Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence

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)

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
• Any submissions of non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by ToBeFree

M.Bitton and Skitash participate in the same disputes supporting each other's positions

• An edit war about Tamazgha was continued by M.Bitton when Skitash stopped ([1]). The edit war led to Skitash and Bananakingler being blocked shortly before the case opened ([2] [3]).
• As an example taken from Uhoj's preliminary statement, in response to a third opinion request, Skitash appears, supports M.Bitton's position, removes the 3O request and builds a stone wall against a new request ([4], [5], [6]).

Evidence presented by Mdm.Bla

Y Extension granted to 650 words. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton and Skitash bite the newcomers

These newcomers have less than 200 edits each as of 01:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC) and all except one has stopped editing following bitings by M.Bitton and/or Skitash:

• Axiom Theory (talk · contribs · logs · block log):

1. In January 2026, Axiom Theory's edits to North Africa were reverted by Skitash and M.Bitton ([7], [8], [9]). M.Bitton cited WP:BRD and WP:ONUS in the third reversion; Axiom Theory then told M.Bitton on Talk:North Africa to stop edit warring ([10]). Skitash placed {{Uw-ew}} on Axiom Theory's talkpage ([11]). This was the first message ever posted to User talk:Axiom Theory.
2. Axiom Theory reverted M.Bitton at Couscous, disputing claims of WP:OR as the material was sourced ([12]). Despite not having edited Couscous since May 2025, Skitash then placed another template warning on Axiom Theory's talkpage seven minutes after this revert ([13]).
3. Axiom Theory, M.Bitton, and Skitash have engaged in a protracted template war, accusing each other of WP:HOUNDING and/or WP:HARASSMENT in a number of venues ([14], [15], [16]). Axiom Theory has not edited since March 1.

• EggShellCracker3000 (talk · contribs · logs · block log):

1. In September 2025, EggShellCracker3000 introduced material that was potentially WP:OR to Kingdom of Kuku; they were welcomingly informed of Wikipedia's policy against this by R Prazeres ([17]). They were then given a level 3 warning by Skitash, who did not respond to either a request to explain the warning or to a reminder by R Prazeres to more clearly explain their edit summaries ([18], [19]).
2. M.Bitton gave EggShellCracker3000 a final warning for an edit to French Algeria less than ten minutes after Skitash's warning ([20]). EggShellCracker3000 has not edited since replying to Skitash.

• Leprous3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log):

1. In January 2026, following a claim of hounding against Axiom Theory by M.Bitton at Talk:Couscous, M.Bitton and Skitash both cast the WP:ASPERSION that Leprous3 was a WP:SOCKPUPPET/WP:SPA ([21], [22]). asilvering said that another CU found no evidence that Leprous3 was socking, and they reprimanded M.Bitton twice ([23], [24]). Leprous3 has not edited since January 30.

• Sayuuuto (talk · contribs · logs · block log):

1. In August 2024, Sayuuuto was strongly warned for edit-warring by M.Bitton after one revert to Algeria–Morocco relations ([25], [26]). Sayuuuto cited Reasons editors leave following being accused of assuming bad faith by M.Bitton twice ([27], [28], [29]).
2. In June 2025, Sayuuuto returned to editing and got into a new dispute with M.Bitton at Political status of Western Sahara. They were accused of violating WP:EWLO and WP:CANVASS by M.Bitton ([30]) (the IP in question appears connected behaviorally, but has never edited at the same time as Sayuuuto or violated EWLO policy as far as I can tell). Sayuuuto has not edited since being brought to ANEW by M.Bitton; they were warned by ToBeFree to avoid edit warring. ([31]).

• Yaghmosus (talk · contribs · logs · block log):

1. In December 2025, Yaghmosus asked Skitash on their talkpage to explain why they were removing content from Arab migrations to the Maghreb; Skitash reverted Yaghmosus and told them to take it to Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb ([32]). Shortly thereafter, Skitash placed {{Uw-unsourced3}} on Yaghmosus' talkpage for a malformed citation on Khalid ibn Hamid al-Zanati ([33]).
2. In January 2026, Yaghmosus was given a final warning by Skitash for making an isolated personal attack in their edit summary to Shilha people ([34], [35]). Yaghmosus returned to editing on March 24 after a month away.

• Yessgaz (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

1. In March 2025, M.Bitton reverted Yessgaz's edit to Sahrawi refugee camps with the edit summary SPA trying to male [sic] a point with cherry picked sources ([36]). They then strongly warned Yessgaz for edit warring after one revert ([37]). M.Bitton cast the aspersion that Yessgaz was not a newcomer in the relevant talkpage discussion ([38]). Yessgaz has not edited since not receiving a reply from M.Bitton.

Evidence presented by Uhoj

Y Extension granted to 700 words. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

S&R obstructed WP:3O

1. An editor in a dispute with only M.Bitton requested 3O
2. Skitash commented in the dispute
3. Less than a minute later Skitash closed the request apparently using their own involvement as justification

Seven more instances of obstruction by Skitash occurred in October-December.

1. Bananakingler in a dispute with only Skitash requested 3O
2. R3YBOl commented in support of Skitash
3. R3YBOl closed the request two minutes later "More than 2 editors involved"

MS&R act in concert at noticeboards

• M.Bitton supports Skitash [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]
  • During these proceedings [49]
• Skitash supports M.Bitton [50][51][52][53][54][55][56]
• Skitash supports R3YBOl [57][58][59]
• R3YBOl supports Skitash [60][61]

S&R appear out of thin air to help win disputes

• Skitash jumped in to support R3YBOl on 17 September 2025.
  • This was Skitash's first engagement with the article. [62][63]
  • The dispute wasn't mentioned in the lead-up on either R3YBOl's or Skitash's user talk. [64][65]
• R3YBOl jumped in to support M.Bitton and Skitash on 4 June 2025.
  • This was R3YBOl's first engagement with the article. [66][67]
  • This was R3YBOl's first time commenting in an RfC. [68]
  • The dispute wasn't mentioned in the lead-up on either M.Bitton's, Skitash's, or R3YBOl's user talk. [69][70][71]
• Skitash jumped in to support M.Bitton on 19 June 2023.
  • This was Skitash's first engagement with the article. [72][73]
  • The dispute wasn't mentioned in the lead-up on either M.Bitton's or Skitash's user talk. [74][75]

S removed a pertinent comment from ANI

Skitash removed a comment recommending sanctions against Skitash and M.Bitton from the recent ANI thread. This was discovered by Kowal2701, but I'm repeating it as an assertion because it's important.

M&S remove Berber script; keep Arabic

• At Marinid dynasty:
  • M.Bitton [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83]
  • Skitash [84]
  • M.Bitton called transliteration into Tifinagh "Baseless WP:OR"[85] but transliteration isn't. Furthermore, it's readily verifiable.
  • Skitash and M.Bitton got a newcomer blocked on their first day for adding the transliteration. [86]
• At Tamazgha:
  • M.Bitton [87][88][89][90][91][92]
  • Skitash [93][94][95][96][97][98]
• At Couscous:
  • M.Bitton [99][100][101]
  • Skitash [102]

M&S removed Berber templates

• M.Bitton [103]
• Skitash [104][105]

MS&R rely on idiosyncratic and draconian interpretation of policy

• MS&R said a photo cannot be used because the subject wasn't on public display. [106][107][108] An uninvolved editor called the dispute "one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen on a talk page".[109] The photo depicts a ruler who led Berber forces against an Arab conquest.
• M.Bitton cited WP:OR to remove Berber transliteration
• Skitash cited MOS:FORLANG to remove all languages except Arabic
  • WP:NOR to remove a See also link and Berber translations
  • WP:PRIMARY to argue against Berber translation

M.Bitton pushed an Algerian-Arab POV from the start

Early contribs

• #1 removed an Algerian defeat [110]
• #2 removed it again [111]
• #3 Algerian autonomy [112]

Skitash focused on an Arab-Algerian POV from the start

Early contribs

• #1 Arabization of Algeria [113]
• #2 Arabization and Berbers [114]
• #3 Arab-Israeli conflict [115]

R3YBOl pushed an Arab POV from the start

Early contribs

• #2 changed the result of a battle to Arab victory [116]
• #3 changed the result of an offensive to Arab victory [117]
• #4 reduced the number of Muslims exiled [118]

Evidence presented by Samuelshraga

Y Extension granted to 1000 words. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton, Skitash and R3YBOl are collaboratively disruptive

Skitash and M.Bitton engage in multi-party edit-warring - gaming ANEW

Skitash and M.Bitton at various occasions revert numerous times together. Their (often inexperienced) edit war opponents easily blow past 3RR reverting alone against two editors at which point they are reported at WP:ANEW:

• At North Africa [119][120][121][122]. Followed by report [123]
• At History of the Jews in Algeria [124][125][126][127] followed by report of the counter-edit-warrior [128]
• At Algeria [129][130][131][132]. Followed by report [133]
• At Marinid dynasty [134][135][136] followed by report: [137] (only 2 minutes after posting 3RR warning on user's talk[138]).
• At Abd al-Mu'min M.Bitton reverts someone 5 times consecutively (the other editor desists for 2 days in the middle so no 3RR vio by M.Bitton) [139][140][141][142][143] then Skitash reverts the other editor twice [144][145] before M.Bitton reports them[146] with Skitash support[147]

There are dozens of similar WP:MUEW that didn't end up at WP:ANEW (e.g. because the other side of the edit war stopped reverting).

