Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Unsuitable Warning and bias by Admin in ArWiki

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
Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Faisal	w:ar:خاص:فرق/70680012 \|-

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515, Superpes15 Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح

Description of the problem - (محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح)

This is an English translation of a complaint against User:فيصل, who is an admin on arwiki. I submitted this complaint on relevant complaints page in ArWiki on 2 February, to this day the complaint remains unanswered, although I pinged commenting admins twice, and the complaint has received comments from other users.

This is a complaint about the bias and inappropriate warning placed on my page here, which I request to be withdrawn:

I made only two edits to the page, and I was the one who initiated the discussion on the project's talk page. In this discussion, I did not deviate from the rules of the discussion. I did not accuse anyone of obstruction, nor did I describe the reasons for it, or even this unnecessary punctuation as ridiculous or nonsensical. I left the punctuation that was not placed in all the places on the page before the person placing the warning intervened with a comment, and I edited another page more than half an hour later. That same day, I went to a Wikimedia Egypt meeting and met with my colleague Walaa, and no argument or dispute arose with her.
User فيصل who submitted the warning was a key participant in this discussion, about adding diacritics Wikipedia tagline, in this discussion he did not state any reason for keeping the diacritics. I see it as a clear conflict that he gives a warning to me about the same issue, that is removing unnecessary diacritics, while being party to the discussion.
User فيصل who sent the warning referred to the text of the ban policy, "A user engaging in quarrels with more than one party and making modifications not documented by official, academically valid sources may lead to a prolonged ban and ultimately expulsion." However, his quotation from the policy is incomplete, as the page states, "without showing willingness to compromise or reach a compromise." I was the one who opened the project's discussion page and initiated the conversation with my colleague Walaa, and I left the unnecessary punctuation on the page before he commented. In the discussion about the free encyclopedia logo, which I opened last September and has not yet closed, I believe I showed remarkable patience and tolerated the baseless accusations of a third user. It should also be noted that I was not the first to object to this punctuation in the tagline.
When I filed a ban request against a user (the same one who accused me of obstruction with no justification (see above)) last August, I presented his repeated baseless accusations of obstructionism against me in multiple incidents from 2022 to 2024. He had previously received a warning for the same practices in the summary of a previous ban request. The first response was from Faisal, who ignored everything I had presented and assumed I had a purpose in submitting the request and would engage in behavior he considered obstructive, claimed I deserved to be banned as well, in his first comment. He said in his comment, "I don't think -name crossed out- deserves to be banned, because I don't see anything to support that (ever)!"

So Faisal not only said that the offending user should not be blocked, he assumed bad faith on my part and threatened me with a block.

This request was closed with a rejection, stating, "Despite some disagreements and misunderstandings in previous discussions." The same contributor then continued making empty accusations against me in this comment; accusing me of trying to bore the community and telling me to do whatever I want (a clear new accusation of obstruction, without any justification and based on a completely misinterpretation of the discussion and policies). He also hinted at obstructionism with another user in this comment and this and this. After all that, he hasn't been banned or received a ban warning yet! Why hasn't the person who put the warning on my page implemented the annoying edit terms on the actions of that user, which have been ongoing for years and up until recently? Among these terms is the constant disrespect in dealing with others.

Faisal replied on the complaint with this comment, trying to justify his reply to the block request I submitted last August. I see in the comment multiple breaches of the code of conduct, here is a translation of part of the comment: "When I see a user like my colleague M making a serious contribution, developing policies, guidelines, and articles, and helping Wikipedia progress, it's only natural for me to support him, because that's my goal: to develop Wikipedia. And when I see a user whose most prominent posts are "a dhammah in the free encyclopedia logo" or "a dhammah on a Wikipedia page," and who periodically opens sterile, controversial discussions that last for months, I believe there's a huge difference between the goals of each user. I support every user who aims to develop the Arabic Wikipedia, whether they're MB or someone else."

In the above comment I see a breach of the paragraph that says:

"Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement."

Also the paragraph about:

"Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due."

My view is that he is making his assessment of my Wikipedia contributions a factor when replying to a valid block request I submitted.

On 15 March, admin Faisal blocked a user, part of the reasons he gave for the block is "throwing accusations on editors with no real proof, which affects the volunteering environment"! So he sees that throwing baseless accusations to be valid reason for a block, but when I submitted a block request for that reason, he tried to justify the accusations made by the offending user.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - (محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح)

A complaint was submitted in ArWikipedia on 2 February, to this day the complaint remains unaswered. The complaint received comments from several users, including 3 admins, but none of them or any other admin put a conclusion on the complaint.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Feedback from a former Arabic Wikipedia contributor, SilverBullet X)

I'm writing to support the concerns raised by محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح regarding Admin Faisal's behavior on Arabic Wikipedia. I am not directly involved in the current dispute but have experienced similar treatment, and I believe it reflects a troubling pattern.

