Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Some of ArWiki admins are violating U4C

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
حبيشانtalk 15:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
فيصل (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [1]
أحمد ناجي (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [2]
Michel Bakni (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [3]
باسم (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [4]
Elph (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [5]
Mohammed Qays (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [6]
لوقا (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) [7]

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 حبيشانtalk 15:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

حبيشان

Description of the problem - (حبيشان)

The reasons that Faisal and others stated for the blocking are:

  1. "القيام بتغييرات كبيرة على المظهر دون مرور فترة كافية في الميدان" (Making significant changes to the appearance without spending enough time in the village-pump).
    There aren't any policy or guidelines that specifies the duration of the interface discussion. On the contrary, most relevant policies and guidelines mention a one-week period, including سياسة الإشعار المحلي, the nomination of Interface Administrators policy, the request for Abuse Filter Editor rights, and Template Editor rights. This one-week period is also explicitly stated in the Talk page guidelines on English Wikipedia. Therefore, my conduct aligns with these policies and guidelines. also I give them table of samples for discussions closed in less than 2 weeks some of them by blockers themeselves.
  2. "المشكلة الأكبر أن صاحب المقترح هو نفسه من نفّذه، رغم وجود إداريي واجهة آخرين، وكان يمكنه الانتظار. لكنه أصرّ على تكرار سلوكه السابق، وهو سلوك مُسيء، حيث يقترح التعديلات ثم ينفذها بنفسه خلال أسبوع" (The biggest problem is that the proposer is the one who implemented it himself, despite the presence of other interface-admins staff, and he could have waited. However, he insisted on repeating his previous behavior, which is inappropriate, as he proposes the amendments and then implements them himself within a week).
    He is thus demanding that another person implement the proposal, which is contrary to the principles of accountability for amendments in critical authorities, and it also contradicts the code of conduct which said "Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due.
  3. "وما قام به التعديل السابق هو إلحاق أذى بمستخدمي ويكيبيديا عن طريق تغيير حجم الأيقونة" (What the previous modification did was harm Wikipedia users by changing the icon size).
    I think he means font size not icon size, does English Wikipedia harm users when it use same default size? Also the deleted rule is in common.css which loaded only in desktop, while the visitors come from mobile and app are 87% in January, did any of them complain of harm due to the size of the references? also rest of Arabic projects use same reference size.
There are other, less significant objections that I am leaving out here for the sake of brevity, but I am fully prepared to respond to them if the Committee deems it necessary.
  • Many users opposed the block, among them:
  1. وهراني interface admin (in that time) and former admin.
  2. Mohanad former interface admin.
  3. Mr. Ibrahem interface admin, and top user in editing templates and modules. and he replies a good reply.
  4. أبو هشام admin.
  5. كريم رائد admin.
  6. ar:User:محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح admin.
  7. Nehaua admin and ombuds commission member.
In fact, this is what is required of me: to be loyal to this group whose members have mentioned that in order to unblock and resolve issues in Wikipedia, this group has control over the course of events in the Arabic Wikipedia through the right of its members and their relationships. They try to exclude any active members of Wikipedia who do not belong to them through harassment and tracking, filling personal discussions with warnings that do not rely on any policy or guidance, while their followers are overlooked for their clear violations because they receive support from them. They quickly rush to close any complaints against their members, trying to show that their opponents are merely users who do not adhere to policies and are only interested in talking, while they themselves are the ones building the encyclopedia with their own efforts.
I have plenty of evidence for what I'm saying; I will mention it upon request for the sake of brevity.

These actions violate multiple provisions of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), including:

  • § 3.1 Harassment – Hounding, Trolling and attempts to isolate me from other editors.
  • § 3.2 Abuse of power, privilege or influence – use of advanced rights (the block) and senior status to pressure or silence me. Beside that all parties in this Case are admins they are memebers of Arabic Wikipedia Admins WhatsApp group. In this group, other administrators are influenced to take consistent positions in a non-public and non-transparent manner, and some users are incited without having the opportunity to defend themselves, while preparing the other administrators to accept penalties against them.
  • § 3.3 Content abuse – hindering an accessibility improvement with no policy reason, then punishing the editor who fixed it.

The pattern suggests coordinated misuse of sysop tools to discourage technical contributions that originate outside the respondents’ group.

Previous attempts at a solution - (حبيشان)

  1. request unblock.
  2. request for clear block from log
  3. Complaint about a personal attack from elph with Faisal's support no reponse until archived.
  4. Complaint about a personal attack from باسم no reponse until archived.

