed territory, and then arguing that the outdated one is the "neutral" one. Then imagine waiting for the dispute to die down then sneakily re-inserting your preferred map. Now imagine what the response would be if the disputed territory was Palestine or Crimea. And of course this is an article about the concept of "geography", where the resistance comes not from opposing POV pushers but from people who care about geography. The pattern repeats with the numerals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is continuing even as we're voting, e.g. [1] and [2] at the AE report HouseBlaster mentions below. In a discussion about their behavior where the rules state The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each, unless AE admins waive this rule. they continue to attack other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An appalling record. I'll note there is an open AE request about their behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § M.Bitton (permalink as of this comment). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Girth Summit (blether) 20:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The map stuff is an impressive example of POV pushing. To be clear, any set of Admin0 boundaries shows the POV of whoever either made or commissioned the map. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Izno (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  13. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Oh, and LEvalyn's evidence of M.Bitton's double standards on content is very much worth a read. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R3YBOl

[edit]

7) R3YBOl has exhibited a battleground mentality by requesting that Skitash revert an editor so they could be reported to ANI (Samuelshraga evidence). They were unable to participate in this case due to private circumstances disclosed to the Committee. The Committee agrees that the circumstances are outside of their control and in no way reflect negatively upon them.

Support:
  1. We have less to say about R3Y but they are not blameless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the new FOF, second choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is why the R3YBOl remedies are appealable immediately. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think claudia's argument about that diff in particular is reasonable. I'm still here because I struggle to believe that an editor can figure out how to file an ANI report from mobile but cannot find the revert button (or believes that reverting is only possible with Twinkle). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As far as it goes, this finding of fact appears to be true, but there is not evidence of massive disruption. Girth Summit (blether) 20:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Aoidh (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. mm, I think R3YBOl has been disruptive but on that particular edit I do think their explanation is more likely than not to be accurate. I might propose an amendment/ALT with some other evidence of battleground editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I guess I buy R3YBOl's explanation that they couldn't figure out how to revert the IP, given the IP had already self-reverted over an hour before the comment in the finding. [3] The finding at #Tag-team editing is sufficient without this added example. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:40, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'd honestly like to see Leeky's considered alt, because I don't find the cited evidence to be battleground editing. Izno (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The alt is more comprehensive. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

R3YBOl (alt)

[edit]

7b) R3YBOl has engaged in battleground editing and POV pushing in the Maghreb topic area, playing up the prowess and prominence of Arab culture in Wikipedia coverage's of the area and doing the opposite for Berber culture. They were blocked on Arabic Wikipedia for being a sock of ابا خشم السندوس, who is blocked for sockpuppetry on Arabic Wikipedia, Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. R3YBOl also engaged in hateful conduct and harassment (1 2) on Arabic Wikipedia that aligns with their displayed enwiki POV (Uhoj evidence, asilvering evidence, Samuelshraga evidence, Monsieur Patillo evidence). They were unable to participate in this case due to private circumstances disclosed to the Committee. The Committee agrees that the circumstances are outside of their control and in no way reflect negatively upon them.

Support:
  1. In the interest of time, I didn't go more into depth here, but this is how I'd sketch out R3YBOl's conduct. Don't mind if any other arbs edit here, also because of the time constraints. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This provides a more comprehensive overview. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal choice (only pass one), with or without Izno's suggested changes. All three iterations are factual and would lead me to the same conclusions regarding the remedies. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll upgrade this to first choice in the interests of wrapping this up. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:34, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Either/or. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ok, gave it a bit more thought. I will support. I will add the caveat, and might implore the drafter of the finding to add it in the finding, that there appears to be no problematic sockpuppetry locally: No blocks in evidence for the accounts identified on ar.wikipedia, and no significant editing from any of them either. (And we don't have a one strike policy.) Izno (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. First choice. Seems to adequately address concerns with the original FOF. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I'm fine with 7) personally, and thought it did the job. Daniel (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
theleekycauldron Hmm, I'd oppose for including the stuff offwiki (the usual principle of what we can control), which is not of general interest here IMO. Can the rest of it stand alone without that commentary? Izno (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, the arwiki stuff is ancillary. For me, it's only illuminating as to R3YBOl's intent with their edits on enwiki, not as disruption per se. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash

[edit]

8) Skitash has engaged in disruptive conduct within the Maghreb topic area, often in support of M.Bitton, by:

  • Behaving aggressively towards new editors (Mdm.Bla evidence)
  • Obstructed attempts at informal dispute resolution in apparent attempts to "win" content disputes by brute force (Uhoj evidence)
  • Edit warring to restore and preserve poorly sourced material (asilvering evidence)
  • Edit warring to prevent an update to the number of countries recognising the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, forcing an RfC in which no other participants agreed with Skitash and M.Bitton. Skitash's voted in the RfC with the rationale "per M.Bitton"; M.Bitton's offered no basis in policy or sources for that vote (Kowal2701 evidence).
  • Not participating in the talk page discussion or subsequent discussion at the original research noticeboard after edit warring at International recognition of the SADR (Nice4What evidence)
  • Frequently using abrupt or unclear edit summaries when reverting, leaving other editors with little idea of Skitash's objections to their edits (LEvalyn evidence)

They also removed another editor's comment supporting sanctions against Skitash and M.Bitton (Kowal2701 evidence, Uhoj evidence).

Support:
  1. This is not on the scale of M.Bitton and largely limited to the Maghreb but nonetheless extremely disruptive. Much of it relates to supporting M.Bitton in disputes, often without getting further involved than joining an edit war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Harry on all counts. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Narrower scope of disruptive editing than M.Bitton, for sure. Daniel (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Girth Summit (blether) 20:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 11:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Izno (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic

[edit]

1a) The Maghreb region is designated as a contentious topic.

Support:
  1. Generally, if we have to have an Arb case about a topic area, and we have evidence of multiple parties POV pushing in that topic, its a good sign that it needs a CT designation. Further, we're about to boot the major players from the topic, and that is going to create a sort of power vacuum. Absent some CT rules to keep the riff-raff in check, we risk the topic growing back unhealthily. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think we need another wide-ranging geographic CT like this, when the disruptive conduct was limited to a small number of editors (albeit acute disruption from that small group) and there are remedies proposed to prevent that disruption moving forward. Prefer 1b significantly and oppose this at this time. Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Daniel. There wasn't much evidence beyond the editors in question, and it's unclear why the particular tool of a CT designation would help with what evidence we did receive. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not convinced this is needed at this point. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd be willing to reconsider this if disruption continues but the evidence suggests that the disruption is largely confined to these four editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd be more willing to do this if we had more systematic evidence to the effect of something that was asserted in the workshop, namely, that the edit warring noticeboard and the protection request page have seen a lot of disruption from this topic (with consideration in particular for how a CT designation could help). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There's no evidence that there's any widespread and intractable disruptive behavior in this topic area outside of the named parties that would warrant making this a CT. - Aoidh (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per everyone above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Also per all above. Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Izno (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't see a finding of fact that establishes a need for this one, but if new bad actors fill the vacuum, I would be interested in fast-tracking a second case. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Contentious topic (limited to specified parties)

[edit]

1b) When making edits relating to the Maghreb region, broadly construed, Bananakingler, M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash must follow the editing expectations that would apply to a designated contentious topic. Violation of this remedy may be enforced in the same manner as a contentious topic, including through the standard set of user restrictions. Bananakingler, M.Bitton, and Skitash may appeal this remedy after six months, and every six months thereafter. R3YBOl may appeal this remedy at any time, and every six months thereafter. Implementation note: If a proposed finding of fact does not pass for any of these editors, then the list of editors will be shortened in the final decision.

