User talk:M.Bitton/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton

I believe that looking at the archives justifies our caution. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: since the SPI has been closed with no action, all we can do is comment on the requests and keep an eye on them. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I suppose a disposable IP address is what they are going to use now. I will let obvious useful things through, but not the self aggrandising claptrap. I do not believe the gentleman to be straightforward. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I agree. The Philanthropic part (I can't even find a reasonable word to describe it) is definitely UNDUE. M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the self justifying bullshit for being wealthy, and not being a necessarily decent human being. A lot of the article history contains contemptible and referenced behaviours. Between my post and yours I said no. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

about reverting edit

Hi I hope you’re doing well. I noticed that the photo I added for the Royal Mausoleum of Mauretania was reverted with (not improvement comment) , and I’m a bit confused about why. The picture I uploaded is well-framed, complete, and clearly represents the monument without any major obstructions.the one currently used is partially hidden by a tree, which doesn’t highlight the monument as effectively. Also, it’s worth mentioning that this photo was one of the Top 10 winners in the 2020 Wiki Loves Monuments Algeria competition, so I believe it meets high standards in terms of quality and representation. Could you explain what was considered a “negative performance” in this awesome photo? I’d really appreciate your feedback so I can better understand the decision and contribute more effectively in the future. Dezedien (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as an improvement (it's too dark), but you're welcome to start a discussion about it and see what the others think. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes for sur, why not Dezedien (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sudan (region)

Hi

Do you have a source that Alawi Sultanate have ruled Sudan (region) in present-day Mali? Because an user have added a sourced info that Sudan was ruled by a pasha. Panam2014 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the editor is confused. Which edit are you referring to (I can't see it)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Result of Tunisian-Algerian War

Hello, I hope you’re doing well. I have a question regarding you reverting my edit, as it was entirely factual and added important insight. Please get back to me when you can. Communism is cringe (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sudan (region)

Hi

Do you have a source that Alawi Sultanate have ruled Sudan (region) in present-day Mali? Because an user have added a sourced info that Sudan was ruled by a pasha. Panam2014 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the editor is confused. Which edit are you referring to (I can't see it)? M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Here. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

While the Saadis (not the Alawites) invaded the Shonghai empire (not the Sudan), they never really ruled it and within a decade, the mercenaries that were sent there were left to fend for themselves. Regardless, that added section that was rightly reverted is UNDUE in that article. M.Bitton (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Clodfelter

Clodfelter said The french army also lost heavily during the Battle of the Frontier. From January 31- May 31, the battle cost France 279 KIA, 758 WIA Waylon1104 (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get "unknown wounded" from? M.Bitton (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

OK Waylon1104 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Waylon1104: "OK" doesn't answer my question. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Reporting Usernames

To report usernames, please use WP:UAA. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks. I did, unfortunately, the bot reverted it straight away (the editor is already blocked). I'll report it again once they're unblocked. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Other tournament

Hello, this competition The North African super Cup is new and has nothing to do with old version. You can see the rest of the languages. I will create a page for it And I will complete the rest. Ulôee (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't comment on the subject (as I haven't looked into it), but next time you remove content and revet ClueBot NG, don't forget to leave a valid reason in the edit summary. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility, as you did at WP:ANI#Bludgeoning, POV-pushing, personal attacks and incivility from M.Bitton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever been targeted by editors who turned out to be Icewhiz socks at AE, ANI etc.? Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: not as far as I'm aware, but I have a feeling that has changed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much about Icewhiz, but the behaviour would appear to be consistent. I know Icewhiz has attempted this sort of thing on other editors. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, as the accused editor here, given that you're an admin and CU and think that this speculation is credible, I'd ask you to please refer me with @Sean.hoyland's evidence for investigation. I didn't realise that this kind of accusation would bother me this much, but it really does. I'm available to answer questions as best I can about whatever technical, behavioural or other evidence there is. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Samuelshraga, I'm not meaning to accuse you of being Icewhiz. I'm meaning to accuse M.Bitton8, or at least mention that there's a possibility that they are Icewhiz. Sorry for the miscommunication. Either way, I am not permitted to share the technical data as per Foundation policy, see WP:CHECKUSER. For the record, I have not considered whether or not you are a sock of another user. I have entirely not looked at any technical data around your account. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok @Yamla. For clarity, I think this thread is very much directed at me. I don't ask you to share any technical data, I just offer to cooperate with anyone who looks technically or behaviourally at my editing. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Joe job