Suggested solutions - (حبيشان)

  1. Unblock me.
  2. Clear these blocks from log.
  3. liberate Arabic Wikipedia from this group that threaten the freedom of Arabic Wikipedia
  4. The failure to dismantle this group with this organization threatens to form opposing groups and turn the Arabic Wikipedia into a battlefield.
  5. Secure poll must be enforced in Arabic Wikipedia to ensure the safety of users from administrative harassment.

فيصل

Hello. First of all, my colleagues have already responded to this complaint thoroughly. They addressed all the points, and I confirm everything they mentioned. I will only add a few points that were not previously raised. User "Habishan" has a history of making appearance-related changes without opening any discussion despite warnings, and also He tried to remove a policy template from a policy. which is clearly unacceptable according to the policies.

  • First Regarding the warning I issued, user Michel Bakni explained the reasons for the warning in his response, based on policy, and I see no need to repeat his explanation. The warning is valid under the blocking policy. "Habishan" is currently blocked for two weeks as a result of this warning, because he repeated the same violation. He was blocked by another neutral administrator (Loka), and the block is still in place with no opposition from any other administrator—this confirms the correctness of the block with consensus among admins.
  • In April 2024, "Habishan" removed the "template policy" from approved policy the edit, where he unilaterally removed the template policy without any discussion—even though this policy existed long time ago. Editor "Mohannad" sent him a note regarding this in this section, and Michel Bakni also warned him about this in this section. This is clearly a disruptive edit, although Michel Bakni assumed good faith as he stated in the warning.
  • In February 2024, I closed with rejection one of his proposals to create a new policy in accordance with the approved process, which is the Policy Approval Mechanism. But I was suddenly surprised to find that he filed a complaint against me for this clearly sound conclusion, which was supported by all participants in the discussion and fully aligned with explicit policy texts. The proposal was rejected by unanimous consensus. He explicitly stated in the complaint that this was "collusion by administrators" (a clear accusation). He also made a clear insinuation of harassment and personal targeting by saying: "If it had not been Faisal who had closed the discussion with the same conclusion and respectful response, this would not have happened." This confirms that if someone else had made the same conclusion, he would not have objected—an evident case of personal targeting. Michel sent him a warning about this matter.
  • In June 2024, he made an edit to an important module on Arabic Wikipedia unilaterally and without opening any discussion, which caused distortion in several templates on Arabic Wikipedia. The issue was later fixed by administrator Mohammed Qays. Additionally, he received a friendly warning about this matter, advising him not to make large-scale changes without opening a discussion first. What’s more surprising is that he demanded that Mohammed Qays open a discussion for the “fix” he made after the distortions—despite not having opened a discussion himself before making the initial breaking changes.
  • In July 2024, he also made significant edits without any prior notice, which led to distortion, prompting complaints from several users, including Nehaoua, as seen in this section. I then sent him a warning not to repeat such actions without opening a discussion first.
  • In February 2025, he opened a discussion that had been open for only 6 days, without even reaching the 7-day mark. The discussion concerned a significant visual change to the reference symbols—not a minor tweak—so it clearly required the discussion to remain open longer than just 6 days. Despite this, he approved and implemented his own request, once again disregarding community consensus. Several community members voiced objections to the implementation within the same discussion. As a result, I issued a 3-day block, which he served in full—further confirming the validity of the block. Additionally, a request to remove the block from his record was submitted and subsequently rejected, again confirming the appropriateness of the action.
  • As for the point regarding the "WhatsApp group" and the claim that this group is used to influence others, etc., I kindly ask that evidence be provided for this allegation, as it is currently baseless. Personally, I used to contact newly appointed administrators and invite them to join this group. almost Every newly appointed administrator whose nomination is successful, I make sure to invite them to this group. However, some administrators have left the group for reasons of their own—some personal, and some simply to avoid disturbance.
  • Regarding the deletion of the template created by user Wahrani, I deleted it and provided a reason: there is already another template available for airport-related articles. User Wahrani submitted a request to restore the template, and I provided my opinion in that request. The neutral administrator Abu Hisham rejected the request. I also issued a warning to Wahrani because he ran a bot task that had not received community approval. According to the bot policy, “bots may only perform tasks that have gained community consensus.” Therefore, the warning I issued was justified. As for user Wahrani, he placed a “retired” template on his user page without explaining the reasons behind his decision—but regardless, the warning was valid and based on policy. Everyone is expected to comply with the policies and guidelines.

In conclusion, I sincerely apologize for the length of this response. I’ve tried to address the majority of the points raised as concisely as possible. To the members of the U4C: please feel free to ask any further questions or request clarification. Best regards.--Faisal talk 02:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

أحمد ناجي

Previous attempts at a solution - أحمد ناجي

Suggested solutions - أحمد ناجي

Michel Bakni

Hello,

I cannot address all the points raised by Hubishan, but I will explain the aspect that concerns me most, outlining my rationale and perspective.