Skitash and R3YBOl multi-party edit warring

Multiple identical reverts in sequence between these two editors:

• [148][149][150][151]
• [152][153][154][155]
• [156][157][158]
• [159][160][161]

Subversion of WP:3O by M.Bitton, Skitash and R3YBOl

See Uhoj's evidence. M.Bitton has also "invalidated" a 3O request by stepping in to expand the number of discussants.[162] As Uhoj said, there are several more examples.

Explicit co-ordination and off-wiki communication

R3YBOl canvassed Skitash in April[163]. In May, R3YBOl asked Skitash to do a revert so that R3YBOl could then report the editor.[164] R3YBOl sought to contact Skitash on discord.[165] Skitash said they don't have Discord but invited R3YBOl to contact them on email.[166]

M.Bitton sought to evade their most recent block using email,[167] asking others to perform edits for them.[168]

Tendentious editing about ethnic/national conflict and cultural "ownership"

There isn't a single real-world dispute that maps on to the disputed material discussed in this case. A lot of the material relates to ethnic conflict involving Arabs and other ethnicities (such as Berbers, Kurds or Jews), or contesting ethnic descriptions of historical figures or cultural possessions (like foods). Others are more nationalist disputes - Algerian vs Moroccan being one locus of dispute. The following examples should illustrate this and are far from unique.

M.Bitton, Skitash and R3YBOl support Arab claims over other cultures

• Diffs in 1st and 3rd bullet of R3YBOl/Skitash WP:MUEW evidence above: Locus of the dispute is Abu Hanifa's Persianness (or purported Arabness).
• Skitash and M.Bitton argue that only Arabic should be included as a MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV:
  • At Talk:Couscous#January 2026
    • M.Bitton's statement You can't possibly compare a written language (Arabic) that is spoken by everyone to a non-written language that is spoken by a minority bears highlighting.[169]
    • Skitash said The single closely associated language here is Arabic, and that is also true of the very word "couscous" itself per the etymology section.[170] They didn't mention etymology when it cut against their argument for solely showing Arabic at Talk:Hebron.[171]
    • Skitash also falsely claimed that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV explicitly requires that we use a single "closely associated" non-English language.[172], when it explicitly provides for multiple closely associated non-English languages. The relevant section of FOREIGNEQUIV had earlier been quoted to Skitash in another discussion earlier (where Skitash was also advocating only Arabic as a FOREIGNEQUIV).[173]
  • At Talk:Hebron#RfC:_Proposed_addition_to_lead_section
    • M.Bitton claims only Arabic should be in the lede, not Hebrew.[174]
    • Skitash says only Arabic shoudl be in the lede, partly because of Arabic being the sole official language in this territory.[175] A month later Skitash in another dispute seeks to exclude Berber (in favour of retaining solely Arabic) argues "It's an official language" is not a good enough rationale for including Berber in the lede or infobox.[176]

M.Bitton and Skitash support Algerian (and oppose Moroccan) "ownership"

• At the page for 14th century figure Ibn Battuta, M.Bitton and Skitash have repeatedly reverted the description of the subject in the lede from "Moroccan" to "Maghrebi".[177][178][179][180]
• At the page for 15-16th century figure Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah, M.Bitton and Skitash repeatedly revert the description of the subject from "Maghrebi" to "Algerian".[181][182][183][184]. M.Bitton had stated (years before) on Ibn Battuta's talk that There was no such thing as "Moroccan", "Algerian", Tunisian" or a concept of nationality back then[185]. When this quote was raised at ibn Abi Jum'ah, M.Bitton and Skitash accuse the editor who raised the double standard of sockpuppetry.[186][187]

R3YBOl's racial abuse on other projects and connection to this one

R3YBOl's focus on military history in the Arab and Islamic world tends towards puffery for the Arab sides of the conflicts they cover (e.g. This edit[188] contra MOS:VICTORY (which they had been told about in the preceding edit summary after their previous attempt). This is a continuation of their activity on Arabic wikipedia, where R3YBOl is a sockpuppet of ابا خشم السندوس [189]. The sockmaster's history shows similar focus to R3YBOl's.

The R3YBOl account was used from its fourth edit to racially abuse another editor who had clashed with the sockmaster ("n****r"[190], "white n****r"[191]) and asking (my rough translation) "did they make you choose to be yellow, black or pink?"(ibid) I don't see a way of interpreting this other than calling someone a race traitor.

Kabyles Hadra

IF Katzrockso's evidence about the RfC below is correct that M.Bitton and Skitash support a sentence that is plainly not verified by the sources [539], a clear example of either WP:SYNTH or a violation of WP:V to claim hat the French "invented" an ethnicity of a non-Arab minority in an Arab country, it's worth noting that R3YBOl also supported it.[192] This also raises questions about the two other editors who supported the sentence.

There is persistent sockpuppetry in the topic area

Plenty of sock accounts have been found in the topic area, and both Skitash and M.Bitton have made reports and comments at SPI. Many of the socks have been in conflict with M.Bitton and Skitash (e.g. [193][194]). In 2023, an admin already observed that a probable sock seemed to have a history with M.Bitton, though the sockmaster was unknown.[195] The implication is that multiple sockmasters may/do target M.Bitton, I think the same is likely true of Skitash. At the same time M.Bitton, Skitash make free with accusations of sockpuppetry regardless of evidence (see Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah-evidence above, and Mdm.Bla's evidence).

When M.Bitton was last blocked theories of sockpuppetry involvement were immediately shared[196]. At the precipitating ANI, a suspicious account attacked M.Bitton's accusers [197] (suspiciousness of the account[198]). After the block there was a joe job so comically bad it couldn't be missed[199] that was immediately used by editors to demand CUs of M.Bitton's accusers[200]. Given that M.Bitton was actually seeking to evade their block at the time[201], this means there were as many as 3 accounts (no telling how few users behind them) illicitly involved in the litigation of M.Bitton's conduct issue.

Evidence Presented by Robert McClenon

M.Bitton and DRN

M.Bitton is frequently named as a party in requests for DRN but has never participated. They have been named as a party 20 times, but were not properly notified 7 times (only indicating that an editor had a content dispute), and have declined to participate 13 times, either by not responding, or by erasing the notice:

• [202] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [203] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [204] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [205] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [206] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [207] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [208] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [209] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [210] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [211] - Two disputes with this title, first dispute declined by M.Bitton
• [212] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [213] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [214] - Declined by M.Bitton - Discussion continued without M.Bitton
• [215] - Declined by M.Bitton - Discussion continued without M.Bitton
• [216] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [217] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice
• [218] - Declined by M.Bitton by not responding
• [219] - Named as a party but not properly notified
• [220] - Declined by M.Bitton by erasing the notice with a rude comment
• [221] - Declined by M. Bitton by erasing the notice

Skitash and DRN

Skitash is frequently named in requests for DRN. They have been named 9 times. They have not been properly notified 2 times and have declined to take part 5 times. They have responded 2 times, one of which was closed as not discussed previously, and one of which resulted in an RFC.

• [222] - Named in a filing but not properly notified
• [223] - Named as a party and responded. The dispute was closed due to lack of prior discussion.
• [224] - Declined by Skitash by erasing the notice
• [225] - Skitash took part in the discussion, which was lengthy, and resulted in an RFC [226]
• [227] - Two disputes with this title, both declined by Skitash
• [228] - Declined by Skitash
• [229] - Declined by Skitash by erasing the notice
• [230] - Declined by Skitash by not responding
• [231] - Mentioned in passing by the filing party but not listed or notified

Evidence presented by asilvering

M.Bitton pushes an Arab-Algerian POV

The following are examples of talk page disputes where this POV is obvious. I recommend at least skimming the threads to get an impression of how unconstructive and uncollaborative these discussions are; I've tq'd a few particularly noteworthy diffs.

• Arabic numerals. M.Bitton objects to wikilinking Hindu-Arabic numeral system anywhere.
  • I have zero tolerance for editors who start casting aspersions when others disagree with them. The discussion that you imitated on the talk page (about what you're really after) speaks for itself. M.Bitton often uses proof-by-assertion like "speaks for itself" when editors request clarification.
• Talk:Barbary slave trade: apologetics re: sex slavery: [232]
• Couscous. Objects to adding the Berber word for couscous.
  • Refuses to explain policy, confusing the hell out of the other editor [233]; Largoplazo manages in a single post [234].
  • [235] does that mean you could make scribble anything without a supporting source? as though Tifinagh is just "scribbles" no one can write without sources
  • [236] Less so than Arabic and certainly, not a written one (unlike Arabic and without which North Africa wouldn't have a history to talk about). ie, "without our language, you wouldn't have a history," an anti-indigenous classic
  • [237] total failure to AGF
• Geography: debates about whether a map should be updated. M.Bitton disapproves because it does not show Western Sahara. Algeria supports Western Sahara against Morocco.
  • [238]: arose because the map was updated to a newer version from the same source (CIA World Factbook) [239]. M.Bitton says having such fringe POV anywhere in our encyclopedia would be a gross violation of our non negotiable NPOV policy. [240]. This is clear misapplication of WP:FRINGE. Various editors try to explain that all maps are non-neutral by definition: [241], [242], [243]. This is a clear statement of either POV or deep misunderstanding of how maps work; obviously, varying sides have different ideas of what as it is means, or all maps would be identical.
  • [244]: a year later, Interstellarity again tries to change the map [245], reverted by M.Bitton within minutes. Highlights: [246], [247], [248], [249].
  • [250]: now at NPOVN. Chipmunkdavis observes the pattern of pov-pushing: [251], [252], [253].
• Ibn Battuta: M.Bitton insists on describing him as "Maghrebi", rather than the usual (context-dependent) "Moroccan", "Arab", or "Muslim". Oct 2024 thread: [254]. This edit explains the issue.
• North Africa: objects to these images for pushing a Sub-Saharan POV into North Africa [255]; an image of a Haratin girl is literally a joke [256]; [257].
  • Irrelevant mistakes are fixated on, frustrating discussion. WikiUser4020: This is digressing into a ridiculous tirade on pedantic points. [258], [259].