Support:
  1. I like this a lot. Means we don't have to make another wide-ranging geographical CTOP but provides restrictions and the CT toolset for these users. Admittedly, based on the proposals below at least a couple of them might not be editing in this topic area soon anyways, but some will be, and this can also linger around for any future successful appeals of anyone topic- or site-banned. Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm happy with this or the suspended topic ban. I'll decide on preference if it comes down to a tiebreak. Regardless of whether it passes or not, it's a good idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You know what? I'll do what Harry's doing. I support this or 3b+6b, and if it comes down to a tiebreak, I'll figure out which one I prefer. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I suggested this as an alternative to the suspended topic ban proposals (and of course to an actual CT designation). With either, we're giving admins discretion to impose a restriction in response to further misconduct by the specified parties. But with this, the discretion is to pick an appropriate editor restriction in WP:STANDARDSET, rather than a topic ban being the only enforcement option. I prefer not to pre-select the appropriate sanction, and hence prefer this. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When we were originally discussing this I called this "contentious editors", and almost meant it as a joke. I do think it is better than a suspended topic ban or something like that, though, because it opens up more options for different types of behavior. I am worried that we end up using contentious editor sanctions more often in the future since these things have a habit of expanding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In this particular case, in these particular circumstances, I'm willing to support. I share SFR's worries about 'contentious editors' becoming a thing. Let's not let that happen, please. Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Open to trying this as a remedy. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I"m also open to this. - Aoidh (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC
Oppose:
  1. I think I have to agree with Jeske on the talk page. This is probation by another name and see little reason not to write it as such. And, pending a day or two from now, this won't need to to reference CTOP at all to me (since this seems to be leaning on the standard set of restrictions, which will soon be documented in the context of WP:ARBPRO instead), with the "expectations" better delivered by a separate warning, which would fix the issue of contentious editors alluded to above. Separately, I think it's rarely a good idea to put all of a set of users into a single remedy. It makes appealing the remedy more difficult and makes it more difficult for arbs to agree on the spectrum of remedies that might be desirable to use with a user. Izno (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Look, I've long been a fan of trying out weird and bespoke remedies, but Jeske's right. This is just probation by another name. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Jeske and the topic bans --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Thinking. It is a bit bespoke, but most everyone knows how contentious topics work. I'll note this doesn't allow restricting other editors besides these four—in particular, that two-way interaction bans with editors not listed here are off-limits (well, would require an AN thread like all other interaction bans do). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HB, SL & HJM - question, when can the individual editors appeal this, to have themselves removed from the remedy? There is no timeframe provided, which differs from all the other remedies. If we're going to be consistent with the other remedies, I would propose Bananakingler, M.Bitton, and Skitash may appeal this remedy after six months, and every six months thereafter. R3YBOl may appeal this remedy at any time. Daniel (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me as well. I've added that with and every six months thereafter to the end (for R3YBOl); @any arb, please feel free to revert. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this is not an actual CTOP. Please don't go add it to a list of CTOPs or anything like that, dear clerks and arbcom watchers. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash are considered a single user

[edit]

2) For the purposes of content dispute resolution and edit warring, M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash are considered a single user. The three-revert rule applies to reverts by all three editors and, where they participate in discussions together, they are required to disclose this restriction and their arguments should be treated as though they were advanced by a single user.

Support:
  1. I think this is a good idea. I'm open to alternatives but jumping in to continue each other's edit wars and shutting down dispute resolution needs to stop and we need to set a precedent that it won't be tolerated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I know that these are different humans, but I think something like this would really help with the extensive behavior documented at the evidence phase: tag-team edit warring and shutting down third opinion requests. Skitash did present evidence of occasional disagreements with M.Bitton, but none of them progressed past the "edit summary discussion" phase—if you can even call them "disagreements". For example, Skitash replaced a map because it had a spelling error. M.Bitton undid that edit after they corrected the spelling error. Hardly a disagreement. That being said, I can also see the argument that the topic bans are sufficient. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reasonable move to take the teeth out of tag teaming while allowing participation, depending on how other remedies shake out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If the shoes fit. Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A bit hesitant about this; I'd prefer something limited to a more specific topic area (I think it's plausible these editors could disagree about, say, an unrelated MOS issue, since they are not all single-purpose accounts in this topic area). I wouldn't want to bind one of these editors to the position of a different editor in some other discussion. However, I trust that people will use common sense in enforcing this. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:43, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Can't say I absolutely love this, but given I signed FOF#3 and I cannot think of a more elegant solution, this solution will do. Daniel (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm of the same mind as Daniel here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think this is necessary with the other more-conventional remedies passing and because they have denied direct coordination, the latter of which was not true in the case in which this was first used. We should use it primarily if not solely to indicate some people know each other directly or similar. Izno (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the other remedies that are passing are sufficient. For as long as M.Bitton is banned and Skitash is topic banned, this only affects non-Maghreb interaction between R3YBOl and Skitash. And it's a bit onerous for them to have to check for reverts/comments from each other all the time. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "the three editors act as one" in FoF 3 gave me pause, and I couldn't quite tell why. Well now I know why. I think this is unworkable in practice, and unnecessary if we're also topic banning them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Jenson, I think limiting Skitash and R3YBOl in non-Maghreb areas is probably more trouble than it's worth. I'd maybe change my mind if this were focused to Maghreb, but I don't think coordination is super likely to happen elsewhere. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I think this makes sense at least for edit warring and third opinions, though I'm a bit more iffy as to other discussions. Also, if at least 2 out of 3 of the editors get topic banned, this remedy is likely not to have much benefit (if any). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:22, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bananakingler admonished

[edit]

3a) Bananakingler is admonished for their behavior in pages about the Maghreb region.