In my own interactions with Faisal, I was discouraged from contributing by hostile responses and threats of bans for raising reasonable concerns. Like Mohammed Ahmed, I was accused of obstruction simply for disagreeing or attempting to improve articles within the rules. When I questioned admin decisions or brought up inconsistencies, I was met not with dialogue, but with warnings, hostility, and insinuations about my intentions.

Faisal appears to act with selective enforcement, tolerating aggressive or rule breaking behavior from users he favors, while targeting others with vague warnings and dismissive language link. He has also used rhetoric that I personally found racially charged and inappropriate link even though he himself uses dialect sometimes like in the case link, making it difficult to engage in good faith. Which creates a toxic environment and discourages participation, especially from users outside the inner circle of established editors.

What strikes me as particularly concerning in this case is Faisal's conflict of interest in issuing a warning about a dispute he was personally involved in. When an admin becomes a party in a content debate, they should not act unilaterally against the other side it undermines neutrality and due process.

Mohammed Ahmed's complaint is detailed, supported by diffs, and makes reasonable requests. At minimum, the warning should be reviewed by neutral parties who were not involved in the original dispute. More broadly, this situation raises the question of whether some admins are shielded from accountability simply because they are considered productive or high status. That is not in line with the UCoC.

I respectfully ask the U4C to consider the pattern here. These repeated experiences from different users indicate a culture problem. Constructive criticism should not lead to threats or bans, and policies should be applied consistently, not based on personal allegiances.

The Arabic Wikipedia community deserves a healthier environment, and this cannot happen if valid concerns are brushed aside while certain admins are allowed to police others with impunity. I urge the committee to give this case serious attention and consider how its outcome may impact the broader culture on ArWiki.

Thank you. -- 105.235.131.165 11:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention also that I did have a case of which he was involved too link and other editors @حبيشان & @جودت as well link and user @TheJoyfulTentmaker in the case link-- 105.235.131.165 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt Did you ever read other's feedback before voting? 105.235.131.75 10:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I add, The user herself wrote in the edit (link) (Machine translation): Excuse me, I didn't want you to undo your edit while you were doing it!! Please, this is my personal project page and not part of the articles, so I hope you understand...

Since when are the pages outside the user namespace personal and exclusive to one user? The page is literally in the Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia is collaborative, and the admin Ahmed has the right to make edits, so instead of challenging his edit, she had to discuss that first, and then Ahmed even stopped editing to prevent warring. This alone is a proof that Faisal is shielding the user while threat warning others (I repeat, threat warning, a first warning must never come in a toxic threatening style, and Faisal always does this the 1st time he warns a user, always with threats of banning). -- 105.235.131.75 15:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a machine translation of the discussion in case it helps the commitee's estimations and determinations

The discussion (machine translation)

@Walaa I don't understand, this isn't a page specific to a particular contributor, and there's no signature at the end of the page, meaning it's not a personal blog (I didn't put a damma on "blog"). There's clear harm or damage in putting unnecessary diacritics because it becomes annoying or at least strange to me and other readers. If the text were in a personal comment, it would be different. Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah My esteemed colleague, firstly, I don't have the energy for this argument. Secondly, I've preferred this method for a long time, it's not new. Thirdly and finally, this has been my project page since 2019, and everyone or most people know that. My apologies, I won't prolong the discussion. Best regards --Dr. Walaa Talk to me! 01:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Walaa I find your comment problematic; it assumes a priority or ownership or imposes an unjustified and strange diacritic style on public pages, not private comments. Generally, a writer should write in a way that is comfortable for the reader, not what they are used to. Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah You have no right to remove the damma and create a problem out of nothing! Please focus on more important matters than a damma or no damma! If you revert the edit again, your account will be blocked. These actions are completely unacceptable. This is a private project that our colleague Walaa is working on, and she has the right to write as she sees fit, as long as it's not against the rules. So if you revert again, your account will be blocked. This is a final warning. -- Faisal (message me) 04:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me @Faisal, it is written in Wikipedia:Rules for Diacritics "As for vowels (short vowels) or diacritics, they are not to be fixed unless there is a need for them." This contradicts the examples in the words: yusharik (participates), mutatawwe' (volunteer), and mubadarah (initiative)? --Kareem Raed (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kareem Raed As long as it's not a "linguistic violation," no one has the right to dictate a specific writing style for a private project, especially since the matter is not within the scope of articles. So please, you too, pay attention to more important matters than the damma or no damma. -- Faisal (message me) 11:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Faisal I agree with you that it's not a linguistic violation, and I mentioned the guideline as a reference, but regarding a private project, that's incorrect. Pages are public property as long as they are not user pages or subpages. -- Kareem Raed (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC

@Kareem Raed Once again, as long as it's not a linguistic violation, you have no right to dictate a specific writing style. It's that simple. You can pay attention to more important matters than this page. -- Faisal (message me) 11:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello colleagues, and apologies for interfering. Honestly, colleague Abdel Fattah's edits that target only the damma are provocative and off-putting, and I don't mean only the edits on this page but edits in general. I apologize for not commenting on the rules of diacritics and so on, as the context here calls for this comment. All respect and appreciation to you. Abu Hisham Talk 11:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Kareem, Just because pages are public property doesn't mean they can be edited by everyone, unless there's a technical error. There are rules governing pages; for example, the main page is public property, but not everyone can edit it, and everyone comes and chooses the font type or the visible image or the encyclopedia's logo, etc. The owner of the initiative is the only one who has the right to choose the logo, color, writing style, visible images, or page formatting. The initiative belongs to the person who dedicates their time and effort to developing the encyclopedia, and this has nothing to do with whether the page is public property or not. If you want to edit the page, especially if it's a style edit, you write on the talk page and refer to the initiative owner, and you don't start changing things on your own! Especially if the initiative owner is active in the encyclopedia. And it's unacceptable to impose a specific writing style on them! Regarding colleague Abdel Fattah, I have previously written and referred to the annoying behavior that started with tanween al-nasb and has now extended to vowel markings and removing dammas, on private pages outside the scope of articles. This is recurring behavior that hasn't stopped and doesn't seem to stop, despite repeated mentions of it. These edits generally:

Lead to the exhaustion of editors' patience who may leave the project in frustration when annoying edits continue and are accompanied by impunity. -- Edited by: Michel Bakni (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Michel Bakni, @Faisal, @Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah, @Abu Hisham, @Walaa, Hello everyone, I agree with what colleague @Kareem Raed kindly stated. There is no public and private ownership, and everyone can freely edit content, including project pages. We recently voted on the content ownership policy, as this is a free encyclopedia, and this cannot be used as a basis for issuing any warning. As long as there is an error that needs correction, everyone is free to correct the error, no matter how slight. And since colleague Mohammed opened a discussion here, this indicates his good faith, and the matter can be discussed objectively, with regards. --- Ayoub 🦜 17:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, Ayoub, your words are incorrect. The default is to open a discussion first before editing. The policy draft explicitly states:

Although Wikipedia users do not own the content, respecting their contributions and works is a necessity and a duty. Look, for example, at the Omani Youth Program. I chose orange and yellow for the logo, design, and slides. Do you have the right to come and change the colors and put green and blue on one of the pages, or choose a new logo to your taste, and tell me this is a free encyclopedia? Of course not! You don't have the right, because this is an organizational matter, and what you have the right to do is open a discussion first and ask the user who manages the page to add the edit. Look, for example, at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Levant User Group. Do you have the right to change the order of paragraphs on the page? Without deleting or adding anything, no, of course not! This page is managed and overseen by the Wikimedia Levant User Group, and you don't have the right to change its content, or any non-technical edit without permission, because it represents this initiative and you are not a spokesperson for the initiative and cannot edit its page. Do you realize that this could cause a problem for the group? For example, would it be acceptable for me to enter the Morocco group and change and write, for instance, that the group supports the idea that the Western Sahara is not part of Morocco, or add paragraphs criticizing the President of Egypt on the Wikimedia Egypt page because this is a free encyclopedia and everyone can edit it? This could lead to people being arrested and the closure of the entire group in a country. Can I enter your page and add a user box that you are gay or that you support Zionism, because this is a free encyclopedia and everyone can edit it? It's the same issue with the main page, transfer requests, and featured content nominations. All of this content is free, but editing it requires discussion first, and you cannot just enter and edit as you please because it's a free encyclopedia. This is a misinterpretation of the policy and a weakness in understanding the meaning of free content. Generally, the content of personal initiatives, projects, and personal pages is free; copy it and reuse it as you wish. However, the choice of content on the page, or adding edits to colors, style, and even content, is in the hands of their owners, not the community, because these initiatives reflect the identity, direction, and activity of their owners, and no one has the right to change their content without discussing it with the page owner, unless the issue causes a technical problem or involves a violation. The policy proposal can be expanded to add a paragraph clarifying this point. -- Edited by: Michel Bakni (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! my dear, for interacting with my comment, and I apologize to you all for this discussion taking up some of our time, but it is necessary. I emphasize here that pages in all namespaces are public property, and no one can be prevented from correcting what is wrong. Let's assume, my dear @Michel Bakni, that the colors used in Wikipedia:Wiki Youth Oman Program do not comply with the style guide or make it difficult for color-blind individuals to access. In this case, I would contact the project organizers through their talk pages or email, and if I didn't receive any interaction, I would contact the foundation as the guarantor of accessibility across all its projects [1][2]. And I personally don't think the program owner would object to correcting what is wrong or stubbornly refuse it as long as someone is helping him to better coordinate his project. As for editing user group pages, I personally believe their place is not the project namespace page but rather in Meta, as they are already there, with regards. --- Ayoub 🦜 17:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC) 18:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Brother, I told you clearly: a technical problem, a violation, or even a spelling error, go ahead and fix it without hesitation. But choosing the style, layout, display method, and order, including diacritics, this is not correcting what is wrong. Marking some letters, or all of them, is a personal opinion; you cannot impose it on the initiative owner. You write to them on the talk page and suggest it, that's your right, but don't come and impose your personal opinion on them and edit the page, that's unacceptable. -- Edited by: Michel Bakni (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Editing a user page or their personal page is not public property anyway, let alone slander. -- Kareem Raed (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, your statement is incorrect. A user page, of any user, is not public property, but it is protected by a Creative Commons license, yet it is free: you can simply copy it and add it to your page while respecting the attribution to its author. There are no other obligations, and no one can prevent you from doing that, and this is not the meaning of "public property." This means: "free work licensed under a Creative Commons license." -- Edited by: Michel Bakni (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Michel Bakni And did I even say it was public property? -- Kareem Raed (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Can a user page be created by another user? No, of course not. Can it be edited without the owner's consent? No, of course not. Can any project pages be edited without the creator's permission? Yes, they can. So why did you equate the two? -- Kareem Raed (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify my opinion from the beginning, any disputed edit should be discussed, but this does not mean it is a private project. -- Kareem Raed (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Ayoub for the reference. I have no comment due to the frustration and aversion I've come to feel from every discussion. My comment was not about article ownership or diacritics, but about the damma that has divided the encyclopedia into two sections or two teams, neither willing to concede to the other. Have you seen how much time you've spent discussing a damma, and the stubbornness from all sides? I hope the discussion ends here and moves to what might be useful elsewhere. My regards to all of you, and forgive my frankness, for I am tired of discussions that only increase users' aversion and do nothing for the encyclopedia except bring more problems. I hope we forgive each other, excuse each other, apologize to each other, and concede to each other, for we are in a place of cooperation, not conflict, and we are all brothers and our goal is one. Hello Mohammed, there was an edit conflict. Abu Hisham Talk 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment for clarification: I have not commented yet due to my participation in the Wikimedia Egypt user group event held today in Ismailia, and I will likely not comment on this page for some time to allow third parties to intervene in some related issues. --Mohammed Ahmed Abdel Fattah (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Same pattern again and again in the majority of conflicts, a clear abuse of power by Faisal -- 105.235.131.75 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح: please inform the involved users according to the cases page and insert the links in the table. --Ghilt (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt This is mainly a complaint against Faisal, I have already put a message in his talk page. Also I have put a link in the complaints page of ArWiki. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt Table filled. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt In this edit, I clarified one point that might not have been clear before. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt I am just pinging you, please take a look at my questions below. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح: according to page's history:

Walaa (User:ولاء) created the page and she added (ضمة = Damma) to the text.
you removed the "Damma".
she reverted you contribution (reason: لا ضير من وضع الضمة = it's ok with Damma).
you reverted it!
Walaa reverted, and said (معذرى منك، لم أحبذ التراجع عن تعديلك وأنت تفعل!! من فضلك هذه صفحة مشروعي الخاص وليست في نطاق المقالات، أرجو تفهمك الأمر = Excuse me, I didn't want you to undo your edit while you were doing it!! Please, this is my project page and not part of the articles, please understand)
then, you created the discussion in talk page, and She also expressed her dissatisfaction with what you did.

So clearly: Walaa (User:ولاء) didn't accept to your edit, and you should have stopped the first time. Even if you had a point that (Wikipedia's pages weren't owned by anyone .. ), why didn't you contact the user from the start? Why didn't you show good faith and open a discussion when you encountered an objection? (you open the discussion later). My question to you: as Admin and veteran user — is this acceptable behavior? Isn't this a form of imposing one's opinion and not cooperating with others?

Unfortunately, this is clearly unacceptable behavior and doesn't comply with (Civility, collegiality, mutual support) in Universal code of conduct, even if you went to a Wikimedia Egypt session and met Walaa, This does not justify your behavior, you should have stopped.

I think Faisal's warning may be a bit exaggerated, but it is a valid warning. You have indeed made a mistake and you must accept that (regardless of your relationship with others). In any case, the warning is just a normal message and text and does not represent an official decision --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: U4C cannot remove this message because it is outside the committee's jurisdiction. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim.ID

To answer your question directly: Yes, to me this is acceptable behavior, at least not warranting a warning from anybody, not to mention an involved party, like Faisal. One rollback doesn't mean that I am imposing my opinion on others. I really think there is a big difference between saying "You should have done x or y" and "You made a mistake" and going further than that, by saying this "mistake" warrants a warning, and from an involved party.

I don't see that one rollback in itself, without even any offensive remark, is a breach of civility and collegiality. Consider the following:

1) that my one rollback was accompanied by with an edit summary explaining something new that was not explained in the first edit, at least in my view, that is this Damma is not uniformly put in all places it might be put in the page. So removing it seems logical, it's not necessary anyways.

2) There is no established practice or written guideline stating that project pages have rules that are different from articles. Please point me to a page mentioning this practice if it exists on ArWiki.