Skitash pushes an Arab-Algerian POV

• At Tamazgha, Skitash has been edit warring for years, against at least 10 other editors to maintain this version of the article, which refers to Tamazgha as a "fictitious entity". Skitash calls this well sourced and quoted material [260]. It was not well sourced: [261], [262], [263]. The edit war to maintain this poorly sourced, obviously contentious version of the article is what resulted in the tban/iban injunction in this case. Here, an editor clearly explains their changes and criticizes the earlier sourcing [264], but is reverted as Unexplained removal of sourced content [265].
• At Oriental (Morocco), there is a long discussion about including the Standard Moroccan Tamazight name. Skitash argues, bizarrely, that the Moroccan government is not a suitable source for the name used by the Moroccan government, because it is a primary source [266]. ElijahUHC explains: [267]. When other editors assemble more sources, Skitash takes this as a "gotcha" moment rather than engaging with them in good faith and trying to find the best sources [268], [269]. Summary: [270].
  • Also involved is R3YBOl, who calls the Berber language clutter [271] [272], and M.Bitton, who was edit-warring about a pov tag on a map [273].
• If you read only one piece of evidence about Skitash, it should be the pre-case version of the article Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie, which is mostly Skitash's work. This is shockingly biased, even at the level of the ToC. (The headings are "Terrorist activities", "Ideological rhetoric", and "Foreign funding", and the single largest section is "Anti-Arab racism".) No real context, no mention at all of their (secular, pro-Western) platform. Note the custom infobox parameter, "Designated as a terrorist group by". See also this discussion about defining their ideology as "anti-Arab racism".
  • Compare this to Sahrawi insurgency (sorry, admin-only link, RD'd for copyvio), which does not describe the revolutionary Polisario Front as terrorists, despite observing that they, for example, repeatedly assaulted the phosphate mines of Bou Craa. Hamas temporary committee doesn't call anyone terrorists either.

Evidence presented by JayBeeEll

M.Bitton's behavior on talk-pages with regards to the arrangement of material on the topic of Hindu-Arabic numerals has been uncollegial, uncollaborative, and seems designed to frustrate rather than assist normal consensus-building processes. This stonewalling can be viewed in the following discussions and basically pervades them. At Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system in February 2024:

• Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system/Archive_2#Jacobolus_edits,_reverted_by_M.Bitton,_and_as_restored_by_Paul_August
• Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system/Archive_2#Reason_for_reverting_my_edit
• Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Recent_edit_by_Jacobolus
• Talk:Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system#Origins_of_non-positional_numerals_and_of_positional_concepts

These discussions were ultimately more-or-less resolved by the arrival of a larger group of editors focused primarily on mathematics rather than nationalist claims. At Talk:Arabic_numerals, over a longer time-period:

• Talk:Arabic_numerals#September_2021
• Talk:Arabic_numerals#November_2021
• Talk:Arabic_numerals#This_article_should_not_be_cut_off_from_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system
• Talk:Arabic_numerals#Hatnote_re_Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system
• Talk:Arabic_numerals#Fundamental_issues

My perception is that the issues with this issue have not been resolved. (My personal engagement here is purely as an observer.) --JBL (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kowal2701

Tagteam edit warring, stonewalling, and POV-pushing

I've detailed some disputes that went to RfC within the last 2 years that imo are utterly bizarre.

• Talk:Western Sahara: Context: in recent years dozens of countries have withdrawn their recognition of the SADR, down from 84 UN members: Nice4What adds this simple fact (though initially without a source) [274]. Reverts and stonewalling by M.Bitton and Skitash [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] 2 weeks pass [280] [281] [282] [283], discussion here. Nice4What tries to bring it to WP:DRN but gets ignored. In the subsequent RfC, there is unanimous support for Nice4What's change from 5 editors (incl. myself), only M.Bitton and Skitash !vote to retain the '84 version' with little to no rationale.

• Talk:Aidi: Traumnovelle changes the 'country' of a dog breed from Maghreb to Morocco, which summarises the body [284]. M.Bitton reverts to the unsourced version [285] and removes the Berber name [286]. Some BRRD and Skitash joins in: [287] [288] [289] [290]. Both the Moroccan origin and Berber name are directly supported by sources [291], nevertheless M.Bitton and Skitash stonewall (discussion here). The subsequent RfC ends without a close as no consensus (ie. status quo antebellum), 2 !votes in favour, 3! votes against (2 of which are M.Bitton and Skitash who employ fallacious reasoning)

• Talk:Kusaila: ElijahUHC adds an image of a statue of the subject to Kusaila (a Berber leader who resisted the 7th-century Arab conquests) [292]. Skitash reverts [293]. ElijahUHC starts a discussion, with exemplary civility [294], but is then stonewalled by Skitash calling the statue fictional. ElijahUHC starts an RfC that is yet to be closed (edit: now closed); 4 !votes for support (incl. myself), and 3 !votes against from M.Bitton, Skitash, and R3YBOI, whose arguments are that it should be excluded because the statue was removed and it is unclear if it was reinstated (it was), and that it is a 'fictitious representation', nothing to do with PAGs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

To add on to Asilvering's evidence re sex slavery, see this Oct 2025 ANI thread where an IBAN was placed between Aciram and M.Bitton. See [295] for a summary of the dispute that lead to it. Of note is [296], where in April 2024 M.Bitton attacks her about her mental health, and refuses to concede it was inappropriate in the 2025 ANI thread. See also [297] (self-explanatory) [298] (leans on a website that doesn't mention North Africa, and is favoured over scholarship). Corresponding NPOVN thread. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Also worth noting that re the ANI thread that led to this, a TA bumped the thread while calling for sanctions, which Skitash reverted against WP:TPO, and the thread was subsequently archived [299] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

PIA

15% of M.Bitton's edits in the past year have been to PIA articles [300], practically all are to talk pages and are often unconstructive and uncivil, derailing into WP:NOTFORUM or stonewalling. [301] [302] from my preliminary statement are far from outliers, and more like the norm. Past couple months: [303] [304] [305] [306] Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nice4What

Tagteam edit warring, stonewalling, and POV-pushing (continued)

The dispute over the Western Sahara article mentioned by Kowal2701 concurrently spilled over to a related article, International recognition of the SADR; as above, M.Bitton and Skitash favored using a higher # of states recognizing the SADR. Reverts by M.Bitton and Skitash [307] [308], talk page discussion here, OR noticeboard discussion here. 20:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LEvalyn

M.Bitton evaluates sources based on agreement with their POV

• Regarding the etymology of shakshuka, declares Collins Dictionary a baseless source [309], says of both Collins and the OED that their unsubstantiated claims are totally worthless [310], and explicitly states that the dictionaries are not a sourcing improvement over Mug Meals: More Than 100 No-Fuss Ways to Make a Delicious Microwave Meal in Minutes because the dictionaries do not match their personal knowledge of Arabic.
• Takes the food historian Gil Marks out of 'wikivoice' and distances from him when Marks says tagine is Moroccan: [311] [312] but cites Gil Marks in wikivoice [313] and suggests using him as the main source [314] when Marks says shakshouka is Maghribi.
• [315] Calls the CIA World Factbook map from 2015 reliable, but calls the CIA World Factbook map from 2022 fringe and a gross violation of our non negotiable NPOV policy, specifically because the US changed its position on Western Sahara.
• A case of prioritizing guidelines different contextually: at tagine they insisted the lead should not have citations [316], while at shakshuka they objected to the removal of citations in the lead [317], both times supporting their preferred framing of the origin. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Skitash and M.Bitton revert without explanation, prolonging disputes

• At Western Sahara, TheLegendofGanon starts a Talk page discussion about updating a map; M.Bitton is dismissive but links a newer map: [318] [319] [320] [321]. TheLegendofGanon adds a newer map. Skitash reverts with the edit summary Not an improvement. TheLegendofGanon explains their edit, tries to guess Skitash’s objection, and suggests an alternative. They add that alternative. M.Bitton reverts with the edit summary When someone doesn't agree with you, then you have no choice but to seek consensus for your change. TheLegendofGanon asks what is wrong with the new maps. After two weeks with no reply, they re-add the updated map and Skitash immediately reverts with no edit summary. TheLegendofGanon posts: This is ridiculous. If you have an objection to the map, please express it here on the talk page. Otherwise, stop reverting and not replying. It's impossible to build consensus if you won't make your objection clear. Skitash replies without explaining an objection, and M. Bitton promises to upload a newer map, which never happens.
• At Berbers, Skitash reverts with the edit summary Previous was sufficient; other editor restores with citation with the edit summary added citation, dont edit war, take this to talk page if you disagree. Skitash does not go to the talk page, now or later; instead, he reverts, another editor restores, and Skitash reverts again, only making his arguments in the edit summaries.
• At Western Sahara War, this lengthy back-and-forth includes multiple statements from M.Bitton that they are reverting a baseless nationalist pov, which clearly baffles their interlocutor. Eventually, another editor guesses that M.Bitton took issue with the change to the result= parameter, which went from "Inconclusive" to "Moroccan military and territorial victory", a change the original editor had not even noticed; this immediately resolves the confusion. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by jacobolus

M.Bitton and Skitash were involved in a dispute about borders on world maps

In addition to the dispute about Hindu–Arabic numerals mentioned by JayBeeEll above, another occasion when I've encountered M.Bitton was in their edit warring and arguments with User:GeogSage (and various others) about world maps on Map and Geography. See Talk:Geography/Archive 2#World map for geography page, Talk:Map#August 2025 and the history of those articles. The dispute also spilled over into Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Geography map dispute.