For any further clarification on specific points, please raise them directly, and I will gladly provide my viewpoint.

  • Concerning the issue of 29/12/2024, Hubishan wrote the same day:

لا أتفق مع منع المرشح بسبب المنع، لان معنى هذا أن سيكون هذا سلاح بيد الإداريين لمنع من لا يرغبون في ترشحه للمجلس عبر استخدام صلاحية المنع، والواقع في ويكيبيديا أن بعض الإداريين يدفع بعض المستخدمين دفعا لأجل أن يحصل منه أي فعل يمكن أن يحتج على منعه به.

I disagree with banning candidates based solely on this criterion, as it gives administrators a tool to prevent undesired council candidates by exploiting banning powers. In practice, some Wikipedia administrators coerce users into actions that could justify their bans.

The blocking policy states:

إن أي تخريب متعمد بصورة مستمرة لمقالة أو مجموعة مقالات، أو الإهانة المستمرة لمستخدم أو مجموعة مستخدمين، أو الاستهتار المستمر أو السخرية من عقائد أو جنسيات أو عرقيات أو ديانات، أو حتى استخفاف بكرامة الكائن البشري وحقوق إنسانيته جميعها أمور تستوجب المنع لفترات متفاوتة من أجل حماية ويكيبيديا وسير العمل فيها.

Any persistent, deliberate vandalism of an article or group of articles, persistent insult of a user or group of users, persistent disrespect or ridicule of beliefs, nationalities, ethnicities, or religions, or even disregard for human dignity and human rights, all warrant a ban for varying periods to protect Wikipedia and its operations.

This clearly forms the basis for the warning of Faisel.

  • Regarding the points of 09/02/2025:
  • Comminity participation in discussion was very low, with only two users involved.
  • The impact of the change is significant, affecting every page containing references (ten of hundreds of thousands).
  • Can we confirm the times? On February 9th at 22:13 and February 16th at 05:53, this is literaty less than a week apart.
  • The user received a previous warning not to make "significant changes that affect layout without discussion." Admin Karim (كريم رائد) issued this warning privately after discussions among admins, which was inappropriate action. I repeatedly asked Karim to post the warning publicaly (text + timestamp) on the user's talk page for archival purposes, but received no response.
Given the prior warning and continued disregard, the Arabic Wikipedia blocking policy states that blocking can be used to:

توضيح أن السلوك المسيء لا يمكن أن يستمر إلى ما لا نهاية.

Showing that abusive behavior cannot continue indefinitely.

I believe the block was justified and based on the blocking policy.
  • Concerning the issue of 17/02/2025, the chain of blocking and unblocking was mishandled from the begining. An admin in Arabic Wikipedia cannot unblock a user without discussing the blocking action with the admin who initially did enforce the block. The Blocking policy states:

لا يمكن للإداريين رفع منع قام به إداري آخر دون إجراء نقاش حقيقي معه حول حالة المنع، لا يستثنى من هذا إلا حالات محدودة يكون فيها تطبيق المنع خطأ بوضوح.

Administrators cannot lift a block imposed by another administrator without having a genuine discussion with the admin who blocked about the block itself, except in limited cases where the block was clearly applied incorrectly.

When I reblocked Hubishan, it was not for his actions but for the good practice of the policy, that is what I stated in the summary:

يُناقش الإداري الذي منع وتفند الأسباب

Discuss with the administrator who enforced the block and refute the reasons

This aligns with policy, and as an administrator, I am obligated to follow it.
  • Regarding my comments on February 18, 2024, This is a misinterpretation of my statement. I never mentioned a group nor did I imply the need to join, follow, or pledge loyalty of any kind. Please reread my statement.
My point is simply that there are two types of users: those who contribute actively and those who engage on social media without tangible impact on the project. I did not label the latter negatively or advocate punishment to be applied on them. My message is to prioritize active contribution because our goal is to build an encyclopedia. I mentioned Faisel, Bassem, and Mohammad Qays because they have collectively, + me, made around 600K edits, approximately 1% of all edits on Arabic Wikipedia. I encouraged Hubishan to aspire to have such an impact.
  • Regarding the issue of 16-03-2025 (I also call and allow Ibrahim ID to share personal information with the Committee to remove any possible conflict of interest), Hubishan made one of the most sexist, anti-women comment I have ever encountered on Arabic Wikipedia. He was immedialty blocked for a week. In our culture, women are sacred, and such comments can lead to serious repercussions. The Arabic community overwhelmingly supported the candidate with the highest number of support votes in the history of Arabic Wikipedia (please review voter comments).
  • Regarding the issue of June 10, 2025, on the same day he was blocked for insulting a group of users, Hubishan wrote:

الحملة المسعورة

Which translates to "frenzied campaign," but in Arabic, this phrase is highly insulting and akin to describing dogs.