3) Consider my actions in the whole matter of unnecessary tashkeel, in the Wikipedia tagline also, When Faisal asked to have a discussion instead of a vote, I quickly accepted his comment, and we had that discussion, in which he didn't mention any reason for keeping this tashkeel. And when we had a disagreement about having a vote afterwards, I requested third parties to handle the matter (link to admin noticeboard), and for more than a month I waited for a third party to handle it. I was again accused of bad faith by a third user (MB) who Faisal defended before, no warning or block for him till now.

I am also objecting that Faisal who was a main participant on the tagline discussion about the same Tashkeel (Damma) puts warning to me while in the same time being party on the other side of this discussion. Do you have a comment on that clear conflict?

It is also worth mentioning that Faisal said in his reply to the complaint, that the topic of the edit, I think he means the unnecessary tashkeel is "silly" سخيف. But to everybody's surprise, he eventually voted for removing the unnecessary tashkeel (link), not only that put also said in his vote "لحماية ويكيبيديا العربية من الضمة والتشكيل. أُبارك لنفسي هذا الإنجاز العظيم."

"To protect the Arabic Wikipedia from Damma and Tashkeel, I congratulate myself on this great accomplishment". So in the beginning he described that matter as silly, then it became a great accomplishment and he is congratulating himself! More than one user found his comment to be sarcastic.

Secondly, this complaint as the the one on the Arabic Wikipedia, is not about that warning only. But also about Faisal's comment in the block request I made, and the later justification he gave in this comment he gave in the complaint. I see clear violations of UCoC there. He didn't see that repeated accusations made by a third user against me, to be a valid reason for a block, and he also assumed bad faith about me, threatening me with a block. So the offending user gets protection and the offended user gets block threat?! I am asking you, is that acceptable behavior?

I see a total breakdown in the application of policy where one rollback is warranting a warning of a block, from an involved party, while the repeated accusations of bad faith and using provocative language by user MB, is not only disregarded, but also allowed to continue and the offended user, in that case me, got a block threat. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح: It is quite clear from page's history and discussion that Walaa is not satisfied with these contributions, and this were two reverts not one by you and you should have stopped from the beginning because repeating the matter twice is evidence of “deliberateness and insistence.” Please, I am asking you now at a specific point, do not bring me other points. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ibrahim.ID No, I didn't make two reverts, only one. Check w:en:Help:Reverting : "negating the effects of one or more edits, typically restoring the page, or a section of it, to a (previous version) in either exact wording or meaning." To a previous version, my first edit doesn't restore the page to a previous version, but rather creates a new one, that didn't exist before, with no unnecessary diacritics. So I made two edits in total, the second is a revert, the first is not. You also don't comment on two points 1) This warning is made by an involved party. 2) No consideration is given to my behavior in the overall matter, as I quickly complied with Faisal's request move to a discussion, and enduring repeated accusations by MB of bad faith.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح: I'm talking about (you do the same contribution twice), Although Walaa revert it and clearly stated in the edit summary that she wanted that, isn't that true? Why did you insist on doing it again? And your comment on the discussion page confirms that you are deliberately doing this because you believe that (Wikipedia pages are not owned by anyone... ) ignoring the fact that your behavior annoys others. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim.ID It is important to get the facts right. I didn't make two reverts, only one.

My comment in the discussion page doesn't only indicate that Wikipedia pages are not owned by anyone, but also that these unnecessary tashkeel is also annoying. However I refrained from making further reverts before the intervention of any third party. And the way I spoke with Walaa didn't deviate in anyway from the etiquette of discussion.

I am still waiting for you answer, is Faisal unbiased in the discussion? Why no consideration is given to my behavior in the whole matter? Why the repeated accusations of bad faith by Faisal and MB are not dealt with? Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also worth noting that a user commented on Faisal's comment in which he is congratulating himself, saying: "Please don't belittle the importance of this discussions, and avoid provocative statements". Then Faisal replied to him (link): "I am responsible for what I write, not what you understand, and I repeat my comment: For, to protect Arabic Wikipedia from Tashkeel and Damma, I congratulate myself on this great accomplishment" If you find my comment to be violating policies, Pleas put a block request" End of Faisal's comment. So he is repeating the comment that one user found provocative.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt, I don't fully understand what you mean by your comment "Asking an admin colleague to stop is less escalating than a warning", Faisal clearly gave me a block warning in my talk page (diff), Also I need your comment on Faisal's behavior as he shielded a repeating offending user and accused me of bad faith, threatening me with another block last August, the offending user got protection, he then repeated his offence against more than one user, and I get block threat. He later justified his comment by saying "When I see a user like my colleague M making a serious contribution, developing policies, guidelines, and articles, and helping Wikipedia progress, it's only natural for me to support him, because that's my goal: to develop Wikipedia. And when I see a user whose most prominent posts are "a dhammah in the free encyclopedia logo" or "a dhammah on a Wikipedia page," and who periodically opens sterile, controversial discussions that last for months, I believe there's a huge difference between the goals of each user. I support every user who aims to develop the Arabic Wikipedia, whether they're MB or someone else". Isn't that a clear violation of

1."Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement."

2. "Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due."