Support:
  1. Second Third choice to 1b) and 3b). Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Last choice, only if no other remedies about Banankingler pass (i.e. only if 3b, 3c, 3d, and 1b fail). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only if no other remedies pass. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    With or without any other remedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Last choice to any other remedies on Bananakingler's conduct (per HouseBlaster). Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems appropriate given their behavior. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Izno (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 1b and 3c are passing. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Other remedies are passing so I'm happy to let this go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
Comments:

Bananakingler suspended topic ban

[edit]

3b) In the event of further misconduct, an uninvolved administrator may topic ban Bananakingler from the Maghreb region, or a subtopic, for any length of time (including indefinitely). If imposed, such a topic ban may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee. Any topic bans under this remedy may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter; this remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Second choice, in the event 1b) fails. I think this is a good middle ground. Per my comments echoing Harry in the FoF, ending up at RfAr inside your first 500 or so edits would suck, so I have some sympathy here given the misconduct on the other side of the dispute that we're likely going to seriously sanction for. A topic ban would be overkill based off the evidence here, so this is a bit of a 'watch your step' to Bananakingler without unduly restricting their editing. Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment at 1b. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Daniel. Izno (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'd much prefer the discretion given by 1b for an admin to pick an appropriate restriction from the WP:STANDARDSET, per my comment above. (If 1b is later failing, I'll reassess this remedy.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The only thing worse than creating contentious editors is suspended sanctions like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SFR. Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't oppose the principle but this isn't going to pass so I'll oppose to give it a quick death. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If we want to topic ban, we should just topic ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
If I support this, it would be a conditioned on 1b failing. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bananakingler one revert restriction

[edit]

3c) With the standard exceptions, Bananakingler is restricted to one revert per 24 hours on any page within the Maghreb topic area, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. In addition and separately to 1b) and 3b), just to provide some guardrails to move past this rough start and develop good editing habits. Will be very open to an appeal after six good months of editing. Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this will do some good per the FOF. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this one is good regardless of how the other remedies shake out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regardless of 1b) and 3b). Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regardless of other sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With or without any other remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. At minimum. Izno (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'd be inclined to lift this after 6 or 12 months of good behavior. 1b allows it to be reimposed as needed. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Bananakingler topic banned

[edit]

3d) Bananakingler is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Overkill, per my comments in 3b). Daniel (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment at the FOF, overkill. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree this would be draconian at this point. Yet to decide my order of preference for the other remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disproportionate to the evidence and proposed finding. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Daniel. Katietalk 14:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overkill. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Disproportionate. - Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Disproportionate. Izno (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

M.Bitton topic banned

[edit]

4a) M.Bitton is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. At an absolute minimum, per § M.Bitton: conduct within the Maghreb topic. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. at minimum and concurrently to a ban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Concurrently with 4b. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concurrently with 4b, assuming it passes. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Insufficient, but support. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:29, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Concurrently with 4b. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. At the very least. Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Izno (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The commitee can do this if they ever decide to unban --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

M.Bitton banned

[edit]