Another admin, not of the those involved in this case, removed this sentence and wrote:

حبيشان، أنت لا تتوانى عن استخدام تعبيراتك غير المقبولة، وضّحت وجه نظرك، شكراً، نتقبلها، لكن أن تصف ما يجري بالحملة المسعورة، فهذا غير مقبول بتاتاً، وعليه أوجه لك تنبيهاً "أخيراً"، ولن أتواني عن منعك إذا تماديت أكثر. أكتب وجهة نظرك بأدب.

Hubishan, you persist in using unacceptable expressions. You've clarified your viewpoint, and we acknowledge it. However, describing events as a frenzied campaign is entirely unacceptable. Hence, I issue a "final" warning, and I won't hesitate to block you further if this behavior continues. Express your views politely.

This behavior is when Hubishan facing a potential block for insulting a group of users, it reflects, in my opinion, disrespect toward the entire community and its governance policies.
As for the WhatsApp group allegation, accusing a group of around 15 admins without clear evidence is dangerous. The group is indeed closed and private, how can Hubishan be certain of any agreements made there? Such assumptions require extensive review of years of discussions. The WhatsApp group serves to discuss policy interpretations among admins. No private decisions are made or implemented there. All decisions and suggestions must be publicly added on Wikipedia pages. If admins agree on blocking a user, a comprehensive statement must be posted on the user's page, detailing the reasons and policies underlying the block (decisions made in the WhatsApp group are never cited as reasons for blocks). Blocked users have the right to defend themselves on their talk pages or block request pages, ensuring transparency. If transparency is lacking, specific examples should be provided rather than vague accusations.


  • @Michel Bakni: But in fact I replied to your request more than once, directly (e. g.). Could you please explain why what you call a warning should be posted? Because the reason for it, as we know, was because حبيشان did an update in an optional gadget from French Wikipedia, and some of you wanted to block him for a week, remove his permission, and warn him again (besides the fact that it was NOT a significant change)! In the end, you and every partner agreed that حبيشان wouldn't update any gadget unless he discussed it before the community, EXCEPT IF THE MODIFICATION WAS ABOUT AN OPTIONAL ONE (for valid reason).... So the warning is NOT justified (if it was posted, it would be harassment). I wonder how you justify the block by this! كريم رائد (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the block that was lifted three times by three admins, it was clear that it had been applied inappropriately - no policy mentions that the suggestion shouldn't be done except after 21 days, even when it is clear that no opposion to the suggestion, no policy mentions that the suggestion shouldn't be concluded by the one who suggests it, and that was mentioned in the first unblock and before this, many users did such these actions without being blocked. Also, حبيشان depended on the principle of consensus, so it should have been assume good faith with his action (or many would have been blocked). But some admins who reblocked حبيشان mentioned different reasons (such as misusing his permission and disruption) and unexpectedly you changed your opinion from يناقش الإداري وتفند الأسباب [Discuss with the administrator who enforced the block and refute the reasons] to 100% المنع صحيح [the block was correct 100%]! كريم رائد (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Michel Bakni

  • I messaged Hubishan on his Telegram channel to discuss, but the response was unkind.
  • Over 10 admins attempted to engage with Hubishan in an online meeting, which proved unsuccessful in fostering cooperation (in my view), this is the first and the only time in the hhistory of Arabic wikipedia that a user has a special kind and attention form the admins, this is much more that asuming a good faith.
  • I reached out multiple times on his talk pages in hopes of a fresh start, but responses were consistently unkind.

Suggested solutions - Michel Bakni

I currently have none, but I am open to any suggestions.

باسم

Previous attempts at a solution - باسم

Suggested solutions - باسم

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

  • Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Hi, Given my stronger command of the German language, I prefer to express my opinion in German in order to avoid any misunderstandings or misinterpretations. You are welcome to use any translation tools or AI systems to translate this text. Please note that in case of any discrepancy between the translation and the original, the German version shall be considered the authoritative one.

Auf dieser Seite wurde ich zweimal erwähnt; daher werde ich mich in meinen Erläuterungen auf diese zwei Punkte beschränken. Sollten weitere Erläuterungen gewünscht werden, werde ich diese selbstverständlich gerne liefern.