I'm not entirely clear on the details (GeogSage can probably explain more clearly) but my understanding is that M.Bitton personally worked on File:Physical World Map.svg, a derivative of a map from the CIA World Factbook with various changes away from the original source to match M.Bitton's personal political/ideological preferences (they claim this was done for "accuracy"). When there was an attempt to replace this map on various pages with File:CIA World Physical Map (2023).pdf, an (unmodified by Wikipedians) more recent map from the World Factbook, M.Bitton objected on the grounds that the newer map was unacceptable because it reflected a US government POV, unlike their own "neutral" map. It seems that the primary difference of concern had to do with some borders or labels in the Maghreb, specifically Western Sahara.

Besides aggressive edit warring on articles, M.Bitton redirected talk page discussions away from specific content questions toward inflammatory complaints about process and personalities. Some examples: "You edit warred to push your POV while calling me a pov pusher. How dare you?" // "Is that supposed to explain why you replaced an accurate map with an inaccurate one?" // "I've had it with your uncalled for aspersions." // "As for your continued aspersions, you will get the template that you deserve and if you continue, you will take a trip to ANI." // "Let the discussion (that you started) run its course. The rest of your opinion (that you repeated ad nauseam) has been noted and rightfully ignored." // "Since you keep personalizing the discussion, I'll be very honest with you: your problem is that you think that the US is centre of the universe, and its president the almighty (whose POV everyone has to bow to). The rest is just the usual WP:AON way out." // "I don't owe an explanation of any sort and if you're still not happy, you take it to COMMONS and make your case there. Good luck to you." // "The only consistent pattern here is your utter disregard for NPOV. Care to explain what you have against one of our core policies?" // "Straw man springs to mind." // "You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you spend more time learning the policies, instead of repeating the same irrelevant opinion while quoting a policy that doesn't apply." –jacobolus (t) 03:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by GeogSage

Just a brief follow up to what @User:jacobolus said because they tagged me, and I'm creating a new to avoid editing the section created by jacobolus, most new evidence I could offer is already linked by others. I'm not following this case closely, and am only going to address the map issue mentioned above. I am involved in that dispute, so this should not be considered a neutral POV on the issue.

The basic problem is that Wikipedia does not have very clear and consistently enforced standards around maps regarding their creation or sources (compared to other content). When we are making maps, things like boundaries need to be cited, and need to be treated as exact quotes. Creating our own boundaries is no different from generating new uncited assertions in text. The U.S. government has an official set of international boundaries that represent the perspective of the U.S. government, and as these are free, easy to download, and from a relatively reputable source, they are widely used when making world maps. These boundaries change as the U.S. political stance changes. Obviously, the world does not have a single agreed on set of borders, so the best (only) solution is to cite the source we use and acknowledge it isn't universally accepted.

The dispute stems from the fact the U.S. has changed its stance regarding Western Sahara (and other things) and updated the maps accordingly. Users wanted to update the maps we are using to reflect the most up to date versions published by the U.S. government. I believe that M.Bitton does not agree with the changes made by the U.S. government (fair, it is impossible to agree with the perspectives of every country on Earth as they often contradict), and repeatedly called the new official stance of the U.S. government fringe (noted above by others). Rather then using the complete update of international boundaries that they disagree with, M.Bitton took parts from the update and created a deriviative product [322] that combined the outdated boundaries with changes to the capital of Kazakhstan reflected in the new version, commenting "update the capital of Kazakhstan". They later reverted this change [323], stating "Now that Astana has once again become the capital of Kazakhstan, there is no need for a derivative." The result of the initial update was a synthesis of the two map editions that was never published by the CIA, but that listed "US Government, Central Intelligence Agency" as the maps author. M.Bitton reverted users trying to use the up to date boundaries, and it lead to quite a dispute on the talk page.

Evidence presented by WikiUser4020

Adding onto the substantiated views of Kowal2701, Mdm.Bla and ToBeFree etc, M.Bitton and Skitash have been jointly belligerent in their tone and engagement in the North Africa article section in relation to minor, constructive edits to the page.

Specifically, M.Bitton has repeatedly claimed that Sub-Saharan and North African populations are distinct, overlooking the fact that North Africa historically has featured groups considered "Black" such as the Nubians, Beja and Haratins int he North African region. He considered those minor additions as UNDUE and was belligerent in a number of occasions here. Removing content with reliable sources in both North Africa and Moor articles.

North Africa [[324]] [[325]] [[326]] [[327]]

Moors [[328]] [[329]]

Afro-Arabs [[330]] [[331]]

M.Bitton's comments here: "You don't sidetrack a discussion with factually incorrect statements and aspersions and then decide to sweep everything under the carpet (as if nothing happened). You made your point, now let the others have their say"

Another user غوّاص العلم pointed out that M.Bitton had been unnecessarily difficult in his tone and engagement with the topic, asserting that I accused him of bad-fath, finding M.Bitton to be unhelpful, laconic in the North Africa vs Maghreb section in the talk section. He responded with a final point in regards to M.Bitton's behaviour that:

"I'm commenting on the content discussion. I'm explaining what I perceive to be mistakes in the process to achieve consensus. I genuinely think that it would be a huge stretch to in any way call anything in my comment there a personal attack. If you are uninterested in receiving what was clearly meant as constructive criticism and advice, that is perfectly within your rights, as was pretty clearly implied by that comment."

SKitash has presented his own views as factual without supporting evidence from the sources he cites. This was the case, in discussion to Y-Chromosome and linguistic connection between population groups across.Africa. Another point was around consistency and the representation of minority groups, I repeatedly pointed out that brief references to minority groups were common in other pages such as USA, France, Britain etc and so should be applied to the North Africa.

M.Bitton has also exhibited disruptive editing in the Moors section, undoing or excluding edits which are sourced from reliable sources. He characterised those factual edits as "cherrypicking", WP:OR or misleading (the figment of a painting's imagination". This is primarily because the paintings reflected the diverse heritage of the Moors which included light-skinned Arabs and dark-skinned Africans. See here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moors&action=history

M.Bitton reverted a number of my edits which were sourced from reliable sources in the Afro-Arabs, see here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Arabs&action=history. He even expressed his desire to delete the page and was combatative in the talk page of the Afro-Arab section here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afro-ArabsWikiUser4020 (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Super Goku V

Y Extension granted to 1000 words. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

M.Bitton and Skitash at Shakshouka

Shakshouka has been part of three ANI discussions. (First, Second, Third discussion) The first discussion was a dispute between two other users, where M.Bitton got involved both at ANI and at the article by reverting the opener of the discussion, before Bbb23 blocked them within 40 minutes of the ANI thread opening. (Diff/1076934061) As shown in the prior diff, M.Bitton restored the wording that the dish is a "Maghrebi dish" in the lede in place of it being a Middle Eastern dish with sources, which also becomes the focus of the next discussion.

The second discussion involved LEvalyn and M.Bitton at ANI; That situation started between M.Bitton and LEvalyn's mentoree (Raturous) who wanted to note it was a North African dish. Both crossed WP:3RR and M.Bitton placed a warning to Raturous' user talk following the edit war. (Diff/1219129096, Diff/1219123309) At Talk:Shakshouka, M.Bitton again wanted the lede at "Maghrebi dish", without saying it was a North African dish this time. (Talk:Shakshouka discussion) This goes nowhere leading Raturous to see assistance at WP:Third Opinion with LEvalyn's advice. (Diff/1219288012) Before Raturous made that post, Skitash gives Raturous an extra warning for the 3RR edits at Raturous' talk page. (Diff/1219241692) Raturous attempts to talk to Skitash there, but never receives a reply and ends up making the Third Opinion request while thanking LEvalyn for the advice. (Diff/1219288012, Diff/1219297074) Shortly afterwards, Skitash makes a single reply to Talk:Shakshouka saying that a group of sources are unreliable. (Diff/1219299202) When Alaexis later sides with Raturous on the Third Opinion request, M.Bitton complains to Alaexis for making a "fourth opinion" due to Skitash's earlier reply. (Diff/1219408195) LEvalyn tries to restart from a blank slate, which leads into the second ANI discussion where Skitash jumps in with M.Bitton to say that LEvalyn is in the wrong, which ends up closed without action. (First sub-section discussion, Second ANI discussion) Afterwards, the Talk:Shakshouka discussion in a new sub-section descends into M.Bitton calling Raturous a SPA, then pinging MrOllie to only summarize the sources M.Bitton had provided without getting involved in the above dispute. (Second sub-section discussion, Diff/1222532545) When MrOllie suggests slightly expanding the history section, M.Bitton thanks him before going on to say that any future changes need to be submitted to Talk:Shakshouka first for review. (Diff/1222950058) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