4b) M.Bitton is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This restriction may be appealed after twelve months, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. In addition to the topic ban. M.Bitton's problems don't stop at the topic's edge. As detailed in § M.Bitton: conduct outside the Maghreb topic, M.Bitton is incivil, obstructs consensus, edit wars, and threatens editors with AE for not understanding their unclear words. They have already been warned for casting aspersions and incivility. They have already been interaction banned with another editor because of their hostility towards them. They have already been blocked multiple times for various issues, from edit warring to incivility. And after all that, here we are, at arbitration. I believe we must draw a line. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've come across a lot of unsavory personalities as an editor, admin, and arb, and managing those interactions is always a challenge. But if I had the misfortune of getting on M.Bitton's bad side early in my editing career, I think I would have left and maybe never come back. M.Bitton's style is astonishingly heartless. He has no qualms about biting, attacking, or casting aspersions, and will respond to any suggestion that he is not being constructive by doubling and tripling down on the hostility. His only content beliefs are the ones that further his causes and he will bludgeon any other editor into the ground to get there. We have no place for an editor like that; not in the Maghreb, not in PIA, not in GENSEX, nowhere. He should be shown the door. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is some of the most egregious tendentious editing I've ever seen in an editor with tens of thousands of edits and, per the FoFs above, is not limited to one topic. The nonsense over the map easily justifies this on its own, as does the similarly ridiculous dispute over numerals. The frustration felt by experienced editors at M.Bitton is palpable from the evidence; I can only imagine the effects of M.Bitton's belligerence on new editors who don't know our processes. This is not an accident, an occasional lapse in judgement, the result of understandable frustration, or a loss of temper. This is a years-long pattern of enforcing a preferred POV as though it were the POV, diminishing or writing out opposing viewpoints, and just wearing down opposition to the point that I'm sure many editors have just given up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The fact that they are continuing their behavior outside of the topic area and continuing to go after another party rather than addressing any of their own behavior while we're voting on a ban cinches this for me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rather than drop the stick as this case has been progressing and is now reaching its conclusion, this editor seemingly continues to return back to the forest to grab even more lumber. It's honestly a remarkable pattern of conduct, and I echo leeky's commentary about the feeling of utter frustration when reading the evidence provided by others that demonstrated this editor's totally warped idea of 'collaboration'. Daniel (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Clearly needed. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Only choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sometimes people need to be shown the door. Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Izno (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not compatible with a collaborative project. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Any watcher of the Committee could tell you that surviving a case is greatly enhanced by following two rules: 1) have contrition and understanding for your wrongs 2) don't misbehave while a case about you is open. M.Bitton seems to have ignored the iron law of holes and kept up serious misbehavior during the case. Further, there was ample evidence of their misbehavior outside the Maghreb topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Skitash topic banned

[edit]

5a) Skitash is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed after six months, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Per § Skitash. The edit warring, the incivility, and the failure to engage in dispute resolution bring me here. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I mentioned internally that I'm reluctant to impose a topic ban that covers all of an editor's areas of interests (for example, I can't imagine topic-banning an American editor from the entire English-speaking world). That's something I would be willing to revisit at ARCA after the dust settles, but for now I feel a brick wall is needed between Skitash and the locus of the dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Skitash does have other areas of interest, though. For illustration, Skitash's recent WP:PIA edits are at 36% on the metric we use for the balanced editing restriction. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I share some of Harry's concern, but these disputes can easily rear their heads in all manner of seemingly non-political and mundane topics so trying to narrow it in a way that still prevents disruption isn't feasible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Izno (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Skitash rollback revoked

[edit]

5b) Skitash's rollback permissions are revoked. Skitash may request restoration of the permission six months after the implementation of this remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.

Support:
  1. Edit warring is incompatible with this privilege. I am aware that removing it lets Skitash continue to use tools like Twinkle to get largely the same affect, and I see that as a feature, rather than a bug, because those tools enourage leaving edit summaries when reverting. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't like doing this as an arbitration remedy—I wish it had been done earlier by an admin dealing with an edit war—but it needs to happen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per HouseBlaster, and also noting that Skitash's edit warring included use of unexplained rollback contrary to WP:ROLLBACKUSE. See, e.g., Mdm.Bla's evidence (diff [8]); LEvalyn's evidence ("with no edit summary"). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weird as a remedy since any admin can just do it, but since it hasn't been done and any Arbs doing it will have essentially the same effect we might as well do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I would prefer this be linked to if this every comes up at RfPerm --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I would look poorly on using Twinkle without adding edit summaries.... Izno (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

R3YBOl admonished

[edit]

6a) R3YBOl is admonished for edit warring and for tag-teaming with M.Bitton and Skitash.

Support:
  1. Only if 1b and 6b both fail. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd be fine with this in addition to 1b/6b. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting to help this die. Other remedies are passing so I'm fine without this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only if 1b and 6b fail. I don't see a need to admonish if we're also sanctioning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per HouseBlaster (if 1b and 6b fail). Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Changing this per recent information. - Aoidh (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice to 6c. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 1b is passing. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Jenson, 1b passing by the time I reached this to vote, so not going to even bother saying second/third choice. Daniel (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient. Izno (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

R3YBOl suspended topic ban

[edit]

6b) If an uninvolved administrator deems that R3YBOl's conduct in the Maghreb topic area falls below the expected standard, within 12 months of their return to Wikipedia, that administrator may topic ban R3YBOl from the full topic area or any subset for any duration, including indefinitely. Topic bans imposed under this remedy may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee immediately after they are imposed, and every six months thereafter. They may appeal this remedy in its entirety at any time.