1: Am 19. Februar 2025 habe ich die Anfrage zur Aberkennung der Administratorrechte mit der Begründung geschlossen, dass der Antragsteller seinen Antrag zurückgezogen und sich entschuldigt hatte. Zunächst möchte ich erklären, dass meine Kollegin, die Bürokratin Frau Mervat, nachdem Mohammed Qays seinen Antrag zurückgezogen und alle vier Bürokraten erwähnt hatte, ihm schrieb: Kein Problem, lieber Kollege Mohammed Qays. Meinungsverschiedenheiten sind ganz natürlich, solange ein respektvoller Austausch stattfindet. Viele Grüße an alle. Ein anderer Benutzer, Mohamed Albaali, kommentierte ebenfalls:Gut gemacht, eure Mühen sind gesegnet – vielen Dank an euch alle. Erst danach habe ich die Anfrage mit folgender Begründung geschlossen: Die Maßnahme wurde nicht umgesetzt, da der antragstellende Kollege seinen Antrag zurückgezogen hat. Vielen Dank an alle, die sich an der Diskussion beteiligt, abgestimmt und ihre Sichtweise erläutert haben. Es ist anzumerken, dass der andere Bürokrat-Kollege Ibrahim.ID auch in dieser Diskusion beteilgt war und gegen die Aberkennung der Administratorrechte gesprochen hat. Es gab jedoch keine Rede von weiteren Maßnamhen.
Die Bots archivierten die Anfrage am 7. März 2025, also 15 Tage später. Ich frage nun: Warum wurde in diesem Zeitraum kein Widerspruch auf der betreffenden Seite eingelegt? Die Behauptung, ich hätte absichtlich so gehandelt, um einen bestimmten Effekt zu erzielen, stellt einen klaren Verstoß gegen die Wikipedia-Grundregel „Geh von guten Absichten aus“ dar und ist rechtlich anfechtbar. Die Behauptung im Zusammenhang mit dem „Beseitigen der Auswirkungen der Sperrung“ steht in keinerlei Zusammenhang mit dem Schließen oder Offenlassen der betreffenden Anfrage – die betreffende Person muss diesen Zusammenhang in nachvollziehbarer Weise selbst erklären.Ich werde hier beschuldigt, in einer bestimmten Weise gehandelt zu haben, um ein bestimmtes Ergebnis zu erzielen. Dabei hat die betreffende Person auf der genannten Seite, auf die sie sich beruft, überhaupt keinen entsprechenden Antrag gestellt, und das Thema „Beseitigen der Auswirkungen der Sperrung“ wurde dort gar nicht behandelt. Wie hätte ich mich also zu einem Thema äußern sollen, das gar nicht Teil der Diskussion war? Ist es nicht ein Widerspruch, jemanden zu beschuldigen, hintergründige Absichten oder böswillige Motive gehabt zu haben, nur weil er etwas nicht getan hat, das nie gefordert oder diskutiert wurde? besoders, dass ich alle Bürokraten der arabischen Wikipedia zu dieser Diskusion aufgerufen habe. Wie könnten sie meinen Amtmissbrauch übersehen oder ignoriert haben?
2: Was den Fall vom 16. März 2025 betrifft: Der Antragsteller lügt in aller Deutlichkeit und mit voller Absicht. Was ich ihm damals schrieb, war keine Reaktion auf seine Gegenstimme, sondern auf folgenden Bearbeitungsunterschied, wo er in dieser Bearbeitung personliche Informationen über Benutzer offengelegt und damit gegen WP:OUTING verstoßen hat.
Die Bearbeitung war/ist derart beleidigend, verletzend und frauenfeindlich, dass andere Benutzer deutlich darauf reagierten. Der Grad an Frauenfeindlichkeit war so ausgeprägt, dass die erste Person, die sich dagegen aussprach, eine weibliche Benutzerin war.
3: In der gesamten Geschichte der arabischsprachigen Wikipedia wurde nur ein einziges Mal ein Online-Treffen aller oder der meisten Administratoren organisiert, um ein spezifisches Problem gemeinsam zu lösen. Ich selbst sowie rund zehn weitere Kolleginnen und Kollegen haben ein Online-Gespräch mit dem betreffenden Benutzer geführt. Wir haben ihm aufmerksam zugehört, unsere eigenen Standpunkte dargelegt und versucht, ein neues Kapitel aufzuschlagen, um frühere Missverständnisse und Konflikte zu klären. Leider hat er all diese Bemühungen ignoriert und ist zu seinem alten problematischen Verhalten zurückgekehrt, wodurch er erneut Spannungen in der Wikipedia-Gemeinschaft verursacht hat. Er ist der festen Überzeugung, dass eine Gruppe von Administratoren der arabischen Wikipedia rund um die Uhr damit beschäftigt sei, ihn gezielt zu „vernichten“. Aus dieser Perspektive heraus interpretiert er nahezu alle Vorgänge. Solange sich diese Sichtweise nicht grundlegend ändert, wird es sehr wahrscheinlich keine nachhaltige Lösung für die Konflikte geben, in die er sich selbst – und andere – immer wieder verstrickt.--عباس 14:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح

Hello, the issue goes beyond the actions or supposed violations of Habishan, the issue involves many admins in ArWiki who are either standing silent for months about the clear violations of other admins, or going beyond that by threatening the offended party with a block, this happened to me personally, here. Admin Faisal has repeatedly engaged in this type of behavior, by issuing a warning to a user who submits a valid complaint or a block request, and trying to protect or defend the clearly offending user. Also, this action was repeated by another admin, Ahmed Nagi, when he gave a warning here. As for Michel Bakni, this admin has a very long history of violations by accusing many users, in many discussions, over years, of bad faith without evidence, in addition to belittling the contributions of others by saying that they give nothing to Wikipedia and will never give! He was protected by Faisal, who didn't see any reason to block him, and instead issued a block threat against me! Then Michel Bakni returned to accusing me of bad faith again here, and also Habishan (here).

A big part of the problem is that those admins are applying standards of behavior on others, that they themselves are not abiding by.

As to the recently established temporary committee, it is not exactly known how it will work, what actions is it allowed to take, what issues will it handle, it was just created in 3 days. But I hope to see a reasonable outcome. --Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Qays

مرحباً سأجيب بالعربية، أتفق على كل ما ذكره الزميلان Elph وMichel Bakni، وسأرد على النقطة التي أشار لها الزميل حبيشان بخصوص سحب طلب سحب الصلاحية منه، قررت سحب الطلب لكي لا نخسر جهوده التحريرية والتقنية بمعالجة عدة أمور أو مشاكل داخل الموسوعة، وأردت أن يكون بمثابة تنبيه أخير له، لان بعض تعديلاته تكون متسرعة وغير مدروسة وقد تسبب خللاً في صفحات ويكيبيديا، مثلما حصل هنا، والزميل غالباً عندما تفتح نقاش معه أما أن تكون ردوده متشنجة لإثبات وجهة نظره، أو يذهب مباشرة لفتح شكوى دون الإنتظار لحل الخلاف والوصول إلى توافق، وفق ما تنص عليه سياسة حل النزاعات، والتي يجب أن يكون هناك جو هادئ للتوصل إلى توافق أو حل مرضي لجميع الأطراف، وقد حصل ذلك مؤخراً هنا رغم أني فتحت النقاش قبل ذلك في صفحة النقاش المناسبة.

ليس لدي اقتراحات، ولكن أطلب من الزميل حبيشان أن يراجع أسلوبه بالنقاش، ويركز على المساهمات لا على الأفراد، لأن اتهام الأفراد دون دليل وإهاناته المتكررة لهم، لا يمكن قبولها، ولا أعتقد أي مشروع من مشاريع ويكيميديا يقبل بها، لذلك طلب أخوي تعامل مع المستخدمين بأدب في النقاشات وافترض حسن نية الآخرين ولا تعرقل ويكيبيديا لتثبت وجهة نظرك، وكن متقبلاً للآخر، حسب ما ترتكز عليه ويكيبيديا. مع التحية.--Mohammed Qays (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

كريم رائد

There are many confusions, and I don't know what to explain:

As for Faisal's allegation that there was no opposition from any other administrator about Lukas's block and that there was a consensus among admins to block Hubaishan, his claim is inaccurate and confusing, and let me explain why:

First, Ahmed Naji requested for blocking Hubaishan, after a comment by Hubaishan concerning deleting a template speedly, claiming that his comment was an insult to a group of admins. Many users and admins (including me) opposed the block for many reasons. Mohammed Ahmed presented evidence that what Hubaishan said wasn't an insult to a group of admins, one of them was that when Faisal clearly ridiculed Mohammed Ahmed, Abd al-Qayyoum asked him not to underestimate the importance of such discussions, and to avoid provocative expressions. but Faisal's answer was not but except that "I am responsible for what I write, not for what you understand" and repeated his ridicule comment, saying "'If my comment violates the policies, please submit a blocking request". Then Abd al-Qayyoum pointed that Faisal's comment violates the policies and his behavior justify the blocking accordingly, then Faisal answered that he was proud that he expressed his convictions freely, and no one dictats him, whoever they may be. And said" I write my comments with free will, accusing Abd Al-Qayyoum indirectly that someone off-wiki directs him!. And Contrary to expectations, Abd al-Qayyoum got a warning from Ahmed Naji and it stated that "acooring to the policy if you believe that Faisal's blocking is justified = you will be blocked immediately!" (After that Abd al-Qayyoum got some unjustified warnings from that party of admins).