Note there's been at least one instance of joe jobing. M.Bitton8 claims to be this user (and if so, would be violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK). However, However, technical data show that user is  Unrelated to this one and appears to be attempting to frame this user and get their block extended indefinitely. Please be careful, I'd expect further attempts at this. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I also expect the targeting of this user to continue. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, given recent shenanigans a reasonable person would presume that anyone wanting to do a joe job on Bitton probably has recent history with them. Given that, would it be justified in doing CUs on individuals who look likely to be trying to take Bitton out of topic areas? TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

With that in mind here is page intersection data between the account that filed the ANI report (referred to as 'ref actor') and all of Icewhiz's accounts (refered to as 'other actors'). It is sorted by page revision count so more improbable intersections are at the top. It could just be coincidental of course, but the shared interest in the obscure Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PostcolonialLitNerd, the related Talk:Priyamvada Gopal and Priyamvada Gopal pages, as well as edits to various other articles is interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I should also add that the timecards match. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just a note to say I've seen this, and I'd be happy to explain my edits on my talk or any appropriate forum, or privately to share my IRL details with a neutral admin or CU. Don't know beyond that what one can do to prove oneself not a sock other than by having a SPI report filed against me and let the process play out (which I also don't object to). I don't take the accusation personally - socks are a fact of WP, I have found a couple myself.

In fact I would rather there be an investigation rather than having this recur as innuendo when I make reports in good faith. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And your SPI report was quite good. If you saw your account, would you file an SPI report? I'm not sure there is sufficient evidence to merit a CU or even a report. Also, for me personally, the question isn't whether an account is a sock. There are socks all over Wikipedia and very little can be done about it given how easy it is to become an editor. It's whether an account that might be a sock (which is a large number of accounts in contentious topic areas) is doing unconstructive things like edit warring, POV pushing, engaging in advocacy on talk pages, pursuing vendettas against perceived long-term foes etc. In that case, the benefit of an SPI case might outweigh the cost. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Icewhiz, apart from that I know Pikavoom was a sock of theirs. I know I agreed with Pikavoom on the Gopal page, but I wasn't the only one. It might be a niche topic to you but I'd be happy to explain to a neutral admin or CU why IRL I would have heard of and been interested in Priyamvada Gopal (there's no COI or personal relationship).

Anyway, if you think that I'm doing all these unconstructive things that you list, I would ask you to either take them up with me on my talk page or report me for them. Not to darkly hint about my motivations on noticeboards, accuse me of targeting people and share "evidence" that I'm a sock but refuse to put it to scrutiny. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, to clarify, there is no niche topic to me. There are just statistics and probabilities. I don't think you are doing those things. There was no intended dark hint. You targeted a user. Whether something is in good faith or bad faith is not verifiable, but there was a possibility that it was opportunistic. I asked a straightforward question that means exactly what it says, and I always hope to receive a very straightforward honest answer. The reason I asked is because a) this particular user, M.Bitton, while prickly, is one of the important barriers against nationalist POV pushing in multiple topics, so they have a target on their back, and b) the possibility that it was in bad faith was non-zero given the page intersections and timecard matches. And when I say timecard matches, I don't mean they look similar, I mean if you vectorize revision information for a large number of users the statistical distance between you and Icewhiz is very close in that vector space using multiple methods. Then there is the Icewhiz factor. One way to think about Icewhiz is to ask the question "What would a sociopath do?". They might opportunistically file an ANI report that piggybacks on a previous report to increase the chance of sanctions, but I was conscious that your "I'm not asking for anything dramatic..." statement did not fit, so I was interested in how you would respond. As for 'share "evidence" that I'm a sock but refuse to put it to scrutiny', you are free to think and feel whatever you want about that. Those are not relevant factors for me. I'm only interested in what the data says and whether there is sufficient cause and evidence to file an SPI report. I believe discussions about potential ban evasion should be open and crowdsourced, and no one is a sock until they have been shown to be a sock. The idea that it is an aspersion, or people should become defensive doesn't help anyone or anything in my view. Your "I don't take the accusation personally - socks are a fact of WP, I have found a couple myself." is much better attitude in my view and I would encourage you to continue to report socks if they are causing problems and you think blocking them will make a difference. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland that's a fair response. I don't agree with all of it (I don't think I targeted anyone, I raised an issue that I perceived with the user themself first, got an aggressive response and felt that something needed to be done).