Support:
  1. Per my comment on 1b. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See my comment on 1b. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 6c. Izno (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I'd much prefer the discretion given by 1b for an admin to pick an appropriate restriction from the WP:STANDARDSET, per my comment above. (If 1b is later failing, I'll reassess this remedy.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I said above, the only the worse than creating contentious editors is suspended topic bans like this. Strongly prefer 1b. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overkill. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per SFR. Katietalk 20:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 1b is going to pass so happy with that. Daniel (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If we want to topic ban, lets just topic ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Again, if I support this, it would be conditional on 1b failing. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

R3YBOl topic banned

[edit]

6c) R3YBOl is indefinitely topic banned from the Maghreb region, broadly construed. This remedy may be appealed immediately, and every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1. I don't like the suspended topic bans here. Anyways, their misconduct was serious: we've established that they're a POV-pusher, they've been tag teaming with M.Bitton and Skitash. Given that they've been identified as a sock of a master blocked on three other projects for socking, they should consider themselves lucky not to be picking up a global lock here too. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given the new information, this is my new first choice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Izno (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. My primary support is for 7) rather than 7b), and while I understand why my colleagues support this, my weak preference was for 1b). Daniel (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I have proposed this remedy as a straight up topic ban, though appealable immediately, in recognition of their circumstances. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

For a summary table of votes by individual arbitrator, please see /Implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by automatic template check; the last edit to this page was on 23:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC) by Daniel.

Proposed principles
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 13 0 0 Passing .
2 Wikipedia is not a battleground 13 0 0 Passing .
3 National and ethnic disputes 13 0 0 Passing .
4 Necessity of dispute resolution 12 1 0 Passing .
5 Purpose of dispute resolution 13 0 0 Passing .
6 Third opinion 11 1 0 Passing .
7 Bludgeoning 11 2 0 Passing .
8 Edit warring 13 0 0 Passing .
Proposed findings of fact
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 13 0 0 Passing .
2 Temporary injunction passed during case 13 0 0 Passing .
3 Tag-team editing 12 1 0 Passing .
4 Bananakingler 13 0 0 Passing .
5 M.Bitton: conduct within the Maghreb topic 13 0 0 Passing .
6 M.Bitton: conduct outside the Maghreb topic 13 0 0 Passing .
7 R3YBOl 7 6 0 Not passing Cannot pass Two second choice count as opposes because 7b passes. Because this proposal has fewer supports and more opposes than 7b, this one is unsuccessful
7b R3YBOl (alt) 8 0 1 Passing .
8 Skitash 12 0 0 Passing .
Proposed remedies
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1a Contentious topic 1 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass
1b Contentious topic (limited to specified parties) 8 3 0 Passing .
2 M.Bitton, R3YBOl, and Skitash are considered a single user 8 4 0 Passing .
3a Bananakingler admonished 3 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass Four second/third/final choice votes count as opposes because 1b passes
3b Bananakingler suspended topic ban 1 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass Two supports count as opposes because 1b is passing
3c Bananakingler one revert restriction 11 0 0 Passing .
3d Bananakingler topic banned 0 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass
4a M.Bitton topic banned 11 1 0 Passing .
4b M.Bitton banned 12 0 0 Passing .
5a Skitash topic banned 11 0 0 Passing .
5b Skitash rollback revoked 11 0 0 Passing .
6a R3YBOl admonished 4 7 0 Not passing Cannot pass Four second/third/final choices count as opposes because 1b passes
6b R3YBOl suspended topic ban 1 10 0 Not passing Cannot pass Two supports count as opposes because 1b is passing
6c R3YBOl topic banned 8 0 1 Passing .
Proposed enforcement
Number Proposal name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 Passing . Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 Passing . Passes by default

Notes


Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. This is ready to close. Everything's passing that will pass. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Harry, I'll just support closing it after 23:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 14:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    indenting for now because Izno asked me to make an R3YBOl alt, which I'll take a whack at. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    looks like we've wrapped this up; I'll try to make the mods Izno asked me to make to the alt before close, but i'm also okay if i'm beaten to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Everything's been resolved. Also fine with waiting until the 25th, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We have results. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aoidh (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. We seem to be done now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
As much as SL is correct that everything likely to pass is now passing, some arbs haven't finished voting. We should give them time to have their say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I actively oppose. This draft has been live for barely two days, and while I don't think y'all are going to pivot on any particular thing I'm still voting on, there are a few opposes up there you might consider as to the goodness of the proposed items. Izno (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Proposed_decision&oldid=1351437357"