Alaa pinged to Lukas to decline the request for Hubaishan's blocking because he saw "the discussion should be completed elsewhere after 14 days of the request". And in the 15th day Habishan commented on that candidate and many admins saw his comment. Only two admins warned Hubaishan after he said "frenzied campaign" (Mervat who Michel mentioned her comment and Abu Hisham who saw there was no reason for blocking Hubaishan) and other admins decided not to comment, maybe according to Faisal statement: "He is responsible for what he writes, not for what others understand"? So, the allegation that there was a consensus among admins to block Hubaishan is completely incorrect.

Faisal justified Bassem's mockery and instead of giving him a warning, he wanted to warn me for invalid reason.

Lukas, who blocked Hubaishan, requested for blocking me because I had modified some of my words in a discussion to make my words clear, even after responding to his request and asking him to clerify what the misunderstanding that happened and in any edit! But he drived me to revert all of them, making some of my words ambiguous. He also declined the request for blocking Bassem after Bassem had insulted me and after his insisting on insulting, when Mohammed's requested not to ridicule (1), (2), giving a reason that Bassem should first be warned and he [Lukas] didn't warn him but requested politely not to ridicule, even after showing the repeated insults. كريم رائد (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Karim only mentioned the points that support his side and didn’t show the full picture. I’ll start with the last part — the block request I submitted.
Karim started a discussion that wasn’t related to the removal page (you can find the link), and I replied to him based on what he wrote in the first version of his comments. After I replied to everything, I was surprised to see that he edited his own comments to change the meaning, which made my replies look wrong or not relevant.
So I went to his talk page and politely asked him to undo the changes, because they weren’t just grammar fixes — they changed the whole meaning of the discussion. But he replied saying: “I didn’t remove anything, and even if I did, you can just edit your comment to match my new version.” I want to ask anyone reading this: is this the right way to discuss things? Is this how we should act on Wikipedia?
I repeated my request nicely, but when I saw that he didn’t want to fix his edits, I didn’t block him directly. I simply made a request for a neutral admin to step in.
When Karim saw that I was serious and following Wikipedia policy, he started pretending that he didn’t understand what I meant — even though I clearly explained it on his talk page, and he had just made those edits minutes earlier. I had also included the relevant diffs in the block request, so I was surprised by his response claiming he didn’t know which edits I was talking about.
Now about the second point — Alaa asked me not to follow up on the request because he thought I wasn’t planning to take action, since I had left the case under review for more than two weeks. But the reason I left it that long was because I was carefully reviewing all the links and diffs shared in the request — both from Hubaishan and from the other users involved.After finishing my review, I found that the block was justified and aligned with the policies, so I went ahead and blocked the user accordingly.
As for the claim that the block was incorrect — that’s not true. I’ll post a full reply this evening to show that all the points shared by Hubaishan are not valid, just like what Karim did in his last point. لوقا (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the warning given to Bassem — this claim is also not true. At first, I asked Karim and others in the discussion whether any warning had been given to Bassem regarding the issue, and the answer from Karim was no. So, I gave Bassem a formal warning.
This is the usual procedure we follow on Wikipedia with all users: first a warning, then a second one, and if the behavior continues, a block is applied gradually (1 day, 2 days, etc.). In the request where I added a summary, I clearly stated that if Bassem repeats this behavior, he will be blocked according to the policies — because the rule is: warn first, then block.
So, Karim’s claim in this point is also incorrect. لوقا (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@لوقا you are confusing the matters and there's a distortion in your comments:

  • your claim that I started a discussion that wasn’t related to the topic is not right and I will make clear some matters:

Michel Bakni in his request for removal of Mohammed's adminship, claimed that in Arabic Wikipedia, if an admin misuses their administrative permissions, their permissions must be removed. So I presented an example of an admin who was clearly misusing his permissions [by blocking users unjustly] and wondered about what was going on and Michel's claims. Also, you talked about Bassem as if he was you, saying: "You accused us of being arbitrary." and this claim is wrong because I did not mention you at all. Regarding to my edits, the edits that I made after your replies were: links to pages, proofreading, avoiding ambiguity (such as adding the subject باسم), clarifications to your questions, and the last one was removing the statement: "because he blocked Michel late," which you overlooked, and I said to you on my talk page that this sentence will NOT make a difference in anything, but you insisted on reverting them all without clarifications. Note that I repeatedly asked you to point to the edit that may make misunderstandings to your replies in your block request, and clarified that I had made these edits in the aim of avoiding ambiguity, proofreading, and linking pages. But you derived me to revert all! Also, you know that most users edits there replies to clarify their points of view that may be ambiguous to some readers, to avoid misunderstanding. "I repeated my request nicely"... The first reply by you was that you may request for blocking me. Was this a nice reply? I asked you to point to the edits that may make misunderstandings, but you did not answer me and quickly [after 6 minutes] requested for blocking me. Please refer to me where I said "I didn't remove anything." I did not say this at all. Moreover, We have policy for personal attacks, but we did not have one for edits after comment. Which policy you refer to? Also, What you call a neutral admin declined your request, saying,: "this matter is NOT a valid reason for [requesting for] blocking," regardless of your insisting on reverting all of my edits without clarifications!