From May into June of 2024, discussions continued involving the lede and the etymology of Shakshouka with no consensus. (Lede discussion, Etymology discussion) Notable comments include M.Bitton pinging Skitash and MrOllie on the lede discussion, where Skitash defends M.Bitton by saying no changes are needed while telling LEvalyn to not edit war (LEvalyn was not) and M.Bitton's comment during the etymology discussion where they said the Collins and Oxford English dictionaries are not usable sources (...) as neither of them is an authority in the Maghrebi dialect (...) and both dismissed what the dictionaries say as unsubstantiated claims while saying that only the countries in the Maghreb region were relevant. (Diff/1225150895, Diff/1231337833) LEvalyn goes to the Dispute resolution noticeboard where M.Bitton refrained from participating, leading Robert McClenon to close it without resolution with some advice in the closing: (...) The next steps are continued discussion at the article talk page. (...) The filing editor states that they want to do a complete rewrite of the article, to replace the existing Class C article with a version that will pass Good Article review. In the discussion on the article talk page, other editors have agreed with the other editor or disagreed with the filing editor on some of the issues, which should be seen as a lack of consensus for extensive changes to the article. In particular, there seems to be a lack of consensus for any change to the etymology. The filing editor used a variant spelling in filing this case, which itself implies that consensus is against them as to the name. If the filing editor still wants to rewrite the article, the least disruptive way to try to do this would be one or more RFCs. (...) (Diff/1231671338)

That advice would lead into LEvalyn's RfC on the etymology of Shakshouka. Not only would M.Bitton disagree with having an RfC, but they ended up getting into it with Pathawi over the RfC formatting, leading to violations of 3RR for both. Robert McClenon also opposed having an RfC because I didn't recommend that the original poster submit an RFC concerning the reliability of sources. The proper forum for such a question is the Reliable Source Noticeboard." & "I said that the next step was an RFC if the original poster wished to rewrite the article. Consensus at the article talk page has been against the original poster's edits to the article, which have been reverted. This means that either they should stop trying to rewrite the article or submit an RFC concerning article changes. This RFC is not about article changes, which lead to the third ANI discussion by Robert McClenon, which again resolved without action (though with more support overall than not towards LEvalyn), and the RfC was closed to include his suggestion. (RfC, Diff/1231760972, Diff/1231831056, Third ANI discussion) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

3RR claims

• Edit Warring at Shakshouka
• M.Bitton: 1219123309 (1st), 1219128755 (2nd), 1219129068 (3rd), 1219130314 (4th)
• Raturous: 1219128301 (1st), 1219128936 (2nd), 1219130000 (3rd), 1219134998 (4th)
• Edit Warring at Talk:Shakshouka
• M.Bitton: 1231760972 (1st), 1231761137 (2nd), 1231761347 (3rd), 1231761573 (4th), 1231761815 (5th), 1231762252 (6th), 1231763416 (7th), 1231764049 (8th), 1231764432 (9th), 1231764611 (10th), 1231769461 (11th)
• Pathawi: 1231761045 (1st), 1231761322 (2nd), 1231761480 (3rd), 1231761704 (4th), 1231762166 (5th), 1231763298 (6th), 1231763783 (7th), 1231764144 (8th), 1231764525 (9th), 1231765060 (10th)

Evidence presented by Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction

At Arabic numerals, Skitash has removed without explanation a well-explained use of "Hindu–Arabic" and a mention of "ancient India". M.Bitton edit-warred in July 2022, removing a paragraph that discussed their Indian origin, then doing so again, then calling the other editor's addition unrelated crap. The Talk page thread about this edit war was archived and does not appear in the list JayBeeEll provided above. In August, M.Bitton did a revert that systematically removed mentions of India, marking it a minor edit and providing no edit summary. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Sirfurboy

M.Bitton bludgeoning at Imane Khelif

In scope as Khelif is an Algerian boxer. M.Bitton's single most edited page on the project, by a considerable margin, is Talk:Imane Khelif with 729 edits. In a recent RfC they heavily bludgeoned the discussion, for instance, making the same claim: [332][333][334][335][336][337][338][339][340][341][342]. That is probably not all of them.

After contributing liberally an editor advised M.Bitton to avoid being painted as the bad guy. M.Bitton agreed, saying I said what I needed to say, so it's time for me to move on.[343]. Despite this they continued responding. After a further 49 contributions, I left a note to them too, intended as friendly advice but was met aggresively.[344]. M.Bitton edited the discussion over a hundred times after their resolution.

They also made threats to take people to boards. Here, accusing an editor of a BLP violation and threatening them with AE.[345] Another editor could not see the violation, so M.Bitton threatened them with AE.[346] They also showed battleground behaviour. E.g: [347],[348], [349], [350], [351] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Alaexis

AGF and driving out newcomers

One of the participants notified me of this case. I only made one edit related to the conflict, so I'll keep my statement brief. u:M.Bitton and u:Skitash failed to WP:AGF towards a new editor who wasn't being disruptive in this thread. As an example, when this editor, acting in good faith, provided a few sources - some reliable, some not - the response was a dismissal "Those are blogs and online guides, and are therefore unreliable. Consider reading WP:SPS". The nwew editor in question abandoned Wikipedia shortly after these events.

NPOV and the world map

I just recalled another dispute that I participated in. Now I believe that it's a major violation of NPOV on part of M.Bitton. They uploaded a political map of the world to Commons 13 April 2021 with the note that it was a derivative of the CIA world physical map. The changes weren't explicitly listed anywhere, but one clear change was adding Western Sahara as a separate entity. Then M.Bitton added it to the Geography article with a misleading edit summary that didn't mention Western Sahara updated the stable maps to reflect the recent changes of some countries and capitals' names. Subsequently they restored this map several times after other editors removed it. Edit summaries like "Not when it violates our NPOV policy" and multiple talk page comments ([352]], [353]) show that M.Bitton was engaged in POV pushing while trying to present their POV re Western Sahara as *the* NPOV.

Evidence presented by Skitash

I will address the main allegations raised in this case. I will be focusing on key points rather than every individual statement/diff.

Response to the teaming allegations

• Me and M.Bitton had a number of disagreements over time.[354][355][356][357][358][359][360][361] R3YBOI and M.Bitton have also disagreed with each other.[362] These demonstrate that we are not operating as a coordinated team who automatically support one another.
• R3YBOI did ask to contact me on Discord at one point, but I explicitly did not agree to that request. I offered general help as a gesture of goodwill, as I was barely familiar with the editor at the time.
• The specific instance R3YBOI sought assistance was to revert IP disruption that had occurred eight months earlier (in August 2024).[363] There was no active content dispute, so this does not constitute "canvassing" into a current dispute. R3YBOI has already presented their own explanation on this matter.
• Any occasional overlap in 3O requests and talk page comments is not the result of coordination. Me and others share many of the same articles on our watchlists and are active during similar time zones in a relatively small and niche topic area. As a result, we naturally notice the same ongoing disputes and end up commenting on the same issues independently. I would intervene in matters I see on my watchlist regardless of who else had already addressed them.
• On the contrary, M.Bitton does not always agree with my position. In one 3O request, they instead took a neutral stance, while a subsequent uninvolved editor responded to the 3O and ultimately agreed with my position.

Response to the biting allegations

• Axiom Theory was, along with now-blocked socks such as Ryuudou and Ethiopian Epic, repeatedly re-adding disputed content while active RfCs were still ongoing. In many cases the restorations were made without edit summaries, even after Axiom Theory had been page-blocked from North Africa.[364][365][366][367][368][369]
• My {{uw-unsourced3}} warning to Yaghmosus followed an earlier {{uw-nor2}} warning for adding WP:OR/personal commentary.[370] The {{uw-npa4}} warning was issued because of the repeated personal attacks directed at me, e.g. calling me "lazy" and "cherrypicking" as I was being civil and collaborative. Despite this, we have been able to engage in some constructive discussions.[371][372]

Participation at noticeboards

• Me, M.Bitton, and R3YBOI have sometimes participated at the same noticeboard discussions, though these typically involved a broad range of others editors as well. All of us were involved in the same content disputes.
• I do not believe we have "gamed the system" by reverting editors until they hit 3RR. From the examples provided by Samuselshraga, these editors were engaging in highly disruptive behavior. Most have since been blocked or globally locked[373][374][375][376][377] for various disruptive behaviors including socking,[378] being WP:NOTHERE,[379] edit warring against multiple editors,[380][381] etc.