--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what i mean is: he could have been nicer, but the warning was imo acceptable. Would i have done that? No. The best way for you two would be to talk it out, but currently i would advise to avoid each other for a few months for cooling down the conflict. And there seem to be mixed views in the community discussion on the acceptability of the warning. Ghilt (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt Is the warning acceptable and valid from an involved party? Because Faisal is not an unbiased user in this matter, he is biased. Also, could you please comment on the question I asked Ibrahim.Id? Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if many in your community believe that he abused his power or is generally uncivil, you can start a local de-admin procedure. Ghilt (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt Ok, I hope you see my point, Faisal comment and actions are violating the above mentioned paragraphs of UCoC. He didn't receive a warning for that, and he shielded another user who was and is violating UCoC too. On the other hand, one rollback from me is interpreted as a violation of Civility and collegiality! If one rollback was a clear sign of lack of civility, then perhaps the three revert rule should be changed to be the one revert rule.

As for your suggestion about local de-admin process, there is a segment of the local community which will overlook violations by admins, even if they are numerous, on the grounds that the good contributions outweighs the bad. I have put a local complaint that remains for more than 100 days without a final decision, however one admin has asked Faisal to remove the warning. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can also ask another admin for a warning about a warning, but i don't think that would be necessary or even helpful. I have given you my recommendation what to do (following "advise"). Btw, in dewiki more than one revert/rollback/copy&pasting old versions (>1 in total, by all users) classifies as an edit war that can be sanctioned. If your complaint does not resonate in your community, you will have to accept that your proposal did not find a lot of support. Ghilt (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt My complaint did resonate in my community, one admin has asked Faisal to remove the warning, but only asking is not going to cut it. Faisal is clearly biased in the matter itself and biased against me. Another user, non-admin has said that my actions do not warrant a warning.

Also his comment in the complaint shows a clear violation of UCoC too. Shielding a repeating offence user, and "supporting" him on the grounds that he makes articles and policies, while my contributions are being undervalued. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nobody wants to fulfil your wish in your community. And i think you are acting disproportionately and escalating yourself. Please accept that my views on this conflict do not match yours. Ghilt (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt I accept that there might be a difference in views on various issues. But I want to make it clear fact that my complaint did receive local support, and that Faisal is biased. Also you will find in the Arabic complaint page, that the second complaint in the page is also about a block that Faisal imposed on a user, which was objected to by at least 4 other admins and many non-admins. The third is about an admin who has been violating deletion policy for over a year, who is also being shielded by one other admin. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this kind of reply? did you check the diffs? Faisal himself challenged the consensus for removing the ban applied to user حبيشان without any fair reasons/policies. I see that you Ghilt are doing the same pattern of defending a side, and this is getting on the community's nerves seriously, and we are going to do something about it! 105.235.131.75 11:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A community where all IP users are blocked. 105.235.131.75 11:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dare you Ghilt if you ever will read this, I urge you to see how Faisal is challenging the whole community. 105.235.131.75 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a local de-adminship procedure for issues with admin decisions. Ghilt (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, blocked pages as per w:ar:MediaWiki:Blackout-disallowed. 105.235.131.75 14:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also link, if you want a translation I can help! 105.235.131.75 14:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both have already discussed this. Imo you can get an account, if you want to do it. But it doesn't need to be you to start a procedure. Ghilt (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I already told you before that forcing me to make an account is a catch22, I'm an IP user and I have the right to contribute including discussion pages as well.--105.235.131.75 17:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you derive the right to edit from? And specifically a right to edit as IP? Ghilt (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tone! are you seriously suggesting that IP users (a group that helped build Wikipedia and its projects) have no right to participate? If so, I'd like to see the exact policy that supports this. Otherwise, please stop treating good-faith contributors like second-class users. That's textbook discrimination as per section 3.3 -- 105.235.131.75 18:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please answer my question, then we can discuss that. Ghilt (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your question? "Where do you derive (the right to edit) from" ? if you're asking for evidence, I can easily provide countless examples of valuable contributions from IP users across all Wikimedia projects. I find it awkward that such obvious contributions even need to be brought up, but if you want to go there, I'm absolutely ready as far as you want it to be. I derive the right to contribute from the same principles Wikipedia was built on: openness, collaboration, and the clear allowance for IP participation across its projects. This isn't up for debate unless the foundational philosophy of the Wikimedia has changed.

Now, back to my question: show me the policy that denies IP users the right to participate in discussions and edit because until then, stop acting like those rights don't exist. -- 105.235.131.75 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a policy link for your claim that gives IPs the explicit right to edit arwiki. Now, for your question, you haven given the answer already. And you can open an account and have a local discussion to change that. We both are repeating ourselves. Let's agree to disagree. Ghilt (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a gated club, the burden isn't on me to prove that IP users have the right to edit. It's on you to prove there's a policy that explicitly denies them that right. Wikimedia's foundational principle is that anyone can edit (it's the free encyclopedia!), and unless ArWiki has adopted an official, clearly documented policy with the vote of the community (just like how it was done before: IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mitigation/IP_Editing_Restriction_Study) excluding IP users from discussions or local procedures (which you still haven't provided) then what you're doing here is just gatekeeping.