  • I did not say "the block was incorrect" at all you. Again, you distort my words; I said "the allegation that there was a consensus among admins to block Hubaishan is completely incorrect", and explained why.
  • I think everything is clear concerning my previous comment.
  • Again, you did not give Bassem "a warning". In fact, you requested him not to ridicule, and you did not mention in your message that if he insists he will be blocked. There is a pig difference. Any Arabic speaker know this reality. And when you asked me and others in the discussion whether any warning had been given to Bassem regarding the issue, the answer was not "no"; it was "I do not know, and I did not check his talk archives to know". In any case, you claimed in your closure that you warned Bassem while you did not. Also, You dealt with the matter as if Bassem was a new comer.

When you gave Bassem what you call a warning, he did not remove his mockery or care, but when you asked me to revert all of my edits and I refused, the first reply was a threatening to me by requesting for blocking me if I do not revert them all. Sufficient is this comment, showing the double standards. كريم رائد (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NANöR

"Another admin, not one of those involved in this case, removed this sentence and wrote:"

This specific point is what escalated the conflict for many months. The mentioned parties (the third party) step in to remove a sentence in a discussion, but stay silent when clear violations are committed by some of those the complaint is directed against. Whether on the encyclopedia or on Telegram, their selective intervention—only in favor of one side—is exactly what fuels the sense of injustice that caused this situation to escalate in the first place.NANöR (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Committee Members

The committee members are not neutral. Some are close friends of one of the parties to the conflict, or they are admins who remained silent or ignored the discussions that took place on Arabic Wikipedia. Therefore, they are not qualified to find solutions to the problems of Arabic Wikipedia because if they were capable of doing so, matters wouldn’t have escalated to the current state. NANöR (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

  • The current local discussions to create a temporary arbitration committee is a great idea which I fully support. This case request would be perfectly suited to be handled by it. --Ghilt (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ghilt The Arabic Wikipedia temporary arbitration committee has a single-task authority, was not given a permanent authorization to resolve issues, and was formed in violation of Wikipedia's rules by only accepting votes from administrators. --حبيشانtalk 21:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever @Luke081515 @Ghilt what you called "temporary arbitration committee" has an authority to resolve only single "admins wheel warring" case and not has authority to consider other cases. حبيشانtalk 07:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see " لجنة للنظر في حل تلك المسألة"(A committee to look into resolving this issue). حبيشانtalk 07:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This step proves that arwiki is capable of setting up such committees to deal with these cases and doesn't require our intervention yet. We are only a coordinating committee, and can't make decisions for arwiki. This also show that there is no systemic failure. BRP ever 07:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The German language arbcom was set up in 2007 as a temporary arbcom for 6 months and after the following evaluation it became permanent. Maybe you will find arwiki arbcom useful and do the same. I personally love community self-governance. Ghilt (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghilt It should be noted that the recently established temporary committee in ArWiki was established by a lightening discussion, in just 3 days. It is not known what procedures it will follow, what actions can it take, where exactly can members of ArWiki submit comments to it, what issues will it handle, all these are unknowns. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is typical for setting up new processes in wikis. But the arwiki community will evaluate the process and maybe evolve/adapt it. Ghilt (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, you are referring us to nothing and shirking the tasks that you nominated yourselves for and that society entrusted you to perform. حبيشانtalk 16:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, we will still be here in any case. But local community self-determination and governance are among our priorities. Everyone knows their own community best. Ghilt (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

  • Based on what I see, ArWiki community is capable of handling these issue. They seem to have set up a temporary committee to handle them, and I think this case should be forwarded to said committee.--BRP ever 04:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the new (temporary, but hopefully soon permanent) Arwiki Arbcom the local community is perfectly equipped to decide on this. --Ghilt (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that the temp arbcom will handle those cases, so for now I don't see a reason why the U4C is needed here, when there was an arbcom established to handle it locally. Luke081515 21:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the arwiki community and the new temp-committee can handle cases like this one locally. --Civvì (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably can look into it after the interim committee has resolved this issue and the parties still find the resolution unsatisfactory. The amount of evidence presented here does not appear to be at the level of a systemic issue, and as such we should respect the processes and decisions of a local committee that seems to be tackling the issue just fine. dbeef (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are a coordinating committee and so I want us to help the temporary committee. Members of the committee should feel free to reach out to us for help. It is best if local projects can find their own answers on UCoC enforcement and so I hope this works for the arwiki community. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Some_of_ArWiki_admins_are_violating_U4C&oldid=28956005"