Off-wiki campaign

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

Berber languages

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

Bananakingler's behavior

I would like to draw attention to Bananakingler's conduct, which had been almost entirely focused on Berber identity-related topics.[382]

• They have repeatedly restored the same disputed content across multiple articles despite opposition, including:
  • Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima (7 times)[383][384][385][386][387][388][389]
  • Azrou (8 times)[390][391][392][393][394][395][396][397]
  • Nador (8 times)[398][399][400][401][402][403][404][405]
• They have continued to pursue old content disputes even after asilvering explicitly instructed them to leave me alone, reopening disputes on Tamazgha,[406] Oriental (Morocco),[407] Berbers,[408] Berber Spring,[409] Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima,[410] etc.
  • After I reverted them for restoring disputed content, they brought it to Drmies's talk page, accusing me of edit warring. They subsequently reverted me on the same article, making three reverts within 24 hours.[411]

• Prolonged WP:BLUDGEONING and repeating the same points despite opposition
  • General unhelpful changes like repeatedly removing the word "minority" from the sourced 2024 census statement "a minority of 13.8% natively speak Berber languages" claiming the word itself is unsourced WP:OR.[412][413][414]
  • Talk:Standard Algerian Berber: Contesting factual content (which three editors wish to keep) without providing valid justifications, and then accusing others of stonewalling when they stop responding.[415][416][417][418][419][420]
  • Talk:Tangier-Tétouan-Al Hoceima: Getting into semantics, using a disambiguation page (Language dominance) as a source,[421] making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims,[422] eventually restoring their desired addition after months of bludgeoning.[423]
• Deleting other editors' comments[424] and personalizing talk page headings.[425]
• Immediately assuming bad faith
  • Issuing edit war warnings after an editor reverts their unsourced addition once.[426]
  • Warning an editor after they unpersonalized a talk page heading, reverting another editor who also tried doing so.

Response to Bananakingler's statement

Bananakingler's personal attacks below accusing me of racism and lying are highly inappropriate and unfounded.

• The concept of Tamazgha is described by a myriad of RS (including Berberist journals) as a "fictitious" or "imaginary" entity, as it does not physically exist as a concrete entity.
• I had reason to suspect a mobile editor (who hasn't edited since) with an interest in northern Moroccan Berber locations of sockpuppetry. The SPI was closed due to no overlap, which has arguably been established now that the two have added the same content to Afri.[427][428]
• Bananakingler did make 3+ reverts (often without edit summaries) within 24 hours multiple times, as documented above, i.e. in Tamazgha (twice) and Azrou.
• There is a clear difference between ethnicity (identity and language) and genetic ancestry. Conflating them by asserting non-Berbers are Berbers (contrary to RS) is misleading.

References

Evidence presented by Bananakingler

Skitash follows an Arab nationalistic anti Amazigh Agenda

He removed the notable people section for Berbers since according no other ethnic group would have it [429] but kept it for an ethnic Arab group despite editing that article multiple times and even contributed to it. [430] [431] He edit warred for YEARS the framing of Tamazgha being a „fictional entity“ and used for it unreliable sources by Arab nationalist Think tanks.[432] He edit warred this over a span of atleast 3 years while driving atleast 10 good faith editors crazy. (11 if you include me). May 2023 November 2023 December 2023 February 2024 March 2024 March 2024 April 2024July 2024December 2024 February 2025 March 2026 While doing that he (together with m.bitton) manipulated the talk page to hide disputes about his illigetimate addition [433] [434] [435] [436] [437] [438]

That’s not normal behavior.

He claims that Berberism would be about Islamophobia (while the majority of Amazigh people are Muslim) [439]

He deletes tifinagh, even after reaching consensus on the talk page.[440]

He manipulates articles so that the visibility of Amazigh culture is minimized. For example by selective removing Amazigh scripture and demographic data on Nador for a total of 3 years [441], [442], [443] [444][445][446][447][448][449][450][451][452]

He stonewalls discussions about the origin of Moroccan food as long as the current state says it is not Moroccan [453]

Removing the Berber Portal from Berbers and other related references to Amazigh related articles [454][455] Even for the Berber calendar [456]

Removing any sentence that expresses unity from imazighen and replaces them with sentences highlighting differences [457] [458][459][460] (here he used „populations“ instead of „population“ implying that the imazighen are peoples instead of people, also see the paragraph just factual wrong)[461][462] [463]

Prefers sentences that express a higher Grade of primitivity towards imazighen [464] [465] [466]

Cherry-picking statistics that make the number of imazighen look smaller [467][468]

Cherry picking articles that imply a the outdated demographic theory of the Maghreb from imazighen to Arabs [469]

Removes Amazigh etymology for no good reason [470]

Removes pictures with relationship towards imazighen [471][472](this one for the hilarious reason that the „mothers ethnicity does not define“ his ethnicity, since his mother was Amazigh)[473][474][475][476]

Frames imazighen as a minority despite most of the Maghreb being ethnically and culturally Amazigh only by language Arab [477]

Introduces semetic genetics for some reason on an article about Berbers [478]

M.Bitton follows an Arab nationalistic anti Amazigh Agenda

Similar m.bitton expresses dislike towards imazighen for example by by removing pictures of cultural objects and people attributed to imazighen [479][480] [481](please note how skitash continued edit warring this for him [482][483])

Even on articles that solely focus on imazighen he ensures that the first foreign language mentioned is Arabic [484] [485]

He removed the notable people section of Amazigh people for WP:Other reason. While doing that he deleted a whole section of pre Arab contact of imazighen about Christianity. [486]

He prefers Algerian Berbers over Moroccan ones for example by changing the order they are mentioned [487]

Skitash does not solely say the truth to achieve his goals

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

[488] [489] [490]

M.bitton lacks awareness of his wrongdoing

He does not understand that he is involved because he also engaged in edit warring and prefers to blame me 100% for his own mistakes. [491]

He is also incredibly rude: „ Go waste someone else's time with that garbage“ [492]

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

While skitash and m.Bitton had small irrelevant disagreements, like about if in article is supposed to be named Al shahid or eshahid, [493] they have a long history with each of agreeing defending each other (Like here or on the ani case before), edit warring together [494] and bullying and intimidate other users together. Then using the warning of each other as „another user has already warned you already“ without disclosing that the other user is someone who always agrees with them.

R3YBOI is an anti-Amazigh Arab nationalist

He solely edits articles related to the Islamic world and tries everything to frame Arab. His hate towards Kurds and Persian is much more shower. However i will focus solely on his misconduct towards Amazigh heritage. R3YB0O is deleting Amazigh names and tifinagh from Wikipedia for no good reason and sometimes even against consensus [495]

He supports m.bitton on a vote wether or not the Kabyle hadra a Amazigh group in Algeria are „French invention“. Of course he just like the other anti Amazigh editors voted for it [496]

He calls Tamazight „clutter“ [497]

R3YBOI games 3O

He writes one single comment on a dispute with skitash [498] so technically 3 persons are involved and deletes my 3O-Request[499]

skitash has a personal vendetta against me

Not only did he focus most of his words in his thread here to accuse me, he hounded me [500][501][502][503], tried to get me blocked multiple times, even by saying wrong things about me like I would be a sockpuppet for obvious bullshit reasons [504][505], mass deletes my edits, even completely innocent edits like adding Olympian medalists to a city while calling me „unhelpful“ [506] intimidates me and threatens to get me blocked (look at my talk page he gave me like a dozen warnings) and bullied me on his talk page [507][508][509]

Responses

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

It is hopefully visible that the only users I ever had trouble with are the 3 users who intimidated me after my addition of Amazigh etymology of city names. By bombarding me „warnings“ after every edit I did.[510] [511][512][513][514] [515] There were some other people Arabist accounts involved too.

[516][517]

Evidence presented by PositivelyUncertain

M.Bitton & ECR Enforcement

My only interaction with M.Bitton was at Talk:Imane Khelif on 2/12, where I felt he was being disruptive. Sirfurboy has already covered it, but our conversation can found here: [518]. I wanted to see if he had similar patterns and immediately found concerning behaviour to a new user on the Mizrahi Jews page. The incident is about how to describe the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries.

• 2/11: TA makes first edit [519], M.Bitton reverts citing ARBECR [520]

• 2/12: @Serentty, presumably the TA, starts talk page discussion [521]; M.Bitton removes discussion stating Not an edit request (per WP:ARBECR) [522].

• 2/13: Serentty makes a new discussion [523], and points out their preferred version was the long standing text until an IP changed it in October 2025 (diff here [524]); M.Bitton removes discussion saying Not an edit request (see your talk page) [525]

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

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

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

• 3/2: TA adds section to talk related to ongoing talk discussions [526]; no editors contest new section

• 3/3: M.Bitton adds content to lead, including a link to Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, an ECR protected page [527]

• 3/5: Same TA comments in new RFC [528]; M.Bitton reverts citing ARBECR [529] and keeps reverting over objections [530] [531]

• 3/6: MBitton starts talk discussion [532], stating "either this directly related to the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world or it isn't.

• 3/6: MBitton opens discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests [533] again referring to Jewish exodus from the Muslim world

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

STONEWALLING & RFCs

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

• MBitton's argument for exclusion is the Evian Accords and 1963 nationality code [534] [535] [536]. Granted, he does provide a secondary source that summarizes the accord/code [537].

• One editor's observation: [538]

• In the RFC discussion section, an editor proposes a new approach [539], all editors agree, except MBitton STONEWALLING: [540] [541] [542] [543]

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

Evidence presented by ElijahUHC

Repeated removal of Tifinagh after discussions By Skitash

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

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

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

---

Pattern of mass removals in short timeframes by Skitash

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

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

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

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

---

Interaction between Skitash and R3YBOI

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

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

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

---

Conduct by M.Bitton in discussions

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

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

---

Ongoing disputes over Amazigh-related content

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

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

Evidence presented by Yaghmosus

M.Bitton's misconduct during Couscous talk page discussion

Stating that the french wiki is unreliable [544].

Stating that one of the sources that I used which is "L'exploration scientifique de l'algerie" is unreliable because they (according to him) also made the "kabyle myth" [545], after I stated that those 2 instances are decades apart [546] he just stated "you're wrong" and stonewalled the argument. [547]

This was after he claimed that the population of Maghreb had been "Overwhelmingly Arab speaking for centuries", after I stated that his statement is debatable, he simply proclaimed "There is nothing debatable about that. It's a fact." [548], making a discussion practically impossible.