You want to "agree to disagree"? Sure, right after you cite the policy backing your claim. Otherwise, it's just opinion wrapped in authority. -- 105.235.131.75 18:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to escalate this any further, my only intention was to provide feedback in the section above to help the committee and hopefully benefit ArWiki. But since this is turning into a circular debate about IP users, I'll leave it here.

And if you still need a link to prove that IP users have the right to edit, well you're already on one. But hey Ghilt, we are humans too. Regards. -- 105.235.131.75 18:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until today, i've never read about a right to edit. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is why i asked you for a policy. You have not provided a policy that confirms your claim. And so i continue to think that we have an editing privilege granted by WMF on their website, and not a right. Unless you provide the link now, i'm leaving this discussion. Ghilt (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing and honestly a little surreal that a U4C member is now playing semantics over the word "right" instead of addressing the real issue that is the repeated marginalization of IP contributors.

We're not talking about constitutional law here. We're talking about Wikimedia's founding model: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". If you genuinely haven't come across this principle, it's spelled out clearly in w:Wikipedia:Five pillars.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute."

If that's not a right, I don't know what is. But I'll let the readers judge. I've said my piece. -- 105.235.132.87 08:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also w:WP:E + 59 percent of logged-in Wikipedians started as anonymous editors -- 105.235.132.87 08:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local policies apply to local projects, not to others. Are you really trying to use enwiki rules to argue against the IP block in arwiki? That doesn't work. Ghilt (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Pillars are the same on all local wikis.

You seem eager to reduce this to local vs global to avoid addressing the core problem, something the UCoC explicitly prohibits, regardless of what project we're on.

Wikipedia's founding values don't vanish at the ArWiki border. And while local policies matter, they don't override Wikimedia's global standards of inclusion and fairness.

We are humans too isn't a policy, it's a reminder of what you're supposed to already understand.

I've said everything I needed to. Readers can draw their own conclusions. -- 105.235.131.210 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All mentioned policies/guidelines/essays..etc have their versions in Arabic:

Five Pillars -> w:ar:وب:5

Editing policy -> w:ar:ويكيبيديا:سياسة التحرير

IP editors are human too -> w:ar:ويكيبيديا:الآي بي هو إنسان أيضا

And what I find interesting is that the ArWiki explicitly says "rights" I quote:

سياسات ويكيبيديا تمنح غير المسجلين نفس حقوق المسجلين في كتابة محتوى ويكيبيديا.

machine translation

Wikipedia's policies give non-registered users the same rights as registered users to write Wikipedia content.

End of quote. -- 105.235.131.210 18:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, e.g. dewiki has only four pillars (they kicked out IAR decades ago). There are many differences across all projects. And of course all of the local rules only apply locally. What you found interesting is a quote from an essay and explicitly not a rule / policy - it doesn't count in this discussion. Needless to say, I still don't agree with your argumentation. Ghilt (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're debating an IP user right now, using the public tools made for IPs to contribute. The edit and reply buttons don't magically appear, they're part of a system that explicitly allows and welcomes edits from unregistered users. You want a policy? You're looking at it every time you see a diff from an IP editor.

You said local rules don't apply globally, sure, fair. But let's flip that back on you, even DeWiki, with their stripped-down 4 Pillars and removal of IAR, still allows IP editing (w:de:Wikipedia:Eigentum an Artikeln, Technisch ist es in einem Wiki jedem nicht gesperrten Benutzer möglich, jede Seite zu bearbeiten (eine Ausnahme bilden geschützte Seiten)). So if even the strict wikis aren't banning IPs, what does that tell you?

Now let's talk ArWiki, where IAR is still w:ar:وب:ت.ق and where the 5 Pillars وب:5 are still intact, not conveniently edited down like in DeWiki. Pillar n3 literally states:

"ويكيبيديا حرة المحتوى ويستطيع الجميع تحريرها"

Wikipedia is free content and everyone can edit it.

It doesn't say "everyone except IPs" or "only confirmed users with a badge and a blood oath" iit says everyone.

The same section clarifies that what's written here can be edited, redistributed, and modified by anyone, because the content is free, licensed, and built for contribution, not gatekeeping.

So if you're standing on some vague privilege not a right argument ✌️ while ignoring ArWiki actual policies, the platform's technical behavior, and the culture of open collaboration, then maybe the issue isn't that policies aren't clear, maybe the issue is some folks just don't want to follow them.