I still would much rather that, now that the issue has been raised, there be an investigation about it. It's really not a nice feeling to have people speculate that I may be a sociopath in disguise. I also don't want to edit henceforth with the thought that "Maybe this is the kind of thing that Icewhiz would do" in the back of my mind. I don't know Icewhiz's whole editing history, but the Pikavoom account raised points that I - and other editors in good standing - just agreed with. I'm sure plenty of banned users have raised reasonable points in all manner of disputes. Anyway, I'll withdraw from this page for the time being, if you have farther questions feel free to reach out on my talk. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton, I have received credible (and, now, verified) information that you've been emailing users attempting to have them edit on your behalf. I'll assume good faith here and take the position that you haven't yet read WP:EVADE. This counts as attempted block evasion. I've revoked email access as a result. You have a significant number of constructive edits here. In my head, you are one of those users whose edits I don't need to bother checking, because they are probably productive. You edit articles in difficult subject areas and things can get heated. Heck, as noted above, you've been the target of someone trying to frame you. But these emails, these are from you. This recent WP:ANI issue aside, I am sincerely hoping to see lots more constructive edits from you in the future. But, it's inappropriate of you to attempt to solicit other users to edit while you are blocked, and you've clearly done that. I did think about extending your block, but I'm sincerely hopeful this is just a momentary lapse. Please, please don't let me down. Step back from Wikipedia, take some time, then come back, refreshed and ready to go. Please! --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla: I honestly wasn't thinking straight (for reasons that you probably are aware of), but I do accept full responsibility and apologise wholeheartedly. Time for me to take a break from all this pressure. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good luck and all the best. I find limiting my daily news intake to be rather helpful at the moment, too. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Yamla, since you have CU'd M.Bitton8, have you also taken a look at Orocairon? Just wondering, on account of the various lies M.Bitton8 posted on their page, and also The Bushranger's comment here. Bishonen | tålk 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC).

Orocairion (slight copy and paste problem). I haven't, which I suppose means they didn't immediately show up on the IP address range(s) involved here. But, plenty of our LTA's know how to avoid that. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Maps for the geography RfC

When I blocked M.Bitton, I considered carefully whether I would be prejudicing the outcome of the RfC by removing their position from the discussion, and concluded that this would not be the case, since M.Bitton had already argued their position at length and any neutral editor should be able to summarize it. However, I was partly wrong on this - in this comment, M.Bitton promised to upload two maps for the purposes of the RfC, and hadn't managed to do so before getting blocked. Since this was not my intent, I'd like to invite @M.Bitton to link those maps here, with, if necessary, a brief and neutral-as-possible comment about them for the editors participating in the RfC.

RfC participants: please don't discuss the maps here. That's unfair to M.Bitton, but also seriously runs the risk of you getting dinged for proxying for a blocked editor. -- asilvering (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• 
  UN official map
• 
  Physical map

Thanks Asilvering. As promised, here are the two maps in question.

• The first is self-explanatory.
• The second is based on the first. The only differences are cosmetic (projection, background, etc.). It's not set in stone and I intend on improving it (maybe changing the font, font size, moving the position of the text and other minor improvements).

I also don't expect the second to be perfect, so if you notice a mistake, please leave a note on its commons talk page and I will correct it. Everything else (suggestions for improvements, discussion about it, etc.) will have to wait. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up my attempted corrections to the orthographic locator maps.

@Yamla: would it be acceptable for me to inquire about whether I should make any corresponding edits to country articles reflecting the updated maps on Commons? I don't want to make them liable to any other evasion suspicions. Remsense ‥ 论 22:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense: thanks. I'm fairly certain that Yamla didn't receive a notification (because you edited the template after signing the comment). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

France flag

I noticed that you previously uploaded File:Flag of France (2024–present).svg, but someone previously uploaded a very similar version File:Flag of France (2020–present).svg. According to the description, the colors used in these two files seem to be the same. I would like to ask if there are any differences between the two files .112.105.131.66 (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Maps for the geography RfC

When I blocked M.Bitton, I considered carefully whether I would be prejudicing the outcome of the RfC by removing their position from the discussion, and concluded that this would not be the case, since M.Bitton had already argued their position at length and any neutral editor should be able to summarize it. However, I was partly wrong on this - in this comment, M.Bitton promised to upload two maps for the purposes of the RfC, and hadn't managed to do so before getting blocked. Since this was not my intent, I'd like to invite @M.Bitton to link those maps here, with, if necessary, a brief and neutral-as-possible comment about them for the editors participating in the RfC.

RfC participants: please don't discuss the maps here. That's unfair to M.Bitton, but also seriously runs the risk of you getting dinged for proxying for a blocked editor. -- asilvering (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• 
  UN official map
• 
  Physical map

Thanks Asilvering. As promised, here are the two maps in question.

• The first is self-explanatory.
• The second is based on the first. The only differences are cosmetic (projection, background, etc.). It's not set in stone and I intend on improving it (maybe changing the font, font size, moving the position of the text and other minor improvements).

I also don't expect the second to be perfect, so if you notice a mistake, please leave a note on its commons talk page and I will correct it. Everything else (suggestions for improvements, discussion about it, etc.) will have to wait. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)