Actively tried to disassociate The Berber languages from Couscous stating since they don't have written link as the reason [549], after another editor pointed out that this is simply his invention of a rule in wikipedia [550], he proceeded to devolve the entire argument into a bunch of passive-aggressive responses [551] [552] [553] [554]

Skitash's misconduct during Couscous talk page discussion

This is mostly on the matter of MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, Skitash kept asserting that the lead sentence should only use the one most "closely associated" language (based on parameters that are for the record undefined) [555] [556] [557], doing so after multiple instances of multiple editors stating that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV doesn't single out a "closely associated language" but specifies that in the case where there are more than one "closely associated language" none of them should be placed in the lead sentence. [558] [559] [560] [561], not only did he not acknowledge these statements a single time, before the discussion sporadically ended, I made 2 more statement directly targeting this to him specifically [562] [563] and there was no response whatsoever, completely stonewalling the entire discussion.

Evidence presented by Scharb

Nationalist editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making up rules

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

Hostility

M.Bitton barely puts the "C" in "CPOV". For instance: making up a 1 hour rule to intimidate and using the arbitration process as a threat: "In case you decide to disappear: if you don't self-revert within the next hour, you will be reported." [565] Every interaction with this user is needlessly hostile.

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

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

Non-neutral editing

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

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

Evidence presented by HetmanTheResearcher

M.Bitton pushes an anti-Morocco POV on Wikipedia

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

• Argues that official government positions of Ghana and Kenya support recognition of Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco: [567] [568]. Ignores official government position from Finland that supports Morocco in the conflict: [569].

• Argues that Moroccan sources are not reliable sources for anything to do with Western Sahara: [570] (No explanation is given. However, Morocco being an active belligerent in this conflict is a good reason why Moroccan statements should not be used as reliable sources.) However, M.Bitton defends inclusion of statement that the Al-Tanf military base was occupied by the United States. When another user points out that this statement came from the Assadist government (an active belligerent when the statement was made), they give no reply: [571]

• Removes "support" section for Morocco arguing (among other reasons) that the "support" parameter is no longer used (that parameter is no longer used.): [572]. Restores "support" section for another Maghreb-related article arguing that MOS is not a policy and the recent removal of "supported by" didn't change anything: [573].

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

The incivility and frustrating experiences when having discussions with M.Bitton are not limited to topics relating to the Maghreb. This example regarding whether to call Jesus 'Jewish' in the first sentence of the article on Jesus is a good example: [574].

• WP:BATTLEGROUND comment after another user mixes up two words: [575] No, you had it wrong (admit it). Note the contrast with when M.Bitton mixes up words. They find no fault of their own: That was obviously a typo: obviously, I meant "that haven't been discussed." [576].
• Alleges OR on another user's end, refuses to follow up when asked by that user. [577] [578].
• Puts words in another user's mouth. [579][580] [581].
• Declares AndreJustAndre to be in the ignored list... forever! with his friend Vegan416 on the 28th of November: [582]. Two days afterwards, M.Bitton goes right back to arguing: [583].

And generally, the comment threads involving M.Bitton on this discussion devolved into long-winded one vs. many debates with extreme bludgeoning and general incivility despite editors repeatedly providing evidence against their proposed changes: [584] [585] [586].

Evidence presented by Katzrockso

I am not too involved in this topic area, but have come across a number of discussions because I offer third opinions, as well as observing the noticeboards and the manual of style.

Monsieur Patillo is a common party in these disputes

• Monsieur Patillo was first blocked from en.wiki for for using Wikipedia as a battleground by persistently unnecessarily personalizing content disputes. in relation to their conduct with Skitash. [587]. Following another admin Liz's objections to the block [588] and a discussion with Monsieur Patillo, they were soon unblocked [589].

• Monsieur Patillo filed 3 ANI reports against Skitash and M.Bitton in November and December [590] [591] [592] based on Skitash's indiscriminate reverts and non-collaborative attitude, Skitash prevents any search for compromise (citing Wikipedia:HOUND), Skitash and Bitton's behavior to prevent conflict resolution through intended mechanisms (WP:3O) and (WP:WIKIHOUNDING)
• Monsieur Patillo was subject to a one-way interaction ban with Skitash after the third ANI report [593]. M.Bitton & Skitash supported the interaction ban.
• Monsieur Patillo and M.Bitton engaged in extended discussion at Talk:Kabyles hadra [594]
• Another example of Skitash removing 3O requests for which they are involved in is for Monsieur Patillo's 3O requests [595], something Monsieur Patillo lamented at a common 3O editor's talk page [596].

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

Kabyles hadra

One curiosity that always bothered me (and I believe has been brought up before) was how Skitash came to the Talk:Kabyles hadra page. I came across the page because it was later mentioned at ANI. But Skitash !voted in the RfC [597] less than an hour after M.Bitton cast the second !vote in the discussion [598] (which was itself 4 hours after the RfC opened). This was a fairly new page, having been created on 12 Dec 2025 [599]. It was an RfC, but Skitash participated in no other RfCs around that time [600], raising the question of at a minimum whether Skitash was following M.Bitton's edits to support their position.

Misrepresenting sources

At Talk:Kabyles hadra, M.Bitton and Skitash support a sentence that is plainly not verified by the sources [601], a clear example of either WP:SYNTH or a violation of WP:V. The proposed text was unnecessarily inflammatory (stating that the French "invented" an ethnicity), the wording not supported by any reliable sources and the logic stretched to support the claims. When challenged on the lack of sourcing, M.Bitton appealed to sources describing a change in how the term was used to support the claim of "invention", as well as stating the change in meaning of the term is common knowledge and easily sourced [602].

Civility

This discussion was also full of uncivil commentary, the point that the closer of the RfC noted [603] This discussion was full of personal attacks that made it painful to read, and no doubt contributed to the long delay finding anyone to close it. Some examples (a full list from the closer [604]) include:

• for you to conflate the Arabic word with the gallicised one with complete disregard for context makes one wonder what it is exactly that you're trying to achieve here [605]
• At some point, you have to decide whether you want to do the right thing (for the project) or simply appear to be right about something or another [606]
• (this undisputed simple fact that a 5 year old can understand has been explained and is sourced) [607]

POINTy behavior

• M.Bitton stated they believe that Kabyles hadra is a non-notable subject [608] [609] [610], but instead of proposing deletion or AfDing the article, they opened a RM [611].

Evidence presented by SnowFire

Anti-Kabyle slant by M. Bitton

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Guz13

Removals of Iranian attacks on Arab countries by Skitash

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

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

Evidence presented by Monsieur Patillo

Y Extension granted to 1000 words. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Systematic removal of Berber names : other examples

• Sétif Province : Skitash remove the tamazight name under the pretext of WP:OR [612]. As it is not WP:OR because the city uses this inscription, Bitton supports Skitash, claiming that the Berber language is WP:UNDUE [613]. M.Bitton then takes over with a delaying tactic on a talk : [614].
• Kingdom of Beni Abbas : Removal of "At Muqran" (berber name) [615] sourced by the Berber Encyclopedia [616] while a discussion was taking place on the talk page at the same time. You can note that M.Bitton takes over with a WP:BLUDGEON and when asked to explain why sourced information should be removed, he ridicules his interlocutor [617]. The Arabic version, however, was not subject to this removal by Skitash, despite lacking an apparent source.

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

• Timimoun Province : Since the Berber name is perfectly sourced, he's removing it this time for "Not closely associated with the topic." [618] So, according to Skitash, the Arabic name is associated with the subject, but not the Berber name.
• Constantine Province : idem [619]
• Sidi Bel Abbès : idem [620]

This stance contrasts sharply with the deployment of Berber writings in Algeria : [621], [622]. The same behavior can be seen on pages relating to Morocco: [623].

Modifications to "arabize" ethnicity of North Africa excessively

• Banu Hilal. Skitash reintroduce a version based on a generalist book (Libya, a Country Study) while removing material supported by specialized academic sources (Encyclopédie Berbère, Gabriel Camps, etc.) He also dismissed these sources as WP:FRINGE: [624]. A similar line of reasoning appears in the article Arab migrations to the Maghreb.
• Algeria : Skitash introduced a figure stating the population as 85% Arab and 15% Berber (infobox) [625], citing the CIA Factbook. However, the source (CIA Factbook) indicates “99% Arab-Berber” [626], which differs from the figures presented in the article. Attempts to align the content with the source were reverted, with objections based on WP:OR [627].
• Algiers (Talk:Algiers#WP:UNDUE,_origin_of_the_name) : any mention of a possible Berber/Tamazight origin of the name is consistently challenged, even when presented as a hypothesis. Discussions tend to focus on questioning the reliability or adequacy of the sources, which are never accepted as sufficient.
• Kabyles hadra (I'm not going to go into all the details again; others have already done so). I remind that the WP:OR started on the page Talk:Kabylia, M. Bitton stated: they are like all other Arabs of the region who speak Arabic. The claim of "Arabized", besides being impossible to prove, is as meaningless as "Berberized" [628]. Despite the presentation of sources in Talk:Kabyles_hadra this position was maintained by Bitton (it therefore imposes a WP:OR). Skitash and R3YBOl also supported M.Bitton’s claim that the term is a French invention, although no supporting evidence was provided in the cited sources.