I'm just an IP, yet I'm here and there, contributing, editing, discussing, and backing it up with policy and logic and with respect. That alone proves the point more than any link could. -- 105.235.131.142 23:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim.ID Is this comment from Faisal complying with the UCoC? When he says that it natural to support a User because he is developing articles and policies, by (support) he is meaning shielding him from a block, after repeated offences. Isn't that a violation of "Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement." from Universal Code of Conduct#Expected conduct? And also "Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due."? As Faisal doesn't recognize my work, he is making it like starting this discussions is all what I do in ArWiki.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the edit history that user Wala was not satisfied with the edits made by user Mohamed Abdel Fattah. She was the one who initially added the damma, which Mohamed then removed. Wala later restored it, but Mohamed reverted her again. She re-added the change once more, clearly expressing her desire to keep it and voicing her frustration over the repeated reverts. The sequence of edits in the page history clearly shows the situation and indicates that what occurred could be considered "disruption or annoyance to another user." Mohamed should have stopped after the first revert and initiated a discussion instead of repeating the same action twice, which gives the impression of trying to impose his view. That is why I issued the warning, which was not meant as an attack or offense, but simply as a reminder to adhere to the policies. It is only natural and reasonable that users who repeatedly fail to comply with policies may face blocks. I would like to thank the members of the U4C for their efforts and dedication in following up on complaints in general.

Best regards.--Faisal ^talk 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@فيصل Didn't you state your opinion before that this Damma should be kept in Wikipedia tagline, without any reason? Doesn't this make you party to the same issue?

Do you find your justification for shielding MB from a block by stating that is natural to support him because in your view he is making articles and policies, while I start sterile discussion, is that complying with UCoC? Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt A point of information to you, and to other members of the Enforcement committee, Only today has Faisal put his second comment in the local complaint page, since I started this complaint in February. He is saying:

"Mohamed Ahmed is saying that my comments violate the UCoC, From what I see above, there's a complaint in the Code of Conduct, so let's see if you're actually in violation or not."

So I am asking committee members to look at the translation of this comment from Faisal, he is saying: "When I see a user like my colleague M making a serious contribution, developing policies, guidelines, and articles, and helping Wikipedia progress, it's only natural for me to support him, because that's my goal: to develop Wikipedia. And when I see a user whose most prominent posts are "a dhammah in the free encyclopedia logo" or "a dhammah on a Wikipedia page," and who periodically opens sterile, controversial discussions that last for months, I believe there's a huge difference between the goals of each user. I support every user who aims to develop the Arabic Wikipedia, whether they're MB or someone else"

I am asking your opinion about whether the above comment exemplifies a violation of the following paragraphs from UCoC:

. "Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement."
. "Recognize and credit the work done by contributors: Thank them for their help and work. Appreciate their efforts and give credit where it is due."

Thanks.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed, you have shown him to not being friendly to you and not respecting your contribution. That's not much. That should be handled in your community first. Ghilt (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt Not only disrespecting my contributions, but also shielding a third user because he thinks that user is developing Wikipedia. I see this as a violation of the first paragraph mentioned above. In addition to that, he threatened the offended with a block, and sided with the offending user.

As for handling by local community, I have put local complaint which is not closed after 100 days, it contains the above mentioned violation of policy and reference to the UCoC. That is why I came to you. Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no local consensus for a sanction of any form, you must accept that. And for my decline vote in this request, i have given the reason below. Ghilt (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my intervention, in fact there is consensus about refusing a ban, and yet (Faisal) declined and challenged that consensus link, I am ready to help with translation if you want.--105.235.131.75 18:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's not the same. Ghilt (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my bad then, please proceed--105.235.131.75 18:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that committee members have focused on one aspect or event of my complaint neglecting all background and the unchecked bias by Faisal. An admin has said that he supports a user because he sees that he is developing Wikipedia, while me (a long-time contributor too) is just making useless discussions (which he later described as a great achievement)! This is a clear violation of UCoC. To Ibrahim.ID specifically, I find your words puzzling, you are saying the warning is "perhaps exaggerated or unnecessary" Well if it's unnecessary, then he or any other admin shouldn't have put such a warning to me as I showed willingness to abide by decisions made by third unbiased parties and willingness to participate in discussion on this topic and others, without accusing other parties of bad faith. Also, your words are contradictory, if the warning might be "exaggerated or unnecessary" then what you said here is wrong, when you said that any admin would have put such a warning.--Mohammed Ahmed (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

I understand why محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح was upset by what happened. But I don't think what happened rose to the level of UCoC violation even if it was, perhaps, harsh. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking an admin colleague to stop is/would have been less escalating than a warning. But also, insisting less would also have been less escalating than accepting differing views of the usefulness of the editing. None of this is a UCoC violation in my opinion. --Ghilt (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local bans and/or blocks should generally be discussed at the local level. Upon reading this I am not finding enough justification for why it should be escalated to the U4C. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that what happened here meetings the criterias of a UCoC violation, so discussing it at the local level will be the better option. Luke 081515 22:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– Ajraddatz (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dbeef --Civvì (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disagreement, but things did not reach a violation of UCoC. As I said in the discussion, the warning is just a normal message that does not mean that a block will definitely take place. Perhaps the warning may be exaggerated or unnecessary or in a conflict of interest, but in the end it is correct because Muhammad made a mistake. Try to move forward and avoid mistakes and you can archive the message, It is not the committee's role to do this as long as no actions have taken place.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 11:46, 6 June 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.

We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The request was declined and closed. --Ghilt (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]