Lack of neutrality and a non-collaborative attitude

• WP:3O : Disruption of the conflict resolution attempt has been observed. This issue has already been discussed by other contributors.
• MAK: While his edit was contested and reverted: [629], [630], Skitash added it, exceeding the 3 edits [631], [632], [633]. These edits were made without apparent consensus on the talk page : [634] [635] and continued to add content without apparent consensus, despite differing POV, including a right of reply published by TV5Monde [636].

Pov-pushing regarding the Berber language

• Skitash and M.Bitton attempted to present an inconclusive RFC (Talk:Algeria/Archive_3#RFC_on_Infobox_and_Lede, small number of participants, tie for one of the proposals) as a consensus preventing the introduction of Berber names. This method aims to impress inexperienced contributors.
• MOS:FORLANG (in fact : MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV) [637], [638]: One reason cited was that only one language should be introduced in the first sentence. However, the rule does not specify that this language must be Arabic, and it was applied in Berber-speaking areas (e.g., Béjaïa [639], Kabylia [640]) without a clear consensus. This MOS was the subject of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 26. While the discussion was leading to a consensus [641] : M.Bitton and Skitash engaged in an revert on the page of the MOS : [642], [643]. During the discussion I detected similarities between M.Bitton's argument and that of a polemical/conspiracy book which is far from academic considerations on the subject:: [644].

Arabization of cultural elements

• Qashabiya: Skitash removed sourced content, and replaced it with material supported by press articles and other non-academic sources. The use and interpretation of these sources was subsequently disputed on the talk page [645] [646]. Skitash hid my comments citing WP:NPA and filed a report at WP:AIV [647] alleging harassment and personal attacks , stating that the questions and remarks were personalizing the discussion. The underlying sourcing concerns remained unresolved.

Katzrockso's observations

• Regarding this blockage [648] it was lifted 24 hours later following an explanation with the administrator ToBeFree. This is the same undue report as in the Qashabiya case.[649].

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

M.Bitton and Talk:Kouloughlis#Removal_of_sourced_content

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

Evidence presented by AndreJustAndre

Much has been said and I don't want to pile on, but thought it was worth tying together the pattern, even though some of these are already in evidence. M.Bitton, often joined by Skitash as a tag team, engages in WP:TE. The locus is pro-Arab-Algerian, anti-colonial/anti-French and anti-Berber, and Bitton considers Jews to be French (see [650], [651], [652]) Particularly WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, WP:FINDSOURCESFORME, WP:STONEWALL, WP:REMOVECITE, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIVIL. Bitton insists their own opinions on interpretation of history or sources are obvious acknowledged "undisputed"[653] facts while accusing others or sources of "baseless"[654][655][656][657] arguments even when the claims have a basis. Dealing with Bitton is frustrating at times because they insist on a pointed discussion on their terms, frequently inflammatory, calling statements they disagree with nonsense, and insisting they have proven all of their points, refusing to compromise.

In Talk:Kabyles_hadra#Request_for_comment_(RFC)_on_the_introduction/Talk:Kabyles_hadra#Requested_move_22_December_2025, Bitton was asked which source supported "invented by the French" and never provided one. Bitton wanted to write this Berber ethnic group as past tense and fictional.[658][659] As Katzrockso points out Option 2 would be a complete WP:V fail, as none of the sources provided in the discussion above support the claim that the French "invented" the term[660] Bitton changed it to "coined" in the middle of the RFC[661] (also unsourced). Bitton started an RM which failed and then refused to adopt the consensus and drop it[662]. Bitton accuses opponents of OR/SYNTH but engages in it when it suits them, defending themselves that they read the "sources not the sentences"[663]. "A simple fact that even a 5 year old can understand.".[664] I'll ignore the nonsense for now.[665] Bitton discarded sources as French "racist mumbo jumbo" [666][667] and inserted their own spin. Joined by Skitash[668]. Defender Abo Yemen adds this entire concept relies on the writings of french colonial era authors[669] to which Boutboul asks, And ? Is it a Wikipedia rule?[670]

In Talk:History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world#Chattel_slavery[671][672][673][674] and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_121#Talk:History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world#Chattel_slavery[675], even though good academic sources from Freamon, Marmon, and Kloss characterized slavery under "Islamic law" as "chattel slavery" explicitly, Bitton misrepresents the sources claiming chattel isn't mentioned while ignoring this when it is pointed out,[676] rejects [677] and extensively stonewalls any attempt at compromising. Bitton insists on their own interpretation[678][679][680][681][682] or refers to other articles, claiming any other coverage is a "fork."[683] Eventually saying, There is nothing remotely acceptable about your so-called "summary", which is neither accurate nor neutral (the blatant WP:CHERRYPICKING alone is more than enough to discredit any claims to the contrary). Your conclusions ("essentially ..." and "i,.e ...") are literally a joke. Frankly, I've had more than enough of this nonsense. [684]

At Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria[685] Bitton asks, Since when do we just add content regardless of the claim?[686] and then threatens retaliatory editing.[687][688] Bitton rejects reliable material from Heuman/Perrin, while substituting less academic but still reliable journalistic source Zeghbib, that Bitton ignores actually supports Heuman/Perrin. Rebuttal: No, they don't (for all the reasons that I explained). I give up trying to explain basic facts to you.[689] Bitton demands we go to RSN instead of an RFC: A refusal to take it to RSN means you don't have much confidence in what you're claiming[690], That's your baseless claim, and one that you refuse to substantiate in the relevant board (for reasons that reason cannot explain)[691], You're wrong, but since I'm tired of highlighting your factualy incorrect statements, I'll just ignore you from now on.[692] Their argument relies on a cherry-picked less-reliable source, background knowledge, and interpretation of primary sources, second-guessing apparently reliable peer-reviewed sources.[693][694][695][696][697][698][699][700][701][702] As Bobfrombrockley summarizes, These are reliable sources and absolutely no source-based reason has been presented saying they’re wrong. I have carefully read the discussion above and see a very clear case for inclusion and several unmet requests for sources contradicting them. It is imperative that where scholars disagree we attribute their interpretations not express them in our own voice, and we cannot let original research (editors’ interpretations of primary sources) trump scholarly reliable sources[703]

In Talk:Maghreb, Skitash lobbied against the inclusion of genetic studies demonstrating Amazigh/Berber continuity in North Africa. Yelendo: User:Skitash cites author's books as sources of genetics, not scientific evidence... User Skitash denies in all his contributions eg also with Morocco (population) the genetic origin of the North Africans (Berber).[704][705] M.Bitton then stepped in to warn Yelendo about edit warring[706].

In Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_248, regarding the Algeria article, an editor attempted to include the CIA World Factbook's classification that Algeria is 99% "Arab-Amazigh." Skitash declared the source "problematic": Although the CIA World Factbook states that 99% of the population is "Arab-Amazigh", this is problematic because it creates confusion due to the lack of sources explaining what an "Arab-Amazigh" or "Arab-Berber" precisely means, and the few sources that use this term only mention it in passing. It also remains unclear whether this 99% figure combines Arab and Berber populations or represents people of mixed Arab and Berber origins. The Arab-Berber article was eventually redirected for exactly this reason. This is why the decision was made to use more specific divisions of ethnic identity, supported by multiple sources in Algeria#Demographics. The CIA source also notes that "only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population", meaning that the remainder of "Arab-Berbers" would identify as Arab, and this perfectly aligns with other reliable sources.[707]

At Talk:Tamazgha, when an editor removed the Arabic translation from the lead sentence, pointing out that "Tamazgha" is a Berber neologism and Arabic is irrelevant to the etymology, Skitash reverted, with M. Bitton demanding the editor prove a negative: It's not about what you think, it's about you can prove using WP:RS, so here's your chance to prove that you have a point.[708] The trouble with those who insist on marginalizing the Arabic script is that they don't even realize that they're doing their very cause a disfavour.[709]

Evidence presented by M.Bitton

• I'm not going to attempt to prove a negative. People are free to edit what they want and so am I.
• Accusations of being anti-Berber/pro-Arab go hand in hand with their anti-Arab/pro-Berber contradictory counterparts.^{1, 2}

asilvering

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEvalyn

Their claims

• Etymology: compare what they wrote to what I said. Also, see my last comment in that useless RfC.
• Tagine: there is a big difference between a claim about what is essentially common knowledge and an extraordinary claim that is made in passing.
• CIA: already covered. Essentially, most of those who commented on the NPOVN board agreed that the new map violates the NPOV policy.
• Tagine again: I was right back then (2022).
• WS: I said, I will try to upload a cleaner version of the map. I forgot (big deal).
• WS: LEvalyn is referring to ElijahUHC (formerly TahaKahi): a disruptive editor who canvassed someone to a RfC in order to exclude Arabic from that article.

My questions

1. Why did LEvalyn approach asilvering (through email I presume) with leading questions such as Is it normal for someone to do? Am I supposed to believe that this stealth manipulation hasn't impacted, in a very negative way, asilveing's first impression of me?
2. Is LEvalyn's misrepresentation of the sources "normal"?

ToBeFree

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

Samuelshraga

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

Nice4What

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

Sirfurboy

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

Kowal2701

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

Katzrockso

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

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

Monsieur Patillo

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

Bananakingler

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

jacobolus

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

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

Robert McClenon

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

HetmanTheResearcher

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

WikiUser4020

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

ElijahUHC

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

AndreJustAndre

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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